Open main menu

Contents

Romeo ManciniEdit

Hi Robert,

Could you have a look at my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romeo_Mancini and tell me if there are enough notes now and if I have taken out the terms that looked not neutral enough? Thank you for your help. Anna Lisa --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

JL WOODEdit

Hi, I added a lot of citations, especially book citations which I hope help keep the page alive. I was hoping that you would take a look and see how it's shaping up and if you think that I should resubmit it. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J_Luke_Wood Normanbockwell (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, notability should be established by so-called independent reliable sources, which means reliable sources not associated with the subject. Nearly all of the references are to books or papers by Wood. Only two of them are independent of him, and only one addresses his work in detail. Please read our policies on notability and reliable sources. Also, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. If you resubmit the draft as it is, I will decline it as showing no material improvement, and will explain to you again that your sources need to be independent of the subject. That is, tell what others have written about him, not what he has written. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad I asked before submitting. So, should I keep the books and citations but add the independent sources, or should i delete the books altogether? I'll also jump on teahouse.Normanbockwell (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest adding the independent sources, and moving the books to a Books section of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I have added the "Citation needed" indicated by Cullen. My difficulty is that there is only catalogue written by the artist, so I got almost all the info from there. I have gone to the teahouse, but the advice was only to tide the notes up avoiding to repeat the same source all the time and putting a code. But I am using the visual form, easier for me and really I do not understand what kind of damage, repeating the source, can do. I understand your complain about adding the bibliography, which I hope is now fine. About the language....here I have problems to solve it to be sincere. I hope as for the notes that Cullen indicated me where were needed,can be indicated where the problem is still present. There is a bit of explanation of paintings, but I never said this is fantastic, just described it. Anyway thank you very very much for saying that the artist is notable, I am really happy about it, because the only reason I want to put wikipedia in English, is that I want him to be known abroad as well. Kind regards, Anna Lisa Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wanted to say a catalogue written about the artist!Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

22:50:15, 31 March 2016 review of submission by Uchu RRFisherEdit


I applied to th AIAA for consideration for an advisory committee position, and without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia, Exact ontemproaries, Edward Weiler, Chris Scolese, James Green, - all of the same department and serving the same agency are listed with basic bactual information. Using these examples I have tried to create a parallel bio free from value adjetives contining only verifiable information concerning period of intense and notable developmdnt for the NASA scientifc research program. I was completely unaware of the policy concerning autobiography - so I stuck to the facts only. I would like to be identifable and factually documented, but do not participate, out of preference, in various forrms of social media. If I have made an error of procedure that disqualifies the addition of my bio, perhaps you could help me make appropriate changes to th ms to make it more acceptable.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, Uchu RRFisher (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. If your draft biography is an autobiography, some of them may be able to help neutralize it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

05:55:51, 1 April 2016 review of submission by SnowyplayerEdit


The reference errors have been fixed. (Snowyplayer (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Ooty article-request your early mediation and dispute resolutionEdit

Hi User:Robert McClenon, Please resolve the dispute regarding Ooty article on DRN at the earliest. Being a challenger of un-sourced, biased content, I can not keep debating continuously and endlessly. Regards,--NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

14:33:32, 3 April 2016 review of submission by Pk1416Edit


Dar Robert, thanks for reviewing my post. Your comments are great to help me improve my post. Could you kindly elaborate on what to do. How to format the references? Why footnotes, which header? This is my first wikipedia entry and I am clearly struggling but eager to learn and approve. So I'd really appreciate you taking the time to eplain in more detail what needs to be changes in order to get approved. thanks and have a good sunday

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)Edit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

BAAITSEdit

Hi Robert, you recently commented on my BAAITS article that I need to add more reliable sources. I have two on there, so I understand that's a low number. I'm wondering what your opinion on the two that I already have is thought? What I mean is: do you think that the ones I do have are reliable? I think they are good, but I just want to make sure that going out and getting similar sources is a good way to proceed from here? Thank you! Stayhomegal (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How I got it all wrongEdit

This statement should be made to the ArbCom, not to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your comments at ANI and ArbCom. Despite the tone, I still found your comments useful and helpful. However, I have come to explain to you how I got it all this wrong. Firstly, the problem with me about contents creation is that I'm always too impatient to read through the contents and sources before inclusion. Meanwhile I often create a lots of articles. I think I'm just too overzealous! I sometimes mistakenly add the correct source to a different statement. This is what I mean, sometimes, I unintentionally add a source for "statement A" to that of "statement B" and the source for "Statement B" to that of "statement A" due to impatience, making the sources and the contents to appear fake or OR. Secondly, the sockpuppetry is another concerning issue. Honestly, the very first time I joined Wikipedia, I thought it's a social media of some sort where I can put my shameless biography. My first account was blocked and I reopened another account and that was also blocked. I thought the best way to address the reason why the article was deleted is to create another accounts with some unrealistic claim of significance. That was also blocked. I'm not aware of block invasion otherwise I would have follow due process. So, I went to declare my new account to User:RHaworth who permit me to continue editing but not to write about myself. I started writing about notable Nigeria-related topics and at the same time reading the basic policies and guidelines which seemed difficult to understand at that time. This difficulty to understand policy led to the first ANI in 2014. The allegation includes incivility and copyvio. I pleaded and I was not blocked. Since then, I never repeat any of these behavior. Also, I never thought a claim of ACADEMIC will give an impression of dishonesty. I only felt its an informal claim and that is what I take it to be. In fact, I'm not even aware of WP:HONESTY and WP:EXPERT. All of these with the recent recreation of my shameless autobiography amount to a gross misconduct which is enough for an indef block or ban. This I know! The mobbing by the community is simply because they are unhappy with the entire issues. This caused many of them to lose confidence in me as a result. I know the community has brought out my worst contributions and I'm 100% ready to fix the rest under the mentorship of User:Cullen328 and user:Irondome and anyone willing to help. Above all, I need to be rehabilitated. Please I need help, in any capacity you can help. Wikigyt@lk to M£ 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

15:25:48, 7 April 2016 review of submission by DantunkuranEdit



Hello Mclenom. How do you request for the deletion of the other page?. Thank you

Katie Rodan at WP:RMTREdit

Hello Robert. The style of this article is promotional, though the person seems notable. If you are familiar with AfC, why not do whatever fixup you think is appropriate and then approve it in the AfC way? I am unsure if RMTR is supposed to bypass AfC, though I know little about the mechanics. I declined the move just so the status is clear, but will restore it if you are sure this is an OK procedure. The product article at Proactiv looks legit and some experienced editors have worked on it. Maybe one of them would be willing to help. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with AFC. I reviewed the draft via AFC. It appears that you and I had different opinions. I was not trying to bypass AFC, but I cannot accept an article via AFC without a technical move if its title already exists as a redirect. I will review the article again as to tone and will provide feedback to the author. (Notability is established.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the redirect and moved the article to Katie Rodan. It still has some AfC headers on it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It no longer has AFC headers. If any editor editor has issues with it such as a promotional tone, they can either tag it or revise it. (There shouldn't be any notability issues. We can agree that the subject is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:32:40, 8 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sarovaram11Edit


Hi Robert! This is with reference to my article The Label Life, that was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox). I'm attempting to edit it and I wanted to clarify the reasons for rejection so I know I'm on the right track while making the changes. 1) The language - needs to be more neutral and objective (does this mean not using phrases like 'celebrity stylists' and so on) 2) Sources - I've tried to restrict them to articles from magazines and newspapers (Indiatoday, vogue and open, the magazine - among others) could you guide me on what other sources I should be looking for?

Apologies if these questions sound silly, it's my first time and I thought it was ready as I put it on the New Contributor's Help chat before submitting for review. But I clearly missed a lot, anyway, it's all a process right?

Thanks very much

Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try to answer and to get help from other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Hope you are well, would you be able to take a look at my submission again and see if there are any notes you can give me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox Could you also please guide me as to where to put the title? It will be TheLabelLife.com as thats what they are called.

Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarovaram11 (talkcontribs) 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology 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/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Hello Mccleone. I am confident with people like you Wikipedia would be more reliable. This is your 2nd rejection of my page. i have tried again. Please check Dantunkuran (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:06:08, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by DantunkuranEdit


Hello Robert. Another editor informed that the other black draft with the name Abdulbaqi Jari has been deleted. You may take a look at the page i am creating now.

Thank you

Dantunkuran (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requestedEdit

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:14:56, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by BiolprofEdit


First, thank you for you amazingly quick response to my submission of UNC13A as an article for creation. I am a WP Teaching Fellow/University Professor and have a student that would like to expand this article, but I don't want her to be held up by the AfC process. I can have her work further on this stub, but my understanding is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology has a project to create a stub for every human gene/protein with the expectation that the stubs will be fleshed out as our knowledge improves. The style guide for these articles is found here. The content of the article I submitted was automatically generated by the GeneWikiGenerator following WP style guidelines. I thought I should be able to automatically send it to WP from the Biogps site, but since I could not, I submitted it as an AfC. Many similar stub articles with just one or two references have been created, some generated by a bot. (For example: ALDH16A1). My response to your specific comments:

  • my understanding is that WP:MCB has determined that every human gene is notable. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the related genes UNC13B and UNC13D each have a page and neither was created with much more information.
  • The broken link to the reference has now been repaired. Apologies that I missed this.
  • Entrez Gene is a definitive reference for all human genes and is cited following the first sentence of all gene/protein articles that I am familiar with.
  • "(C. elegans)" is included as part of the name for the human protein in Entrez Gene/NCBI web site and was included in the WikiGeneGenerator text, but it is not included in the WP pages for the UNC13B and UNC13D homologs, so I have deleted that.

One additional comment: if you still think this article should not be approved, would you consider asking someone from the WP:MCB for a second opinion. Thank you for your consideration. Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

10:18:41, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Longfamily417Edit



Thank you for your recent feedback.

I have modified the first line so that it is not self referencing. I also removed the reference to the Ottawa Citizen circulation size.

Regarding the performance analysis section, what do I do to put it in paragraph format?

Regarding your rejection, what other writing recommendations would you make for it to be acceptable? Perhaps I simply cannot write this kind of article myself? I would have thought the published research would have stood on its own since it was independently reviewed and went through a peer reviewed process.

Interested in your advice.

thanks,

David

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Writer's Barnstar
Hello Robert.

Please guide me so that i can finish creating the article i am currently creating. Please point the errors so that i can know where to specifically correct. The Wiki Nigeria project has only 53 people, which mostly have not been around for some time.

  I intend to create many articles to help enrich searches from Nigeria. This is my first one, i will definitely improve after succeeding on this one.

Thank you Dantunkuran (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

ImpostorEdit

Hi,

I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that the impersonator spelled their user ID differently than you do, and was blocked as an impersonator, and is probably a sock-puppet for a banned user, and was probably trying to fool me into supporting them in some controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm just hoping that people don't mistake me for him, or think he's a sockpuppet of me or vice versa. He forged my signature and copied my user and talk pages. Adam9007 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The admins know which of you is which. Don't worry. They blocked him, not you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

MailEdit

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Closed disputeEdit

Hello, Can you please explain what you mean by "the filing party has not listed any of the other parties"? Thanks 24.197.253.43 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your help. I think that you know that I am beginner in Wikipedia and I didn't read those policies that you explained. I will draw attention to them in the future. Good luck! Temuujina (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Hello Robert

No body responds to you call for advice in Tea House, guess they too are dormant like Wiki Nigeria project. Anyway, i thank you for your help. Is here i leave it. I want to write in Hausa also. Lets see if i will improve my English in the next 5 year. I want to delete the article for now. Dantunkuran (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

User:Dantunkuran - Please don't delete the article without keeping its information somewhere. The Hausa Wikipedia would be a place to keep it. If you expect to improve it in the English draft within six months, please keep it in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choiceEdit

How to switch between editing environments
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I Don't know what I'm doingEdit

I filed a Edit warring thing a day ago or so and it looks like they are going to skip me. I am going to make it simple, I am not a regular user on Wikipedia, I don't get the whole fight system thing here. But I asked for help many times now about the same issue and I am getting the shaft from the whole lot. This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Look at my edit history, do I look like I would know the whole system? Please just get someone to address this matter on the Laura Branigan article. 07:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilmanozzy (talkcontribs)

Since you are an inexperienced user who is trying to edit a contentious article, I will be asking for help at the Teahouse, which provides advice primarily to new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Devilmanozzy: I saw a link to this on AN3 so I thought I'd comment: the reason they're going to ignore your report is that I did not violate WP:3RR, as you claimed. So the report is totally frivolous, just like your previous report against me at ANI. Cheers Thomas.W talk 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: It's not an inexperienced user, but someone I've had run-ins with multiple times over several years, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Thomas.W_reported_by_User:Devilmanozzy. Thomas.W talk 16:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Devilmanozzy - This is beyond taking this to the Teahouse. Cancelling the plan to go there. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Thomas.W - First, as to the RFC, either request closure review or agree that there is consensus that her birth date was 1952. Second, either file the sockpuppet investigation or stop claiming sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Both of you - Stop edit-warring, even in slow motion, about her place of birth. Stop the edit-warring about removal of sections. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. The best approach at this point would be formal mediation if you are willing to try that. In any case, stop editing her date of birth. Either accept 1952, or request that the RFC be re-opened.l Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll callEdit

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cristian CarraraEdit

Hi, thank you for your indication about youtube video. Today I added other references. Ciao Icedevis (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing the article I submitted so quickly. Really impressive turnaround. Sethgodin (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Sackner Bernstein bio updatedEdit

As suggested, I updated the first paragraph of the article (peacock language) and feel like the whole thing reads okay. Submitted via articles for creation, but thought I'd come back to you.

To save time, the notability thing: NY Times writes, "The controversy over Natrecor follows two recently published studies by Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, a heart failure specialist at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. The analyses, based on patient studies submitted to the F.D.A., linked the drug to worsened kidney function and hastened death."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/business/the-marketing-and-success-of-natrecor.html?_r=0

Bio in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonathan_Sackner_Bernstein

Apologies for being so so bad about formatting the talk page stuff in the wikipedia style. It's definitely an acquired skill.

Thanks Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talkcontribs) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have resubmitted it, I will let another reviewer review it this time. By the way, within Wikipedia, we prefer that editors use internal wikilinks to articles rather than external URLs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I appreciate the response. PS It sure seems as though the computer ought to be smart enough to resolve external links into internal ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talkcontribs) 17:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

When you refer to the computer, do you mean the web browser, or Wikipedia itself? The web browser knows nothing of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editor receives a lot of URLs and doesn't try to parse them. You might make that suggestion at the Village Pump (idea lab). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

18:14:07, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Avery.bristerEdit

nameEdit

Fix name in search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Theo (talkcontribs) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of ArticleEdit

Sir,Can you help me clean up the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer and also look at the dead link references.In my opinion,the personal does not meet notability guidelines and request you to nominate the article for deletion.Thank You (Intelbot22 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

Thanks!Edit

  Article Help
Thank you for your kind words on my user page! If you are not doing anything very significant right now, can you help me improve my article? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

01:25:15, 16 April 2016 review of submission by MartamagrietEdit



{{Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some of the updates (wikilinks/see also comments), however, I would like to change the article name to Andres Saavedra (producer). I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to do that before I resubmit the article for review. Could you guide me in the right direction? Thank you very much. }} :It appears that your draft, if not ready for acceptance, is almost ready for acceptance. However, when it is accepted, it should be accepted at Andres Saavedra, because he is the only person with that name. The article won't need disambiguation, either in the article title or in the infobox. (The current draft is only a draft and can be ignored if your sandbox copy meets acceptance standards, and it appears that it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that, in the short run, he does need disambiguating. I will ask for advice at the Teahouse about the intermediate run. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

HelloEdit

Hello. First, thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some change in the references, but I am still unsure how to interpret your comment : Some of the references do not appear to be applicable to this person at all, while some of them are applicable. Please review the references and see which of them are applicable.

Is it because I have linked the website pages of his former doctoral students? I can remove them if you wish. Thanks.

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

If so, why did you link the pages of his former doctoral students? They didn't relate to anything said in the text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


It's removed, can you review my article again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceTestifier (talkcontribs) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) IceTestifier (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

13:46:36, 17 April 2016 review of submission by AngiedumaEdit


Dear Robert McClenon, thank for reviewing the submitted article on Design for All. I perfectly understand your point of view. There are three existing articles which treat DfA on the English Wikipedia. Please let me explain you, why I decided to submit a further one and suggest a solution. The most relevant and scientifically updated article on Design for All is actually incorporated in the article about Universal Design. This gives the idea, that DfA is a subcategory of Universal Design, which is not the case. DfA and UD are two distinct approaches treating a common argument, but born in different parts of the world. The DfA-approach has it's roots in the European culture, UD is more known in the US and Japan. My suggestion would be to create two distinct articles: one on Universal Design and one on DfA. The latter updated by my information. The other two articles treating DfA (ICT and product line) could be incorporated and/or cut. Product line is quite promotional and ICT is not updated. What do you think about it? Grateful for your assistance I thank you in advance

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Original Barnstar
You're Awesome! ShantoShahriar (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Help DeskEdit

You added archivetop/archivebottom tags around a discussion on the help desk. Later the archivebottom was removed, leaving everything from the April 17 section header onwards archived.

I have now removed the archivetop, to make the Desk usable again. Maybe I should instead have tried to restore the archivebottom to where it was meant to be - but I am reluctant to tinker with things that I don't fully understand. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I know

. Right after I saved it, I saw the problem, and tried to fix, but you had already fixed. At least, it looked fine to me after your fix. Oops. Thank youj. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification ProgressEdit

Relating to "Great Western Main Line Electrification Progress" new page submission.

McClenon said (to paraphrase) "expand the page to include an introduction and some references", so I did so. the Joseph2302 said "this should not be a separate page, add it to the main one", which means the introduction and references I have added at the suggestion of the McClenon would be redundant, since the main page already has them.

I'm quite confused, and feel like I have wasted my time, so I am becoming reluctant to commit any more effort to this. I can't see how I can take both of your comments into account, so should I just assume that the latest comment is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.Bristol (talkcontribs) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the Teahouse, your talk page (don't scatter it between ours), or the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the other article. My comment was largely in response to yours being mostly just a table. I had been thinking that a main article was needed. I see the main article, and I agree that your contribution appears to be meant to be a table in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding "edit" tab/feature to edit articlesEdit

Hi Robert,

I notice I am unable to edit entries and AfC submissions using the Edit tab. This seems to have happened just four days ago --- before that, there appeared an "edit" tab at the top right side of my screen, to make edits easy. Now it is gone! Instead, I only see an "Edit source" tab, which I can use to make edits but is much more cumbersome and difficult than using the easy editor "Edit" tab feature. [ver encountered this problem when editing? If so, any advice/suggestions on what to do?

Cheers, ChopSticksChan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you want to use a feature known as the Visual Editor, as opposed to using the wiki markup editor. Please ask at the Teahouse how to turn the Visual Editor back on. I can't answer you because I don't use the Visual Editor; I use the wiki markup editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

09:28:57, 19 April 2016 review of submission by 195.195.81.208Edit


Hello Robert, thank-you for taking the time to review my wikipedia article. I have used your advice as the basis for re-writing the article. I hope it will now meet community standards. After further research I have expanded the number of independent, reliable sources as you suggested. I am still to provide the ISBN number and page references for reference #3 because the book is currently on loan from my college library. However I have reserved it on Thursday when it is due back. Best wishes from London, Ali

195.195.81.208 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

George G. Receli articleEdit

Dear Robert, Thank for for reviewing the article and also for your suggestions about how to substantiate the information regarding the awards. George is currently on tour with Dylan in Japan. I am in contact with him and he will be sending me links from reliable sources, which I will add as external links. We appreciate your helping us comply with community standards. WikiWhip (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip


Robert, George is an old friend and neighbor. I am not his employee, nor have I ever received any money from him. I am simply collaborating with him in an effort to get his Wikipedia page on line. WikiWhip (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip

He may not be paying you, but please read the conflict of interest policy anyway. Trying to help a neighbor and friend to get his page on-line is not an obvious violation of the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that many Wikipedians, including me, will think that it is a less obvious violation. If you don't want his draft flagged as having a conflict of interest, you can ask at the conflict of interest noticeboard, or I can ask, but I think that you do have a conflict of interest, and he definitely does, and you admit to be working with him, even if not for him. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I now understand the conflict of interest issue. Can you please help us overcome this obstacle? WikiWhip (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip

My advice at this point is to go to the Teahouse and ask for neutral advice for a COI editor. You can't change the fact that the draft is now tagged as written partly by a COI editor. What you can request is their help in reworking a draft about someone who is almost certainly notable (that is, he will be notable when the Grammies are probably documented) to make it neutral. Some editors at the Teahouse are very friendly to new editors who came here not being aware of our strict COI policy who are trying to get an article on someone who probably is entitled to an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gianni Piacentino pageEdit

Hello Robert, I'm new to wikipedia so please excuse me if I'm going about this incorrectly. You reviewed my recent submission, a page on artist Gianni Piacentino, and declined my submission because of an existing pending review. The existing page, Draft:Gianni Piacentino, was declined on 23 May 2015. As this previous page was declined, I'm not sure if I should/can make edits to it. Would it be best to resubmit my page or make edits to this existing declined draft and resubmit that? Hribbens (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Make your changes to the existing draft. If you resubmit your sandbox page, it will be declined again because there is already a draft in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David JollyEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Jolly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

CommentEdit

Jeff Cavins

 
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.

Robert, thank you so much for your looking into the questions about my article for Jeff Cavins, which I found out through you had overwritten a seemingly stagnant draft. As I mentioned on the draft page, this was due to my error. However, on the original merits of my question, would you be able to review my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Cavins or submit it to be reviewed?

Submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I put it throughEdit

Hi Robert, just a heads up that I tweaked and then created Rangeland Management in mainspace. The article still needs some work, but there is actually a huge need for this article, as nothing else there covers precisely the same thing. Western land management and arid land management is a unique field and a topic of tremendous importance to livestock producers in many arid ecosystems with fragile land. Anyway, as you were reviewing the draft, I figured that I should give you a heads up that I was bold and moved it. I dn't get over to AfC very much, but if you run across another agriculture article that needs a review, feel free to ping me any time. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

13:55:34, 24 April 2016 review of submission by LittletpotEdit


Hi. I edited the page to include the links you suggested. I don't really know what you mean by pointing to the red links on the DC Library page so I can't really address that. For what it's worth, the two other D.C. Carnegie libraries Mt. Pleasant and Takoma have articles. Also, my understanding from reading federal and local regs is that a property located in a historic district, does in fact have historic status. Locally, property, even private property, within a historic district cannot be altered without a permit, and alterations must adhere to design and construction standards approved by a preservation board. On the federal level, owners of property in a historic district listed in the national register like Capitol Hill are eligible for special tax breaks and grants unavailable to property not in a historic district. This is all indicative of buildings within a district being considered historic. Specifically in the case here where the building is 94, designed by a notable architect, and part of a larger movement that itself is notable, adds to the weight of it's historic nature. But you are correct. The building in and of itself is not a legally a "Landmark." I've changed the heading to "Location." Littletpot (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

NAC: Please discuss the article at User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold , Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Appreciate your help in creation of "Spacetime Topology". You have made me a great confidence in wikipedia. I will contribute more of my knowledge for wikipedia.org. If there is anything I can offer as a volunteer, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtumanity (talkcontribs) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Spacetime TopologyEdit

Hi Robert, I notice you accepted the creation of Spacetime Topology by user Virtumanity (talk · contribs). Please note that we already have an article Spacetime topology, that this user tried to replace with his content, full of original research, errors (the opening line of the lead is just nonsense already), unreliable sources (e.g. self-published [1]) and primary sources, all for which I warned the user [2]. After that warning, they simply upcased the article title. Can you please undo your approval and/or delete the article? Thanks - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: article db-ed and user notified. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

responseEdit

Hi DVdml, the research was published for more than a year and has been recorganized in the scientific community, for it was invited as the keynote speech at London quantum physics conference in March, and is further invited for the coming speech at American astronomy meeting, and the physics 2016 in June, and much more. Hope you can understand the significance of the contents, although the post is just a very small part of the contents. Please note, the original contents "Spacetime topology" is old and misleading to our generations, should you google on the Internet. Our goal is not for anything personal but helping the community for scientific advancement. You might review my credentials by Google "Wei Xu IPSec". In fact, the post is purely to help our scociety, unlerated to my career at all, because I have a busy position daily at an IT organization. respectfully, Virtumanity (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Astrology? Please have a very careful look at wp:FRINGE. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Astronomy. Thank you for advise. Respectively — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtumanity (talkcontribs) 12:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own research. The part that you added is entirely based on your self-published work ([3]). - DVdm (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Spacetime Topology - SolutionEdit

Hi Robert, The article was originally titled as "Spacetime Manifold". After reviewed by wiae, he suggested to update the contents on "Spacetime topology". Following his instruction, I updated the title to "Spacetime Topology" AND included all of the original contents of "Spacetime topology" in the section 1.2. What I didn't know was the difference between small and capital "T". I apologize for this confusion. I suggest to redirect "Spacetime topology" to "Spacetime Topology", or please advise. respectively. Virtumanity (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: As can be tracked in your edit history, first you updated the article Spacetime topology with your content, which I undid, and warned about on your talk page. Then, you created the new article Spacetime Topology with exactly the same content that was removed. I don't think that this is a matter of not knowing the difference between small and capital "T". It looks like ignoring a warning about original research, and finding yet another way of promoting your work. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I also redirected Spacetime Manifold to spacetime topology. I'm by no means an expert in this area but the discussion of yin and yan fields struck me as possible original research or fringe material. Perhaps I should have been more clear about those Wikipedia policies in my decline of User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold, rather than giving the boilerplate "this subject is already discussed at article x" decline. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: (also pinging Favonian who moved it to user space now) not only is it OR, the description (abstract) of his self-published source https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/id1082259284 (which he uses in the opening statement of the lead) reveals that this is, forgive my French, complete nonsense. And more of similar Yin Yang in his other cited private source https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/theory-of-physical-cosmology/id999166352?mt=11 Checking some of the other sources is telling (e.g. [4]). - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Note, Favonian's userfied User:Virtumanity/Spacetime Topology now moved back to User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold by user RHaworth. - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Robert and DVdm: First, in case there is any lack of clarity, I will point out that I did not write or contribute to the articles in question. I was an AFC reviewer, and evidently made the mistake of not verifying that there was already an article that differed only by capitalization. The article was well-sourced, and I didn't read it in the detail to see that it apparently contained original research and a mixture of science and pseudo-science. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert and DVdm, First of all, I appreciate your time on this. All what your comments as original research are removed completely, though it is trying to help our civilization. The section 1.1 is now enhanced to address "pseudo-science". As you can see, the father of our quantum physics, Niels Bohr, is a YinYang philosopher. From the updated references of [8]-[16], you might see the well-known journals are publishing numerous of the yin yang papers. FYI: by debating with Bohr, Einstein spent rest of his 40 years of Unified Field Theory for nothing, only because of his ignorance of yin yang philosophy. After a century, our challenge is even greater than that of the trial of Galileo Galilei. Not only do we ignore both a profound philosophy of science and the existence of Unified Theory for All Physics, but we have also failed at a time when “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” stated by Stephen Hawking. Our challenge is to soften our metaphysical prejudices, for the assumption that there is no metaphysical reality is also a metaphysics itself. Our challenge is to open up our minds to facts hidden in the fabric of daily life. Everywhere our world shines with a beautiful nature of yin yang duality. Finally, I sincerely thank you for spending time on this, although my thoughts to become a WiKi volunteer is hopeless. Hope you can maintain WiKi healthier if not better. Sincerely and respectfully. Virtumanity (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting at the bottom, I see the following unreliable sources: [5], [6], [7]. I'll stop here. - DVdm (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Removed, since the original reference to Wikipedia is more than enough. I am happy to follow your instruction for revision before the posting. Honestly speaking, the current "Spacetime topology" is really mis-leading. It is better not be there, or replaced by this post at least for some benefits. I like Robert statement "I had originally intended to contribute a few articles on subjects of which I have knowledge. However, it seems that much of my time is being spent in responding to disputes and problematical editors. We have problematical editors on Wikipedia because editors are human and humans are problematical." except this time I am a problematical contributor. Thank you again for educating me with my first post. I have learned lots from you all. Forgive me if I have done anything improperly. Best wishes.

Virtumanity (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)


The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 00:14:21, 26 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by KildowgutEdit


Thank you for your feedback. I understand why you rejected the article. I will not be revising it. Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

01:39:54, 26 April 2016 review of submission by LithiumsrilankaEdit



Hi Robert, I submitted an article with the title Prime Lands Group. Can you please give me some pointers to clean it up. Like remove some links or a specific paragraph that violates the G11, Thanks in advance.

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:31:56, 27 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by FaithmarksEdit


Hello! Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback about this article. I understand the reasons you declined its creation. I have removed the company's website from the references and added a few more. Now they are all from independent sources - newspapers, industry media, official studies etc. There are no directory listings among the references, only the certified partner lists of notable third-party providers. Some of the references are in Bulgarian language as they come from Bulgarian newspapers that do not offer English versions - I added a note to each of them. Will this be a sufficient improvement to resubmit the article? I kindly ask for your opinion and advice if there is something more to be done.

Thanks a lot in advance! Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:08:34, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by GraememcgEdit


Thank you for the feedback on my submission for CORGI HomePlan. I would like to understand a bit more about what was meant by my references being inconsistent. Does this refer to anything in particular? What could improve the consistency of the references? Also, the references were referred to as duplicated. Again, are you able to provide specific examples of what you mean to help me refine this entry to the standard required?

Graememcg (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requestedEdit

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 May 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:52:02, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 128.114.234.139Edit


check on edits for resubmit Robert McCleon, Thank you for your prompt consideration of the submission Draft:Russell L. De Valois. I believe I understood the issues you raised and hope that I have adequately addressed them in the resubmission. I will be alert to further processing of the submission. 128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-useful statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Personal attacks?Edit

I made no personal attacks to any editor, so please do not make false accusations toward me. Thank you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

04:54:21, 30 April 2016 review of submission by DimigazaEdit


Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page?

Kind regards, Dimitri

04:56:36, 30 April 2016 review of submission by DimigazaEdit


Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dimigaza/sandbox&action=edit

Kind regards, Dimitri

Maybe I don't understand what you were trying to do. Were you trying to create a Wikipedia article? What would the subject of the article have been? Were you trying to use Wikipedia as the web host for a memorial for the Dutch Resistance? If so, what policy did you read that said that this was an appropriate use? Did you read WP:NOTWEBHOST? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejectedEdit

The request for formal mediation concerning Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

  The Articles for Creation barnstar
Thank you for reviewing the articles I created! Jaldous1 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 00:21:11, 2 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Scottmacgregor123Edit


Hi Mr. McClenon,

I appreciate the quick review time. You declined my RONALD J. ROSS article today 5/1/16. You found an old submission of mine (via my subject's sandbox and we were led to believe that it had been deleted due to our inaction. Should we just go back to that article and re-edit it? Thank you. smacgregor123


Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Scholarship OwlEdit

Hi Robert,

Hope you're well. You declined my article on ScholarshipOwl saying there was a draft under review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ScholarshipOwl. I looked at it and saw it was actually declined for not having been written according to the guidelines. So I rewrote the article of THAT user. Does it make sense? What do I do now? It's been over a week and the other article didn't get any comments. I feel like the reviewers won't review it because it wasn't the original editor who edited that item? Please help shed some light on this issue. Thanks for your help! - Yael Usseryroad (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it for review. Do you want me to submit it as per your request? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert! Yes, please, submit. I looked and I couldn't see how I submit it. Could you also let me know where to look for next time? Really appreciate it! Usseryroad (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


It's Robert again...Edit

NAC:Please take this discussion to an article talk page, a noticeboard, or your own talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Robert. Could you take a look at Talk:Four Noble Truths? Robert Walker is running around again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've posted my comments at Talk:Four Noble Truths. Either the draft RFC should be formalized, or it should be closed. I can't help about any question about truth, because Christianity has an entirely different concept of truth than Buddhism does, although similar teachings on ethics. We can walk together toward differing hoped-for destinations, but as long as we are at peace about the journey, let us not talk about where the journey is going. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
At this point, the only advice I have on the walls of text is to ignore them, and to focus on either formalizing the RFC or closing the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I really love your abstention on "different truths." And I agree about ignoring the walls of texts; I'd reached that point this morning. Thanks, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert - as a matter of information on wikipedia procedure since I'm not as familiar with this as the other editors - is @Joshua Jonathan: right to say that I can't open an RfC on "redeath" for as long as the RfC on WP:RS is open? Note that we were in the middle of discussing the possibility of a future RfC on "redeath" when they opened the RfC on WP:RS in case that makes any difference, and had not discussed the idea of an RfC on WP:RS. It seems that potentially if he is right that it is impossible to open the new RfC for up to 30 days depending on when they close the current RfC. He also seems to be saying that because it is a more broadly stated RfC then any conclusion overrides any RfC on particulars in the debate - that can't be right can it? His comment is here: [8] Robert Walker (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
First, you are confusing me by referring to an RFC on WP:RS. That refers to the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, which is a binding policy. I don't see anyone who wants to change that policy. I do see an RFC about the lede to Four Noble Truths, and it does involve reliable sources. Second, if anyone is saying that one RFC locks out further RFCs, that isn't the way RFCs work. You can open another RFC. They run concurrently. It would be a good idea to write your RFC very carefully so that it is consistent with the existing RFC and doesn't conflict with it. I do take strong issue with your comment that the current RFC is invalid or isn't closeable, but maybe you think, or were told, that only one RFC can run at a time, so that filing an RFC is a race. There can be multiple RFCs. It is just that it is important to be careful with them. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, that was shorthand. I meant the RfC on Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#RfC:_Scholarly_sources_or_Introductory_texts.3F where the RfC is about whether it is okay to use material in WP:RS beyond introductory texts in the article. I don't know why it is even a question, it seems like a tautology, but that is how the RfC is stated. I did not word the RfC. I don't think the RfC would conflict with the existing one except that the existing one adds "– such as about rebirth, redeath" as examples of material that can be found in WP:RS. It is Joshua Jonathan who says it conflicts. I don't understand your next comment as I didn't mean to say that the existing one is invalid or uncloseable. Sorry for the clumsy phrasing if it somehow conveyed that. Glad to hear it is possible to have multiple RfCs at once. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course you can open a next RfC, but personally I consider it to be bad practice to ignore an ongoing RfC and open a next one. It looks like saying, "I don't care about your opinions, I want it my way." Regarding "more broadly stated RfC": you misunderstood. It's not about the way the current RfC is stated; it's baout local RfC's versus core Wiki-policies. What I said is that you can open a RfC on the use of the word "redeath," but such an RfC can't override the policies on WP:RS. That is, the use of the word "redeath" is based on reliable sources; a local RfC can't just decide to ignore those reliable sources. That goes against core Wiki-policies. So, you'll have to come up with convincing arguments to skip the word "redeath," when it's being used by both Paul Williams and Buswell & Lopez to characterize "samsara." Read that again: it's being used by both Paul Williams and Buswell & Lopez. That makes it based on pretty good reliable sources. (My apologies Robert M. for using yopur talkpage). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Things seem to have gotten to the point where there are multiple issues and multiple views of what the issues are. In this particular case, formal mediation might be a good idea, but that would require first that the poster of the RFC agree to withdraw it in favor of mediation, because an RFC outranks mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The only reason why I am agreeing to give advice on this talk page (and I am not a Buddhist and do not want to get into Buddhist theological issues) is that one of the parties makes it difficult to use article talk pages by walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

───────────────────────── @Robert McClenon: - I'm only asking about wikipedia protocol here. In the case of this article there are multiple issues certainly. But considering the discussions so far on that page, I just don't see how all those issues could be resolved in one go. Hence the idea to tackle just one small issue at a time. And starting with a very small but significant issue, only one word in the article. I've seen that often RfCs do focus down to a single word so it seems like something that could be done. If this worked then it would mean it's possible to do something about the rest of the issues, slowly and patiently, one issue at a time, to reach some resolution. So that's the idea, hope this makes more sense. Of course I wouldn't for a moment expect you to play any role in the discussion of the actual issues on the page :). Joshua Jonathan could present his arguments for using the term in the article, and particularly in the statement of the four noble truths, in his section of the RfC and we could see what the larger community of editors in the Buddhism project here think about his arguments. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't read a question about Wikipedia protocol here. Maybe I have missed something, but I think that we are in agreement as to reliable source policy and Requests for Comments policy. If there really is a question about the policies, please ask it concisely (and, if you aren't capable of asking concisely, don't ask it at all). However, there has been an RFC, and the editor who is asking the question objects to the RFC, saying it is too general, or something like that. If so, it doesn't preclude concurrently running RFCs. So, if you think that another well-formed RFC can be published, publish it and let it run for 30 days. Don't use walls of text in the RFC, or (unlike Sarah's RFC), it really will be uncloseable, and therefore not worth opening. Either that, or get agreement to use formal mediation rather than RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, will do. It will be a short concise RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Here it is, as short as I can make it: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#RfC_on_use_of_the_word_.22redeath.22_in_the_article_and_lede_for_Four_Noble_Truths
The RfC was going well, interesting civilized discussion, votes both ways, but soon after I got the second Oppose vote, @Joshua Jonathan: took me to ANI proposing a topic ban of me from the article. Without warning me that he had this in mind.
I am reconsidering this plan to try to do one small RfC at a time. In principle it seems a good approach, but perhaps I am not the one to do it.
And I don't want to try mediation. I don't have a lot of time for wikipedia at present, less than before and need to focus on other things, and from last time I know how much time this sort of thing can take up.
Thanks for your help on wikipedia protocol. If I am not topic banned I might try another similar very small RfC a month or two from now. I am interested in how the current RfC goes. But perhaps there's not much point in attempting an RfC if it just ends up with other editors wanting to ban me from the page. Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: I didn't propose a topic-ban because John Carter argued against the use of the word "redeath"; he's a solid editor, and he got valid arguments, and if we decide to leave that word out, fine. I proposed a topic-ban because you're driving me nuts with your walls of text, your lack of basic knowledge of Buddhism, and your non-comprehension of a long list of sources I've provided. It simply doesn't work. Except for one point: your complaints made it very clear that the importance of the four truths in the Theravada-tradition is a later development; they are seen as constituting the "liberating insight" that the developing Buddhist tradition needed to match up with other Indian traditions, which is at odds with the message of the four truths themselves - exactly the point you want to keep out of the article. The link you're seeing between one editor arguing against the use of the word "redeath" and me proposing a topic-ban for you, illustrates how you misunderstand basic realities, which makes your ways of thinking so distracting in this whole process. I don't doubt your sincere intentions, but it doesn't contribute to Wikipedia; it distracts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to keep any viewpoint out of the article. It's you who are doing that, excluding the views of Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, Harvey etc who all say that most of the Pali Canon derives from a single author, with Harvey summarizing it as "While parts of the Pali Canon clearly originated after the time of the Buddha, much must derive from his teaching.". Your reasons for leaving out the views of these prominent Buddhist scholars at the opposite end of the spectrum from Anderson (who is a minor scholar in Buddhist circles, only three cites for her book) seem WP:OR to me and would be the subject of another RfC if I get the chance.
The idea of the RfC on redeath was to focus down to a single tiny issue, so we could do this one at a time, and it is you who keep bringing in other issues into the debate. If you can help me to focus the discussion on each single point at a time, it would be a great help.
If you think I have nothing to say, it's easy, just ignore me after making your point briefly. If everyone did that, that would be the end of it. And you don't seem to have any problem at all reading and understanding my posts, replying with long posts yourself. I encourage you to write long posts so I can understand your views better. The idea of this very focused RfC was to focus on just one issue at a time, so I don't want to be distracted into discussing all the other particular issues in the list of suggested future RfCs right now.
Except just to say they are matters that surely can't just be dismissed by saying that it's a controversy over WP:RS. It's not, from my side. The only matter to do with WP:RS mentioned in the topic ban discussion is that I used the statement of the four noble truths on the buddhanet website, website of the boddhitree Therevadhan monastery, as one example of many to illustrate how the four noble truths are traditionally stated. The other examples I used in that list were WP:RS. And WP:RS is not cut and dried. In some contexts use of the materials on a website created by a large therevadhan monastery might be WP:RS depending on the use of it. In this case it was to show how the four noble truths are typically expressed for practitioners and it was just in a talk page discussion. I didn't say we have to use this cite in the article, just gave it as one example of many to show how the four truths are usually expressed. I don't see that as reason to be topic banned.
And I haven't ignored your cites on redeath. They seem to confirm that it is a very rare word. Only one occurrence in Harvey and 161 occurrences of death, in a 552 page book. Most sources don't use it. As for the other cites, again I didn't ignore them, I just said they didn't backup what you claimed they did, that the 4NT in the lede should be rewritten in a form different from the way Buddha originally taught them in the wheel turning stura. This is the topic for the third in my list of proposed very focused RfCs. list of suggested future RfCs Robert Walker (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

03:48:13, 3 May 2016 review of submission by KurtisokcEdit


I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and don't do edits very often, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused as to why my submitted article for Iowa Lakes Community College was rejected. The explanation was that the article was rejected because a stub article was previously submitted. However, as far as I can tell, the previous article was submitted in 2014. Furthermore, the reviewer stated in his comments that he thinks the article I submitted is better than the previously submitted article and should be reviewed in its place. However, as far as I can tell the editor who rejected my submission is the same one who made that comment. I understand that editors might have inflexible guidelines to work under, but if a previous submission has priority over mine, shouldn't you just go ahead and approve or disapprove it since it has been, like, a year and a half already?

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College in which I am requesting to delete the abandoned draft. Please express your opinion, which presumably is to get rid of it to make way for your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

15:23:09, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Shyamw1Edit




All of the information I have in the article has been taken from reliable sources and as far as I can tell, I have cited the information appropriately. If something is not right, can you please give me the specifics instead of a general comment like "This article contains copyrighted material" which is not very helprul. I would appreciate it if I knew what line or paragraph contained "copyrighted material" so I can edit that section. Thanks.

See the discussion at the Teahouse. Please address the comments that were made there. It appears that you have a canned reply to inquire about declined articles. That results in a great deal of wariness and cynicism among experienced editors, especially since I made no mention of copyrighted material. Do you have a conflict of interest? What is the relationship between you and User:Wshyam? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: EcoscrapsEdit

NAC:Some other reviewer who is more patient than I am with paid editors will review the revised draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Hi Robert. Would you mind taking another pass at Draft: Ecoscraps. I think perhaps you should take another look at the sourcing. I've rewritten the lead to summarize why this company has received so much attention in the press: nine feature stories in reliable independent publications, including four from A++ publications, and a magazine cover story. The articles are spread out over five years. And I didn't even includes the many dozens of product reviews in trade publications. I've written many articles for Wikipedia and the notability threshold here seems clearly established to me under WP: Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd be pleased to discuss why you might see it differently. Just let me know. I've written about 12 articles over the past couple of years. None have ever been rejected because I'm very careful to only choose topics with significant independent reliable sourcing. I consider and reject topics all the time, after research doesn't show enough coverage. Ecoscraps seemed obvious, to me at least - you don't get too many subjects that are on the covers of national magazines. If there's anything else about the article you don't like I'd be pleased to discuss any of it and take your suggestions.BC1278 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

See my comments at the Teahouse. I, for one, won't tell a paid editor exactly how much they to tone a draft down in order to get it accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I responded to all the requests in Teahouse. In order to address the requests for more context from one of the editors, I had to make the article longer than I'd like and added second-tier sources, both of which I usually avoid. But the facts are interesting and directly respond to what the editor asked for. I believe I fairly summarized all the sources in an objective and unbiased way, but I am always open to making changes for anyone who sees it differently. Cullen328 agreed there is no "overtly promotional language" and no other editor raised a WP:NPOV issue. A bunch have now looked at it. In general, I respect anyone who doesn't want to spend their time as a volunteer working with paid editors. You can volunteer your time however you want. However, WP: AFC is meant as a place to review and hash out problems with drafts, many of which come from COI editors (only a few of whom bother to declare, like me.) I've had many constructive engagements with editors on AFC, who have helped make articles much better. I spend several days writing each of my articles and I source them very carefully. I've been successful getting some of my articles to B class and I'd like to do even better. I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who takes on the role of an AfC reviewer will provide concrete advice, whether there's a declared COI or not. The alternative is the undisclosed direct COI editing affecting many hundreds of thousands of articles. Very few editors bother to disclose COI and those who do are usually quite cautious. BC1278 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 02:32:42, 5 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Mike B1010Edit


Hello,

The gut flora page I was referred to doesn't accept non-human research on the subject, which is significant for the understanding and application of the gut microbiome on humans. "gut flora" is also an outdated title. Thank you.

Mike B1010 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Gut flora, for which Gut microbiome is one of several redirects. First, I agree that the term "gut flora" is outdated, especially because in the more common phrase "flora and fauna", "flora" refers to Plantae, a kingdom of organisms that are not found in a gut except as food. If you think that a different title would be better, you can discuss on the talk page or propose a move. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I read the article, and I don't see a limitation about non-human research. The article says that it is about the guts of animals. It does appear that the content is mostly about humans, but research on non-human gut microbiomes should be included. I will add that an understanding of the gut microbiomes of animals is not only relevant to humans, but is also important agriculturally. I don't see any reason why research on non-human microbiomes, relevant both to humans and to agriculture, can't be included in the article. I suggest that you discuss additions and improvements to the article on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Robert, Thank you for your quick reply. I've tried to add my sections to the "gut flora" page, but It was reverted back, claiming: 1. Mice research 2. That I have primary sources in some of my citations (although they are synthesized across)

That's mainly why I tried to create a new page. Thanks. Mike B1010 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Read forks to see that a content dispute is seldom the reason to create a new article. Did the other editor state that the article does not cover mice? Primary sources are sometimes an issue. Discuss on the article talk page, and, if necessary, follow dispute resolution, rather than creating a separate article that is really a fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you haven't yet tried discussing on the talk page. That's what the talk page is for. And I don't see a comment about non-human research being invalid. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iowa Lakes Community College has been acceptedEdit

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Steel-cut oats.Edit

I am sorry what edits are you referring to, as far as I know the case is closed, and it was placed in the dispute resolution board. If anything at all I was trying to copy and paste from one forum to another


MrX2077 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Followup: I do not understand your role in this matter. My dispute is with Matt Lunker, the mediation committee chairman is TransporterMan, those are the only people involved in this matter. Please explain yourself? Furthermore, TransporterMan is an attorney be training, he has not explain the process to me, so I am struggling to figure out the next steps are.

MrX2077 (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice- Steel Cut OatsEdit

First of all, You should have lead with the fact that you were part of the Administrators' notice board, you kind of buried the lede.

Second if you took a second look at my page you should take note of the fact that I did not cut off the other party, my claim was rejected before he had a chance to respond. It happened three times because I was concerned that the committee did not have all the information to make a decision & the head of the committee told me to come to the notice board to develop the matter. Mr. Lunker & I did have a discussion on the matter, I just copied it from his user page to the article talk page. In all fairness, it seems like you made a rush to judgment. As far as Mr. Lunker is concerned the matter is closed (check logs for the article), if somebody want to learn what a groat is, one should go to the groat link, I believe any good article would take the time to explain a term which is used in the passage. Once again check his user page. That being said can you please re-open the matter.

Finally, did you have to leave such a threatening notice on my message wall; namely that I was disruptive & you would revoke my editing privileges. I reviewed your user page, and it states that you are a Roman Catholic. As a member of this faith, are you not taught about compassion and charity for those who are less fortunate than you. Please show a bit more empathy in the future.

Thank You MrX2077 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I will reply to you in more detail later today. (I will comment that the editing of Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I will not discuss the merits of the case at this time, but you need to wait for the other party to discuss the merits also. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
As to charity, you didn't come across as a clueless user, only as a stubborn one. Now that I see that you need advice, I will suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what is the timeframe, especially, when the other party considers the matter is closed, where do I go from there if he does not respond. For now, I will take your advice and go to the "teahouse" MrX2077 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I was reflecting on you quote "...editing of Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right", be sure to tell the other party that when he produces his reply. If he did not treat the article like it was his own private property, I would not be here now. MrX2077 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Editor's Barnstar
I thank you for the advice given by you in the matter and shall not proceed further until all such formalities have been carried out.Thank you for your patience in answering my queries. SrastogiIJ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:34:36, 6 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PaintbrushArtEdit


HI Robert, I am trying to publish this article on Ralph Garafola. I have first hand knowledge that all information is 100% accurate. Now, in this last time submitting with changes, I am not sure i understand your response on Awards & Press section. This section was included in this article from the onset. Although these awards may not help make Garafola notable, they were awarded to him for his work. If I deleted this section, would this article be approved?

Please, can you be very specific in your comments. It seems that people reviewing article decline without giving detailed advice on how to get it approved. I see many other unknown artist pages that appear on Wikipedia that have little and in some cases no content. Do they get published because they are not alive?

I appreciate whatever help you can provide. Thank you PaintbrushArtPaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

PaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:49:44, 7 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Scottmacgregor123Edit


Mr. McClenon, I meant no disrespect. I was told the original article was deleted due to inactivity and that's why we created a new article. After your last message to me I returned to the original space and entered the newly revised article. This morning I received a message from the reviewer LaMona instructing me to make some suggested changes and resubmit-which I did. And now you are admonishing me--so yes I'm confused. Should I just let the original article in the original space run its course?

Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The primary reason now that you are confused is that you are making changes to two copies of the biography. That is enough of a problem. If someone told you that one of the articles was deleted, you received an incorrect answer. It may have been abandoned, but it was not deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You need to choose which of the two articles to work on improving and submitting. Bring it up to date with all of the improvements that you made to the other one. Abandon (or abandon and request deletion of) the other draft. My advice is to bring the version in draft space up to completeness and abandon the one in your sandbox, but that is your decision. In any case, work on one article, not two copies. Select which one you want to be up-to-date, and make it up-to-date, and abandon the other one. You are confused because you are, with good intentions, confusing us and yourself by having two versions of the same article. Don't do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jillian KeenanEdit

Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Jillian Keenan. I've removed her personal website from the list of sources. Howkafkaesque (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved eyeEdit

Mr. McClenon, I'm messaging you because you seem to have some experience in smoothing out disputes between editors. If this message comes at an inopportune time, then please disregard.
An editor and I fell into a dispute on an article; I'll avoid naming names unless you ask me to do so. Specifically, the person deleted information sourced by a document from the International Crisis Group and justified the deletion by saying that the criticism wasn't relevant. I reverted and explained my disagreement and assumed that the issue would disappear, but the person reverted again and rather than explaining why, merely expressed incredulity that I would possibly disagree.
I left an edit war template on the person's talk page because they seemed relatively new, and I made the choice to revert again. I made that choice because, to me, the issue seemed clear: the person was deleting reliably sourced criticism because the person felt that the criticism is invalid. Well, they reverted again and told me that I must "not be a fan of wiki policies," and then left a talk page comment so outlandish that a third editor initially deleted it; I'm assuming that they thought it was vandalism because the person said, verbatim: "Can we not add stupid minority opinions?" The third editor (whose involvement was unsolicited) then tried to calm things down on the person's talk page, only to again be told that the opinion is stupid (to be fair, they made it clear that they don't think I'm stupid as a person).
Decontextualized, without names, what do you make of this? What would the solution be? If you're able to help, then thank you in advance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

My first thought is, decontextualized, without names, to avoid expressing an opinion. My experience at forums such as the Help Desk is that it is common for an editor to come and to present an abstract or hypothetical description of a problem. It is almost always easy to figure out from the hypothetical what answer they want. The usual reason for presenting such a hypothetical case is that the presenter has a particular position, and they may have slanted their description a little, but what they want is a statement from authority so that they can wikilawyer an argument that will help them "win". However, since I don't think that you are trying to get help in wikilawyering a case, in a few minutes I will provide a few comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In general, it is unreasonable to assume that an issue will disappear after a second revert. As to what to do next, the next steps may be the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for informal mediation, or a Request for Comments to obtain formal consensus by the community. I will note that mediation does not usually work well when editors are uncivil, and that RFC may be better. However, extensive discussion on an article talk page is a precondition to other content dispute resolution mechanisms. Since I do know what dispute this is, I will say that the discussion is by means of edit summaries, not on the talk page, and that is not enough. Go back to the article talk page and try to engage. If the other editor does not discuss, or if discussion is inconclusive, the next step is probably a Request for Comments. More generally, do not think that the use of edit summaries constitutes discussion. A Request for Comments may be the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. McClenon, thank you so much for your reply. I can see that many people would try to bring such disputes up decontextualized to condition the answer, though I can assure you that in this case, I'm doing so because I was trying to be polite to the other party. Wikilawyering based on one person's comment would be sneaky and unfair, so I understand your sentiment.
I'll give talk page discussion some time, then, though most recently a few of the replies the other party left there were all in caps lock. I'll continue assuming good faith until doing so seems futile, at which point I suppose an RfC could work since at the root of it, this is a very minor content dispute that doesn't warrant a huge debate. In an ideal world, at least. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

17:31:04, 8 May 2016 review of submission by Rebecka fleetwood smithEdit


I have now changed the article in response to the comments made by the reviewer

07:43:35, 9 May 2016 review of submission by 192.54.144.229Edit

3O request in University of St AndrewsEdit

Does the explanation I gave provides a sufficiently clear picture of the situation to form an informed opinion? Or is there something else you'd like to know? Banedon (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ITDMEdit

Hi Robert McClenon.
Don't know if you noticed, but the page ITDM was created before your rejection of it at AfC. They now have Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission after it was rejected again at AfC, this time by Wiae. Just FYI. 220 of Borg 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN discussionEdit

Hi there! I created the DRN request for Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. and I notice the note from you that if no editors participate in an certain amount of time, the discussion will be closed. I apologize for my lack of knowledge on a situation like this. But, what happens if no other editors participate and it's closed? Will the dispute still be resolved despite no participation or will it just be left alone unsolved? Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are new to Wikipedia. So let me sort of explain. You ask whether, if no one responds, the dispute is resolved or left unresolved. The short answer is that it is left unresolved. The longer answer is that a content dispute at DRN is only resolved to the extent that the parties to it agree. The only binding method of resolving content disputes is a Request for Comments. If I close the dispute resolution request due to lack of response, I will recommend that the next step is a Request for Comments. If you have not yet read the dispute resolution policy, please read it. (If you have already read it, and I guess that you have, a re-read can't hurt.) If you have any more questions about dispute resolution, I can try to answer them, but you can get input from multiple experienced editors if you ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to your answerEdit

A user publicly accused me of being a Christian (I am not, but irrelevant), then he asserted "As an atheist, I have no bias on the subject." (Really, only an atheist can't have bias on religious issues? Then he threatened to notify admin as this could "use attention." Then he writes on my Talk page: "Keep your opinion to yourself, and be WP:HERE. Please stop this disruptive behavior. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)" While his tone has been more threatening than helpful, he has certainly not kept his opinions to himself. Can you please give me your opinion. I would like to place a complaint about his behavior. Thank you. Wikiwillkane (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am still confused. I have looked at your talk page. I see that the user in question did post to your talk page. Here are my comments. First, you haven't helped by blanking your talk page. It is permitted to blank your talk page, but archiving is preferred. Blanking is often seen as insulting to previous posters. Second, I don't see what you quote, in the history. His comment, to use restraint in posting on topics where you have strong opinions, is harshly worded but on the mark. Third, I advised reading the boomerang essay before posting to WP:ANI, and I still recommend that. Both his talk page conduct and yours are marginal. Fourth, if the comment that you quote was made, it was on another page, and I can't comment on it without knowing where it was. Fifth, don't become the sort of editor who has a reputation for reporting everyone to WP:ANI; it is a way to get your reports ignored, even when an editor is persistently engaging in blatant personal attacks (which isn't the case here). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Great feedback and education. Is there a way to unblank my Talk page and then archive it? My intent was not to circumvent.Wikiwillkane (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To unblank a talk page, go to the last version before you blanked it and copy the contents to a scratch pad. Then go back to your talk page as it now is and add the blanked material at the beginning. That is how you do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
However, you still haven't shown me the gross civility violation of which you speak. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. How do I archive once the page is back? Here is the violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_destruction_of_Christian_historyWikiwillkane (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see "Keep your opinions to yourself". Where is that? I do see considerable incivility on both your part and The Platypus of Doom. I would still advise against reporting. As to Platypus and bias, I will observe that the context was Christian v. Muslim. An atheist or a Buddhist doesn't have a likely bias in that context. As to archival, look up archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius 3rd OpinionEdit

The debate was whether Spencer or any of the other persons whose astrological opinions were summarized counted as neutral third-party sources, per WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and especially WP:NOR. I would like to see some sort of Astrology Encyclopedia referenced (if such exists), or any sort of newspaper article discussing the subject. I consider there to be zero reason to summarize multiple primary sources. Quotation would be one thing, and still a bad idea, but as is I do not think it remotely meets WP:NOR. Thank you for your time. 2601:1C0:5003:541:91EF:A688:29B3:7290 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

19:16:01, 10 May 2016 review of submission by JemmansEdit




Hi Robert,

The list has been rejected as is correct because the focus of the list is not yet making sense to any editors. I will attempt to explain why I would like this type of separate 'List of River'.

Their is a list of rivers already with a language interest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_words_with_English_derivatives.

I would like a similar list but a focus solely on the 'name' of the river for its own sake.

The end user of the list is the main focus as I look up the geographically arranged lists and find it selective to educated people and not geared to the normal every day user.

You have a incorrectly spelt river and the normal Google search does not help.

You then go to Wikipedia and things are made worse.

I think Wikipedia should be a better place to find river names.

In time and many enthusiastic editors this list could be the popular choice of lists.

Also the editors should post rivers they know personally, this way the list would be robust, similar to a dictionary with authority.

Developing this sense of ownership of the list is my main aim.

Hope we can understand this list better now.

many thanks for your good judgements and time.

Regards James Emans

{{User:Jemmans]] -
My suggestion at this point is to go to WP:WikiProject Rivers and ask on their talk page, WT:WikiProject Rivers, whether they think that this list would be a useful addition to Wikipedia. If they agree, it should be accepted, with whatever conditions (such as rules as to length for inclusion) they agree on. That is where I would say to go from here.

Please comment on Talk:Jean LapierreEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

TalkbackEdit

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Talk:All About Eve.
Message added 17:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

AldezD (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Please give me some time to learn your system. Tim Beck of Torrance. Oil Spill Freeze Salvage should be entered in Oil Spill under Clean-up and recovery in under solidifying. EarthGuard technologies of GA demonstrated oil spill freeze salvage at the B.P. Deep Horizon Oil Spill and has two videos posted on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Beck of Torrance (talkcontribs) 03:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Ronald J. Ross, M.D.Edit

Mr. McClenon-you asked if I had a COI with the subject. I know the subject as the result of a professional association but that was 17 years ago.I don't work for him (or anyone, I'm retired)and I am not related to him. I have admired his career and am writing this article at no cost to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffyross (talkcontribs) 20:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

EmailEdit

 
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.

Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

11:03:32, 12 May 2016 review of submission by ScommaEdit



Thank you for the feedback on our draft: Page365 article page.

In that article you commented about "What is meant by a "sales engine built on the ground up for social commerce"? (Also, provide a reference for that claim."

Instead of explaining those is it possible for us to re-write them with different wording thus it will be easier to understand for anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject? or should I use the other term that wikipedia already has?

I will comment at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

19:28:50, 12 May 2016 review of submission by Princessanna2018Edit


I would like to know if this would fit under Biographies of living persons? I also had banres and noble as a source. It's difficult to find music industry credits other than the album itself our sites like allmusic. Are there suggestions?

I will comment at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:28, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop "badmouthing" the AFC Help deskEdit

Hi Robert, I'm a bit concerned about your telling multiple posters at the AFC HD that "this page isn't well watched". Yes questions may not get a response within 20 minutes, but that is no reason to denigrate the process - see WP:DEADLINE. More significantly though, many of the "helpers" at the Teahouse are not intimately familiar with how AFC works, so as far as questions that are specifically about AFC processes the Teahouse is not a better place to ask. There is no harm at all in taking even a day or two to answer questions, particularly when that reply is far more likely to actually be correct than if the question were asked elsewhere. In my experience advice given at the Teahouse is far more often wrong than at any other help venues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. I will suggest, if the post isn't responded to, that they ask at the reviewer's talk page or ping the reviewer, but will first wait a little while. As you see, we recently had an editor who was impatient and complained that the reviewer wouldn't give an answer (and the answer was as always in the draft). Do you have a specific example of bad advice at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:44, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Dodger67 - I asked about examples of bad advice. I do see one editor who has been cautioned that his English isn't good enough to give advice at the Teahouse, but I think that most Anglophone editors can see that, so that he is only a nuisance. Do you have other examples of bad advice at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe reviewers need to be asked to keep an eye on the AFC HD, because I do see that very often questions at it go unanswered. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa OmicronEdit

Hi Robert McClenon. I am wondering if it my be best to move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Omicron#SPA Clarification to the AfD's talk page. It can be replaced by a link to the talk page. I am suggesting this because some more !votes, etc. have been added since then and they are being added below that particular subsection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't see the need to moving my comment. A closer knows to read the entire thing. I think that my comment does clarify some of the comments in the AFD page, and that a closer would not necessarily know to read the talk page. I do think that the AFD has been running for a very long time, and maybe I should post a request for closure at WP:AN. I will consider some way of setting off the comment from the rest of the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Descriptive termEdit

Sorry about that. To respond to your question, I want to establish whether the term "Civil Rights Movement" is a descriptive term or proper name for a single event in the United States during the 20th century, or perhaps both. The reason I asked if reliable sources will be required during the discussion on the DRN board is because virtually everyone, except one editor, never supports their claims regarding this issue (and other issues) with ANY sources, not simply reliable sources. I have asked for sources during my discussions. They either say they don't have any sources or they refuse to show sources. Either way, no sources are presented. I have repeatedly presented sources, but it hasn't mattered. Mitchumch (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

I just seen your post on the African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68). Isn't it a conflict of interest for you participate on the DNR board AND be a participant in a dispute? I thought you were a mediator. Have I misunderstood? Mitchumch (talk) 17:09, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
I have no intention of moderating a dispute over the African-American Civil Rights Movement after I have taken a position on the talk page. If it is your opinion that DRN volunteers may never take part in a dispute that might end up at DRN, I suggest that you consider that that would make it very hard to get anyone to volunteer at DRN. By the way, I still don't understand what issue you want to mediate. I was asking because you asked a question that I can't answer without more information, but my answer will focus on whether a particular issue is within the scope of DRN at all. An issue isn't in the scope of DRN if there is another forum for it, such as Requested Moves. What is the question? (Of course, what you really want to establish is whether "Civil Rights Movement" is primarily a descriptive term or the proper term for a movement in a period in the United States. Clearly, it is both. It is important which is first because that affects what are primary titles and what are redirects.) What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
How does one determine if the term Civil Rights Movement is a descriptive term or the proper name for a movement during the 20th century in the United States, or both? Mitchumch (talk) 20:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
In lower case, it clearly refers to any of various civil rights movements. In upper case, by itself, I would say that it depends on context, as in where is the author and what regional variety of English is she using? I disagree with limiting it in American English to 1954-1968. Brown v. Board didn't just happen. However, I don't see what this has to do with dispute resolution. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
The dispute is centered on editors assumptions and preconceived notions of what is true or false surrounding the term Civil Rights Movement. For instance, you said "In lower case, it clearly refers to any of various civil rights movements." This claim is in contradiction to the vast scholarly literature on CRM. According to Google N-gram lower case is the predominant format used by experts of the Civil Rights Movement. Secondly, you said "I disagree with limiting it in American English to 1954-1968." The correct thing would be to defer to the scholarly and academic community. According to the historigraphical literature found in books and journal articles, the current consensus is the CRM started during the 1930s and lasted into the 1970s.
My point exactly. It began before 1954. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
To clarify, my post was not an endorsement for the assertion that the CRM started in 1865 or 1896. Those articles constitute another assertion on Wikipedia that has no backing from the community consensus of academics or scholars. There is only scholarly or academic consensus that some of the antecedents of the CRM can be found during the period of 1865–1954. But, not only during that time period.
For some reason, editors come to this article topic and are instant experts on the topic. They are violating Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. I've asked editors, like yourself, to show reliable sources to support their claim. Only one editor has done this and I've engaged numerous editors about this issue on separate discussions.
If I decide to initiate a DRN board post, then it will be these types of claims I will be challenging. I want assurances that no editor can refuse to post reliable sources before I initiate a challenge. I have spent several months reading journal articles, University Press books, dissertations, theses, published conference papers, and the works of leading authorities on this topic.
I am not sure that I understand about wanting assurances. It sounds as though you are saying that you want to set preconditions on a discussion at DRN. DRN doesn't work that way; that is, it doesn't handle discussions where one party has set preconditions. DRN is used to try to work out content disputes by moderated discussion after regular discussion has been inconclusive. If there is a DRN discussion (never referred to as a challenge), then you have a right to ask for reliable sources, and many DRN discussions do involve issues as to whether a position is backed up by reliable sources.
Is this the type of issue the DRN board addresses? Mitchumch (talk) 23:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
What the DRN board addresses is article content issues. Reliable sources are an important part of article content. DRN addresses article content issues when regular discussion has been inconclusive. However, based on the complexity of the issues, it sounds as though you might be better off requesting formal mediation at requests for mediation rather than informal mediation at DRN. Given the amount of work that you say that you have done, you might be pressed to finish presenting your case in two weeks. Most DRN cases last about two weeks. Formal mediation cases sometimes last for months, and it sounds as though your discussion might last for months. That is just my advice. Also, if all else fails, either at DRN or at formal mediation, the last content dispute resolution step is Request for Comments, which requests input from the community. Maybe this answers your questions. Maybe it doesn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for being patient with me regarding this issue. I will follow the steps you've outlined above to address these issues. Thanks again. Mitchumch (talk) 11:15, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

16:16:38, 15 May 2016 review of submission by DegaEdit


I've done new edited as your note:

Contains too much peacock language: done.

Please re-review and inform me if there are anything I should made for another editing to this article's completion.

AD 16:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)

Not done. But I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert_McClenon. I'm sorry for my mistake on resubmit the draft on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dega/Karen_Civil. That is wrong page. Could you please help me to delete that page? I did resubmit on the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Karen_Civil. Thank you. Dega (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

01:30:15, 16 May 2016 review of submission by AmamedliEdit



Robert, can you educate as to the reason for declining my suggestions. I am new to this and apologize if I am breaking rules, but my suggestions, I believe are well positioned and would stand scrutiny of knowlidgeable experts. Jamala's last name is easily recognizable by most Russian speakers as Tatar. This is easily established. Can you educate me as to what steps are required to get this acknowledged. Secondly, Nagorno Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan as recognized by nations in the world and numerous UN resolutions. It is disputed, but is legally part of Azerbaijan. What is your basis for declining this edit? Thank you, Araz Mamedli.

I have replied at the Teahouse. It appears that you may be asking to edit some existing article rather than to create a new article. What you submitted was a request to add a new article to Wikipedia. If you want to edit an existing article, first please tell us what article you think should be revised. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

19:55:04, 16 May 2016 review of submission by JtrivettEdit


Hi, I have changed the tone on this, and added links, I am this person Father and can attest to the facts as submitted

I am declining the draft again. Please see my comments at the Teahouse. You may not be familiar with Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Manny PacquiaoEdit

  • LOL* I was in the process of taking the case and when I refreshed the page, everything had changed. I am trying so don't write me off. Atsme📞📧 19:01, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

19:43:24, 17 May 2016 review of submission by CybotikEdit


The trouble with the Wikipedia guidelines in regards to music is that some genres of music are automatically left out. Folk music gets little notice. Most folk performers will never meet the Wikipedia guidelines because nobody writes about it anymore. So the Wikipedia guidelines essentially caters to the music that sells the most ad space. Wikipedia has a page for Renaissance Faires, and it refers to the music performed at them. But it will never give any information on the performers because they’re not on Billboard’s top 50 and the local papers merely mention that the Faire happened. There are fewer than 2,500 black rhinoceroses left in the wild. There are 1,241 people living in New Laguna, NM. There are only 2 people in the world speaking the Chamicuro language. But all three deserve a Wikipedia page. There are 10,000 views of The Whiskey Bards’ YouTube performance of Pirate Lullaby. More than 32,000 people heard them perform at the 2011 Las Vegas Renaissance Faire. Their music is available from iTunes, Amazon (disc or streaming), Google, and Spotify. Well-known and popular does not meet the Wikipedia qualitifications. Only the blessings of journalism can render a style of music "notable." Wikipedia has a page for jongleur, but makes no mention of modern jongleurs, many of whom now sing the original songs of The Whiskey Bards in various pubs and taverns across the U.S. The ancient bardic traditions are continued with small circuit performers like Whiskey Bards, Pyrates Royale, Rubber Biscuit, and Briefcase Blues, but this kind of performer rarely gets noticed by Rolling Stone magazine, so an entire segment of American music and the continuing life of traditional music is ignored by Wikipedia as well until someone wins a Grammy

Taimane GardnerEdit

Hi Robert, I have a message about my draft article Taimane Gardner, in which you've queried the independence and reliability of the sources. I have no connection with this musician, and the sources range from IMDb to Guitar World magazine, so I would have thought they were reliable and independent. The "virtuoso" was a quote from several reviews and interviews. I can certainly place the citations in th body, or edit the word. But I'm confused as to what is independant if those aren't? Thx Misterdequincey (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

02:43:34, 18 May 2016 review of submission by CkiekhaeferEdit


Hello! First of all, I am connected to a few non-profits that Miron Construction supports (in particular Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club - which they just finished building a new one in our community, and some Fun Runs that they sponsor). I know there is an original article out there that was declined. I'd like to understand why (new to this side of Wikipedia - to date, I've only read their posts, not submitted) and then I'd like to work on the Miron Construction Co., Inc. article and clean it up for re-submission. Can you make some recommendations on what sections need editing and maybe some ideas of what I can improve on the original post?

I'm new to this, so any insight would be appreciated! Thanks.

Ckiekhaefer (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Marie Florence GrosEdit

Hello Robert, You declined my article's submission about Marie-Florence Gros because of unadequate documentation about the subject's notability. I understand the reasons but this article is only the translation into English version of an article in French already published on Wikipedia and providing the same references (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marie-Florence_Gros#La_paroli.C3.A8re). If the subject has been already approved, how can I make my translation published? Thank you for your help! Wwsheng

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talkcontribs) 09:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

The article is Draft: Marie-Florence Gros. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello Robert, I'm still tryingto get my article published. I added relevent sources from reliable newspapers (the South China Morning Post, Le Figaro, InvestHK...). I also added categories and the article will be mentioned in other english wikipedia articles (Patrick Bruel..). Then I deleted useless titles. I hope my article will fulfill the requirements, if not could you give me some more advices? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talkcontribs) 03:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Jesse Moa/sandboxEdit

 

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

RfCEdit

A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

03:07:37, 20 May 2016 review of submission by Salij2016Edit


Asking for clarification - you wrote "Also, improve the format of the references so that on-line references can be displayed." Can you explain what this means, please?

See Referencing and Referencing for beginners. When the reference is to the web, I would like to be able to click on it and go to the web site. This is possible with most articles that have references to web sites. Please read the guidelines and implement how it is done. If you still need help, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

OK, I didn't understandEdit

...the difference between arbitration and arb enforcement. There is not table of forums where it says:

  • A instructions -> A processing
  • B instructions -> B processing
  • C instructions -> C processing
  • D instructions -> D processing
  • E instructions -> E processing
  • ...

Instead, it says:

  • Arbitration enforcement -> Arbitration processing

Or at least that is the way it seemed. Got the instructions on one, which linked me to the process page for the other. It would be helpful to have a directory that listed all the WP bodies and what they do. Right now, I couldn't tell a hair of difference between ANI and Arbitration. Why have two doing the same thing? I will try again tomorrow. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 04:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It is true that sometimes in complicated cases the procedures are not clear. ANI is for conduct disputes. The Arbitration Committee will consider cases when the community has failed. That means that the ArbCom will consider cases that have gone to ANI inconclusively in the past. When the Arbitration Committee (ArbCom) holds a case, what they typically do is, first, to issue conclusions and findings of fact, second, to identify the most flagrant edit-warriors and battleground editors, and either ban them from English wikipedia, or topic-ban them, and, third, place the area under Arbitration Enforcement. Arbitration Enforcement means that uninvolved admins will now have draconian power to punish disruptive editing on all "sides". There has already been arbitration on Scientology, which has found that both pro-Scientology editors and anti-Scientology editors have edited with partisan agendas, much as you said. What you can now do is to issue warnings to editors, if they have not yet been warned, and can then report them to Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
Maybe another summary of procedures is needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
OK, that helps. Thanks. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 16:44, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

River Campus LibrariesEdit

Thank you for your review and comments. I think since submitting the article I have discovered something unique and significant about the University of Rochester libraries. In 2012 they hired an Anthropologist Dr Nancy Fried Foster to study their library system. I'm actually very excited about what I found and I am working on adding a new section to the article. I also believe Dr Foster is notable enough for a Wikipedia article of her own, though I haven't the time to work on that just yet. Here is some more about her:

seven-questions-with-library-anthropologist-nancy-fried-foster/#_

And:Techniques to Understand the Changing Needs of Library Users

Forgot to sign. Dan D. Ric (talk) 16:15, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
If you have a chance I'd like you to take another look. Dan D. Ric (talk) 15:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution about PodemosEdit

Hello, Robert. I filed a dispute resolution [9], that you agreed to mediate. Unfortunately, because of my lack of experience, I didn't see your request to make a statement in 24h and it is now closed. Would it be possible to reopen it? Regards. --Fjsalguero (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

  Done - Next time, keep the issues in which you are participating on your watchlist. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tried to add my statement in the dispute page. However, I am not sure whether I did it in the right place. Please, move my comment if I did it in the wrong place.--Fjsalguero (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

User:Fjsalguero - You inserted your comment after I already closed the case. Please take the issue up at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:04, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for everything.--Fjsalguero (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!Edit

  Thank you i am now ready to make good pages on Wikipedia Dionbanda123 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Some French fries for you!Edit

  Food and Drink
I wanna thank you and wanted to ask you to help me with my page K3 en het Ijsprinsesje. Thank you Dionbanda123 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't normally personally help the authors of articles. I normally refer them to the Teahouse, where some of the regulars are very good at helping new editors. I will offer a few comments however. First, you need references. See referencing for beginners. In particular, reviews of the movie would be good. The lack of references is why I tagged your article for deletion, and you have seven days in which to improve the article. I would also ask you to provide the English translation of the title of the movie. (Is it something like "K3 and the Princess Curse"?) Also, I noticed that a sentence is duplicated. Those are my thoughts for now. Please ask for help at the Teahouse. Also, in the future, I would suggest the use of the Articles for Creation process, which puts the draft article into what is called draft space, where it is reviewed by an experienced editor. This has two advantages. First, you are requesting review in advance. Second, the article won't be deleted if something is missing, only sent back to you for more work. Good luck. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Electronic harassment - DREdit

Hi Robert. I think this is troubling for a couple of reasons. It creates the impression that the DR moderator is taking sides on an issue, which could lead participants to reject any forthcoming decision or result. Also the moderator/tagger has not specified exactly which parts of the article are giving too much weight to fringe views. I was one of the editors that reworked the article to clean out fringe sources and copyedit the text in order to adequately explain the fringe views while not giving them undue weight. It could use some better organization and polish, but the weight/sourcing/compliance with WP:FRINGE looks pretty good to me. Which leads me to doubt this particular moderator fully understands how WP:FRINGE works other than as an ostensible bludgeon. That said, I am pleased that a young person has volunteered to help Wikipedia and appears to have boundless energy and commitment. I just think there needs to be more guidance from experienced hands. Best regards - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

I basically agree. I think that the moderated discussion is likely to fail, not through the fault of the moderator, but because the fringe editor or editors (I have my doubts as to the number) are continuing to push so relentlessly, based primarily on a single fringe article in a mainstream newspaper. I thank you for trying to keep the article consistent with neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:23, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I tried the new automatic translation feature on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I must have done something wrong. I'll read the guidelines better and try again later. Regards, Filiep (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Henry Alan GreenEdit

Hi Robert, saw your comment on the Henry Alan Green draft I submitted. Since he's a bit older, and a lot of his fellowships and professorships were pre-internet, it's a bit difficult to hunt down sources that aren't his curriculum vitae. I've put a few more sources that I was able to find—does it look better now? Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Henry_Alan_Green Gc717 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Laura GlitsosEdit

Hi Robert, could you look over my draft again, I have fixed as directed, could you let me know if that's ok? Thank you! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Glitsos Nyxnissia (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

PyreneismEdit

Hello there,

  • Since you had a look at it (after I signalled hitting the damn wrong key and before I finished completing the main input - and I think it would have done no harm waiting til that was done, no?), would you please take the time (if you have it) to add to it that it is a translation from the French article? I don't know how to get that at top of article.
  • If you also take the time to look at it a bit closely, the neutrality of the actual article is not at stake there. Thing is, the topic it presents IS definitely not neutral, as it is about aficionados - and on careless reading it may seems that it is the article. Which it isn't (at least I think so).
  • Yes, could do with some more references (the French article also has that remark on it); still, note that a certain amount of sources are indicated within the article, notably most of the quotes. If you don't depress me further with that misplaced neutrality thing, I'll add some when I find them. Thanks.

Basicdesign (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Please note that it doesn't have a neutrality tag. I did note that more references were requested. Since you provided those, I have no problem with having that tag pulled. I don't know exactly how to provide the note that it is a translation from the French. I would suggest that you ask that at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:53, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 22 MayEdit

  Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

01:54:50, 23 May 2016 review of submission by NyxnissiaEdit


Hello, I think I have fixed the referencing errors in my article for review. Are you able to have a look for me before I re-submit? Thanks so much for your help. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Laura_Glitsos Nyx. Nyxnissia (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)


13:14:00, 23 May 2016 review of Callum Reynolds submission by Lasko26Edit

Hello Rob,

May I have some help with my submission draft for Callum Reynolds of Boreham Wood FC. He is the only player in our squad now not to have a full wiki page, especially with him being the club captain. Hopefully once I've got the hang of it, I be able to help out with football at this level in the wiki community. Apologies if this is not the done thing, still trying to get used to the wiki communication effort. It's hard a medium and I've been working on this draft in my spare time since the beginning of May.

Should I reference BBC Sport/National & Local Newspapers web sites as a reference for Callum playing professional football under Boreham Wood (Conference Premier) as an internet source as I only have physical football programmes I collect otherwise.

Here is the match report from BBC Sport website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36118755) of the last game of the season we played against Welling United in the National League Conference Premier (Step 5 of English Football Pyramid), 'Reynolds' is under the starting line ups. He has been ever present all season. He has a full time squad number of 6 because at semi professional football, you don't have assigned squad numbers and just have numbers 1-11 on the day and players have different shirt numbers per game.

His profile is now on Sky Sports too. http://www.skysports.com/football/player/18498/callum-reynolds

I have added this BBC match report to his profile of the game against Welling United.

Robert McClenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasko26 (talkcontribs) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasko26 (talkcontribs) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The player in question is Draft:Callum Reynolds. When you ask about an article, it is a courtesy to provide a link to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
User:Lasko26 - Normally I would ask for advice at the Teahouse. However, this question involves the detailed guidelines in association football notability guidelines, which have a list of fully professional leagues maintained by WP:WikiProject Football, so I will be asking at the association football project talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft resubmissionEdit

I followed your comments and made the required modifications and resubmitted my draft for your kind review. An error message is displaying: 1-Submission declined on Error: Invalid time 2-, Error : first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time.. 3- Redirect: target page name

What does this mean? How to fix these? I am new to wiki and html so please bare with me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadinelama (talkcontribs) 13:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be requesting help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 24 May 2016 (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.

BroVic (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

15:52:26, 24 May 2016 review of submission by ThemaninthesuitEdit


hi. What do i have to to do create my user name page? I don;t see to understand it. Do i have to include contact details or something. I just want a beginning page with some personal info that i add to with time. Please advise and thanks for your help

16:52:25, 24 May 2016 review of submission by BollywoodbabeEdit



Thank you for your help regarding Daiana R. Bazzano...I will get to work on this next week. I appreciate your help.

THanks again.

AfC notification: User:XIamLiEt0x/sandbox has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:XIamLiEt0x/sandbox. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Anuja Kapur for deletionEdit

 

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anuja Kapur 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/Anuja Kapur 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 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. CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Southern_Levant.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Closed ANIEdit

Robert, I've just closed the ANI. Would it be possible to relist the DRN thread? If it's something I need to do, I'm happy to do it. Thanks! Drsmoo (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you can relist it. It isn't up to the DRN volunteers to relist it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll relist it ASAP. I also replied to your message on my talk page, thanks for letting me know. I did reply to your message with a further question regarding talk page etiquette. Thank you Drsmoo (talk) 03:24, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

06:06:24, 27 May 2016 review of submission by Comedian OBEdit

Hi. You seem to have declined my article based on my not being notable. But if you would take time to Google my name "comedian OB" you would find me very notable
in Ghana. That not withstanding, may I ask if I could reference with YouTube videos in order to prove I'm veritable? And could you please state at which point I seemed to be promoting myself so I scrape that portion off? Thank you.
Please see my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

12:49:19, 27 May 2016 review of submission by RjebenoiEdit


We are requesting a re-review because we feel the press release sources we provided are reliable, as the company is publicly traded and the press releases have been thoroughly vetted.

Please see my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

New user commentEdit

Hi Robert, I followed the advice offered on the Wikipedia welcome page - "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better". After two attempted contributions I am no longer bold, and I am afraid. Diggerlady (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

What are you afraid of? You made two attempted contributions to the encyclopedia. Both were reverted. At the same time, neither of them was reverted in an unfriendly manner; they were just reverted. The first was reverted for tone reasons. It was too enthusiastic. The second was reverted primarily because it wasn't primarily about the subject, social entrepreneurship, but primarily about a particular social entrepreneur. At no point was anything said that should give you any reason to be afraid. No one threatened to have you blocked from editing, for instance. What are you afraid of? If you don't like being reverted, it may be that Wikipedia may not be the right on-line environment for you, but I see nothing to be afraid of. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for Clarification on Protocols for Dispute Resolution CasesEdit

Hi Robert! As noted above, I'd like to request clarification on protocols for dispute resolution cases. I was involved in the initial editing dispute for Jimmy John's as well as the followup discussion on the article's talk page that pre-dated the request for moderation (though my IP frequently changes for unknown reasons). I just noticed that this case was elevated in a desire to attain consensus among the involved editors and that you are the moderator. I still strongly disagree with this reference being added to the article for a variety of reasons which I don't believe have been sufficiently discussed in the dispute resolution case, and I'd like to join the discussion if it isn't too late. Please advise on if this is possible, and if so what the next steps are. Thank you! 185.54.163.157 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

You can add your comments at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. I would advise you to register an account, although that is not required. Go ahead and state your opinion. The two primary editors are very close to reaching agreement, but if necessary the case can be continued with another party. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:26, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Hillary ClintonEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Rejection of the draft "Dale Armin Johnson"Edit

Hello Robert, I am surya and i am trying to create an article about Dale Armin Johnson and it got rejected because another writer is also working on it and could you please suggest me on how to improve my article and get it listed on Wikipedia. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya57497 (talkcontribs) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

See my advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

18:05:07, 30 May 2016 review of submission by NCMSRAREPartsEdit

Why did you move this page which has the backing of the SME and the their Additive Manufacturing working committee? The OFFICIAL title, Additive Manufacturing, NOT 3D Printing which is favored by marketing and Wall Street types, NOT technologists. Content is intended to reflect consistency with global standards orgs and will be continued to be updated by this organization's representatives consisting of machine makers, materials industry, users, and service providers. This group was in the final edit process and was ready to launch without worthwhile help from Wiki representatives over the course of the last 3 years. We welcome your welcome your help not your hindrance. (NCMSRAREParts (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC))

See my advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

07:34:01, 31 May 2016 review of submission by 193.188.156.131Edit


Hello Robert, I'm writing to you from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Conference of Translation Services of European States (COTSOES), a network of government translation departments throughout Europe. We have previously submitted Wikipedia entries about our network in French, German and Portuguese and these have been accepted. Unfortunately, the English version has been rejected and yet it is a direct translation of the other language entries. This is a little bit bemusing and we would appreciate an explanation as to why this is the case and what exactly needs to be changed to have the English version approved. This is very important for us as English, French and German are the three official languages of the Conference. Many thanks for your help! Kind regards, Ruth Brown193.188.156.131 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be commenting at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Sajidha1977/sandbox/MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAMEdit

 

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAM".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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) 21:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comment - I only moved this draft from a sandbox to draft space and declined it. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 18:29:37, 1 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ShainarEdit


Hi Robert,

Thanks so much for your feedback on the article I submitted on Apriva. Can you help me better understand what I can improve by answering the following questions?

  1. Specifically, how can I better show the subject's notability?
  2. What defines "significant coverage"?
  3. Were there specific sources that aren't seen as reliable/independent, or weren't referenced properly?

Basically, I'm trying to figure out if I can make little edits to get the article be approved or if the overall subject is not deemed worthy of inclusion at this time. Thanks!

Shainar (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you! I noticed one of your comments was, "I can’t be optimistic about an article that was previously deleted, and which I declined because most of the references were either to its own web site or were just press releases." For what it's worth, I had no involvement in the creation or deletion of the previous article, and the one I submitted was a new version, not a re-write of the old version. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shainar (talkcontribs) 20:40, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
I am following up at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert, checking in one more time to see if you have any suggestions on the Apriva. I didn't see any responses from the Teahouse, so I feel like I'm at a dead end. Any tips on where to go from here?Shainar (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 21:27:51, 1 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by AmadoriartistsEdit



Amadoriartists (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Hello Robert, I have made changes to the Walshy Fire page as of yesterday after your review, I am not sure why the other changes did not update from the last time. I have been in the Teahouse on this as you have seen and in touch with Cullen through his talk page. I am going to add a reference from Forbes in a feature that was shown to me by Cullen that was published yesterday. I really would like to get this finalized, so if you have feedback that you could give based on what I have done as of yesterday after your post, that would be great. I am not sure what else to do other than remove the references that are not as notable. I have removed some of the marketing language that was there. Thanks

Amadoriartists (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

I have requested an uncontroversial technical move over redirect. That sounds like jargon, and it is, but it is a device for accepting the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community SurveyEdit

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Mr. Daryabeigi's biographyEdit

Mr. Robert McClenon,

I submitted Mr. Daryabeigi's biography mentioning Mr. Daruabeigi's art being part of Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, and the reference is the book Iranian Modern Art Movement, The Iranian Collection of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, Dryabeigi, pg.112 &113, published in 1385 (2006) by TMoCA(Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art) The book is in Farsi & English. short biography. there are 2 full page images of his work.
Below is the link showing Mr. Daryabeigi's painting that is part of Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art (TMOCA) permenant collection
http://iranian.com/Arts/2000/April/desert.html
I also included all of Mr. Daryabeigi achievements

but  SwisterTwister rejected the submission saying 
The article is not clear; if his works were permanently collected by major museums, then I can accept this....if not, then the Draft is not yet notable. If you respond, please give a simple and concise answer. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)". 

What should I do? Mr. Daryabeigi biography darft link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Mir_Abdolrez_Daryabeigi Mirrezd (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Mirrezd (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrezd (talkcontribs) 21:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be asking a question at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

For All Editors, There is a biography of Mr. Mir abdolreza Daryabeigi in the book Iranian Modern Art Movement published by Tehran Museum of Contemporary of Art but nobody wants to check the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrezd (talkcontribs) 02:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

08:42:54, 3 June 2016 review of submission by IvertuEdit



Hi,

i believe i have been able to amend the wording as per your comments - my apologies, i have tried to replicate the style of submission from the stories from well known enties such as Samsung.

i re read after your comments and, i hope made all of the relevant changes necessary.

Kind Regards

Lisa

I am asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:12:13, 3 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shyamw1Edit



Shyamw1 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)


Robert, the article I submitted is not about Gopalapuram Parthasarathy that currently exists in Wikipedia. It is about Gopalaswami Parthasarathi who was also a diplomat and who was India's permanent representative to the United Nations. Gopapalswami Parthasarathi is no more. I have a photo of him which the Hindu newspaper generously sent me from their photo archives but I am having difficulty uploading it. If you had the photo you would know that they are two different people. Is there any way I can mail you the photo so you can see for yourself. I can also mail you the PDF format of the newspaper articles that The Hindu sent me. I have permission from The Hindu to use the photograph. They graciously sent me articles from their archives as soon as I requested them since you said I need more sources when you reviewed my submission the last time. I thought I submitted just one article on G.Parthasarathy. If I submitted more than one, I'm not sure where the other one exists. If you know where it is, could you please discard the first and review this instead? This is the one that I expanded and edited after your comments the last time. Please help me with this as I would really like to get it published. Shyamw1 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1

There are currently three pages about people with the same or similar names. There is an article in article space about Gopalapuram Parthasarathy or Gopalaswami Parthasarathy, who is a living person and appears to be a retired Indian diplomat. There is a draft Draft: G. Parthasarathy in draft space, about an earlier Indian diplomat, 1912-1995. You have also submitted a sandbox draft, User:Shyamw1/sandbox about an Indian diplomat who was born in 1912 and died in 1995. As far as I can tell, Draft: G. Parthasarathy and User:Shyamw1/sandbox are almost the same. They contain much of the same language and appear to be mostly the work of the same author. They are almost certainly biographies of the same person. Please compare the two drafts. Updates should be made to Draft: G. Parthasarathy. Are you User:Wshyam? If so, and you want the version in draft space deleted, you may request its deletion, but, if so, please explain why you are using two accounts with similar names. If you and User:Wshyam are really two different users, please coordinate your edits.

Landmark Media EnterprisesEdit

Hi. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Third opinion is an important and valuable step in the dispute resolution process. I participated in this process for a number of years, and I took it seriously. When you give a "drive by" opinion, without any followup, and without any reference to policies or guidelines, all you're doing is choosing sides for no apparent reason. This isn't helpful in resolving a dispute that is based at its core on Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines.

I encourage you to support or retract your opinion at Talk:Landmark Media Enterprises#Third Opinion after carefully reading the arguments. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Amatulic - No. As you probably know, Third Opinion is a lightweight process. It isn't entirely reasonable to say that I provided a "drive-by third opinion", because what happened is essentially that a "drive-by third opinion request" was made, with only one statement by each editor on the page in question. I wasn't asked to go to multiple pages where there had been discussion, and, if I had been, I might or might not have done that. My comment was based on Wikipedia policies and guidelines, that normally when there is disagreement, both positions should be presented. There is an exception with biographies of living persons, where unsubstantiated negative material is simply deleted. This was not a BLP case. I offered a brief third opinion, which was all that was possible based on the article talk page, and the fact that the Third Opinion request didn't say to look at other pages. I don't plan at this point to revise my opinion. I certainly don't see the point to retracting it, since I offered it honestly based on what I saw, and since it is not binding. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
If you request moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard, which is probably the next step, I will recuse from moderating. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
No longer necessary, no further action needed. The WP:SPA involved has been blocked for a second time for disruptively adding irrelevant lawsuit details to multiple articles. I stand by my statement that yours was a drive-by opinion: You made a brief assertion without any reference to the arguments made or applicable policies and guidelines. You say above that your opinion was based on policies and guidelines, yet you declined to elaborate when asked to remain engaged. Providing no basis for an opinion isn't helpful to either party in resolving the dispute. Backing up a third opinion with at least a reference to a policy or a guideline should be a minimum standard when offering an opinion (in my opinion). ~Amatulić (talk) 06:49, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
First, if you think that the Third Opinion guidelines should be changed, propose the change on the Third Opinion talk page. Second, perhaps I made the mistake of trying to offer a third opinion at all in response to a drive-by request without adequate background. Third, I have in the past asked about whether Third Opinion volunteers should be expected to defend their opinions, and have been told that to say so wold make Third Opinion a less light-weight process than it is. Based on what you say, you should not have used Third Opinion, but the matter is taken care of now. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon and Amatulic: I guess you both know that you're both among the top 10 contributors at 3O of all time? I don't know that there's an absolute right or wrong here, but I'll tell you what I do and what I think. In terms of looking for discussion in other places to satisfy the thorough discussion requirement, whether I'm working at 3O, DRN, or at MEDCOM, I check the article talk page and, if the discussion's not there, the disputant's user talk pages; but I don't go looking for it at other article talk pages unless something at one of those pages or at the case listing says that it's there. What's more, I don't think that a volunteer is required to do that much since the rules all say it's supposed to be at the article talk page. (Which is not to say that I think a case should be closed for insufficient discussion if the case listing or something at the article talk page says where the discussion has been held.) As for the drive-by part. I do not provide ongoing mediation after offering a 3O. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." So, I do think that it's intended to be a largely off-the-cuff, state your piece, and ride off into the sunset kind of thing (with a hardy "Hi-ho, Silver!" if you're so inclined), but on the other hand I also feel that the most persuasive 3O's are both well-explained and well-cited to policy (preferably including quotations of the pertinent parts of the policy), whenever that's possible. But some disputes are over things which aren't clearly governed by policy and that's not possible. I've not read the dispute in question here, so I don't know if that might be the case. If either of you think that any of the 3 of us are doing it wrong, perhaps it ought to be discussed at the 3O talk page. But, frankly, I think that 3O properly gives a great deal of flexibility in giving 3O's. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

@TransporterMan: Huh. No, I didn't know about that statistic. I'm surprised I'm in any such list at all considering that my 3O activity stopped abruptly 6 years ago. I wonder where I'd be if I had kept it up. I did enjoy my work there, and I am proud of resolving some difficult disputes — and those experiences have colored my point of view: doing a "drive by" wouldn't have helped at all in those cases. So when I offer an opinion, I tend to stay engaged. That said, I have nothing against a "drive by" if it's a complete and well-formed opinion that is clearly grounded in policies and guidelines. A personal view with no basis in anything isn't helpful to either side. But even if you do drive-by with a good, complete opinion, if anyone in the dispute asks you for elaboration, well, then it is your duty to answer if you were the least bit serious about helping resolve the dispute (and if you weren't, why respond to a 3O request at all?). If you were willing to offer the opinion, you should also be willing to explain yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
You both might be interested in my personal standards as a 3O Wikipedian. #3 speaks to follow-up activity, including elaboration. They're just my standards and others may certainly disagree or do differently. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
@TransporterMan: Wow. Thanks for that. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:16, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, User:TransporterMan. I think that a slight apology was in order from User:Amatulic for what I thought was a less-than-fair criticism, and I will accept the above "Wow" as a slight apology. I think we are done. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

09:47:52, 4 June 2016 review of submission by IainmacintyreEdit


Hi Robert I have now added several independent references as requested and also an image showing the society crest on the presidential badge. Together I believe these establish the notability of the BSHM Can you please let me know when this will be re-reviewed? Papamac (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

  Done Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Review of Synthetic MRI draft by DioidEdit

Thanks for the review comment, I've added wikilinks to MRI, spin-lattice relaxation, spin-spin relaxation, and relaxation. Do you consider that sufficient? Dioid (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Added wikilink to spin echo and a See Also section with reference to MRI and relaxation.Dioid (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Dispute resolution/48 hoursEdit

Still waiting for the other editor to reply. If he doesn't within the normal period, please consider extending the time limit before closing as perhaps he was unaware of the time limit and this is a good mechanism for working through disputes. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

As you requested, I have waited a little while longer. I will close it tomorrow unless there is a reply. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Review of Bagnan High School draftEdit

Hi sir, I have edited my new article "Bagnan High School". I have changed the article language to neutral manner. When will you re-view this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impurnendu (talkcontribs) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 02:24:02, 6 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tracy Symonds-KeoghEdit


Hi Robert

Many thanks for your advice - I am really hoping to create a great article and need to learn the citation process to complete the article. Any guidance would be most appreciated.

Regards

Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Read Referencing and Referencing for Beginners. If you still have questions, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

ReplyEdit

  Reply
Hey I was instructed to re-send it without altering anything! Nkwe (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
No. The instructions say to resend after you have fixed the issue that caused the decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

René Dekker Page ReviewEdit

Hi Robert, I saw you recently declined the page I was trying to get up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ren%C3%A9_Dekker. I have worked with the nice folks over at the IRC and made the changes they recommended. Would you mind reviewing it for me to see what, if anything, is missing.

Thank you so much Robert!

Lmarotz (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. I will redraft it and submit it again. There will be a lot of changes to the sentence structure so it may be a bit.

Thank you for the help!

Lmarotz (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

You say that you worked with the folks at the IRC. Who is the IRC? Is that a Wikipedia acronym with which I am unfamiliar, or is that an organization that Rene Dekker is associated with? If the latter, please consider whether the conflict of interest disclosure is required. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you mean that you discussed the draft with other editors via Internet Relay Chat, or something or someone else? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

The IRC I am referencing is that one with the editors (Internet Relay Chat). I am submitting a new draft mostly rewritten. Please let me know what you think. 70.36.65.50 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

That was me, sorry I wasn't logged in. Lmarotz (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

18:06:43, 6 June 2016 review of submission by KrokelEdit



I could use some advice on how to remove to promotional tone of the page I submitted for review on PK Floats. I had 4 references to various news articles added to give more information on some of the events that happened. Any advice so I can make a good article is greatly appreciated.

I will be asking for advice to you at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Boy Erased articleEdit

Hi, I appreciate the concerns about "coat-racking" however this book is all about gay conversion therapy and those who have practiced this "therapy". The book includes a timeline of the practice. To omit this content is to not actually cover the book which would be worse. The news articles talk about the book and the practice - they are inseparable.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talkcontribs) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Biryani EditingEdit

Hey! I was just wondering, if decisions are going to be made on the article? Hammad.511234 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:30:28, 8 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Shyamw1Edit



Shyamw1 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Thanks for your comments. I hope this is the right place to ask for assistance. I am still trying figure out how and where to submit my explanations to the reviewer so I apologize for any inconvenience. Can you please specify what you mean by "unconstructive" edits? I did much research to find additional sources based on a previous comment that indicated I need to find more sources. Will be glad to remove anything you deem "unconstructive" if I understand and know the edits that fit the description. Also, can you please let me know how I can delete the first draft I submitted? I thought I had deleted the first submission but apparently not. Would like to delete that and keep the second one for your review but not sure how to do it. Thank you.Shyamw1 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1

The unconstructive edits consist of the resubmission of User:Shyamw1/sandbox, when I have repeatedly said to make the edits to the page in draft space. I have asked you several times. Have you been using two different user names? Are you User:Wshyam? If so, you can request deletion of the other draft, but thereafter use one account or the other. Please take all further discussions about this article to the Teahouse, because I think that I need other experienced editors to explain to you what the problem is, because my explanations don't seem to help. Are you also User:Wshyam? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Resubmission after adding References Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parthiv_ShahEdit

Dear Robert,

My page- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Parthiv_Shah was rejected on NOTABILITY clause due to lack of REFERENCES.

I have added external links and reliable references wherever possible besides adding more background on work for NOTABILITY qualification.

Kindly consider the same.

Warm Regards, KshitijK15 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)KshitijK.

Image de-linked from CommonsEdit

I just received the following notice from a BOT: Removing "Jal_Bk_cover.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: Missing license as of 31 May 2016. Does this mean my proposed new Article 'Jalaleddin' cannot go forward with the cover image I used? Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes. That image does not exist. You will need to load it to Commons again with a good CC-BY-SA license. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
I do appreciate the notice you sent about my 'Jalaleddin (novel)' article being accepted. Concerning the image: the CC-BY-SA license matter sounds complicated. If a simple explanation is possible please provide it. I'd really like to use the image. Thanks. Diranakir (talk) 15:09, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know much about image licensing. I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks very much. Diranakir (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!Edit

Hello, Robert McClenon/Archive 11. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived. Message added by {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template.

00:06:01, 9 June 2016 review of submission by Mzz AngelaEdit



Hello, I have made revisions, Can you review my draft in sandbox and help me?

Please do not expect much help from me. You are asking me for help with an autobiography, and autobiographies in Wikipedia are strongly discouraged. There is still a considerable amount of laudatory and peacock language. Also, you have not addressed the formatting issues. If you want help, you may ask at the Teahouse, where some experienced editors will be more patient with you than I am. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

05:44:51, 9 June 2016 review of submission by DurothreadsEdit



Hello Robert,

Could you please give me some tips on how to make my article less like an "advertisement"? This is the second time I have revised it and it still hasn't passed. Any advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Can

No. Your whole purpose for being in Wikipedia is to advertise. Your user name indicates that. I won't advise you as to how to make your advertisement less obviously an advertisement. You might try asking at the Teahouse, but they will probably be equally discouraging. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:05:20, 9 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by OmnitausEdit


Hello Mr. McClenon! I've made some major revisions to my draft thanks to the IRC help channel and wanted your feedback. I've tried editing the style to sound more encyclopedic, but then again I thought I had done so as well last time I resubmitted the draft. If it isn't too much trouble, are there any suggestions you have for me as a new editor? Here is the link Draft:Elope (business) Omnitaus (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I've completed this revision of editing, taking in mind what the Teahouse suggested. A big thank you for all the assistance, Omnitaus (talk) 14:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)


20:35:49, 9 June 2016 review of submission by ZintkalaNuniEdit


Hello, I am requesting a re-review because I have attempted to change what you pointed out I had neglected to do. I appreciate the attention to detail that goes into editing. I look forward to changing all that you point out that is wrong. There are so many more people who know that Custer was most likely killed by his own men, than know about the little girl who was adopted as a 'living souvenir' by the general of the Nebraska National Guard. I have professors of Native American literature and anthropology who don't know who she is, or what her story is. I hope you reconsider. If I've made more style errors, I will be very glad to fix them. Thank you, ZintkalaNuni (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The major problem is and was that the lede sentence doesn't begin by naming the subject and explaining what she is notable for. I haven't reviewed the article in great detail for "style errors", because the obvious issue is the lede sentence. If you need more help understanding how a Wikipedia article is supposed to begin, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:02, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I have changed more in accordance with the suggestions from various people (thank you to them for clarity) and hope you re-review my article. Please advise as to next step, or if additional revisions need to be made. ZintkalaNuni (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

A cookie for you!Edit

  :) Ps19950987 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

04:32:04, 10 June 2016 review of submission by Mattyh10Edit


Hi Robert, you turned down this page I created before because a lack of citations. I added the citations a number of weeks ago, but I haven't heard anything in response. Can you let me know what is happening to this article. Thanks Matthew

User:Mattyh10 - You have added several additional citations, of which some appear to be reliable. There are too many unreliable citations left. Please remove all of the unreliable citations. Also, you have two citations to Japanese Wikipedia, which is not a citation at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

07:15:57, 10 June 2016 review of submission by MyrthevdstaayEdit

I think the article shouldn't have been rejected on notabilty. Patta is a really big thing in Europe and is available worldwide. Patta is also still growing and probably gonna conquer the rest of the world really soon, so wikipedia if you don't want a page about that I don't know about what you do want a page. I'd also really love to get some tips on how to improve my page instead of just saying it's not notable enough, because it is.

Myrthe van der Staay

See my remarks at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

18:55:24, 10 June 2016 review of submission by Ica2000Edit


Hi,

Ill get straight to it, if you dont mind: I wrote a page about Perge, bee bread. I checked it grammatically and it all seemed fine, until it got rejected from publishing, because of the already “existing" page Bee bread (which you cant find if you just type bee bread). If you type bee bread, you get a page on Wikipedia about bee pollen and on that Wikipedia is only one sentence about bee bread. If you go on the link that says bee bread, you just get a page that is a link to bee pollen (nothing wrote on it, except the link). In my opinion there is a lot to write about bee bread and so I would like to make a whole page about it.


this is a link to my page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Perge

See my comments at the Teahouse. The basic question is whether to expand an article or split an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:08, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ANRFC closesEdit

OopsEdit

Apologies -- In undoing the blanking of my comments here I ended up removing the comment you added. I can add it back... but then it wouldn't make sense considering the restored discussion that had already taken place. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that up. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:32, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Do you need a Third Opinion on the encyclopedic question, which is that the use of the words "famous" and "legendary" in the voice of Wikipedia is non-neutral? If that had been the question, I would have glad to answer it based on neutral point of view. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
No need to do anything further. I had already offered a third opinion from a request a week or so ago. Apparently what happened was, the IP blanked out all of that, reposted the original question, and re-requested a third opinion. Then you saw the request, not knowing that it had already been answered, and removed it. Then I restored my original answer, which removed your response, at which point I started this section on your talk page.
It seemed pretty clear to me that the request was about the presence of unsubstantiated adjectives used in the article, so I offered an opinion on that, likely the same as what you would have written. If that isn't what the anon meant, then the anon should clarify the request rather than blank the section and start over because it didn't go the way s/he intended. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
This is a disruptive unregistered editor. If there is a single additional incident of altering the content of the talk page, I would recommend the extraordinary but permitted action of requesting semi-protection for the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it was disruptive, but it seems to me to made in good faith. The anon was just trying to re-start the request from a clean slate, not knowing how things are supposed to work around here, and not realizing the disruptive nature of his attempt to start over. Even then, if it's just a single IP address, then blocking it is preferable to semi-protecting a page (talk or otherwise) from all IP addresses. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
It appears to me that the IP is on a soapbox about "forbidden words" and is conducting a campaign against an imagined political correctness about the use of the words, when you and I see the issue as neutrality. It may be good faith, but if so, it is cluelessness constituting invincible ignorance. Enoughj. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

InfoboxesEdit

I don't criticise your closure on the CZJ article, as I think the consensus could be judged as that there should be a box, but that's more about vote counting than anything else, but your statement that "It is at this time standard practice in Wikipedia to use infoboxes when there is an appropriate infobox, and there is an appropriate infobox for actors and actresses" is, I'm afraid, deeply, deeply flawed. The MoS - upon which decisions should be based - states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article." Absolutely nothing about "standard practice" at all, which just suggests that an IB should be shoved into all articles without any thought as to the sense or benefit of doing so.

There are plenty of examples of GAs, FAs and others that run utterly counter to your "standard practice" line of thought. You may wish to rethink that point (or even strike it from the comment, as it is fundamentally misleading and rather contentious), but there is no such practice and no basis for such practice in either Wiki guidelines or policies. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

(watching) @Robert: I noticed that you changed, but it looks a bit strange now, please check if it is what you meant. Please also note that we don't have a specific infobox for actors and actresses (such as {{infobox actor}}); it redirects to the neutral {{infobox person}}. English is not my first language, perhaps help me to understand: I thought so far that "standard practice" only means "it is used in many cases", not "it has to be used in all cases". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

That is what I thought it means also, and English is my first language. I will just go ahead and remove the markup and leave the new text standing. I understand that we don't have a specific infobox for actors, and that we use the one for persons. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Many or not I don't know for actresses, but I saw Marilyn Monroe and Sonam Kapoor on the Main page this month. - A key question in the Welsh case was in which way WP:BRD works. Some argued that the removal was a bold edit which required discussion when reverted, others thought the 2006 initial addition was an edit that could be termed bold about 10 years later, reverted and discussed. The difference is the state of the article during the discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

DRN CoordinatorEdit

You should take the next slot. You're ready. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

If you think so. When? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
August-September, 2016. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:50, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

NPP / AfCEdit

Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

PreciousEdit

belief in logic

Thank you for quality articles such as Wallace L. Hall, Jr., for mediation and dispute resolution, for sifting articles for creation and answering Teahouse questions, for your thoughts on crisis and for "comments ... that are excessively long will be archived or ridiculed", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

3O about LoongEdit

Hi, Robert,

Please refer to my response there.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is about Talk:Loong Kin Sang. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

09:11:15, 15 June 2016 review of submission by BroVicEdit


Hi, I've put in a little more work to that article that was declined. I would like to have your views before I re-submit. Regards.

I have asked for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

09:20:03, 15 June 2016 review of submission by RglundbergEdit


Hi there, Thanks for reviewing my submission (on May 23 this year). Since it was declined I have made further edits and it was resubmitted on May 24. I was wondering if you have had a chance to take a look since trhen as I have not had any further feedback?

I have asked for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Voting on one's own submission in the SurveyEdit

I see that the other editor in the DRN voted on his own Lead draft in the survey section here. Is that permissible? It appears to be replying to other statements as well. Drsmoo (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Drsmoo - The RFC is a separate proceeding from DRN, and both of the DRN participates should !vote. I will see if there is improper back-and-forth./ Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! Drsmoo (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help for posting a science discovery in Wikipedia.Edit

there could be a historical science mistake in spinning top physics. please take look what this mistake is about in below links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecu9DFWd7_0 https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/ My discovery needs to find experts for further investigation. Wikipedia is good place for the job, but my article was always unacceptable. Anyone has a better idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talkcontribs) 00:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

You have previously been warned cautioned not to use Wikipedia to try to advance your original research. If you can't get it published in a journal, try to get it published in a science magazine such as Popular Science or a newspaper. If you want experts, you may look for them at WP:WikiProject Physics. They may agree or disagree with you, and may tell you what is wrong with your conclusions. Please do not use Wikipedia to try to publish original research. Do not insert statements about your original research into existing articles. That almost certainly will result in a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking for help on The Game article.Edit

@Robert McClenon: Hi. You recently commented on the the talk page of The Game (rapper) where a third opinion had been requested. Could you please provide some guidance as to what my next steps should be? I have been unable to get the other editor involved to answer me, and I am trying to avoid reverting the edits again. Is request for comments necessary here? I really just want a third poster to opine on the situation before I take further action. Thanks for your guidance; I'm not too familiar with the resources available in this kind of situation. I'd let it go but I feel like this should be addressed since it is serious information regarding a living person. Thanks. -KaJunl (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

First, have you read the dispute resolution policy? Read it twice. Second, make whatever edits you want to make, boldly. There are a few editors who are so terrified of being accused of edit-warring that they won't edit boldly, or won't edit boldly after a brief glitch. Are you in that position? Don't be. Make the edits, boldly. If the edits are reverted, make the edits one more time again, and ask on the article talk page why the edits have been reverted. If your edits are reverted twice, the next step might be to find another editor who is interested. I don't have specific advice with regard to rappers. I don't happen to know if there is a WikiProject that would have someone who is interested in rappers. If you can find another editor, then between the two of you, you can insist on dialogue. Otherwise, what comes to my mind is what you didn't want to hear, and that is that maybe an RFC is the next step. I may add more thoughts shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I've already made the edits twice, and he won't answer me on his talk page or the article's talk page. What I'm frustrated with is the workload to get another editor involved- it doesn't need to be someone who knows anything about the topic, just someone who can tell me whether this is vandalism or not. Maybe I'll try to look on a WikiProject later but honestly this is confusing and not really worthwhile to me. -KaJunl (talk) 10:56, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

22:23:30, 18 June 2016 review of submission by NathenooEdit


Hi Robert. I've added more reference links to other sites (Pedlars and DPReview). I hope this improves things. May I also get some direction on what the tone/notability issues are so I may correct? Thanks. Nathan

I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)


NextGenGolf 23 June 2016 review of submissionEdit

Hi Robert,

I updated my submission here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:NextGenGolf) according to your comments. It has 4 weeks since the submission and the article is still pending review. Thanks, Andrew Xcf1456 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk/Archives/2016_June_10#17:05:22.2C_10_June_2016_review_of_submission_by_Xcf1456. It doesn't appear that you have addressed the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the external links and addressed the changes. Does everything look correct now?Xcf1456 (talk)Xcf1456 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Terakonin/sandbox has a new commentEdit

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Terakonin/sandbox. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Zygmunt Aleksander WnękEdit


Mr. McClenon, thank you kindly for your assistance with regards to Wiki entry Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. However there are still a number of points with which you could help me. Furthermore I still need to finalise the Infobox for Military Person - perhaps you could advise me? 83.9.118.165 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is now Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. If you ask a question about an article, in the future, please provide a link. This is the only post from your IP address, so your IP address has shifted. This is an additional reason why it would be highly advantageous for you to register an account. (The arguments that unregistered editors get better privacy than registered editors are simply incorrect.) I will comment more soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:41, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I do not know much about infoboxes, and would suggest that you ask for help with the infobox at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. It appears that you should also ask for help in having the wikilinks properly formatted. They are ugly and are not the way that we want to do them in Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

17:32:12, 20 June 2016 review of submission by Ryan at ITTIAEdit


Thank you for reviewing my page submission. Several references have been added since the AfC Helpdesk comments were made that I believe help to establish notability. In particular, Embedded is an important publication for the embedded systems market from UBM Electronics.

Also, I did add a paid editing disclosure shortly after you requested one last month. Another editor moved it to the talk page last week. Should I move it back to the page itself?

The proper place for the paid disclosure is on the talk page, so the other editor was correct in moving it there, and I will leave it there. I personally don't plan to provide another review of a draft by a paid editor. We are all volunteers here, except for paid editors, and we have our own priorities, and mine do not include assisting paid editors. You may wait for another review, or you may ask at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac BarrowEdit

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Barrow. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

16:00:59, 22 June 2016 review of submission by Alishaj98Edit


Hi Robert,

I created the article about the company VeryApt. I closely reviewed all the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and only wrote facts about the company in timeline format. I'm wondering why it is still considered to be an advertisement and how to fix it.

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Special Barnstar
Thank you so so much for the help! You're awesome! MediaKill13 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Robert, My article about poet Bruce Isaacson has been rejected at least twice, including by you, for lack of third-party affirmation of his value. I added a few important poetry anthologies in which his work is included, which I should have included before, but there are many other citations I could include. I would like to send you or whoever is reviewing the latest submission a list of Bruce's publications and reviews as well as praise of his work by Allen Ginsberg, current U.S. Poet Laureate Juan Felipe Herrera, and others. Can I do that? Thanks, Argotmerchant (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Park City Mining DistrictEdit

Hi Robert, it was not my intention to break the rules, this is my first go at editing with Wikipedia and am still trying to learn all of them. As far at the teahouse goes, what do you think? Can the article stand on its own?

DanielVGarcia (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason why you haven't gone to the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:2raj/sandbox/Tooraj EnayatiEdit

 

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/Tooraj Enayati".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation 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}} 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. Puffin Let's talk! 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

About David F. WrightEdit

@Robert McClenon, LaMona, and Puffin: Hi all. This article was up for WP:G13 deletion. I have boldly moved it into article-space. I think the obituary in The Scotsman indicates that Wright may meet notability guidelines other than WP:ACADEMIC. What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, you had a right to do that. I wouldn't have done that, but you used judgment. I would have preferred editing the article and resubmitting it, but I won't nominate the article for AFD and don't feel like tagging it. It is no worse than many other articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

TPConnectsEdit

Dear Robert McClenon - Seeks your assistance to review the page. Raju Dubai (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

You haven't corrected the formatting of the references. If you need help with the references, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Raju Dubai - It appears to me that most of the references refer to the standard rather than to the system itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. According to the International Air Transport Registry only 4 Aggregators had been accredited including TPConnects. http://www.thebeat.travel/post/2016/06/03/No-GDSs-Or-TMCs-Are-NDC-Capable-Yet-Based-On-IATA-Certification.aspx. The system informations are available at their website which is also given as the reference. Raju Dubai (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

CityU MFAEdit

Dear Robert,

Thank you for your comments on the duplicated issue of "CityU MFA" drafts. I was wondering why I needed to create two identical messages. In your comment on June 22, while one CityU MFA message is declined, the other is still under review. Has there been any update on the one that is being reviewed? Also, if I would like to expand the "CityU MFA" page, should I continue from the current CityU MFA draft, or should I create a new CityU MFA draft with new content? I am new at Wikipedia, any advice from you would be appreciated and thank you for your patience. Regards, Knoxtennessee (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Question on the Gherla Holocaust Monument articleEdit

Robert,

I added the references that you requested. I have never submitted anything to Wikipedia before and I am a bit confused about the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micuklein (talkcontribs) 15:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Anglo-Saxon Settlement disputeEdit

Thank you for closing the discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. It was entirely the wrong forum for resolution of the problem. The problem, as can be seen by any detailed look at the article talk page, was not the content, but the grinding insistence of one editor who thought he/she knew better than the range of available scholarship on the subject. This editor is hugely enthusiastic, only partly informed and unswervingly confident in his/her rectitude. By repeatedly insisting that his/her simplistic syntheses, interpretations and own research should be incorporated into an article on a complex subject, he/she has created a problem that Wikipedia seems unable to address in a meaningful way. How this should be dealt with I do not know. Certainly, Wikipedia should have some ability to redirect such a person's misplaced zeal. Urselius (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:54:00, 28 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Doris KadishEdit


I submitted an article entitle Sophie Doin. I understand the comments and can make the suggested changed. But before I work on it I want to know the following. My scholarly work on her is in respected venues. But I'm the main scholar who has discovered and written about her. There are 2 other respected scholars who have written on her, also in respected venues. But she is a minor author. Is that enough?

Doris Kadish (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

22:44:16, 28 June 2016 review of submission by T.X.CritterEdit


I am requesting a re-review of the Paul Lukas (sports uniform reporter) article because I added a lot more information and backed it up with plenty of independent references. I submitted the article for re-review 28 days ago so I was just wondering when it will be reviewed again. Is it typical to wait almost a month or longer for an article to be re-reviewed? The strange thing is my article was first reviewed the day after I submitted it, so it is really strange that it was first reviewed so quickly and yet now it has taken almost a month for the re-review. I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia so if I did anything wrong by posting this message here I am sorry and please accept my apologies and I'd appreciate you telling me what the proper procedure for asking when my article will be re-reviewed is. Thank you and have a good day.

I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Request on 00:39:22, 29 June 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by OlkonolEdit

urgentEdit

Please remove draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Causal_Neural_Paradox_(Thought_Curvature), as there is a copy in main space. I hadnt known it was possible to initialize work in both draft and non draft space. By author User:JordanMicahBennett
By any chance, are there senior editors that study machine learning in fine detail?

If you, as the principal author of a draft, want to delete it, you may request its deletion. There are other things that you also don't know; maybe how to write in English is one of them; maybe you do know that. I will let both deletions run their courses. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Organizational AnatomyEdit

—Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Hi, my article on Organizational Anatomy was declined for a reason "This draft does not contain references that establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars in management and organizational studies." However, all appropriate links are included on the bottom of the page, a book "Organisational Anatomy" is published by a scientific publisher, the book is already in universities libraries from the USA to Australia, and this concept and book is endorsed by leading academic and practical experts. I can't understand the reason for decline. Anticipating your feedback, Best regards, olkonol

Olkonol (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

02:08:30, 29 June 2016 review of submission by CargobaseEdit


Hi Robert,

Just wanted to clarify - Is the reason why it is rejected because of the tone of writing or the insufficient use of sources? Could you kindly advise on a way to make the page less "promotional"?

Thank you.

Cargobase (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Both the tone of writing and the insufficient use of sources. No. I won't advise how to make a page that is intended to be promotional read less promotionally. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:14, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

16:24:08, 29 June 2016 review of submission by Jessbailey33Edit


Hi Robert. Could you clarify which sources do not appear to be independent of the subject? Thanks Jessbailey33 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I am asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

20:34:43, 29 June 2016 review of submission by MarciadrossEdit


I'm a first time article maker on Wikipedia. Is there such a thing as an editing course in writing and substantiating info on the site? I would be interested.

Also, I'm trying to understand what kind of evidence is needed to make a verifiable claim about Steven R Tannenbaum: if he is a member of the Academy of Science, for example, should I do more than just say it and provide a link to that organization?

Finally, are publication records encouraged in an article about a person? Or shall we supply more in the way of references?

Thank you. Marcia Marciadross (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be asking questions at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

21:55:18, 29 June 2016 review of submission by Jcran1234Edit


Hi,

I am looking for guidance on how to continue. I started this work by addressing the issue that the port types in the Fibre Channel article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fibre_Channel) had no citations which required finding a reliable source (the Fibre Channel standards) and then updating the definitions to that reliable source. I then thought that it might be better to put that list in a separate article and referencing it in the Fibre Channel article.

If this is not realistic or proper, then I will update update the list in the Fibre Channel article with this updated information. Thoughts?

For what it is worth, I am also planning to update the Fibre Channel Zoning article to use information from the IETF MIB for Zoning and the Fibre Channel standards (addressing the issue to cite to reliable sources and filling in gaps of missing information).

Thanks!

User:Jcran1234 - The article and your questions about further work are technical in nature, and I would suggest that you ask other technically qualified editors. I would suggest that you ask at the talk page for the Computing Project. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 30 June 2016 (UTC)


13:37:18, 30 June 2016 review of submission by smk-slabEdit

User:smk-slab - Per your request, I have corrected the redlinks to the draft article High Performance Computing Software Development Tools. Please re-consider for full submission. Smk-slab (talk) 13:38, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Editing News #2—2016Edit

Editing News #2—2016 Read this in another languageSubscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

It's quick and easy to insert a references list.

Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).

If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.

Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.

Recent changesEdit

The visual editor is now available to all users at most Wikivoyages. It was also enabled for all contributors at the French Wikinews.

The single edit tab feature combines the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. It has been deployed to several Wikipedias, including Hungarian, Polish, English and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as to all Wikivoyages. At these wikis, you can change your settings for this feature in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. The team is now reviewing the feedback and considering ways to improve the design before rolling it out to more people.

Future changesEdit

The "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including: Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Urdu, Persian, Bengali, Assamese, Aramaic and others.

The team is working with the volunteer developers who power Wikisource to provide the visual editor there, for opt-in testing right now and eventually for all users. (T138966)

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. It will look like the visual editor, and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices around September 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work togetherEdit

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 21:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Robert McClenon/Archive 11".