User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

. Thanks for your quick turnaround! I'm trying to stop Stephanie and Grazie from being published! I'm trying to get the hang of building my pages here =) I put my submission on the appropriate page...I think!

draft: Erwin Reifler[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your review of my entry on draft:Erwin Reifler. I just resubmitted my draft. I added two more references include one of his own publication in a recent anthology of classic essays in Machine Translation. I think these are enough to guarantee his notability as an early researcher in Machine Translation. Please let me know if you have further suggestions. gazagoal —Preceding undated comment added 07:13, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN[edit]

Why are you taking cases others have already volunteered for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCite (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion on Draft:MiniTool & Some question about the software company[edit]

Hi Robert, Thanks for your kind suggestion, to create a software company wikipage, I just created it as other software company, like Paragon Software Group, they also listed what the software they sell, they are the same format. Please give me more informations about how to fix this page. Thank you for your assistance!

User:Keybord-Man - Please sign your posts with four tildes after them. Please use the New Section feature to post to the bottom of the page, not the top. I will be commenting on your draft at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments request for edit to Draft:Mexican_Telecommunications_Reform_2015-16_(RED_COMPARTIDA)[edit]

HI Robert,

I have, I hope, made the requested changes and added several new links to wikipedia articles along with tidying up the references list and I have also added external links. ::The draft in question is Draft:Mexican_Telecommunications_Reform_2015-16_(RED_COMPARTIDA)

Thank you for your assistance!


Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Expulsion of Cham Albanians". 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 4 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Stone Tower[edit]

Hi Robert, I have made the changes you suggested on this draft topic. Please read and sign-off when you have a moment. Riaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Dean (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Stone Tower. When you ask about an article, please provide a link to the article. I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Draft ATMIA[edit]

Robert you requested 

Remove words "new article content".

Its now done.

Is it possible for you to accept the contribution?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous reviewer was not optimistic about establishing notability. Neither am I, but I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse to comment. Do you have a connection with the subject organization?

This year I am working with this organisation as part of the preparations to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ATM in 2017. But I am full time academic employee of Bangor University (Wales)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:ATMIA. When you ask about a draft, it is helpful to provide a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply and apologies for missing the link. KGirlTrucker81 has looked at Draft:ATMIA and thinks there are problems as it "includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations"

I will have a look and come back to you (as there doesn't seem to be a KGirlTrucker81 talk).

Again thanks Bernardo —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CIM2014 - There is a User talk:KGirlTrucker81. Also, if you are working with the ATMIA, have you provided the conflict of interest disclosure? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received payment from them. It is part of my job as we are asked for "public engagement". But can and will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a paid editing policy and a a conflict of interest policy. If you are not being paid, you still have what is known in Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. I become cynical about at least conflict of interest when I see a new editor whose edits focus entirely on getting one or two or three articles into article space. I invite you to participate in improving Wikipedia more generally, but I know that many single-purpose accounts come only to get "their" article or articles approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

decline of Angie Craig article[edit]

Thanks for the offer. I thought a strong candidate in a competitive congressional election would be notable but I guess I'll have to wait and see if she gets elected. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Draft:Angie Craig. I have two problems with the draft. First, it is non-neutral, and reads like an endorsement of Craig. Second, we have a political notability guideline, by which national and state legislators are ipso facto notable. Most other politicians have to satisfy general notability guidelines. In general, because there is a notability guideline, many reviewers use a strict standard with regard to general notability of candidates who do not satisfy political notability. However, I will be taking a discussion to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed[edit]

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
    1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
    2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
    3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
  2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
  3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted[edit]

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:30, 2 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Si467[edit]


Hi Robert Thanks for your feedback on the draft submission for James Calder. It may ahve been duplicated as I have now taken over from the previous guy. I hope the latest edit conforms to Wiki. Any advice much appreciated. We will try to get more articles submitted as we become more experienced with using Wiki (we are a group of academics and used to publishing in peer reviewed journals not Wiki!!) Best wishes, Si

Si467 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC - progress[edit]

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clipperz review[edit]

Mr. McClenon -- I'm recently copied a version of the proposed article about Clipperz Password Manager which I considered to be the best onto my personal Wikipedia page. Unfortunately I did not realize that it would be automatically resubmitted -- not my intent. Just to bring you up-to-date, I revised the Clipperz entry based on your good feedback that additional references were needed. However the next reviewer complained that the article read like an advertisement. I didn't agree with that assessment but modified the article again. However the next editor felt that the pared down article didn't rise to the level of notability needed (of course I had to remove many of the references to make the article less "promotional"). Long story and 45 hours of effort later I have given up on creating a Wikipedia article about Clipperz and no review is pending. However, I plan to retain a copy of the proposed entry on my personal page. Regards,

Toddkatz (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligize To You[edit]

Robert McClenon I'm going to say I'm sorry but I won't do that again in the meantime may the good lord bless and keep you. 2600:8803:7A00:19:657C:3396:A35F:8786 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Section[edit]

Shouldn't there be a 3rd option, "Neutral" (in addition to "Keep" and "Remove") or something to that affect? Bubbecraft (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can say that themselves, or they can say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:41:07, 4 October 2016 review of submission by Embby[edit]

I have asked editors at the Teahouse for their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

Robert, Thank you for your guidance on my AFC submission (Gerhard Medicus). I would like to get this reviewed...if you think there is a chance for eventual acceptance. Medicus has embedded himself many times with indigenous tribes in Indonesia to further his studies over the years...maybe I need to bolster that experience? On additional draft...I am a rookie..still trying to hunt down the old copy to delete. Thanks again for looking this over! Behal509 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have two currently existing drafts, at User:Behal509/sandbox and Draft:Gerhard Medicus. Which draft do you want reviewed? Yes, if you have reliable reports of his field work in Indonesia, they should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Behal509, what is your connection to Gerhard Medicus? Are you working for him, or do you merely happen to know about him (e.g., because he was one of your professors)? If you have a connection other than knowledge, you need to declare a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert. I was one of the translators(German to English) and helped with proofreading for his book: Being Human - Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind Behal509 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I deleted the draft. The other sits in sandbox. Thanks Behal509 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, Wondering if we can reconsider review and submission for Gerhard Medicus. Was accepted by German Wikipedia. It seems they would have reviewed references. Thanks Behal509 (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:42, 4 October 2016 review of submission by Cofeebk23[edit]


Good Morning Robert, When you have a moment can you please assist with a re-review the Wiki article on ZendyHealth. I have made it less advertorial and decided to reach out instead of re-submitting for review through wiki. I am not yet certain of the appropriate etiquette and if this was incorrect please advise. Also, if you have further suggestions I would love to hear them to help get my 1st article submitted. I hope to be a long standing creator/editor in the future, but as you can tell my feet are pretty wet.

User:Cofeebk23 - My first advice, if you want to become an experienced editor, is to focus less on creating one article and more on various less difficult but useful ways that you can help the encyclopedia, such as copy-editing. I will look at your submission soon, but that is my advice for now. Many editors seem to think that the best way that they can help is by creating one article. At this point, in the English Wikipedia, with more than five million articles, we really need more help with the articles that we have than with the articles that we don't have. If you want advice on how to contribute behind the scenes, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cofeebk23 - Although it is an improvement, I am not ready to accept it. Listing its leadership isn't necessary, and still reads as part of an advertisement. I don't see the reason to list its competitors either. In an article on the industry sector, listing the competing companies might be reasonable. I don't yet have an opinion on whether to accept. Do you have a connection with ZendyHealth, or did you just decide, in order to become a more experienced editor, to select one article, this one, and get it through to completion? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:McClenon - Thank you for the advice and I will make your recommended suggestions to the article! For future articles to edit do you suggest picking at random or just monitor the teahouse? In the past (2009-2012) I created 1/2 a dozen articles; however, they were all posted from my IP and never as an established a user. I currently have another 3 drafts on additional health/med tech companies that have helped me with certain issues, but it seems like new submissions are frowned upon since the editing is backlogged? Thank you for the open line of communication and please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cofeebk23 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Silas[edit]

Sorry to bug you, but did you actually click through any of the links before you judged that the Winsor McCay dispute was a "content dispute"? I've seen many a serious issue at ANI derailed by such offhand remarks. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curly Turkey - A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute. As I said, it is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. If a "serious issue at ANI" gets "derailed" by resolution of the content issue, maybe it need derailing, or maybe a reasonable effort needed to be made to resolve it by content dispute means before concluding that topic-bans or blocks or bans were necessary. I've seen many a content dispute derailed by premature reports to ANI. What efforts were made to resolve the date of birth issue as a content issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute."—*eyeroll*—In other words, you didn't click through any of the links and commented without having any idea what the dispute was about. From your comment here, you don't appear even to have read what has been posted at ANI. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CurlyTurkey - I did read the discussion. I saw that the discussion was uncivil on both sides, and that it would benefit from content resolution. I just happen to know that most conduct issues at ANI are inconclusive, and do not always result in administrative action, and often just result in more heat than light. If ugly behavior on the part of both editors (and you were uncivil) is going to be archived, it is better to take a chance on getting the underlying content dispute resolved than on just allowing a further airing of the conduct issues to no final result. If the artist had been of Polish or Serbian or Pakistani origin, that would be different, because there is a quicker conduct forum then. ANI is a lousy forum for resolving anything that isn't blatant, and it is better to try to resolve mixed content and conduct disputes as content and make the conduct issues fade into the background. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "underlying content dispute". Thank you for having derailed the discussion. We'll inevitably be back. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert - Thank you for your guidance on the Raging Fire (band) article. I'm responding to your latest comment. The answer is yes, the version in draft space now is complete and is the updated one. It includes new citations (19 total, I believe), which I hope will make a better case for this band's notability. Thanks again for your help. ScrivenerBartleby (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined my article Krxnic[edit]

Hi,

My article keeps being declined. 3 different people have now told me 10 different things to do with my article. I have added reliable references such as my BBC Artist Profile, my musicbrainz profile and links to songs that i am featured on in iTunes, Spotify & Tidal. How are these links not reliable. Clearly they are as I am looking at other artist Wikipedia pages with YouTube links added but your telling me I can't add them type of links. 3 different people have declined my page now telling me 20 different things. What's the problem ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krxnic (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:34:46, 5 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by SciFiColdstreamer[edit]


Hi! My latest edit was refused because it lacks a reliable reference. Wasn't sure about that when I wrote it, but the article is about myself. I can try to find references (I have been in the public eye), but these are going to be in German! Would that be OK? I'm a total newbie and still reading up on the how's of Wikipedia. Well at least I'm a regular sponsor too ;-) Best regards

Andrew (Ranson)


SciFiColdstreamer (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SciFiColdstreamer - Read the autobiography guideline. The use of Wikipedia for autobiographies is discouraged. References in foreign languages are permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Robert -- in response to your suggestion re: COI declaration for Draft:CouponSherpa, I added a COI statement to the Kinoli15 talk page. Kinoli15 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted[edit]

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, 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/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, 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) 18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

18:31:46, 5 October 2016 review of submission by Csupord[edit]


Dear Robert, I edited the page according to your suggestions External links were eliminated, 3 additional independent references were added. I hope that the page in its present form meets the requirements. Best regards, Dezső

Juice Beauty[edit]

Hello Robert, Thanks for the advice on the lede paragraph of my article. I have made edits that eliminated the peacock language and added factual language. Are you able to review the article yourself and move it to the live space? If so, do I need to press the blue "Resubmit" button beforehand? Thanks again. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Downtheroad35 - First, you do need to press the blue Resubmit button. Second, while the article has been improved, I am not ready to accept it and move it into article space without thought and discussion. I have notability concerns and tone concerns about the draft. I also have a question. Do you have a connection with the vendor of Juice Beauty? It is the only article that you have edited. If so, please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to the History and Endorsements section on Draft:Juice Beauty to reduce material that may seem promotional and make the tone sound more neutral. I am involved with Juice Beauty. I have added note of that to my user page. I have made edits to another page today and will continue to do so today and moving forward. I have read the Conflict of Interest policy. I am open to discussing notability and tone concerns about the draft. Thank you for advising me. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:01:24, 6 October 2016 review of submission by Edhigue[edit]


The information provided about the company is factual and can be verified on the link provided. May I ask how it sounds like advertising?....edhigue

In the most current version of the draft, which was resubmitted, the references were all deleted, and I had to decline it again as having no references. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection with Bioneer Corporation? It is the only article that you have edited. Please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:28, 6 October 2016 review of submission by Tomstuartsanderson[edit]


Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments. I've added some additional source material, but I'm not sure the best way to organise it - see citations at the bottom the page. Can you help me tidy it up? Many thanks. Tom.

RfC for page patroller qualifications[edit]

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - Thank you. I have cast my !vote. It looks reasonable to me. (I know that I would be grandfathered. When we observed the teenager's birthday, I have been grandfathered for 14 years, which is longer than there has been Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long[edit]

I thought my opinion at the Survey was a long post, but I see that other editors post even a lot more. Is that what you had in mind with the survey? Debresser (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debresser - The editors who support removal of the connection are short and to the point. The editors who support retention of the Middle Eastern connection are filibustering, but their arguments are not persuasive, or actually go the other way. It seems to be going all right at this point. If there is disruption of the Survey, report it to WP:ANI. (Since we are in agreement that not all Jews are Israelis, disruption doesn't go to Arbitration Enforcement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is breaking any rules, and I am always for any process that establishes consensus. I just wanted to alert you and see if you didn't want to add a note to keep posts short. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:18:20, 7 October 2016 review of submission by Darreg[edit]


Hello Mr Robert. Thanks for reviewing my articles in less than 30 minutes from the time I submitted it. One of the reasons why I don't like submitting articles to AFC is because the last time I did, it took more than two weeks yet it wasn't reviewed, and I am not really a patient type, I guess all that is in the past now with you on board. People think AFC are for new editors (or COI constraint ones), I beg to differ, I am not new on Wikipedia, but I think I will learn some things by submitting controversial articles to AFC occasionally. It is an utility that can make older editors become more experienced editors. It also exposes your article to different perspectives. I should have replied earlier but was working on another article.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by I should show that she is notable..., I thought that was already clarified by the references in the article. Well, to buttress more on that I strongly believe that they both pass the general notability guideline. There is significant independent reliable coverage evident in the article that discusses the entertainers in sufficient detail. Believe me it isn't easy to be that covered by so many references, radio stations, etc. as a third world entertainer with very little internet penetration. Maheeda and Cossy has a huge cult following in Nigeria. They are seen as cultural icons for pioneering anti-conservatism in Nigerian entertainment industry, however they are not notable (wikipedia definition) for their artistry.

Concerning the tune of my sentences, can you pick out some sentences that you aren't comfortable with so I can work on them? I know you already provided useful hyperlinks in your previous reply but am sorry I never click on links in automated replies especially when I have read them before. Darreg (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:37:54, 8 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saphil[edit]


Do you think the goal of an encyclopedia entry for a living author is a fools errand, particularly if the author is one's self?

The article is intended to aid people looking for a particular sort of technical knowledge by presenting my expertise and publications. I was nowhere near that mark when I requested editing help. I appreciate the quick and direct feedback, and now understand that the article should be a little more toward the first draft before requesting anyone's time for editing. There is much more content by this author than about him, so I started with the only third-person article I could think of that fit that description. If only I had a obituary entry, or even a wheelbarrow to draw from! Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saphil - I wouldn't use the term 'fool's errand' for the goal of an encyclopedia entry for oneself, but I wouldn't disagree. (I wouldn't use the term because it could be seen as violating the civility policy as insulting, but you used it, I didn't.) See the autobiography guideline. In your case, in particular, your article not only was about yourself, if you are Wolf Halton, but was an effort to advertise your business, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not the place to use to publicize yourself or to write about yourself. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Democracy camp[edit]

I have instead requested that they be merged. What is requested in the Chinese Wikipedia is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Reference error[edit]

Hey just wanted to let you know, I have fixed the reference error as you have suggested. Vagbhata2 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:08, 8 October 2016 review of submission by Jgcab[edit]


The contested lines about Campus Culture were removed. The article can not be merged with the page University of Calgary because the content is separate from the broader University. Most of the University of Calgary Faculties and Schools have their own independent pages (e.g. Faculty of Law, Cummings School of Medicine, Haskayne School of Business, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine), yet most of them are not as long as the draft that was submitted. I have seen other pages such as University of Alberta Faculty of Arts and McGill University Faculty of Arts, both of which contain less information and content than the page that the University of Calgary Faculty of Arts that was previously rejected. Yet somehow they were deemed worthy to be included in the encyclopaedia. Please explain why University of Calgary Faculty of Arts was deemed to not have sufficient content, yet the aforementioned articles of University faculties were approved.


Goal Based Scenario[edit]

Thank you Robert McClenon for the review. I will edit and resubmit. For clarification, do I need to use more varied sources that are not by authors of the concept? G.M.George (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:G.M.George - Yes. That is what you need. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:33, 9 October 2016 review of submission by Si467[edit]


Hi Robert - thanks for your patience! I am sure that we have removed all external links. This latest draft from me (Si467) is the one for publication and any others may be deleted - sorry if there is still a duplicate out there but I cannot find it! Si

14:30:21, 9 October 2016 review of submission by W&WXRayLib[edit]


Dear Robert

Thank you again for reviewing the article on John Garvey last month.

This is the first time I have written an article for Wikipedia and I don't know if I am supposed to notify you when I have corrected the errors you cited. If this is pestering rather than procedure, please forgive me.

Thanks,

W&WXRayLib

Your draft article, User:BeatrixZ/sandbox[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C104 article draft review[edit]

Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article, however you rejected it citing: "Do not use Wikipedia as a reference." I was very careful to provide detailed external references throughout the text and I linked to other Wikipedia articles where there is a related subject. Can you please be more specific as to where I have used Wikipedia as a reference.

JamieHanlon (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a third review, I see that you did not use Wikipedia as a reference, but the way that you composed the references causes them to display Wikipedia and they look like references to Wikipedia, when they are actually references to references. Please read referencing for beginners and referencing again, and format the references so that they display in the list of references. If you need help, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Robert. You are right that I have presented my citations as references to references. This is because I use sources multiple times with different sections and chapters etc. This approach is documented Wikipedia style: see Section 6 in referencing for beginners and Section 3.1.8 in Citing sources and the article Franz Kafka as an example. If you still believe this to be the wrong approach, perhaps you could suggest an alternative. Thanks - JamieHanlon (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my own information, the draft in question is Draft:C104. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. Since I have still not heard anything from you about the article I have resubmitted it for review. JamieHanlon (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christian Combaz[edit]

Hi Robert, I have cleaned the "category" lines and put them in English. Hope everything seems good. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have cleaned up the categories. My other comment was that the draft needed copy-editing after translation from French. The English reads like it was translated from another language. In particular, the tenses of the verbs are awkward, and there are other issues. Also, many of the references do not appear to be independent, such as Amazon links (which sell his books) and Google links on his books. If you want more advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I corrected the english, and about the "non independent" references as Amazon I am about to suppress them, there is no need to see the covers after all. Tell me please if collecting photocopies of the numeros reviews about the author would be of some help, or if I should drastically simplify and give a basic description of his works. Tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki language[edit]

Saraiki is language. so the page Saraiki dialect be moved to Saraiki language.39.37.36.15 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have entered a move review of the decline of the previous move request. However, you don't make any arguments. Are you saying that the closer made an error, or that there are new arguments? I don't expect the decision against the move to be overturned without arguments. I also see that you have filed two Requests for Comments. I personally think that an RFC is a reasonable way to appear a Move Request, because it runs longer and may get a better consensus, but you filed two Requests for Comments without presenting solid arguments. I think that other editors will consider that to be disruptive. I suggest that you go to the Help Desk or the Teahouse and ask for advice on how to advance your cause constructively, rather than just making scattered arguments. That is my advice for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify any linguistic scholars who specifically categorize Saraiki as a language rather than a dialect? Remember that Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view summarizing what reliable sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:08:50, 10 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Design Archivist[edit]


Removal of copyvio tag Hello, The submission for Paul Clark (designer) has been declined as it says copyvio tag not removed. I am unaware of how to remove this and would appreciate assistance. It may appear that text has been cut and pasted from the archives hub page still, however, groups of words that are still there are names of institutions and the like such as royal college of art.

Design Archivist (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was put on by User:Woodstop45. (Often the tag is put on by a bot, but in this case it was tagged by a human editor.) I have requested User:Woodstop45 on their talk page to take another look at the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your help with this. I understand that that Woodstop45 has reported that the copyvio is now gone and the tag can be removed. Design Archivist

Hi Robert, Our submission has recently been declined again on the grounds that it reads like an advertisement. I contacted Shadowowl the reviewer via their talk page for some advice and clarification, however all the talk has been deleted from their page now and we didn't receive a response. I wanted to find out which language they found objectionable. We are a non-profit, educational archive with nothing to sell for ourselves or on behalf of Paul Clark. Only one of the 18 references is originated from us. So we are confused as to why it has been declined. Any advice would be greatly appreciated, as while little-known, we believe the subject to be worthy of a Wikipedia page. Many thanks. Design Archivist

User:Design Archivist - First, who is "we"? There is a rule in Wikipedia of one editor, one account. This rule applies to non-profits as well as to profit-oriented businesses. I would like an explanation of why the subject is deserving of a Wikipedia page if they are little-known. Wikipedia is not the means to publicize hitherto little-known worthy people or causes. If you want to discuss further, I can ask the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Be prepared to answer who is "we". Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your advice Robert. This account is managed by one person - Design Archivist, who is a member of a digitisation team in an archive. Pages and edits are created after team discussion to ensure they are appropriate, hence the ‘we’. Working in education, it is has become more apparent that students use Wikipedia more and more as a research tool and it is not the intention to ‘publicize’ this particular designer, but to create a starting point from which research can be made and other insights and research added to, from the wider Wikipedia community. Perhaps I should not have used the phrase ‘little-known’ as lots of people on Wikipedia are little known, especially musicians. I meant rather that he is not a household name. He does have a cult following as he was important in the 1960s, and was one of the ‘Young Meteors’ described by Jonathan Aitken (who has a Wikipedia page) in the book of the same name. Design Archivist

Draft:Architectural decision updated (this message: Oct 10, 2016)[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your comments on Draft:Architectural decision. All external links have been moved from the article body to references, as requested. Looking forwward to your re-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.42.97 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for Draft:V.M._(Raj)_Shetty[edit]

Hi, Robert I am Daniela and I've created a page on Wikipedia about a business person named Raj Shetty [1]. Thank you for reviewing it. Since your last review, I've made lots of changes. It would be great if you could have a look at them these days and leave me some feedback. I would like to make sure that everything is right according to Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Miha dani (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miha dani (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miha dani - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligze to You[edit]

I'm Sorry Robert That I Said the same thing But I Will quit Wikipedia and say goodbye. 68.102.57.28 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:34, 12 October 2016 review of submission by 83.185.95.160[edit]

Someone wrote: "I'm still not quite sure why I'm doing this or how this has to do with editing content, but here it is." That was not an encyclopedic draft, but a test edit. Then it was submitted to AFC for review, and I declined it. That wastes the time of the reviewers. If you have a question, ask at the Teahouse. If you wrote it, and are now asking me, log in before asking question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question[edit]

Are we permitted to list all of our sources in the Survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)ons[reply]

Which Survey for what RFC? In general listing sources is not what a Survey is for, because it is for stating opinions with brief persuasive statements as to reason. It would probably be better to list the sources in the discussion. Which Survey for what RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey[edit]

Hi. I see that you approved a draft of Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey through AfC. I don't see how the subject is notable. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris troutman - First, that was more than six months ago. However, second, I think that the article will survive an AFD, and that is the basic question. If you think that it won't survive an AFD, you know how to do one. I don't mean to be abrupt, but I don't always remember exactly what I was thinking about a particular article six months ago, other than that I still think it will survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF waiting for our NPP short list[edit]

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People of Jewish descent survey[edit]

I made two edits today to Category talk:People of Jewish descent which I know as an experienced editor are necessary improvements, but are also refractions of another editor's comment. Please review my edits.[2][3] Also, it seems to me everybody posted their opinion, and they are just fine-tuning it a bit here and there. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could start reviewing the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw that this was the same editor who posted here on your talkpage in User_talk:Robert_McClenon#A_quick_question, and did not as you recommended. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island Prosperity Foundation[edit]

Don't know if this note is going through properly. RE: Page on ISLAND PROSPERITY FOUNDATION. Robert, I am aware of the tremendous backlog and thank you for your prompt attention to our page development. Further editing requires Board approval. Since our members are at the highest levels of international organizations their time is at a premium, and hence resolving this will require some time. As much of what the Foundation presents is ineffable, it is difficult to state in terms other than as already presented exactly what it is the Foundation does. It presents a new paradigm and new frontiers in knowledge development. It is noteworthy because no other Foundation or NGO operates in this manner. Thank you again for your attention and assistance. Best regards, Jeff. JEFFLOYNES (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JEFFLOYNES - I have just read your note, since it was on the wrong part of my talk page. However, your statement that "Further editing requires Board approval" is deeply troubling. If the draft article is meant to be an official statement by your Board, I cannot even consider reviewing it further. Corporate editing is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:56, 14 October 2016 review of submission by Jarnek73[edit]


Hi Robert,

I made a few changes to the article and hope it can pass a review now. If you have any tips, please let me know.

Thanks!

Jarnek73 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be asking other editors to comment at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:08, 14 October 2016 review of submission by Reneeesq[edit]


Hi, can you please let me know why the references for my article were considered not to be in-depth, independent coverage? I would like to know what kind of references would be acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I have referred to your definition of notable sources, but if you could please kindly explain why my two references are not considered qualifying references, I would appreciate it. Is it that I only have two of them or is there something wrong with the two that I have? If so, what is wrong with them? Thank you. User:Reneeesq - I don't really intend to give you a lot of advice about how to improve your autobiography. Read the conflict of interest guideline. However, if you want comments, you can request them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #3—2016[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes[edit]

  • You can now set text as small or big.[4]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[5] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[6]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[7]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[8]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[9] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[10]

Future changes[edit]

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together[edit]

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

Thank you for guidance... Yavarai (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transaviabaltika draft[edit]

Hello

You reviewed my Transaviabaltika draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transaviabaltika) , which was the first article I'd tried to submit. Could I hassle you with what I'm sure is a noob question? You've suggested the article isn't notable, and to add sources of references. However although there are lots of sources of references for the airline that could be added, none of them would add anything to the essential facts of the article (Airline. Exists. Has planes. Flies them between certain places. Is under contract.)

Adding references to an article to show it's notable wouldn't improve the article in itself (other than in order to persuade an editor it's notable so it could appear). It could just make it less readable and more fussy, and the article itself would tidy a lot of orphan links in all the related articles. Could you point me in the direction of guidance on how to resolve this conflict?

Thanks! Barrybounce (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:30, 16 October 2016 review of submission by Evolvingscience[edit]


Dear Robert - Thankyou very much for your review. I have removed the external links from the article body and included them in an "External Links" section. If you think this is not necessary, I can remove this. I have kept the "Media coverage" with external links as these show video clips explaining the research conducted by the scientist profiled. The Wikipedia page for the Australian Research Council (ARC) has external links within the article (I was not the author!). Thankyou again. Regards Evolvingscience (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN[edit]

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the WP:DRN process. You said "Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion or respond to the other editor here." Does this mean I should not respond to Kautilya3's first statement in my first statement? But in his first statement he makes specific allegations against my edits that either misleading or untrue. So should I just ignore what he has written at DRN? VR talk 03:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do not respond to his statements. Just state what you think the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mentioned that both editors should refrain from editing the article. Does that refer to any edits to the article or only the edits regarding the disputed content?VR talk 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to avoid editing the article, because any part of the article could be some of the disputed content. Truly minor edits are okay, but see the minor edit guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:33, 17 October 2016 review of submission by Geoffkershner[edit]


Hi Robert - I submitted the article for re-review, hopefully removing all the "peacock" language as per your recommendation and tried to make sure everything was factual and referenced. I want to make sure the article is completely unbiased, if you have any more suggestions I would really appreciate it.

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process (and usually won't). If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Toll The Hounds[edit]

Hi. Ref. fixed. Thanks in advance.
Aizen V Anomander | talk 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not normally follow your draft through the approval process. If you have any questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse or (since you are not a first-time editor) the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's published. Now I can work on improving it, I guess. I do have a question though. I uploaded an image (cover art for toll the hounds) back when I first started working on the article and it was deleted. Could you provide me with a link to an existing cover for the book (or at least where I can find it in the gallery)? Or should I upload it again?
Aizen V Anomander|talk 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was deleted, it most likely was deleted because of copyright issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:N Gasieta - I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. It was deleted because of a complex copyright matter known as non-free content, and I don't think that I can give you proper advice about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I re-read why the file was deleted -- Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days -- and since the article has been created I re-uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Gasieta (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but having read the reasons for non-free images, I am still not sure whether the copyrighted cover has a valid non-free content usage. I don't claim to have any particular knowledge in that area. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:N Gasieta - I see that you had the cover image uploaded. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there's a problem with it, I guess we'll get a notification or something, but seeing as it's under fair use, and only being used for one article, I don't think there will be any. Do you?
N. GASIETA|talk 00:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:37, 17 October 2016 review of submission by Dicksamson[edit]


Robert, on 29 September 2016, you reviewed this article in my sandbox and rejected it for reading "more like an advertisement" and needing more references to independent, reliable published sources. I have made several fixes to address these issues, and followed the "Be Bold" process to publish the article in Wikipedia.... Is the article OK as modified? If not, I'll be glad to make more changes. If it is OK, how soon could the WARNING notice be removed? I hope this message gets to you OK... Many thanks! Dick Samson

User:Dicksamson - I am not entirely sure why you are asking me anything or what you are asking me. After choosing to use the Articles for Creation process, you then decided instead to publish the article directly in article space in Wikipedia, which is your privilege. If you had wanted my opinion, you could have waited, but you were not required to wait for me to review it. So now, after publishing it anyway, why are you asking me for my opinion on whether you should have published it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dicksamson - I see that, after you published the article directly in article space, it was tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising and then deleted. It appears that maybe you should realize that you are not an impartial judge of whether an article is unambiguous advertising, and should continue to rely on the Articles for Creation process for review after all. As my edit notice says, I do not normally follow a draft all the way through the review process. If you want another review, you may request one at the Teahouse, although there is no guarantee that you will get one there. What is your connection to Agent Review and LTC Financial Partners? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. Chalk it up to inexperience. I did not, until now, realize there were two formal processes; just read online that W. invited "going bold." Seems that was a mistake. Sorry! Articles for Creation process seems to be what I need. I've made extensive changes to the document in my sandbox. I'll click to resubmit after finishing this message.... I supply free-lance PR services to Agent Review and ACSIA Partners (formerly LTC Financial Partners). Do I need to spell that out somewhere? I believe I can supply factual, non-biased information despite my connection (in fact, I know the facts better than other contributors might). The copy is not intended to be advertising, and I'd be glad to cut or revise as necessary. Many thanks for your guidance. Dick Dicksamson (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicksamson - Read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing disclosure and make the proper disclosures. I don't plan to advise paid editors as to what to trim out to make a draft neutral. Maybe someone else may be more cooperative. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:13, 18 October 2016 review of submission by Mr RD[edit]

Hi, I created this draft from an entirely new point and it is different from the old page which was deleted through AFD. Judy is a notable YouTube personality like others (Jenna Marbles, Michelle Phan and Philip DeFranco). She has been covered by many news websites which I have already mentioned in the draft. Please let me know how I can improve upon this article and any specific issues that you think are with this draft? I'll be highly thankful to you. Mr RD 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr RD - I see that you took part in the deletion debate. Since you now say that the draft that you have written is substantially different from the deleted version, I will leave you with the responsibility of temporarily having the deleted version undeleted to permit a comparison by a reviewer of the two versions. Go to Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:38, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Jbrunoii[edit]


The relevance of the article seems to be questioned. D-Metal Stars This band has released METAL DISNEY on Walt Disney Records This project is a Top seller on Amazon Japan Children's chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/578074/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_1_3_last

as well as a Top seller in the Amazon Japan Hard Rock & Metal chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/569298/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_2_2_last

It also includes Rudy Sarzo (legendary bassist who's credits include Ozzy Osbourne, Whitesnake, Quiet Riot, just to name a few) Please review, and look at references

User:Jbrunoii - I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:55, 20 October 2016 review of submission by PaulTapper[edit]


Dear Robert

Thank you for your quick review of the draft article "NUGEN Audio".

I do have a COI for that article (which I have declared on my User page), but I have tried my very best to write it in a neutral way, and have added numerous independent, reliable, published sources.

Please could you suggest what I could do to improve the article sufficiently to have it approved?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Robert PaulTapper

3O[edit]

Hi Robert. You should remove the request from 3O before giving a third opinion. That way we won't be duplicating our efforts. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark - I respectfully disagree. I only remove the request after I have given an opinion. First, often all that is clear is a long back-and-forth, and I can't give an opinion. Second, if two third opinions are given, no harm is done. Although there are occasional edit conflicts, they are rare. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. But note that the instructions explicitly state When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Okay. In that case, maybe I should restore half of them after saying I need clarification of the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Singer[edit]

Robert, sorry for not getting back to you right away. I corrected and resubmitted the Jasmin Singer post as soon as I saw your message. Thanks again, and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TucsonVegan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TucsonVegan - I will not necessarily follow your submission through the approval process. You may want to ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova[edit]

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. I look forward to hearing from you about the new submission. Best regards, Patrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.21.155 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Dispute Resolution[edit]

Dear Robert, I noticed you closed a dispute resolution request on Ivo Andric, asking us to reach a consensus on the talk page first. Honestly, I do not see the point of reaching a consensus as long as there is no content dispute. The opposing editor believes that adding a well-sourced content about the ultra-nationalistic views of Ivo Andric could potentially "defame" the biography, which is (apologize for my french) nonsense. The aim of a biography is not to "fame" a person by hiding well-sourced facts on his nationalistic acts. I understand Wikipedia might emphasize consensus, but there are situations where putting sources to consensus (a.k.a. arbitrary voting) is actually hurting the very-same purpose why an encyclopedia exists (meaning every minority can impose its voice through sources, not through majority consensuses (a.k.a. arbitrary voting)). As such, I find your system unproductive and time-consuming for outsiders with scarce time budgets.31.18.254.94 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what you expect me to do. If you aren't willing to discuss on an article talk page, then there is nothing to be gained by moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you believe that discussion in general is unproductive, then Wikipedia may not be for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the position of the opposing side was rigid, further discussion on the talk page would be counterproductive. I expected a dispute resolution would engage someone to have a brief look at the core of the dispute. Going to the talk page would lead to an infinite loop of repetitive positions with the very same editor(s), only to hope some external editor will jump onto the "dog-fight". But if your resolution duties are to always impose a discussion at the talk page, then I respect your decision and I am giving up. Thanks for your time. 31.18.254.94 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:07, 22 October 2016 review of submission by Rangleme[edit]


I've removed several sections and put many more citations on the remaining sections.

User:Rangleme - Read the autobiography guideline, which discourages writing about yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to settle this somewhere else first[edit]

Hello dear Robert McClenon, I wanted to thank you for your advises and efforts to settle the notorious OR/SYNTH dispute in ways other than Arbitration Enforcement. I admit I was unsure what to do myself on this. After finding out more about what exactly the AE is, and how it should be used only as a last resort, I was reluctant to post the formatted AE report. But even after cancelling the AE report, new disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians resumed by them and this is the reason I needed your advises once more and asked for your help. I appreciated your proposal for a new Mediation, even when I myself was not enthusiast to dive myself from one mediation straight to another. However, it seems that even the new Mediation under Anthony Appleyard failed, due to DevilWearsBrioni's fault and I doubt any further mediations can make the difference anymore. The dispute has been dragging its feet onto 5 different platforms which is way too much for most sane editors here. I believe now that there is only one thing that can be done now - impose topic sanctions (perma-block or perma-ban or how it is called?)

However the reason I am leaving you a message here in your talk, is because I forgot to thank you properly for all the interest and patience you have showed to the case, and to let you know that I am very grateful. Also I want to apologize for any implications in the past about you being not-so-neutral party to the dispute. Please, will you accept my apology? I had no ill intentions against you when I questioned your neutrality and was more about my stress and exhaustion generated by this prolonged dispute finding their way out. I am very grateful for your help. When this is over, I will secede temporarily from Wikipedia, to rest a bit. If there is anything I can do and help, please do not hesitate to ask. And have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident - No apology required, but offered apology accepted anyway, and thanks accepted. We will see what the next steps are, but I think that you and I have both said a topic-ban appears to be in order. Although the thread is now at ANI rather than at AE, any administrator at ANI can impose AE sanctions at this time, because DWB was properly notified. Also, having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic" can be rephrased and compressed into a mere single word: stubborness, I think. :-) Just a unusual case of stubborness.
May I ask something? I am realizing (thanks to reading now your latest ANI comment), that a block and a ban are two different things with two different meanings? So, they are not one and the same thing? I am worried now, because in the ANI, when I proposed "to be blocked", I meant a permanent sanction, not something temporary, if this is the case... -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In all case and to avoid causing confusion to others, I have edited and re-worded my comment on ANI to clarify things out. In meantime I found what the differences between ban and block are. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:07, 23 October 2016 review of submission by Badol1234[edit]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SABNAM_PERVIN(ACTRESS)

UserBadol1234 - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox contains a hidden title of your daft on Sabnam Pervin. It doesn't display the draft on Sabnam Pervin. I will review the draft in a few minutes. However, your sandbox is not the draft, only an incorrectly formatted pointer to the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has not been submitted for review. If it is submitted, it isn't ready for acceptance. First, the title should be put in title case rather than in UPPER CASE. That is a minor matter. Second, it is inadequately sourced. It has no footnotes, and only has two references, one of which is YouTube, which is not a reliable source, and one of which is not in English. While foreign sources are permitted, English sources are better. Third, nearly all of the names of other people are in redlinks. This is distracting. Most of the redlinks should either be removed, or made into blue links by supplying articles on the people, or made into blue links by correcting the spelling of the names, or whatever. In any case, it has too many redlinks. Do you want the sandbox made into a redirect? Do you want the draft submitted? You need to work on the draft as I have mentioned. If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Que Peller Immediate Deletion Removed[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Que_Peller

HellonRobert , I have made the suggested reference and orphan link updates, could you please remove the article Que Peller from the speedy deletion request. Thank you.Ibrahim skillz (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibrahim skillz - I didn't request speedy deletion of the article. I nominated the article for Articles for Deletion. Also, the orphan status of the article was not why I nominated it for deletion. I will let the 7-day deletion discussion run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:12, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Robynbrody[edit]



I have made the two changes requested. 1) the list of citations has been trimmed and 2) the two reference sections have been combined into one.

I will not necessarily follow your draft through to acceptance. If you want advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:39, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Gopengsgement[edit]



Hi Sir. You wrote in reason to reject: "Blogs are not reliable sources. Some of the sources are not independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)." Since there are quite a few citations of news articles and other media are you suggesting that blog citations be deleted entirely? Is a blog at a major newspaper by a professional journalist treated the same as a standalone blog by a hobbyist? I'd just like to know how to improve for my project now and in future classes or submissions. My professor thought this one was very good. Please help. I will add more non-blog citations.

User:Gopensgement - If you have any questions about the use of blogs as sources or other questions about sources, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Alexander[edit]

Hi Robert I think the draft (Robert William Alexander: 1905 - 1979. Irish Novelist) you refer to is an old one. My understanding is that the current one (19 September) is awaiting review. Please can you confirm this is so? Many thanks Mary Maryromaine (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maryromaine - First, please post to the bottom of my talk page, using the New Section feature, not to the top. Second, I will look at all of the drafts. Please try to avoid creating multiple copies of drafts, which confuses the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Maryromaine - The draft with the dates of 1905 and 1979 is the current one that you created on 19 September. What I was also referring to was a very old draft that I had tagged for deletion as abandoned. It has since been deleted because it was abandoned. I am moving your draft to Draft:Robert William Alexander. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tfc in need of closing[edit]

The Rfc template at Category talk:People of Jewish descent has been removed, and the discussion is in need of closing by an independent editor. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your comment on References and quotations in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 film)!

I considered adding it to the main page for the Willy Wonka film, but because it became so long and has so many citations I thought it worked better as a stand alone page. I would prefer to keep it that way, but if it means having it approved or not, I'm okay to move it. I'm unclear as to whether your suggestion was just a suggestion or an instruction. Look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonkaNerd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Heart[edit]

Dear Robert, Thanks for your help on the Zack Heart page. I made the corrections you mentioned some time back but the page hasn't been published yet. Could you please advise? Kind regards, Sophie (Sophiechristianson (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - The article is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart. I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process. Please wait for it to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Sophiechristianson, please use the New Section tab to post to the bottom of my talk page. Please do not post to the top. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)′[reply]

Hi Robert,

Sorry for posting at the incorrect spot. Thanks for the update. We will wait for it to be reviewed. (Sophiechristianson (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

04:16:45, 27 October 2016 review of submission by Beauty111[edit]

Why was this declined when I have a long list of 'reliable sources' (ie, news publications)? Which are not reliable? These are all major entertainment publications. If you look at Wiki's own The Zookeeper's Wife (film) page, you'll see me there.  I've been writing professionally for over 20 years and have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do. Beauty111 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beauty111 - The draft has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources and is inconsistently formatted. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Blogspot is not considered a reliable source. The draft is ready for acceptance if the formatting of the references is made consistent and the unreliable sources are eliminated. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because an article was accepted does not mean that another article should be accepted; maybe the article should be deleted. (I haven't checked the other article yet.) You say, "I ... have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do so." By whom? Who requested that you write the draft? Please read the conflict of interest guideline. If you are being paid, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:31:58, 27 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by TvishA[edit]


HI, My Article about Tvisha Technologies Pvt Ltd was declined mentioning that the content looks more like an advertisement. can you help me finding which Paragraph i need to edit, so that i can re-edit the content and submit for review. Thank you

TvishA (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.
If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:31, 27 October 2016 review of submission by 231Pacific[edit]



My reference 3 lacks detail. To supply that detail I would need to spend a day travelling and researching. I'd be happy to do that if my article had been accepted (or accepted with the condition of supplying that one detail). Can an article be accepted where a final 'tweak' is still required?

User:231Pacific - I don't understand the significance of the question. Your submission, Draft:Tony D Triggs, was declined not because of any issue with the sources, but as being written in a non-neutral tone and having peacock language. You don't need to do research that involves traveling in order to revise the tone of a draft. Also, your statement that you are willing to spend a day travelling and researching if the article is accepted is interesting. Does that mean that you are being paid to get the article accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, both now and earlier. I've made two adjustments to my draft to try and get rid of the sort of language you've disapproved. To answer your question, no one is paying or in any way rewarding me for working on this article. I simply feared that the incompleteness of one citation might perhaps be an impediment. As you say, you didn't raise objection on that particular score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 231Pacific (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and suspicions about possible sockpuppetry.[edit]

Dear Robert, my apologies for bothering you again for a second time in such a short period, but may I ask if is there more than what I know, in this DWB case? In fact, I have been only dealing with disruption caused by a registered editor, DevilWearsBrioni, which is manageable for me as I am able to tackle the disruption without any distractions or misdirections. But now I see some editors such as Athenean and others revealed that there too might have also been a case of canvassing [11]and possibly a case of sock-puppeting [12] as well? Now what does this means for the current AE report? I am unsure on whenever this is related to the current disruption, or if it means that the case extends beyond the current known (at least for me) records and dates? If can someone verify whenever there is more to this case, I could really appreciate anyone telling me about it, if possible, so I can know what exactly we are dealing there with. Because if there is indeed canvassing and the suspicions about the IP account belonging to him are proven, then this means he has already been banned for disruption in Balkan-related articles, which should not be ignored. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident - I respectfully disagree. On the one hand, it is a near-certainty that DevilWearsBrioni is the IP. However, the IP was not banned. The IP was blocked for 72 hours. A block is not a ban. I believe that this has been explained to you. I think that, unfortunately, Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker and more effective than WP:ANI but is limited as to availability, is not applicable. I think that the AE case will have to be closed with a very strong warning, possibly that the next incident of disruption will not only result in a topic-ban, but in a long block also. Action is still available at WP:ANI, because the community can impose a topic-ban. That is my advice. I do not see sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oups, writing "banned", I meant "blocked", apologies for the confusion again. I guess the confusion isnt easy to go and may partly be caused by the difference between English and Greek languages. While in the English language there are two distinct terms, "Ban" and "Block", in the Greek there is only one term for both. It is "Apocleismos", and unfortunately it means both "Ban" and "Block". Yes, the thing here is, if the IP is really him, then, this means his disruptions on Balkan articles has started much earlier than January 2016, earlier than we originally thought, and it shows that this editor, already from the very beginning, had a very negative editorial presence (disruptions outweight contributions). Furthermore, the IP's record of sanctions, shows that even if his current registered account shows that he has a clean record of sanctions, this is not exactly true anymore and we are dealing with an editor who has been blocked in the past, again for disruption on Balkan related articles. But I understand what you are saying. OK I will wait and see. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert, I checked the history log and I am afraid you are right. What you said about the formal ARBMAC warning being given a bit too late, is very true. It could have been given to him sooner. However, really do you believe a mere warning instead of sanctions going to work this time? To be honest, I am rather pessimistic. DevilWearsBrioni has made a new statement on AE right now, in which he has argued that if someone should be sanctioned, is not him for his disruptions, because, according to him always, the disruptions are just a fake narrative created by me, and that if someone should be banned/blocked in this case, is me and not him! His new arrogant statement on AE, combined with the lateness of the Alexikoua's formal ARBMAC warning to him just confirmed my worst expectations now: no sanctions and more disruptions are coming ahead on Balkan articles. And this right when I had my hopes that this whole nightmare could have been over soon. Terrible, Robert. Terrible. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waa-Mu Show[edit]

Hi Robert, I am a student at Northwestern University and just added a page for the Waa-Mu Show. I noticed that you had declined a submission for a previous draft of the page because the references did not adequately show the subject's notability. My group added some more notable sources and would be so appreciative of your feedback and would like to collaborate with you on it. Thanks so much! Jgraifman (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)jgraifman[reply]

The draft in question appears to be Draft: The Waa-Mu Show. It also appears that The Waa-Mu Show has been moved to mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight Cadence/Revision Question[edit]

Hello Robert!

Thank you very much for the critique on my first article Draft: Streetlight Cadence. I revised my citations as per your advice and deleted all YouTube, Instagram, as well as other dubious sources and was wondering if I have to submit my draft again or just wait for a second review for approval or further suggestions? Thanks in advance! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noedrokka - I did not decline your draft. It is still waiting for review. The review process is very backlogged, so please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks and have a great weekend! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

68.49.4.6[edit]

Hello Robert. You recently reviewed my case. My issue is not with the designation of whether something is allowed on Wikipedia or not - I am learning what is and what is not. The "undo" in question was due to the fact that I did not realize there was a talk page at first - so I did undo 2x until I realized there was a talk page. The editor in question keeps insulting me and telling me that my statements are "nationalistic nonsense" or that I should "kiss his shiny metal ass". Please let me know if this is acceptable behavior from your editors. And instead of taking the time to educate someone on the fact that certain kinds of things need to be published elsewhere first (the why is not relevant here), he is just removing things and turning a civil discussion into personal insults. If the editor is indeed allowed to swear at me - which I never did once - and that is expected behavior, I stand corrected. Thank you.

If you want him to remove it because it is not published elsewhere first, that's fine. If you want him to keep being offensive and telling people to "kiss his ass" with no one saying similar things to him in response to requesting an apology for the affront (not the deletion), that's your choice too.

The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleuske Edit to Bangladeshi Names

68.49.4.6 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Quazi S Islam[reply]

User:Kleuske is not insulting you, but is telling you that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not your questions that are nationalistic nonsense. It is the way you are wording them aggressively that are nationalistic nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:68.49.4.6 - The place to get an editor to apologize to you, regardless of whether there is a wrong, is WP:ANI. First read the boomerang essay. You are being rude and demanding to User:Kleuske and they are being rude back to you, but you started it. If you push any demand, when you started the personalizing, you are likely to find pages semi-protected. I have two suggestions. First, create an account. Second, calm down. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining it to me in a different light. Guess the only way to preserve the unwritten history of Bangladesh or any other country is to create a site just for that. This is not the source encyclopedia that I thought it was - it is the online indexed copy of the existing encyclopedia of knowledge. A very useful distinction to understand. Thank you for the clarity. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam.[reply]

One other question that I need to understand. My name is Quazi S Islam. I am from the Quazi family. My family has a history of writing it both with a Q and a K. How do I document this disambiguation? I did find Kazi listed in the list of family names in page in question but I need to know how to include the disambiguation because I want to make sure it does not get removed for lack of documentation. I did ask the editor for that information but I was not given any direction. Do I need to include a picture of my Bangladesh passport or something? Thanks. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova[edit]

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. The initial article was submitted on the first of September and read by you on 7 October. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. The new submission was made on 7 October, and on 21 October I sent you a message on this Talk page, which remained without reply. If I am not mistaken, it's the only unanswered message here, apparently because of so many messages and articles you have to go through. I am aware of the fact that you will not necessarily be the person who will read the new submission, however, just in case you will, I want to point out that the tone of the new submission is more neutral, formal, encyclopedic, archival than many existing Wikipedia articles about Art, History and Politics.I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.113.188 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the draft. I still do not think that it is written in a neutral formal tone. It is true that some other articles also are not, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to accept articles; it may be a reason to delete other articles. I agree that the sources are neutral and independent, but the language still is written from the standpoint of the movement. I will ask for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. By the way, creating an account has several advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert, I appreciate! Two editors made some changes already, and I changed some more sentences myself. Thanks again, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANC85 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Calder[edit]

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Hi Robert - many thanks and really sorry for any confusion. The original draft was set up by Matt and I have taken this over and removed the external links etc and hope it is now suitable for publication. I have asked Matt to delete the other draft from his folder so hopefully this one is now the only version (and also should now be in the correct format). I have also been through all the independent references to ensure that they are correct and up to date. Let me know if there is anything else I can do - apologies for the slow prgress but this is the first of a few which I hope to submit to Wiki for consideration and many thanks for your patience. Si Si467 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James Calder (surgeon) is waiting for review. I do not normally follow an article all the way through to its approval, and will let someone else review it next. I have disambiguated it because there is already a James Calder. Unfortunately, the review process is very backlogged. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Djang San[edit]

Hello Robert,

Thanks a lot for your comments on my draft page Djang San. I have edited the content as suggested. Do i need to re-submit my page for publication?

Thanks! 

Xiaohei2016 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xiaohei2016 - Is that Draft:Djang San? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I neither accepted nor declined the draft. It is still in review. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:57, 29 October 2016 review of submission by Smritimiddha[edit]


Hi Can you help me with the entry on SHEROES you declined. It would be great if you could let me know which parts come across as promotional and not genuine, it would help me edit and make it better.

User:Smritimiddha - First, I am not the only editor who thought that the draft had problems. Second, I assume that you were only trying to inform other editors that the service exists. However, Wikipedia isn't here to inform other editors that something exists, only to inform other editors that something is notable and has been written about by third parties. You didn't provide any independent reliable sources. Third, the draft consisted mostly of external links to other articles. A Wikipedia article may contain links to other articles, but it shouldn't consist mostly of links to them. If you really don't understand why your draft was not suitable for Wikipedia, I think that you should ask other experienced editors for advice at the Teahouse. I may not be the best editor to explain what are and are not good additions to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth, are you working for SHEROES? If so, you must make a conflict of interest declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:04, 29 October 2016 review of submission by Carrieruggieri[edit]



Dear Robert, You reviewed by submission for Draft: Diana Fosha. I wanted to respond to the comments on the talk page and also to explain each reference so that you can check that they are in fact independent sources. However, the entire conversation on the talk page is gone. I believe it was all on the talk page? Could you please direct me to where the conversation is? Thank you. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrieruggieri - The conversation was at the Teahouse. Most conversations at active talk pages (including help pages) are archived by bots. The conversation is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_536#on_declining_Draft:_Diana_Fosha_due_to_references.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you affiliated with either Fosha or her organization? If so, please make the conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I address the issues here? Or, do I need to address the conflict of interest and references issues at the teahouse? Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but I can't edit from the teahouse archive and I can't find it 'live' where I can edit. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Conflict of Interest: I am a student of AEDP. I was not asked to write the AEDP wikipedia article, or the diana fosha biography. I am not paid by AEDP in any capacity. I wanted to write the article for wikipedia because it had not been written, and I wanted to challenge myself to write this in order to deepen my understanding of this model. I did not anticipate how difficult it would be and how long it would take (that explains the 400 edits and 3 or 4 submission declines). I wrote the diana fosha biography because once the aedp article was published, her name appeared with a red link, which notes that a biography can be written to complete the task. If you go to www.aedpinstitute.org and click on find a therapist, you will see that I am a 3rd level trained aedp therapist (not certified, not a supervisor, and not faculty, so I receive no renumeration from any involvement with my aedp training. carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References: 1. is from page xvii: List of theories. this reference supports the statement that Diana Fosha is founder of AEDP. 3. is a published transcript of an interview with diana Fosha, with an introduction by the author David Van Nuys that supports the statements about her professional background. David Van Nuys is not affiliated with AEDP in any capacity. 4. is from the aedp institute website, but the reference is there to document the statements about the institute itself. 5. Is a published transcript of an interview with Diana fosha by Polly Ely. It supplies information about Diana fossa's education and training.Polly Ely has attended aedp workshops etc... but is not a member of AEDP institute. 6.Grotstein is a very important independent reference- He is a major figure in the field of psychoanalysis which is not in anyway associated with AEDP. Grotstein's review provides information about the impact AEDP has had on the entire field of psychotherapy. This is published in APA newsletter . I will attach the to the reference. 7. same as 6 - David Malan is entirely different modality of therapy and is very highly regarded. 9. is a review of book by an author, bessel van der kolk also unaffiliated with AEDP. 10. is link to APA website which published the DVD's of sessions in the APA's master therapist series.

If this should be in the teahouse, I will copy/paste it. But I need help to find where I can edit the teahouse 'live' page, not the archive. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Comments on References[edit]

You have made long comments concerning the references to the draft. If the purpose of your comments is to get the draft accepted more or less in its current state, then the comments should be either on the draft talk page, Draft talk:Diana Fosha, or in the form of AFC comments in the article draft. If you want to discuss the draft at the Teahouse, you can click on any of the links in my talk page comments and they will take you to the live Teahouse. However, discussing the references at length really is only for the attention of a reviewer, and not as part of a general discussion, so put the long comments about the references either on the draft talk page or in AFC comments in the article draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longer Reply to User:Carrieruggieri[edit]

User:Carrieruggieri – There is no one answer as to where and how you should address the comments. If you do not have a conflict of interest, you do not need to address it. Unfortunately, perhaps the majority of new Wikipedia editors do not come to Wikipedia in order to improve it, but for self-serving reasons, to get their own article approved, so I sometimes ask. You have answered. Most new editors either do not answer, or eventually admit to the conflict of interest.

Also unfortunately, many new editors, perhaps a majority of them who do want to improve Wikipedia, think that the best way to improve it is to write one new article. Writing a new article, complete with its references, is the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia. New editors might do better to try to help us with the five million articles that we do have rather than with one of the articles that we do not have. However, there seems to be a widespread belief that the best way to help Wikipedia is to write one new article (or a few new articles). If you want to help Wikipedia, there are many ways that you can help, such as by editing the articles that we do have.

I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. The article on AEDP has been approved and is in article space, although it has tags for improvement. As to the draft on Fosha, you can discuss the draft either at WP:THQ or at the WikiProject Psychology talk page, or you can simply edit the draft and resubmit it. If you have any more questions, you can ask me here, or you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova (again)[edit]

Dear Robert, I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°5) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". Thanks again. FRANC85 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Heart (again)[edit]

Hi Robert, the page on Zack Heart was not accepted and it says it has been nominated for deletion... We are not clear why. You mentioned there are external links which are not allowed. I thought we were doing it correctly so I don't understand what needs to to be removed and what needs to be added? We will continue to work on it until it is correct so how do we stop it from being deleted? (Sophiechristianson (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - First, who is "we"? If you are representing Zack Heart, or working for him, please read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing policy, and make any required disclosures. (I infer that you are sufficiently proficient in English to be familiar with the distinction between the first person singular and the first person plural.) Second, I did not nominate Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart for deletion. I declined it for having external links. It does appear that its subject is notable and does qualify to be the subject of an article. I nominated User:Sophiechristianson for deletion as a article in user space. If you think that I nominated Draft:Zack Heart, which is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart, for deletion, maybe you have confused yourself by creating multiple copies of drafts. Just work on the one that is a valid draft, after answering who you are and who you are working for. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Hi Robert, thanks for the prompt reply. It's just my sister and I, we aren't affiliated with Zack Heart or being paid by anyone. This is the first of hopefully many celebrity pages we are contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying the deletion location as the user space. I will continue with the draft, remove the external links and resubmit. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
User:Sophiechristianson - You shouldn't be sharing your account with your sister, because we have a rule of one person, one account, and she should create her own account, but that isn't worth making an issue about. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Understood, will have her create her own page. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Donavon Stinson[edit]

Maybe try waiting a whopping half hour before jumping the gun. My edit to improve the article was blocked by your impatience. - BalthCat (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) :In fact, I made the mistake of hitting back, which was an expired session, and forward again, LOSING MY EDIT. So now I have to do it all over again. THANKS. - BalthCat (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Whoops, mine's at the bottom. - BalthCat (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Mills - Declined[edit]

Hi Robert. You have declined to accept the page on John Robert Mills on the grounds of copyright infringement. I don't think there is any copyright infringement for the following reasons:

  • John Robert Mills died in 1998. Shortly after his death an article was put together as the basis of an obituary and for publication in the Institute of Physics (IoP) magazine. The article was a combined effort between John Mills's two sons and a work colleague, Ken Slater. Ken Was a member of the IoP and as such, the article in the IoP was attributed to him. Ken slater has since died.
  • John Mills's two sons are directors of CCC Trading Ltd (http://cayley.co.uk) and as such have re-published the article on their website
  • The almost identical text has been used on all published material (Obituary, IoP article, Website and Wikipedia draft) because all have been written by the same team, albeit one has since died.
  • There is, on the website (http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/), a permission statement at the bottom of the page that reads: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" This over-rides the footer copyright.
  • So far as pictures are concerned, these are reproduced under the Open Govenment Licence V3 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)

We are of course willing to make any changes necessary to satisfy your requirements to approve the Wikipedia article but would appreciate any advice as to what we should do. Or, in light of the above, may we re-submit for consideration without further modification. Thanks. Moonbouncer54 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWelch (talk • contribs) 12:42, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonbouncer54 - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

in reference to your comments made to draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SIMSOLID[edit]

Hi Robert,

Your comment, "Remove commentary from the body of the article" is unclear. Which commentary exactly are you referring to. We have attempted to make each statement in the article a concise unbiased factual representation of the SIMSOLID product. Please let us know where the wording goes off base and we will correct it.

Your other comment, "This still reads like an advertisement" is unclear as well. Every statement we have put in this page is a factual description of the product. There is no offer of sales nor claim of any feature not fundemental to the product description. Our view is that this is an unbiased decription of a technical software product. It would help if you can give me the specific sentences with the wrong tone along with a alternate form that works on Wikipedia so I can get this corrected.

I am just not clear what needs be adjusted.

Thanks and regards,

Ken — Preceding unsigned comment added by KenWelch (talk • contribs) 12:45, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KenWelch - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of Vaughan[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon. Yesterday you declined my draft article "Draft:Order of Vaughan" stating that it only cited sources local to the area of York, Ontario. I have since added two citations that are not local to York (One is from London, Ontario and one from a national news source). I have resubmitted the article and it is awaiting re-review. Would these 2 new sources make the draft notable enough to become a real article? Thanks Jith12 (talk) 15:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jith12 - You already asked this at the AFC Help Desk, and they appear to have said no. I will note that London, Ontario, is not far from York, Ontario. Please do not engage in forum shopping to try to get one reviewer not to notice that other reviewers have recommended another decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AFC declines[edit]

I've seen you decline a few drafts as either having too many elinks, excessive italics, ALL CAPS, etc. Granted, this draft isn't acceptable in its current format, but if the only reason a submission is being declined is due to formatting, well, fix it and accept it; MOS violations are not valid reasons for declining a draft. Primefac (talk) 03:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comment on Draft:Theresia Gouw[edit]

Hi Robert. Per your comment about uploading an image of Theresia Gouw or deleting the headshot box... I uploaded a headshot image earlier and provided permission from Theresia Gouw, the copyright holder, as instructed. The image was subsequently deleted saying that there wasn't permission. I left a message and have received no response. Can you help me and suggest how I should proceed? I would like to use the image I originally uploaded but am not able to re-upload it. Any advice is much appreciated! Thanks Robert! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hrosato (talk • contribs) 13:57, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Theresia Gouw. Robert McClenon (talk)

Request on 16:33:13, 31 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Orfeolille[edit]


Hello! Concerning my draft of the article about actress Laraine Stephens,  I added a second reference to show the importance of the television and movie career of Laraine Stephens (the refererence is the IMDb) . She was one of the most leading actress of episodic television during almost three decades, with most of a billing as a guest star and sometimes a special guest star billing and she was a regular with a starring credit billing fo two series.

I hope you ll consider her eligible o have an article on Wikipedia. thnk you in advance . best regards .


Orfeolille (talk) 16:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barns and stars[edit]

The Guidance Barnstar
For all your efforts at the Help Desk, Teahouse, AfC and elsewhere. TimothyJosephWood 19:39, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Farewell[edit]

I can see when my input is no longer welcome or needed. Since DRN was the one thing I had left at Wikipedia, that wraps things up for me here. I wish you all the best with your future endeavours. Steven Crossin 22:15, 31 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:26:59, 1 November 2016 review of submission by Inca12[edit]


The article of Chala he mentioned refers to a geographical region in Peru, but the article I want to create refers to a town.

Wanna delete my article about Gaspar Lefebvre?[edit]

There are Wiki articles about him in French and in Italian. What else you guys need??? You are really becoming super picky. I miss the time when Wikipedia was a friendly place. Ericdec85 (talk) 02:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ericdec85 - Are his articles in French and Italian only one sentence, or do they describe his career? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ericdec85 Sure, WP is superpickier than it was X years ago, but that is part of why it´s still valuable (and still somewhat popular) for its readers. If you want the articles you create to stick on en-WP, you have to make sure they fulfill WP:GNG, and for some subjects, that´s hard to impossible. As the article currently stands, it gives me almost nothing as a reader. Why do we have an article on this "churchman"? Is he a Saint? Was he confessor to the king of Norway? Did he embezzle a lot of money? Show (and tell in the article) with reliable sources that he created the most awesome of all missals (well, something like that, but don´t WP:PROMO either) and the article might survive. Or an article of his missal might, if someone writes it. Good luck! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I use this St Andrew's missal on a weekly basis and I would love to know more about Dom Gaspar Lefebvre and where he comes from. Family, background, views, religion etc. Please publish on wiki. kind regards, Maree P — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.188.156.176 (talk) 05:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Patrolling approved AfC drafts[edit]

Hey, Robert. Because you're someone I see quite frequently both at the Teahouse and when I'm looking into something over in draftspace, I figured I'd let you know about a change coming to user rights. Currently, almost anyone can mark a page as patrolled. However, within the next few days, that right will be removed from all but the new New Page Reviewer right. (New Page Reviewers were known as New Page Patrollers before the user right was created.) Editors who help out with AfC are extremely desirable as applicants for the user right, as they already know what to look for when patrolling pages. This also would allow them to patrol drafts they've moved into the mainspace instead of it showing up in the NPR queue for someone else to have to mark as patrolled later. If you're interested, you can apply for the right at WP:PERM/NPR. — Gestrid (talk) 05:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer granted[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as mark pages as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia, if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

  • Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
  • You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
  • Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
  • Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. — xaosflux Talk 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Si467[edit]

Thx for your help with this Robert - I haev made the changes and confirm that only draft 2 is needed (I cant work out how to delete the other one - sorry!)

This is the keep draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Si467 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I've moved these comments from the top of this page into a section and removed the codebox from it. — Gestrid (talk) 20:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Teahouse[edit]

I think you accidentally my comment. TimothyJosephWood 21:05, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Timothyjosephwood - It appears to have been an undetected edit conflict or some similar accident. I restored your lost comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure if I had said something terribly out of place. No worries. TimothyJosephWood 23:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13 Stories and 13 Epitaphs[edit]

In re: to your comment about another source for this page - I added one from the Washington Post. Also, the image I uploaded to Wikimedia Commons was removed. Do you know how I can upload it. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglaswintergreen (talk • contribs) 01:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Question about article titles[edit]

Hi Robert,

I recently submitted an article about social network analysis in the field of computer-supported collaborative learning, and it was rejected because there is already an article about social network analysis.

However, my intention was to create a page specifically regarding SNA within the field of CSCL in the same way that this article is specifically in relation to the field of criminology: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_network_analysis_(criminology)

Do you have any tips on how to specify that within the article editor, and whether this would improve the likelihood of my article being accepted?

Thanks so much! Emily — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cscl group 3 (talk • contribs) 22:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC) ;[reply]

User:Cscl group 3 - First, I see that you have already located an article on Social network analysis (criminology). The Articles for Creation process is used to review drafts of articles on new topics, not replacements for existing articles. (A few editors do think that it should be available to be used for that purpose, but discussion on the article talk page is appropriate.) If you want to make improvements to an existing article, discuss on the article talk page. Second, why is your user name 'Cscl group 3'? Who is Cscl? Your username implies that it belongs to a group. I would suggest that you change your user name. If you have any questions either about draft articles or about usernames, you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:David Breskin[edit]

Hello Mr. McClenon, thank you for your response on 29 October 2016 to my submission, 'Draft: David Breskin.'

I'm trying to edit the draft since learning it was declined so that it can be approved. I'm contacting you to find out exactly what you suggest I do. If I add sources for all facts that aren't yet sourced, is that your main concern?

I've since chatted online with Wiki online help volunteers, and they explained that even the subject's birth date and place, college attended, and other very basic facts need to be sourced. I am a first time editor so the learning curve is steep. I will pull sources for these basic facts, and try to substantiate any other facts that are not sourced.

As for the subject's website, I removed it since you expressed concern that the wiki was promoting his website. This is not the intent, and there is no for-profit content on his site. It's purely informational. I'd like to add his website address back in, but do it per Wiki's guidelines. I've seen that other subjects' websites are indeed included in Wiki entries. I hope you can advise me on how best to include the website URL. It is relevant, as anyone who is interested in this subject will want to access his writings and read about the music recordings he produced. Again, there is nothing for sale on the site.

Thank you in advance for clarifying exactly what changes you'd recommend. It's very difficult for a first time editor to decipher the Wiki guidelines, write proper code, etc. Your guidance is immensely appreciated!2605:E000:608D:1E00:C972:9B8D:5DF2:21AA (talk) 00:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mr. McClenon, thank you for your response on 29 October 2016 to my submission, 'Draft: David Breskin.'

I'm trying to edit the draft since learning it was declined so that it can be approved. I'm contacting you to find out exactly what you suggest I do. If I add sources for all facts that aren't yet sourced, is that your main concern?

I've since chatted online with Wiki online help volunteers, and they explained that even the subject's birth date and place, college attended, and other very basic facts need to be sourced. I am a first time editor so the learning curve is steep. I will pull sources for these basic facts, and try to substantiate any other facts that are not sourced.

As for the subject's website, I removed it since you expressed concern that the wiki was promoting his website. This is not the intent, and there is no for-profit content on his site. It's purely informational. I'd like to add his website address back in, but do it per Wiki's guidelines. I've seen that other subjects' websites are indeed included in Wiki entries. I hope you can advise me on how best to include the website URL. It is relevant, as anyone who is interested in this subject will want to access his writings and read about the music recordings he produced. Again, there is nothing for sale on the site.

Thank you in advance for clarifying exactly what changes you'd recommend. It's very difficult for a first time editor to decipher the Wiki guidelines, write proper code, etc. Your guidance is immensely appreciated!Cahadley (talk) 00:44, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again, Mr. McClenon,

This is once again concerning Draft: David Breskin. I've deleted the URLs for the subject's website and blog. I have deleted the code that made his book titles bold, after learning Wiki guidelines prohibit bolding of book titles. Given these improvements, are you still advising that the only thing I need to do is add sources for any facts that are currently unsourced? Or are there any other edits you require that I make to get approval?

Thank you for your valuable help for this first-time editor!Cahadley (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cahadley - I will be asking for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. First, as to the difficulty of understanding the guidelines and "writing proper code", I don't see any of the guidelines as involving the writing of code. Second, I will also comment that when you refer to Wikipedia simply as Wiki, you annoy many Wikipedia volunteers, because there are many Wikis. I understand that you are doing it for short, but please use WP as shorthand instead. Third, it is true that it is difficult to write a complete new article with its references, and that this is the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia. As such, it is unfortunate that many new editors think that is the only or the best way that they can help Wikipedia. We also need various kinds of help, such as copy-editing, with the articles that we already have, not only with the articles that we don't have. I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:28:30, 3 November 2016 review of submission by Moonbouncer54[edit]


The text has been amended so it differs from the original article jointly put together and therefore from that published in the Institute of Physics magazine and attributed to only Ken Slater. The page at http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/ has been removed permanently. Please advise if this is sufficient to overcome all the copyright issues and whether you are happy for the draft to be re-submitted. Thanks Moonbouncer54 (talk) 10:28, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Moonbouncer54 - I thought that I had commented at the Teahouse that, following that discussion, I would allow another reviewer to review the draft. I will check the discussion there and will see whether I did comment to that effect. In any case, I will let another reviewer review the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon. Do I have to do anything for that to happen? Moonbouncer54 (talk) 18:01, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Moonbouncer54 - Resubmit it. Is there a button to resubmit it? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:29, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon. Yes there was a resubmit button. It was resubmitted a few minutes ago. Thanks. Moonbouncer54 (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:55:25, 5 November 2016 review of submission by Rogersansom[edit]


Hello, Robert. Thank you for your review. I want to improve this submission. I did not know that IMDb is not considered a reliable source - I expect I can find a reliable source for these film credits. No intention of re-submitting without addressing previous concerns. I am inexperienced at this, not having originated an article for years. I at first forgot to insert the inline source references, and when the first review mentioned this, I did so. If I missed other concerns, it is because I am very unused to following the procedure, which is complex. I will address these concerns in due course, having researched the screen details. Would a published film reference book (I can think of a possible one) be considered reliable? I am feeling my way, and most grateful for guidance! Best wishes. Rogersansom (talk) 10:55, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for the length of the list of publications. Does the author have an association with Yarwood? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm writing this article as a requirement for my fungal biology class at the University of Florida. We were told to choose a scientist from Wikipedia's list of mycologists

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists), I chose Dr. Yarwood

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

Dr. Cecil Yarwood rejection[edit]

Comment: See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for the length of the list of publications.

Does the author have an association with Yarwood? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I'm writing this article as a requirement for my fungal mycology class at the University of Florida. We were to chose a mycologist off Wikipedia's list of mycologists, I chose Dr. Yarwood.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Cecil_Edmund_Yarwood

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 20:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readbothsides (talk) 21:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Readbothsides[reply]

Dr. Yarwood reject x2[edit]

Extended discussion of article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:52, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The references are not in the form of footnotes.

See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as to the length of the list of publications. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:13, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Which citations are no longer in the form of footnotes?

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

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Readbothsides (talk) 21:06, 5 November 2016 (UTC)Readbothsides[reply]

User:Readbothsides - When I declined Draft:Cecil Edmund Yarwood at the end of September 2016, the draft had no footnotes, only end references. The current version of the draft does have footnotes. The draft was declined about 36 hours ago by User:Garchy. I see that you have posted on their talk page, although I haven't yet read your post to them. Any question about their decline should be addressed by you to them, not to me. I also see that the list of publications has been trimmed. I think that the current version of the draft is much better than the one that I declined, and that you should ask Garchy about their decline. Another possibility, in addition to asking them, would be to ask the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. (If I had declined the most recent draft, I would take discussion to the Teahouse.) Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Readbothsides: My main issue was ensuring the article did not sound promotional - removing the awards section and any promotional speech would fix that. I don't think the community likes first party citations but this may be ok for academics. Garchy (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Garchy, I fail to understand why the public acknowledgement of someone's accomplishments and notoriety in their field would be considered promotional. Would that make an Olympic runner just some person that ran a lot? Readbothsides (talk) 03:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)Readbothsides[reply]

User:Readbothsides - Please look up notoriety. That isn't something you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon I thought we were having an academic discussion, I'm sorry if I hurt your feelings. That was my my intent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 03:28, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Readbothsides - You didn't hurt my feelings. You simply used the word 'notoriety' incorrectly, at least if you think Yarwood should be remembered positively. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon I see what you mean and what I did. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 04:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Readbothsides, It would be best to incorporate it into the body of the article, as opposed to having a separate section, in list format, that shows accomplishments. Please read WP:PUFFERY for more info. This is just a suggestion, you may incorporate it or not - you're free to resubmit to someone else at any time. Garchy (talk) 03:15, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Garchy Dr. Yarwood was the world expert on obligate parasites. He did groundbreaking work on fungi and viruses. Since he's mentioned in Wikipedia's own list of mycologists, I think listing of his accomplishments is respectful and not as tacky as "puffery". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mycologists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Readbothsides (talk • contribs) 03:26, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Readbothsides - I would suggest that either User talk:Garchy or Draft:Cecil Edmund Yarwood or Draft talk:Cecil Edmund Yarwood are better places than my talk page to discuss the decline of Draft:Cecil Edmund Yarwood. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Gingerwilso/sandbox[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on User:Gingerwilso/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be a clear copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1083992/plotsummary. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website or image but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DanielRigal (talk) 22:31, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 01:18:03, 7 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dorotheainmiddle[edit]



Dorotheainmiddle (talk) 01:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added references and would like to re-submit, using my sandbox version. How should I proceed? I'm sorry for being so technically inept. Karen

Your submission at Articles for creation: Jim Jennings (November 7)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by JzG was:
This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This reads as a promotional resume, not a Wikipedia biography. The style and language is reminiscent of that used by PR companies.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Guy (Help!) 21:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help on Jim Brett draft[edit]

Thank you for your quick response to my Draft:Jim Brett submission. I know how busy Wiki editors are. I also appreciate the feedback you gave me and I will revise the draft with your feedback in mind. Again, I just wanted to say thanks. JNorman704 (talk) 23:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:30:55, 8 November 2016 review of submission by DivyaK[edit]


Hello Robert McClenon,

Please let me know how can I improve my draft article to get added in wikipedia page. Basically, what kind of references do I need to provide?

Regards, Divya

User:DivyaK - My first question for you is whether you have a connection with either the subject or with Boeing. Other than that, please format the references consistently, and put them all into the form of footnotes. I will ask for further comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jim Jennings has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jim Jennings. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:41:55, 9 November 2016 review of submission by DivyaK[edit]


Greetings! I do have a connection with Mr. Pratyush Kumar Das. He is a sibling. I will format footnote and send for review. please let me know if any other improvements required.

21:41:55, 9 November 2016 review of submission by Skingirl13[edit]


Dear Mr McClenon, My article was denied twice for reading as an advertisement. I thought I had done enough edits before resubmission. I believe Dr. Biro's work is important and believe that it belongs in a venue like Wikipedia. I have looked at other physician/writer's pages, ie- Christopher Adrian and Vincent Lam. They seem to have a very streamlined approach. Would you suggest I redo the entire page to mimic something more like his?

Thank youSkingirl13 (talk) 21:41, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skingirl13 - I declined your draft for tone reasons, not for notability reasons. That is also why the previous reviewer declined your draft. I thought that it read like an advertisement for his books. I haven't looked at the other articles that you mention, but I would suggest "streamlining" the description of his books. If you want further advice, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:36:24, 10 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sieshoeke[edit]


Requesting assistance and explanations regarding the recently posted entry about the artists from FORT (collective)

Dear Robert McClenon, I hope this finds you well. First I would like to thank you for taking a closer look at my recently written entry about FORT (collective). I work for a german gallery who represents this artist group and I already have written and published a german version of the entry about FORT (collective) successfully to the german Wikipedia site. Could you be so kind and help me with how I am supposed to include the references correctly since the text comes directly from the artists. It's not a quote, but they wrote it. The main reason for creating an entry was that the artists start to get known international and just moved from Germany to the USA for the next two years. Last but not least, I am wondering what you meant by saying the entry has tone issues. Could you clarify what exactly you mean and where to find it? I know it isn't a perfect entry, I am new to all this and I have to admit that I'm not good with computer science, nevertheless I tried to fulfill all the criteria given. I am sorry if the entry did not turn out the way it is supposed to. I look forward hearing from you and I will do my very best to make my entry a wikipedia worthy entry! Thank you very much again for your help. Best wishes, Sieshoeke (talk) 10:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sieshoeke - I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arm The Homeless (guitar)[edit]

Good day, Mr. McClenon

I added two outside sources. Is that good, is there anything more I can do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColinBradford (talk • contribs) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Arm The Homeless. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:ColinBradford - Unfortunately, when you added the two additional references, you did something so that I can't click on them. This means that I can't verify whether they are independent references. I am going to have to decline your draft again. I also notice that you complicated things by also putting an article on the guitar in article space, where it has been nominated for deletion. In its current state, it will be deleted. I do agree that your current draft, while not ready for acceptance, is better than the article, so that G4 shouldn't be an issue, just notability and tone issues. I see that you didn't address the tone issues. If you want further advice, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) @ColinBradford and Robert McClenon: To complicate things more, I've augmented both the article and its refs: I didn't realise there is more than one version floating around wikispace! Muffled Pocketed 20:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am assuming that you mean that you augmented Arm The Homeless (guitar). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox person[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Infobox person. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:René Dekker[edit]

I intend to approve this draft. Despite the fact that this is a paid editor, I think it is a breach of WP:AGF for you to reject it for being promotional and withholding specifics on the assumption that the draft will somehow remain promotional despite any improvements. I beleive there is good evidence of notability here and the article is not likely to be deleted and therefore qualifies for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Most of the promotional language has already been removed and you're welcome to tag or improve the article to address any remaining issues. ~Kvng (talk) 15:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kvng - You seem either to misunderstand the point that I made four months ago or to be looking for a quarrel. I wouldn't say at the time what was promotional language because this was a case, that we sometimes see, where a paid editor says, "Please tell me what is promotional so that I can take that out", when it is clear that they want to leave the maximum permitted amount of promotional content in an article that was dripping with promotional content, and what the article needs is not one phrase trimmed but a whole rework. That was a few months ago and this is now. You will note that more recently I objected to one phrase and did not decline the draft. At that point I had too much history and was ready to let other reviewers deal with the draft. Notability was not the question anyway. Tone was. I wasn't planning to tag the draft. Whether I do now depends on what mood I am in. I wasn't looking for a quarrel, although it appears either that you misunderstood an old comment (about promotional editors who are in a hurry to get a draft in and want to fix one word) or are looking for a fight. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was not aware of a pattern of paid editors playing games at AfC to push a promotional POV. I am aware of a pattern of AfC reviewers rejecting submissions for reasons outside the primary AfC acceptance criteria and so may have been going off on that and I apologize. I do think it best, and policy supports approving imperfect but qualified content and trusting that it gets improved once it gets some exposure in mainspace. ~Kvng (talk) 16:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kvng - Since you are new to AFC, being more familiar with NPP, there has always been a pattern of single-purpose accounts trying to get one article through. Sometimes they are good-faith new editors, but often they are conflict of interest editors, sometimes declared, sometimes undeclared. I am also aware that some AFC reviewers have been criticized for being too restrictive. I will only say that at least those AFC reviewers are acting in good faith to maintain the standards of Wikipedia, although they may be mistaken, and the paid editors are only acting in good faith after they declare that they are paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have been doing AfC reviews for several years. I have not done much work at NPP. I try to assume everyone is acting in good faith. I don't always get there so if I didn't with this interaction, I apologize. ~Kvng (talk) 23:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:14:27, 13 November 2016 review of submission by Wikismartsg[edit]



Dear Reviewer, This page was not created for marketing purpose but really created for Master Long Tian Xiang to remember him. He is a famous figure in this field in the Singapore market but he was not found on Wikipedia. I just want to contribute an article to Wikipedia by consolidating the many third parties' objective comments found on forums and blogs on him. He wants to retire and really does not need to have more business. There are many many more references but I did not have enough time to put them up. I will continue to add when I have time.

To prove that this is not for marketing purpose for Master Long, I have shortened the writeup to make it more neutral. I have also managed to find one negative post about Master Long Tian Xiang and have added it as one of the reference too.

I have spent a few hours to search for the references to complete this article. So please help to reconsider again to approve my contribution. Thanks!

I will reply at the Teahouse. However, the revised draft, in my opinion, has too little content to be worth considering accepting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for helping[edit]

Hello, I have already edited my draft. I think that I take full effort to it and yet not approved. That is all I can do to improve my draft. There are many Thai sources but I am very sure that I cannot use those source here. English source is not that much which make my draft has not enough information like you suggest to me. Anyway, I really want my article to be in the website so much. My project is rely on that. Thank you.Reso7373 (talk) 06:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft:Green Mango with Sweet Fish Sauce. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eddie Marshudi[edit]

Hi Robert. According to the infobox, the subject of the draft (Eddie Marshudi) is a 15 year old kid. The draft's creator, User:Teamshoudy hasn't got a clue of how WP works, obviously doesn't care, and by his own admission (here and here) is Eddie Marshudi himself. Hopefully, he'll take my message on board, but if not, just to clarify a couple of things... User:Artistaroundtheworld who created the thrice deleted Eddie Marshudi in September was indefinitely blocked for using Wikipedia for advertising/self promotion, not for socking. However, that account is not stale. If Teamshoudy continues his disruptive behaviour, a checkuser can be run on Artistaroundtheworld until mid-December. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have the page watchlisted, and the editor has been warned. If any new accounts begin trying to get Harshudi listed, we can pursue both socking and disruptive editing. Do you know how long the data is still considered valid for Checkuser? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:50, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's valid for 90 days from the last edit. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 16:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Binary firing system[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa - It wasn't my article. I merely moved it to draft space. Once in a while these things happen and I get the notice when the author should. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did the nomination via Twinkle, which chose you to receive the notice. I will make sure the actual page creator gets notified. Sorry for the mistake. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 18:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Diannaa - I know that occasionally Twinkle gets confused. No real problem. Thanks for doing the admin job. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

about Igor Janev/Question[edit]

Hi Robert, I am new here. Can you tell me should I continue with submission of draft on Igor Janev or just remove the text. Thanks!Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Does "protection" mean that only admins can create art. or what? Libertarian Macedonian (talk) 01:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Contest for better Use and Building Efficiency[edit]

Good Morning McClenon, Thanks for your comment "This draft needs copy-editing following its translation into English from French. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 12 November 2016 (UTC)". Should I do this edition myself or is the contribution of someone else required ?


Thank you for your time ! IFPEB — Preceding unsigned comment added by IFPEB (talk • contribs) 09:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Contest for better Use and Building Efficiency.
User:IFPEB - If you are able to improve the quality of the English, then you may do that yourself, or you may ask to have someone else do it. This is a common problem, and there are people who can do it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer)[edit]

Thank you for reviewing this submission. As this has been rejected by several different reviewers for differing reasons, and as I see from some of the discussion on your Talk page that you have been kind enough to help take submissions through to completion and approve in the past, I would be very grateful if you would do likewise for mine.

The issue you highlight is notability. As we are all aware, classical music is a niche, living composers of it yet more so. Unless a composer has written film music, which the subject of this draft review has not, he or she will be somewhat obscure. Still, in this world, Matthew Curtis is notable for the number of recordings and performances (radio broadcasts are the most easily verifiable and hence partially quoted), and his music has been reviewed in the industry magazine Gramophone (see various references in the draft), referenced in a book (ref 14), reviewed in "The Spectator" (ref 16) which is absolutely not an industry publication, and has even been performed in the presence of HM the Queen (ref 12). There is also a reference to him in an existing Wikipedia article (English Music Festival).

If we can agree that this is sufficient to establish notability, the issue may be that I have done a poor job of ensuring this is clear to the reader, and I would welcome any suggestions you have to ensure I get this right.

Kind regards UserSCL 1958 UserSCL1958 (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft:Matthew Curtis (composer). Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will ask for additional comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much for doing this, and also for turning this around so quickly. I will be interested to see the response.UserSCL1958 (talk) 17:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have now incorporated some of the material found and suggestions made by your colleague TimothyJosephWood on the Teahouse, and hope that we are almost there - as I understand the criteria for notability in WP:MUSBIO, we should now have enough articles devoted purely to the composer and his music to justify his inclusion based on "Others" para 1, and the asides in a work devoted to Coates and in the Spectator would also support his being sufficiently notable within British light classical music. However I note that a citation is needed to support the "over 8 hours" of recorded music. Please let me know how I can best do this. The total run time of all the CDs/Tracks comes to 486 minutes 43 seconds in total, but can I just cite that?UserSCL1958 (talk) 16:51, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SCL1958 - As the banner at the top of my talk page explains, I normally will not follow a submission through the improvement and approval process. You received some comments at the Teahouse. We can either go back there, or I can find a WikiProject that can give you advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After some cleanup, I have accepted the draft. TimothyJosephWood 18:11, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for your help in getting this article to acceptable standards - I have also thanked Timothyjosephwood.

UserSCL1958 (talk) 11:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: new Thailand-related articles[edit]

Hi. I noticed your comment at a certain AfC regarding such articles. From what I've gathered, there appears to be an undocumented class project from King Mongkut's University of Technology Thonburi that involves the creation of Wikipedia articles on topics related to Thailand. This has been going on periodically for a few years now, but none of the editors I asked have replied to my queries regarding the nature of the class. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just noticed the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation/Reviewer help. I'll copy the above comment there. --Paul_012 (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:48:29, 14 November 2016 review of submission by Aliseca[edit]



Hi Robert, I've added more citations and changed the wordings to be more neutural. I was wondering what else I am able to change for it to be reviewed again.

Your draft has already been reviewed again and declined again. The second reviewer was pessimistic about the likelihood of establishing notability. I will be asking for discussion at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Norbert Stachel[edit]

Hi Robert,

I'm a notable musician, and not a computer nerd or tech geek. You rejected my attempt at starting an article about myself, Norbert Stachel. I understand the Wikipedia guidelines. Just check what you know are reliable sources for my name: Norbert Stachel.

I'm a saxophonist, and have worked with a plethora of extremely famous and respected people, and you'll find my name clear as day on recordings and performance tour histories.

I simply need someone with your knowledge and skills to do an article about me please.

Sincerely, Norbert LehCats (talk) 07:11, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRAFT: Moisture Removal Efficiency[edit]

Thank you very much for your kind corrections of my formatting errors. I'm entirely new to the WP ecosystem, and it's been quite a challenge to learn (and often to guess) the correct way to code formatting, and to express appreciation for all your help.

I'm hoping that this is the correct venue and technique (ie: posting a "new section" on your talk page). If not, I apologize and would appreciate corrective guidance about the most acceptable, polite and respectful means and methods of communicating with editors.

Regarding specific guidance, I have another question which is no doubt very basic, but about which I remain befuddled. I read the edits you suggested, and of course they are all just fine and much appreciated. I then "saved changes". My assumption is that by "saving changes", I have accepted your edits and that the now-current version of the proposed article awaiting review has been changed accordingly.

Is that assumption correct?.. or did I need to go back to my draft submission, and make each of the changes you suggested piece-by piece?

Lew.Harriman (talk) 15:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As you say, some of your questions are basic. They would be best asked and answered at the Teahouse for the benefit of other new editors also. My talk page is the right place to ask questions of me. A more public forum is a better place to ask questions that other experienced editors might also answer and that other inexperienced editors might read. I haven't looked in detail at your edits, but if you made multiple edits and then saved the changed draft, they are now part of what is waiting for resubmission. You didn't change the links correctly, and I changed them for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review needs your help[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon,

As an AfC reviewer you're probably aware that a new user right has been created for patrolling new pages (you might even have been granted the right already, and admins have it automatically).

Since July there has been a very serious backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed of over 14,000 pages, by far the worst since 2011, and we need an all out drive to get this back down to just a few hundred that can be easily maintained in the future. Unlike AfC, these pages are already in mainspace, and the thought of what might be there is quite scary. There are also many good faith article creators who need a simple, gentle push to the Tea House or their pages converted to Draft rather than being deleted.

Although New Page Reviewing can occasionally be somewhat more challenging than AfC, the criteria for obtaining the right are roughly the same. The Page Curation tool is even easier to use than the Helper Script, so it's likely that most AfC reviewers already have more than enough knowledge for the task of New Page Review.

It is hoped that AfC reviewers will apply for this right at WP:PERM and lend a hand. You'll need to have read the page at WP:NPR and the new tutorial.

(Sent to all active AfC reviewers) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Glasgow Street Art[edit]


http://www.lonelyplanet.com/news/2016/10/27/glasgow-street-art-mural-trail/ http://www.scotsman.com/news/glasgow-city-council-unveils-new-city-centre-mural-trail-1-4270797 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-glasgow-west-37822060

Glasgow Street Art has been mentioned in a few articles across the web. I believe this is good enough for a page on its own however we can add it on to the Glasgow page if necessary.

User:Hughetta - First, please sign your posts. Second, as my talk page edit banner states, if you have a history of editing one draft article only, I will be looking for your conflict of interest disclosure. Are you associated with Glasgow street art in a financial or other way? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:27, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[User:Robert McClenon]] I am not associated financially with Glasgow Street Art, I have no associations with Glasgow City Council or anything to do with the article that would make me biased towards the article. I understand this is my first article I am just adding to the Glasgow content on Wikipedia. Hughetta (talk) 21:47, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hughetta - In that case, you are one of the many new editors who think that they can best make a contribution to Wikipedia by creating a new article. Most new editors do not realize that creating a new article, including providing proper references, is the hardest task that there is in Wikipedia, and that there are other ways to help with the five million articles that we do have rather than providing one article that we don't yet have. Welcome. The Teahouse can advise you on how to do the difficult task of creating a new article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:03, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:16, 17 November 2016 review of submission by WriterMona[edit]


Hi Robert,

Nuwait article (http://www.nuwait.net.kw/article/overcoming-growth-challenges-journey-rehlat) is a story by external author who had written about Rehlat independently without any influence.

I don't have any direct association with Rehlat. But, yes, I am a frequent traveller to Middle East and do get my tickets booked from their site.

Thanks & Regards,

Monalisha

User:WriterMona - Welcome, then, to Wikipedia. Some new editors think that they can best contribute to Wikipedia by creating one new article. Often they don't understand just how hard it is to create a new article complete with its references, and the article cannot be accepted without the references. We can also use help with the five million articles that we already have as well as the ones that we don't have. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:51:21, 17 November 2016 review of submission by Earthkuppum[edit]


Could you suggest me which part of my article that looked like an advertisement? then I will make my article better. Thankyou

Request on 16:58:04, 17 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Earthkuppum[edit]


Hello Mr.Robert Could you suggest me which part of my article need to change or delete? Then I will make it better. I want you to suggest me because I have no idea with it. Thankyou Earthkuppum (talk) 16:58, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Earthkuppum - I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. However, I will also be asking you whether you have any connection with the Bangbuathong Market. Do you have any connection with the Bangbuathong Market? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am just a student. I have to create my article to send my teacher on Wikipedia and I choosed my topic. It was Bangbuathong market because I live in around this area. Earthkuppum (talk) 15:55, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See discussion at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:10:14, 17 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 79.112.17.228[edit]


Hello you have declined my new page entitled: Federația Internaționala a Asociațiilor Inventatorilor with the reason: The submission appears to be written in Spanish.

The page is in Romanian and represents the Romanian version (translation) of the following page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Inventors%27_Associations I am the Romanian Member of the IFIA so is my duty to make it in my native language.

I am new on Wikipedia. So if there is any other problem on this page, please feel free to inform me.

Assoc.Prof.PhD.Eng. Andrei Victor SANDU sav@tuiasi.ro

Thank you!

79.112.17.228 (talk) 19:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:79.112.17.228 - My mistake as to language. I recognized it as a Romance language, and it wasn't French or Italian, and didn't look like Portuguese. What do you need to put into Romanian? You probably need to put it in the Romanian Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you![edit]

Thanks for your help with my article a few weeks ago - you were very kind! Akrumoftruth (talk) 19:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Jjyyu8/sandbox has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Jjyyu8/sandbox. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Review of Article Akshay Agrawal[edit]

Hi,

As per your advice, I have requested that the deleted draft of Akshay Agrawal be made available temporarily. Would you be granting that access?. If yes, please do so, so that I can study it and determine if the new draft is better than the old one.

The new draft presents two new sources/references which significantly contribute to notability (Yahoo! News and Mid Day (national Daily) newspaper (India)) apart from the TEDx talk on YT. The sources of notability do represent a gap between them in terms of time between when the article was last deleted and now which would explain the cause of deletion and the probable re-writing of the draft. Given the new sources/references, I think at a cursory level, the ideal way forward would be to accept the article.

Will wait for access to old draft.

ThomasMer (talk) 06:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Akshay Agrawal. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:ThomasMer - You need to make a request at Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:48, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:When a Snail Falls in Love[edit]

Hi! I planned to write this article and then saw that there is a draft that was declined by you. I improved it and added sources from People's Daily and China Daily, that establishes notability. Hope it is all right now. Kind regards, Teemeah 편지 (letter) 10:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:When a Snail Falls in Love. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Teemah - I won't be able to review the current version. A reviewer who can read Chinese will be necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:49:48, 18 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sanyogchourasia[edit]


Hello sir nice to have u. Sir why it is not getting reviewed Sanyog Kumar.


Sanyogchourasia (talk) 19:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sanyogchourasia - What is the question? It was reviewed. I declined it. If you want a more detailed explanation, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Rodriquez-Novelo[edit]

Hello, No problem in creating the page, I just wanted it out there. I'm just using a basic template with the infoboxes and basic information, just like the other Bishops' pages. If it needs to be expanded or more info added to it, feel free to edit, that's why I created it. Thanks and happy editing... Roberto221 (talk) 22:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll add the references in later on today for both (actually 3) Bishops. I have to go out for a second

Roberto221 (talk) 22:13, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A7 on The Bright Career Academy[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon -- I have declined your speedy request on this article because educational institutions are excluded from the A7 criteria. Espresso Addict (talk) 00:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, User:Espresso Addict. It isn't easy to remember the details of the speedy criteria, and I try. I won't make that mistake again (I hope). PROD coming. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Espresso Addict - I see what happened. I was doing New Page Patrol, and then a page was created by an editor whose behavior seemed strange and I back-checked his previous edits. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Mr. Vernon's talk page.
Message added 03:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Mr. Vernon (talk) 03:21, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing James Dennis Casey IV, Robert McClenon.

Unfortunately Kudpung has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

This page needs a much closer scrutiny before it can be allowed to be indexed. I don't see any sources.

To reply, leave a comment on Kudpung's talk page.

PS: I've checked your user talk to see who the Curation toolbar left the above message with. Several other users tagged the page but I think it's unlikely that you would have passed such a mess of an article as reviewed, especially when it is a candidate for CSD on at least two criteria, so there may be a bug in the system. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 05:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links in body copy[edit]

Hi Robert, Thanks for your comment regarding my use of external links in the body copy. These are mostly to IMDB pages of the films that Peter Hobb's has composed for. I do this for films that don't have a wikipedia page. Is this inappropriate? Could you suggest a better way of citing these? Regards, Rachel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Peter_Hobbs_(composer) Rachel Wallis (talk) 04:27, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that you changed the external links. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 07:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Kudpung's talk page.
Message added 23:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Page That You Unreviewed[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Blank Banshee[edit]

In all truth and honesty Robert, Blank Banshee does indeed meet the requirements for inclusion on Wikipedia. See the links included with my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Blank_Banshee. If only the bare minimum. It was originally just myself trying to get this article on but now I'm seeing several drafts pop up by other users. His new album received an article on the Fader, mentions in Esquire and Papermag, a full feature interview with Bandcamp. This is an active public figure with significant coverage and influence, someone people are sure to be searching for and who already exists on multiple online Encyclopedias. If my draft were moved to the article space it wouldn't be in violation of any guidelines at this point. Michael lone2004 (talk) 10:32, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Michael lone2004 - My concern is only that I want the three drafts consolidated into one. Can that be done? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Michael lone2004 - Also, it appears that Blank Banshee was deleted. As a result, any draft needs to be better than the deleted version. That will mean that someone needs to request that the deleted version be available at least temporarily for review to ensure that the new version is better than the one that was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I took information and references from all 3 pages and put together a much better looking new draft > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Michael_lone2004/sandbox/Blank_Banshee Michael lone2004 (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:01:46, 22 November 2016 review of submission by MUC-Panda[edit]


Dear Robert, meanwhile the SWARM project ist listed in the DOE's Global Energy Storage Database. In addition, the project (better: the project partners) was awarded with the Bavarian Energy Award. This gave me two good independent references. Please be so kind as to check whether the draft is worth to become an article now. Otherwise please give me a hint for further improvements. Many thanks in advance, MUC-Panda (talk) 03:01, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MUC-Panda I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. If you want advice, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, I saw that you forwarded my request to the Teahouse and I read User:Maproom's comment. Many thanks for your effort! MUC-Panda (talk) 15:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:44:48, 22 November 2016 review of submission by IFLGlobal[edit]

NAC:Requester blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

16:10:53, 22 November 2016 review of submission by 99.242.186.247[edit]


Hey, the undelete request for Leanplum was just completed. The deleted article is available on the talk page.

The new draft has more citations in total, and it includes coverage of the company's research and product rather than just funding announcements.99.242.186.247 (talk) 16:10, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I declined it again. It is partly about the company and partly about the application, and as a result doesn't really establish notability for either solidly. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, came across this thread from the Leanplum page. I edited out the uncited content under the Product section, and I added a couple more citations under History and Research. I believe it's more focused on the company itself now. Adam Mathias (talk) 23:53, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Adammathias - As the edit notice states, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. However, I will ask you whether you have a connection with the company. I have also restored the WP:G11 tag and will let an administrator decide whether speedy deletion is warranted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon Thanks for following up. I am not an employee, shareholder, customer etc of that company, nor in the SEO business, they are known to me as are many other companies. At this point I am just a bit disappointed with the arbitrariness of the bureaucracy, which has apparently grown since I was last active on Wiki.
The rationale given for the original deletion was that the funding amount was not sufficient ("If we have an article for every company that raises $XM..."). Any by the time I noticed the deletion, the funding amount had increased, and also it was inconsistent with the existence of articles on similar companies.
So I think there should probably be a set of guidelines for startups specifically, to help editors who understandably do not know how to size up these sorts of companies, given the interest in them and all the potential conflicts of interest and constant creation of new companies.
As background: there is an order-of-magnitude dropoff at each funding stage (seed, series A, series B...) It also varies by geo, ie Bay Area seed is as big as series A in some other markets. So if we, like in this case, we consider a Bay Area company that made it to series C we are talking about a one-in-ten-thousand startup. You can use Crunchbase or AngelList (both do verification, and Crunchbase also adds data itself) to find similar companies and do a rough sizing up.
But for now, without formal guidelines, we should just use the general notability guidelines and apply them *consistently*. Either we add this or we should probably delete dozens if not hundreds of others, audit their edit history, blacklist etc.
Let me know if and how I can help
Adam Mathias (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you![edit]

Thanks for your help with my page =)

Estee Hand (talk) 19:45, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

End-to-End testing[edit]

Why my article End-to-end testing is not published by Wikipedia? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsalman1000 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imsalman1000 - What is the question? You first submitted a draft, Draft:End to End Testing, which had no references. I declined it. You then created End-to-end testing in article space. It has been tagged, but is in article space. It may be nominated for deletion, but it has not been nominated for deletion. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon The question is that when i search my article from any search engine, it shows no result related to my article. What should i do to make it available in any search engine query e.g i searched my article from google and it shows my article link to End-to-end testing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsalman1000 (talk • contribs) 05:59, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imsalman1000 - Why does it matter? Is someone paying you to get your article on end-to-end testing to come up on a search? If not, why does it matter? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon No one is paying me for this article. I was just curious that what is missing in my article. I thought the article is only published when it appears in a search but i was wrong.Thanks for your feedback. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imsalman1000 (talk • contribs) 07:39, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Gracesanders/sandbox/david McBride[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 20:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969 - Thanks. Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my draft. All that I did was to move it to draft space. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:25:24, 22 November 2016 review of submission by MattyJ44[edit]


Hi Robert. Thank you very much for looking at my articles Springs Junction and LedgerLite. I am wondering if it is possible for you to be more specific about what I have to change in these articles to make them acceptable for Wikipedia. I feel somewhat discouraged because I don't really have much idea about what I need to alter.

With regard to Springs Junction you have asked for a reference both to the road junction and the town preferably in a government publication. I have included a New Zealand government encyclopedia reference that includes both.

With regard to LedgerLite you have said it reads more like an advertisement. I have provided numerous references from independent sources. Are you able to tell me specifically which text in the article reads like an advertisement so I know what it is I need to change.

Many thanks for your assistance.MattyJ44 (talk) 22:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Since making the above comment I have edited and resubmitted LedgerLite. I have removed the information that was not verifiable and changed it to what I believe is a more impartial tone. Please let me know what you think. I greatly appreciate your input. MattyJ44 (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MattyJ44 - I accepted Springs Junction as a stub because it is about a named place, and, in accordance with WP:GEOLAND, they are notable. I will ask for advice about Draft:LedgerLite at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Robert. I am so excited about having an article accepted into Wikipedia. It will encourage me to continue working to improve it in my spare time. Thank you also for asking for advice about Draft:LedgerLite. If it needs more references to make it notable I am sure I can find them. Thanks again. MattyJ44 (talk) 04:35, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:MattyJ44 - Are you Matthew Jenkinson? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and make the required disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I am. I have added the COI disclosure to my user page and also the talk page of the article Draft_talk:LedgerLite. Is there somewhere else I need to add it? MattyJ44 (talk) 06:17, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Drafts in userspace[edit]

We seriously need to set up a code or something, because literally the last four times I've gone to move drafts in the userspace you've been doing them at exactly the same time :p Primefac (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Primefac - I assume that you mean moving drafts from user sandboxes to draft space. Yes. Several reviewers 'specialize' in doing that. Once in a great while it causes duplicates due to edit conflicts. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:32:57, 23 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Blanky34[edit]


Hi Robert,

You declined my submission citing it was "written to praise".

That certainly is not my intention - i've would really appreciate an example in the text that I can correct before I do another draft.

Many thanks for your time

Ric

Blanky34 (talk) 15:32, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Ambarworld[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 17:50, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle strikes again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Shlomit C. Schuster[edit]

Please your understanding that this is my first article in english. Shlomit C. Schuster is allready mentioned in wikipedia. She is mentioned in Philosopic practice article and in Gred B. Achenbach article. I think it shows that she is important and worth an article of her own. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IditParienti (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:IditParienti - See my comments in declining the article, in which I said that the formatting of the references should be improved. If you are having difficulty with the references, please ask for help at the Teahouse. If, as it appears you are saying, you are having difficulty with English, you can consider editing the Wikipedia in your first language. Do you have any specific questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question is Draft:Shlomit C. Schuster. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer - RfC[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon. You are invited to comment at a further discussion on the implementation of this user right to patrol and review new pages that is taking place at Wikipedia:New pages patrol/RfC on patrolling without user right. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 20:19, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Draft: Jim Brett again?[edit]

Hi Robert,

I redrafted a draft for Draft: Jim Brett you reviewed and turned down for violating NPOV. An inexperienced editor did the original draft. I have written extensively for Wikipedia, although I have a COI here, so all my work on this article must be independently reviewed. I re-submitted it and another reviewing editor now raises notability as a reason to turn down the article. I agreed completely with your original NPOV assessment, but I disagree on challenges to notability from the new reviewer. There are multiple in-depth articles about Brett from AAA reliable sources. You didn't raise notability on your review, so I'm guessing you didn't see that as an issue either. And I've added more sourcing since your first review. The other reviewer seems to have a very subjective grasp on the concept notability, as they questioned the notability even of West Elm, a subject a simple Google search shows has been written about in many hundreds of reliable sources. I wonder if you could take a look and weigh in. I am happy to keep working on the article, redrafting until there is consensus on NPOV, but I want to be sure notability is addressed first. Thanks, Ed BC1278 (talk)BC1278

User:BC1278 - Do not insert commentary in the body of a draft. It will create work for any future reviewer who wants to approve the draft. Use AFC comments or put the commentary on the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:BC1278 - If you want to disagree with another reviewer, then discuss it with them rather than going to me, which resembles forum shopping, sometimes known as "asking the other parent". I will take this discussion to the Teahouse, but maybe not for a few hours, until I finish watching American football. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:50, 24 November 2016 review of submission by Sukhink[edit]



How to delete the draft?

Historiography of the War of the Pacific[edit]

Hi Robert. Thank you for providing your thoughts on the AN/I case. You've been among the few users who has demonstrated caring about finding a solution to the present problem. What I had not realized, until reading your comment at AN/I, is that none have lent you a hand on acquiring an understanding of the complicated historical visions about the War of the Pacific. I have a historiography essay written for my doctorate program based on works by Peruvian, Chilean, and American scholars, such as Las Guerras de la Guerra and Andean Tragedy (My dissertation is on a topic related to the War of the Pacific). However, to avoid too much reading, I think it might suffice to read the brief page-and-a-half explanation by Robert N. Burr ([13]) at the start of Chapter IX, from pages 138-139. It shouldn't take much from your time. Please do let me know if you have any questions. Happy Thanksgiving!--MarshalN20 Talk 23:45, 24 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I would summarize this interpretation as being both economic and political, and including Chilean ambition and expansionism. Of course, wars often have both economic and political causes. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Yes, that's right, wars are more often than not a result of both political and economic causes.--MarshalN20 Talk 15:00, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And arguing over what the one cause of a war was is stupid. Reasonable scholars and reasonable students can list the contributing causes of a war. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly, but scholars have been arguing about it for a very long time. According to William Sater, "It is one of the peculiarities of scholarship that debate about the war's cause has gone on longer than the conflict itself" (Andean Tragedy, p. 40). That's why it's important to have a clear understanding of the mainstream narratives in contrast to the partisan fringe theories. Burr's understanding of the causes of the conflict are also backed by the authoritative The Contemporary History of Latin America, by Tulio Halperín Donghi, in which the following can be read:

For years, Chile had coveted the nitrate lands of Bolivia and even the adjoining mining areas of southern Peru. Chilean entrepeneurs frequently operated on the Bolivian side of the border, and Chilean workers supplied much of the labor for the nitrate fields of both countries. The Peruvian government feared that the Chileans might take Bolivia's nitrate fields and offer Peru's nitrate fields to the Bolivians as a compensation. Such an agreement would prove attractive to Bolivia, they believed, because the Peruvian lands in question included the Pacific ports currently used by Bolivian overseas trade. These considerations led Peru to make common cause with Bolivia against Chile during the ensuing war.

— Halperin Dongui (Translated by John Charles Chasteen), p. 148
So, my position is not one to argue what the one cause of the war was (it certainly had multiple causes). My position is to help the articles about the War of the Pacific reflect foremost the perspective of the mainstream sources. Otherwise, the current partisan versions, such as Keysanger's Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly (where I have raised my concerns), will continue to misinform the readers. However, Keysanger refuses to abide by the mainstream sources, preferring instead to continue favoring the Chilean perspective of the conflict (which, as Burr explains, reduces Chile's role in the causes of the war).--MarshalN20 Talk 20:38, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Draft: Drama annotation[edit]

Thanks for your comments. Corrections done. Vincenzo Lombardo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vlombard (talk • contribs) 08:55, 25 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Volunteer (Ireland). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon,
Breaking the back of the backlog
We now have 816 New Page Reviewers! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog. Now it's time for action.
Mid July to 01 Oct 2016

If each reviewer does only 10 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
Let's get that over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work. Read about it at the new Monitoring the system section in the tutorial.

Getting the tools we need - 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey: Please vote

With some tweaks to their look, and some additional features, Page Curation and New Pages Feed could easily be the best tools for patrollers and reviewers. We've listed most of what what we need at the 2016 WMF Wishlist Survey. Voting starts on 28 November - please turn out to make our bid the Foundation's top priority. Please help also by improving or commenting on our Wishlist entry at the Community Wishlist Survey. Many other important user suggestions are listed at at Page Curation.

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:16, 26 November 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

11:03:59, 26 November 2016 review of submission by 217.215.158.59[edit]


Robert, what can I do from our part, that the album will be accepted. We added label reference, ASIN, ITunes. The album is quite new,therefore we do not have charting references except for a song of the album. Thank you for your help! Best, Rai

User:RaimundB - I do not fully understand your comment. What is it saying was the chart placement of Man of Action? Also, please declare your conflict of interest because you are one of the members of the band. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:RaimundB - It is now Draft:Heartbeat of the World. If, as you say, the album is quite new, this may be too soon and the album may not yet be notable. Have you declared your COI? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for article creation message[edit]

Hi Robert. Thanks for your message notifying me of approval of my first article, Amalgamated Holdings Limited. Cheers, Meticulo (talk) 16:35, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:43:32, 26 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by KempeIAG[edit]



KempeIAG (talk) 20:43, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KempaIAG - Your sandbox was deleted because you had done nothing with it for more than six months. If you want it restored, you should go to Requests for Undeletion. I did not delete it or request its deletion, but drafts are subject to deletion if they are unused for six months, and yours was unused for about eight months. You can request that it be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kanti Sweets[edit]

Rob can you take another look at this. I think it's a tad promotional and the only non primary source IMO is not enough. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:32, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - As per your comment, I tagged it as WP:G11. However, I have a question as an experienced AFC reviewer but new NPP reviewer. What action, other than leaving it for another reviewer, should a reviewer take on these marginal advertising cases? In AFC I can decline them. Should I push them into draft space? As we know, that is still a controversial downgrade. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's an interesting case. By process of elimination it probably wouldn't qualify for A7 because there's a possibility that it might have some indication of importance. It's promotional, but not an advert, in so far as it's a fairly well written basic description of the company, free of obvious puff and peacocks, so G11 might be a bit wonky. I'd be inclined to have a good search for sources. Moving it to draft would not be a good idea - it would give the creator a tad too much impression that's its basically ok. I would probably have tagged it for PROD (PRODs are cheap and can be easily refunded}, and see what happens. If it's dePRODded and if the search for RS doesn't bear fruit, then I would send it to AfD. DGG has an acute sense of evaluation for promotional articles. Perhaps we should ask him. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
like Kudpung, I tend to use Prod in borderline situations, but not ones where it's obvious the prod would be removed by the contributor, and that might be the case here. When there's question of policy or precedent involved, or a topic that has never before been discussed, I like to use without a recommendation for action, saying I'd like the community to decide. But for this I consider G11 reasonable, and a quick search showed there does not seem to be something important enough to rescue. I'm not immediately deleting it, because I want to leave it a few hours as an example. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanded[edit]

Respected Sir I see that you tried to pursue other editors to start a moderated discussion. Sir may I know why was I blocked and other users who also violated the 3RR rule were not blocked. Second thing is that Sir, we can never use the word died for a Guru. I may still accept the nomenclature use but the died word has to be replaced with attained immortality.

Best wishes Paramdeep Tung — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nanded[edit]

and I informed everyone about this. You are factually incorrect on saying that I did not inform everyone. Please share the source of your information as I posted a notice on everybody's talk page. A few notices disappeared and I don't know how! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paramdeeptung (talk • contribs) 06:39, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Paramdeeptung - I will be taking this discussion to your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 29 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Road map[edit]

Hi Rob,

there are several issues (alt.name/peace and happiness intentions/expasionism-monoply) to be resolved regarding the article Treaty of Defensive Alliance (Bolivia–Peru) and now there have been raised 3 tags in the article Peruvian Saltpeter Monopoly that have to be discussed.

But I fear that would be only the beginning of more trouble. By and by wrongdoers lost their angst before the law and think that they can break the rules again.

As you said, I (and many others editors and admins in Wikipedia) have experienced some trouble with the editor and I would like to find a more effective and lasting solution

You mentioned three ways to resolve the case:

  1. topic bans: I have absolutely no problem to respond for my actions in Wikipedia. I am not aware to have broken the rules. I never insulted any one, never have been condemned by the ArbComm, never have broken the sanctions of the ArbComm imposed on me, I have no interactions bans with any editor, etc. (That doesn't mean I am absolutely neutral or perfect)
  2. formal mediation: I have absolutely no problem to represent my thoughts before the formal mediation with sufficient and solid references and a neutral point of view.
  3. Community General Sanctions: Discretionary sanctions, I would (have to) accept it.

My proposal would be:

  1. To call a formal mediation in the cases no-other-names/peace-and-happiness-intentions/only-expasionism
  2. To change the article according to
  3. To observe further development
  4. Topic bans for subsequent offender

Point one is important for me because I have observed that I have been blamed so many times that some innocent people think that probably there is some truth backing the accusations.

What would you advice?. --Keysanger (talk) 14:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Johor Bahru[edit]

Hi Robert. Regarding the edit war in Johor Bahru, I received this somewhat crude, ridiculous explanation on my talk page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Semi-auto&oldid=751918605

Translation : Hello, Penangite, Penang is already behind the times. So dont feel paranoid. Ikea, Paradigm Mall & Southkey Mall is opening in JB. JB's highways are also longer than Penang.. Built-up area in JB is larger than Penang.. High speed rail will also commence in Johor.. About 60 elevated highways are under construction in Iskandar.. Penang's era is over Stop vandalising the Johor Bahru page or I will report your account.

Does he mean that a city with more construction is automatically the largest ? Any form of mediation or third party opinion is appreciated. I dont want to prolong this edit war with such a misguided user.Semi-auto (talk) 01:54, 29 November 2016 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Semi-auto&oldid=751918605[reply]

User:Semi-auto - You have posted a Request for Comments. That takes precedence over any other form of content resolution. However, you didn't pose a specific question, so unless you revise it to ask a question, it will just draw comments for 30 days. Also, the page has been protected for three days. I will take a look at the situation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:41, 29 November 2016 review of submission by Shogan1998[edit]


Requesting clarification on supporting references. Decline notice asks for a range of independent sources, etc., not just material produced by subject of article. None of the references are by subject of article but rather by WSJ, Inc. Mag, relevant trade publications, etc.

User:Shogan1998 - I declined it on both tone issues and notability issues, but primarily for tone issues as reading like an advertisement. It appears that someone then decided that it was unambiguous advertising and nominated it for speedy deletion and it has been deleted. Do you have a connection with Advanced Technology Services? Read the conflict of interest guideline. If you have a conflict of interest, you must declare it if you create a new draft. If you do not have a conflict of interest, welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, there are many ways to help with the five million articles that we already have as well as by creating one of the articles that we do not have. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:25:19, 30 November 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kumboloi[edit]


I'm wondering about the best way to proceed.

Hello Robert:

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I wasn't expecting an answer so quickly.

I'm a new contributor, and am still just learning the system. I noticed that there was a link to the JS2 on the "Ligier" page that just redirected back to "Ligier"

What I submitted was basically a copy of the same topic from fr.wikipedia.org. I ran it through Google Translate and tried to clean the rest up by hand. I knew it was just a stub but thought I'd get that set up and then rewrite the article to expand it. To that end I already have some references.

My question is: Is it better to try to add some references to the stub or submit the expanded version?

Thanks again kmb

Kumboloi (talk) 05:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kumboloi - I don't entirely understand what you are asking. What is the question? Are you asking whether to expand Ligier or to resubmit Draft:Ligier S2? If not, what are you asking? It may be appropriate to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:36, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to have a page for the JS2 created. I will probably expand the stub into an article before resubmitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talk • contribs) 05:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kumboloi - What stub? The draft is more than a stub. I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I based my draft on this: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligier_JS2 - I assume that "ébauche" means "stub" so that's what I was calling my draft as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talk • contribs) 14:25, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kumboloi - Since the draft is currently in draft space and you are the only editor who has worked on it, it makes little difference how you improve it, but improving it and resubmitting it is welcome. If you have a specific question about improving the draft, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. I appreciate the help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kumboloi (talk • contribs) 18:09, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:01:13, 30 November 2016 review of submission by Li Meow[edit]



HI Reviewer, Good day to you. Just want to check which sentences or wording that will show advertisement, then i may removed or edit from there. Thank you very much.

User:Li Meow. I will respond at your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Silk_Music[edit]

Greetings Robert,

I hope this message finds you well.

Thank you for taking the time and reviewing this draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Silk_Music

I just wanted to give you an update that further to your latest comment, I have been removing the unnecessary `References` section.

Please let me know if anything else is required.

Thank you for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BStyler (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:BStyler. At this point I have history with the article, and would prefer to let someone else review it. Do you have a connection with the group? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:KBish87/sandbox[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 19:53, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onel5969 - Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my article. I get blamed for it. No big deal. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:54, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No good deed goes unpunished. - That's what you get for doing all that work behind the scenes. Onel5969 TT me 20:59, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment on User:Bruin2/Black Dog (Osage chief)[edit]

Robert, Thanks for your comment. I had neglected to add the Notes section and

before uploading the draft. I've corrected that and it seems to work OK now.Bruin2 (talk) 22:15, 30 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article about Andrija Andabak[edit]

Dear Mr. McClenon,

my proposed article about Andrija Andabak ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Andrija_Andabak ) has been declined due to notability issues. You have advised that I clearly state that he recieved the highest military award awarded by the Republic of Croatia. The mixup occured because the article on Order of Duke Domagoj states that it is the 7th highest medal awarded by Croatia. However, the first six are awarded to various foreign and domestic dignitaries. I believe the draft article now clearly states that he recieved the highest Croatian military award. Would you mind reading the article again before I resubmit it for review? Norgorber (talk) 10:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Norgorber - I think that it is clear enough now. I have too much history with the article, but would suggest that it be resubmitted and I will add a comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your prompt response. I will resubmit it now. Norgorber (talk) 13:23, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review and comments on Draft:Axway Software[edit]

Hi Robert, Thank you for your review and comments. I have added several new external links in addition to Gartner. I hope this helps. The draft in question is Draft:Axway Software Thank you again. Rosied214 (talk) 17:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)Rosied214[reply]

21:49:19, 1 December 2016 review of submission by Shelleywise[edit]


Please let me know if the corrections are sufficient under the Wikipedia guidelines. I have reformatted the section that was unclear regarding the location of practice for Primary Care Physicians. In addition, the lede sentence has been included as per your recommendation.

If there are any additional edits required ensuring an adequate submission kindly inform and I will adjust accordingly.

Thank you Shelleywise (talk) 21:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Filomez[edit]

Hi -- I removed the CSD tag you put on Filomez because it seemed to have enough context to identify it as an lwa. I had never heard of lwa before and I am not sure if they are notable though. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CapitalSasha - Okay. I will accept your judgment that it isn't WP:G1 and have replaced it with a PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:24, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I found a source (appears the author paraphrased that page of the book) and removed the prod, feel free to renominate for a different reason though. CapitalSasha ~ talk 03:28, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Might we have an brief, bullet style chat here[edit]

…as I begin working on the AfC backlog. I have seen and respect how you handle the responsibility. I believe if I can post brief questions here, for a few days, U can master the requirements and tech, to help clear backlog fast. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:45, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Leprof 7272 - Go ahead. I will try to answer any questions, but not right now because I am about to go to bed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aok, no problem. Only one pending Q is that I cannot use the helper script. Despite appearing on the Participants list, I get the following error message that appears (I presume, instead of access to the button to activate the script). The fact that the error message appears makes clear that the gadget is correctly toggled on, in my preferences. Here is the error

AFCH error: user not listed. AFCH could not be loaded because "Leprof 7272" is not listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Participants. You can request access to the AfC helper script there. If you wish to disable the helper script, click here. If you have any questions or concerns, please get in touch!

The problem presents itself on new Firefox and old Safari browsers, on a Mac OS X operating system running on a MacBook Pro. Any thought on how to resolve? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:19, 2 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leprof 7272, it sometimes takes a few hours (up to a day) for information to filter through the servers. You only added your name to the list ten (ish) hours ago. If AFCH isn't working by the end of today/tomorrow, I would become concerned, but in the meantime please be patient. Primefac (talk) 12:44, 2 December 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]
Thank you, perfect. Will be patient, and try again later. Cheers. Le Prof 73.94.117.105 (talk) 02:34, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Leprof 7272 - Please respond to the concerns that have been raised about your reviewing before reviewing any more articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 3 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, will do. The tool still remains unavailable by the way. I will look for the concerns, but if you tell me where to look, it will facilitate. Cheers, Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 17:34, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Leprof 7272, the discussion is here. Primefac (talk) 17:46, 4 December 2016 (UTC) (talk page stalker)[reply]

Latvia1992 Draft of Bacteroides dorei[edit]

How do fix the reference error? It looks like all of my references were deleted and do not know how to recover them. I do not exactly understand what the reference problem is. I would greatly appreciate some help on this problem. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latvia1992 (talk • contribs) 03:19, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your help! I really appreciate it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Latvia1992 (talk • contribs) 03:41, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary psychological and biological explanations for prostitution[edit]

Being discussed at project talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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 don't move a user draft into draft space without checking first. This is a part of an assignment by university students and one of the things that their course requires is a pdf of the article they have worked on. You will see that there is no facility to directly produce a pdf from a page in draft space (for whatever reason), but pages in user space can have a pdf created from them (don't ask me why), as you can see from the print/export tools at User:TSKang96/Evolutionary psychological and biological explanations for prostitution. I know there's a feeling that drafting by new users is better able to be controlled in draft space, but until the print/export function is enabled there, the needs of the editors will have to take precedence over our wishes to keep things neat. --RexxS (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RexxS - It is the usual practice of Articles for Creation reviewers to move drafts from user space into draft space if they have been tagged for AFC review. Are you saying that the whole practice of AFC needs to be changed? Perhaps the problem is that this draft was in user space and should not have been submitted for AFC review. If that is the problem, that is the problem. If you really mean that drafts should not be moved into draft space in general, then this needs to be discussed as a change to AFC procedures. Is this about moving of drafts in general, or one particular draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the practice needs to be changed. There is no necessity to move drafts from user space and no prohibition on a user asking for a review of a user space draft. I would have thought we should be encouraging editors to seek review. The draft: space does not offer the same print/export facilities as user: space, as I've indicated, and you create insuperable problems for anyone who wishes/needs to make use of them. I mean that it would be courteous to let a user know that you were going to move their page, so that they could explain any problems that such a move might cause. I don't mean that to apply merely in this particular case, but until the differences between draft: and user: spaces are rectified, it's not fair to assume that a page move between them has no consequences. --RexxS (talk) 18:34, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:RexxS - There is a template that is displayed for every AFC-submitted draft in user space that says that the draft should probably be moved to draft space. This is the first time that anyone has questioned my moving drafts from user space to draft space. Since I have been following standard practice, I do not plan to change my practice unilaterally. We need to discuss at the Articles for Creation talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to discuss all you like, but I should remind you that Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. We all appreciate the work that AfC reviewers do, but that doesn't override the need to treat new editors as well as we can. I've patiently explained to you a very good reason why it's not always a good idea to move user drafts into draft: space. I don't seem to have been given the courtesy of your explanation why you feel the necessity to do those moves, other than "that's what we do". I remain unconvinced that your current practice represents best practice, but if you don't see there's a problem, so be it. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:RexxS - What I am saying is that I am following standard practice for AFC reviewers, and that if standard practice is incorrect, then other reviewers should also be asked to change. It isn't true and it isn't fair to say that I haven't given you the courtesy of your explanation; I have only asked that, if you are asking me to change my practice, reviewers in general should change their practice. Also, it appears to me that the issue is specific to this and a few other drafts, and that maybe this particular draft shouldn't have been submitted to AFC for review to go into mainspace, but that isn't my main point. My main point is that if standard practice is not best practice, that concern should be addressed to reviewers in general, not just to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fair, enough, Robert. I do understand you are following standard practice, and my criticism is of that practice, not of you personally. In my experience, asking an entire group to change the way they edit is a monumental task, as inertia is very strong in Wikipedia editors. I'll ask the question, naturally, but I don't hold out any hope of my reasoning outweighing the "we've agreed to do it this way" responses that I'm bound to get. I don't know for certain that the number of new editors who need the features missing from draft: space is large enough for anybody to be concerned about them, so maybe I'm just tilting at windmills. --RexxS (talk)
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.

Draft: Red Mud[edit]

I receive your comment and I am really appreciate it. I tried to expand the page Red Mud, but user named Smokefoot will not let me. He said the article contains enough information, it does not need more. If I want to find our more about red mud, I can use Google. So what will I do next? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lyngo (talk • contribs) 18:06, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lyngo - Discuss additions to the article on the article talk page, Talk:Red mud, with User:Smokefoot and any other editors. The Articles for Creation process is for the review of new articles, not for proposed expansions of existing articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:49, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

05:05:16, 6 December 2016 review of submission by Sanath Sivaraj[edit]

User:Sanath Sivaraj - What is the question? You submitted your autobiography. The submission of autobiographies is discouraged due to conflict of interest. I declined it as not having any references. You have resubmitted it without adding any references. It would be better not to try to push to get your autobiography accepted in Wikipedia, but you won't get it accepted without references, and resubmitting it is wasting your time and that of the reviewers. Why did you resubmit it? Do you want it declined again? Do you have a question? If you have a question, I may try to answer, but you might be better off to ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Beanie kids[edit]

Not sure what's going on here, but an article you declined for submission has since had its denial tag removed, and you subsequently responded by tagging it with GNG. I can't find any meaningful difference between the current and rejected versions.

I don't have any strong feelings regarding the worthiness of the article and don't want to nominate for deletion if your GNG tag constitutes implied consent. All I really want is to fix the capilization of the title and mark as patrolled, but the (correctly capitalized) article has apparently been salted, which makes me lean toward an AFD nomination although I can't find any previous discussion. Can I get some insight please? Blackguard 07:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Blackguard - I will try to answer. The draft was submitted, and I declined it. The author then removed the AFC decline notice, which says not to remove it. I restored it and admonished the author. The author then moved the draft to article space. This is permitted, because anyone can move anything to article space; it is just subject to deletion. I put the GNG tag on it, which certainly did not mean that I accepted it, but that I recognized that it was already in article space, and in fact thought that an AFD might be in order. I just didn't nominate it for AFD. If it is nominated for AFD, I will probably !vote to Delete. I haven't researched the history of the title. If the correctly capitalized title is salted, and there was an AFD, it should be G4'd. In my opinion, the article should not have been moved into article space, but it is not my job to move it back to draft space, certainly not if the author decided to ignore AFC, which is their right. Do you have any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your response. I will nominate for G4 if I ever find the discussion, which is buried pretty deep. Blackguard 20:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Liebenberg & Kaplan[edit]

Dear Mr. McClenon, thank you for your prompt review of my article, which I submitted for review through my Sandbox. You state that "It isn't entirely clear what the subject of this draft is. It appears to be about the Terrace Theater (Minnesota). If this is meant to be an improvement to an existing article, Articles for Creation is not the process for edits to existing articles. Discuss them on article talk pages instead, at Talk: Terrace Theater (Minnesota)." I am the author of the Wikipedia article on the Terrace Theatre (Minnesota). I created this new page about the Minneapolis architectural firm of Liebenberg and Kaplan at the suggestion of another editor after various editors removed details about the firm from that article. Liebenberg and Kaplan was a significant Minneapolis architectural firm and especially significant as theater designers, having designed approximately 200 movie throughout the Upper Midwest. The Terrace Theatre was the MOST SIGNIFICANT of all their theater designs, so I felt that it deserves its own section within this article.

I hope this explanation is sufficient; please let me know if you would like to discuss further. I will post this same information on my Talk page as well.

Thank you, KIRTIS (talk) 16:50, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is User:KIRTIS/sandbox. I see that another editor has replied. I will comment more shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What sort[edit]

...of chemist are you, Robert? Computational... medichem? Just curious, as my entry into informatics was via chemiformatics. Cheers. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 20:15, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:36:03, 6 December 2016 review of submission by Sebmcdougall[edit]


the barbara gordon from the batman comics and barbara kean are two seperate characters and i just think that barbara kean (who doesnt have a page) should have her own page. Barbara kean is from the fox show gotham and barbara gordon is jim gordon's wife in the comics

User:Sebmcdougall - In looking over the articles, it appears to me that there is really only one fictional Barbara Kean (or Barbara Kean Gordon), except that she may be different in different tellings of the story. She is the girlfriend or wife of James Gordon, who is the police commissioner of Gotham City. The real question is whether there should be a separate page about the character, that would go into the various versions of the character, as in who plays her when she is acted, and what the differences are. I think that if you can write a single reasonable article about her, with reliable sources, it should be accepted. The page that I declined was in the form of a disambiguation page, but it wasn't really disambiguation, because there aren't unrelated fictional Barbara Keans. It might be appropriate to discuss this further at the Teahouse. It brings up interesting questions about canons and fictional universes. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:21:03, 7 December 2016 review of submission by AndrewMeola[edit]


Hi Robert

Can you indicate some examples from my submission that you don't think have a neutral voice. Also I added a lot more independent references but they haven't been acknowledged

If you look at all of the 'See Also' companies they all have the same sort of content as I recently submitted

Request on 14:24:46, 7 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by AndrewMeola[edit]


I'm not sure if my last message got sent.

I made some major changes between the submission on Dec 1 and Dec 7. Yet the feedback was still the same.

Please can you let me know some parts which do not have a neutral voice. I have also added a lot more independent references including Forrester Research. Do I need to make any further changes to the references? Also all the companies listed in the 'See Also' section have very similar entries to the my recently declined submission

AndrewMeola (talk) 14:24, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My first question for you, since your only edits are about Tyk, is whether you have an affiliation with the vendor. If so, have you declared it in accordance with the conflict of interest guideline? I would also see if the first reviewer has any comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:AndrewMeola - If you have any further questions, you may want to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:43, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of Lime Crime[edit]

Can I please retrieve the deleted material from User:Alexasmith0414/sandbox ?

Thank you, Alexa Smith — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexasmith0414 (talk • contribs) 17:05, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexasmith0414 - It appears that you are asking to have an article undeleted. On the one hand, that is done at Requests for Undeletion. However, whether an article will be undeleted depends on why it was deleted. Articles that were deleted as pure advertising are very seldom undeleted. If you wrote the article, can you rewrite it in a way that is neutrally descriptive rather than advertising? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Alexasmith0414 - There is a draft at Draft:Lime Crime. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:28:29, 7 December 2016 review of submission by MariahDuff[edit]


Hi Robert,

Thank you for reviewing my submission. I have some questions about your comments. The IMDB links included in the article are only linking the films listed in the filmography section, so they can go if they are not necessary, but the sources within the article come from reliable sources such as The New York Times, Huffington Post, Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, Indiewire, and CNN. I'm not sure how I can improve the sources, so if you have anything more specific about the problem with the sources please let me know. Thanks!

MariahDuff (talk) 17:28, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MariahDuff - First, I have a question. The only edits that you have made, in a year, have to do with Dana Offenbach. Do you have a connection with Dana Offenbach? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest guideline. Second, if you have questions about whether Dana Offenbach is notable and how to get an article about her approved, you might do well to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft submission:David Breskin[edit]

Hello Mr. McClenon,

Thank you for your prior advice on how to improve the new article I submitted on David Breskin. I have added references per your suggestion, and I deleted the text that you were concerned about. I hope this article can be approved?

I appreciate your help.

Thank you very much!

Chelsea

Cahadley (talk) 23:53, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

New Page Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:55, 7 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

BBC 12-hour Editathon - large influx of new pages & drafts expected[edit]

AfC Reviewers are asked to be especially on the look out 08:00-20:00 UTC (that's local London time - check your USA and AUS times) on Thursday 8 December for new pages. The BBC together with Wikimedia UK is holding a large 12-hour editathon. Many new articles and drafts are expected. See BBC 100 Women 2016: How to join our edit-a-thon. Follow also on #100womenwiki, and please, don't bite the newbies :) (user:Kudpung for NPR. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy on Techdraws[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon -- I've deleted this article, but in future if you come across unreferenced, negative-toned articles about minors it's best to tag them with G10 (attack page), so that they get swift admin attention. Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 04:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Espresso Addict - Thank you for the advice. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Article Review Related to Post-traumatic Stress Disorder[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for reviewing my wikipedia entry. However, I believe there might be a misunderstanding about the context of my entry, which was not accepted. My entry on Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder was located underneath the Music Therapy page, so the purpose was actually to discuss how music therapy is used to treat PTSD. If you review the other entries located underneath "Psychiatric Disorders" under the Music Therapy page (Depression and Schizophrenia), you'll notice that they discuss the same idea, and with less content than mine.

However, if you believe the content is still insufficient, can you recommend where I should specifically merge my topic underneath the existing article of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder? Perhaps underneath "Management"?

Thank you, and I look forward to hearing from you.

ClaytonWhite92 (talk) 04:40, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. When I reviewed it, it was specifically labeled Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder. If you think that it should be added to the Music therapy page, then I suggest that you discuss that at Talk:Music therapy. That is, I didn't see your submission on a Music Therapy page, but as a stand-alone page. I was aware that you were discussing the treatment of PTSD with music therapy. You submitted it via Articles for Creation (AFC), which is for the approval of new articles, but it appears to me (and evidently to you also) to be a proposed addition to an existing article. The only real issue seems to be which article to add it to. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:27, 9 December 2016 review of submission by Hephzibah Yohannan[edit]



Hello, many thanks for reviewing my new article. I've corrected the data of death inconsistency, is the article ok now, or do you have further suggestions?

Best wishes, Hephzibah — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hephzibah Yohannan (talk • contribs) 10:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need review[edit]

Hello, Could you please review my new articles Puliyannoor Mahadeva Temple, Parippu Mahadeva Temple, Adithyapuram Sun Temple, Karikkode Bhagavathy Temple and Parthasarathy Temple, Mundakkayam.Jayabilla (talk) 6:22 am, Today (UTC−5)

User:Jayabilla - Your submissions were submitted to article space, not to draft space. It appears that they have been marked as reviewed. Do you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert,

But I don't get notifications that they have been reviewed by a reviewer. Thats what confusing me.!!Jayabilla (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:23:40, 9 December 2016 review of submission by Dmorlitz[edit]


Thank you for taking the time to review this page. I understood the point about content taken from other sites and I have removed that content and added new content written specifically for Wikipedia. I apologize for having this content here to being with - I was under the impression that since I had the original authors permission to use that wording, that it would be allowed.

You mentioned that at least 2 of my references had issues. I understand the issue with #1 and that has been corrected. I am not sure I understand what was wrong with #5. That reference directly supports statements in this article - and there is no duplicated content since I found that article after writing the contenton Wikipedia. If you could let me know what was wrong with reference #5, I will take immediate action to correct the text in this article.

(Sorry, this is my first Wikipedia article, so I apologize if I am using this tool incorrectly. I was not sure which tags to erase and which to leave in this message) Dmorlitz (talk) 20:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dmorlitz - The problems with the two references were found by User:Wikirictor - Please ask them for a detailed analysis. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

dispute resolution volunteer[edit]

Robert, I wouldn't mind trying my hand at volunteering with dispute resolution. I did one 3rd opinion (relatively straight forward), but there isn't much activity there. I've read through the relevant sections and have tried to familiarize myself with the MOS and Guidelines. I'm not an admin. Your thoughts on how to proceed (if that is wise)? Thanks Dig Deeper (talk) 00:54, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dig deeper - Most of us volunteers are not admins. You are an experienced editor. Please go ahead and accept one of the cases that needs a mediator and see how you can do. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I review some past ones first and then jump in. Dig Deeper (talk) 19:01, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced article creations[edit]

Hi Robert, I noted through my watchlist you recently proposed the article 9Go! Kids for deletion for the obvious reasons you gave. I have given the same user that created that page a friendly warning over a similar creation for a different television program Women's Footy (TV series) just yesterday. Going through the user's new page contributions the user has a habit of creating brief and unsourced articles about (usually) non-notable programs. The user doesn't seem to engage with any sort of discussion when the issues are brought to their attention, nor take measures to address the concerns raised. Is there anyway to prevent a user from creating new articles, in the hope they get the message, or a similar procedure? If their troubling history continues I would consider bring it to the Admin noticeboard in the future. -- Whats new?(talk) 05:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Whats new? - I see that you are an experienced editor. I will look at the recent history of the editor in question and will comment in the immediate future. There isn't much that can be done about clueless editors who don't learn except for trying to teach them and blocking them. I will look. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whats new? - I have PROD'd the other unsourced article that you mention. We have an editor who is enthusiastic and not paying much attention, and who has also been cautioned about uploading images. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Robert and Whats new?, what do you think of this being a sock of User:Billy Liakopoulos, a now-blocked editor who, at a glance, had the same general interest in Australian TV and same apparent failure to communicate with others. Both users have no talk page edits at all, according to the Supercount tool. (Even the pie chart in that tool is very similar for the two editors.) According to the Editor Interaction Analyzer, they have also edited a lot of the same pages. Dragonman270 has even edited a page that Billy Liakopoulos started. The only other edit to that page was by Whats new?, who tagged it as unsourced back at the end of June. The at-a-glance similarities seem like too much to ignore in my opinion. — Gestrid (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Billy Liakopoulos may also be a possible sock of another user. Take a look at the unblock requests on their talk page. — Gestrid (talk) 01:10, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Whats new?, User:Gestrid - Billy L is the older account than the other one with the identical unblock request. If it is sockpuppetry, and I think it is, Billy L. is the sockmaster. However, we shouldn't idly speculate about sockpuppetry. Someone should go ahead and file the sockpuppet investigation. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
So you believe it may be that all three accounts (including the one mentioned in Billy's block notice) are connected? Also, do you think it's too stale for a WP:CU check? — Gestrid (talk) 02:12, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gestrid - I think that the three are connected. Checkuser data is kept for 90 days, so that Checkuser is available for two of the accounts. If Checkuser is positive, then the third will be a duck. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Filing SPI. — Gestrid (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done. While I was filing the case I ran into an SPI casefile for Kosi, but I believe that one should be merged into Billy's since Billy is the older account of the two. — Gestrid (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Quack, quack. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Feel free to comment there if it looks like I forgot something. Or if you just want to use the {{duck}} template. — Gestrid (talk) 03:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I will comment. What I have done is that I have PROD'd all of the one-sentence creations. There isn't a CSD category for non-notable films and TV shows. If any of the sockpuppets remove the PROD, then AFD is still available. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CheckUser evidence has confirmed the connection between Dragonman270 and Billy Liakopoulos, and both have been blocked (or had their block settings changed) without tags and with a link to the SPI. The connection to Kosi Onochie requires more behavioral evidence which I'll look for later. Since Kosi has an SPI file of their own, that should give me something to work with to find more evidence. — Gestrid (talk) 20:26, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Kosi may not be related to Billy, just based off the sock names for Kosi. All the confirmed non-IP ones end in "Onochie". And Billy and Kosi (including the couple socks I checked) have edited very few of the same pages. Also, Billy seems to be interested in Australian TV, whereas Kosi seems interested in Cartoon Network. I did, however, find these two interesting diffs. The first one was likely an IP sock, according to the admin that reverted them. The second one was Billy. They are about five or six months apart. — Gestrid (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well you two certainly have been busy! Good spotting making that connection, I recall having similar problems with Billy, good pick up. -- Whats new?(talk) 23:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gestrid, User:Whats new? - I tagged all of those unreferenced one-sentence articles as WP:G5, superseding the PRODs. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter #2[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon,
Please help reduce the New Page backlog

This is our second request. The backlog is still growing. Your help is needed now - just a few minutes each day.

Getting the tools we need

ONLY TWO DAYS LEFT TO VOTE

Sent to all New Page Reviewers. Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:55, 11 December 2016 (UTC) .[reply]

Your talk page[edit]

It seems someone accidentally added something to the top of your talk page. One editor added it on November 18[14] and forgot to sign it. An IP editor then modified it[15] and again didn't sign it. I'll leave it to you what to do with that. — Gestrid (talk) 07:22, 11 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gestrid - I know when clueless editors post to the top of my talk page. I don't need to be told about them. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry. Many editors that I've interacted with attempt to put stuff like that under a section header when they see it, so I assumed you hadn't seen it. — Gestrid (talk) 05:06, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gestrid - Sometimes I move it to the bottom, where it belongs. In these two cases I either decided that it wasn't worth responding to or decided that it wasn't worth responding to. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, what? There appears to be a typo in that last response. You repeated yourself. Did you mean to say the first part and something else? — Gestrid (talk) 23:43, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gestrid - No typo, just weird humor. I repeated myself on purpose. I had started to write that the first post wasn't worth responding to, and then I realized that the second post wasn't worth responding to either, and that both posters were clueless for top-posting and for their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, ok. — Gestrid (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting errors[edit]

Woops! I've fixed my shoddy referencing in Draft:Exercise Croix du Sud. Thanks for pointing this out. -- Meticulo (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Article for Creation- Schubert Ogden[edit]

I mis-submitted this as an article for creation. I really meant it to replace the stub. As has been done. As the version I rewrote is still the current one, I think we are fine.--2602:306:32B2:A670:4D3D:8186:AB79:5CE1 (talk) 19:12, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Schubert M. Ogden. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:28, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:WickerGuy - It appears that the draft begins with a copy of the existing article, without attribution to the existing article. That would appear to be plagiarism and at least a technical violation of the CC-BY-SA Copyleft. If you want to replace the existing article, you should do it by editing the existing article, and discussing on the talk page, not by submitting a new draft. Please explain why I should not tag your draft for speedy deletion as a copyright violation. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No the draft was copied TO the existing article. Vice versa. If you check the history of the article you can verify this!!!!--WickerGuy (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:WickerGuy - Yes. I see that the draft was created in October 2016 and copied over in November 2016. The existing article had existed since 2013 but had been a stub. That answers my question. In that case, the draft should now be deleted, but it will be deleted in six months anyway. There are technical issues with the way that you copied the draft on top of the stub, but they are minor. Thank you for explaining. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Given that I was replacing a stub, it was problematic that I submitted my work as a "article for creation". But I wanted a third eye to critique the quality of what I was doing and didn't know how else to do it. Feel free to clarify the technical issues.--WickerGuy (talk) 19:42, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Aplogize[edit]

I'm sorry But I won't do that again.68.102.57.28 (talk) 19:52, 12 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Either there are multiple unregistered editors who are demanding that particular articles about 2017 be written, or you will do it again. Anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:49:35, 13 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Justryingtohelp[edit]


Hi. I'm just wondering which part of the oroantral page on my user account has plagiarism issue. Would you recommend any website that deals with plagiarism issues? I intend to amend this ASAP. Justryingtohelp (talk)Justryingtohelp

Justryingtohelp (talk) 16:49, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The drafts in question are User:Justryingtohelp/Oroantral fistula and Draft:Oroantral fistula. I have not reviewed them in detail, but the similarities are too much. Did you copy the text from the other Wikipedia draft, or from a web site? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update re draft submission:David Breskin[edit]

Hello Mr. McClenon,

I spent some time on a Help chat with another editor, trying to ensure my newly submitted draft meets with Wikipedia's criteria.

He explained that it was not the correct process of things to ask you to take another look at my draft via Talk. I apologize for not knowing this when I submitted my previous Talk message to you.

He directed me to instead ask you for any clarifications that I might need from you following your decline notice. Here's the clarification I would like to ask for: Is adding references and deleting anything that might be perceived as self-promotion sufficient in terms of improving the draft, per your opinion? I have followed your direction and tried to address both of these concerns that you listed, but if there is anything additional that I'm missing, please advise.

Thank you very much for your help.

Cahadley (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:David Breskin. You have not made the conflict of interest disclosure in the appropriate form. I will comment more within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cahadley - You are correct that the two issues that I identified were portions were unsourced and that the overall tone was promotional. As the notice on this talk page says, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process; in particular, if you have a conflict of interest, I will look for the disclosure, but will not follow your draft through the approval process anyway. I will also comment that adding a large number of sources is not a guarantee of acceptance. See the essays on WP:CITEKILL and WP:BOMBARD. As to tone, the tone has been improved. That does not mean that the draft is ready for acceptance, or that it isn't ready for acceptance. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Mediator Barnstar
For your work at WP:3O and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you for taking the time to participate in what is probably the most difficult aspect of Wikipedia (content disagreements) and keeping a cool head. -- MarshalN20 Talk 06:02, 14 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert. I was looking back at everything that's gone on since 2009, and I wanted to reaffirm my thanks and admiration for the work you've done in helping resolve disputes in Wikipedia. I don't think that you were aware this issue with Keysanger dates to further back than 2014? I also wanted to take this time to apologize if I said anything that made you feel uncomfortable or hurt your feelings, specifically this edit that's been brought up ([16]). To elaborate, I felt offended by the comment: "We know that there has been a finding of bad conduct". Still, I should just have let it slide. I honestly don't know what I meant with "consider yourself warned". Heck, I still have no idea where to report anyone who uses the "Argentine History" case in a threatening manner—not that you did, of course, although at the time that's how I interpreted it. Anyhow, I thought it was important to let you know how I felt and to also express empathy with how you felt. Thanks and happy 2017!--MarshalN20 ✉🕊 02:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and update re draft submission:David Breskin[edit]

Hello Mr. McClenon,

Thank you for your latest comments. I am grateful for your advice because I am doing my best to learn this process. I'm not sure if the 'barnstar' that was kindly added was for you or for me, but either way, it's nice to see some positive feedback, and I am glad you are helping me to resolve any issues regarding content!

I have added the COI into the Edits note section as per the instructions of editor Missvain. I hope I've done this disclosure correctly.

Regarding your comment about a high volume of references not guaranteeing approval, I understand. I was just trying to take your advice to ensure that every statement was substantiated. It did feel like far too many references to me, having read so many articles with only a handful, but in the interest of trying to heed your advice, I went ahead and added as much evidence of the notability of this subject, his associates and his work as possible. I hope I'm conveying my desire to follow any advice given by Wikipedia editors!

Thank you again and I will hope that if your eye catches anything else that might stand in the way of approval, you'll let me know.

All best.

Cahadley (talk) 00:05, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:David Breskin. Thank you for working to improve the draft. I do not always follow a draft through the approval process, and in this case I will let another reviewer take the next review because I have history with the draft and may not be impartial. However, I will be glad to try to answer any questions for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Who others[edit]

Thanks for helping us to start DRN, I have pinged all who objected on first line of Saraiki dialect. I missed IPS as they keep on changing. Peeta Singh is topic ban, SheriffIsInTown is off since 20 days, I will ping Thomas W. Paine Ellsworth is not responding. Kwamikagami was also involved in 2013 consensus who is also least responsive since then. Hhhan have to ping Shemru and few others from same geography. Case is very simple just writing on talk page and editing and getting page protection against RFC and title discussions is against community standards and bad faith ab initio. Now Uanfala showing attitude of least respect to DRN . Can you please first reverse his edits to protected page as a first step to make him realise honour of DRN. AksheKumar (talk) 13:41, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:AksheKumar - Thank you. I will comment at more length within 24 hours. I will say that it appears that you are having difficulty with English. Is there a Wikipedia in your first language that you can edit with more proficiency? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:53:59, 15 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Jsobel123[edit]


Hi. I'm unclear about your comment on my Lost Kings article - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Lost_Kings - that the sources are "original research," when they include Billboard, the Washington Post, and music publications, and do not include any writings of my own. Could you clarify? Thanks!

Jsobel123 (talk) 16:53, 15 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jsobel123 - On looking it over, I am inclined to agree with User:Wikirictor that notability is questionable, but I disagree as to original research and should have said so. I would suggest that you indicate clearly which of the musical notability criteria is satisfied and provide references. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:18:05, 15 December 2016 review of submission by Juanppacheco[edit]


I understand your concern, regarding not having modified the article based on Tseung Kwan O's comments. He had reviewed the article once, and left a comment saying that it needed more references. However, he replied to my first comment saying that actually it had over 10 references, and that he was willing to approve it (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O/Archive_2#Regarding_my_draft_of_Gatja_Helgart_Rothe).

Then I replied explaining the situation further, and asking him if, as he said he would, he was going to approve the article (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O/Archive_3#References_for_article_on_Gatja_Helgart_Rothe)

I followed up with a third message, after he didn't respond for a while (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Tseung_Kwan_O/Archive_4#Article_on_Gatja_Helgart_Rothe), but he never got back to me and then I was notified that he was not an editor anymore.

As you can see, this is why I simply resubmitted my article, because the editor agreed to approve it, and then he disappeared. Please let me know if it can be approved now, or what should I do. Thanks. Juan Pablo Pacheco 19:18, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

User:Juanppacheco - In looking it over, I see that the reviewer does not edit regularly. My advice would be to request comments from other editors either at the Teahouse or at the Visual Arts project talk page. At this point, without considering the previous review, my main concern is non-neutral language. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon - I reviewed your suggestion about changing peacock language. I also wrote at the Teahouse and at the Visual Arts project talk page, so hopefully I'll get more comments soon. However I was wondering if you can double check it and give me some more feedback as well, in case you see things that should be modified/changed. Thanks. --Juan Pablo Pacheco 22:00, 23 December 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Juanppacheco (talk • contribs)

Draft: Dixon[edit]

Hello Robert, thank you for reviewing my draft at Dixon. I have added additional sources to demonstrate notability and started a discussion at the Teahouse to see if the issue has been adequately resolved. I would appreciate any further input from you. --Ale8or (talk) 11:07, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ale8or - Since discussion is underway at the Teahouse, if I have any further comments, I will make them there. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Difficulty getting name added to official DRN volunteer list page[edit]

Hi, Robert! What mind-numbing fun I've been having as a dispute resolution volunteer! Anyway, I tried to add my name to the list of DRN volunteers whom people may contact if they have questions, but though my edit was saved and my name and info appear in the editable version of the page, they do not appear when I save the page. I must be doing something wrong, but can't imagine what. I am sure you are busy (!), but if you get a moment, could you look into this for me? THANK YOU! KDS4444 (talk) 10:48, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KDS4444 - Look again. Maybe there was a delay of some sort. You appear to have been added to the list. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I mean this list. I should have been more specific or provided you with a link. KDS4444 (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Am wondering if you saw the above. Also, I've been trying to locate the apparently elusive "Volunteer Guide" for DRN... Can you show me where it is? Thank you! 07:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

11:14:10, 17 December 2016 review of submission by Nitinirf[edit]


Hi,May I request you toreview my draft page.I have carried out the changes suggested by you.Thanks

Nitinirf (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nitinirf - I do not always follow a draft through the approval process. I will neither accept nor decline your draft, but I will comment that I still see corporate notability issues, because the draft focuses more on what the organization says about itself than what others have said about it. I suggest that you ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, in the draft's references are included newspaper sources and government documents which are referred to IRF IC. Isn't that enough to consider it notable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitinirf (talk • contribs) 20:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nitinirf - I do not always follow a draft through the approval process. The draft focuses more on what the organization says about itself than what others have said about it. Government documents do not prove notability, because every incorporated organization has government documents incorporating it. I suggest that you ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving copyvio rewrite temp pages[edit]

Hi, Robert! This was some time ago, so someone may already have mentioned it to you, but just in case: you moved a correctly-titled temp page to a different title (and then apparently moved it a couple of times after that, but who's counting?). This is just to confirm to you that copyvio rewrite pages are (for reasons I can't pretend to understand) supposed to be created at an address of the form Talk:Foo/Temp, and should be left there until and unless an admin decides to move them to replace the copyvio article (which gets deleted to make way for the move). Thanks for all the good stuff you do! Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly[edit]

Why are you not an admin? You've been around for 11 years. You have 50k+ edits. You are the one user I've met on Wikipedia that is more committed to helping new users than anyone I've ever met on the entire project. You do everything I do better and more often with more tact and more perseverance. It would be so much easier for me to go to you when I get the My page was deleted but I don't know why question, because you seem to actually care, and could see what their page was and why it was deleted. TimothyJosephWood 23:24, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, you've not seen RfA in ten years. Also ping @Nthep: and @Ian.thomson: as admins who also seem to care about new users. TimothyJosephWood 23:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you're a damn sight more qualified than I am, and my approval rating was somehow like 93% (I have no idea what the hell people were thinking). Ian.thomson (talk) 23:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ian.thomson - Do you think that I should run for admin? I know that User:BrownHairedGirl thought I should. Do you think that I could get through after 50k+ edits, some of which have annoyed people? I haven't done a good article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:14, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not just yes but hell yeah. I've got a block for edit warring -- you've got a clean block log. I haven't made a good article either, I've only made a few articles with a rather narrow focus -- you've made at least as many articles covering a wider variety of topics. When I found out some troll site described me as a deceptive, flame-baiting sociopath, I almost proudly linked to it on my user page (didn't because of the things they said about other users) -- you regularly get barnstars for civility. You are better with new users than I am, you do more AFC and CSD work than I do, and you're better at dispute resolution than I am. I got a mop with a 93% approval rating -- by this point, you should definitely qualify (especially what with the adminocalypse that's expected over the next few years).
That said, don't nominate yourself, because there's at least one RFA regular who would oppose God if He nominated Himself. The biggest objection during your last RfA was lack of edits -- that's (almost) no longer the case. The behavior stuff was (so far as I'm aware) a decade ago. The only complaint I expect to see is that only 9% of your edits are to articles (though that leaves you uninvolved in a variety of cases).
While you would totally have my !vote and plenty of others, but in order to kill the 9% article issue, I'd recommend spending a few weeks building a CSD log and PROD log with Twinkle (at least 200 entries between the two, trying to aim for 95% accuracy; +250 with 98% accuracy would shut up almost everyone). Looking over your deleted contributions, accuracy and volume should be no trouble for you. If you also built up one or a few articles to GA status during that time (doesn't have to be any you wrote, just any articles), that would also help shoot down "not enough article experience" arguments. That said, I do think you could get through without any GAs. Ian.thomson (talk) 02:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Let me throw my own hat in this ring and state that although I am no admin myself, I would strongly support your own RfA if you filed another one (you should take that as a request to be formally notified if you do file one, yes?). I can't believe that your work over the past 10 years has not qualified you as an admin yet (though those waters have not been tested recently, have they...?) KDS4444 (talk) 07:50, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MIX5[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIX5 MIX5 the page has started less that 5 or so minutes and you placed a deletion on the page it has been expanded and I have removed the deletion, if you want to talk about this visit my talk page --Pipera (talk) 06:03, 18 December 2016 (UTC)pipera I have been a member of Wikipedia since 2001. I have placed a link to this site on their official facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/mix5official/[reply]

Hoforseffekten[edit]

The Swedish page has been removed, so rather speedy delete.Xx236 (talk) 07:56, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion of a page[edit]

Hi there. As such the plot of the movie took a little while I have added entire information regarding the page I have created and just now I have removed the proposed deletion template. Sorry for removing it without permission but I hope if you take a look at the page now as I have finished editing regarding it. If you are not satisfied with the info you can add the template again or else remove it if the information I have provided is fine. Thanks.

Regards, SBson1357 SBson1357 (talk) 17:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SBson1357 - The article in question is Photo (2006 film). Once a PROD template is removed, it may not be restored, and you have addressed the issues that I had identified. I would like to suggest that, in the future, you develop articles in user space, such as a sandbox, and move them into article space when they are finished. The problem in this case was that you created an unfinished article in article space, but articles in article space should be available for viewing by the world. If you need advice on how to use a sandbox, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

First of all I'm sorry for the error. I didn't knew that. I'll definitely ask on Teahouse about how to use a sandbox so that in future I don't create any problems for myself as well as others. I didn't knew regarding the article space. Thanks once again. SBson1357 (talk) 17:26, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:06:44, 19 December 2016 review of submission by Skire913[edit]



I am confused regarding your rejection of my article for Acute Cardiac Unloading. This article is a review of a new scientific theory that is currently under investigation by numerous independent clinical, pre-clinical, and basic researchers from around the world. The entire article (with the exception of the section on the A-CURE Working Group) is cited with by more than 45 peer-reviewed scientific publications. The work presented here is a summation of the work that is advancing this theory, an explanation of how this mechanism may work (with citations), and a summary of current clinical trials (of which there is one) and scientific investigators dedicated to this type of research.

Perhaps the problem arises in the use of the Impella pump might be perceived as an advertisement? If this is the case, please understand this the Impella pump is the only technology that can achieve acute cardiac unloading. As such, this technology and it's experimental application play a central role in educating the reader on this scientific theory.

Please clarify specifically why you felt this article read too much like an advertisement? The work presented here here is wholly factual and verified >40 peer-reviewed scientific journal articles.

User:Skire913 - The section on the Mission of the A-CURE Working Group reads promotionally. The draft, in my opinion, reads like two articles rolled into one, one on Acute Cardiac Unloading, and one on the working group. The fact that there is currently only one known cure doesn't change the facts that, first, it is two articles rolled into one, and, second, the whole Mission section reads promotionally, because notability is established by what others have written about an organization, not what it says about itself. Also, do you have an affiliation with the A-CURE Working Group? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. If you disagree, you are welcome to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse for their opinions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined CSD[edit]

Hi, just letting you know I declined your speedy deletion nomination of Petrider paul because it appeared to have some coverage in sources that could indicate notability. However, it was actually a copyvio so I've replaced with with G12. Definitely worth checking on copyvios when there's names that look like website titles in the article, or when the prose looks a bit suspect. Appable (talk | contributions) 18:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:37:06, 19 December 2016 review of submission by Nitinirf[edit]



BECAUSE THE ARTICLE IS VALID.THERE ARE REFERENCES ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION IN VARIOUS SOURCES(GOVERNMENT,INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCES,NEWS WEBSITES) I CANNOT UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DECLINE. TAKE A LOOK AT THIS WIKI, I CANT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE AND ANY REASON WHY THIS IS POSTED AND MINE IS NOT https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Road_Federation

@Nitinirf: Typing in all-caps probably won't help. Anyway, just spent some time re-organizing the article and restructuring it. It should be better now, buy I agree that more references from third-party sources (not affiliated with International Road Federation) are needed to demonstrate notability. If you can find some sources like that, such as from Indian national newspapers, then notability could be demonstrated. Appable (talk | contributions) 19:31, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nitinirf = The draft has been improved by User:Appable. I do not always follow a draft through the approval process, and in this case I will let another editor review it. If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational behavior[edit]

User:Robert McClenon, I don't think you, user:happydaise, or User:MjolnirPants put the question of what to do about the list of contributing disciplines in a request for comments section. I am considering doing that if no one else has. Iss246 (talk) 19:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iss246 - Any user may submit a Request for Comments. I did not say that I would submit an RFC. I will provide help if help is requesting in formulating the RFC neutrally. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you User:Robert McClenon. Yesterday I submitted the request for comments. It is on the OB talk page. I appreciate your offer to provide help. Perhaps you think the request I wrote could benefit from improved wording. Also your own comments and comments you could elicit from other editors would be welcome. Iss246 (talk) 15:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the Chino Horde article.[edit]

I made this article because this band was very popular in their home town back in the 90s. Why did you made it a deletion candidate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skpil (talk • contribs) 19:24, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Skpil - The article itself stated that not much is known about the band, which implies that they are not notable. If you can find more information that has been published in reliable sources in the next six days you can expand the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:58:41, 19 December 2016 review of submission by Skire913[edit]


Thank you for the feedback. I agree to the reviewer's comments regarding the perceived promotional text of the A-CURE Working Group. As a result I have substantially edited this section, and I have attempted to include citations of peer-reviewed publications discussing the work of this group to increase notability. I have attempted to remove any impartial text, and when appropriate I have attributed text to the group's website (i.e., the quotation of their Mission Statement.) These changes should suffice to minimize or altogether eliminate any unintended appearance of the article being promotional. Everything in this article is now completely factual, and includes full citations.

Incorrect claims re: Talk:BarlowGirl[edit]

Hello. This is what you claim: "Filing party has not listed the other editors. Filing party has 24 hours to list and notify the other editors." This is inaccurate. They were listed in "Dispute overview" and were each notified on their respective talk pages. I intentionally left Wikipedia to take a break from all of this drama. I took the proper steps. Now, would you please stop imposing bias and misinformation by providing a proper dispute resolution (if not by you, then by another party) that will present a fair perspective on BarlowGirl. Thank you. --LABcrabs (talk) 21:03, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LABcrabs - I will take another look at your dispute. However, I will note that displaying hostility toward a would-be mediator (with your choice of the words "imposing bias and misinformation") is not likely to help. I will look at the dispute again. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:LABcrabs - I have looked at the dispute history again. I see that you did notify the other editors after you were told to do so. You were also told both by me and by another editor to list them. While you named them in the summary of the dispute, you did not name them in the case header, which is what you were asked to do. You say that you "intentionally left Wikipedia to take a break from all this drama". That may be, but in that case it appears that you started the drama by filing the case request and then walked away, and that doesn't help. I will comment that your statements both here and at DRN convey anger, and that is not useful. As I noted when I closed the case, you are welcome to refile it, and to list the editors in the case header, and to notify them again. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 04:31:51, 20 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Wp apa1[edit]


Please delete my entire page.


Wp apa1 (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section[edit]

Re: Lost Kings, per your suggestion I've been studying the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page and I find it doesn't take into account some important aspects of the contemporary music business. For example, artists who are engaged by top-name artists (e.g. Rihanna, Imagine Dragons and the like) to create their official remixes are in today's music scene notable for that reason. That's what makes Lost Kings notable. More egregious, though less relevant in this case, is the absence of the very word "video" from the entire Notability (music) page, when achieving millions of YouTube views is what make a lot of artists' careers these days (examples: Peter Hollens, Jacob Collier). Thoughts? Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsobel123 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jsobel123 - Yes. You appear to be saying that the musical notability guidelines need to be updated. I suggest that you discuss such an update at the talk page of the Music WikiProject. You may also discuss on the talk page of the musical notability guidelines themselves. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That would be the musical notability guideline talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Merry[edit]

Season's Greetings, Robert McClenon!
At this wonderful time of year, I would like to give season’s greetings to all the fellow Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past! May you have a wonderful holiday season! MarnetteD|Talk 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Re: Draft:Mandy Jiroux[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your comments. Glad to hear you found the article acceptable, but I've got a few questions. What do you mean by "technical move over redirect", and, when you suggested a Talk thread in the Miley Cyrus page, did you mean for me to start one myself? Aaronchaotix (talk) 19:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aaronchaotix - After thinking, I decided that the discussion wasn't necessary, and I requested the technical move over redirect. If you don't know what that is, I can explain, but that is because currently Mandy Jiroux redirects to Miley Cyrus. I think that it is under control and that Mandy Jiroux will go into mainspace soon. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon - Oh hey, great! Thanks so much, appreciate it. I think I get it, the bottom line is you put in a request to separate this article from the current redirect that's in place, I'm fairly sure. Either way, thanks again, and happy holidays! Aaronchaotix (talk) 19:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RM Edit - was this intentional?[edit]

I saw your edit[17] and at first glance it appears to be an error or mistake, or perhaps I'm just not understanding it properly. Just bringing it to your attention if it was a mistake. Tiggerjay (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tiggerjay - Some sort of error. I was trying to request that Draft:Mandy Jiroux be moved to Mandy Jiroux as a move over redirect, because I am accepting the draft. My first effort to do this apparently involved some mistake on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I have created a CSD#G6 to delete the page to make way for this page to be moved into its place. I have also undid your post to the RM page since it was improperly formatted. Tiggerjay (talk) 21:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like this move was performed for you, you're all set! Tiggerjay (talk) 16:48, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Tiggerjay - Yes. Article now in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Articles-for-creation submission/invitation/whatever[edit]

Robert, I concur with the main thrust of this edit of yours, but the template you use invites the author to keep working on the draft. In view of the history of creation-then-deletion (repeated) and salting of a pretty vapid article on this person, and the author's disregard of advice/requests made of him, such continuing work seems likely to achieve little more than the waste of other editors' time. I'm tempted to delete and salt the draft as well, but I can't immediately find a policy that would back me up on this. -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hoary - Thank you for your comment. I see that the title has been deleted three times, twice for person with no credible claim of significance and twice for being purely promotional (once for both). The template that AFC reviewers use always includes the language that in effect encourages continuing to improve the draft, and some drafts can't be improved. A reviewer can see the number of previous deletions, but not whether the title has been salted. I take it that you are saying that the title is salted. I can MFD the draft if you think that would help. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hoary - I see that the discussion says that User:Bishonen salted the title. Unfortunately, that doesn't keep the title out of draft space, only out of article space (unless the title is explicitly salted in draft space). The current author does not appear to be the author of the previous deleted articles. If you think that they are the same person, then we know that that is sockpuppetry, and sockpuppetry is a common problem with spam articles. Should an SPI be filed? I can't file it unless I know who submitted the earlier deleted articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think the problem is with the templates. A draft reviewer such as yourself can't be expected to take such precautions as to check whether a draft is for an article title that has previously existed, and if so then to look and see what has happened to the predecessor(s). And I suppose that the template must be encouraging, for such is the doctrine of Wikipedia. No SPI request, I think, because life's too short. The current UID is only selectively attentive to what others say, and their actions are irritating, but that's about the extent of it; if the UID becomes obnoxious, then the need for an SPI would be more pressing and appeals for this or for MFD would need less (laboriously crafted) persuasiveness. -- Hoary (talk) 03:35, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Aha, so you've already launched an MFD. Then I wish it success. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nichola$ KM[edit]

Ok. IMO that person is clearly non-notable, but since you disagreed I've listed the article at AfD, feel free to chip in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Nichola$_KM. JamesG5 (talk) 05:06, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesG5 - I wouldn't object to CSD. I just wasn't entirely sure, and so didn't tag for CSD. But I will !vote Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:JamesG5 - Edit conflict on CSD on NPP. I didn't mean to pull the CSD tag. Oh well. We will let AFD run. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN volunteer guide?[edit]

Robert, can you tell me where I can find the DRN volunteer guide? I've seen it mentioned here and there but have not been able to actually find it. Does it exist? Did it exist? Please advise. Also, I don't know if you read my follow-up to other business above, but figured I'd reiterate while I had your attention: the volunteer list I was asking to be placed on is not the one you are thinking of (which then makes me wonder why there are multiple such lists), and I mentioned this above but got no response. Anyhow, that is not so important. But I would like to know where the guide is! Can you give me a link? Thanks! KDS4444 (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:KDS4444 - I see part of what the problem is. There are two lists of volunteers, one at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers and one at WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering. I have no idea why. I would suggest asking at the talk page, the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page, but I can't promise an answer. As to a volunteer guide, what I see is those two pages, with the discussion that each of them has, and also the FAQ, which is useful both for participants and for volunteers. That is about all that I can say at this time. Maybe I will say more in a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN[edit]

Please visit dispute resolution notice board Sir I have fulfilled your orders sir AksheKumar (talk) 06:11, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About reviewing[edit]

Hi. I don't know is there any wrong. So can you explain about it. why it unreviewed. Thanks. Gihan Jayaweera (talk) 08:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:04:38, 21 December 2016 review of submission by Tashmead[edit]



Hi Robert McClenon, I made edits and improvements to the article about Ann Ashmead (yes, we are related). Her co-author Kyle Phillips has a page on wikipedia so in fairness, I have felt that his female coauthor should have a equal/partner page, in that spirit I created her page. Also I know that wikipedia has become interested in encouraging women to edit/write on wikipedia and/or add articles about women. In the process of improving the article I found other articles that Kyle Phillips wrote with Ann Ashmead, and I could add that information to Kyle Phillips's page. I would be happy to do that. The page for Ann Ashmead could be re-arranged, in a different order, I am not advanced enough (yet) in my editorial skills to do that. Also there are many other female and female American archaeologists who could be included in wikipedia, I would be willing to give it a try. Please see this interesting link. http://www.brown.edu/Research/Breaking_Ground/

Thank you for your input, and suggestions, All my best, Theodora (Teddy) Ashmead

User:Tashmead - As the banner at the top of my talk page states, I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process. I will comment that the current draft is much more nearly complete than the version that I declined a few months ago. I will however let another reviewer review it this time. If you have any questions, I can try to answer, or you can ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In re: your "I will defer to the judgment of others"[edit]

which is at best a sort of "damned by faint praise" (or maybe, simply damned), I wonder if I should not withdraw. I believe that neither of those opposing me are being fully fair in their assessments (or in the way they are being presented, e.g., in challenging me anew with an earlier unchallenged Talk discussion that appeared to have ended amicably). If this is a popularity contest, I am not continuing. My abilities, dedication, and merits should be clear. If you cannot support, then please say here, and I will close the discussion, and save the others from their apparent angst at the broad swaths of WP destruction they apparently fear that might come from my keyboard. I too am tired of this. If you leave it to others to decide, it is over. If you are still in my corner, I am willing. What do you want to happen here? Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon. If you do not speak up for me, I am lost. Leprof 7272 (talk) 15:38, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

XHDCP-FM[edit]

The Mexican IFT (their FCC) has been so slow in updating station lists that there are station concessions being awarded that don't show up. This is one of them.

XHDCP-FM received its concession on November 14 of this year (that link is to the concession). Since we generally have the bar of "all licensed radio stations are notable", that's why I created the article. Unfortunately, information is lacking as to the station's content. I don't have enough to pin it down like I do for some of the other new stations this year like XHAGI-FM and XHLUV-FM. Raymie (t • c) 02:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Arimalam Google Boys Arimalam, Robert McClenon.

Unfortunately GSS-1987 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

The author deproded the article without citing any source. Thank you

To reply, leave a comment on GSS-1987's talk page.

Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate[edit]

Hi Robert, thank you for your work in dispute resolution. I was surprised to see that you closed the discussion on Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014#Libertarian candidate saying, "Closed as not current. There has been no discussion at the article talk page in the last month. Editors should resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion there is extensive and recent but inconclusive, a new filing here may be made." In fact there were entries from three editors in the last few days. I feel that our disagreement is hanging fire without outside help. Perhaps you could at least drop by and add your perspective. I'll watch here for a reply, if you choose. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:HopsonRoad - In looking the talk page over, I do see that there has been recent discussion, buried in the large amount of old discussion. I will make the case at the dispute resolution noticeboard as waiting for a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:20, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fair call[edit]

Thanks sir for a just call on saraiki dialect issue. I personally apologise for anything that was harsh at my end. Sir I want to restore 12 October version of article but can not because Uanfala has obtained extended confirm user protection. I have less then five hundred edits. Can you please restore Pre dispute version. That will be a great help. AksheKumar (talk) 17:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fwiw, the RfC decision concerned the title, not the content of the article. – Uanfala (talk) 20:13, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:AksheKumar, User:Uanfala - The title and the content are inseparable. If the title of the article is that it is a language, then the lede sentence should say that it is a language. If the title of the article is that it is a dialect, then the lede sentence should say that it is a dialect. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

December 2016[edit]

Information icon Hello Robert McClenon. Thanks for patrolling new pages – it's a very important task! I'm just letting you know, however, that there is consensus that we shouldn't tag pages as lacking context (CSD A1) and/or content (CSD A3) moments after they are created, as you did at Bilskirnir (band). It is also suggested that pages that might meet CSD A7 criteria not be tagged for deletion immediately after they are created. It's usually best to wait at least 10–15 minutes for more content to be added if the page is very short, and the articles should not be marked as patrolled. Tagging such pages in a very short space of time may drive away well-meaning contributors, which is not good for Wikipedia. Attack pages (G10), blatant nonsense (G1), copyright violations (G12) and pure vandalism/blatant hoaxes (G3) should of course still be tagged and deleted immediately. Thanks. Adam9007 (talk) 21:58, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined speedy deletion nomination of Huawei Mate S[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon. Speedy deletion work is important and I do appreciate the effort. I would just ask that you please review the criteria carefully because accuracy is also important. On that issue, I have declined your speedy deletion nomination of Huawei Mate S as an article that does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the topic under CSD A7. That criterion did not apply because the article was about a mobile phone and A7 only applies to articles on real persons or groups, individual animals, organisations, web content and organised events. A1 also did not apply because it is only for articles where you literally cannot identify the subject of the article from its text. While the article was quite short, what it was about was plain. Adam9007 (talk) 22:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Adam9007 - It looked like web content to me. Okay. I will AFD it if it is still useless. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Khoka Chalu Cheez, Robert McClenon.

Unfortunately GSS-1987 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

A3 removed by the author please review again as it has some contents now.

To reply, leave a comment on GSS-1987's talk page.

User:GSS-1987 - Still not notable. AFD submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfect. Thank you – GSS (talk) 06:31, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes to you and yours![edit]

Hello Robert McClenon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Pauciloquence (talk) 12:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message
User:Pauciloquence - Thank you. Same to you. At 39 N 77 W, it's about 5 C, although we usually use Fahrenheit. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Article Submission.[edit]

Hi Robert,

My name is Joe. I was wondering what the reasons are that my article submission was not accepted about the 'TRUE GOD ARCHANGEL LORD IDENTITY OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE'? ElectricTranquils (talk) 14:54, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:ElectricTranquils - First, you didn't have any references. Second, Wikipedia treats all religions equally and describes them neutrally. It doesn't push any particular religion. Third, you didn't have any references. Fourth, the use of ALL UPPER CASE is considered SHOUTING and is rude. Fifth, you didn't provide an encyclopedic topic. You may ask for further comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lights Out![edit]

   Tnx. Plz see the talk page.
--Jerzy•t 15:45, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a completely separate matter[edit]

I use reFill and the Citoid tools to address citation issues. Are there others that are helpful in your view? I am in particular looking for a tool that will run through the links, and mark those that are dead. Checking for self-published articles would also be a great idea for a tool, but I do not imagine it is yet in use here. (As one who designs such solutions, but does not code them, if there is a developer with whom I could be put in contact, I would appreciate this referral as well. Cheers, and happy holiday. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:28, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

GlobalSecurity.org[edit]

Robert, you said that I "may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice." So I just tried to do that, and found that I was unable to prevent its deletion, because it had already been deleted!

At most, I was given a few hours to remove the notice. This not a reasonable amount of time.

The thing that was deleted was not even an article per se; it was a request for article translation from the German Wikipedia. Said request was created in accordance with the instructions found at WP:TRANSLATETOHERE . Those instructions told me to create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, and immediately tag it with a translation template.

Yes, the article was deleted four years ago. I read the reasons given for its deletion, and they reflected a profound misunderstanding of the notability of this think tank. So I gave an explanation of that underneath my request for translation. Would the request for translation still exist, if I had said nothing about the reasons the article was inappropriately deleted four years ago?

Furthermore, notability is a thing that changes over time. If four years is not sufficient, how much time must pass before a second discussion about a subject's notability may be held?

Is there a way to restore my request for article translation? GPS Pilot (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert wrote, "If you want to make a request, make a request on a Wikipedia project page. Please do not put requests, especially strident requests, in article space."
Well I apologize if it came across as strident. Did that really warrant deletion of the entire article translation request (as opposed to merely excising the "strident" portion) ?
WP:TRANSLATETOHERE instructed me to create the article on English Wikipedia as a stub article, and immediately tag it with a translation template. In which space should this be done, if not in article space? GPS Pilot (talk) 21:08, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:GPS Pilot You are right that you should have created a stub article with a translation request template. You didn't create a stub, only a translation request as such. That isn't the same thing. Just being loud about your request doesn't make it a correct request. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I did create a stub. It contained a {{stub}} tag.
This is becoming increasingly frustrating. People telling me I shouldn't have created it in article space, even though WP:TRANSLATETOHERE seems to say I should create it in article space; and now people telling me I should have created a stub, even though I did.
Also, are you aware that the person who deleted the article cited deletion criteria WP:G4, but she did not act in accordance with WP:G4, which "excludes pages that are not substantially identical to the deleted version"? My request for article translation was nothing at all like the deleted version of the article, so it should have been excluded from WP:G4.
Is there any way to undelete my request for article translation? GPS Pilot (talk) 05:30, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert wrote, "On the one hand, you started out trying to make a reasonable request, and did it in a mistaken good-faith manner. However, then, when your request was deleted, you became a loud nuisance by reposting a request saying not to delete it. At this point, you have used up a considerable amount of the good faith that you would have had with your request for translation."
First, you are mistaken about the sequence of events. I didn't repost anything after the Request for Translation was deleted. I did go above and beyond the WP:TRANSLATETOHERE instructions, in that below the Request for Translation I added some facts about the subject's notability (in hopes of preventing another mistaken deletion as happened four years ago). Those facts were submitted simultaneously with the Request for Translation. (Although the evidence that backs me up on this -- the revision history -- is now gone, as Deb deleted the entire thing.)
When you say I did it in a "mistaken" manner, are you referring to the addition of facts about the subject's notability? If so, Deb could have simply deleted those facts, leaving behind a well-crafted Request for Translation. Instead, she chose to use a hatchet instead of a scalpel, removing value from Wikipedia instead of adding value. GPS Pilot (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

Merry Christmas and happy holidays![edit]

Hello Robert McClenon: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, GSS (talk) 15:56, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard.
Message added 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

JustBerry (talk) 21:28, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Middle schools[edit]

Hi, Robert. Thanks for your hard work at AFC and NPP. In the future, if you come across a middle school article on NPP, feel free to BOLDly redirect it to the school district (for US & Canada) or the most appropriate locality (for other countries or when the school district article doesn't exist). In my wiki - travels, this comes up with a fair amount of regularity. If your bold edit is reverted, then proceed to AfD. When you do such redirects, please add the {{r from school}} template, as it will automatically add the page to the proper categories and make the appropriate talk page edits. I've done this myself over 100 times and only been reverted twice. Thanks. John from Idegon (talk) 03:40, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, User:John from Idegon. What about private schools that go through grade 8? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That involves a little more digging, but still redirect. If it is an independent private school, the locality is probably the best target. If it's a parochial school, the Church that sponsors it may be a better target. Most Catholic Diocese articles have an education section. If there is ever a specific article, feel free to drop me a note or a ping and I'll be glad to help. Thanks. Kudpung and I are trying to get more active editors on schools. If my load there decreases, I hope to get back to review work again. Merry Christmas! John from Idegon (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Old issue you raised on Dismas' talk page - suggestion[edit]

You asked about policy regarding editors not fluent in English, way back in May. Perhaps you already found a solution. If not, I'd say the relevant essay would be Wikipedia:Competence is required, but I just realised it's only an essay, not policy, and it contains a warning that referencing it can be insulting, and should be done with caution. Perhaps it needs to be accompanied by a statement that they likely are competent in other languages, and thus other language Wikipedias which desperately need editors? Eliyohub (talk) 13:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eliyohub - Well, I have been from time to time commenting to a few editors that they appear to be having difficulty with English, and have been asking whether they would be able to edit the Wikipedia in their first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Norbert Stachel[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon. You declined a AfC draft of Norbert Stachel at User talk:LehCatsTrebron#Your submission at Articles for creation: Norbert Stachel (November 15). The draft remained largely uneditted by it's creator, but a new account was created about a month ago and the account's first edit was to create User:Gnulander/sandbox. This new account then moved the article to the article mainspace a few days ago. The accounts may be connected, but my main concern has to do with the Wikipedia notability of the Stachel. Would you mind taking another look? The sources provided do not seem to be any different from the ones you saw when you reviewed the draft and there's no clear evience that WP:MUSICBIO is met, but I might be missing something. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:49, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marchjuly - Hmmm. I see that the sources haven't changed, that I didn't think they were adequate independent reliable sources in November, and they are the same. The biography has expanded, but not the sourcing. I agree that there are still musical notability concerns. I also will note that I have the concerns that you do about whether the accounts are connected. I will also point out that, if they are not connected, there is actually a questionable copy-and-paste, because Gnulander copied the sandbox piece over the draft. So the real questions are whether an AFD is in order, and whether an SPI is in order. I will comment more later (after I finish writing some notes about the Magi). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:31, 25 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for taking a look Robert. If Stachel is Wikipedia notable enough for an article, then the COI matter in and of itself is not enough for WP:TNT. The copying and pasting matter does, as you rightly point out, need to be addressed, but again unless the entire article is total copyvio, this is something which probably can be fixed by removing/attributing as needed. The bigger question is whether WP:NEXIST is relevant. There are lots of well-known names mentioned the article, so you'd expect Stachel to have been covered by some reliable sources, but all I'm finding are trivial mentions, primary sources and user-generated stuff which do not satisfy WP:BIO or even WP:MUSICBIO. There may be better sources out there somewhere, but I guessing that they would've been added by now by either of the editors working on the draft. Stachel could be one of those people who are well-known within their respective field, but simply have not received the coverage is more mainstream sources typically cited on Wikipedia. I also get the impression that both editors feel that by adding Wikipedia notable names and more details to the article that this will make Stachel seem more Wikipedia notable, but we know that's not really how it works per WP:ARTN and WP:INHERIT. -- Marchjuly (talk) 00:34, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Independent Film Festival[edit]

Dear Robert, Thank you from peterb1234 re: draft article Williamsburg Independent Film Festival. I hope these links will satisfy your request for the international and notable reporting of our institution (web site willfilm.org) http://www.broadsheet.ie/tag/williamsburg-independent-film-festival/

http://filmireland.net/2014/06/06/trampoline-review/

http://www.elobservador.com.uy/cantante-green-day-actuara-una-pelicula-n297618

http://www.music-news.com/news/UK/86907/Read

http://www.folhape.com.br/robertajungmann/acontece/acontece/2016/11/25/NWS,7884,76,503,ROBERTAJUNGMANN,2467-DESTAQUE-PARA-MARCELO-BRENNAND-GANHA-PREMIO-CINEMA-NOVA-IORQUE.aspx

http://www.eturbonews.com/52089/fifth-year-film-festival-opens-november-20-film-lovers

http://bedfordandbowery.com/2014/11/ponder-brunch-some-more-at-the-williamsburg-independent-film-festival/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb1234 (talk • contribs) 17:54, 26 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merry, merry![edit]

From the icy Canajian north; to you and yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:38, 27 December 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Sony Xperia E5 and similar articles.[edit]

I have blocked all the IPs that have contributed to all these related articles and who are all editing from within 5 or 6 miles of the same UK geolocation. This is so obvious that besides the persistent removal of deletion templates, it is an attempt to evade 3R. The actual persistence in these edits can lead one to assume that it is spam or COI but it might not be easy to prove. I have not blocked the registered user in anticipation that they will in fact be caught in one of the IP blocks, so if they make an appeal for IP block exemption that will prove the obvious socking. We need to look out for the use of yet more IPs from that area. We can't do a range block there because they might well be public areas or hotspots, and not all are in the same IP ranges. I'll go back now and vote delete on all the AfD; if you have any thoughts , don't hesitate to drop me a line. I've also left this message at user talk:MrX. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Kudpung. I have filed a case at WP:COIN asking the registered editor to declare their conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have also raised the question at criteria for speedy deletion talk as to whether there should be some way to delete articles that have nothing but an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, inc.draft article[edit]

Hello Robert,

First thank you so much for your comments and assistance, especially during a holiday. I was just checking in to see if the article made any progress since the updated sources/references were submitted. I am hoping there is good news.

Again, many thanks, Peterb1234≠≈″± — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb1234 (talk • contribs) 04:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Peterb1234 - There isn't likely to be good news until my questions about conflict of interest and my comments about formatting are addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

COI question re: WILLIAMSBURG INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL, INC.[edit]

Hello Robert,

Re: Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, Inc. (a not for profit organization) I am sorry that question was answered --I must have overlooked it while reading the other comments from you and your colleagues. The declared COI is that I am one of the 4 co-founders. However, I am merely a submitter of 3rd party, objective journalism. All articles, references and text were written by the named 3rd party journalists. If we are on the right track, I will make sure that all of the refs and sources, formatting are cleaned up. I imagine there are a number of COI within many WIKIPEDIA articles. It may be unavoidable at times.

Your help is much appreciated. This process and modus operandi can be a little confusing.

All the best,

Peterb1234#@%^ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb1234 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thanks Robert Peterb1234 (talk) 05:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligize To You[edit]

Robert I'm sorry I used some bad things to you but it will never happen again in the meantime may the good lord bless and keep you. 68.102.57.28 (talk) 13:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:49:17, 27 December 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidhanson471[edit]


Responding to Editor and Reviewer's comments on our Rubber Elasticity addendum. Response: We thank the editor and reviewer for the prompt critique of our article and the helpful suggestions. Since this is our first contribution to Wikipedia, we would like to make sure that we have satisfactorily addressed all of the Editor’s concerns before making the suggested changes to our submission. A lot of what we have to say in that regard probably doesn’t have to be in the article. We would like to respond to your concerns, point-by-point. The question of notability: We believe that a discussion of integrated elasticity modeling is appropriate for a WP article for several reasons: 1. Elastomers, of which rubber is the most common example, represent a significant fraction of the global economy, not only as a commodity, e.g., rubber tires, but also because elastomers enable a host of other technologies. Elastomers play crucial roles in electronics, medical technology and even O-rings on booster rockets. And the sine qua non for elasticity is the rubber network. 2. The theory of rubber networks is discussed at length in all Polymer Physics textbooks that we have seen. 3. Very likely, WP readers will find our article interesting because rubber has been a source of fascination ever since it was introduced to Europe in the 1500’s; no other material can be stretched by almost a factor of ten and return to its original length. We expect that many people would be curious about the physical mechanisms that produce elasticity. This draft primarily refers to papers by the author The theory of elasticity in rubber networks had its beginnings in the 1920’s and, over the years, many (more than 10) highly mathematical models, with variations, have been proposed. Since these models are analytical, they are forced to make a number of simplifying assumptions that are physically unjustified and none have gained a consensus. It is probably for this reason that no one has posted an article on the WP “Rubber Elasticity” page. Ours is the first integrated model (i.e., one that combines both physically-based chain force models and a realistic network model) that can provide quantitative predictions consistent with experiments. The original research has been published in internationally respected, peer-reviewed journals between 2004 and 2013. Our most recent paper was a review article, invited by the editors of the journal Contemporary Physics, in 2015. We sent pre-prints of this article to all of principal elasticity scientists, worldwide. It has been viewed 235 times and no comments criticizing any of our work have been published to date, so it should not be considered ‘controversial’. New paradigms in science are often met with hostility or indifference at first, e.g. the tectonic plate theory. Longtime adherents of current models are reluctant to abandon theories in which they have invested so much cerebral capital. And the only known treatment for these pernicious cases is, as they say, embalming fluid. This draft may be too technical, and needs a better introduction Of course the subject of the scientific theory of rubber elasticity is technical by nature but we have tried to emphasize the phenomenology rather than the mathematics to keep most of it accessible to less technical readers. However, to be informative to the scientifically inclined, we have included some technical content. Originally, we were worried that our draft might be criticized for being too long, so it turned out rather terse. We can soften some of the technical edges by adding a few sentences here and there.

Our submission was intended to appear as a subsection in the current Rubber Elasticity page, which we thought to be deficient in the subject of network theory. There are other areas that require more work as well such as the “History” section.


Davidhanson471 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Davidhanson471 (talk) 19:49, 27 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidhanson471 - First, your statement above is long and hard to read. However, second, if your submission is intended as a subsection in an existing article, such as Rubber elasticity, it should not be submitted to Articles for Creation, which is for the review of whole new articles. You may either post it to the talk page of the article for comments first, and then add it to the article, or be bold and add it to the article, although I recommend discussion first. I will comment more later. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:47, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

This was my COI reply sent on 12/27[edit]

This was sent when you requested a COI explanation:

COI question re: WILLIAMSBURG INDEPENDENT FILM FESTIVAL, INC.
Hello Robert,
Re: Williamsburg Independent Film Festival, Inc. (a not for profit organization) I am sorry that question was answered --I must have overlooked it while reading the other comments from you and your colleagues. The declared COI is that I am one of the 4 co-founders. However, I am merely a submitter of 3rd party, objective journalism. All articles, references and text were written by the named 3rd party journalists. If we are on the right track, I will make sure that all of the refs and sources, formatting are cleaned up. I imagine there are a number of COI within many WIKIPEDIA articles. It may be unavoidable at times.
Your help is much appreciated. This process and modus operandi can be a little confusing.
All the best,
Peterb1234#@%^


Today:

The references will be properly incorporated this week.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterb1234 (talk • contribs) 08:17, 28 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:04:43, 29 December 2016 review of submission by Qforqsam[edit]



Hi, the original submission for Bugcrowd was created by someone who has no affiliation with Bugcrowd itself. We actually have no idea how or why the page was originally created by this 'sock puppet farm'. That said, we would like to see a page created for Bugcrowd I'm thinking about writing a new one. The most recent edit looked decent, though, so I'm wondering why it was rejected?

If it was rejected simply because a past iteration of the page was written by a sock puppet, how can we go about creating a new page for Bugcrowd?

User:Qforqsam - Who is "we"? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Tom Brady[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Tom Brady. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright Issue[edit]

thanks bob for the information. the problem with the advice is that there is no copyright issue. The information came from a public document that has no copyright restrictions on any of the information that a variety of people submitted historical information on. Nor, are there any restrictions copyright or usage on the articles contained within as it is a public document for a commemorative town anniversary. As, such, the inference made that it was blatant copyright infraction is both false and unwarranted. I don't intend to spend countless hours appeasing someone who ought to be reigned in for a false allegation. Unfortunately, I'm not well versed in all these places to go (as you noticed) with regards to a quick resolution. But again, there is absolutely no copyright issues on the article or the pictures (Db54 (talk) 16:55, 29 December 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Db54 - I have replied on your talk page. As I explained there, a public document is not necessarily a public domain document. Also, please do not refer to a "false allegation"; that could be construed as a personal attack. There does appear to be a valid concern. Sometimes it is easier just to reword something in your own words than to establish that something is public domain. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:59, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki dialect[edit]

Sir,

Is this the respect you have on Wikipedia ? LOLs. Sir I thought you a power full dispute resolver but sorry sir I may be wrong. Article is still same as Uanfala wanted. AS per Dispute resolution decision it should have been restored to pre dispute version [18] but instead Uanfala has started extreme level of Forum shop and has started third Request move with in 90 days to change page title to Saraiki Language. Isnt it funny and autocratic psycho attitude. Do you have some power left to restore pre dispute version ? sorry sir my mistake for highlighting this poor powerlessness of wikipedia volunteer like you. You student in Volunteer ship.... Lisa Roy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.199.14 (talk) 17:03, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:39.60.199.14 - I have very little idea what you are trying to say. I assume that you are talking about Saraiki dialect, but otherwise I have no idea what you are trying to say. I do not have the power to resolve a content dispute, but it appears that it has already been decided that the title of the page is Saraiki dialect, but I have very little idea what you are trying to say. Have you considered editing Wikipedia in your first language? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your decision on dispute was
"The title and the content are inseparable. If the title of the article is that it is a language, then the lede sentence should say that it is a language. If the title of the article is that it is a dialect, then the lede sentence should say that it is a dialect. whether Saraiki is a dialect or a language. The consensus is that it is a dialect. Edits to the article that call it a language should be reverted."
Edits to articles that call it language were made to pre dispute version by User Uanfala. I want to restore pre dispute version of article . Which I can not because page is extended confirm user protected. That's why Dispute was brought to DRN. Please restore pre dispute version [19] to give effect to your decision. It is a request with hope of getting justice done.
Extremely thank full to you sir for your effort. BEST REGARDS — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.60.199.14 (talk) 18:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

[20] --JustBerry (talk) 20:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN, Garage Punk (subsection: Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Volunteer.28s.29_.235)[edit]

Feel free to chime in. --JustBerry (talk) 21:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template[edit]

Your template {{User:Robert McClenon}} gave me a ping via the Barnstar I gave you in january 2015. Interesting side-effect. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 22:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Joshua Jonathan - Curious. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Boris Falikov[edit]

Hi Robert,

I have removed the personal life section and added some sources in English, including an official public OSCE document listing him as a board member and a translation from an academic source. Unfortunately, a lot of the cites are still in Russian only, and page is mostly translated from russian Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.123.210.61 (talk) 23:54, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Need Help![edit]

Hi Robert McClenon,

I need to ask the reason why my page Martin Dow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dow) is subject to deletion. this article is properly referenced and its about a notable company in Pakistan. The option to contest deletion is no more there on the page, i want to know is there any way it can be contested against deletion. You can review the links they are authentic and are from reliable sources. Kindly let me know what can be done so this article is not subject to deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaheeraharoon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shaheeraharoon - See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Dow. I see that, although the instructions told you not to remove the speedy deletion tag, you blanked the page, removing the speedy deletion tag, and then added information and sourced. The way that you now can contest deletion is to go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Dow. Also, do you have an association with Martin Dow? If so, you must make the conflict of interest declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A1 and A3[edit]

Greetings, Robert McClenon. I saw that you tagged Michelle Mylett with A1, which should be fine considering the content of the article. However, it is strongly advocated to wait for at least 10-15 minutes before tagging any new article with A1 or A3 (no matter how insignificant the topic may look like), mainly because the new editor may not be aware of the editing policies of Wikipedia and may still be working on addition of content. And that quickly tagging articles that might show some potential draws new editors away. The article in question doesn't seem to be that important with the content. Although, a quick Google search shows that she has acted as the lead in at least a couple of films that have a Wikipedia article. This might not be enough to meet GNG, but it doesn't qualify for an A7 in my understanding. The editor might be working on adding that - which is why some time must be given before going with A1 and A3 (they're the tricky CSDs). Happy holidays! I hope you have a great new year! Regards, Yash! 08:09, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

helper
Sir Please delete the page Baba Sundar ji now 🙂 Hemant banswal (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Hemant banswal - That page has been deleted. I am not an administrator. I don't know why you asked me to delete the page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Ryan Blacketter[edit]

Can you elaborate on your concern that some articles aren't verifiable? Many of these online magazines like Rumpus, Paste, and Fiction Writers Review are highly prestigious. A few are local, though, and these can be taken down.

There was an old draft available to see online last year that another wiki author composed. It has been deleted now. But I believe the wiki editor said there wasn't enough out there on Ryan Blacketter to justify a wiki page and that his book wasn't in enough libraries. Now that he's had more interviews and his book is in more libraries, you are saying that I should focus exclusively on his book.

I'm happy to go in this direction, but I want to make sure you request this out of clear response to wiki rules and guidelines. I'm just worried I'll change it to focusing on the novel and a new editor will ask me why I'm not focusing on Blacketter.

Thanks so much. I'll wait to hear back before I switch to writing about Blacketter's novel. Joyce Rowland (talk) 20:05, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the draft in question may be Draft:Ryan Blacketter. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Trump-Mexico Deal[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon.! The Article subject Trump-Mexico Deal is an important matter, this "deal" with Mexico, started since the Trump (the person) announced he was running for President. This is an important thing since this relation now will decide the future of millions, Wikipedia does not have this subject. It will need much contribution since thing will happen until it is settle in to what way to go. Everything in it is a compilation of what has being said by experts, that is why there are so many links, the exact words said by experts was used and can be confirmed by reading in the links. the links are official, or credited. What you decide is fine, if it is to delete it, or keep contributing to make it better. Thank you, NORMAN PRINCE (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

[21] --JustBerry (talk) 17:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update: this too. Thanks for being DRN coordinator for the past month. Happy New Year! --JustBerry (talk) 17:55, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering if you would take this DRN ...[edit]

Hello Robert,

I see according to your tags that you are the perfect person to remediate this issue since I will never reach consensus with a page maintainer. He accuses me of COI and therefore wipe my knowledge away.

I wrote him this long email explaining my point of view: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ladislav_Mecir#Long_explanation_so_we_can_sync_up The topic in question is bitcoin and that the information on wiki is utterly wrong and somewhat pushed by the Winklevoss Brothers.

Would you consider grabbing the DRN and Apply your C/C++, year of administration knowledge, scientific method, and logic ?

Regards, Theochino (talk) 22:39, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_15&oldid=1084144291"