Open main menu

User talk:Robert McClenon

Other archives
Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense
Famekeeper Archive
FuelWagon Archive
Jack User Archive
John Carter Archive
PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
78 Archive


Leon Bunn DraftEdit

Thank you for your reponse, I guess Bunn matches these criteria of relevancy: 1. he is a national (amateur) champion (AIBA) and 2. he won Chemistry Cup, which is an AIBA tournament of highest category (see here: (first sentence translated from German: "The Chemisitry Cup (Chemiepokal) is an international boxing tournament (highest AIBA category) in Olympic boxing [...]"). Greetings and have a nice weekend. --Eazy262 (talk) 09:36, 23 March 2019 (UTC)

Hello there, may I ask you a question? The article was released but it is set to noindex (<meta name="robots" content="noindex,nofollow"/>) meaning it wont appear in search engines. Is there a specific reason why it cannot be crawled by search engines (as I havent seen this before on wikipedia)? Is it maybe because it used to be a draft on my personal sandbox (which is/was set to noindex? Thanks for your time, sincerely --Eazy262 (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Oh nvm, I already found the answer^^ --Eazy262 (talk) 11:39, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
The article in question is Leon Bunn.

Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Does the author of this draft have any sort of financial or other connection with the subject of this draft? Please read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy and make any required declarations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings NetworkEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:The NeuroGenderings Network. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:English language for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:English language is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:English language (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines. Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America1000 23:49, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Stephen John LeeEdit


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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 03:42, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Liz - Huh. Huh. If it had been my draft, the notification would have been useless. It wasn't my draft. I assume that I moved it from a sandbox to draft space, and if it had been my draft I wouldn't have had an hour in which to claim it. It wasn't my draft. Huh. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:21, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Gotta live twinkle. The notification tells you about REFUND. Legacypac (talk) 08:51, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac - Twinkle is mostly good on things like this. It is a feature and not a bug that it mentions REFUND, which should address the complaint, that I considered silly, by Kvng about quick G13s, which this was. My point here is that the deletion was so quick that even a regular editor who actually was logged on might not respond, but I don't consider the extreme quickness either a bug or a feature, just the way it is. But Kvng and I have different attitudes; they are very sympathetic to editors whom I think are clueless if not self-serving. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Undid revision 889718442 by Gkery1 (talk)Edit

Kindly revert to maintain draft "Afetsi Gladys" for my sandbox user page Gkery1

I do not have access to The user account Gladys Afetsi

Do please let us talk before making further changes on any of my submissions, i would appreciate that much better.

Thank you

Gkery1 (talk) 15:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Request on 16:08:16, 27 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by PurplewriterEdit

I added the info box from the entry that you showed me. What else do you suggest I do with this entry? I don't understand why the editor/CEO of a national magazine who has co-authored several books is not considered "notable" enough to get an entry. I'm disappointed that it's not being accepted, particularly since I have read that Wikipedia recognizes that entries on people are overwhelmingly on men and want mores entries on women. If men in the Jewish media (e.g., Gary Rosenblatt, J.J. Goldberg) have their own entries, why can't she? Purplewriter (talk) Purplewriter (talk) 16:08, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Purplewriter - First, please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The existence of other stuff in Wikipedia does not mean that a particular article should be accepted or kept. It sometimes means that other articles should be deleted. Second, in this case, there is more information on Rosenblatt and Goldberg than on Epstein. Third, if you think that Epstein is sufficiently notable for a stand-alone article, you may move the draft to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

I had added a little more material and I've moved to article.Purplewriter (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Purplewriter - You moved the draft to Draft:Nadine D. Epstein for some reason. Then you promoted it to article space, as you said. User:Onel5969 has moved it back to draft space as undersourced. Please discuss further with User:Onel5969. I am no longer trying to argue either that it should be in draft space or that it should be in article space. At this point the situation is beginning to look to me like a move-war. My own view is that the issue of whether it should be in article space or in draft space is ready to be resolved by an Articles for Deletion discussion, but that is only my opinion. I do not like move-warring and do not think that move-warring is a useful way to decide whether a page is ready for article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
[[[User:Robert McClenon|Robert McClenon]] Correct -- you suggested on March 27 that I move it to an article if I thought it was ready. I added a little info and did just that. I did not intend to do "move-warring." I will discuss with User:Onel5969. Purplewriter (talk) 15:15, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mobile country codeEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile country code. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Lunar RepublicEdit


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, introducing inappropriate pages, such as Lunar Republic, is not in accordance with our policies. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Under section G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, the page has been nominated for deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. GirthSummit (blether) 16:17, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Ah - I kind of feel I should apologise for the CSD - apologies if I've spoiled an April 1st joke. Sorry if I came across as a bit humourless there. GirthSummit (blether) 16:41, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Girth Summit - No apology required. The rules say that one shouldn't do April Fool in article space or Help space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes - but if I'd spotted that it was your article, I might have dropped you a note here pointing that out rather than CSDing it, in the spirit of DTTR. If I'd racked my brain, I might have even been able to think of a humorous way of saying it... GirthSummit (blether) 16:51, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Section headings at case requestEdit

Hi Robert. In order to keep things uniform and due to other recent kerfuffles over section headings, I've removed your sub-headings at the current case request as a clerk action. Sub-headings also make it a tad more annoying for the clerk team to check word limit, etc., which has been an issue in this case request. Rest assured that, even without the sub-headings, your comments are organized such that ArbCom can fully understand and evaluate them. Please let me know if you have any questions. ~ Rob13Talk 04:33, 3 April 2019 (UTC)


Hello! 2 quick things regarding the WP:DRN, as we seem to be the only volunteers active at the moment.

  1. I'll be going on holiday. I informed the participants, but if you would be able to take over (and willing to), that would be awesome. It seems to be going in the right direction.
  2. If you close a case, please (i) place {{DRN archive top}} above {{drn filing editor}} (as per WP:DRN/V) and (ii) remove <!-- [[User:DoNotArchiveUntil]] xx:xx, xx (month) 2019 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|xxxxxxxxxx}}<!-- REMEMBER TO REMOVE THE PREVIOUS COMMENT WHEN CLOSING THIS THREAD! -->, so that the bot will automatically archive it.

Thanks! --MrClog (talk) 12:53, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Jeff Hull (artist)Edit

1. Doesn't look like it's anywhere near properly formatted. 2. It's weird how it talks about Nonchalance and Nonchalance's goals very quickly rather than his work and the person in question. 3. The main issue I have is that it's written more about his businesses than about him.

Pkin8541 (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal Issues RFArbEdit

This is a courtesy notice that the portal issues RFArb has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 22:31, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Fermat's Last TheoremEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Fermat's Last Theorem. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft for GPV web-siteEdit

Dear Robert McClenon

We would like to publish the draft of GPV Int. on Wikipedia:

Could you please give us further instruction of what we can do and how we can revise the text to make it suitable.

We have a large competitor that features also a site on Wikipedia, and structure and content is obviously quite similar:
(which, by the way, has no external citations or references but just one link to their web-site)

And on top GPV already has a web-site on the Danish Wiki:

How can we achieve the goal? Thank you for your support in advance.

Erolatccsgroup (talk) 08:41, 5 April 2019 (UTC)


DS will never be applied against an Admin and several of the worst offenders are admins. On another note, this may prove useful to you Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal MFD Results Legacypac (talk) 20:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - You forgot to provide a heading, but you weren't responding to a post by a blocked user. I will reply shortly. Thank you for the metrics. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

You may decide to put up another proposal after the supervote on X3 that turned 22 in favor amd 14 against into a no. There is a an auto counter at List of Portals that says 5,293 portals now. Update 29 [1] Feb 13 said 5,705 portals which should be near the peak. There are over 600+ pages (nearly all portals) in Category:Miscellaneous_pages_for_deletion so maybe 10% of the peak number of portals is up for deletion and about 7% of the peak have been deleted already. I know your a numbers guy so thought this might interest you. Legacypac (talk) 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Now 5,112 portals and 1923 pages at Category:MFD Legacypac (talk) 07:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Legacypac - Does 5112 mean the total number of portals in portal space? Does 1923 mean the total number of pages in portal space that have been listed at MFD (in which case the actual number of nominations is less because some of the nominations are bundles)? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The larger # is pulled from Category:All portals which counts actual portals and redirects but not subpages. The category explains how it works. Category:MFD is any page currently with an MfD tag, which should include all bundled pages as far as I have seen. There are far fewer discussions of course. Legacypac (talk) 10:50, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Guess the portal before clicking the link ... that the slipper sea cucumber is avoided by most predatory fish, crabs, and gastropod molluscs, but is preyed on by starfish, especially the leather star? Legacypac (talk) 05:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - Well, I knew it should be Portal:Echinoderms or Portal:Starfish, so I guessed it would be Portal:Cucumbers. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Seeking advice regarding dispute resolutionEdit

Hey Robert, you're listed as a volunteer on WP:DR/N, so I was wondering if you could answer a question for me. There is a quite vociferous discussion ongoing at Talk:Layla Moran regarding whether a bold edit should be kept on a WP:BLP. The discussion is ongoing in part, but it seems like things are pretty entrenched and tempers are becoming flared. Is it too early to seek dispute resolution if the discussion is ongoing, but it is clear that no consensus will be reached? Domeditrix (talk) 10:38, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Domeditrix - It is definitely not too early to see dispute resolution. The case is not appropriate for a Third Opinion because there have been more than two editors, although some of them have not been real editors. You could either ask for input at the BLP noticeboard, which sometimes works and sometimes does not, or request moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard, or post a Request for Comments to get consensus as to whether to keep or delete the section. I would suggest doing something while the article is semi-protected, because there is no need to try to involve the unregistered editors. (My own guess is that the suckpoppets are just either xenophobic or misogynistic, but that is my guess.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Why am I being ignored?Edit

Hi. I have left numerous messages on your page and not received a single response. My sandbox creation has not been reviewed in nearly two months, and any attempts to ask for help is met with no response. I ask you again, Robert McClenon, please either respond to this message or approve my ignored article. Thank you. Good day to you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livonia ainovil (talkcontribs) 13:12, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I've declined the draft. CoolSkittle (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Livonia ainovil - First, did you read the notice at the top of my talk page, that says that I do not usually follow your submission through the approval process? It has been about six weeks since I declined your draft, and I have not researched it fully, but my recollection is that I posted to the Teahouse, which is where you should be asking for advice. There are many drafts waiting to be reviewed, and simply yelling louder is not the most effective way to get your draft reviewed. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse again. I also suggest that you read in Wikipedia, there is no deadline and learn to be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:RigelEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rigel. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Daylight EntertainmentEdit

Dear Robert, First of all thank you for your time to review my draft: Daylight Entertainment again. Followed your instructions in the declined reason, I deleted two off-standard sections, which I think contain most of "promotional" words and tones. What remains is data I collected from wiki and other independent source like imdb. To reply your query, one reason is: I started this editing because I found there was only a Chinese page, but no English page. What I did was simply translating. However if the Chinese page wasn't precise, then it's hard for the translating to be qualified. I didn't realize this until you and other reviewers helped. The other thing is about the source: I tried very hard to find reliable English source in order to meet the standard, as well as to reduce the time of reviewing. Unfortunately, I couldn't find much. That is not because the subject is not important to be covered. It's only because most of covering are in Chinese. For example, the "Works" section is the data I found through wiki and imdb. It's not hard at all to find the subject's name. But they are all fragments, not articles. In conclusion, I deleted all expression sections to make sure there is not promotion, and left date hoping they might be helpful in future for other editors. If this is still not working, I will keep revising. This was my first editing and I want to make it better. Just like people say: things are dificult before they are easy. Thank you again for your time and helping. Best, Mclinyang (talk) 09:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Nature therapy for deletionEdit


A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nature therapy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Roxy, the dog. wooF 11:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Maybe About Steven Benjamin DamelinEdit

Hi, I have recently created GEAPSU for Steven Benjamin Damelin, a well known academic. The article providers correct references for everything. The article is not long. It is short and factual. By looking at Damelin on the web it is clear immediately how well known he is. Myself (George Andrews) have compared my page with 100's others in academia and find Damelin's article much better in most cases. The later articles lack references in many ways. Can you edit this article and accept it? I have as you suggest asked the TeaHouse. Thank you very much. Geapsu (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Geapsu - It might be a good idea to get some more experience with Wikipedia in general before trying to submit a draft article. Is there a reason why you posted this message at the top of my user talk page? Can you read the instructions, which say to use the New Section feature to post to the bottom of the page? Did you say that I said not to post at the top of the page, because it might be ignored? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Because you deserve a little recognitionEdit

 This editor has been awarded the Portal Barnstar


Suckpoppets like these? — [2] :) — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 14:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC

User:Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington - Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for Draft:Lee Dae-hwiEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Lee Dae-hwi. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Otterlyhwi (talk) 05:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Your articlesEdit

Hi! I went through the list of the articles you have created - apparently you have a lot of experience in it. That is why I am asking. Why some of them actually have no verifiable references? Some links don't work at all. What is the purpose of such articles on Wikipedia? Examples: Clothru, Bile_(Irish_legend), Carr_Collins_Sr. What is this article Falls_Church_(disambiguation) about? Best regards Dariakupila (talk) 07:57, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Dariakupila - I wasn't employed by Clothru or Bile, and I didn't claim that they existed. I wasn't employed by Carr Collins Sr., although I do claim that he existed. I will research them later today. A disambiguation article is a disambiguation article. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon do you have a proof that I was employed or paid? Do you have a proof that you were not employed? Why do you decline other people's articles but submit yourself without proper references? Dariakupila (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert is a very experienced reviewer of new articles. You should listen to his advice Legacypac (talk) 09:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Legacypac I would if I would have got any.Dariakupila (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I apologise again for inappropriate behaviour and I will choose my words carefully in the future. I do not want to be taken for a troll neither I aim to insult or upset anybody. Dariakupila (talk) 07:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ralph NorthamEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ralph Northam. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Marcus Martin (architect)Edit

Hi Robert, Thank you for reviewing my Draft, I have changed the Section heading titles and created a few sub-headings. I hope this accords with you, I was not sure exactly what edits your specifically required. Regards, Michael Michael773623 (talk) 03:04, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Portal:Global issuesEdit

Hi Robert

At WP:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Global issues, you appear to have made two bolded !votes. Please can you fix that?

Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:50, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Mistake corrected. What preceded sarcastic comment changed to Comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 19 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. Easy mistake to make, and thanks for being nice about the need to fix. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Question on delaying Twinkle BLPPROD confirmationEdit

I've been thinking about your complaint a bit, and I think it should be possible to only issue the popup alert if the page is older than a given amount of time. Would that be fine with you? What sort of timeline do you think makes sense, three days? Seven? Sorry for following up so much later. ~ Amory (utc) 19:33, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Amorymeltzer One day or three days or seven is fine. I just want to be able to use it without the prompt on a page that is at the front of the NPP queue. Mostly they are unsourced stubs where BLPPROD is a good compromise between A7 and AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CannabidiolEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Cannabidiol. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the Kilkenny catsEdit

Ah, thanks for this[3]. That's v sweet.

I think that in the medium-to-long-term (by which I mean weeks to months), narrow-topic portals like Portal:Kilkenny should go as part of a much-needed systematic trimming of overly-narrow portals. But I hope that this well-made and well-maintained portal on a small topic will be in the last batch to be zapped, just because its quality is such a notable contrast to the abysmal nature of many others on the chopping board.

As we thin the forest of junk, it's handy to be able to point out that narrow portals don't have to be actually broken. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:02, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for the diligent scrutineerEdit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For your meticulous work scrutinising many many MFD nominations in relation to portals, most recently here[4]. This error-checking is usually a thankless task, but it's a very important part of helping the community to make good decisions. Please keep up the good work! —BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:35, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, User:BrownHairedGirl - I have tried to review all of the portal nominations. It isn't being helped by infighting. (You know who/what I mean.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
At some point, we need to propose sanctions against at least one member of the portal platoon and probably two or three. Unfortunately, sanctions may wind up hitting one opponent of portals. At some point, we need real Portal Guidelines that aren't just vague. Either that, or a pre-review process, or something. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Closed discussion?Edit

Hi Robert, I'm sorry that I was not able to comment on the dispute resolution (about Casualties of the Iraq War) over the holiday weekend. I suspect that the other editors were similarly pre-occupied. However, I would like to continue the dispute resolution process, and could post my responses to your latest question today. The article has been at an impasse for about a year now, and repeated attempts on the article talk page to make progress have gone nowhere. As you can see from the latest responses from Snooganssnoogans and me, we disagree very fundamentally on how we think the scientific community views the Lancet studies. I'm also pinging Darouet, TheTimesAreAChanging, Jrheller1 and Mr Ernie. Thanks, -Thucydides411 (talk) 17:45, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Thucydides411 User:Darouet User:TheTimesAreChanging User:Jrheller - Re-opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:24, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: thank you, I will comment today. -Darouet (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

about declined Article ZingaEdit

Robert McClenon please re cheek the references India's lead news media the 'times of India' published article about the zingaSudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 21:46, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[[5]] plz cheek Sudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 22:13, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Sudhakar naidu 118 The draft article should speak for itself. If you think that the production has been notable, please revise the draft to state what has been notable about the film and resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:29, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon sure thank you for responseSudhakar naidu 118 (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Anku1992/sandboxEdit


If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on User:Anku1992/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:47, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

user:RHaworth It isnt my spam. Twinkle strikes again. Another Meridian Leasing? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends DraftEdit

Thank you for your suggestions on how to improve the Draft:Fellowship of Friends before a potential re-submission. I implemented the changes you indicated to the best of my capacity; please let me know what you think. Regarding the issue of the organization's notability, in my opinion the Fellowship of Friends matches these criteria of relevancy: 1. The organization has been featured in several major newspapers (the Los Angeles Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Sacramento Bee among others) over the 48 years of its existence because of its controversial nature, 2. The organization has 1,600 current members and 15,000 former members, and 3. Of the list of podcasts on 42 famous cults on the Parcast web site (see, only the Fellowship of Friends and the River Road Fellowship don’t have an article on Wikipedia (in bold on the list below). By the way, I'm working on a draft for an article on the River Road Fellowship and I would like you to review it if you have the time.


The Manson Family (Charles Manson), Heaven’s Gate (Marshall Applewhite & Bonnie Nettles), Movement for the Restoration of the Ten Commandments of God (Credonia Mwerinde & Joseph Kibweteere), The Family (Anne Hamilton Byrne), The Ant Hills Kids (Roch Thériault), The Children of God (David Berg), FLDS (Warren Jeffs), Aum Shinrikyo (Shoko Asahara), The Branch Davidians (David Koresh), The Peoples Temple (Jim Jones), True Russian Orthodox Church (Pyotr Kuznetsov), Nuwaubian Nation (Dwight York), Sect of Nacozari (Silvia Meraz), Apostles of Infinite Love (Michel Collin & Jean-Gaston Tremblay), Church of Euthanasia (Chris Korda), Rajneeshpuram (Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh & Ma Anand Sheela), The Brethren (Jimmie T. Roberts), Twelve Tribes (Gene Spriggs (Yoneq)), Oneida Community (John Humphrey Noyes), The Moonies (Sun Myung Moon), The Narcosatanists (Adolfo Constanzo & Sara Aldrete), Leopard Society), Order of the Solar Temple (Joseph Di Mambro), Raëlism (Claude Vorilhon), Church Universal and Triumphant (Elizabeth Clare Prophet), Sahaja Yoga Movement (Nirmala Srivastava), The Hernandez Brothers’s Cult (Magdalena Solís), Lumpa Church (Alice Lenshina), Mankind Project (Arthur Bell), The Kirtland Cult (Jeffrey Lundgren), The Church of the Last Testament (Sergey Anatolyevitch Torop (Vissarion)), Church of Satan (Anton LaVey), The Way International (Victor Paul Wierwille), Freemasonry (The cult that built America), Kashi Ashram (Ma Jaya), Fellowship of Friends (Robert Earl Burton), River Road Fellowship (Victor Barnard), The Sons of Freedom / Doukhobors (Peter V. Verigin), The Workers’ Institute (Aravindan Balakrishnan), New Vrindaban (Kirtanananda Swami), “The Source Family” (James Baker), “Eastern Lightning” (Zhao Weishan)

Greetings and thank you for your help. UltraEdit (talk) 14:58, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Any thoughts? UltraEdit (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
User:UltraEdit - Perhaps you thought that by posting to the top of my user page you would get my attention before the messages at the bottom in the usual arrangement. It doesn't work that way. Did you read the banner that displays at the top of my talk page that cautions you that top-posted messages may not be seen? I didn't see your message for ten days. I will look at it later today, but if you use the New Section tab in the way that it is intended to be used, you will post to the bottom where I am looking for messages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon I assure you that it was not my intention to attract your attention when I posted my comment on the top of the page -- if that were the case I wouldn't have waited 11 days to ask you if you had any thoughts. At any rate, I apologize for my mistake and I'll make sure I post at the bottom in the future. By the way, the banner that you said is displayed at the top of your talk page is not showing on my screen (see Thank you for your help. UltraEdit (talk) 23:05, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
User:UltraEdit - The banner only displays when you are editing my talk page. But in general, do not post to the top of a talk page. If you use the New Section tab, you should post to the bottom of a talk page the way that you should. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon Understood, thank you. UltraEdit (talk) 16:20, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
== Deletion review for Draft:Fellowship of Friends ==

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Draft:Fellowship of Friends. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. UltraEdit (talk) 21:52, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I have edited my AFA Sports ArticleEdit

Hello, I have effected the changes on the AFA Sports Draft page as you instructed, please kindly look at it Best Regards Techrebellious

below is the link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techrebellious (talkcontribs) 15:12, 25 April 2019 (UTC)

Question Regarding NotabilityEdit

Hey Robert - thanks for your time in reviewing my draft. I was seeking clarification to our denial. Was it related to objectivity, or are the links used as references (included below), not sufficient to show sufficient coverage to warrant a page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrianCurcio (talkcontribs) 01:05, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

The draft in question is Draft:Rapunzl Investments LLC. Do you have a conflict of interest? Please do not dump links onto my talk page to ask me to read them. The draft should speak for itself. However, my decline was based on the definition of corporate notability, which has to do with what third-party reliable sources say about the company. Your draft summarizes what the company says about itself. Your draft is not about what third parties say about the company. I didn't have to read the references, because the draft wasn't about what third parties say about the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rocket LabEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rocket Lab. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Robin KermodeEdit


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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 08:08, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JMHamo - Not my draft. I must have moved it from a sandbox to draft space. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Copyright of MemesEdit

Hello, my article was recently declined because the subject matter already exists. I believe interest meme would not be the appropriate page for the article because the article focuses more on the law of copyright in US and India rather than the type and uses of memes, which is covered on the internet meme page. In terms of sources, I have only used Wikipedia to link to certain catchphrases and not used it as a reference. The article uses a lot of terms that form of copyright legal discource which have been adequately explained on Wikipedia previously and it would be redundant to reproduce the same in this article also. The other sources used in the article are from published pieces and cannot be sufficiently verified. I hope you reconsider my article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoYouEvenMemeBro (talkcontribs) 16:59, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

User:DoYouEvenMemeBro - What title do you think that it should have? Do you know how to rename a draft, or should I rename it for you? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
DoYouEvenMemeBro, there is another draft called Draft:Meme copyright issues that was reviewed prior to the creation of this set. You should merge that information to that draft if you think the topic is still notable enough for its own article, but it's possible that it could be summarized in a section under Internet Memes. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 14:00, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Regarding my article I created on Kamini DubeEdit

Hey Robert,

First of all I would like to thank you for letting me know where I did not follow wiki terms for an article. And as I have seen in your user page you have created many articles, thus I would request your help in creating an article for mine.

Also I wanted to understand, you said that my article has be submitted twice. so please let me know how to deal with that?

I hope you are reading this now and would revert as soon as possible.

Thanks, User: Callmesiddie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Callmesiddie (talkcontribs) 23:09, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Callmesiddie - You requested that one of the two copies of the draft be deleted, and it was deleted. Another reviewer reviewed the other draft, and agrees with me that it is still very non-neutral and promotional. Please discuss it with the other reviewer, or ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Patrick HanlonEdit


I removed what you said were marketing buzzwords, and added more citations/removed external links. For the two books, I replaced the Amazon links with ones from Simon and Shulster and Pearson. Can you please approve this, or let me know if anything else is needed in order to do so? Thank you.--JamesC33401 (talk) 02:13, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

User:JamesC33401 - You have not resubmitted your draft. If you were to resubmit it, I would decline it. The references do not appear to provide in-depth independent coverage. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WP:AE vs WP:AN/IEdit

Hi, I saw your comment at my request for arbitration (SashiRolls). Before I read that I had already continued the exisintg AN/I discussion. My thought was that because my concern is related to conduct outside of the context of any content or subject area that the appropriate venues are AN/I and arbitration. Is my understanding incorrect? Thanks. --Kolya Butternut (talk) 09:48, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Kolya Butternut - Is the conduct related to American politics after 1932? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Previous sanctions against User:SashiRolls have been the result of conduct in articles concerning American politics after 1932, and of User:Snooganssnoogans has been reported for adding copyright-violating material to articles involving American politics after 1932. I concur with User:Tryptofish that Arbitration Enforcement is a better forum. I see that SashiRolls was previously blocked at Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Someone else's problem. Discuss on someone else's talkpage. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: I agree with Robert McClenon. I also am very sympathetic to your concerns, and I would be happy to offer advice if you want. You should consider what kind of result you would like to get out of it. One possibility is to have an interaction ban between you and Sashi Rolls. That is something you can still get out of ANI (although it is more likely to be two-way than one-way). At the time that I write this, no one has really replied to you at ANI, and my guess is that the community is fed up with the wall of text there and very likely will not do anything there unless there is a specific proposal to act on. If you would like, I will propose the IBAN and I think it would be likely to pass.
On the other hand, there are very good arguments to get stricter sanctions imposed on SashiRolls, and that is simply not going to happen at ANI, given that it hasn't happened already. For that, you would have to go to WP:AE. The fact that you already said that it is not about content may be used against you there, but it probably won't be enough to shut it down. The conduct clearly grows out of Am Pol, and SashiRolls would stand a good chance of getting a long block and/or a topic ban, but it will be a somewhat ugly battle there. You would have to be the filing party (not me, although I can give you advice about how to post it). I'm watching here, to see what you think. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:59, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Robert, could you dig up an example of one of these alleged copyright violations I've made? I've never seen you involved with these guys before; I'd be very careful about it... there's a lot of people watching this case right now as I understand it (the governance thread at Wikipediocracy where I requested a hearing back before Halloween has over 4000 views this week because Dysklyver popped it up the other day), including -- most likely -- some journalists. If I were you, I wouldn't get into the spotlight in order to be shown making stuff up: as far as I know nobody has ever, i.e. not even once, accused me of copyvio, not even without evidence. Thanks for "mentioning" me above so I'd know there was plotting going on against me on Labor Day. I hope you're having a good one. SashiRolls t · c 17:32, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
My error. User:SashiRolls has been sanctioned for personal attacks. User:Snooganssnoogans has been reported for copyright violations. I identified the wrong person for the wrong offense, although both are offenders, and it is still an Arbitration Enforcement matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, the latter has been reported and sanctioned for a lot more than copyright violations. But I'll let y'all do your own Labor Day research. SashiRolls t · c 18:13, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You have just given me four more months than you think you have given me. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
You mean y'all work on May Day in the US? Who knew? ^^ SashiRolls t · c 19:20, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
"Who knew?" Americans knew. Labor Day (US) is the first Monday in September. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:23, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: I am not seeking an IBAN. Our interaction has been limited to the AN/I thread (and his recent talk page comment where he seems to be accusing me of behavior related to the "Cross Affair". I still feel left with questions.... I understand the conduct "grows" out of Am Pol, but it's so indirect; SashiRolls attacked me at AN/I because I was showing that he was making false accusations at Snooganssnoogans which were related to behavior at Am Pol (and WP:Daily Mail). If everyone tells me AE has jurisdiction over this sort of thing then I would consider that. You suggested that I consider what kind of result I would like to get; I feel very uncomfortable asking for a specific result; that seems like something that should be decided by the community, but my impression is that this is a personality problem that is not limited to passion relating to political topics. If that is accurate then I would assume a site ban would be appropriate, but I have not thoroughly researched SashiRolls' site-wide conduct, nor do I know whether it is my place to do so. I now see that SashiRolls has edited the AN/I thread, so I will have to continue this later. Kolya Butternut (talk) 20:37, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
@Kolya Butternut: That new thing at ANI is just trolling. I'm going to try to ignore it, and let others evaluate it, and I recommend that you not reply to it either. Given your wishes, I won't propose the IBAN. If you go to AE, it's up to the admins what kind of ban, if any, they hand out, so you cannot really request a site ban. Being at Wikipedia tends to come with crackpots saying obnoxious things about one, so sometimes it's best to just let it pass. I can assure you that no one in their right mind takes seriously the stuff that SashiRolls said about you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:21, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Robert. I just want to thank you for suggesting a block. In my opinion, you were subjected to a lot of pushback that you did not deserve. Best wishes, --Tryptofish (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Tryptofish - Thank you. I think that there is a class of productive but uncivil editors who are envied by some other editors, who would like to be productive uncivil editors when they grow up. The presence of these editors as role models is one reason why they are unblockable, which actually means unbannable. They have lengthy block logs with frequent unblocks. Legacypac is one of these editors, but is a little different because he is not a "content creator" but works behind the scenes, which is why he hasn't been unblocked yet. I didn't realize that Sashi is one of these editors, but apparently he is also. And that's the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Actually, I'm starting to see some subtypes of these behavioral categories that are emerging more recently. A decade or so ago, the so-called "vested contributors" were incivil editors who were nonetheless outstanding at content creation. There are differences emerging now, as well as some new types of low-quality editors who like to hang around ANI and comment on almost every thread, effectively arguing that the low standards of discourse that are common at other websites should also be the new standard here, sort of like they had never grown up with a sense of talking to real people face-to-face. I'm still mulling this over, but I intend to comment on it more in the near future. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft: Edwina DunnEdit

Hi Robert, thank you for your time to review my draft: User:Edwina Dunn. I followed your instructions in the declined reason, I added to references and deleted words of "promotional" tones. I would like to know specifically what more needs to be done to the page to make it publishable? It is now being considered for deletion. I would like to know exactly where I am going wrong if you would be so kind?

User:Edwina Dunn - The draft in question is Draft:Edwina Dunn. Please follow the instructions for Miscellany for Deletion. Please also read the autobiography policy and the conflict of interest policy. Please also be aware that it is not always possible to make a draft on a subject "publishable" if the subject is not notable, and that most editors cannot write a neutral draft about a subject where they have a conflict of interest. I will take another look at the draft and advise further. It would be a good idea to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Edwina Dunn - You said that the draft is not an autobiography. Are you Edwina Dunnn, and is the draft about yourself? If so, the draft is an autobiography, and saying that it is not is tendentious. If it is, then please be aware that Wikipedia has found, first, that an individual is not the best judge of their own biographical notability, and, second, that an individual usually cannot write a neutral draft about herself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:04, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Robert, thank you so much for getting back to me. I entitled it Edwina Dunn but that is not my name (sorry, I'm Anthony Thompson) I have now explained this in the talk section of my page along with a conflict of interest. Despite the connection, all information is factual, referenced, and written with a neutral point of view. All your time and feedback is much appreciated!


Hi Robert

We are trying to delete the page but we can't find the delete button which should be (according to the instructions we found online) between the history and move tabs?

I look forward to hearing from you.

Many thanks,

Anthony — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthony at Starcount (talkcontribs) 12:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Anthony at Starcount - Why are you trying to delete the page? What are you trying to do? Also, who is "we"? Who are you sharing your account with? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

(talk) Hi Robert, the review seems to be stuck 'pending'. I would like to delete it and resubmit a new draft. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:50, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Global Hotelier DraftEdit

Thanks for the information regarding my posted article's infringement of policy and guidelines. I will rework the article in hopes to meet the rules of this platform. The last publication received a speedy delete notice. Will this be in place even if I change the content to be in line with the guidelines? Like a black mark on the title of the article that will be dismissed out of hand in the future? I certainly hope not.

Again thanks for any help I can get or advice that may lead to the successful publication of my first addition to Wiki.


Christopher Roper. Draft:Edwina_Dunn

User:ChristopherRoper - The 'new section' feature is available on most talk pages including my talk page, and adds a section to the bottom (not the top) of the page. The instructions that are displayed when you edit my talk page tell you to use New Section. Is there a reason that you chose to post to the top of my talk page rather than using New Section? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
There are many Wikis. Referring to Wikipedia as Wiki is sloppy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration CaseEdit

You were recently listed as a party to 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/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion review for KarikkuEdit

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Karikku. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Waggie (talk) 19:43, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a partyEdit

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

User:DeltaQuad - No problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:08, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Decline in insect populationsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Decline in insect populations. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Request on 21:57:48, 3 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by PassaniEdit

Hi, Stefano Vaccara is a very respected journalist in Italy and elsewhere. What makes him notable is the fact that he was the target of a lawsuit by Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi a few years back, but in addition to that he is also a published author that explained the dynamics behind JFK's assassination.

Honestly, I see people that have pages in wikipedia that are way less worth than Mr. Vaccara. I have added all the key references (including an interview on RAI, the Italian State TV) to the article and the Amerigo price which he received lasy year. I hope this makes the article good enough.

Passani (talk) 22:49, 3 May 2019 (UTC) Passani (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Passani - I see that you have edited the draft since I declined it. As the statement that you read when you edit my talk page says, I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. I will let another reviewer review it. You may also ask for advice at the Teahouse. However, it is not useful to explain on a reviewer's talk page why a draft should be accepted. The draft should speak for itself. (I see that you have now put the Berlusconi suit in the draft.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision of GeapsuEdit

The submission for consideration for publication has been submitted. Thank you. Geapsu (talk) 11:30, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Revision of Geapsu=Edit

Thank you for editing the article 18 days ago. I see it is waiting for review. If there is anything further you would like to be done, please tell. Worked hard on the article following all suggestions. This has been a continuous process. Thank you.

Geapsu (talk) 00:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

House of Marley ArticleEdit

Dear Robert McClenon,

I am writing in regards to the House of Marley article. I am currently a student at the University of Derby for the Writing and Publishing BA, and for an assignment we had to create our own Wikipedia articles for a set deadline. I am also NOT employed by the company, so this is not a self-serving or deliberately promotional article.

I apologise for the page duplication, it was a misunderstanding — I thought the submission form was suggesting I also make a 'draft' page as well as a 'user' page, and was not trying to improve my chances for acceptance.

I would be deeply appreciative if you could give me some constructive feedback for the article — I made a mention on the user/draft talk pages regarding the tone and a potential to sound persuasive, which you commented on. Besides this, what else would you suggest I change?

If you could respond as soon as possible that would also be much appreciated, only due to my deadline restraints.

Thank you,
GoldVine5 (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

User:GoldVine5 - If this is an educational assignment, who is your instructor? Please advise your instructor that expecting students to create Wikipedia articles by a set deadline is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines. See the guidelines on educational assignments. You may ask for advice on draft articles at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia articles should not be persuasive because they should be neutral. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 5 May 2019 (UTC)


I've been signing behind you at AN with a basic wikilink. Hope that's cool, also you made a mistake and tagged the wrong Fæ, which I didn't change because TPA etc. etc. --qedk (t c) 18:49, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

User:QEDK - Thanks. Well, well. I had not known that there were two users, one with the ligature and one with the diphthong. If so, if she is using a difficult form of a username, which imposes a burden on the rest of us, she certainly has less right than I thought to make a fuss about pronouns. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Copyright Bowen Family Systems TheoryEdit

Robert I have included permission from Dr Anne McKnight Director of the Bowen Center for both the content of the Bowen Center website and Bowen Archive as well as excerpts from a book at the bottom of the article. What did I do wrong? NigelNgard11476 (talk) 22:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC) ngard11476Ngard11476 (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Ngard11476 - I don't have the original article, with the permission, in front of me. However, first, as I recall, the permission was a standard copyright release that would permit publication of the copyrighted content in Wikipedia. That isn't the same as a Creative Commons release, which releases the copyright as a copyleft for limited reuse by all in the world, not only by Wikipedia. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously and does not accept a limited permission that is only for its own use. That is why it was still subject to deletion as not consistent with Wikipedia's copyright requirements. Second, even if you had provided a Creative Commons release, the purpose of the draft was still promotional, intended to promote a particular mode of family therapy. Third, after I finish writing this reply, I will check whether you have made the proper conflict of interest disclosure. It seems that your only objective is to try to use Wikipedia to advertise your particular style of family therapy. You may ask other editors for advice at the Teahouse, but I think that they will agree with me. I will caution you that continuing to try to push your article into Wikipedia may result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't see a conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Jimfbleak - Perhaps you may want to add something, or to agree or disagree with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:55, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Robert. The "permission" was claimed in an email to me, so nothing amounting to a waiver on their website or an OTRS ticket. Anyone can claim at the bottom of an aricle that they have permission, so that's worthless too. In response, I posted this on Ngard11476's talk page, stating exactly what you have said regarding spamming, COI, WP:RS and so on. It's a promotional text dump that I would delete on sight even if it wasn't copyright. This editor appears to have ignored everything that they have been told, and approached you to see if you were more accommodating than me! I fear this may not end well if they continue to ignore our advice, Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SuperconductivityEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Superconductivity. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of Draft:Parmish VermaEdit

Hello sir, I am fairly new to Wikipedia and this draft is my second contribution on Wikipedia. Parmish Verma is a popular Punjabi singer and actor in India. All of his videos on YouTube cross 100 million views in a week. I am a follower of his work and I was surprised to see that he does not have presence on Wikipedia. That is why I wrote this article. I have searched for relevant news articles and accordingly written this article based on the facts available on news portals. I have not picked up any anonymous content from any portal which is not trustworthy. If you go through his social media profiles, you will realize that he is really popular in India. Kindly guide me to edit the article. Since I am new to Wikipedia, it will also be a learning for me. I love music and movies and I am looking forward to write and contribute more to Wikipedia around these topics mostly from India. Looking forward for your support! Best Regards! Abhishekbiswas82 talk 11:48 am, 9 May 2019 (IST)

User:Abhishekbiswas82 - What draft are you asking about? Do you mean Draft:Pragya Dasgupta? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:29, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
I had created a draft of Parmish Verma which was deleted by you. That is how I saw your profile and I was asked to talk to you. I have created a draft again. Request you to kindly review the content if possible. Here is the url It will be helpful if you can review Draft:Pragya Dasgupta as well and share your opinion. I can edit if required and you can help me to publish it. Thanking you! (Abhishekbiswas82 (talk) 11:50, 10 May 2019 (UTC)).
(talk page stalker) User:Abhishekbiswas82, there is an existing Draft:Parmish Verma, and the previous deletion was by RHaworth, not this editor Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Ric & Thadeus article - Notability (music) CriteriaEdit

In article submission for Ric & Thadeus, the following notability criteria have been met:

- Has had a record certified gold or higher in at least one country.

 - the subject has produced a Gold record in Sweden (see cited sources 5 & 6 in article)

- Has won or been nominated for a major music award, such as a Grammy, Juno, Mercury, Choice or Grammis award.

 - the subject has produced a Grammy Nominated song (see cited source 1 in article)

- Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition. (Refer to above)

There are adequate sources being cited in the submission. Acceptance should be on the basis of the notability criteria listed above. The subject of the article is mentioned by name in many relevant cited sources. Any cases where the subject's name is omitted from a source, the source was cited to merely back up a statistical claim in the article.

User:196309c The draft is Draft:Ric & Thadeus. Please sign your posts. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
The draft had reference errors, and used Wikipedia as a reference. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Do you have a conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
User:196309c - It is not necessary to put a long statement of notability on a reviewer's talk page. When I said to put it on a talk page, I meant on the draft talk page, and I have copied it for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

apologies. thank you for copying this for me. will await re-review.

Pay & Allowances ...Edit

Thanks to all the 'Editors' of Wikipedia (who participated in this Test-Project) for providing sufficient ‘evidence’ to seek a court-administered injunction against viewing Wikipedia in India -- unless Wikipedia prominently displays on its each & every web-page a Disclaimer to the effect that 'Wikipedia is not a reliable resource' (this is already officially admitted by Wikipedia on one of its web-pages, and also by one of its Editors during a ‘Live-Chat’) because its Editors are admittedly not ‘Subject-Experts’ and, moreso, some of them have not even passed High School; hence, they may not be expected even to know the true Definitions of 'Encyclopaedia', ‘Dictionary’, 'Research', 'Research-Paper', 'Research-References', 'Essay' etc -- not to speak of being able to understand well the Philosophy of Law and the methodology of writing Legal Articles.

BTW, I am on the Board of Editors of 3 International Research Journals and am a Peer-Reviewer of another International Research Journal which is published on behalf of Cambridge University (UK), my Articles are published on Editorial Pages of leading National Dailies (English) and are read by Legal Fraternity (including Judges), my Papers are presented at International Conferences & Seminars, I have more than 3000 ‘Followers’ (including Academics, bureaucrats, News-Channels etc) who read my Articles published at LinkedIn -- all of them understand my Articles, Papers etc because they all are highly learned Intelligentsia (they are not individuals who have not yet passed even High School). Philhorn (talk) 07:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) uh... your point? CoolSkittle (talk) 11:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Philhorn, User:CoolSkittle - This may have been a blatant violation of Wikipedia is not a lab, of testing the behavior of Wikipedia editors to some draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
I will research this more in the next 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!Edit

  This was a much more nuanced and fair closure [[6]], thank you for that. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Hell in a Bucket - The whole point is that a fair closure and a nuanced closure could not exist in the same space. Erasing a notice is hardly a nuance because it is gaming the system. Next stop, either a binding RFC, or WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Templates for MFD nomsEdit

Thanks for you suggestion[7] of using templates for making MFD noms.

I thought of that, but there far too many variants of case for one template to do. Plus with templates, I'd have to save first and then edit.

So what I do is to use a clipboard manager to store a range of stock phrases and paragraphs which I can combine in various ways, and hack about in the edit window before saving. More flexible, lower overhead.

But thanks again for the suggestion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

If you thought of it, you thought of it. I use templates for messages in declining AFC submissions, such as {{draftautobio}}, {{compsays}}, and {{noccs}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Request on 09:13:34, 13 May 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Paul ZawilenskyEdit

Hi Robert,

I need help to understand why exactly my draft for the article about the Dubblestandart band, has been rejected and what I can do to solve the issue. The article is in many parts based on the existing article about the Dubblestandart Band on the German version of Wikipedia. and has just been updated with new content. It should exist in the English speaking world as this is mainly where the band and fans live and operate. The Dubblestandart Band has a wide array of collaboroations with international known artists from the Reggae Scene as well as a huge back catalog and is signed for more than 17 years to the well known German label Echo Beach. I believe it qualifies to several of your notability criterias concerning musicians and bands and there are reliable, secondary sources that have independently written about the band. There are countless mentiones in online and printed magazines for the last 20 years!

I can also upload a file with collected printed material if needed... If there is an issue in the way I have listed or categorized , pls advice how I can do better...:) Please let me know, what exactly the issue is about, so I can update... Many thanx Paul

Paul Zawilensky (talk) 09:13, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Paul Zawilensky - First, do not upload a file with collected printed material, and do not dump links onto my talk page. It is not useful to provide documentation to a reviewer. A draft article should speak for itself. Allmusic is not a reliable source. Do not use Wikipedia as a reference. I will review the draft shortly. However, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Paul Zawilensky - Did you read the comments that I made on your draft? Most of your English draft is not written in complete English sentences. It needs to be edited into proper English paragraphs, preferably with section headings. Also, as I said, it is not clear which of the musical notability criteria the band satisfies. It may satisfy one or two or three of them; a reviewer should be able to tell which ones. Your draft has introductory material that is not part of the article. We do not want that. Please organize your article into sections in English sentences. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jean-Pierre PetitEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean-Pierre Petit. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Being and NothingesssEdit

Hello, Robert McClenon. I suggest that you might want to consider declining to give a third opinion at Talk:Being and Nothingness. Drevolt has placed a request for comment regarding the editorial disputes at the article. The request will inevitably attraction attention from multiple other users, meaning that the disagreements at the page will no longer be between two people only, making this a situation in which a third opinion is inappropriate. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 21:28, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18Edit

Hello Robert McClenon,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Kamarupi DRNEdit


I am not knowledgeable about the disputed content itself, but If there is any other way I can help just let me know. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 22:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Abecedare - I am not knowledgeable about the content either. I expect the participants to educate me as to the content. However, it appears that one editor is going back to arguing that we should not have split the two articles. I think that the split was a consensus decision. Please clarify exactly what the nature of the sanctions were that were imposed on Bh. I have re-alerted both parties to discretionary sanctions, but I think that one is innocent and one is being tendentious. Do we give one more try, or do I fail the DRN and let it go back either to you or to Arbitration Enforcement? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Again, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
Bhaskar currently is only prohibited from discussing the issues related to Kamarupi articles outside the DRN-process. That is a voluntary measure but, if needed, discretionary sanctions can be used to back up or expand the prohibition.
FWIW, my impression from when I reviewed the ANI report is similar to yours with respect to the conduct issues. And as far as the content dispute goes, to me it is noteworthy that initially uninvolved editors, Richard Keatinge and Aeusoes1 who took a detailed enough dive into the subject ended up on one side of the debate (I readily concede that this is an imperfect metric). That said, by now you have the best independent and detailed view of both the content dispute and the disputants' conduct. So I will let you decide on how and how long to drive the DRN process. Abecedare (talk) 23:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Abecedare - My thought at this point is to start two minor RFCs and then see if the parties are willing to close out the DRN and resume discussion on the talk pages. I don't know if that will work, but I don't know if anything will work other than a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
It may be that the subject is to esoteric and requires to much prior knowledge/reading for it to attract outside opinions at the the RFCs. But they are at least worth a try. The latest RFC, which asks a very focused question may well serve as an entry point for some new editors. To aid the effort, I have advertised the discussions at the India-project noticeboard. Abecedare (talk) 21:22, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
There may be a lot of scholarly knowledge involved. Of Indian languages, it is Sanskrit that is esoteric. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:09, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
Abecedare and Robert McClenon, some online resources on the subject maybe of your interest, thanks a lot to both.भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 12:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Bhaskarbhagawati - It is not helpful to advise a reviewer, mediator, or other third party to look at additional information. A draft should speak for itself, an article should speak for itself, and any references should be discussed in mediation. There should not be any side conversations about article content; that should be discussed on the article talk page, or, in this case, on the discussion talk page. I am ignoring that link. If you want a specific change made to one of the articles to reflect content in that link, make that request in response to my call for changes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Internet censorship in ChinaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Internet censorship in China. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:John FerrarEdit


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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:11, 23 May 2019 (UTC) User:JMHamo - It wasn't my draft. These mentions don't do any good for the real draft author anyway because the deletion after the tagging is speedy. I hadn't realized that it was six months ago that I moved that draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Canadian Politics Arbitration CaseEdit

If you do not want to receive further notifications for this case, please remove yourself from this list.
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/Canadian politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 7, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Canadian politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Left reply on dispute resolution noticeboardEdit

Hi Robert. You are the volunteer that's been helping me out with my dispute. I left you a comment and was also wondering the way forward. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Draft_talk:National_drinks. Thanks. BrieDeChevre (talk) 02:29, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

rm "Too long, didn't read" hat from Summary of dispute by X1\Edit

Since the DRN JFG posting appears somewhat DOA, could you remove your Template:collapsetop "WP:TLDR" and just post a note there that you "didn't read" my Summary of dispute by X1\.? It took hours to write, my first posting at DRN, and there still are still editors working on that section. Searching can not be properly done unless [show] is done every time, which is annoying. It will be used as a reference for future potential discussions; see for example per 15:18, 24 May 2019. X1\ (talk) 20:14, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

I see now you've closed it. May I remove the "collapsetop" myself? X1\ (talk)

User:X1\ - No. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
No to both questions? (see first sentence) X1\ (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
User:X1\ - No. To both questions. Leave the closed case alone. You may copy your overly long post to your own talk page. Other than that, if you spent hours writing it, I am not responsible for the fact that you spent hours writing it. You may copy the material to your own talk page or a user page. Do not edit a closed archive. Editing a closed archive is disruptive and may be reported to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
I get it. Do not edit a closed archive. X1\ (talk) 21:22, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Hopefully it was correct of me to restore a deletion (by 123IP) from the Archived DRN; see User talk:BullRangifer#123IP edit at archived DRN. If it was someone else's role to restore (unrestored for over 19 hours), my apologies, as I stumbled across it during clean-up of my user talk page. X1\ (talk) 20:10, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
Disruptive changes to an archive can be, and always have been, fixed by any editor acting in good faith, so you did the right thing. Hopefully the matter ends there. Pushback to your fix would be deliberate disruption that should be sanctioned. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:57, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
If I'm going to mentioned yet again by these people, I might as well be notified. As I've outlined on my talk page, I removed something that I never actually placed there, or intended to be placed there. My changes to the archive were completely constructive, since that was not actually an archive of what I said as my dispute summary. That had absolutely nothing to do with my summarisation of the dispute and I'm quite distressed to see another editor, particularly someone very personally against me, place something in there that had nothing to do with the dispute and without context. However, I completely respect if it would be more proper for someone else to remove that paragraph rather than myself. I was certainly not aware that it had been placed there again a final time, otherwise I would have removed it before the archiving. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:19, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Adele for deletionEdit


There is currently a discussion taking place as to whether Portal:Adele should be deleted at MfD.
You are being notified because you were a participant in the previous nomination discussion.
Thank you, (edit conflict)MJLTalk 21:00, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Talk page guidelines for WP:DRNEdit

Hey Robert. In your opinion, is there any special rule (or usual practice) that prevents editors from putting their own comments into talk threads started by others? I notice that an ANI has started up in which this is one of the complaints. After noticing this issue, I went to look at the header of DRN, which appears to stress the informality of the process. Certainly at AE we would not accept people commenting in the wrong section, but AE is nothing *but* rules. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 17:32, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

User:EdJohnston - Thank you for commenting and asking. Exactly. That's the reason why I think that the thing is a tempest in a teapot, and that it wasn't worth harassing me about. Courtesy and honorable tradition are what apply to coloring inside the lines at DRN, and the fact that the sections are designated for statements by the editors, and that some of the editors have been to AE or ARC or some other forum where coloring outside the lines will get your crayons taken away. I didn't think that it was worth the original flap, and I certainly didn't think that I should be either ordered to correct the transcript or whined at about correcting the transcript, but I went ahead and tried to correct it because the coloring outside the lines was making the children cry. I didn't and don't see a formalized talk page guideline for cases that are waiting to be opened. If I open a case, I require that the editors respond only in their sections, but I do that pursuant to the mediation guidelines rather than a specific talk page guideline. At this point I think that both editors have been unreasonable, but I just want to be finished with this particular dispute and go back to counting portal views. Dammit, Jim, I'm a computer scientist, not a lawyer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
No one was trying to harass you, and calling us "children" is really beneath you.
Volunteers at drama boards have signed up for certain custodial duties, and those duties can include fixing irregularities which can cause misunderstandings. One might say they have enhanced refactoring powers. You have that authority. Without it you wouldn't have much of a job there.   I suspect that EdJohnston shares my opinion. If not, I'm very open to learning more.
If there is any question about this, then the instructions for volunteers should clearly state this, but not doing this type of thing would mean that minor matters would get escalated and create a hell of a lot more disruption. We try to prevent that using simple fixes. If nothing else, IAR and common sense certainly apply.
I tried to fix the problem and communicate through edit summaries, but when that obviously wasn't working, I decided to take the issue to you for a quick and easy fix. I had no idea you would balk at doing it. I wasn't asking you to do anything that numerous other volunteers at drama boards do routinely. Now that you've fixed it, I will thank you and let you get on with your business. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
BTW, just because there is lots of talking at DR/N does not make it a talk page. Other guidelines apply, and they are much tighter. -- BullRangifer (talk) 20:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If a dispute (about talk page behavior) like this had come to WP:AN3 I suspect it would have been closed with warnings to both parties. If DRN doesn't actually *have* the rule that BullRangifer was trying to enforce, I'm not clear on how his action was justified. EdJohnston (talk) 20:31, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
User:BullRangifer wrote: "BTW, just because there is lots of talking at DR/N does not make it a talk page. Other guidelines apply, and they are much tighter." Show the guidelines to me, and I will show the talk page guidelines to you. "The guidelines below reinforce the prime values of talk pages: communication, courtesy, and consideration. They apply not only to article discussion pages but everywhere editors interact, such as deletion discussions and noticeboards." So talk page guidelines do so apply to noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand that clarification. Thanks. My point is that there is "more" to a drama board than an ordinary talk page. There are "more" rules than just normal talk page rules. If DR/N is an exception to the rules which apply at other drama boards, that's news to me. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:28, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
And if you double my pay, you can try to assign me twice as many duties, which doesn't mean that I will take them. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
And the parties at DRN were acting like children quarreling about a coloring book, and I was trying to sweep it under the rug rather than look at it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston wrote: "If DRN doesn't actually *have* the rule that BullRangifer was trying to enforce, I'm not clear on how his action was justified." Yes, thank you, but he wasn't trying to enforce it, but to compel me to enforce it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
Finished. Over and out. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:20, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
[8]. That user had already US politics DS alert (3 weeks ago). Just saying so you know. My very best wishes (talk) 21:27, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
User:My very best wishes - Is there any simple way to verify whether a user has been notified within the past twelve months that both avoids the risk that they will slip out of Arbitration Enforcement by not being notified, and ensures that the innocent party will not notify them twice? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
If you try to notify a person of sanctions using {{subst:alert...}} and click on Preview it opens up a dialog in which you can search for previous alerts. EdJohnston (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articlesEdit

Draft:Chamupa Unlimited (Musician)Edit

Just to let you know he hasn't given up - check Draft:Chamupa Unlimited (Musician). Dan arndt (talk) 02:49, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Dan arndt - I have put a comment in the draft for the deleting administrator to please consider putting 'Chamupa' into the title blacklist regexp list. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 27 May 2019 (UTC)


First of all thanks for closing the Dispute Resolution God, although I had sent 10 mins working on a response when you did it. MusenInvincible has been a real nuisance on God as you can see from the page history 4 different editors have had to revert major irrelevant additions. Looking at their talk page [9] it seems they have a long history of disruption. Can something be done ? it is very disheartening and time wasting having to deal with people who are not willing to engage but would rather indulge in edit wars and escalations. Unibond (talk) 20:51, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

User:Unibond - As you can see, they have been blocked in the past. Read the dispute resolution policy. However, if they won't discuss, and persist in edit-warring or other disruption, you can go to WP:ANI and request a topic-ban. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Good Humor
For your plea at AN/I to "go and take your combination content and conduct dispute to Arbitration Enforcement and let me go back to counting portal views."[10]JFG talk 07:12, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

new review after your commentsEdit

Dear Mr. Robert McClenon,

Thank you for the review you did to my page, I have followed your advice and I'm no longer using the (R) symbol. I have also included more references.

Would you be so kind as to review again the page and give me any other advice that could, to help me have my page published?

I want to change the page name from "Ethyl lauroyl arginate" to "Ethyl lauroyl arginate, (LAE)" but I don't have the "move button" How can I do it?

Thank you very much for your help.

Yours faithfully, Marisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talkcontribs) 10:09, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Just commenting here because I saw the suggestion for Ethyl lauroyl arginate (LAE) as the name for the article. We don't normally employ abbreviations this way, as part of the article title. Also, one of your references says "LAE is the dehydrated crude product containing 85-95% Ethyl lauroyl arginate HCl". So if this is true, then Ethyl lauroyl arginate is not exactly a synonym of LAE. EdJohnston (talk) 22:57, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston, User:MCF19 - There already is a stub article on ethyl lauroyl arginate, the pure substance. I have recommended that the draft be copy-pasted over the stub. There is so little information in the stub that a history merge is not necessary and no harm is done by a copy-paste. (I know that a copy-paste is normally deprecated.) Is LAE actually the pure substance, or a commercial product containing primarily the pure substance? An earlier draft had a (R) symbol, which I said to remove, so I am somewhat concerned about promotion, but we want to describe every substance in as much detail as we can. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Mr. Robert McClenon,

Thank you for your comments, I have followed your advice and I will name the page "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate Monohydrochloride". Nevertheless, I cannot use the existing previous page of "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate" as this has a different CAS number: 48076-74-0 and my page has a CAS number 60372-77-2 that corresponds to the monohydrochloride molecule" — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talkcontribs) 08:47, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

User:MCF19 - Do you have any conflict of interest? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:20, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Good morning Mr. Robert McClenon, No I don't have any conflict of interest, but from my point of view it seems more accurate to describe this molecule with its correct CAS number, so if I do as you suggest me to copy paste in the already existing page, I will be eliminating another molecule no extending its information, may be I'm wrong...Can you advice me once more please? Best regards,Marisa — Preceding unsigned comment added by MCF19 (talkcontribs) 09:08, 11 June 2019 (UTC) Dear Mr. Robert McClenon, Could you please give me some advice on how to proceed? as I explained to you both CAS numbers are not the same, and I think that renaming my article it would be better for Wikipedia. What do you think? Best regards, "MCF19 (talk) 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)"MCF19 (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Good afternoon Mr. Robert McClenon, Can you please help me with my last question? I would appreciate it the most. This is my question: "I will name the page "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate Monohydrochloride" as I cannot use the existing previous page of "Ethyl Lauroyl Arginate" as this has a different CAS number: 48076-74-0 and my page has a CAS number 60372-77-2 that corresponds to the monohydrochloride molecule, if I do change the name of my page ("move" it) Do you think it will be ok for Wikipedia?MCF19 (talk) 15:29, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:International Mass Spectrometry FoundationEdit

List of French marquisatesEdit

Hi. This is a plea for help, since I don’t want to take yet another noob to any of the drama boards. Yesterday a new editor waltzed in, changed the inclusion criteria in the list, edit warred to keep it in, despite my objections. I have reasoned with him, laid out my objections, pointed to BRD, all to no avail. I am at my wits end. Could you interfere as a neutral party and keep me from going French Revolution on his pars posterior? Thanks. Kleuske (talk) 08:08, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Kleuske - You were both past WP:3RR. The other editor was substantively wrong, but I didn't want to do anything that might get you both blocked. So I have thrown an RFC into the works. I am sure that you can present the solid case why the list, which is not meant to be legal (after all, there have been no legal titles of nobility in France since the Third Republic was instituted in 1871), should reflect legal titles, so-called courtesy titles, and for that matter widely accepted pretensions. After all, the reason why Louis XIII and Louis XIV started enforcing rules about titles was that there had been a lot of people claiming them, some of whom had more legal basis than others, and legality was always a little uncertain anyway when the king was said to be absolute but couldn't collect new taxes. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
Damn and blast. You’re right. I could have sworn I slammed the brakes at 3RR. Thanks for your efforts. At the moment i’m editing under the influence, so I’ll respond on the TP tomorrow. Kleuske (talk) 18:15, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon,

You are wrong : even in 2019 under the French Republic, in France authentic titles are legal and considered as a part of the name. LE SCEAU DE FRANCE,TITRE NOBILIAIRE..

As I wrote in talk page I give up because I waste my time trying to explain something that English contributors don't understand (I do not blame you...)

I wanted only to improve it but in fact I don't care because its in English and in France nobody cares about it, so its not a problem the contents of this article is wrong and confusing with some fake titles (that are "courtesy title"). I prefer improve the same aticle in French. Goodbye Wikipedia in English and thank you both for your desire to understand what is not your culture... --Frenchmarquis (talk) 16:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Collaborations with Charles Fefferman and connections to Paul Erdos included in Geapsu article under considerationEdit

HI Robert McClenon, The Geapsu article has been edited to include connections to the famous mathematician Charles Fefferman--widely considered the best mathematician in the world. Steven Damelin has 4 papers with him. Also a note on the strong connection of Steven Damelin to the famous mathematician Paul Erdos. Steven Damelin has several papers on Erdos weights introduced by Paul Erdos and has an Erdos number of 3 from 6 mathematicians.

Thanks for helping with this article and we looking forward to it being published.

Geapsu (talk) 23:46, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright stuff at MFDEdit

If this was on Commons, I would tag it as {{PD-text}} because I don't think it meets the threshold of originality. Would you not agree with that assessment? –MJLTalk 18:54, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Notice of arbitrationEdit

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/Antisemitism in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 23, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Antisemitism in Poland/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, – bradv🍁 15:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Nothing Nothing Nothing Nothing NothingEdit

2601:142:4201:F4AE:11E2:8A4C:FF31:7E6B (talk) 23:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Tgeorgescu's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLP policyEdit

Hi Robert, just a point of correction regarding your ArbCom statement, the Foundation had nothing to do with the introduction of the BLP policy. That policy, including the decision to create it, is the work entirely of the editing community. SarahSV (talk) 04:21, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Would you mind striking that? I think it's important to make clear that that's a community policy, in case anyone sees your post and believes that it came from the WMF—especially in light of the CEO's recent comments about our policies not working. SarahSV (talk) 20:04, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
User:SlimVirgin - Oops. I had marked up my statement and was planning to insert a revised version with additions, but then it was at about 560 words, so I didn't replace it, and then was interrupted. Done now. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert. SarahSV (talk) 01:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Barnstar of Diligence
For moderating a knotted and long-standing (7+ years!) dispute and resolving some central issues by, in part, showing ability to be flexible about the process and firm about the content policies. Thank you. Abecedare (talk) 16:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Draft: CamEd InstituteEdit

Hi Robert, just a minor request, Could I change my draft name from Draft:CamEd Institute to CamEd Business School? I found that I cannot change it to CamEd Business School because this page title was previously blocked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talkcontribs) 16:44, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for your help with WIKI. Could you help to check with permission ticket Ticket#2019070310000777 and Ticket#2019062810000795 as the owner already submitted the Copyright permission. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talkcontribs) 01:57, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Phengly Oeung - What is your association with CamEd Institute? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I am staff at CamEd Institute, responsible for website and data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phengly Oeung (talkcontribs) 02:30, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Phengly Oeung - In the future, when you submit a CamEd Institute, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure. It would also be a good idea to rewrite the description in your own words. That is easier than proving that you have a waiver of copyright. Also, I am not entirely sure that CamEd Institute understands the impact of the CC-BY-SA copyleft, but I am not sure that I understand it either. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Robert McClenon for now, do i need to submit additional reference? Please advice...

How long does it take for a dispute resolution process to start?Edit

Just curious, but how long does it take for a dispute resolution to start? Dispute resolution was requested by an editor here, and it seems like it has been sitting here for a long time. There continue to be all kinds disputes between editors in of that article, and I think things will just get more and more tangled the longer things wait. One editor, at least, is very unwilling to wait, and it's been quite draining. - GretLomborg (talk) 01:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)


@Robert McClenon: Thank you for your help with the DRS process. Greatly appreciate your efforts. Chaipau (talk) 03:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

A torteEdit

We may have disagreements in regard to ANI or other WP business, however I thought you deserved a torte. We are all working toward the same goal.

A Dobos torte for you!Edit

  User:Lightburst has given you a Dobos torte to enjoy! Seven layers of fun because you deserve it.

To give a Dobos torte and spread the WikiLove, just place {{subst:Dobos Torte}} on someone else's talkpage, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Please comment on Talk:PolyphenolEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Polyphenol. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019Edit

Hello Robert McClenon,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.


Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.


The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.


Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Edits During Dispute ResolutionEdit


Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:William_Lane_Craig. One of the editors in the dispute has begun editing the article again (see [11]). I do not think the dispute resolution has been very helpful in resolving the differences, as they seem to be too fundamental, however I've been holding off from making any edits to the article while the dispute resolution is in progress out of respect for the process. However, I don't really see that as being a good option while other editors continue editing. The editor in question already aggressively pushed the article in their direction prior to the first statements of the dispute.

Could you undo their edits and protect the page again? I think that would be best for the dispute resolution.

Thanks, GretLomborg (talk) 22:45, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

User:GretLomborg - Thank you for reporting the violation of mediation rules. I don't care to revert edits or go back to page protection, but if there are any more rogue edits, I will fail the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome. I see you've closed the discussion, which is unfortunate but understandable. I'm not sure if you noticed, but one of the disputants removed some of your moderator comments prior to closure: [12]. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
User:GretLomborg - User warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You may need to fail the dispute resolutionEdit

I consider this edit to be taking a side in the dispute that is not only unwarranted, it is in strict violation of WP:FRINGE. jps (talk) 00:20, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Hmm I just noticed the close and consider it reasonable. After my last edits there (which were admitedly also out of process), I realized that there were too many irregularities and would have likely stopped participating myself (for reasons unrelated to how it was moderated). —PaleoNeonate – 02:17, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

I think you singling out me and not commenting at all on the problematic behavior of the other editors involved in the dispute resolution process is indicative that you should not be a volunteer at WP:DRN. Please consider resigning. If you do not think this is problematic, please explain why you think it appropriate to insert yourself into a substantive content-claim about the dispute (that Craig's positions are not pseudoscientific) is somehow justified in the course of moderating. You have also poisoned the well with respect to the conflict itself, causing it to develop in a worse way than it was before.
Please respond.
jps (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Formal request for your resignationEdit

I have formally requested your resignation here: Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Request for a meditator to resign.

jps (talk) 15:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Audi Q3Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Audi Q3. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for tryingEdit

  The Mediator Barnstar
Thank you for trying to mediate the difficult dispute about William Lane Craig. It probably doesn't feel like right now, but your work is appreciated. GretLomborg (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
By some, but maybe that dispute is unresolvable. I resolved an impossible dispute about Indian languages last month, but it took a sword of Damocles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"White Croats" question.Edit

Greetings. You closed the topic, and I have no complaints about you in any way - on the contrary, I thank you for your participation. But now, it is as if my time was wasted and my opponent won this round simply by not doing anything. And now I have to try this RFC, in hope that SOMEONELSE will FIX the issue? But it is obvious that SOMEONELSE will think: "Oh, this guy was stood up on the DRN, probably this is a wikilawyer, or the issue is not worth it." The format of the DRN does not provide for any conclusion with which I could go further on instances (or, conversely, to abandon further attempts to change something for the better)?--Nicoljaus (talk) 20:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus - Do you have a question? Have you tried to edit the article and been reverted? My advice would be to make two attempts to edit the article, and another attempt to discuss on the talk page. If you make two attempts and both are reverted, and there is no further discussion or no further constructive discussion, it is clear that the other editor is being passive, and you can publish the RFC. I am not sure who you are referring to as SOMEONELSE. If you publish the RFC, and it goes your way, it allows you to fix the article. If the RFC is in your favor, and then you fix it, the other editor does not have the right to revert your edits. Do you still have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
I tried to edit and there were two reverts ([13], [14]). Further discussion is fruitless - the opponent gives statements with references where the exact opposite is said, but he feels fine with it. The last speech on TP was mine. My question is whether the time spent here can be converted into some advantage in the RFC so that it "goes my way". Because I doubt the success, for the reason I described above (Everyone will think: "Oh, this guy was stood up on the DRN, probably this is a wikilawyer, or the issue is not worth it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Nicoljaus - Well, since you have your mind made up, it will not be useful for me to try to advise you any further. Go ahead and give up.
I personally would conclude that the editor who failed to respond to the DRN request was the one who was being passive-aggressive, but if you already know what the answer will be, that is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if you are upset, it was not my intention and I am very grateful to you for your efforts. But this was my first appeal to the DRN and, to my regret, I see nothing but lost time. Maybe I'm wrong (well, it happens).--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

My money's on a returning user blocked for tendentiousness.  Dlohcierekim (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim - Yes, but either not a long-term abuser, or a long-term abuser who doesn't know their way around, because their efforts to conduct the RFC were, well, ignorant. Because they have a static IP address, they are easier to block than other similar users. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin CashEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Families are ForeverEdit


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

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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Lapablo (talk) 19:47, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

We are being oppressive ...Edit

... by writing excessively well-reasoned deletion rationales.[15]

Scandalous, eh? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Well, they do have a point (not WP:POINT), although it is a dinky point. (Does that have to do with an opposable pinch to knit without needles?) They are correct that with a shorter nomination and supporting statement, some editors would usually !vote Delete, and some would always !vote Keep. (Portal skeptics don't always vote !Delete. After all, we know that a difference of opinion between two portal skeptics ended with one of them indeffed for insulting the other one.) However, the well-reasoned rationales that are seen as oppressive by portal fans are oriented primarily to middle editors and secondarily because portal skeptics, being reason-based, need to persuade each other. Maybe, for those who would prefer to divide Wikipedia or any other community neatly into camps, reasoned arguments are oppressive. (There was a family therapist who told me, 16 or 17 years ago, that I was oppressive. I never did understand why, but thought that she (the therapist) just had her mind made up. Now I see that maybe I was oppressive because I was reasoning at length. Anyway, I concluded that she was oppressive. But that is all in the past.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl Maybe using the same paragraphs or same tables of measurements several times because they apply to several MFDs is oppressive. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
I think the perceived problem is that presenting actual reasons for deletion (rather than just a vague wave at POG) requires any "keep" !votes to be accompanied by actual policy- and evidence-based reasoning. This impedes those who just want to be able to say something along the lines of "keep cos it is a portal!!!". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Right, User:BrownHairedGirl. There are two related but different abilities that H. sapiens has that other primates do not, to use language and to think or reason. Deletion rationales that are based on thinking are oppressive to a primate who only wants to use language without having thought behind it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)


But I like puns. Want!   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - See apophasis, known in Rome as preterition. Or don't see it. I will probably also engage in preterition on the MFD for Portal:Epistemology about a priori and a posteriori knowledge, because those are terms of art in epistemology. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
But surely discussing the field of about knowledge in its own terminology is oppressive?   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A wee milestoneEdit

BTW, 4 portal MFDs were closed overnight, all as delete: Baptists, University of Texas at Austin, University of Houston and War of 1812.

That brings the the total number of portals down to 896, which is the first time it has dipped below 900.

Before TTH began the automated portalspamming, there were 1500 portal. So 40% of those have now been deleted.

When we were around the 1500 mark, still clearing out the last of the automated spam, I honestly thought that the total would settle down at about 1400. But even now that we are way beyond that, I am still finding portals which are not just abandoned, but stillborn. As you have seen, I nominated a dozen of them in the last few days alone, and there are at least three dozen more portals on my list of apparently-abandoned-and-need-assessment-for-possible-MFD.

For me, the most telling feature of the rest is Category:Unassessed Portal pages. It includes some redirects and subpages, but I use AWB to exclude them and found 681 remaining. So even after removing 40% of the portals, clearing out the worst, 75% of the remainder haven't even had a cursory assessment from the portals project.

I think this explains some of the rage from portalistas. Having done no assessment process, they had no measures of the very poor state of the collection, so are shocked to find that so many portals are in such poor state. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

IEEE Lists of FellowsEdit

Hello Robert. Could I ask if you would be able to give some advice to another editor, please? I noticed that another editor (HRShami) was all set to create numerous Lists of Fellows of the IEEE, based on their membership pages (see List of IEEE Fellows). So I left this comment for them] on their talk page, and they responded with a question as to whether they should delete all the red-linked lists. My opinion is that they should, as I think the lists themselves are flawed (because they just copy the IEEE lists, and insufficient numbers of people are 'notable' in a Wikipedia sense). But I could be wrong. So I would be immensely grateful if you could review my advice to them, and offer them your view on the way forward.

I should add that I think it would be acceptable to create one List of Fellows, and to only include 'notable' people with articles already here on Wikipedia, but to mention which IEEE section they're members of. But all the other names should be left off, per WP:NOTDIR.

(I'm not going to be around much for a while to be able to contribute further on this, so if you aren't unable to assist, I think we both would appreciate if you could suggest to them another editor or venue where they could ask. Obviously, the Teahouse is one such place, but I thought of you because of your long experience with Articles for Creation and also deletion discussions. Sorry to have bothered you if this isn't really your area of interest or expertise. Regards, Nick Moyes (talk) 02:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvetteEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:AbivinEdit

I've sent this page packing. You supported 'delete' but if you think I've acted out of process, let me know. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:46, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

G11 is fine for it. Shortcutting MFD is often fine. Thanks, User:Kudpung. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your support. I don't look in at MfD very often these days but I'll bear this in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can use the visual editor on a mobile device?

Every article has a pencil icon at the top. Tap on the pencil icon   to start editing.

Edit Cards

This is what the new Edit Cards for editing links in the mobile visual editor look like. You can try the prototype here: 📲 Try Edit Cards.

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

Since the last newsletter, the team has released two new features for the mobile visual editor and has started developing three more. All of this work is part of the team's goal to make editing on mobile web simpler.

Before talking about the team's recent releases, we have a question for you:

Are you willing to try a new way to add and change links?

If you are interested, we would value your input! You can try this new link tool in the mobile visual editor on a separate wiki.

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releasesEdit

The mobile visual editor is a simpler editing tool, for smartphones and tablets using the mobile site. The Editing team has recently launched two new features to improve the mobile visual editor:

  1. Section editing
    • The purpose is to help contributors focus on their edits.
    • The team studied this with an A/B test. This test showed that contributors who could use section editing were 1% more likely to publish the edits they started than people with only full-page editing.
  2. Loading overlay
    • The purpose is to smooth the transition between reading and editing.

Section editing and the new loading overlay are now available to everyone using the mobile visual editor.

New and active projectsEdit

This is a list of our most active projects. Watch these pages to learn about project updates and to share your input on new designs, prototypes and research findings.

  • Edit cards: This is a clearer way to add and edit links, citations, images, templates, etc. in articles. You can try this feature now. Go here to see how: 📲Try Edit Cards.
  • Mobile toolbar refresh: This project will learn if contributors are more successful when the editing tools are easier to recognize.
  • Mobile visual editor availability: This A/B test asks: Are newer contributors more successful if they use the mobile visual editor? We are collaborating with 20 Wikipedias to answer this question.
  • Usability improvements: This project will make the mobile visual editor easier to use.  The goal is to let contributors stay focused on editing and to feel more confident in the editing tools.

Looking aheadEdit

  • Wikimania: Several members of the Editing Team will be attending Wikimania in August 2019. They will lead a session about mobile editing in the Community Growth space. Talk to them about how editing can be improved.
  • Talk Pages: In the coming months, the Editing Team will begin improving talk pages and communication on the wikis.

Learning moreEdit

The VisualEditor on mobile is a good place to learn more about the projects we are working on. The team wants to talk with you about anything related to editing. If you have something to say or ask, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) and Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:25, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigaretteEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)


Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Steven Crossin 03:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution - your thoughts requestedEdit

Hi there. I've opened a discussion on Wikipedia's dispute resolution processes at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Wikipedia_dispute_resolution_for_complex_disputes. As you've previously been involved in dispute resolution on Wikipedia, I'd appreciate your thoughts there, if you have time. As I am sending this to quite a few people, the text is somewhat impersonal :) Steven Crossin 17:35, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Steven Crossin. Yes, I will be replying at Village pump (idea lab) when I finish composing my thoughts. I think that the first thing that we need to do is to improve the triage process for incoming complaints. Then we need to have at least two tracks for disputes that require mediation, a fast track and a slow track, and some disputes that come in do not lend themselves to mediation, but perhaps to some other form of resolution. But I will be replying at VPI shortly, so this is just an ack (acknowledgment). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I’ve also sent you an email above with some other notes. The content isn’t overly private so I don’t mind if you reply on my talk page or via email. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 23:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Poking you re above - haven’t seen any response yet? Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - I replied at length at VPI. Did you want something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes please, I sent you an email about DRN specifically and separate from the VP discussion a little while ago. As I mentioned above, a public reply is fine if you prefer. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 02:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - You didn't say very much in the email, and it was mostly capable of being addressed at VPI. You did make one comment that I didn't think was constructive, but I chose not to respond to it. Is there a problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m puzzled as to what in my email you’re taking as unconstructive? My email was focused on how to get more volunteers involved at DRN, and since its mostly just the two of us there, I am considering ways we can get more people involved. The same comments I made would apply to any other volunteer if they were commenting on threads shortly after they are opened unless they were taking on the discussion. Just for clarity, this is what I sent. Can you let me know what part you had an issue with so we can work towards creating a better DR process on Wikipedia?

Email I sent: Hi Robert, I hope you're well First of all, thank you for all your efforts at DRN over the years. While we may have different approaches to dispute resolution, you've nevertheless kept DRN going over the years, so thank you. I am writing to you after giving how our DR processes work some thought. As you know, I've been doing DR for pretty much my entire Wikipedia life, and am thinking about how we proceed from here. Looking at DRN lately, I do notice that a lot of threads are commented on pretty quickly by yourself, and I am wondering if this approach might cause potential volunteers to look at the request as "taken", even if the dispute isn't open yet and that isn't our intention, and we might benefit from some fresh blood in dispute resolution. I was thinking of doing a volunteer drive by reaching out to those that sign up as Third Opinion volunteers, or those that offer RFC thoughts through the Feedback Request service. That way, we can get more people involved in DR over the long term. Would love to talk more about your thoughts with this one.

Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 21:35, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - I should have responded with encouragement about the volunteer drive. I half-overlooked it. Do it. I was annoyed by the comment about responding quickly to cases. I think that I only respond quickly to comment on whether the case is properly filed and is a content dispute. I think that cases should be at least responded to quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
Here’s what I wanted to discuss. At the moment DRN is just largely you and me, and I wonder whether part of that might be because a prospective volunteer sees the discussion section and thinks that the case may have been taken, even if the comment may not give this impression. I’m merely asking if you would please consider, for now, only commenting on content cases you intend to personally handle, so other new volunteers might look at these and be willing to step their toe into our dispute resolution efforts. Since we have very few volunteers, I think it’s worth a try. I would however agree on commenting quickly on obviously malformed disputes, or clear conduct disputes, though at times some conduct disputes have an underlying content factor that should be weighed as well, of course. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 00:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin So what do I do if I think a case should be taken by another volunteer, like the Scott Storch case? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - I will point to the Scott Storch case both to request clarification on your comments in general, and to explain why I found the comment in your email to be non-constructive. You essentially told me not to comment at all on a case if I was hoping for another volunteer to work it. At least, that is what I think you said. The case wasn't malformed, and I didn't have a reason to dismiss it, and it doesn't seem to be a conduct dispute. I would like to ask if a volunteer is ready to work the case. But that would be against the instructions that you have sort of given me. So your advice only gives me one more way in which I don't know what to do. Can you please possibly ask for a volunteer to handle that dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
Hey Robert, I’m not at all opposed to you chiming in on a dispute after say 24 hours if another volunteer hasn’t commented to note to the involved editors that we are looking for a volunteer to help handle their queries, and the talk page of DRN is probably a good starting place to ask for other volunteers input. My remarks above are more to give that period of time for another volunteer to take a look and leave cases that we aren’t going to handle for others to pick up. Over the next couple of days I’ll cobble together a list of people to reach out to and see if I can get some more participation here. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - Do you at least understand why I ignored that part of the email, seeing it as non-constructive? You may be be completely right, but when we aren't doing enough, being told not to do even the minimum of asking for a volunteer just makes me feel like I have been given useless advice to leave alone. I would appreciate it if, at least, a comment were made at DRN saying that we need a volunteer to handle the Storch dispute. I'll leave alone. I expect that the dispute will now go back to edit-warring, but that is just me. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritisEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

DRN discussionEdit

Comment on content, not contributors. Any further incivility may be taken to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I understand why you collapsed that content in the DRN discussion, but I feel that parts of it need to be taken into consideration. I think that, to an outsider, Tvx1's comment about Nbooth4 starting the discussion is misleading because the issue had previously been discussed on another talk page. An outsider would have no knowledge of this if it were not pointed out to them. Furthermore, editors in that discussion did agree with me, which contradicts Tvx1's claim that nobody does. Tvx1 cannot argue that he had no knowledge of this since he participated in the discussion himself. I think that you or any other DRN volunteer needs to be aware of all of the discussion about the subject and I think Tvx1 needs to explain why he failed to mention any of the support that I have previously had. I'm aware that deliberately misrepresenting something is a fairly serious accusation to make, but if he deliberately neglected to mention previous discussions and/or opposing points of view, then that needs to be out in the open. How can we resolve a dispute if only some of the relevant information is provided? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Mclarenfan17 - First, is this a content dispute, or a conduct dispute? If it is a conduct dispute, take it to WP:ANI. Second, by whom does it need to be taken into account anyway? Third, do you think that a dispute resolution volunteer can't read between the lines if they want to do so? Fourth, is this a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
In this case, it's a bit of both, to be honest. It is, however, first and foremost a content dispute. Tvx1 is arguing that there is an existing consensus that is overwhelming. As he said when he made changes to the article, "nobody is agreeing with the lone opposer". I dispute that because, as I pointed out, other editors agreed with me. This is not the one-against-many scenario that he suggests it is. All he had to do at this point was say "sorry, that discussion is a little old; I forgot about it" and we could have carried on. But he didn't. He hasn't even acknowledged the existence of other discussions. And that's when it started to become a conduct dispute. Why can't he acknowledge the other discussion, or the existence of an editor who agreed with me? The only reason I can think of is because it would mean he can no longer claim I am "the lone opposer". It's hard to discuss the content when one party to the discussion will not even acknowledge the existence of content.
I don't doubt your ability to read between the lines (and I know you think I have some ulterior motive here, like humbling Tvx1—I don't, I just want what's best for the article), but I also have no doubt about Tvx1's ability to get his way by dragging a discussion out to wear other editors down. Consensus is supposed to be formed through discussion, not dismissal. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
I really don't appreciate you going behind the back of the DRN to try to get the volunteer to have a negative impression of me. If you have a conduct issue with, report me at ANI. For now I would really appreciate if you stop (maybe scratch) those ridiculous and hypocritical accusations of bad faith. Firstly you had already mentioned the older discussion in your filing of the DRN case before I wrote my dispute summary. So why would I have to explicitly mention it again?? Secondly, I don't know where you get the arrogance to keep criticizing me for forgetting to notify one user, who doesn't even contribute to Wikipedia anymore, when you yourself neglected to include three users disagreeing with you when you filled the case. Regardless, I really don't see how that one user would make such a massive difference. If you add up the two discussions and consider them together, the support for the proposal is still far superior. If you consider them separately, the latter could be a clear example that consensus can change.Tvx1 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Beckett's non-arrivalEdit

Thank you thank you for this. Brilliant! I love it! -Girl]]-BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:53, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - You're welcome. I think that I will create User:Godot, who doesn't log on, as a legitimate alternate account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I love that idea. Please do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl - It didn't work. There already was a Godot. Maybe we should assign portals to him. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Pity. However, there is no User:Estragon ..... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
Estragon is in Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject AviationEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)


test (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian FooteEdit

I want to recreate this draft with adding a table which contain matches who Ian Foote refereed during his carrer.

Can you remove the protection of this draft plz ?

No. Robert McClenon (talk) 14
20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

When the protection will be removed ?

I dont know. Maybe 2038.
Maybe a year after unregistered editors leave it alone.Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Citations for Boundless ImmigrationEdit

Hello Robert_McClenon, just a quick update and two questions regarding the draft article about Boundless. (I am sending this to both you and JC7V7DC5768 who have previously reviewed the draft.)

1) An article ran earlier this year in TechCrunch (an independent reliable source) that focused solely on Boundless, but it has not been added to the list of citations. May I add it to the intro to the article, since it supports the information there? [1]


  1. ^ Clark, Kate (March 28, 2019). "Boundless gets $7.8M to help immigrants navigate the convoluted green card process". TechCrunch.

2) I have been reading other editors' comments about articles with too many references. The consistent takeaway is that they would appreciate it if only the highest-level references were retained, in order to simplify and clean up articles with multiple sources for the same information. May I review all the references to Boundless Immigration in the draft article and remove any excess links? I do want the article to be in the best form possible going forward.

Thanks for your help with this, as always. Messier6 (talk) 15:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Soundwalk CollectiveEdit

My name is Simone Merli, I am a producer for Soundwalk Collective. I recently noticed our wikipedia page has been taken down on your suggestion. We have had a number of different office interns who's approach to editing has proved detrimental. Can you let me know if it’s possible for us to exist again on Wikipedia? We have quite a large background of projects over the last two decades, and we have released 20+ records on various labels, and been a part of many exhibitions (I have seen artist pages with a lot less). What do you suggest? Thanks Simone. Simone.Blackbirds (talk) 16:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Simone.Blackbirds I suggest you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Your problem is not one or two interns. This is a case of trying too hard to be listed in Wikipedia , and being obviously promotional. Wikipedia is not here to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:UrolagniaEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Urolagnia. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Robert, I see you closed my request for help on the dispute resolution page for the Mike Cernovich NPOV dispute. I would like some clarification, if you could.

It says the request is closed due to not notifying the other editors -- as you can see, I did notify the other editors on the Cernovich talk page.

The dispute resolution form never asked me to notify anyone; and, I did put all of their names in the field in the form asking for names.

I did not see any request to notify the people I had already specified, as I did not check Wikipedia over the weekend. Anyway, can you re-open or provide guidance and proceeding. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MaximumIdeas (talkcontribs) 19:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

User:MaximumIdeas - The instructions say: "Ensure that you deliver a notice to each person you add to the case filing by leaving a notice on their user talk page. Giving notice on the article talk page in dispute or relying on linking their names here will not suffice." You didn't notify them on their talk pages. I did comment after 24 hours that you had not notified them. 72 hours later, you still had not notified them. What next? I see no reason to re-open the case myself, but you can re-open it by filing it again and by notifying the other editors properly. Since there is a consensus against you, if you do initiate dispute resolution, it may not change that. My advice would be either to accept that you are in the minority, or, if you do want to whitewash the lede, post a Request for Comments. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Test. (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:AbortionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Abortion. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking systemEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Electric smoking system. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Gary Schwartz (actor)Edit

Hello, Robert McClenon,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I have tagged an article that you started, Gary Schwartz (actor) for deletion, because it seems to be an article that has been already decided by a [decision] to be unsuitable for inclusion.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top. If the page is already deleted by the time you come across this message and you wish to retrieve the deleted material, please contact the deleting administrator.

For any further query, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 12:06, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:onel5969 - Interesting. Twinkle thinks that it is my article. It is only mine because I moved a page from the sandbox to draft space two years ago, and now this page was moved from the sandbox to article space. I will let the reviewing admin, who can see the deleted article, decide if this is a G4. If the G4 is declined, I will be among other editors to participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, stuff like this happens from time to time. The reviewer tools automatically alert the article's "creator". I can't see the deleted article, so I have to look to see if their is anything in the new article which occurred after the date of the last AfD which, imho, would change the notability of the subject. In this instance, again imho, this is simply a working actor, who has kept working. Nothing in GNG or NACTOR would indicate his status has changed since the AfD. Sorry to have templated you.Onel5969 TT me 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
User:onel5969 - Not a problem. If the G4 is declined, then AFD is next, and we can both participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Gary Schwartz (actor)Edit

Hello, Robert McClenon,

Welcome to Wikipedia! I edit here too, under the username Onel5969 and it's nice to meet you :-)

I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Gary Schwartz (actor) should be deleted. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor) .

You might like to note that such discussions usually run for seven days and are not ballot-polls. And, our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Onel5969}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Onel5969 TT me 20:53, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:onel5969 - Something went wrong with your AFD. It has re-opened the first AFD rather than creating a second AFD. I don't know what to do next. I think that we need help from an admin, but I don't know what board to use to request help for this. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Gary Schwartz (actor) for deletionEdit


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

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gary Schwartz (actor) (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Onel5969 TT me 23:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Requesting relists in deletion discussionsEdit

Robert, I just closed a bunch of MfD's, and I noticed that towards the end of several of these discussions, you requested that the closing administrator relist the discussion. I thought I'd send you a few quick notes regarding what I did and why:

  1. I saw your requests, but I did not relist any of the discussions.
  2. I'd like to give you a gentle reminder that anyone who is closing deletion discussions understands that relisting is always an option available to them at any time, and understands when it is appropriate to relist. So, there is no need to request a relist.
  3. I'd invite you to take a look at WP:RELIST to review the conditions under which a deletion discussion should be relisted. In particular, it says, "That said, relisting should not be a substitute for a 'no consensus' closure. If the closer feels there has been substantive debate, disparate opinions supported by policy have been expressed, and consensus has not been achieved, a no-consensus close may be preferable." All of the discussions where you requested a relist had substantive debate; it wasn't as if there were only one or two voters. Therefore, I didn't feel that relisting was appropriate on any of them.

‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 04:34, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Scottywong. I think that I understand. I will comment that I thought and still think that the portal advocates hadn't made a coherent case for Keep, and I would still like to see a coherent case for Keep, even if I disagree, because, as it is, I feel like I am trying to argue with ghosts. No Consensus is fine for the ones that you found to be No Consensus. I will also note that the date subheadings in the MFD stream are now disarranged, with August 20 after August 27. This may have happened when you were deleting some of the deleted portals. I don't know what causes the disarrangement or what to do about it. Thank you. I understand why you didn't Relist them. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding, Robert. I certainly understand that it's frustrating that a deletion discussion needs a clear consensus to delete, but only needs an unclear consensus to be kept. It's not uncommon to see the more savvy keep voters simply trying to muddy the waters in a close discussion, in an attempt to force a "no consensus" close, which is functionally identical to a "keep" close. Luckily, the folks that designed WP's deletion processes (and, more generally, the policies surrounding consensus) were wise enough to foresee this, and not base the closure of consensus discussions on simple vote-counting. If one side is making policy-based arguments, and the other side is merely trying to muddy the waters with unfounded opinions and feelings-based rationales, and both sides are roughly equal in number, the closer can still decide to weigh the policy-based arguments more heavily and close it in favor of that side. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Well, yes, User:Scottywong, but a No Consensus isn't functionally equivalent to a Keep. We know that a No Consensus can be renominated in approximately two months, and a few editors in 2019 (unlike in the past) do not intend to rely on empty promises to maintain and improve portals but will actually recheck whether the promises are being kept. If the portal defenders actually maintain the four portals that you closed as No Consensus, that will be a pleasant surprise. Otherwise, they will face another nomination. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why toy portals are harmfulEdit

Hi Robert, since a few portals you term "toy portals" are still up at MfD, I would like to try to convince you why you should be against them. I will ping BrownHairedGirl since she may have valuable input as well.

First off, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a playground, fair, sporting event or book group. It's purpose is not to be "fun" for editors, although there is nothing wrong with enjoying your time here or cracking some jokes/sharing stories along the way with friendly editors. The portals project has been a complete disaster by any sane measure. By now, about half of the pre-TTH portals have been deleted because they were abandoned junk and there is no end in sight to the heap of junk portals that remain. Portal fans think all portals are fun, and therefore want to keep all portals or as many as possible regardless of quality, maintainers, readers, or any sane metric. Toy portals, like the heap of maintained Germany related ones, are vines in this forest of crud.

These vines, while they don't bear poisonous fruit like abandoned junk portals do, serve to obscure the junk portals from scrutiny by making many more portals that must be sifted through to find the junk ones and worse still, create a precedent of keeping portals that knowingly wildly don't meet the broadness, readership, or maintenance guidelines of WP:POG. Allowing any portal that fails POG to stay gives cover for any other portal that fails POG to stay, which contributes to the issue of portal advocates kicking and screaming to keep abandoned junk at MfD. The sudden push to keep Portal:Antarctica was no doubt at least in part fueled by the belief that if the least inhabited and least notable continent on Earth can have a portal, than all continents can automatically have a portal.

Likewise, if some obscure German region can have a portal, why not any place on earth as long as one person at MfD says "I want it! I want it! He got to keep his junk, so I should to!" A hard line must be drawn, Robert, that any portal that fails POG needs to be swiftly uprooted to protect the forest from corruption. Toy portals, like any portal that fails POG, are rot that must be cut out or the whole forest will become a den of policy-failing corruption. Think Greenwood the Great to Mirkwood, if you know Tolkien.

We have learned over the past six months (even though I wasn't here for most of it) that nearly all portals were just toy portals and have long since been cast away by those who made them. Allowing any toy portal to stay is to allow the same disaster zone to recreate itself because there is 15 years of hard evidence that todays toy portals become tomorrows abandoned crud portals. Please help delete any toy portals you encounter at MfD to stop this once and for all. Once the portal forest is thinned, it should be much easier to get new POG guidelines in place or reevaluate portals' place on Wikipedia if required. That a top 45 in views portal like Portal:Death was complete crud bodes ill for this forest. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Newshunter12 - I have read your argument, and I largely agree. I haven't decided whether it has changed my view. I will point out that I have not been !voting to Keep the toy portals, but only am neutral on them. In view of how many portals are currently nominated and how far behind I am in reviewing the nominations, I still see some value in viewing some of the nominations as more important than others. And my recollection is that the corruption of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood was primarily due to Sauron. I don't see any of the portal advocates as being actually evil. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I of course wasn't saying portal advocates are evil, just illustrating a point. Also, it takes just as much time to vote delete as it does neutral like you did at these MfD's. Tsk! Tsk!   Newshunter12 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • (ec) Robert, I have to agree with what Newshunter12 writes. I was pointing in the same direction in my comment[16] at MFD:Portal:Ore Mountains, but tried to keep it brief and gentle. NH12 has been more forceful, but think NH12 is right.
The harmless fun justification could have been applied to much of TTH's portalspam. Taking each portal individually, they were probably fun with little harm (tho I disagree about no harm) ... but taken as a set they were a nightmare.
Sure, Bermicourt's mega-navbox portals are actually curated, and not just bloated clones of another page. But as NH12 points out, toy portals are dependant on the continued attention of the editor who created them; it's unlikely that any other editor would take over portals on such narrow topics.
If we keep B's portals on those narrow topics, I really do fear that it will be a precedent for more portals on very narrow topics. Portal:Mullingar, Portal:Witney, Portal:Cherbourg? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
User:BrownHairedGirl - Ack. (In military communication, short for acknowledge.) I will consider. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I am relieved that the military term in use is "ack" and not ack ack.   --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon & @Newshunter12: If the German toy nano-portals survive, I hope it will OK for me to move Portal:Ballyporeen to portalspace. It's a much broader topic than those mountains in MercedesLand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

@BrownHairedGirl I'm not sure whether to be delighted or heartbroken. The four remaining German nano-portals were all deleted at MfD which is great, but it's a bitter pill to swallow knowing you will no longer feel confident enough to bring Portal:Ballyporeen to the vast number of readers clamoring for this portal with the broadest of shoulders. If you need a wiki-shoulder to cry on during this difficult time, I'm here for you. Hugs BHG. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:40, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assaultEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:CenturyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Century. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Minor barnstar
Thanks for helping to resolve the Institute of_International_and_European_Affairs page dispute! Ballystrahan (talk) 16:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Are you that really serious?!? (Unfair rejection of my request on dispute resolution at the Mar Thoma Syrian Church page)Edit

You just close my request about a dispute resolution that a user name Chandy of Pakalomattom's has been repeating undoing the page's infobox classification type, over refused to accept its a unique type of Syrian Christian denomination like its splinter denomination the St. Thomas Evangelical Church, even its clearly provided both by the Church's page and the website's "Heritage" page???

Also I get that one of the reasons why you closed it due of I didn't make a discussion in the article's talk page, due of how unfortunately isn't popular the article is, so there no unfortunate point of discussing there; despite one user is diehardly serious about the Church's identity for no reason. But also I did start making a User talk discussion at its User page, the User:Chandy of Pakalomattom as a starting point since yesterday. Chad The Goatman (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Chad The Goatman - Wait for User:Chandy_of_Pakalomattom to respond. Read the discussion failure essay. If discussion is lengthy and indecisive, you may file another request. If they do not discuss, but they edit-war, you may consider reporting them at the edit-warring noticeboard. Also consider the advice of User:EdJohnston. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
I don't even know, if that user ever respond to other users like even EdJohnston himself tires to responding to it, with no reply back for now, or ever go to others pages in this site–if I undo his edits, except for me predominantly and those two pages named Reformed Eastern Christianity which is right now on deletion that way too early for this moment, due of I requested to temporary to lock both pages, because of it's actions. And the other person who in this conflict is literally myself, because it keeps me building up my anger, everytime its adding a nonsensical reasons and a 'failed' source to defending its claim that lets to nowhere. Like I wished it needs to stop, and accept what the page and their 'official' website literally provides it to understand it seemly favored to my side.
For that Edit-war noticeboard, I already did it two Sundays ago (August 25th) as seen here as I already mentioned, but due of my mistake (which I was realiz(s)ed) that it has deliberating creating that account to mis-abusing it to defending its view of the Church's identity supposed to be. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Chad The Goatman - You may edit the article if you do not edit-war. If the other user does not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. Either edit the article, discuss with the other user, or report the other user. By the way, DRN volunteers are human editors too, and are likely to be angry if you say, incorrectly, that we were unfair. Be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
Nothing. (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:DuodecimalEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Duodecimal. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019Edit

Hello Robert McClenon,


Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.


A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Draft Chhana PandeyEdit

McClenon, I could not improve the article on Chhana Pandey further due to limited information. Will this page remain as a tab which can be extended later or it will be delete. Can you spare time to explain it to me? Bhattuc (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bhattuc - If you cannot improve the draft, but if you edit it every few months, it will remain in draft space. If it is left alone for six months,it will be deleted. If you cannot find further information about the village, perhaps it is not notable. Have you considered editing Wikipedia in your first language? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject TrainsEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)


Hi there, Robert McClenon. Thank you very much for starting the RfC and for all of your assistance in all of the preceding discussions. A sentences in the RfC reads: Should she be alphabetized as: A. de Lesseps, Luann (national origin of name, French) or B. Lesseps, Luann de (nationality of person, American). I'd like to point that that it is actually the other way around (i.e. de Lesseps, Luann would be according to American conventions and Lesseps, Luann de French). KyleJoantalk 01:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

  The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
For all your excellent work separating good portals from dud portals these past six months, and your passionate efforts to make portal space the best it can be. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Newshunter12 - Where are proposed barnstars discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I have sort of wondered what a winnowing fan looks like. Winnowing fans are ancient and are mentioned in the Bible and the Odyssey. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
I found it here: Wikipedia:Barnstars. Just use the search function and the word "winnowing" and you'll come right to it. Glad you like the historical barnstar I gave you. The history around the phrase you'll find there drew me to it, as it matches your efforts perfectly. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A dispute was archived?Edit

Hi, I noticed that wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_180#Talk:Israeli_settlement#Irish_bill has been archived. Are you still going to do an RFC? Selfstudier (talk) 11:12, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

It reappeared:) Thank you.Selfstudier (talk) 17:49, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Dispute resolution needs to be re-openedEdit

Hello Robert McClenon. A few days ago, you have closed my Dispute resolution request, however The Banner has not stopped undoing my changes and harassing me with COI allegations. I try to discuss the main issue of using template:ill and provide guidelines, but the user doesn't want to discuss this and instead keep repeating that I have a COI (as seen in here and in their talk page where their last reply is clearly a WP:BAIT) simple because they disagree with my edits and using that as a bases to undo my changes. Moreover, they tagging the article multiple of times for which I point that it is against WP:WTRMT, which states that if the tagging editor failed to start a discussion, or the discussion is dormant, and there is no other support for the template, it can be removed. What should I do next? We really need a third opinion or the intervention of an admin. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:08, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:CherryPie94 - I see at at least two problems. First, I still don't see any recent discussion on an article talk page. Second, you haven't answered the question of whether you have a conflict of interest. Third, you haven't described this as a dispute about article content. What article is the content issue about, and where was it discussed? If you want a third opinion, go to Third Opinion. If this is a conduct dispute, report it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. What are you asking to have done at DRN, which is voluntary, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
1. That is because the The Banner doesn't want to discuss it, just wants to revert my edits for no reason and bait me with his responses on his talk page. 2. I stated multiple of time even in The Banner talk page that I don't have a conflict of interest. I have been editing Korean content for five years now, with the majority of articles I edit and have created are not related to SBS. I'm not even Korean and I don't live in Korea. I'm just interest in the TV series and the culture. You can go and check the article I made and my history. 3. The issue is that The Banner disagrees with my use of template:ill and keep reverting it without a reason, even though I tried explaining and giving guidelines supporting my use of the template. What I don't understand is that The Banner labeled me as having a conflict of interest and "act like the marketing department of SBS" because I linked to the Korean Wikipedia, not SBS, no external links, and not that I added advertisement. The page is literally a list, I just linked to existing pages in the Korean Wikipedia to aid in the creation of English corresponding articles since that helps me and others by provide more info when we are creating articles or translating them from Korean. He has no evidence except me linking to the Korean Wikipedia and I really am not from SBS. What would SBS even gain from linking to the Korean Wikipedia. The main issue in not me adding content to the page, the issue he sees is me using the template to link to the Korean Wikipedia. What needs to be done, is either provide a reason/guidelines that template:ill should or shouldn't be used. If it should not be used, I'll not use it again. However, if is okay to use, The Banner should stop reverting the edits and assuming bad faith. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
User:CherryPie94 - There is nothing that I can do for you. Discuss it with User:The Banner. If they do not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. If necessary, file a report at WP:ANI. There is nothing that I can do to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
User refuses to discuss issue, however, thank you for your time. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
User:CherryPie94 - There is nothing that I can do. What you can do is to file a neutrally worded Request for Comments. You can also make a report to WP:ANI, but it is then likely that you will be told that that is a content dispute. The only way to resolve a content dispute with an editor who will not discuss is an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:TransgenderEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Transgender. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Italian languagesEdit

Hi there, just letting you know that I've overridden your edit here (I was in the middle of commenting on it and got edit conflicted). They actually approached me at my talk page because they'd incorrectly posted to DRN talk instead so I asked them to file a case, but I've added a note asking them to let the other editor know. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:26, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - Your edit is more complete. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
FYI, I spotted a while back a bug with how the DRN wizard displayed. Found the bug. It looks correct again. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 13:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
User:Steven Crossin - What was the bug? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
A missing CSS file that made the form look broken and ugly. It was previously located in my personal user space, and never got moved over to MediaWiki space when the DRN wizard became a gadget (originally, it was just a user script that I wrote back in 2012). Since I found the bug, I've actually gone and done some work on TestWikipedia to the code to give it a bit of a face lift, add an extra step to the wizard to try weed out conduct issues, and a few others to make the form more intuitive. Take the wizard for a spin, it should be applied shortly - I filed an edit protected request to change the code to the new version. Steven Crossin Help resolve disputes! 16:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo CostaEdit

The SPI is at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Tertulius. Technically the request on Lusouser himself is still outstanding and hasn't been answered yet, but there's not actually any serious doubt that he is the same user — he's effectively already admitted it himself, in fact, and the only reason I went to SPI at all instead of just blocking him right away on WP:DUCK grounds is that he has a past habit of creating multiple sleeper accounts at once, so I wanted to flush for any new sleepers too. The archived history will obviously also fill in their past behaviour some more.

I'm pretty sure Kudpung's keeping an eye on the attack edits, and has already threatened to reapply or extend the block if needed. Bearcat (talk) 02:22, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Bearcat - Ok, good. Then when Lusouser is blocked, the MFD becomes unnecessary because the drafts can all be deleted as G5 sock crud, but it is still useful to get admin attention to salt the titles and maybe put a regexp for them in the title blacklist. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 23 September 2019 (UTC)


  There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Topic Ban Request: TakuyaMurata. Hasteur (talk) 23:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and a CommentEdit

Thank you for notifying me, User:Hasteur. I've supported your proposal for a topic-ban. The previous topic-ban, which tried to censor his comments on policy, is not helpful because it just causes him to engage in preterition about what he is not allowed to say. At first I thought that maybe he belonged to the Pythagorean brotherhood of mathematicians and had taken an oath of secrecy, any breach of which was punishable by death.

By the way, you will see that for the past six months there has been an effort first to delete a flood of portals created recklessly by the portal platoon, and then to clean up neglected, unmaintained, or ignored portals. Legacypac was heavily involved in this effort, as were User:BrownHairedGirl and I and a few others. Legacypac began nominating bundles of portals recklessly for deletion, which resulted in train wrecks. BrownHairedGirl took issue with some of Legacypac's nominations, as did I, and Legacypac insulted BrownHairedGirl, and some of his personal attacks were really over the top, and he wound up being indeffed, and hasn't requested an unblock. (I think that he wouldn't have been so extreme in insulting a male administrator, but that is only my opinion and is worth what you paid for it.) Most of the action at MFD has been portals, and Legacypac is blocked because he insisted on fighting with an editor who agreed with him on the substantive issue, namely that we have too many crud portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I was watching (logged out) and that's why I made the observation that way. Trying to take the high road. Hasteur (talk) 00:41, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Australian stockman/sandboxEdit


Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Australian stockman/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. — JJMC89(T·C) 01:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:SingaporeEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Singapore. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Need an expertEdit

Hi Hope you doing good. Can you kindly go through the link and provide a solution or can you request an expert to look.

I don't know how to request an expert. Ashokkumar47 (talk) 09:15, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:List of Books About Women in HistoryEdit

Thanks for your speedy review of the draft page! Added disclaimer about incompleteness of list. Hermionefc (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

State Portal MetricsEdit

Greetings, Robert McClenon. I flagged Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics for inaccuracy because Portal: Minnesota had the wrong info, and someone else on the talk page had had a problem. I don't think there is any rush, but you might want to know. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)


Sorry about this and this, I'd loaded a few up in advance and I'm not getting the popup warning for some reason. All the best, SITH (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

User:StraussInTheHouse - I am not sure what the issue was with Gyus324, because it is gone. With Kryton, I see that you tagged it for G12, presumably a copy of their own web site, and I tagged it for G11 as advertising, and it is waiting for deletion, and my guess is that both G11 and G12 do apply. I don't know what you are apologizing for. We are both reviewing the usual input of crud. I haven't been reviewing that much cruddy input recently because I have been reviewing cruddy portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Robert McClenon, I don't know really, just letting you know I'm not trying to contradict, I agree both could apply, it was a batch copyvio run. And the portal thing is still ongoing? I thought we'd just about got rid of the abandoned ones or ones created from a single template. Is there a cleanup tracking category you can point me to so I can resume helping out? Best, SITH (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)
Cleanup tracking categories, like tagging the portals with {{update}}, has no effect. What has an effect is tagging the portals for MFD, and they are still being nominated there, and normally deleted there. The portal advocates then say that problems with portals should be taken care of by tagging and normal editing, but there is evidence that tagging, whether with tags or with categories, doesn't get anyone to fix them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposals regarding AfC & NPPEdit

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in NanotechnologyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:US State Portal MetricsEdit

  Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics 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. North America1000 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Victor LaredoEdit

Hi Robert. Would you mind perusing through this newly created article and doing a quick assessment? It didn't go through AfC and was created by an SPA so there are always standard concerns (COISELF, PAID, BIO, etc.) when that happens, but this might be a case of NEXIST even though right now the article is only supported by PRIMARY/SELFPUB types of sources. There are some pretty obvious formatting errors (SECTIONCAPS, SURNAME, etc.) that I was going to cleanup, but not sure whether it might be best to DRAFTIFY this to give the creator more time to work on and then have them submit it to AfC for review when they're ready. For reference, I came across this while checking on WP:THQ#inserting a photo help -. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Jyolleck, User:Marchjuly - I have reviewed the article briefly. The problem, as the first reviewer has noted, is that it doesn't have any secondary sources, sources indicating what other people have written about Laredo's work. As Marchjuly says, we can do one of two things. I can move the article back to draft space, or you can leave it in article space. If you leave it in article space, you need to address the formatting issues, and to look for secondary sources. Also, do you have any conflict of interest, such as working for Laredo's estate? I will review it again, but this is my first pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

format problems and afcEdit

I see your comments at Draft:Catherine Cobb and Draft:François Cappus about fixing format issues before the article could be accepted. The problems in these drafts seem opinion relatively minor, and can either be fixed by oneself at least as easily as explaining to a new user how to do it, or dealt with after the article is in mainspace, in the usual way for all articles--there are many wikignomes who really like that sort of work. Of course, it's a matter of degree and judgment--I too will sometimes decline a draft--or even draftify an article--if the errors are so great as to make the article unclear, or represent a really rough machine translation, or make it difficult to see just what the references are--in fact, I declined at least 3 for such reasons this very evening. This is just meant as a discussion, for what we say at AfC usually very closely agrees. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

User:DGG - Yes. First, I didn't decline those drafts. I commented on them. I thought that other editors could do just as good a job as I could of cleaning them up. I wasn't sure whether the Cappus draft, which is really more a list of his works than a BDP, was ready for acceptance, but its acceptance is all right. It is true that I sometimes simply comment on drafts rather than accepting them or declining them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


Hi Robert, I saw that you rejected Draft: Shai Wininger because you felt the content was not neutral and merely promoted the subject. I would like to resubmit an improved version that addresses your feedback but I’m just not sure what parts of the page are not neutral. I was wondering if you could give me more info, like a couple examples of the parts that aren’t neutral. Thanks in advance, Deb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debmoher (talkcontribs) 07:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Debmoher - I don't generally provide a lot of assistance to paid editors. However, I will offer a few thoughts. First, as I said, your draft gives details about Wininger's personal life that are not related to whether and why he is notable. Second, your draft appears to be praising or advertising Fiverr and Lemonade. Third, when I read a draft that contains a lot of marketing buzzwords, I think that it is marketing. It is true that Wininger is an entrepreneur, and he may be an innovator or inventor, although usually an inventor is someone who invents things, not business concepts. However, when a draft says that someone is an entrepreneur and an inventor or innovator, that makes me think paid editing. Well, it is paid editing. You are the editor who is being paid to write neutral-sounding material without being neutral. It is your job to figure out how to do that, not mine. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Some of the editors there might be willing to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

Deletion of "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" pageEdit

Dear Robert McClenon, I send you this message regarding the deletion of a page, 3D-CMCC-CNR model, written by me a few months ago. First of all, I would like to thank who, like you, makes several efforts to carry on an important project such as Wikipedia. As a user, I well know how Wikipedia is crucial for sharing and diffusing knowledge. The submission procedure of the "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page let me understood directly how many efforts this huge project implies. I just would submit to your attention some issues that I consider fundamental and that should be taken into account to evaluate the publication/deletion of "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page. One of the main motivations for the page deletion is based on the low number of citations on Google Scholar, undoubtedly an unavoidable source to evaluate scientific works. However, I think that further criteria should be taken into account for the evaluation. The 3D-CMCC-CNR model is one of the tools available in scientific research to forecast climate change effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Simulation models like 3D-CMCC-CNR allow to better understand the modifications of our planet due to climate change under present-day as even more on the long-term. Hence, the model is a fundamental mean between scientific research and society. The simulation of the forest carbon dynamics by the models allow to understand the role of the ecosystems in the climate change mitigation and to plan the best interventions to reduce as much as possible the climate change effects on our society. For this reason, an eventually Wikipedia page of the 3D-CMCC-CNR model would not be an end in itself but a relevant explanation of an important tool in the hands of the human being to understand (and forecast) the modification of the Earth due to one of the biggest issue ever in human history. Another important reason to consider is that the 3D-CMCC-CNR model takes part in several important projects of international level. The most important is The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) ( This project involves several simulation models to study and forecast the future effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems. It is important to highlight that the 3D-CMCC-CNR has increased its relevance starting from the first publication (2014), with almost 1 article published each year on relevant scientific journals, including Global Change Biology (IF: 8.997) ( Furthermore, the 3D-CMCC-CNR boasts the collaboration of distinguished scientists in forest modelling, such as Peter Thornton, Philippe Ciais, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Trevor Keenan, and Colin Prentice (,, For the reasons described above, please let me ask to revalue the decision about the publication of the 3D-CMCC-CNR page on Wikipedia or the possibility to resubmit the page. Thanks in advance to take into account my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3d-cmcc-cnr (talkcontribs) 19:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

User:3d-cmcc-cnr - Address your arguments to User:Ad Orientem or User:Randykitty. You may resubmit a version of the paper that is substantially different from the one that was previously deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello 3d-cmcc-cnr. The page in question was deleted following a community discussion which determined that it did not meet our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Those guidelines can be found at WP:GNG. As Robert McClenon noted above, the article can be recreated but would need to carefully address the concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Otherwise it would likely be subject to speedy re-deletion. Additionally, I am concerned that you may have a connection to the subject of the article which might constitute a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI before attempting to recreate the article. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

About my Battle for Dream Island draft.Edit

My draft is about Battle for Dream Island, but the other submission is about the Battle for Dream Island series. Should my draft be more unique? --LittleAwesomeApple (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

User:LittleAwesomeApple - First, it would help for your draft to clarify the difference between the series, the season, and the episode. This is often a cause of confusion. Second, I have disambiguated the draft on the series, and have requested deletion of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon Ok. Thanks for helping. LittleAwesomeApple (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019Edit

Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.


What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk PagesEdit

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editorEdit

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit CardsEdit

What happens when you click on a link. The new Edit Card is bigger and has more options for editing links.


The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.
  • In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
    • One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
    • New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
    • Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
  • Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.


The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking aheadEdit

  • Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
  • Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
  • Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Reduce protection for ThiyyaEdit

Reduce protection for Thiyya so that the project can be initiated and built up by talks. Kalangot (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Kalangot (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

User:Kalangot - I do not know what I had to do with the redirect Thiyya. However, if you want it unprotected, you may request the reduction of its protection level to semi-protection at Requests for Unprotection. However, if you want to create a separate article Thiyya, the best approach would be to discuss it at Talk:Ezhava. Have you tried creating a draft at Draft:Thiyya? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

The Real Housewives of New York City RfCEdit

Hi there, Robert McClenon! The RfC regarding sorting expired, and it did not generate a consensus. There are also points to be made about the RfC not being necessary in the first place due to there being a majority view on the original RfC and preceding discussion on the article's talk page. How should we proceed? I'm asking because AnAudLife recently reached out to another editor to respond to the RfC even though it's expired, so they're still holding on strong to their view as well. Thanks! KyleJoantalk 04:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

User:KyleJoan - The RFC has expired, but it has not been formally closed. I haven't yet checked whether there is already a request at AN Requests for Closure for a formal closure, or whether one should be requested. If one hasn't yet been requested, you can request it, or you can ask me to request it, and I will request it. I will be looking at whether there has been a request for closure in maybe 12 or 18 hours. That is my advice for now, to wait for closure. If there is edit-warring or personal attacks, you may report them at the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but I think it is better to wait for a formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I understand. I'm not all that familiar with the process, so may I ask that you request for closure? Thank you again! KyleJoantalk 04:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I have read the votes and even some of the ones who voted “C” are in agreement with sorting her name with “Lesseps” not the “de”. And people are still voting as of just a few days ago. Should we extend to allow for more input? What’s the rush to close when people are still contributing? AnAudLife (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
User:KyleJoan - I have checked AN Requests for Closure, and our RFC is not yet listed. Do you want closure requested, or do you want to take the suggestion of User:AnAudLife and wait a while? If we do request closure, there is no guarantee as to when we will get it. We might get closure in 2 days, and we might have to wait more than a month for a closer. If either of you request that I request closure, I will request closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
Does closure give a decisive conclusion regarding sorting? If not, is reopening the RfC as AnAudLife suggested an option? I'm afraid if we leave it as it is then the discussion would get archived and the dispute is once again left unresolved. KyleJoantalk 07:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
I do NOT request closure, I would like to give it more time. AnAudLife (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorting of Names Issue (again)Edit

I am not familiar with the concept of re-opening an RFC, but that could be done by inserting a new {{RFC}} template at the top of the RFC, which would open it for another thirty days, and would start a new cycle of robotically requesting editors to visit it. I don't know of a way to re-open it for less than 30 days. An alternative is to leave it alone, if editors are continuing to express their opinions. My guess is that a close will result in No Consensus between A and B, but might result in the closer teasing out some lesser conclusion. I can request closure, in which case it will be closed in some time between tomorrow and maybe two months, or I can do nothing, in which case it may be closed sometime. If closure is not requested and discussion stops for a period of time (and I haven't checked the period of time), a bot will archive it, in which case it will be a retired RFC that never did anything. If there isn't presently a clear consensus, there isn't likely to be a clear consensus. Just leaving it open in the hope that consensus develops seems futile. I will leave it alone for now. That doesn't mean I will leave it alone on Sunday. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

It seems that AnAudLife and I are in agreement on this one. Just so we can put the dispute to bed, I restarted the RfC per WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC. Thank you again for all your help! KyleJoantalk 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
User:KyleJoan - I know what you and User:AnAudLife meant to do. You didn't quite do it. You put in your timestamped signature where the RFC tag had been, but you didn't put the RFC tag back in. I have put the RFC tag back in for you. It will now run for thirty more days before the bot pulls it again. We definitely want to request closure after the bot recloses it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Shlomo Group concernEdit

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of ChinaEdit

Draft:Brian Rosenworcel concernEdit

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Sally HelgesenEdit

Hello Robert, I have replied to your comment on my draft page I would like to know how long it will take for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talkcontribs) 21:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Riffsister/sandboxEdit


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

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! 大诺史 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Steve Huffman edit warEdit

Stop quarreling on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you please revisit the talk and history page of that page?

Going back to July 2017 you can see and beginning this edit war. Looking at the history and changes on that page it is clear The talk has been beaten to death since the incident.

This was a major controversy, involving just Huffman. The page has his "Net Neutrality position" as a seperate section and a major controversy specific to him as an individual buried under a few lines of text. I kept the text and citations but could add another 20+ articles to help source it if that helps? All I am seeing is a few individuals getting angry as hell I tried to seperate a major controversy into its own heading. Wikipedia's guidelines say that explicitly. What am I not seeing here?

CRIT "Controversy" section. "For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. " This is a specific controversy covered in reliable sources. A simple google search returns hundreds of outlets covering this.

CRIT The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title

If you look at the edit opencooper reverted, I did just that. I made the topic of the controversy (‎Controversy over political comment manipulation) the name of the section title.

This isn't a reddit specific incident because Huffman was operating outside of his normal duties at Reddit when engaging in this behavior. This isn't UNDUE, this isn't CRIT being used inappropriately.

There has been talk for years about this specific controversy, and edit wars for years. Its doubly frustrating that this is the exact type of PR for the incident of controversy in question ::facepalm::

A major controversy specific to one individual is in line with a separate heading. Everything else involving this entire process is little more than burying me with BS paperwork in the hopes that the edits will never stay. Lets get some integrity here and give a major controversy a separate heading like we do for other individuals. Siihb (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

To save you some searching RM see the threads Talk:Steve Huffman#This is the new censorship I guess and User talk:Ponyo#Controversies on user biographies. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is another one User talk:16912 Rhiannon#Did you or Beutler Ink want to comment on what work you did on for the Steve Huffman page?. MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)
What do my user comments and talk about the article have to do with the fact that Wikipedia rules which I quoted indicate that should be its own section. Stop trying to muddy the waters. This issue has to do with a major controversy involving one person NOT being a separate heading for that user's wikipedia page. Siihb (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Vandalism here. Edit warEdit

Edit-warring has been reported at ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:BMW M3Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW M3. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

I find your behavior towards me specifically hugely hypocriticalEdit

I reached out to you for DRN that I will admit probably should have been better put together. You closed it which was totally reasonable. I then went to here to your talk page, and asked you to revisit the issue again because of the listed reasons. Other users then began to attack me personally, at which point I asked them to stop muddying the waters and focus on the issue. You closed that with a big red box and stated DO NOT MODIFY. I respected your request and moved on. I then noticed your comment specific to me ON THE HUFFMAN PAGE. "User:Siihb - I usually pay very little attention to an editor who always erases messages from their own talk page while leaving a lot of messages on other editors' talk pages and on article talk pages. It usually indicates an editor with an open mouth and closed ears."

However it is perfectly allowable behavior to trim a talk page of comments. So you are holding perfectly allowable behavior against me, and using that as a premise to insult me on a page that is in no way related to me.

Thats a fine example you have set for me asking for help with a formatting issue. Which I might add, was not first brought up by me, and is as of this date, unaddressed except by individuals with affiliations to the paid content editors I referenced in my DRN. I'd appreciate it if you just commented on the merits of the issue and left your personal comments on me or how I use wikipedia to my talk page so I can remove them and not ruin others times with petty personal issues. Have a great day. Siihb (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Steven Universe : The MovieEdit

Can you write this on the release category ?

The film was released on October 27, 2019 on Cartoon Network France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lab preparation of nitrogen (October 28)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Robert McClenon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30Edit

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jean Chrétien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chrétien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Adani TransmissionEdit


My Wikipedia draft of Adani Transmission was declined by you. The reason stated, "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own." It is one of the largest transmission companies in India and has numerable articles covered by Indian news houses. Further, many other subsidiary companies of Adani Group are live as well. Why does it not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria? Can you suggest any changes I can make? Pushpullshove (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Pushpullshove - First, do you have any affiliation with Adani Group that is a conflict of interest? Second, have you discussed creating an article on Adani Transmission on the talk page of the parent article, Talk: Adani Group? Third, have you asked for advice at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon - I dot not have any affiliation with the organization. Also, I will surely discuss this on the Talk: Adani Group and ask for advice at the the Teahouse. Pushpullshove (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Map projectionEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019Edit

Hello Robert McClenon,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 725 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.


Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

format issue, follow up.Edit

  • Draft:Nelson M. Oyesiku Yes, heading format needs fixing, but the refs are good enough as they stand--there is no requirement they be in any particular form. . I would normally make the changes myself to the headings and accept, but I have decided this time to accept it as it stands. If none of the wiki-gnomes get around to it, I will fix it later. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

TED Interview ReplyEdit

I have added the main details and additional external references in a subsection of the main article TED (conference). --Baekemm (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Bundling MFDsEdit

Recently you boldly bundled two ongoing MFDs together at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basketball. While I'm certain that your intentions were to be helpful, my opinion is that this bundling made it far more difficult to gauge the consensus of the discussion, and ended up being more disruptive than anything else. Since the bundling was done a full 2 days after the start of the Portal:Basketball MFD, it resulted in a lot of seemingly duplicate votes that needed to be manually untangled to understand what happened. My advice: if pages are going to be bundled together in an MFD, they should be bundled together from the start of the discussion. Merging two ongoing discussions together is a recipe for disaster, and, under other circumstances, could have resulted in a procedural No Consensus closure. ‑Scottywong| [gossip] || 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Scottywong - I have reviewed those one-and-one-half MFDs, and have come to the conclusion that my consolidation of them was an unsuccessful experiment. If I had known whether it would have improved the discussion, it wouldn't have been an experiment. Wikipedia guidelines say to be bold and to use common sense, and in this case, common sense includes learning what didn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for understanding. ‑Scottywong| [confabulate] || 18:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Ute Lotz-HeumannEdit

Hello. I noticed on the "Ute Lotz-Heumann" talk page you noted that she passed WP:PROF [17]. Given that she passes WP:PROF, I am thinking that tags on the top of the article page are not necessary [18]. I am also inviting Theroadislong to this discussion because they tagged it with {{Primary sources}} - [19]. I'm making the same argument, that since the subject passes WP:PROF there is no need for this tag. I am glad to add a reference to the subject's Google Scholar page as evidence if you think this will be helpful. Anyway, I am wondering what your opinions are on this matter. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

I added the Google Scholar reference. I also added a JSTOR reference. Cheers.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Steve Quinn - I am not entirely sure that I understand what your argument or concern is. I accepted the draft but tagged it because I thought that it satisfies the notability guideline but that its sources could be improved. Would you have preferred that I decline it because the sources could be improved? Are you implying that we make a binary distinction between perfect articles that do not need improvement and drafts that should be declined? I think that I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
Robert, thanks for your response. I am not saying the article should have been declined at AFC because the sources could be improved. I am not implying a binary distinction or any other kind of distinction. To explain further - Along with deeming the article notable because the subject passes WP:PROF, I noticed that a BLP tag, a Primary source tag and a Section tag (create sections) has been placed on the article. There is nothing wrong with doing this.
I suppose it can be seen as using editorial judgement. So, what I was trying to say about the BLP tag and the Primary source tag is, I think it would be OK to remove both tags because the subject passes WP:PROF. But I wouldn't remove those tags unless you agree. As you may or may not know, a university researcher-scientist-teacher may not be likely to receive mainstream press, but still have an impact in her field, as shown by her body of research.
This means the subject can have a notable biography on Wikipedia because you and I have established the person passes WP:PROF. These circumstances may supercede the need to place a BLP and a Primary sources tag on the article. In other words, if we here agree this biography merits inclusion on Wikipedia, then maybe this renders the need for a BLP tag and a Primary source tag moot. So, I am wondering if you agree that it is OK to remove the BLP tag and the Primary sources tag. Hopefully, this clarifies what I meant. If it still seems confusing then simply let me know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Steve Quinn - I think that you and I have different interpretations of the BLP and Primary Source tags. I think that you are saying that they can be removed because we do not have a question about notability. I am saying that they should be kept on because, although the subject is notable, the article still needs improvement. I did not apply a Notability tag. I think that the tags mean that, although the article should not be deleted, it should still be improved. Maybe we can discuss this further with other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Robert, yes I agree that we seem to have different interpretations for the BLP and Primary Source tags, just as you described it. My view is motivated by having observed, the subject of this biography does not have coverage in the mainstream press at this time. Also, she is not likely to have coverage in the mainstream press in the near future. So, having BLP and Primary Source tags seems to me to be extraneous at this time. Perhaps as a metaphor, the tags are decorations on this biography article that don't seem to be needed right now (imho).
This seems to mean that any editor who tries to find secondary sources bumps up against a barrier that perhaps cannot be passed. The only caveat are University of Arizona press releases here, but even in these there is only passing mentions of the subject. Anyway, maybe we can open for a wider discussion at the Tea House. As an aside, User:Theroadislong has removed the Primary Source tag, which they affixed to the article in the first place, so I don't have a problem with its removal. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

A Disco BallEdit

Disco ball of unlimited knowledgeEdit

  I appreciate your contributions! Thanks for continuing to make Wikipedia a productive space. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Is it just me, or does it seem like the above editor is thanking every editor who has even a civil disagreement with me, regardless of whether he himself had any involvement therein? Hijiri 88 (やや) 02:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Windows 98Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 98. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

First and second fundamental theorems of invariant theoryEdit

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the issue. I have a book with me right now. I can see the proofs to the theorems (not exactly short). They might be added in the future but there is no need for the tag for that. Many theorem article does not give a proof. We generally don’t tag articles for not giving proofs. —- Taku (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the edits. I think now I understand the issue. I explained the situation in the edit summary. If still not clear, let me know; I will try to do something further. —- Taku (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
User:TakuyaMurata - Readers don't read the article history and the edit summaries. Edit summaries are for the information of other editors. Readers look for verification to the notes. I wouldn't be able to understand the proofs, having forgotten a lot of higher math when I was studying chemistry, but I know to look in the notes. It is now taken care of, in my view. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

When will it endEdit

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

Call-out culture meditationEdit

Hello! Thank you for offering to mediate. Although the article will come out of edit-protection in 5 days, I've been tirelessly engaged in gathering sources to use for expanding the article in its talk page. Please see Talk:Call-out_culture. I feel like this page needs a neutral set of eyes to establish consensus, especially with me being a new Wikipedian! Please feel free to ask any meta question you may have in my talk page. SridYO 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Civility Barnstar
thank you so much I will work on it again until it meets your expertise

Submission declined on 31 October 2019 by Robert McClenon Grose27 (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Fellowship of Friends articleEdit

Hello, Robert. You were involved in the creation of the Fellowship of Friends article back in May and you're also listed as a volunteer on WP:DR/N, so I was wondering if you could could help with a situation that is happening with that article. Yesterday somebody editing from the IP address removed the picture, blanked entire sections and deleted the references without leaving any comments on the talk page. The IP that was used for the edits ( is located in the same area of the headquarters of the organization (Oregon House, CA, USA) so I suspect that it is an effort of the organization to "sanitize" the article in order to attract new members (only negative information and criticism was removed). This happened in the past, by the way. I reverted the deletions but the person undid my edits twice. Since this may be leading to an edit war, I am asking if you could help dealing with the situation. If you can't, please indicate who I should ask. Thank you in advance for your attention. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

User:UltraEdit - I see that neither you nor the unregistered editor have tried to discuss on the article talk page. My advice would be to restore your edits one more time and explain on the article talk page what you are doing and why, and request that the other editor discuss. That is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If the other editor doesn't discuss, my advice then has two parts. First, be careful not to approach 3 reverts in 24 hours and not even get close. Second, if the other editor does not discuss, go to Requests for Page Protection and request semi-protection for a limited period such as one week. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Will do, thank you for your help. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I left a message on the Talk page yesterday and today on the talk page of the person editing from IP address but he/she continues to remove content without any dialogue. At that point I requested Page Protection as you told me and the page is now protected. The version that is now protected is the one after the last edit of the person removing content from an IP address, not the one that was stable since May this year. I can't revert his/her edits because I did it twice in the last 24 hours and I don't want to break the 3RR. What's the process to restore the original version before the IP vandalism occurred? Thanks again for your help. --UltraEdit (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
You've made the appropriate request. Just wait and see. Sometimes in a case like this the page is semi-protected rather than fully protected. At this point, just wait for an administrator to respond to your edit request, or for the page to come out of full protection. If the page comes out of full protection and the IP again stubs the page, if all else fails, you can always use a Request for Comments, but that is a heavyweight process that takes 30 days, so my advice is, next time, very specifically ask for semi-protection in your protection request. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
Sounds good, thank you. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dennis BonnenEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Bonnen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Portal guideline workshopEdit

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong| [chat] || 02:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:DPP v Peter CullenEdit

Hello Robert McClenon, this editor is contributing as part of a class project that I am coordinating (as indicated on their user page). It is not intended as an AfC submission and I would prefer that it stay in the student's sandbox until it is ready to be assessed as part of the course. Is there a way to undo your move? Thanks. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

User:AugusteBlanqui, User:Lawstudent1999 - I have moved the draft back to User:Lawstudent1999/sandbox2. The page had been tagged for AFC review, and when a page is tagged for AFC review, it is normally moved into draft space by the reviewer. In this case, it appears that it wasn't ready for review.
When the work on it is finished, and when it is split into two drafts, they probably should be accepted as articles if, as I understand, they are cases that were decided by a national supreme court. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
User:AugusteBlanqui, User:Lawstudent1999 - I have removed the AFC submission line that says that it should not be removed. It should not be removed while a draft is in the review process, but this draft got into the review process by mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Robert! I am not sure why it was tagged for AFC—I will check that out. I made the sandbox so I may have mistakenly included it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
User:AugusteBlanqui - You didn't accidentally submit it. Looking at the history, I can see that User:Lawstudent1999 submitted it by pushing on a blue button. This may have been a mouse-click error, or they may not have understood what the blue button did. As long it doesn't do the equivalent of blowing up the world, such as erasing all of your user files, or displaying profanity at the WP:Village pump, or whatever, no harm, no foul. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:K-popEdit

Hi, just wanted to let you know I corrected the syntax on the MfD (it was a pesky | in an external link that caused the template not to work properly). It should be fine now. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS). 06:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Nat - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)Edit

Hallo Robert, I'm a bit baffled by what happened to this draft. You rejected it at AfC ("does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, ...") and told the editor that it needed "review by a neutral editor", but surely that's what AfC represents. Comparing the version you commented on with the current version, there's nothing of substance which other editors have considered to be puffery or self-promotion - the changes are very minor and a little light copy-editing. The editor had declared her CoI. How else should she have proceeded? I thought about asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) where the article has been discussed, but decided to come here to ask you in person. PamD 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:PamD - I will try to respond to your points, although it appears that you may not be interested in my reply and are only interested in telling me that I was wrong. First, I did not reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. Second, it is true that I did not give the article a detailed review. I gave it an initial review, and decided that it needed to be reviewed in more detail, with particular attention to the fact that it was an autobiography, and Wikipedia strongly discouraged the submission of autobiographies. This appears to have been one of the exceptions where an autobiography was in reasonable shape. I have seen maybe 3 good autobiographies, and maybe a few thousand bad autobiographies, and I wanted to leave it to someone who was in a more patient mood than I was in a few days ago. How the editor should have proceeded was either as she did, but, even better, by asking someone at the WP:WikiProject Women in Red to write it for her. Third, I am aware that sometimes a project or an edit-a-thon have editors thinking that they, and not AFC, will be making the decisions on what to accept. I don't know if the WMF has in fact said that a WikiProject or an edit-a-thon should override usual policy, and so I simply follow the usual procedures. I know that this probably won't make any difference, and that you already have decided that I was wrong. (If you don't mean to be politely telling me that I was wrong, then maybe either your tone is harsh, or I am still not in a very good mood.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply. Please AGF. I said I was baffled, not that you were wrong. I don't understand the whole AfC process in detail, hence not distinguishing "decline" from "reject", though they probably feel the same to a first-time contributor. I think perhaps there's a problem that a default comment with words like "not written in encyclopedic language" sometimes gets applied when it's not what the reviewer really means - I think I've come across this before. The instruction/suggestion that the article needed a neutral reviewer also seemed weird: what else were you, there at AfC? (OK you were a tired/impatient reviewer: it might have been kinder to newbie editors to stop reviewing sooner, or to pass over, unreviewed, anything not obviously bad and leave it for another reviewer?)
I appreciate that AfC reviewers face a deluge of promotional and/or incompetent rubbish, and I AGF'd that you had actually found something you thought was the matter with this article, but I couldn't see what. I hope that despite this wobble en route to mainspace Elizabeth Rowe will decide to contribute more to the encyclopedia now that she's had a successful go at editing. (If I was "only interested in telling you you were wrong" I'd probably have done so on the WiR talkpage where the article was being discussed, and possibly triggered a chorus of criticism: I chose to ask a question here instead.) PamD 19:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
User:PamD - Please do not use Assume Good Faith as a cudgel to beat me up with further. Let me try to explain my defensiveness, and also to explain a little more. Yes, I do feel that you are now using AGF as a cudgel. (I know that you don't intend to be doing that.) It is very common in Wikipedia for one group of volunteer editors to dump on another group of volunteer editors. It isn't pleasant, and it isn't pretty, but it may be that there is no easy way to avoid it with ordinary human editors. In particular, the AFC reviewers get dumped on frequently, in various ways, especially for not being sufficiently welcoming to new editors. Also, a specific reason why I didn't give the Rowe draft a long neutral review is that I strongly support the Wikipedia autobiography policy, and was not sure that I would be able to give an autobiography a neutral review. So try to consider that I did the best I could, and please don't beat me up with the AGF cudgel of saying that I didn't do enough AGF. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjectsEdit

Hello Robert! Can I ask why did you mention me on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects? --Captain Assassin! «TCG» 12:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Captain Assassin! You are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani roads, and you have received a courtesy notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Water Wall TurbineEdit

Hello, As my first contribution to Wikipedia, I've made an attempt to resolve the remaining comments on the draft for the Draft:Water_Wall_Turbine page. Given that you were the last person to review it, would you mind taking another look? If you still feel that some tonal (or other) issues remain, I'd appreciate some further direction regaring which parts of the page they occur in. Thanks so much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImberAlacritas (talkcontribs) 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

User:ImberAlacritas - I have taken another look at it, and it still looks to me as though it has promotional aspects, but I think that you would be better off to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Also, I see that you haven't yet answered my question about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
User:Robert McClenon - Thanks for taking a look at the changes and the hint for where to get further feedback. I'm not the original contributor, but I do not have a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImberAlacritas (talkcontribs) 06:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin CashEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom noticeEdit

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Loss of books in Late Antiquity (November 18)Edit

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Missvain (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit

 Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Article ReviewEdit

Hello Robert McClenon thanks for the answer and the instructions on how to create the good article. These days I just read through wikipedia about the rules and terms and then I tried to edit the article according to the rules required. You can find the edited article here.Thank you --Arjanhalili (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Brian RosenworcelEdit


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

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! HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/NoticeboardEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Of Pain --- Notes reviewed..Edit

Greetings Robert McClenon! I've looked over your notes regarding the submission requirement(s) and hope with the information below I have fulfilled your request. There haven't been any issues approving Wiki pages for the other bands on the same record label, so not quite sure why this one is being held up, as many of the references are the same. Thank you for your assistance.

Meets the first criteria requirement of Notability (music), as this artist has been the subject of discussion per multiple reliable sources (see: These references include and are not limited to 'The Ithaca Times' (newspaper serving the Ithaca, New York; [1]), 'AWAY FROM LIFE' (print and digital magazine serving Europe; [5]), 'Janky Smooth' (print and digitral magazine servering Los Angeles; [6]) and others. It is important to note that many of the same references used on this page were also used and approved on Wiki pages of bands who are or have been labelmates of World Of Pain (see: and; lambgoat, pitchfork, Idioteq, etc).

In addition, this article meets the fifth criteria requirement of Notability (music), as World Of Pain has released 'two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.' Beatdown Hardwear is a VERY notable record label in Germany, which has produced/established bands such as Lionheart ( who is currently ranked in the top 10 on the German metal charts ( and NASTY ( who is regularly on the biggest metal/hardcore festivals in Europe (see: EMP Persistance, Impericon, Wacken Open Air, etc).

I have sent you a note about a page you startedEdit

Hello, Robert McClenon

Thank you for creating SOCPURP.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Is there a reason you've created this redirect from mainspace, as opposed to having it at WP:SOCPURP?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

signed, Rosguill talk 20:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

User:Rosguill - No. I've moved it to project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration Case OpenedEdit

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/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQLQuery me! 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher PlatformEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Quantenna concernEdit

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

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

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

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

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Holding replyEdit

Hi. thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have no memory of doing this at all, so it is either a complete mistake on my part or conceivably someone has gained access to my ID. I was away from home that day, but I did log on for a while so I will have to check through everything I did and see if there were any other actions I don't recognise. Deb (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Update - Well, I've had another look and I can't understand this at all. I'm wondering whether, because I was using an unfamiliar keyboard, I clicked on something I didn't intend to. There doesn't seem to be enough time between my edits for someone else to have come into the room and done it when I wasn't looking. What do you think I should do to correct the error? Deb (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Deb - Well, since the user who wrote the comment that disappeared seems to think that it may have been deleted because it was too harsh or divisive, and it was sarcastic, but, as I thought, not sarcastic enough to warrant removal, I suggest just leaving it gone. It was in the section for back-and-forth discussion, which I provide just so that the editors can say snarky things that will be ignored, and it is being ignored by being in the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. It seems pointless to stir things up after a couple of days have passed and things have moved on. Deb (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin CashEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Martin FayomiEdit

Hello Robert McClenon, Could you please spare some time to review my draft? An article was deleted while composing the article but right now i am done writing. Could you please check this draft out for an approval? Draft:Martin Fayomi --Goldie19 (talk) 16:09, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

It isn't obvious which of the musical notability criteria you are saying was satisfied, or whether you are submitting based on general notability. Please indicate on the draft talk page what criterion you are citing. I am not saying that he is not notable, or that he is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, Thank you for the honest review, I have included the notability on the talk page for Draft:Martin Fayomi. If further edits (if necessary), they are welcome.--Goldie19 (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

'My' draftEdit

Please let me clarify. I know you just declined "my" draft. The thing was, I just came upon the category "Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now" and saw this draft in someone else's sandbox. I checked the edit history and found out that the "reviewing" template was not posted by an AfC reviewer but that user himself. I realized that the user must have meant to put the "Waiting for review" template instead. So, not aware that a draft called Draft:Li Zhaoping already existed, I changed it and, simultaneously made several minor changes to help the draft. By the way, I wasn't even the one who submitted the original draft. So can you please transfer the message at my talk page to the user in question, User:Davidypan and tell him about it? Thanks for your understanding. 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 09:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

數神 - User:Davidypan has already been notified in their talk page that I have left comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Robert McClenon".