User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 26

.

Edits During Dispute Resolution

Hi,

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:William_Lane_Craig. One of the editors in the dispute has begun editing the article again (see [1]). I do not think the dispute resolution has been very helpful in resolving the differences, as they seem to be too fundamental, however I've been holding off from making any edits to the article while the dispute resolution is in progress out of respect for the process. However, I don't really see that as being a good option while other editors continue editing. The editor in question already aggressively pushed the article in their direction prior to the first statements of the dispute.

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

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

User:GretLomborg - Thank you for reporting the violation of mediation rules. I don't care to revert edits or go back to page protection, but if there are any more rogue edits, I will fail the discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome. I see you've closed the discussion, which is unfortunate but understandable. I'm not sure if you noticed, but one of the disputants removed some of your moderator comments prior to closure: [2]. - GretLomborg (talk) 05:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

User:GretLomborg - User warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

You may need to fail the dispute resolution

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

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

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

Please respond.

jps (talk) 15:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Formal request for your resignation

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Audi Q3

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

Thank you for trying

		The Mediator Barnstar
		Thank you for trying to mediate the difficult dispute about William Lane Craig. It probably doesn't feel like right now, but your work is appreciated. GretLomborg (talk) 22:50, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

By some, but maybe that dispute is unresolvable. I resolved an impossible dispute about Indian languages last month, but it took a sword of Damocles. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

"White Croats" question.

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

User:Nicoljaus - Do you have a question? Have you tried to edit the article and been reverted? My advice would be to make two attempts to edit the article, and another attempt to discuss on the talk page. If you make two attempts and both are reverted, and there is no further discussion or no further constructive discussion, it is clear that the other editor is being passive, and you can publish the RFC. I am not sure who you are referring to as SOMEONELSE. If you publish the RFC, and it goes your way, it allows you to fix the article. If the RFC is in your favor, and then you fix it, the other editor does not have the right to revert your edits. Do you still have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

I tried to edit and there were two reverts ([3], [4]). Further discussion is fruitless - the opponent gives statements with references where the exact opposite is said, but he feels fine with it. The last speech on TP was mine. My question is whether the time spent here can be converted into some advantage in the RFC so that it "goes my way". Because I doubt the success, for the reason I described above (Everyone will think: "Oh, this guy was stood up on the DRN, probably this is a wikilawyer, or the issue is not worth it).--Nicoljaus (talk) 22:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Nicoljaus - Well, since you have your mind made up, it will not be useful for me to try to advise you any further. Go ahead and give up.

I personally would conclude that the editor who failed to respond to the DRN request was the one who was being passive-aggressive, but if you already know what the answer will be, that is that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

I apologize if you are upset, it was not my intention and I am very grateful to you for your efforts. But this was my first appeal to the DRN and, to my regret, I see nothing but lost time. Maybe I'm wrong (well, it happens).--Nicoljaus (talk) 06:43, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

198.27.150.168

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

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

Your draft article, Draft:Families are Forever

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

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

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

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

We are being oppressive ...

... by writing excessively well-reasoned deletion rationales.[5]

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

Well, they do have a point (not WP:POINT), although it is a dinky point. (Does that have to do with an opposable pinch to knit without needles?) They are correct that with a shorter nomination and supporting statement, some editors would usually !vote Delete, and some would always !vote Keep. (Portal skeptics don't always vote !Delete. After all, we know that a difference of opinion between two portal skeptics ended with one of them indeffed for insulting the other one.) However, the well-reasoned rationales that are seen as oppressive by portal fans are oriented primarily to middle editors and secondarily because portal skeptics, being reason-based, need to persuade each other. Maybe, for those who would prefer to divide Wikipedia or any other community neatly into camps, reasoned arguments are oppressive. (There was a family therapist who told me, 16 or 17 years ago, that I was oppressive. I never did understand why, but thought that she (the therapist) just had her mind made up. Now I see that maybe I was oppressive because I was reasoning at length. Anyway, I concluded that she was oppressive. But that is all in the past.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl Maybe using the same paragraphs or same tables of measurements several times because they apply to several MFDs is oppressive. Duh. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think the perceived problem is that presenting actual reasons for deletion (rather than just a vague wave at POG) requires any "keep" !votes to be accompanied by actual policy- and evidence-based reasoning. This impedes those who just want to be able to say something along the lines of "keep cos it is a portal!!!". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

Right, User:BrownHairedGirl. There are two related but different abilities that H. sapiens has that other primates do not, to use language and to think or reason. Deletion rationales that are based on thinking are oppressive to a primate who only wants to use language without having thought behind it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:12, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

TTH+H

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

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

But surely discussing the field of about knowledge in its own terminology is oppressive? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:45, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

A wee milestone

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

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

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

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

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

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

IEEE Lists of Fellows

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

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Tuo Chiang-class corvette

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

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Abivin

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

G11 is fine for it. Shortcutting MFD is often fine. Thanks, User:Kudpung. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. I don't look in at MfD very often these days but I'll bear this in mind. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:18, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Editing News #1—July 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

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

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

Edit Cards

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

Welcome back to the Editing newsletter.

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

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

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

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

Follow these instructions and share your experience:

📲 Try Edit Cards.

Recent releases

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

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

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

New and active projects

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

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

Looking ahead

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

Learning more

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Electronic cigarette

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

DRN

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

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

Dispute resolution - your thoughts requested

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

Thank you, User:Steven Crossin. Yes, I will be replying at Village pump (idea lab) when I finish composing my thoughts. I think that the first thing that we need to do is to improve the triage process for incoming complaints. Then we need to have at least two tracks for disputes that require mediation, a fast track and a slow track, and some disputes that come in do not lend themselves to mediation, but perhaps to some other form of resolution. But I will be replying at VPI shortly, so this is just an ack (acknowledgment). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I’ve also sent you an email above with some other notes. The content isn’t overly private so I don’t mind if you reply on my talk page or via email. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 23:19, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Poking you re above - haven’t seen any response yet? Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:23, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - I replied at length at VPI. Did you want something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes please, I sent you an email about DRN specifically and separate from the VP discussion a little while ago. As I mentioned above, a public reply is fine if you prefer. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - You didn't say very much in the email, and it was mostly capable of being addressed at VPI. You did make one comment that I didn't think was constructive, but I chose not to respond to it. Is there a problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

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

User:Steven Crossin - I should have responded with encouragement about the volunteer drive. I half-overlooked it. Do it. I was annoyed by the comment about responding quickly to cases. I think that I only respond quickly to comment on whether the case is properly filed and is a content dispute. I think that cases should be at least responded to quickly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Here’s what I wanted to discuss. At the moment DRN is just largely you and me, and I wonder whether part of that might be because a prospective volunteer sees the discussion section and thinks that the case may have been taken, even if the comment may not give this impression. I’m merely asking if you would please consider, for now, only commenting on content cases you intend to personally handle, so other new volunteers might look at these and be willing to step their toe into our dispute resolution efforts. Since we have very few volunteers, I think it’s worth a try. I would however agree on commenting quickly on obviously malformed disputes, or clear conduct disputes, though at times some conduct disputes have an underlying content factor that should be weighed as well, of course. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 00:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin So what do I do if I think a case should be taken by another volunteer, like the Scott Storch case? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - I will point to the Scott Storch case both to request clarification on your comments in general, and to explain why I found the comment in your email to be non-constructive. You essentially told me not to comment at all on a case if I was hoping for another volunteer to work it. At least, that is what I think you said. The case wasn't malformed, and I didn't have a reason to dismiss it, and it doesn't seem to be a conduct dispute. I would like to ask if a volunteer is ready to work the case. But that would be against the instructions that you have sort of given me. So your advice only gives me one more way in which I don't know what to do. Can you please possibly ask for a volunteer to handle that dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hey Robert, I’m not at all opposed to you chiming in on a dispute after say 24 hours if another volunteer hasn’t commented to note to the involved editors that we are looking for a volunteer to help handle their queries, and the talk page of DRN is probably a good starting place to ask for other volunteers input. My remarks above are more to give that period of time for another volunteer to take a look and leave cases that we aren’t going to handle for others to pick up. Over the next couple of days I’ll cobble together a list of people to reach out to and see if I can get some more participation here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - Do you at least understand why I ignored that part of the email, seeing it as non-constructive? You may be be completely right, but when we aren't doing enough, being told not to do even the minimum of asking for a volunteer just makes me feel like I have been given useless advice to leave alone. I would appreciate it if, at least, a comment were made at DRN saying that we need a volunteer to handle the Storch dispute. I'll leave alone. I expect that the dispute will now go back to edit-warring, but that is just me. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Rheumatoid arthritis

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

DRN discussion

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

Hi Robert, I understand why you collapsed that content in the DRN discussion, but I feel that parts of it need to be taken into consideration. I think that, to an outsider, Tvx1's comment about Nbooth4 starting the discussion is misleading because the issue had previously been discussed on another talk page. An outsider would have no knowledge of this if it were not pointed out to them. Furthermore, editors in that discussion did agree with me, which contradicts Tvx1's claim that nobody does. Tvx1 cannot argue that he had no knowledge of this since he participated in the discussion himself. I think that you or any other DRN volunteer needs to be aware of all of the discussion about the subject and I think Tvx1 needs to explain why he failed to mention any of the support that I have previously had. I'm aware that deliberately misrepresenting something is a fairly serious accusation to make, but if he deliberately neglected to mention previous discussions and/or opposing points of view, then that needs to be out in the open. How can we resolve a dispute if only some of the relevant information is provided? Mclarenfan17 (talk) 02:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC) User:Mclarenfan17 - First, is this a content dispute, or a conduct dispute? If it is a conduct dispute, take it to WP:ANI. Second, by whom does it need to be taken into account anyway? Third, do you think that a dispute resolution volunteer can't read between the lines if they want to do so? Fourth, is this a conduct dispute, or a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:51, 26 July 2019 (UTC) In this case, it's a bit of both, to be honest. It is, however, first and foremost a content dispute. Tvx1 is arguing that there is an existing consensus that is overwhelming. As he said when he made changes to the article, "nobody is agreeing with the lone opposer". I dispute that because, as I pointed out, other editors agreed with me. This is not the one-against-many scenario that he suggests it is. All he had to do at this point was say "sorry, that discussion is a little old; I forgot about it" and we could have carried on. But he didn't. He hasn't even acknowledged the existence of other discussions. And that's when it started to become a conduct dispute. Why can't he acknowledge the other discussion, or the existence of an editor who agreed with me? The only reason I can think of is because it would mean he can no longer claim I am "the lone opposer". It's hard to discuss the content when one party to the discussion will not even acknowledge the existence of content. I don't doubt your ability to read between the lines (and I know you think I have some ulterior motive here, like humbling Tvx1—I don't, I just want what's best for the article), but I also have no doubt about Tvx1's ability to get his way by dragging a discussion out to wear other editors down. Consensus is supposed to be formed through discussion, not dismissal. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC) I really don't appreciate you going behind the back of the DRN to try to get the volunteer to have a negative impression of me. If you have a conduct issue with, report me at ANI. For now I would really appreciate if you stop (maybe scratch) those ridiculous and hypocritical accusations of bad faith. Firstly you had already mentioned the older discussion in your filing of the DRN case before I wrote my dispute summary. So why would I have to explicitly mention it again?? Secondly, I don't know where you get the arrogance to keep criticizing me for forgetting to notify one user, who doesn't even contribute to Wikipedia anymore, when you yourself neglected to include three users disagreeing with you when you filled the case. Regardless, I really don't see how that one user would make such a massive difference. If you add up the two discussions and consider them together, the support for the proposal is still far superior. If you consider them separately, the latter could be a clear example that consensus can change.Tvx1 13:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Beckett's non-arrival

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

User:BrownHairedGirl - You're welcome. I think that I will create User:Godot, who doesn't log on, as a legitimate alternate account. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

I love that idea. Please do it! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - It didn't work. There already was a Godot. Maybe we should assign portals to him. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Pity. However, there is no User:Estragon ..... --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:43, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Estragon is in Italy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aviation

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

Test

test 75.170.135.165 (talk) 10:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Ian Foote

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

Can you remove the protection of this draft plz ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Draft:Ian_Foote

No. Robert McClenon (talk) 14

20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

When the protection will be removed ?

I dont know. Maybe 2038.

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

Citations for Boundless Immigration

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

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

References

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

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

Soundwalk Collective

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Urolagnia

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

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

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

Question

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

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

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

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

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

Test

Test. 173.10.184.18 (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Abortion

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

Please comment on Talk:U.S. Route 131

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

Please comment on Talk:Electric smoking system

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

Speedy deletion nomination of Gary Schwartz (actor)

Hello, Robert McClenon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:onel5969 - Interesting. Twinkle thinks that it is my article. It is only mine because I moved a page from the sandbox to draft space two years ago, and now this page was moved from the sandbox to article space. I will let the reviewing admin, who can see the deleted article, decide if this is a G4. If the G4 is declined, I will be among other editors to participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, stuff like this happens from time to time. The reviewer tools automatically alert the article's "creator". I can't see the deleted article, so I have to look to see if their is anything in the new article which occurred after the date of the last AfD which, imho, would change the notability of the subject. In this instance, again imho, this is simply a working actor, who has kept working. Nothing in GNG or NACTOR would indicate his status has changed since the AfD. Sorry to have templated you.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

User:onel5969 - Not a problem. If the G4 is declined, then AFD is next, and we can both participate in the AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion about Gary Schwartz (actor)

Hello, Robert McClenon,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nomination of Gary Schwartz (actor) for deletion

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

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

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

Requesting relists in deletion discussions

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

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

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

Thank you, User:Scottywong. I think that I understand. I will comment that I thought and still think that the portal advocates hadn't made a coherent case for Keep, and I would still like to see a coherent case for Keep, even if I disagree, because, as it is, I feel like I am trying to argue with ghosts. No Consensus is fine for the ones that you found to be No Consensus. I will also note that the date subheadings in the MFD stream are now disarranged, with August 20 after August 27. This may have happened when you were deleting some of the deleted portals. I don't know what causes the disarrangement or what to do about it. Thank you. I understand why you didn't Relist them. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:43, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding, Robert. I certainly understand that it's frustrating that a deletion discussion needs a clear consensus to delete, but only needs an unclear consensus to be kept. It's not uncommon to see the more savvy keep voters simply trying to muddy the waters in a close discussion, in an attempt to force a "no consensus" close, which is functionally identical to a "keep" close. Luckily, the folks that designed WP's deletion processes (and, more generally, the policies surrounding consensus) were wise enough to foresee this, and not base the closure of consensus discussions on simple vote-counting. If one side is making policy-based arguments, and the other side is merely trying to muddy the waters with unfounded opinions and feelings-based rationales, and both sides are roughly equal in number, the closer can still decide to weigh the policy-based arguments more heavily and close it in favor of that side. ‑Scottywong| [converse] || 17:35, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, yes, User:Scottywong, but a No Consensus isn't functionally equivalent to a Keep. We know that a No Consensus can be renominated in approximately two months, and a few editors in 2019 (unlike in the past) do not intend to rely on empty promises to maintain and improve portals but will actually recheck whether the promises are being kept. If the portal defenders actually maintain the four portals that you closed as No Consensus, that will be a pleasant surprise. Otherwise, they will face another nomination. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Why toy portals are harmful

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

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

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

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

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

User:Newshunter12 - I have read your argument, and I largely agree. I haven't decided whether it has changed my view. I will point out that I have not been !voting to Keep the toy portals, but only am neutral on them. In view of how many portals are currently nominated and how far behind I am in reviewing the nominations, I still see some value in viewing some of the nominations as more important than others. And my recollection is that the corruption of Greenwood the Great into Mirkwood was primarily due to Sauron. I don't see any of the portal advocates as being actually evil. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:06, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I of course wasn't saying portal advocates are evil, just illustrating a point. Also, it takes just as much time to vote delete as it does neutral like you did at these MfD's. Tsk! Tsk! Newshunter12 (talk) 16:57, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• (ec) Robert, I have to agree with what Newshunter12 writes. I was pointing in the same direction in my comment[6] at MFD:Portal:Ore Mountains, but tried to keep it brief and gentle. NH12 has been more forceful, but think NH12 is right.

The harmless fun justification could have been applied to much of TTH's portalspam. Taking each portal individually, they were probably fun with little harm (tho I disagree about no harm) ... but taken as a set they were a nightmare.

Sure, Bermicourt's mega-navbox portals are actually curated, and not just bloated clones of another page. But as NH12 points out, toy portals are dependant on the continued attention of the editor who created them; it's unlikely that any other editor would take over portals on such narrow topics.

If we keep B's portals on those narrow topics, I really do fear that it will be a precedent for more portals on very narrow topics. Portal:Mullingar, Portal:Witney, Portal:Cherbourg? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

User:BrownHairedGirl - Ack. (In military communication, short for acknowledge.) I will consider. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I am relieved that the military term in use is "ack" and not ack ack. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:53, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Please comment on Talk:Campus sexual assault

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

Please comment on Talk:Century

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

User:Chad The Goatman - Wait for User:Chandy_of_Pakalomattom to respond. Read the discussion failure essay. If discussion is lengthy and indecisive, you may file another request. If they do not discuss, but they edit-war, you may consider reporting them at the edit-warring noticeboard. Also consider the advice of User:EdJohnston. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't even know, if that user ever respond to other users like even EdJohnston himself tires to responding to it, with no reply back for now, or ever go to others pages in this site–if I undo his edits, except for me predominantly and those two pages named Reformed Eastern Christianity which is right now on deletion that way too early for this moment, due of I requested to temporary to lock both pages, because of it's actions. And the other person who in this conflict is literally myself, because it keeps me building up my anger, everytime its adding a nonsensical reasons and a 'failed' source to defending its claim that lets to nowhere. Like I wished it needs to stop, and accept what the page and their 'official' website literally provides it to understand it seemly favored to my side.

For that Edit-war noticeboard, I already did it two Sundays ago (August 25th) as seen here as I already mentioned, but due of my mistake (which I was realiz(s)ed) that it has deliberating creating that account to mis-abusing it to defending its view of the Church's identity supposed to be. Chad The Goatman (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Chad The Goatman - You may edit the article if you do not edit-war. If the other user does not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. Either edit the article, discuss with the other user, or report the other user. By the way, DRN volunteers are human editors too, and are likely to be angry if you say, incorrectly, that we were unfair. Be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Nothing. 173.10.184.18 (talk) 00:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Duodecimal

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

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Robert McClenon,

Backlog

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

Coordinator

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

This month's refresher course

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

Deletion tags

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

Paid editing

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

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft Chhana Pandey

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

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

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains

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

RfC

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

		The Winnowing Fan Barnstar
		For all your excellent work separating good portals from dud portals these past six months, and your passionate efforts to make portal space the best it can be. Newshunter12 (talk) 08:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Newshunter12 - Where are proposed barnstars discussed? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I have sort of wondered what a winnowing fan looks like. Winnowing fans are ancient and are mentioned in the Bible and the Odyssey. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I found it here: Wikipedia:Barnstars. Just use the search function and the word "winnowing" and you'll come right to it. Glad you like the historical barnstar I gave you. The history around the phrase you'll find there drew me to it, as it matches your efforts perfectly. Newshunter12 (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A dispute was archived?

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

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

Dispute resolution needs to be re-opened

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

User:CherryPie94 - I see at at least two problems. First, I still don't see any recent discussion on an article talk page. Second, you haven't answered the question of whether you have a conflict of interest. Third, you haven't described this as a dispute about article content. What article is the content issue about, and where was it discussed? If you want a third opinion, go to Third Opinion. If this is a conduct dispute, report it at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay. What are you asking to have done at DRN, which is voluntary, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

1. That is because the The Banner doesn't want to discuss it, just wants to revert my edits for no reason and bait me with his responses on his talk page. 2. I stated multiple of time even in The Banner talk page that I don't have a conflict of interest. I have been editing Korean content for five years now, with the majority of articles I edit and have created are not related to SBS. I'm not even Korean and I don't live in Korea. I'm just interest in the TV series and the culture. You can go and check the article I made and my history. 3. The issue is that The Banner disagrees with my use of template:ill and keep reverting it without a reason, even though I tried explaining and giving guidelines supporting my use of the template. What I don't understand is that The Banner labeled me as having a conflict of interest and "act like the marketing department of SBS" because I linked to the Korean Wikipedia, not SBS, no external links, and not that I added advertisement. The page is literally a list, I just linked to existing pages in the Korean Wikipedia to aid in the creation of English corresponding articles since that helps me and others by provide more info when we are creating articles or translating them from Korean. He has no evidence except me linking to the Korean Wikipedia and I really am not from SBS. What would SBS even gain from linking to the Korean Wikipedia. The main issue in not me adding content to the page, the issue he sees is me using the template to link to the Korean Wikipedia. What needs to be done, is either provide a reason/guidelines that template:ill should or shouldn't be used. If it should not be used, I'll not use it again. However, if is okay to use, The Banner should stop reverting the edits and assuming bad faith. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 20:09, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User:CherryPie94 - There is nothing that I can do for you. Discuss it with User:The Banner. If they do not discuss, read the discussion failure essay. If necessary, file a report at WP:ANI. There is nothing that I can do to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:07, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

User refuses to discuss issue, however, thank you for your time. ~~ CherryPie94 🍒🥧 (talk) 09:01, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

User:CherryPie94 - There is nothing that I can do. What you can do is to file a neutrally worded Request for Comments. You can also make a report to WP:ANI, but it is then likely that you will be told that that is a content dispute. The only way to resolve a content dispute with an editor who will not discuss is an RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Transgender

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

Italian languages

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

User:Steven Crossin - Your edit is more complete. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

FYI, I spotted a while back a bug with how the DRN wizard displayed. Found the bug. It looks correct again. Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/request Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 13:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Steven Crossin - What was the bug? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

A missing CSS file that made the form look broken and ugly. It was previously located in my personal user space, and never got moved over to MediaWiki space when the DRN wizard became a gadget (originally, it was just a user script that I wrote back in 2012). Since I found the bug, I've actually gone and done some work on TestWikipedia to the code to give it a bit of a face lift, add an extra step to the wizard to try weed out conduct issues, and a few others to make the form more intuitive. Take the wizard for a spin, it should be applied shortly - I filed an edit protected request to change the code to the new version. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Ricardo Costa

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

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

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

Notice

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

Thanks and a Comment

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

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

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

User:Australian stockman/sandbox

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, User:Australian stockman/sandbox.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:26, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Singapore

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

Need an expert

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

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_best#/talk/6

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