User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 7

Happy New Year Robert McClenon!

Happy New Year!

Robert McClenon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

My response re: profanity

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.

---

It may be a non-issue, but I still don't feel that profanity belongs here. I don't care if a 6 month old knows what F means, it's still not right. Why do they bleep out words on TV? Would I like to hear those words? Yes, but that's the way it is. We should do some self policing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rricci428 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, but if I may: I don't quite understand this argument. You say that you'd like to hear the bleeped words on TV, but defend the practice of censorship based on it being the way things are; and then you say we should do similar thing here even though you apparently don't agree with this policy as all that much. I'm not seeing the logic here. Not trying to be mean, mind you, I dislike gratuitous swearing by morons who can't express themselves well (which can include myself at times), but it might be good to do some self-reflection. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | ^{Say Shalom!} 12 Tevet 5775 22:03, 3 January 2015 (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.

Vienna Conservatory

Hello. I noticed that you left a message on my talk page with a little warning. Well, I already told the Wikipedians on the Help desk that I did not vandalize any articles. I just blanked this article about Vienna Conservatory because the Vienna Conservatory is not the same as Konservatorium Wien. So please do not think that I vandalize articles and please do not post any warnings on my talk page. Thanks! Opo Chano (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	You're a Good Man. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Sultan Bahu

Respected thanks your relay, ok but you can check the view history of articles their action and results, accruing after the attack of mention users, are the have Right to attack on Sultan Bahu according to there point of view "Y" Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• I have Written in my complain that i am not complaining about Technical issues (content disputes), but on behaviors they have adopted regarding Sufi Saint Sultan Bahu :-) Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker

I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

Consistency in the Categorization of 'White Latin Americans'

This is a relevant point to the request. To be honest, there is a bit of inconsistency here, for instance, why some countries in the americas such as Brazil, the US and Colombia use terms like White Colombian[1], while other pages such as for peruvians, venezuelans, mexicans etc. use terms such as peruvians of european descent[2]. Alon12 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

'Mexicans of European Descent'

On second thought, I would like to say that it's possible for the introductory statement to say 'mexicans of european descent', however, the following sentence could be something like, 'The historical requirement to fulfill this criteria was to be of predominant (officially 7/8ths) european ancestry', and then linking to the source. Alon12 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Then we would have to explain inconsistencies and categorization differences in the opening paragraph aswell, and would mean to address the same things twice: once in the opening paragraph and then in the "In today's society" section. Is better if we leave the technisims and it's explanations to a section in the body of the article. That way it can be explained with proper detail. Aergas (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

The opening paragraph also mentions 'blurring', which is then repeated at various points in the article later on as well. So, if that should not be included, then why should the parts about 'blurring' also be included, seeing as how the proportions are equally relevant to the 'blurring'. Otherwise, neither should be included. Alon12 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Really? where? Aergas (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

It is mentioned 'in today's society', about the blurred lines in ethnicity in Mexico and in, addition, the opening part of the page, firstly in the first paragraph, and then in the fourth paragraph. If anything, those parts from the first paragraph and the fourth paragraph should be moved to 'in today's society', if that is where all the details are to be mentioned, in order to provide a more consistent structure. Alon12 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Another thing, this line does not even make the claim you suggest 'Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%.[16] ', it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos.

Literally, from the study, this was removed before with no contest:

"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

Not, only is WP:Syth applied in the introductory statements of the article for what you've done, but also in the parts such as this:

'While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source [3], when it specifically shows 90% european admixture in the actual source, [4]. So, still higher than the admixture of Spaniards, as not even europeans are 100% european. Alon12 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Mole and molar mass

Hi Robert! I'd like to ask you, as a chemist, how do you see the status of mole (unit) as a dimension(less) unit? Have you encountered sources which confuse the mole with molar mass due to various reasons?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer! Is seems that the mentioned inconsistency is due to abuse of language through which the mole is sometimes considered a unit of mass.

There is another aspect that seems to be inconsistent. Given that mole is another expression for Avogadro number and thus a dimensionless unit, how is this status of a dimensionless unit consistent with that of fundamental unit in SI? Can a dimensionless ratio of mass/molar such as the amount of substance mass be a fundamental quantity and unit?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation/United States

I've accepted this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Caron

I'm afraid your comment at WP:HD is one sentence too long. Mrs B.C. did not edit the article. She didn't even try. She did not even suggest she would like to. She just kindly asks whoever would like to update the article to contact her. You didn't need to say what you said.
See, it's possibly extremely hard and uncomfortable for her to talk in public about her relations to her husband, less than three years after he died... --CiaPan (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
If you want to reply, do it here – I'll watch. CiaPan (talk)

And I see I was right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Odd impersonation thing?

I thought you might want to know about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=642509131&oldid=642495546 CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Re: Teahouse comment to PotatoNinja123

Robert - thank you for your fuller explanation. I'm sorry I jumped in feet first there, and appreciate the corrections. LouiseS1979 ^(pigeonhole) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Your Help Desk response

It took me long enough to find out who responded using the history, but figuring out how part of your response got deleted was too much. I put back your signature but didn't know whether you wanted the rest to be restored also.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see...

A recent edit by you at the Help Desk helped inspire this post at the talk page. I am in no way trying to discourage you from helping at the HD but am just trying to educate. I hope you take this in the helpful spirit that it was intended. Dismas|^(talk) 20:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Edit Warring

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.

---

I did discuss this issue on the talk page, and I did not remove any other sourced data but the opposing party is not, and is unilaterally removing sourced data, thus he is engaged in an edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexicans_of_European_descent

Alon12 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alon12 is adding information that is inconsistent and is greatly misinterpreting sources, he have been going on circular arguments for days, what can be done to make this person understand? if you read the talk page his last arguments are close to non-sense. Aergas (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Here I explain what he did and why it's wrong [5]. Can you help me out here? I think he is not going understand. Aergas (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

And yet again, the opposing party starts with ad hominems, yet nothing is done, and then has the nerve to complain if I say something? Do you, robert, understand the situation now? How am I supposed to respond, if I am constantly attacked personally, repeatedly, and nothing is done? I am going to take the higher ground now and not resort to his level anymore, yet you can clearly see the element of hypocrisy. He posts sourced material, it is agreed upon that it must be debated in the article first, before the sourced data can be removed, and likewise, then logically, I should be able to edit the article and add sourced data, and then we can debate the material in the talk section after the effect, but logically, to be consistent, the data I provide, which is well-sourced has no basis for being removed in accordance with the same logic, as it provides the necessary sourcing. Alon12 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Alon12, in the last days you were arguing about how not all whites were passed as mestizos, despite that nowhere in the article such a thing is said, you have also been arguing that a study about mestizos, that uses the word mestizo to refer to the studied population more than 60 times, is not a study that was about mestizos, and as I explained on my diff above, you are greatly misinterpreting sources that aren't ambiguous at all. It's like you were arguing out of boredoom. Aergas (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet again, more ad hominems, do you see this? How is there supposed to be a resolution to a dispute, when the opposing party offers venomous personal attacks and ad hominems? Furthermore, the study refers to mestizo by region, not ethnicity or culture, so the definition of mestizo you are trying to employ is explicitly not relevant to this context, also, stop jumping around, and simply debate this on the specific thread on the talk page. This expands over other latin american nations, whereby 'whites' are in fact identified on the census, despite the individual sources saying that SOME whites and indigenous assimilated into the mestizo identity. [6] a pan-latin american article, and the other source

"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037

What does that have to do with the ethnic or cultural definition of mestizo? Absolutely nothing, it's used as a geographical descriptor, nothing more. Alon12 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I can't really believe that you don't understand the problem with what you are doing and saying, we have a genetic study about mestizos, then we claim that the definition of mestizos might vary from study-to-study, then we point that in Mexico a number of whites has been historically classified as mestizo and that mestizo in Mexico is not about biological traits and mestizos can vary a lot, just like the study states on it's own way, where's the problem here? Aergas (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

That is not a study on ethnic or cultural mestizos. It is a study on simply the geographic region of mexico. So, again it has nothing to do with 'mestizos' in either an ethnic or cultural sense. You are applying WP:Synth. "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037 And in any case, stop posting here, post on the talk page. Alon12 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

In Mexico mestizos are not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic real identification exists anymore. Aergas (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

As has been said, the burden of proof is on you to prove that. You have no citations for that claim. Alon12 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But I do and are in the talk page already. Aergas (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

They do not, and yes, let us go back to the talk page. Like I said, I did not ask for your input on this, comment on relevant sub-threads on topic in the talk page. Stop going off-topic on unrelated threads, in an attempt to get the 'last word'. Alon12 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

But they do, you think that because it says something you don't like it doesn't count but that's not how it works. Aergas (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

But that is exactly what you are doing, and it doesn't work like that. So, like I said, keep the relevant sub-thread, to the relevant sub-thread. Alon12 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (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.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Part 2

Robert, I'm going to open up another case in the DRN, if you cannot address the hypocrisy I pointed out here. My point is that, as it was resolved on the board, that sourced links must be posted first, and then debated after the fact. How come my sourced data was removed? It should be re-inserted into the article. That is hypocritical, and indeed I disagree with edit warring, which is why my previous edit should be restored. my edits, were extremely well-sourced and included many links, how come they were removed, and on what basis? If it is understood that sourced edits are made to an article first, and that discussion regarding them are conducted after the fact on the talk page, why was my well-sourced data removed by an opposing party who had engaged in an edit war against me, by removing sourced data. On the other hand, I removed no such data. That is hypocritical.

To user 'aergas', this comment is not directed towards you, so do not comment here. Alon12 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Your information was removed for the reasons that were already and exhaustively discussed in the talk page. Your argument was completely dismantled [7], and please continue discussing in the talk page, not here. Aergas (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Again, I did not address you, and you haven't done any such thing. Indeed, keep this discussion to the talk page, instead of jumping around to unrelated sections in a transparent attempt to simply 'get the last word in'. Alon12 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand the statement that you were not addressing aergas. Were you addressing me, or were you referring to a third party? I am not an administrator, and have no authority with regard to alleged conduct issues, such as alleged personal attacks. If you open another case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, it will have to present the content (not conduct) issues more clearly than the previous case did, in which I had to ask seven times for exact drafts before I got exact drafts. Unfortunately, I don't see the good faith assumptions that are needed for moderated dispute resolution to work. If both parties will make one more effort to state specific issues about text of the article, I will try one more time, but I will not go through nine rounds of moderation this time. I think that the original research noticeboard is the next forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I do not see what rise to the status of blockable personal attacks. I see editors staying barely within the bounds of civility. Any complaints about personal attacks can be taken to WP:ANI, but will likely be closed with a warning to both parties. Start discussing content face-to-face rather than talking past each other to try to get intervention from a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

This is all well and good in theory, but the issue is that you specifically got involved in this issue when you first, warned me for my personal attacks (which were in response to his similar attacks), yet after I stopped, he has continued. So, I would genuinely like to ask, should I have stopped? What advantages have I gained by stopping, since the other party is allowed to attack with impunity? With Regards to the DRN, if this issue is beyond your scope, then why did you specifically warn me on 'edit warring', yet you allowed the opposing party to remove perfectly well-sourced material from the article? This is especially hypocritical, when last time in the DRN, you agreed to keep it in the article, and then shift discussion to the talk page, and then allow consensus to be built around the relevance of said statements, BEFORE it was to be officially removed. Yet, here, it is the opposite, you are blocking perfectly reasonable well-sourced material, why? Technically, under 3rr, the opposing party would be in violation here for removing sourced material multiple times. What is of my concern here in relevance to you, is that you should not have allowed the other party to violate 3rr here by removing perfectly well-sourced material.[8] So, again, I ask you, how do you reconcile this latent hypocrisy? If there is to be another DRN, it will exclusively be on this hypocritical action, the others are not of consequence in this context, and as you have suggested the original research noticeboard option has been pursued. However, this is a completely separate issue. Alon12 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-Stop Personal Attacks from Aergas

Even though I warned him [9], 'aergas', has still continued to make personal attacks and ad hominems against me. For instance, even in the 'no original research' research board that you suggested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Mexicans_of_European_Descent

"He tends to extensively discuss the same things and even things that aren't related to the article and aren't written there at all and goes on for hours, then starts discussions in the talk pages of other editors or in noticeboards and tends to make too many assumptions that he can't prove. "

I agree that content should be discussed rather than personal insults against various editors. You claimed once that I made personal attacks as a new user, yet aergas, who has been here longer is the one who CONTINUES to make personal attacks. This is acceptable? Alon12 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Central log

I haven't of course touched your edit at WP:AN but could you please move it to WT:ACN to keep the discussion centralised?  Roger Davies ^talk 15:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Hope this was OK

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=642777429. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Medeis#Personal_Attack_Complaint

Hi, Robert.

I am going to remove your comment without reply on my page, and I wanted to explain.

First, consider the effect of your section title, "Personal Attack Complaint". This alone makes it seem like someone has complained about my personal attack. That's entirely off base, since I am the one complaining of being attacked. But there's no way to tell what's going on from your title or post, because;

Second, you've provided no diff to the discussion, where the response to my objective statement, mentioning no specific user, is a personal comment on the "fact" that everyone "knows" I am guilty of something, with no diff provided to support the claim. That unsupported allegation is bad enough. But then the editor goes on to respond to my civil and objective comment with the words "Eek!...Really?...Bullshit!". That is uncivil no matter how you look at it. It's also ironically ignorant, since I "quoted" that author not as a factual source, but as a source that elicits hysterical opposition for her minority status, the invalidity of minority views at the ref desk being a matter of contention.

Editors involved in that thread have a long history of attacking me for my politics, and other Americans for reasons which I know not. But I can provide diffs in public or private. In either case, I'd rather not publicly name them. I won't watch this comment. If you want to email me, do so, with my reluctant approval. Please don't raise this on my talk page again.

Note that I am not personally offended by your actions, and I will not hold this issue as a reason to be hostile to you from now on, as other editors here sometimes do.

Thanks for trying in good faith to defuse a situation you came upon. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Opening a DRN discussion as volunteer

Just a quick note, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of_the_Somme#Anglophone_monoglots you need to change {{DR case status}} to {{DR case status|open}}, so that it will show you as the volunteer for that discussion and read "open" in the top summay. It also helps out the bot that maintains the page if you add your name to the volunteer list first. Good luck. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

warning

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.

---

Just passed here to say that the user arianewiki1 is being somewhat immature and insistent; he is pretty much alone in his "fight". I just do normal changes based on what the community agrees with, as you probably saw on the astronomy wikiproject talk page. I make mistakes sometimes like any other human being, but they don't invalid all the majority of right changes I've been making, so don't take him too seriously. Tetra quark ^{(don't be shy)} 07:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Whether desired article changes were right or wrong is not the point. It was the process on how this was done. Again. The issue is not about the capitalisation of these proper names. it was about avoiding rules of WP:CON, which Tetra quark should perhaps read. I.e. 16 hours was unacceptable, especially when you had been advised to show caution in multiple times with AWB.

The adopted sanction was about your ignoring WP:CON, especially with the AWB. Nothing else.

Furthermore, you had made these changes BEFORE I even had my chance to discuss it, not AFTER, and the moment you were questioned about the possibility of an unforeseen result, then boldly just attempted to quell any further discussion by covering your tracks.

Tetra quark, in saying "...so don't take him too seriously" and "Just passed here to say that the user arianewiki1 is being somewhat immature and insistent" could be seen to violate WP:NPA, where repeated personal attacks could lead to sanctions including blocks. Please desist doing this, especially as a guest on someone else's User Page.

I do understand you might be unhappy Tetra quark, and that is why I have already offered some realistic conciliation remarks. [10]

Furthermore, if you want discuss things like this another User on page like this, it is worthwhile advising or notifying that person. I.e. Arianewiki1 (I found it by accident.)

My own apologies to have to state all this on Robert McClenon User page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2015 (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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality opened

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/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you close?

Discussion dead and resolved at article talk anyway... can you close? {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Extrapolation_of_information_in_source]?

It isn't obvious why you are suggesting that I close a particular discussion at the original research noticeboard. I had nothing to do with it and am not one of the regulars at that board. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Apparently anyone who is not "involved" can close a discussion. This discussion is closed and dead and needs to be closed so it can be archived. I posted at that discussion a plea for someone to close it 11 days ago and nothing has happened. Saw that you had closed another discussion there, so figured you were neutral, uninvolved and could maybe asses if it could be closed and close it if appropriate. Montanabw^(talk) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Somme dispute

Hey Robert, you're moderating the Somme dispute in which I'm participating. I noticed a question of yours on the DRN Talk page and I wanted to clarify something. (I assume it was better I do this here than add comments below your actual question). The request for resolution was requested by only one of the editors (Keith-264), not two as you seemed to think. That requesting editor had cast the dispute as being "joint", whereas in my opinion it involved more than just the two of us and so I felt that we should give the discussion more time before asking for DR. (That was interpreted by the original editor as me refusing DR, but that's not correct.) I felt that way because there were actually a total of three editors actively involved in the edit war, with a fourth having very recently been involved with the contested material. That was why I asked the question about adding others. They were already involved and I felt it would have been wrong to exclude them by omission. Thanks for moderating. Thomask0 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

... for your reversion of what must have been my misclick - my system suddenly slowed and my click ended in the wrong target. Deep apologies. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Need help with a neutrality dispute

Hello Robert, I'm writing in response to your generous offer to answer any questions I may have as a new writer on Wikipedia. I am author of the article on a living person, G. Flint Taylor. In October, there was a neutrailty dispute placed at the top of the article, for a reason not clear to me. Is there a process that must simply play out on Wikipedia or do I need to request an experienced editor such as yourself to weigh in? I would like to get the flag removed but unsure at this point what to do, as it as been more than 3 months. Thanks so much, Carolfowler1 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Carolfowler1

Urgently asking for your help

Hello Robert,

I'm leaving this message to seek your help because from our previous interactions I know you are an administrator. I'm not really sure this is the right procedure, but I'm kind of stressed out right now. In a dispute that's currently on ANI I have been bending over backwards to follow the rules and to avoid User:Renejs from being banned, although I believe he has been very disruptive. Despite my intense good faith efforts I'm now being told I myself deserve a ban for my efforts. For details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_about_tendentious_editing.

I am dismayed at this development. The alleged offense is that I reverted to the status quo text instead of to my preferred version because Renejs objected to my preferred version. As a result I'm now being accused of deliberately restoring a version that is known to be faulty, as everybody agrees the status quo text is missing a relevant piece of text that could be considered important. As I said, I am dismayed, because my efforts to be super careful are now being held against me. This seems completely unjust to me. If I was in fact mistaken, then I'll be happy to be told about it. Did I make a mistake in restoring to the status quo text? If so, what should I have done instead? Is it true that my good faith efforts to be extra scrupulous about following the rules can now backfire on me? What if anything can / do I need to do to prevent this? Thank you for any help or advice you may be able to offer.

Regards,

Martijn

Adding a few bits a while later:

Thank you for your well though-out response on the ANI page. You are absolutely right about how emotionally charged this whole process is. I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes, because my intense good faith efforts are met with severe disapproval. I've been considering dropping out of Wikipedia editing altogether. Thanks again, and I hope your suggestions will be heeded. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your request at Jimmy's talk page

Hello, Robert. :) I'm afraid Jimmy's page archives pretty quickly, but I wanted to let you know that your question was seen. The best list to consult there is the list of Community Advocates. You can also reach out to our team in aggregate at cawikimedia.org. However, while the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in supporting communities in governance, the communities are largely autonomously self-governing. This is by design. Where possible, the Foundation does not usurp roles that can and should be played by volunteers, who are generally far better positioned to understand and govern their individual communities. WMF intervention in English Wikipedia governance is sufficiently rare that there isn't much to see, but Wikipedia:Office actions logs major office intervention on English Wikipedia. Lesser interventions would include DMCA takedown notices, which are tracked via category at the WMF Wiki: wmf:Category:DMCA. Most frequently, those involve English Wikipedia or Commons. Not specifically related to English Wikipedia, but globally, there is meta:WMF Global Ban Policy. A number of issues are not publicly logged; we do not reveal details on emergencies or other "Trust and Safety" issues, for instance. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Too hasty, IMO

I think you were much too hasty in closing the DRN discussion on Trainor. Please see my DRN talk page comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

BSG 2004 Dispute Resolution

Robert Thank you so much for agreeing to help resolve the issue, I have made my submission (my first so please be gentle) if you require any additional information don't hesitate in asking. Best wishes. Twobells (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Chawinda

Your survey is somewhat correct about the behavior. In fact I had brought one of the editor to ARE, and other 2 to ANI.

Now I have just counted the votes, there were 8 opposed to the statement that it was a Pakistani victory, and 5 were made in support and I have updated my query. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

In regard to the following

In regard to the following: "he wanted a volunteer mediator to make his case or work for him. As you can see, I tried to offer an RFC, and when he said that he wasn't sure, he was then annoyed by my closing the thread, as if he thought that I should keep it open until he could make up his mind whether he trusted the community." I have to say that you truly misunderstood me at DRN. (1) I didn't want anyone to make my case for me or to work for me. I have no idea how you got that impression, but it's completely wrong. (2) I wasn't annoyed by you closing the thread, I was confused and wondering how it could happen so fast and with so few commenting. (3) I didn't think you should keep it open because of me, I thought maybe you should keep it open until others commented. And I certainly didn't think you would close it because of what I said about having doubts regarding an RfC. I'm still confused by how the whole thing ended. Just so you know, I've had others look at it and they were just as confused as I. It seemed weirdly abrupt, and frankly, quite judgmental and prejudicial. In other words, it looked like you were ticked off at me and had an impression of me because of things you read elsewhere. I'm working to repair my Wikipedia reputation and move above the 48-hour block and everything that surrounded it. It's my opinion that your judgement of what I said at DRN is based on all of that. And that seems very unfair to me. I'm not a bad person and I'm not a bad editor. I wish you would stop insisting I'm both. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

I have never said that you were a bad person or a bad editor. Another editor did say that you are a bad editor. No one has ever said that you are a bad person. We don't know who you are as a person. However, your attributing words to me that I never implied makes me wonder. Stop looking for condemnation to refute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Sanction alert

Indoscope was already reminded, some hours ago, see his talk history. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Photographer

Our Venezuelan friend DID include the English version of his comments, most of them. Please don't be so rough on someone doing their best in a language that's not their own when they are already having a rough time over having a couple buddies SanFranBanned... (The Spanish version did have bonus content which is probably worth your time running through Google Translate.) best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Imperial system

Holy cow! I'm an American and I had no idea I should be insulted by "Imperial system"! Thanks! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle of the Somme 2015

Er, have hostilities ended? Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Hah! Trust the Yanks to turn up and nick the credit. ;O) Thanks for your help. Keith-264 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Help desk: White people

Is Help desk the place to discuss article content? Is it wise to encourage that by discussing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Robert, just letting you know that I've closed and archived the clarification request you filed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Aergas CIR Issue

You stated before that this user could potentially be subjected to an inquiry regarding WP:CIR. How do I move forward on this issue? Is this DRN-related? I posted this before on the 3rr page.

The main issues with the article are the WP:CIR violations presented by the other editor. If a temp ban is implemented, what happens? Then the whole issue returns in 2 weeks and the same thing happens again. There are core issues that need to be addressed here, as 'kicking the can down the road', doesn't seem to be helpful here, considering how obsessive these comments and replies have gotten over the past few days, should show the gravity of the situation. Heavy situations like this do not change. On the other hand, I was warned about edit warrring, and so I did not engage it anymore, while the other party continued to do so, so why should I be punished? I would file a motion to have Aergas checked for competency under Wikipedia:CIR. He makes a big fuss over genetic studies, yet if you look at my talk page, he could not even understand basic abbreviations in a genetic study and later admitted he was wrong. He seems to have an inability to understand even simple citations. If you look at the mandates for Wikipedia:CIR, he fits, not just one, but all of the requirements to meet the violation,

Factual lack of understanding of basic facts, including the inability to even understand mere abbreviations from genetic studies. I am not exaggerating on this, I had to hold his hand through describing what specific abbreviations in a genetic study implied. See my talk page. He even admitted he was wrong on this through the long process.

Social Inability to work with consensus on a talk page, overwrites multiple users in edit wars without first consulting talk page See the talk page on mexicans of european descent[11]. Other users also commented on, for instance, the relevance of having americans included on the page, he took the opposite position, but he never addressed him. Supposedly this is because the other editor never formally edited the page, so in the world-view of aergas, he was never 'a threat' to his intentions for the page, which are not based on desires to reach a formal and fair consensus.

Bias-based He seems to hold a very strong view of proving mexico is some sort of genetically european country, despite the findings of the aggregate consensus of leading mexican geneticists showing the exact opposite. This is currently being discussed as presented by a third party in another issue. [12]

Language difficulty He seems to have issues in understanding subtleties found in the english language, and takes every comment personally. The funny thing is that my original statements on this subject, which were relevant to this topic, were chastized as being 'unfriendly' by Robert, yet later Robert claimed that both parties were civil. I was not trying to be 'unfriendly', I was simply providing an honest opinion. And sure enough, apparently, this is a legitimate critique and not a harmful one, that can be made under a WP:CIR claim. Again, I am a relatively new user, so I was not aware of all these wikipedia classifications until recently. I just saw WP:CIR being referenced by another editor on this 3rr page, and discovered that it is most apt to describe this situation.

Editing beyond your means Very easily gets frustrated when his edits are reverted to the extent he chooses to engage in an edit war and ignores talk page consensus

Lack of technical expertise He has claimed original research, providing contrarian un-sourced views to that of the findings made by leading mexican geneticists. Original Research is also something other editors have accused him of [13].

Grudges He seems to associate me as his 'enemy', and calls anyone who opposes him as a sockpuppet of myself. He has done this on multiple unrelated subthreads.

Inability to talk about incremental changes On literally every single sub-thread, including those not related to the topic at hand, he continually brings in the same content disputes, again and again. Even on the DRN we had, he refused to drop the heading 'full-european descent' and refused to including my sourced data on the historical data demonstrating the minimum requirements to be considered criollo or 'white mexican' was of 7/8ths ancestry, until Robert basically, said, that he would allow it. [14]

Is there a specific way to determine WP:CIR or report this, because I would say that he meets all the qualifications.

How do you suggest this is approached? Robert McClenon Alon12 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

IA

FTN section was about Indo-Aryan migration theory, not Indigenous Aryans. You can also count the length of replies, mine was not as big like others. I am not a proponent, I was just talking about the amount of weight we provide to these theories/hypothesis. I am not getting that why Taivo mentioned me, when I haven't even inserted like 3 sentences to this page(Indigenous Aryans).[15] I have asked him too. I also think that we are near to resolution. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. 

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

• starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog:  blue ,
• takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation:  green ,
• might remove or lose your work, like removing a link:  red , or
• is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window:  gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Please help complete translations of the user guide for users who speak your language.
• Join the weekly bug triage meetings beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. Contact James F. for more information.
• Talk to the Editing team during the office hours via IRC. The next session is on Thursday, 19 February 2015 at 19:00 UTC.

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Robert, thanks so much for your help with the Battlestar Galactica mess. I'm not sure just what's up with Twobells, but this seems to be a pattern with him: stir up an article by demanding some sort of US/UK equity, then after all manner of agro, suddenly walk away. It's really disruptive, and begins to feel like trolling. I appreciate your calm, even-handed approach, something I've often noticed on ANI. You're a consensus-builder, something badly needed around here. --Drmargi (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I have one question

Why did you add the 1/7 sentence to the article but at the same time wrote in the edit warring noticeboard about not existing a consensus about it? I ask you here because you haven't commented in the talk page. Aergas (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DRN- Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production

Robert, sorry I was away on business, got back and found the discussion closed, I'd would like to add my thoughts, we are near consensus but stuck on the fact that two users won't accept the show is a international co-production irrespective of the citations. Best wishes Twobells^t@lk 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Large edits

Nice to see that you found time to discuss, do you see any problem with expanding the existing data? It's material that appears in other articles. Aergas (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)

Ref Desk proposal

Hi Robert, reading through the discussions on the talk page again, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

“ Hello, and welcome to the Wikipedia Reference desk. Your question seems to be seeking medical or legal advice [or perhaps a request for opinion]. We do not give this type of advice [links to disclaimer and guidelines, header, etc], but our users will be allowed to post citations/links to informational references. We hope this information might be useful to you. If you further pursue advice here, this question may be removed. ”

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Apology

I am sorry you felt I was being disruptive, but I was not attempting to cause controversy. Nevertheless, I will not repeat my previous actions. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations and welcome to the arbitration clerk team!

Hi Robert. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-llists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (an on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Cool! Good for Wikipedia. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Nola

I probably should have said "he or she," but I was tired and very frustrated by this person and just wanted to write something quickly. The name is that of a character in the movie The Brood and the editor may or may not be a woman. I do suspect it's someone who knows the people he or she was complaining about, since it seemed such a personal attack. It was also remarkably circumstantial: I've created or been a major contributor of the black-oriented List of African-American firsts, All-Negro Comics, Luther (comic strip), Lobo (Dell Comics), Dateline: Danger!, Wayne Howard, Alvin Hollingsworth, Billy Graham (comics), African characters in comics and Category:African-Americans in comic strips, so by Nola's reckoning, I'm either black or promoting African-Americans. Anyway ... I hope it's over now. Thank you for asking and caring. With best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Re interactions

Kindly note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Collect and such careless (now retracted) posts as [16] :) Collect (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!

I just wanted to drop you a note saying that I think you are doing a great job at WP:DRN and elsewhere. I haven't been taking DRN cases because of medical issues (sometimes I have hours to kill sitting in front of the computer, sometimes I am not able to log on for extended periods) and it is nice to see that DRN is in capable hands while I recover. Keep up the good work. Your efforts are very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

User:116.212.192.38

Regarding this warning you issued. In case you didn't know, all of the IP's recent edits to Help talk:Edit summary and to Wikipedia talk:Researching with Wikipedia occurred before I issued the level 1 warning, and 116.212.192.38 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since that warning. However, the vandalism was blatant enough that I was myself considering changing my warning to a 4im anyway, so I don't disagree with your action. Just thought I would clarify. Thanks. --RacerX¹¹ Talk to me^{Stalk me} 04:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Email

Hi Robert, Thanks for your email. I received what sounds like a similar email from LupinoJacky‏ and am happy to let the matter rest with the process of reviewing their unblock requests. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Another reminder that I exist

I am aware that you were upset by some comments I made in good faith on the DRN talk page, but was it really necessary, first to pretend I had made no statement, and then to leave me off the list of participants altogether? My experience of DRN has been one massive downer. I would not be inclined to attempt it again, which is unfortunate, because the other mods seem to be able to treat all the participants with respect. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hi. Thanks for offering to help at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. We've both now summarised our arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Mabelina

Hi there: I don't know what to make of this latest from PurpleHz but it does not bode well for cordial relations, I don't think. Thanks for your intervention but what else can I do other reply immediately if he launches something again? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestion

Dear Robert McClenon, I read the note you left on my talk page. There is a reason I prefer to remain anonymous and just be identified by my IP address. Also because I have started a series of discussion with my IP address, if I log in, this will change and it appears from a different user. I wanted to ask you if you are a wikipedia administrator or you are just asking me to log in because you personally think that way is better? 74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Feb 19, 2015 11:00 AM CST

Please comment on Talk:Ag-gag

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ag-gag. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

A week gone by

With a week gone by and no response to Sunray's request for further comments, just so you know, Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing [17].

• Can you live with… The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older=wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.

• Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. … — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, second choice older=wiser (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.

Consensus discussion led by Mendaliv on United States Talk page included this exchange,

• The United States ... is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.

"I might could live with this one." --Golbez (talk) 1:15 am, 24 February 2013, Sunday (1 year, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5) [18]

With TFD adamantly opposing, the 2-1 majority in the dispute resolution relented (two for including territories dropped out of the process), and the process failed on the discussion page thereafter following multiple mainspace reversions to exclude the territories. — they are now excluded.

You will notice how very close this last draft language is to our mediated Proposal Y, which Golbez once "endorsed", while TFD's good faith concession in mediation is a restatement of his 2013 position without supporting scholarly sources for his non-sequiturs, then silence. And now we again have, silence for a week. I am for a collaborative sourced on-line encyclopedia. But is something in this collaborative process I am missing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hi Robert. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Robert Walker and User:Robertinventor/JJ Copyrights. It's very kind of him to do my homework, but his only topic seems to be me; his latest 2,000+ edits are mainly concerned with me, except for an interval for Mars. It seems he's turned into a peculiar sort of SPA. I'm posting the same message with Drmies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

I've also left a message at Robert's talkpage [19]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Comment request re 2015 in spaceflight

Please consider offering a comment on a discussion at Talk:2015_in_spaceflight#BRD_on_whether_satellite_orbital_explosions_are_notable.

Thank you very much. N2e (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I am likely wrong but

Might you kindly look at the history for Project for the New American Century - I somehow fear that the ideal of a short readable NPOV encyclopedia article has been seriously waylaid :(. It appears to be dominated by the view that participants (all wikilinked thrice it seems) engaged as a group to run the Bush administration, sought 9/11 as an excuse to engage in war (having the US ignore warnings about 9/11), to promote bacteriological warfare and likely genocide, etc. My problem is the editor who seems most interested in the topic is one who is topic-banned from Arab-Israeli conflict etc. but seems to love pushing that envelope a teensy bit. OTOH, maybe I should just let the article be trashed this way. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)

A brownie for you!

Hi Robert McClenon. Thanks for your help with the mecA article. Much appreciated. Cheers. tH0r (talk contribs) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Clarification needed on your closure of an RfC

Hi Robert,

You recently closed an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies § RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr. but there seems to be some confusion about the exact wording that should now be at WP:JR. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies § Clarification on wording and clarify what you intended.

Many thanks. —sroc 💬 15:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

How about a further RfC

Hello Robert. I saw your AN post about your closure of the comma issue, and the personal attacks. Why not just open a new RfC and have 'Do not' as the item in MOS to be discussed? There is a difference between 'is unnecessary' and 'do not' which seems likely to lead to continued conflict. The fact that it's a minor difference is no guarantee it won't be hotly disputed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you ask a question for me?

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.

---

Seeing as I'm an I.P I bashed and discriminated practically before I even hit the submit button on the ref desks.

So my question about the medical procedure (faecal transplantation) gets deleted immediately. I see no reason why it isn't valid question. It irritates me seeing all these high and mighty editors with their admin friends whacking the undo button on impulse. No attempt to engage is made at all so they bring the whack a mole game upon themselves. So my point is, if it's clearly a troll question, why do they not point out why they disagree. Their actions demonstrate that they can't. Because it isn't a troll question. So there's no contest. Summery bans and reverts seem to be the dish of the day here. Is this what wikipedia has become?

So my question still stands. What would be the consequence of faecal transplantation between difference species. Examples given include dogs, horses and chimpanzees. The existing wiki doesn't cover this so I'm looking elsewhere. Can you help put this question forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.51.224 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

You are wrong. Not asking for medical advice (I do not have a problem or need help) and I was asking on the reference desk. Not the help desk. It's a medical question. By your logic asking how large the average human brain case is would not be allowed. And I'm sure someone would come up with something like it's 500cc because that's the average in these parts and to claim otherwise would be a medical question.

But maybe I shouldn't have put it in misc, but that's splitting hairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.51.224 (talk • contribs)

We aren't Yahoo! Answers either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 6 March 2015 (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.

Archives

Hi Robert. Shall I create an archive-box for you? Looks more "decent" than the list at top of the page. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Better this way? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

"Lift" Article, and Expert Retention

Hello Robert,

I note that you have recently been involved in some of the problems occurring on the "Lift (force)" article. This includes a recent ANI complaint, and your awarding of a "Trout" to one of the parties making said compliant. I believe the three main issues of concern here are covered in WP:EXR, WP:CIR, and WP:RANDY. I also believe that so far you are likely hearing only one side of the story, and not the side of the undoubted expert in the field (ie. J Doug McLean), who is being hounded out of Wikipedia.

This loss of expertise cannot be good for Wiki. Your thoughts?

Regards, Zapletal 101.170.170.142 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I see you have just posted on Steelpillow's Talk-page, saying ''You are the only frequent editor here who actually appears to be neutral and reasonable." This seems rather odd given that Steelpillow was one half of the team that did, as you described it, "the obvious railroad job" on the one expert and published authority here. Also odd given that two headings above that post Steelpillow outlines his strategy for the Lift article as "I do not intend to let the discussion reopen... [If the IP] gets all fired up and active ... we get the Admins to block the IP range."

I have no idea what you want Wikipedia to become, but hounding knowledgeable editors out of it cannot be conducive to building a high quality encyclopaedia. To save us both some time, would you please let me know where you stand on this issue? 101.170.170.160 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Robert, your silence speaks volumes. I will take it as your position on this matter. 101.170.85.54 (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

courtesy

I mentioned you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Robert_McClenon_and_Guy_Macon

Re: Impersonation

Thanks for your note. I've been impersonated many times by "fans" over the years. Actually, this is one of the more clever ones. Generally they just reiterate my user ID and misspell it or add characters to it. Standard procedure is to indef the faker. SPI's typically don't turn up anything useful, so I stopped asking a long time ago. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Voluntary ban

Robert, I regret that I didn't make myself clearer in expressing my concern that the subject of Steelpillow's proposal for a voluntary ban had not responded, and my desire for that discussion to take place.

Your idea that I, "actually wanted closure in a way that would have been deeply unfair, imposing a so-called voluntary topic ban that wasn't voluntary, and without community discussion." is untrue. I thought I made that clear in my original response. Please stop making this allegation [20] [21] [22]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I hope Robert doesn't mind my chipping in here, as you two are both pretty reasonable people who seem to have got off on the wrong foot. As I read it, Robert's remarks about Burninthruthesky are more voicing a concern about an unfamiliar editor than putting a case. I agree entirely that the ANI request, irrespective of its merits, was badly handled. The subsequent bickering could have been avoided had folks known each other well enough to act as brothers-in-arms who might have momentarily exposed themselves as mere humans. Trouting a friend is indeed a part of this acknowledgement, being intended to be light-hearted, but not every stranger will appreciate this and IMHO that was also badly handled. So I am hopeful that you folks can shake hands, bury any past slights on either side and whether real or imagined, and work together. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure we can. Robert, the wholesale replacement of an article section based on an out-of-date draft has now been "installed" by a user who has "heard no objection". This reverts updates by several users and bots, including the addition of maintenance tags. I suspect everyone else, like I am, is finding continued WP:STEWARDSHIP of the article too exhausting. Any suggestions? Burninthruthesky (talk) 08:14, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

I have posted my thoughts on this at User talk:Burninthruthesky#Recent edits to Lift (force). — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 11:26, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		for good advice not to be baited by admins so they have a convenient excuse to block you. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Hello

Thanks, but. I already have an account.108.84.28.198 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Archives II

Hi Robert. As you notice, I've added an archive-box. I've also MiszaBot, for automatic archivation. The syntax is as follows:

• |archive = User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive %(counter)d</nowiki> - the names of your archive-pages;
• |algo = old(180d)</nowiki> - how long threads are at least to be stored at your talkpage;
• |counter = 7 - the present archive;
• |maxarchivesize = 200K - maximum-size of every archive;
• |minthreadsleft = 5 - how many threads at least are to be left at your talkpage;
• |minthreadstoarchive = 1 - the minimum number of threads to be archived

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

ARCA archives

What's the permalink of the now-closed ARCA on GamerGate and Campus Rape? There's a good deal of interest in it. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:18, 15 March 20

Trying to thread the needle

At U.S. request for mediation, trying to thread the needle in the poll returns between B1-2 “national jurisdiction", and C1-2 “federal republic consisting of”, The letter identification of subject phrases. A:, B:, C:, ... is just for discussion purposes among the sub-units of the territory of the United States.

proposal D.1 The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.

proposal D.2. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, as well as B: a federal district and C: other territories in its national jurisdiction.

proposal D.3. The United States is a federal republic consisting of A: 50 states, B: a federal district, C: two commonwealths, D: three territories and E: other possessions in its national jurisdiction.

These can be parsed in various ways which accommodates the major divisions among editors as I see them, with an eye to include ALL initial participants.

D.1. The federal republic consists of A, B and C. or,

• A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic

or

D.2. The federal republic consists of A, as well as B and C. or,

• A, B and C in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, B and C in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic.

or

D.3. The federal republic consists of A, B, C, D and E. or,

• A, B, C, D, E in its national jurisdiction. or ambiguously, E in its national jurisdiction outside the federal republic.

Is this a way around the logjam? Any thoughts in response to these items for redrafts, --- or any main principles up front in response to Sunray's invitation for a priori Principles-for-objection BEFORE trying to reach an accommodation or redraft among the poll responses? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

State of Somaliland

Hi Robert McClenon. The dispute over whether the State of Somaliland should redirect to British Somaliland or remain a stub was already resolved. All parties agreed that it should remain a stub. Given this, could you please close the discussion and note this agreement per the talk page? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:22, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

The parties that supported a redirect were AcidSnow and myself. Neither of us have any further objection to the page remaining a stub; please see here ("I don't mind if the State of Somaliland material is redirected here"). Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 17:36, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Collect Case

Just to be clear, the currently open case is only regarding Collect's behavior, correct? Will a second case be voted on? EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 22:00, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Los Angeles Fire Department. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Lift (force)". 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 31 March 2015.

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. 03:15, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Mistatement on the Collect case page

Hi, I think this is minor and I hope it can be cleared up. Ubikwit mistated that I was a party to the Tea Party Movement arbcomm case. When I pointed out the mis-statement he agreed and immediately tried to correct the error but could not. Is it at all possible for you as clerk to remove this error? It's a matter of record and one that I hope would be removed from the page before this process rolls along too far. If it is possible, thank you. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

By the way the discussion between Ubikwit and I on this is at his page. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Sincerely. Capitalismojo (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

WP:AE request (MoS)

I agree with you. As an editor involved in dispute resolution, it might shock you to know that the MoS/AT DS have not been used since 2012, and then only twice. Most routine participants in these disputes have never been made aware of the DS with Template:Ds/alert. Considering the nature of these disputes, it seems that it is about time that these sanctions began to be utilised in some way. RGloucester — ☎ 00:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Lift (force)

There was a request to protect the talk page due to the personal attacks. I declined but left the editor a comment on the talk page. If it continues comment on my talk page, which will send an email, and I'll take a look. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 10:04, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Lift (force), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Lift (force), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:36, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Feel up to filing an ANI report?

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.

---

I think WP:NPOVN#Gospel of Matthew: 50 CE being rehashed, and some of the comments there, might merit some sort of discussion at ANI, possibly of the nature of a proposed topic or site ban, but am going to be personally occupied through Wednesday. You feel up to getting a report to ANI together? John Carter (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

@ John, I still hope to work out our differences. However if you feel my behavior is in violation of some Wikipedia policy, Arbitration is now the way to go! - Ret.Prof (talk) 18:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you!!! What the $%&* is the problem here?!?! I have looked at WP:NPOVN, and I see a discussion of how to present differing thoughts as to when the Gospel of Matthew was written. I see nothing that warrants my being asked to do a filing at WP:ANI, let alone to warrant the arbitration that Ret.Prof apparently thinks is inevitable. This appears to be a long-standing civil attempt to work out an issue that is extremely difficult to work out, and where it is even difficult to bound the scholarly estimates of the dates of the book. I do see two editors who don't like each other, but whose antagonism is not sufficient to warrant an interaction ban, only to demand that they try not to make it so obvious that they dislike each other. One editor (JC) makes allegations of competency issues against another editor (RP), and I don't see why. I don't see a competency issue; I see a content dispute that would be under control except that both editors think that it is out of control. One editor (RP) thinks, rightly or wrongly, that the other editor (JC) is determined to drive him out of Wikipedia. I don't see why. Maybe I don't know all of the background, but you asked me to look, and I don't see the need to take this to ANI, let alone to arbitration. If there really is a problem, explain it to me; otherwise stop talking about ANI and arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I only asked you because as I remember you were one of the parties of your involvement in the previous ArbCom request he filed and as I recall later withdrew. I think if you were to review the full history of Ret. Prof, starting from the early days, you would find an individual whose sole purpose has been to promote a fringe theory about the "Jewishness' of early Christianity. He has, in fact, on his user page or talk page, I forget which, recently gone to considerable length to talk about his recent "conversion" to a belief of the Jewishness of "real" early Christianity. His history, starting from the early days promoting the Butz book about some variation of the Hebrew Gospel hypothesis, has been, ultimately, little if anything else but promoting that belief. Honestly, I have and have had nothing against it, other than the fact that academia seems to count his particular version as being more or less on the very fringe of academia. Also, to date, I have found no churches which believe it, although I've looked, fairly extensively. A lot of the estimated 20,000 Christian churches are non-notable, however. I also thought you might have remembered that considering ANI for sanctions was discussed in his last flurry of edits, which more or less ended when Andrevan and others also questioned his behavior and consideration of sanctions was suggested then. But more or less his entire history as an editor has been to promote that fringe theory. As the suggestion for sanctions was made in his last flurry of activity, shortly before his last retirement or prolonged inactivity, it seemed reasonable when the same sort of behavior continued to suggest them again. You have my apologies for thinking that you might have remembered his earlier withdrawn arbitration request more clearly than you might now, particularly considering how many such arguments you have been involved in in one way or another. John Carter (talk) 22:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

?????? These allegations were worked out last year. Why go around from place to place bringing them up now. All I wanted was some clarification about the 50 CE date re NPOV. I actually support the 85 CE date. See Pico. And the edit I am proposing is minor. Why all the upset???? Anyway I am taking a break to let things cool down. Cheers - Ret.Prof (talk) 22:37, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Last year was also his last edits before the recent few, as per his history. He has developed a rather obvious history of surfacing to promote his claims, and start problems, and later disappearing for long periods until resurfacing again to make, pretty much, the same claims. John Carter (talk) 00:21, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I remember having been involved in a dispute last year. I haven't reviewed RP's history, and I know that JC has an intense dislike of RP and that there has been talk in the past that JC would pursue arbitration to get him banned. Since I haven't researched the history, and was asked by JC to look into doing an ANI filing, I assumed that there was a recent issue. I see nothing in the last few days that warrants an ANI filing -- except possibly JC's allegation of competency issues on the part of RP. Merely being a single-purpose account (SPA) isn't a competency issue. I don't see why, at this time, JC thinks that there should be an ANI filing against RP. I know that JC doesn't like RP, and I know that RP is fearful of what he perceives as JC's objective to have him banned. It appears to me that the recent discussions at NPOV are civil (except for the competency claim, which is a personal attack). I know that JC doesn't like RP's agenda. I don't know what JC was asking me to report to ANI, except that I don't see anything that should be reported to ANI. I see a content dispute; I don't see any conduct issue by RP to report to ANI. Just having a wrong content agenda isn't a conduct issue. That is my perspective. Maybe someone else has a different idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

I would actually disagree that I have an intense dislike for him - in fact, I think he might be notable in his own right, given his talk page comments, and would be willing to help put it together if I saw real evidence of it, out of some degree of respect for him. Unfortunately, being an SPA with a history of promoting at best fringe POV to the exclusion of pretty much anything else, and to have repeatedly misused noticeboards and discussion pages and, to a degree, sources, during that time, is I believe intensely problematic. That behavior I find extremely questionable, and the fact that the editor invovled seems to persist in that sort of behavior, to the seemingly exclusion of any other conduct, does raise serious questions of whether he might have exhausted the patience of the community. In any event, considering he has taken another break of a few months, apparently, I will have time, should I choose to do so during that period, to assemble a better and more clear record of his pretty much exclusive history of POV pushing during that time, and, should, as seems perhaps not unlikely, the same sort of disruption continue on his return, I think I may well have all the evidence for an ANI discussion waiting for use offwiki for introduction here. The fact that the individual does have a rather serious history of temporary "breaks" when facing the prospect of some administrative overview is a factor that makes anything more than temporary resolution difficult, so having it ready in advance would be useful, and I may well prepare it on that basis. John Carter (talk) 17:44, 31 March 2015 (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.

Evidence word count

You can save time by using Word Counter instead of copy/paste in Word. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your efforts with Magneto (generator). Another dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocating electric motor has been running for more than seven days. I have looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions but it is not clear how I get an administrator appointed. Could you tell me please? Biscuittin (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015

Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:

Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:

After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

Recent improvements

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead (T90734).

Looking ahead

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite 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), 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion opinion

If you don’t mind my asking—how was my Third Opinion request? I think it was my first time using that, so I’d appreciate any feedback, mostly on its neutrality. How would you have worded it yourself? Feel free to delete this post if you prefer not to answer. Thanks, and thanks for responding to the request! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Replied on my Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Request by Factchecker for extension of deadline to present evidence in defense of Collect

FWIW, I was never notified of this case and only discovered it by accident several days ago. I believe I can put forward substantial evidence suggesting that parties filing the case against Collect have engaged in the same misbehavior they accuse Collect of, or worse, and have deliberately violated content policies to improperly put left-leaning POV spin into WP articles, and that it is Collect's resistance to these improper editing tendencies, rather than his own alleged violations of policy, that has landed him in their crosshairs. I understand that the committee may wish to proceed according to a normal timetable, but given the circumstances I think it only fair that I be granted a brief extension to present evidence in his defense. In this case we have numerous people working against one, and it would appear they've been preparing for this case for some time before filing it. I request an extension until 5pm GMT on Sunday April 12th to make additional submissions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

notified

left User:Middayexpress and User:AcidSnow and User:Largoplazo have been notified on their talk pages .Hadraa (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not post Arbcom-related material to the talk pages of the ArbCom clerks. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Is there at least one diff of Collect abusing BLP in the way described? Could somebody point it out to me?" This is a question about a draft proposal. I asked it before and was rewarded with personal attacks. May I ask it again in the hopes it might be answered? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Ok now I'm completely confused How is it that Mr. X is allowed to post a long nonsense list and I'm not allowed to refute it? Can you please either hat his list or un-hat my response? You hatted it with the note "unproductive back and forth", but in actual fact you left the "back" intact and only redacted the "forth". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Arbitration Workshop Threaded discussion in the arbitration workshop comments subsections is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)" Please explain what this means Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC) IN PARTICULAR can you please make a small bit of explanatory effort instead of making your comments as terse and cryptic as possible? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Please respond to my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Workshop#Question_for_the_committee Please do not simply hat this request and then log out. At the very least could you either answer my question or explicitly refuse to do so? That way I won't be confused into thinking that there is some other place I"m supposed to respond, and I will clearly understand that I'm expected not to respond. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Aergas has Returned

He has unilaterally reverted edits on the page once again. I reverted them back to the original form of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans_of_European_descent&diff=656620168&oldid=656348461

Alon12 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

3O on Dalmatian Italians

Hello, it appears that requesting a 3O is useless because some editors ignore the outcome. Can you give a look please. Regards. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Users Director and Tuvixer made only vandalism in Dalmatian Italians because I ordered list of notables with other enty and word [entered] is obvious neutral because Yugoslav army was later fought by Croat army: Croat is independent State after a war against Yugoslav soldiers. May you block Tuvixer?Teo Pitta (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

reported Tuvixer removes POV's banner and engaged edit war here; may you block him? Teo Pitta (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

word [vandalism] was used firstly by Tuvixer versus me in other articleTeo Pitta (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Minority language

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am new and I need help. I am not an expert in this.

Hi Robert---I am all new to this. You just closed out my request for help in my editing Don Lane (Santa Cruz) article. I AM a registered user--perhaps I didn't fill out the form correctly. Can you help me at all? The discussion on Talk doesn't seem to go anywhere. Why is there a Admin lockout on the page?

My Problem is true and my postings honest.The Man of Heart (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

re: Discretionary Sanctions

Does this mean I'm forbidden to edit Balkan-related topics in future or? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:David-King

Hi, you may remember I requested intervention in a dispute between myself and User:David-King on the Battle of Old Trafford article. You may also remember that User:David-King made no attempt to participate in any kind of dispute resolution and the request was closed without incident. However, this user has since continued to make edits that go against the (minimal) consensus established on the article talk page by misinterpreting the comments of myself and User:Cliftonian to suit his whims and misinterpreting the sources to fit his agenda. I'm not expecting you to step in and put a stop to this shitfest, but I would appreciate some guidance as to what measures I can take to get at least someone to help settle this dispute. I'm afraid I'm just not getting through to User:David-King, and it's getting quite frustrating to talk to a brick wall. – PeeJay 08:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Help desk question

Should we tell the IP at the help desk who asked about AFDing "Turkish Airlines Flight 1878" that if he/she registers and becomes autoconfirmed then twinkle can be activated and it makes starting an AFD easy? I'm not sure I want to give advice like that on an open page like the help desk (in case there are trolls watching.) RJFJR (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the IP says they don't want to create an account so it doesn't matter. RJFJR (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

indentation

I assume you won't mind I indented your comment on the religion thread to make it clear you were responding to me, not continuing my comment. The actual full quote was "I don't care what color the baby comes out, as long as it comes out Catholic." μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fumble fingers

Sorry about the accidental rollback I just did. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 06:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Robert, since I am not listed as a party to the ArbCom case at hand, would you mind removing or striking that erroneous notice on my Talk page? Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Neutrality

Will you intervene once more? --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This is for all of your tireless work, especially in helping at DRN and clerking for ArbCom. I must say that it is an incredible honor to work with you. Thanks for your service on Wikipedia! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

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.

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Peter May. Your edits needed to have consensus- it was completely inappropriate to make a radical change like this without consensus, I'm trying to start a proper discussion at Talk:Peter May. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the best place to discuss this is Talk:Peter May, not my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This "warning" is more unconstructive and inappropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone explain why? Their actions were to make a move without consensus, when I tried to revert the change, they contested my attempt to revert, and instead started a WP:RFC, instead of following the proper procedure at WP:RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pages can be moved without prior discussion:

" If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." [WP:RM]]

Complaining about a RfC, which is an attempt to gain concensus, and insisting on a strict move-procedure, looks like an attempt to game the system, and to push your personal preferences. If you really insist at a strict move-procedure, then start such a request. But you could also simply participate in the RfC, and respect the outcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gaming the system, I believe that the move was controversial, and they should have forseen that it would be- whilst they believe the writer is important, they failed to acknowledge that the cricketer was also important too, and so their move was controversial. I'm not trying to "game the system", I'm trying to get the move debated as per the proper procedure for controversial moves. If consensus says that the cricketer is not the main article then that's fine, however there should be a discussion to this controversial move, which should have taken place before it was moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't approve of being told I'm "gaming the system", I'm trying to do what I believe is best for the encyclopedia, which is undoing a controversial move, and having a proper move discussion. As you think I'm trying to game the system, this is notification that you are banned from my talkpage indefinitely. Same for Robert McClenon, for making a controversial move and then complaining when I tried to undo it and get some legitimacy in the move. Any posts to my talkpage by either of you will be considered harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I will note that I did think that the cricketer was important also. That is why I made the disambiguation page primary. If I had not thought that both people were important, I would have made the writer primary. As far as the talk page of User:Joseph2302, we aren't on it, but on my talk page, and I haven't banned Joseph2302 from it, even for a now stricken personal attack. It appears that Joseph2302 doesn't want certain types of posts on his talk page. He may miss useful information by banning some editors. I will point out that some posts, such as ANI notices, override a personal talk page ban. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence in the history that User:Joshua Jonathan ever posted to User talk:Joseph2302, so that the ban from that talk page appears to be a pre-emptive strike, possibly to keep his talk page free of comments that can be considered critical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm striking the user talkpage ban, but the reason for it was I didn't (and still don't) feel that either of you are assuming good faith towards me. I was entitled to contest Robert McClenon's controversial move yesterday (albeit I was a bit heavy-handed), but I still felt that your comments were harsh. Fundamentally I disagree with how this discussion happened, but I'm glad an actual discussion had now taken place. As for @Joshua Jonathan:, I was very unhappy that they believed I was "gaming the system", when all I've been wanted to do is have a discussion about the move- although we don't agree on the outcome, I believe everyone should be allowed to participate in the discussion without their integrity being questioned. Everything I've done on the move/RfC discussion I have done in what I perceived to be the best interests of the encyclopedia. The talkpage ban was a pre-emptive move, because at the time I didn't want to discuss the topic further. I still stand by my comments on the discussion, but if consensus is against me, then that's fine too- I don't really have anything to add to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my statement; it was overdone. I've striked my comment too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 7 May 2015 (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.

Post-hatting comment at ArbCom talk page

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.

---

Hello Robert, I hope you can please answer a brief question for me about something that happened recently at this hatted ArbCom talk page section. The first comment pinged FactChecker, but he did not get there until after you hatted the section. When he got there, he nevertheless inserted the last comment of the section. There doesn't seem anything objectionable about the content of FactChecker's comment, and neither you nor anyone else seems to have objected to it at the time. It might have been better (though more convoluted, bureaucratic, and time-consuming) if FactChecker had formally requested your permission to insert his one and only comment in that thread. Anyway, it's now become an issue at WP:ANI. Do you regard this edit by Factchecker as a big deal, or not? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Way to ask a question in a neutral manner. Since AYW's already poisoned the well, let me point put that the opinion they're is trying to undermine is that only clerks and Arbs should hat discussions on Arb pages, and when a discussion is hatted, that's the end of it. If not, pretty much negates the entire purpose of the hat, which is to stop the discussion in its tracks. BMK (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "undermine" that general rule. I'm just suggesting that some infractions or exceptions are no big deal, especially if ArbCom and its clerks raise no objection when they occur. And I wanted to know if that is correct. I won't have any more to say about FactChecker for the foreseeable future, as I have said plenty already.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Fact-checker was formally warned by an arbitrator for conduct on ArbCom pages. Nothing more needs to be said about Fact-checker; there have been no subsequent violations. The posting of case-related questions about ArbCom pages to the talk pages of case clerks is not permitted and is considered tendentious. Both editors in this thread are being formally warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2015 (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.

Please comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification

Just because I have this talk page on my watchlist, I just thought of notifying you about this discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom RfC

Hi Robert (if I may). You might recall that we had a brief discussion about mediation for the Somalis in the United Kingdom article after another editor posted at ANI about it. There was an RfC active at that time, and you reported that it needed to end before any mediation could begin. The RfC, which was part of this section of the talk page has now been closed by a bot. Can I ask whose job it is to assess the consensus of the comments? I think it's pretty clear, but I was involved in the debate, so I'm not neutral. I'd like to get this cleared up before I consider mediation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry - The usual procedure is to request closure at WP:AN, or to wait for a request to be made in WP:ANRFC at WP:AN. However, the RFC can be closed by any experienced editor, admin or non-admin, and the request is simply a way to get the attention of an editor who is familiar with closing of RFCs. I have closed RFCs in the past and have gone ahead and closed your RFC. I think that we are now in agreement that, given how many issues keep coming up at that article, a request for formal mediation would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, and sorry about the fact that I didn't frame the RfC with a clear question, as you noted. I'll look into requesting mediation when I get the chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Robert. I would like to know when is an okay time to redact unsatisfactory wikitext after a rough consensus? Also, what is the policy regarding external forum announcements pertaining to Wikipedia? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the redaction of "unsatisfactory" text is based on an RFC closure, it can be done at any time, but discussion on the talk page would be a good idea. I am not entirely sure what you mean about external forum announcements, because they sound like external spam. What do you actually mean? Can you be more specific? I have a dislike of overly general questions about Wikipedia, because some questions are asked in order to get an answer that can be used to wikilawyer, but I can see that your questions appear to be real questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I know that there is a policy somewhere on the mutability of consensus, especially a rough consensus; however, I was unsure as to the appropriate length of time when that would come into play. Is there an extant policy on how to appropriately word external forum announcements? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by external forum announcements? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any templates that editors can use for general announcements on Wikipedia activities, events and such? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you take these questions to the Help Desk. I am sure that some of the regular editors there can address your questions. What are external forum announcements, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure yet, but thanks. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI/DRN

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.

---

Thanks for your help, I never though my first thread would go that badly. I was hoping the ANI thread would remain open though because of the user's incivility and personal attacks in the thread itself. Is that a good idea? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking this to WT:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm involved, you know, but I must express a strong disappointment for both closures. @Rider ranger47: did his best. But imnsho your choose for lassez faire cannot work when one of the involved parties trolls. What I was looking for was 3O about the tag I tried adding, what I got is a bunch of trolling. --Vituzzu (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at WT:DRN. It was clear that the moderated discussion was not working. DRN does not assign blame for why moderated discussion is not working. Go back to the article talk page. If there is conduct that you think is further trolling, please first read the boomerang essay and then, if your own conduct is appropriate, report the trolling in a new thread at WP:ANI. It might result in the troll being blocked, or the editor might collaborate with you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (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.

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:safety behaviors

I am a bit confused why you left me a message, I think that was already said on WT:DRN. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 15:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall try to be clear.

Please, let me be very clear. I have not suggested Paluzzi was a member of the Abstract Expressionism Movement. What I have suggested is that his work in the late ‘50s and early 60s was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I received this suggestion from a professor of Art History at the school from which Paluzzi received his two degrees. What I also suggested was that per edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I also suggested that Modernist contradicted himself by deleting Romul Nutiu for not being an American when there are a number of non-Americans on that list. I hope to continue making positive comments and hope others will also add to these discussions. Sirswindon (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI close

Robert, I didn't "strongly caution Dr. K. for on-wiki raging" in my long final post in this ANI thread — not even close — I said, mildly, that his description of "vile attacks" was "overly colourful" and that all the people on the talkpage seemed angry. Nobody else in the thread had said anything critical about Dr. K. at all. So it seems you weren't summarizing the thread or its outcome, but expressing your own opinion about Dr. K.'s conduct in closing the thread — a rather extreme opinion IMO — and cautioning him as from yourself (though in that mealy-mouthed passive voice)..? I don't understand why — it's surely not the usual use of a closing note. Understandably, Dr. K. was upset. Is there something I've misunderstood about the situation? I seem to remember that the last (and probably only previous) time that I posted a query on your page, you ignored it. Right, here it is. That's your prerogative, but you understand it's a little chilling. I'd appreciate it if you'd please reply to this one, because I'd like to know if I've got something wrong. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Well, Dr. K. reverted the close, and I left the revert alone. Maybe I was alone in thinking that Dr. K. was also out of line. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The caution was meant to be from me. I can understand that it was misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Robert. I can't say for sure if you have been pinged in relation to the discussion which was started on Bishonen's talk page in relation to the above (I've thought diffs would do that but I've been reliably informed that pinging doesn't necessarily always work anyway). Either way, I wish to notify you of that discussion and to assure you that you should feel free to comment there if you wish; it relates to concerns which have been raised but is an informal discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The caution was meant to be from me. Your caution, not based on any objective or even acceptable criteria, should in future be kept to yourself. Otherwise it is unconstructive on-wiki behaviour. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This suggestion that, well, somebody, anybody, has to blocked makes me glad you don't have access to the tools. Could you try in the future to refrain from commenting on disputes you don't seem to want to take the time to understand, since such carelessness costs us contributors, who simply tire of being insulted by the uninformed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Robert McClenon. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hello Robert! Just want to thank you for you attempt to smooth things over in the SDUSA Lede discussion at DRN. It's disappointing to me that the discussion failed. In light of how bitter it ended, do you think it would be best if I refrained from moderating for a period? I always liked helping at DRN, but if that's what you think is best, that's ok with me. Please advise. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 07:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:EnglishEfternamn - I am replying here because a combative editor is on your talk page. I think that you made a good-faith mistake in coming across as not entirely neutral. I don't think that you should refrain from moderating, but you should learn from your mistake. I do suggest that you formally ban Dame Etna from your talk page. I would suggest being even more neutral in future moderation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This is for your (over) three months of diligent service as an arbitration clerk. It was an incredible honor working with you. I hope to work with you in the future- perhaps at DRN? Good luck, and happy editing! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS

Hi Robert. Do you have time to take a quick look at the High fructose corn syrup page? --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers - resolved?

How can you call this dispute "resolved" when only one side of the argument participated? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You chose not to participate. You did not express an opinion against the use of the RFC. If dissatisfied, go to the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page, or participate in the RFC. Sometimes silence is assent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed choose not to participate and I gave my reason at the time - my position had been grossly misrepresented, but you in turn choose to gloss over that. Not the actions one would normally expect from a neutral "mediator". - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Violence and Buddhism

Thank you for your input. I might have to put in for DR; except by inference, I cannot determine what the other editor's actual position is. Thank you for the suggestion. Ogress _smash! 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to know what the other editor's actual position is. The other editor states what their position is, and, when there is a moderator, the moderator can ask questions. I didn't answer partly because I didn't know what the controversy was. If the case were at DRN, I would ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider it as the other editor has replied to the RFC, but to date continues to not speak to me about their position. A girl can hope, though... Ogress _smash! 19:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

About dispute resolution noticeboard procedure

I am not very familiar with the process at the noticeboard, so I wanted to ask you about it before I do something I maybe should not. Both I and StBlark have now submitted summaries of the dispute over Rosaline as an unseen character. I would like to briefly reply to StBlark's comments in the discussion section but do not know if that is appropriate to do. 99.192.72.177 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

why did you revert off topic collapse in RfC?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)&oldid=665178691&diff=prev

1. WP:TPO guidelines recommend a collapse when conversations go off topic
2. I left the collapse expanded by default

I'm helping people to not get distracted by a side conversation. What point is there in removing it? How does that help anyone? OnlyInYourMindT 14:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I have to agree with OIYM. Your intentions are of the highest order but you are overstepping the limits of your involvement on this topic. First by first crafting the RfC in your words and then by editing/collapsing a section of the RfC when you deem some portion of it to be 'off topic'. The DRN case was yours to administer as you saw fit. The RfC belongs to the community and the last person that should be editing an RfC is the person who created it. My suggestion is to revert your collapse and walk away from that page and let the editor community on that page do its thing. For better or for worse WP is governed by mob rule. Everybody has a say, everybody can edit. No one person, not even an Admin, is allowed to take things over. That is a big change from a top down corporate society that thrives on order and system. It takes some getting used to but if a person wants to prosper on WP they need to make that adjustment. We can contribute a little but then we have to step back and let others do their thing. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I could explain my reasoning (I didn't think it was off-topic), but will defer now to the advice of User:Keithbob. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert for your flexibility and well intentioned efforts! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More of Zeitgeist things

I just received what I would call a very intense personal attack by Andy The Grump on my user page and also in the RFC in progress. I think its uncalled for and not accurate. It is about as nasty as it gets. The same user once called me a little shit at an ani. Is there anything you can do. I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment. Its just a content dissagreement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not in charge of the RFC or the talk page. I will take a look. If there are personal attacks, they can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore Case

Hi, I am the new user of Wikipedia, I am not aware of Requested Move. You are unnecessarily suspecting me of an failed RM. Which I have not initiated at all.

Now I have initiated the RM in Bangalore talk page. I have also suggested an workaround for the issue, where I hope that no one would object any more. Intention is not to remove Bangalore wiki page but to introduce new Bengaluru wiki page itself. As you are the expert wiki contributor, I request for your help and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor can you fix the mess at Talk:Bangalore? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The new inexperienced editor needs to read WP:Redirecting to see that Bengaluru already redirects to Bangalore. Many inexperienced editors think that copy-and-paste copies of articles are the way to provide alternate titles. I will try to explain to the new editor how redirects work. If he listens, everything will be all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DrK got it. [23] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC close

You made a somewhat controversial RFC close here on Ayurveda. There were twenty participants. Based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive, it would appear that the following users are all socks of each other:

• Delibzr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• నిజానికి (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VandVictory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on that somewhat overwhelming sock participation, can I get you to reevaluate that close?—Kww(talk) 00:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted someone that wasn't going to be accused of favoring one side to take the steps.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The White House cat

You're asking WMF to do something that has the potential to jeopardize the reputation of Wikipedia. Ain't gonna happen. But good work on reversing the close. That shows class. If more people were willing to clean up after themselves (even on things like this that aren't really their fault) this place would run much more smoothly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What does the White House have to do with the socks? The socks were from South Asia. Did Clinton appoint one of them to an ambassadorship? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, like other deep abuses of Wikipedia, like Qworty, the ugly truth will come out. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More like Kumioko than Qworty. Pretty lame outcome but I'm not too worked up or that surprised by it. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics decision

I am not sure the incoming discretionary sanctions for the American Politics topic would sufficiently cover the Zeitgeist issue. The movement is international and the movies touch on subjects other than U.S. politics such as the Chirst myth theory. Not sure if the third movie even touches on national political issues at all, judging from some of the descriptions and reviews I have read. Seems the third movie is more of a run-down on political and economic concepts of international appeal. Discretionary sanctions do exist that cover BLP issues, fringe science, and 9/11, but it still probably does not cover every aspect of the Zeitgeist dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? Enough of the first two movies does fall within DS so that DS can deal with disruptive editing. The disruptive edits either have to do with the movement or with Peter Joseph. The latter is already in DS, and the former will be in a few days. Are you saying that ArbCom needs to impose expanded DS, or that DS won't work, or that edit-warring is the right answer? I don't think that you suggesting edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just saying the American Politics decision and prior decisions may not adequately cover the Zeitgeist topic area. It doesn't just involve American Politics, 9/11, or other topics already covered by discretionary sanctions. There would likely be some dispute about whether TZM and the related films are all covered under the discretionary sanctions even after the American Politics case closes. Andy is saying he will take it to ArbCom and that is probably the best way to handle it if things don't change soon.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your strike at DR/N

Instead of striking the entire statement, you could have struck on the volunteer lead in and used superscript to indicate it was a 3rd party comment. Would you please remove the strike of the entire statement since the poster stands by it? Thank you - sorry to be a bother but I think it's only fair to remove the full strike. --Atsme^📞📧 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that I could do that. I understand that the poster stands by it. I won't unstrike. If the coordinator thinks that I exceeded my authority, that is different. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Thank you. --Atsme^📞📧 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015

Did you know?

When you click on a link to an article, you now see more information:

The link tool has been re-designed:

There are separate tabs for linking to internal and external pages.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has created new interfaces for the link and citation tools, as well as fixing many bugs and changing some elements of the design. Some of these bugs affected users of VisualEditor on mobile devices. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

A test of VisualEditor's effect on new editors at the English Wikipedia has just completed the first phase. During this test, half of newly registered editors had VisualEditor automatically enabled, and half did not. The main goal of the study is to learn which group was more likely to save an edit and to make productive, unreverted edits. Initial results will be posted at Meta later this month.

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations are available at a few Wikipedias through the citoid service. Citoid takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. If Citoid is enabled on your wiki, then the design of the citation workflow changed during May. All citations are now created inside a single tool. Inside that tool, choose the tab you want (⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-auto⧽, ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-manual⧽, or ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-reuse⧽). The cite button is now labeled with the word "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" rather than a book icon, and the autofill citation dialog now has a more meaningful label, "⧼Citoid-citeFromIDDialog-lookup-button⧽", for the submit button.

The link tool has been redesigned based on feedback from Wikipedia editors and user testing. It now has two separate sections: one for links to articles and one for external links. When you select a link, its pop-up context menu shows the name of the linked page, a thumbnail image from the linked page, Wikidata's description, and/or appropriate icons for disambiguation pages, redirect pages and empty pages. Search results have been reduced to the first five pages. Several bugs were fixed, including a dark highlight that appeared over the first match in the link inspector (T98085).  

The special character inserter in VisualEditor now uses the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki can also create a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Please read the instructions for customizing the list at mediawiki.org. Also, there is now a tooltip to describing each character in the special character inserter (T70425).

Several improvements have been made to templates. When you search for a template to insert, the list of results now contains descriptions of the templates. The parameter list inside the template dialog now remains open after inserting a parameter from the list, so that users don’t need to click on "⧼visualeditor-dialog-transclusion-add-param⧽" each time they want to add another parameter (T95696). The team added a new property for TemplateData, "Example", for template parameters. This optional, translatable property will show up when there is text describing how to use that parameter (T53049).

The design of the main toolbar and several other elements have changed slightly, to be consistent with the MediaWiki theme. In the Vector skin, individual items in the menu are separated visually by pale gray bars. Buttons and menus on the toolbar can now contain both an icon and a text label, rather than just one or the other. This new design feature is being used for the cite button on wikis where the Citoid service is enabled.

The team has released a long-desired improvement to the handling of non-existent images. If a non-existent image is linked in an article, then it is now visible in VisualEditor and can be selected, edited, replaced, or removed.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug.
• If your Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other community wants to have VisualEditor made available by default to contributors, then please contact James Forrester.
• If you would like to request the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite 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) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Tina Turner can there be a portal of Tina Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.60.72 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hi there. I'd like to have a chat with you offline over the next day or so to understand a bit more about your DR style (I've done this with many a dispute resolution volunteer before, TransporterMan included). What timezone are you in? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you've ignored this. Noted. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this, because I was getting so many comments. I am in EST. I apologize. Do you want me to stop being a moderator, or do you want to offer me advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly offer advice :). From what I've seen you don't have email - so send me one - cro0016gmail.com. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I had email enabled, but it seems to have disabled itself. I am trying to get it re-enabled. I will send the email. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your request re DRN Supercarrier edit

Robert you asked for a more detailed evaluation of your edit, so here it is. (Let me note to avoid an internal-copyvio issue that the italicized text below is taken from this edit by Robert McClenon.) Before starting, however, let me say in advance that I'm doing this at your request and as a courtesy to you (sideways as it may be), but I'm not going to debate it with you, though I am quite willing for you or other editors to comment upon what I say here as and to the degree that they may like:

• There has been discussion on the article talk page, but nearly all of it was a week ago. I suggest that the editors go back to the talk page and see if discussion works.

If the discussion was a month old then I might well have agreed with this assessment, but a week is nothing in Wiki-time. Also, I wouldn't have disagreed if you had said something like, "There was discussion on this a week or so ago and it seemed to be progressing nicely, I'm going to close this and suggest that you try to revive that discussion. If you can't, feel free to come back here." (That is, Robert, if it was progressing nicely; I'm not saying here that it was, just giving a possible example of something I could have agreed with.) If it had been a month old, then I might have closed the case for lack of recent extensive discussion, but again a week (or actually 11 days in this case), is nothing.

• I see that one of the editors does not think that this case should be accepted, but doesn't say why.

He most definitely says why: that in his opinion there's a black-and-white, absolutley-correct outcome and that we shouldn't even consider taking the case for that reason. Now, of course, we don't generally do that, but there is no question that it has been done in the form of rendering a neutral opinion (much like 3O) and immediately closing the case as resolved (due to the fact that there is no possible other outcome). That's procedurally different than just refusing the case, but has the same practical result. I have no idea whether or not he was right because I haven't looked at the facts or whether that would be a proper handling of the case. But your saying that he hasn't said why is factually wrong and unnecessarily confrontational.

• Participation in this noticeboard is voluntary, but saying that one doesn't want to participate, without saying why, isn't helpful.

First, he hasn't said that he doesn't want to participate, he's said that he thinks that it shouldn't be accepted; he may very well be willing to participate when he sees that the case will be opened. Second, no editor is required to say why they don't want to participate and to say that isn't helpful is, once again, factually wrong and insulting, especially when snarkily said that it "isn't helpful."

• I also see that there are multiple comments on contributors. Regardless of how dispute resolution proceeds for this article, the editors need to learn to comment on content rather than contributors.

My principal objection here is on the "need to" phraseology. Telling people that they need to learn is just a backwards way of saying that they're stupid or ignorant and is a direct insult. As has been discussed over at the DRN talk page, any admonishment is fraught with problems of making the volunteer or DRN in general unwelcoming and potentially non-neutral, but that problem is there even more so when you insult people as well. I also object to giving any conduct admonishment at all at this point in the case since the conduct allegations are very minor and just in passing, though I probably wouldn't have complained you doing that if that was all that was here and had been expressed in a non-insulting manner.

You asked, and so I've set it out chapter and verse, more directly — and forthrightly — than I might have if you hadn't asked. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay

Thank you. I don't entirely agree, but I will review your criticisms and try to learn from them. (I do sort of feel that my less-than-ideal choice of words was rammed down my throat publicly on the DRN talk page, but I understand that you did what you had to do. I do feel that my mistakes have been less serious than those of some other volunteers, and that I have been chastised more severely than they, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth...and I'm dealing with a fairly bad cold right now, so consider my judgment perhaps a bit impaired...to some degree it seems to me that TM's concerns are not so much with what you said but rather the manner in which you said it. On the one hand that's a good thing, since it means that the underlying thrust of your points is reasonable. OTOH, Dispute Resolution in particular is all about diplomacy, and as coordinators, how we say things can have a disproportionate impact on the course of a case. I'm reminded of a non-wiki incident in which an argument ensued after I told someone "you're acting like an asshole" and they took it as "you are an asshole". Semantics really is the devil's business.

After re-reading, I'm feeling a bit less confident of my own assessment, so I'll leave it at this: I hope my observation didn't ruffle anyone's feathers, and if you see this TM, I'm certainly not out to misrepresent you in any manner, and Robert, my advice would boil down to...try to err more on the side of the velvet glove than the iron fist. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I would say you always have the best of intentions and your efforts are always in good faith. I also give you high praise for being able to listen to feedback from other editors when you've bumped your head so to speak. I think that T-man has come on a bit strong because this one post is indicative of your general approach to the dispute resolution participants which tends to be harsh and administrative rather than understanding and helpful. When I look at your DRN cases it appears that you are just going through the motions and are looking for ways to dispose of the case rather than building trust, cooperation and consensus. You also seem to approach DRN as if it was ANI focusing almost exclusively on behavior. In addition you disallow discussion by forcing the participants to comment only in their preassigned areas. You ask questions and then find fault with them or their answers. You take a tense situation and infuse it with further tension until the participants act up/act out or go away and then you close the case. You seem to feel that everything is black and white but that is not the case at DRN as mediation, consensus and resolution all have a thousand shades of gray. Resolution is only built via a painstaking process of very slow negotiation.

DRN cases are not administrated they are moderated and there is a big difference. A successful DRN wants to help other people who are in distress. Yes, some small amount of occasional discipline is required but patience, flexibility and compassion are the primary qualities of a good DRN moderator.

I'm also concerned about the effect you are having on new volunteers at DRN. I see your policeman's mentality rubbing off on the newbies and you unintentionally chased away a new DRN volunteer when you elbowed them out of their first DRN case.

Finally.....everyone is different. We all have different skills and different aptitudes. I know that you are an ArbCom clerk, and though I have not looked at any of your ArbCom work, I'll bet you are very good at it because it's almost purely an administrative role that sets up and maintains boundaries for the participants. So if you don't have the patience for the nitty gritty of herding a bunch of cats who don't like each other than DRN may not be the thing for you. And there is no shame in that because you have many other skills and talents that are needed on this vast project. You are welcome at DRN but you will need to really focus on and develop your mediation skills if you want to make a real contribution there and avoid threads like this one. I wish you well and sincerely thank you for your good faith contributions to our project. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hearing what all of you say, your comments really have to do with comments on cases that haven't yet been opened, or with the talk page. I think that if you look over my handling of cases that I have accepted, you will see that they have gone more smoothly than this recent episode. Thank you. I still really do think that some (not all) of you have been too harsh with me. I have from time to time asked for feedback, and generally I haven't gotten it until now I get dumped on. Oh well. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, In my comments I was referring to past cases that you have moderated and then closed. I'm sorry that you are feeling dumped on. If I was in your shoes I would probably feel the same way. I hope that over time these exchanges turn out to be helpful rather than hurtful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Okay

A complaint
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Robert, I find myself totally astonished that after this exchange followed by this edit on the Supercarrier talk page and my unanswered response that you would think that there was even the slightest chance that I would accept your involvement in the current case. I could expect an apology, but I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that is highly unlikely. For the record, should I ever be drawn back to DRN, be advised that I will not accept you as moderator. - Nick Thorne talk 23:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) In case you didn't notice, I stated that I recused myself from this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I was aware of that, but you only recused yourself after being prompted. Regardless of your intentions it did not give the appearance of acting as a neutral party. - Nick Thorne talk 02:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Oh and "in case you didn't notice" is indicative of part of the problem. You seem to assume that others are idiots. On the contrary, I am quite capable of reading for myself who said what, when and to whom. Please stop treating editors as stupid children that have to be told what is already plain. - Nick Thorne talk 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being a polite and helpful

Crazyseiko (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon RCS Synthesis Debate

Hi Robert, as you know I'm currently involved in a synthesis debate over on the original research noticeboard. However I've since discovered that the first source already makes the point I'm being accused of sythesising. because it already states composite percentage as a reason for the Typhoon's lower RCS, therefore any mention of composite percentage thereafter can't possibly be synthesis because the point was already made in that source. However I feel I'm being drowned out without getting a fair hearing and nobody is really using the actual policy to support their opinion and I'm having to defeat the same claims over and over again because nobody is reading (except me) but everybody is writing, is it possible for you to actually get someone who understand policy to look at this? Thanks.Z07x10 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that your posts are too long, and very long posts are too long, didn't read. If one of the sources actually makes exactly that point, then make that statement concisely. If you have to introduce a new level 4 break, do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will try but I put the point in bold several times already, I feel I'm just banging my head against a wall.Z07x10 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the issue that you need to address is not so much whether you are engaged in synthesis, but whether the source that engaged in synthesis is a reliable source. I can see that it looks to you like they are moving the goalposts, but the underlying issue is whether a reliable source has provided the information. There is a distinction without a difference between whether you engaged in synthesis or whether an unreliable source engaged in synthesis. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given their credentials and partner network, they look a long way from an unreliable source http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ and the statement is partially backed up by another source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm. I cannot help but feel that the complainants just dislike the edit and are scrabbling around for any reason they can find to disallow it. They tried OR synthesis, failed, and then moved on to unreliable source synthesis but there is no evidence of them being unreliable. This seems like an endless tail chase here, maybe they should just WP:DTS until they can come up with more than mere unfounded opinion.Z07x10 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the reliability of the source, this is no longer a synthesis issue. The policies make no mention of source reliability as a synthesis issue nor synthesis as a source reliability issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sourcesZ07x10 (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Mediation Bot issue, my second attempt still seems to have failed too. Don't know what's up.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2Z07x10 (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional help needed

Sorry Robert McClenon but I didn't 100% understood what should I do based on your recommendation on article talk Minority language (maybe it is because of the language or something). Does it mean I should make new RfC for the same issue/page since I done it before HERE or should I post my question on some other centralized place again? Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Help: do you know how to report this?

I've got a puppet issue at an AfD. The user's account was created to vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Hong Lu. Do you know how I report it? I have no evidence it is specifically a sock, although the user they are meat/sock for has a history of blatantly ignoring Wiki rules. Ogress _smash! 05:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets may be reported at WP:SPI. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN:Shang dynasty

Hey Robert McClenon,

I am also a participant in the conversation and yet the filing author has not included me in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shang dynasty#Language. I'm not sure how to address this because I have definitely not agreed with the filing author. Ogress _smash! 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just add your information to the case header. However, I will do it for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Can I ask why you keep to referring to 'language' in this dispute? It clearly is a dispute over whether content on a specific subject (namely a comparison of Eurofighter and Rafale RCS's) should be included in the article, rather than an issue of exact wording, and I suspect that people may find your references to 'language' confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. I agree that the question is whether to include a particular paragraph. However, I think that we both agree that the real question is whether to include the comparison at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to propose an alternate question, feel free to do so at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify your position re the Eurofighter debate?

From your posts at Talk:Eurofighter, I get the impression that you are trying to 'moderate' the discussion. Can you clarify whether that is your intent? I ask because as far as I'm aware, DRN volunteers have no mandate beyond the noticeboard, and because Z07x10 keeps citing your opinion as if it was some kind of decision. This is clearly unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

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/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, 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) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RFC at tree of life

Hi Robert, I agree with you on your closure of the RFC. I had meant to remove the RFC template when it became clear the question was more complex than I initially thought. Would you object to the discussion being re-opened with the RFC tag removed? SPACKlick (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead somehow. The RFC tag has already been removed by the bot. Why don't I remove the box and strike but not delete the closure language? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, 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) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Suggestion re 3O

Robert, this is just a suggestion and not, in any sense whatsoever, a complaint or criticism, take it or leave it as you see fit. About this edit: I see a distinction between a request in which there are too many editors involved in a discussion before they come to 3O (which should cause the request to be closed because it was improperly made) and a request in which at the time of making the request there are only two and a third one comes along after the request has been made (which should cause the request to be closed because a 3O has been given), which appeared to be what happened when 3family6 edited at 17:18 UTC after the request was made at 14:08 UTC. That's true whether the later participant in the discussion, 3family6 in this case, edited it because s/he was responding to the request made at 3O or whether they just happened to wander in or showed up in response to an inquiry made at a wikiproject or whatever; a third opinion given like that both is and is not a Third Opinion (I call this the Third Opinion Paradox). If it's the former, where there are too many editors to begin with, I'll close a case with much the same edit comment that you did, but if it's the latter, I'll close it with an edit comment which says, "Closing [[Baltimora]], 3O given by 3family6; # remain on list". That makes it clearer to anyone who looks why you've done what you did. Having said all of that, let me return to the situation where there are already more than two users involved in the dispute at the time the application is made. If you'll look back through the 3O Talk Page archives, you'll find that there is a good deal of sentiment that the 2-editor requirement should not be enforced too strictly. (How do I know? When I was a newcomer to 3O I removed cases from the list for that reason and was criticized for it.) I now will not generally remove cases for having more than 2 editors unless there are at least 5, or occasionally 4 (especially if they have multiple, differing positions), editors involved in the dispute. In the Baltimora case, of course, there were only two (Rhododendrites was there acting as a peacemaker and had not become actively involved in the actual dispute, so didn't count) until 3family6 came along. That's just what I do and, as I began, you're free to take it or leave it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I will review and learn. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance

Hello Robert McClenon. I didn't get a chance to post my reply to the dispute resolution page. I just went to do it now and I saw that you'd already started the RFC! (I figured I would have up to 24 hours to reply.) Since Onel5969 got to reply it seems only fair that I should get to reply too. I have my reply saved in a file; is there someplace I could post it so you and Onel5969 and anyone else who is interested could at least read it?

I've read the three choices in the RFC and I really like "B." Can I vote or am I ineligible because I'm one of the original participants in the dispute? If I am allowed to vote, do I simply add a line or two to the Survey section (my choice with a very brief reason)?

Richard27182 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if, given that this is a technical issue, would it be appropriate to add the RFC to the Maths, science, and technology list also?
Richard27182 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will add sci to the bot tag, and ANYONE can express an opinion on an RFC. That is, an RFC is open to all editors in the Wikipedia community. That is what it is. Maybe you didn't know that. Now you do. Go ahead and express an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Hello. Thank you for your reply, I guess your a bit miffed with my comment about Admin broad. For the record, six years without having to go thought this process, I would say is good. "content is dealt with by consensus" You can clearly see no one wants to do that, no one has yet to explain or ruff buff my two biggest points, That being does the page come under " To much detail" and worse still the lack of any Ref, IF there were at least some communication I could expect but no one want say anything. Thankful you have given a useful tip where my next step should be, and Yes I would like a Request for Comments to ask for community participation on whether to remove the identification of the killer, or if such information does cover To much details and lack of refs. I would believe I would better off waiting until tomorrow before processing.--Crazyseiko (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

hi thanks for the further reply, yes I would like to "Request for Comments" thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello RM. This edit, by a newbie, refactored an edit by the IP. Now they are probably the same person and it looks likely that they don't know how things work. Also I didn't want to make a big deal about it at the DR page so I thought I'd let you decide how to proceed. You might have already seen this but I thought I'd let you know just in case. Cheers to ya. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that they are the same person, since I advised the IP to register an account in order to get the privilege of creating an AFD subpage. My own thought is to ignore it, and to let the DRN coordinator decide whether to close the thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, same person, and you're correct that I'm new and still getting the hang of things. Thanks! 217IP (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected Page

Hi Robert - the Zulu_(musician) musician page is protected now, but I think the WP:COI and WP:NMUSIC banners should still really be on the article. I plan on adding it to AFD after the protection is gone next week, but I think drawing discussion towards this for the next week is worthwhile too. 217IP (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Wasteland RFC

Hello @Robert McClenon:  We don't seem to be getting much response to the Wanderer of the Wasteland RFC.  I know it's on three lists; but is there anything else we can do to call attention to it?  I was reading the Wikipedia RFC page and it mentions that when there aren't enough editors to get sufficient input, the RFC may be publicized by posting a notice at certain locations.  Would this be appropriate?  And if so, who would be the proper person to do it?  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I am not surprised that there isn't a whole lot of response yet. The RFC has only been running two days. As you may know, I posted it to two WikiProjects and to the Technicolor talk page. I don't think that we need to be in a hurry to get responses. However, one possibility would be the Village pump (miscellaneous). You ask who should post the notice. Anyone may post the notice, provided that the posting is neutrally worded. That is, don't argue the RFC at a posting location. (Argument can be in the RFC discussion itself.) Also, don't select editors based on what you think they think. That would violate the guideline against canvassing. I would try Village Pump (miscellaneous). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon.
      And thank you for your reply.  (It was probably unnecessary at best and inappropriate at worst for me to have "pinged" you when I wrote last time.  Sorry about that.  I remember someone telling me that there's no reason to ping someone when you post on their own talk page.  Anyway, I'm still learning and sometimes I forget.)
      Although I didn't mention it in my message, one of the things I was wondering about was timing; I really had no idea of how quickly these RFC things are supposed to build up responses.  But if you feel that the response rate so far is typical, then I won't worry about it for now.
      If the response rate does become unexpectedly low, then I think I will follow your advice and post to the Village pump (miscellaneous).  When the time comes, would it be OK if I show you a proposed copy of the posting before I post it, just to make sure it's done properly?  Also I'm not clear on the whole concept of selecting editors; but I won't worry about that until if and when it gets to that point.
      Well, I guess that's all for now.  I think I'll just give it some time and see what the response rate is over the next several days or week or so.  Thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's more or less the way it is. Don't push an RFC at editors; it annoys them. Thank you for trying to understand how Wikipedia is. Again, thank you for trying to work within Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed my question from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Sorry.

Since I started the thread by submitting my question, and since the question had been answered, and since Wikipedia encourages initiative so as to minimize its maintenance, I took it upon myself to remove the thread. I didn't intend to ruffle anyone's feathers.

And who do you think you are? I don't appreciate your pedantic "content removal does not appear constructive" castigation. After all, isn't it true that no one "owns" Wikipedia, not you, not even Jimmy Wales. So kindly lighten up. You are not a Wikipedia-cop. --MarkFilipak (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Help Desk is archived. The removal of a question prevents its archival, and therefore makes it harder to find a question that was asked and answered. You may not have known that questions are not supposed to be removed because they are asked and answered. I will inquire as to correctness, but for now I stand as to saying that you should not have removed a question. Other editors might have had other comments to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Posts should not be removed from the Help Desk because they have been answered. You meant to be helpful but were being unhelpful. My reply to you was harsh, and I regret that it was harsh. You may not have known that posts should not be removed just because they have been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:GPS

Probably best to keep other admins in the loop, as my involvement was more of along the lines of drive by assistance. I'm not much for long term involvement in these matters if I can help it, although if need be I will assist. Best keep those at WP:AN or WP:AN/I appraised of the situation, the admins over there tend to dabble in this area much more so than I. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request monitoring of page Popular Front of India

Saw the WP message, thanks Robert. Ask the WP admins to take stock of the history of NPOV and unjustified revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are at the edge

Hi Robert, As I've said before I know that your intentions on WP and at DRN are good. However, your performance is lacking and this has been pointed out to you by at least three people. I have no special authority at DRN but I think the time may be nearing when one of the editors from DRN (and it could be me) begins a discussion thread suggesting that you move on to other activities on WP and not participate at DRN because your participation is disruptive more than it is helpful. In my opinion we are at the edge of that right now. You have gotten feedback on several occasions about making condescending remarks and judgements about editors and their behavior and yet you are still making posts like these that focus on editor behavior [bold added]:

1. This isn't directly relevant to this forum. However, in case anyone is interested, User:Z07x10, who wanted to add a paragraph to the Eurofighter Typhoon that other editors did not want, has now been banned, among other things for conduct toward other editors that took on the nature of vandalism. This has nothing to do with how we do dispute resolution, except to point out that some editors who come here are very difficult, and there isn't always anything that we can do about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 6:23 pm, 20 June 2015, last Saturday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)
2. There has been extended discussion at the article talk page, and some edit-warring. The editors have also included an unregistered editor. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 4:22 pm, 23 June 2015, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)
3. There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has not been extensive (or civil). I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but I would suggest that there should be further civil discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 1:15 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

DRN is a content only forum and we tell the participants not to bring up behavior issues and yet you bring up behavior time after time, even before the case opens. This is not good and needs to be corrected immediately. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will take your comments into account. Perhaps what I should do is to avoid making volunteer comments on new cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I dearly hope this doesn't come off as condescending...I don't have the amount of time I'd like to devote to DRN, but if there are times when you're considering speaking up but aren't sure whether your comments would be taken well, I've got a BA in English Writing and decent amounts of experience here and would be happy to screen your messages in advance and offer suggestions. Again, sorry if it sounds like I'm being patronizing here, just offering whatever insight I might have and trying to help. Lord knows I think DRN in general could benefit from some sort of mentoring program. FWIW I think Keith came across a little harshly, but I also see his point. Best wishes, regardless. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with User:Doniago that User:Doniago is meaning well and is being condescending. The reason why I have been commenting on threads is that no one else has, and it would take longer to get him to review my posts. Thank you anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

He is right that User:Keithbob came across as harsh, but that is for the same reason that my comments have come across as harsh. He just said what he wanted to say. I will use better judgment in commenting on new threads. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I will note that my comment about the unregistered editor was not meant to disparage the unregistered editor, but to point out that the filer had not identified the unregistered editor as a party. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 checking in with some questions

Hello Robert McClenon.
       Please forgive me if this message might be just a little premature. And if I am premature, please feel free to suggest that I hold off for a certain number of days before acting on any suggestions you might make in your reply.
       The Technicolor terminology RFC (Re: Wanderer of the Wasteland) has been active for a week now and has received just three votes (not counting mine and Onel5969's).  Is this about what would be expected; or is it getting to be time to take more action to publicize it?  And if so, which route(s) would you suggest?  You've previously mentioned the Village Pump.  If I prepare a posting for that, would you be willing to take a quick look at it before I post it just to make sure it's worded appropriately?
       I've also been reading about Feedback request service.  Would that also be an appropriate way to go?  And if so, how do I do it?  Do I just send individual, brief, unbiased messages to editors chosen randomly from the appropriate list(s), or is it done some other way.
       I hope my questions are not a burden; and I very much appreciate your help and guidance. I know it's very easy for a novice like me to make a serious faux pas, and I really want to avoid that as much as possible. Thank you again for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia robert mclenonHi Robert McClenon. I haven't heard from you in a while; just thought I'd check in.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My own advice is that, for an RFC about an article of relatively marginal interest, you are likely not to get much participation. My advice would be to leave it alone for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon.  OK, I'll do that.  But please give me an idea of what you mean by "a while."  A few days, a week, a couple weeks?  Also, is there some point in time when the RFC will automatically close or expire or anything like that?  I really do appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

An RFC in Wikipedia runs for 30 days, and then becomes eligible for closure. I would suggest waiting until it has been running for three weeks. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for your advice. I trust your judgement, and I'll get back to you toward the end of the three weeks to see what you'll recommend for the next step. I appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Thanks for the info, but you might want to fix the message. It seems not to say what it needs to say. Peter238 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think that the message needs to say? I am not the originator of the template that applies the canned message. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the template was vandalized. It says 'for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited' - it must mean Josip Broz Tito. A bigger problem is with the next sentence, in which 'here' links to B. Peter238 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Typo corrected. It has to do with the Balkans in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Peter238 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)