User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 20

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

If that explanation seems incomprehensible to you[edit]

Then perhaps you're not the right arbiter for this issue, or any other issue for that matter. You've just complicated what would have been a very simple discussion, and implicitly taken sides with a profoundly disruptive individual.

Does that seem comprehensible to you BTW, or should I make it even shorter? Is it easily digestible in smaller pieces? CodeInconnu (talk) 16:18, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:CodeInconnu - You have just clarified that you don't understand what the dispute resolution noticeboard is for, which is content disputes and not conduct disputes. I did not implicitly "take a side" with User:Sonrisas, but, if you think that they are a "profoundly disruptive individual", that is a conduct issue that should be reported at WP:ANI. I now understand that you are saying that the other editor is disruptive, but disruption should not be reported at DRN, but at WP:ANI. That argument is comprehensible. It is also clear to me that the other editor declined to take part in DRN, and DRN is voluntary. Either discuss further at the article talk page, or report the other editor at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, got it. CodeInconnu (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I do know that Catalonia was not liberated from the Arabs by either Aragon or Castile because it was liberated from the Arabs by Carlos I, who was not Spanish. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Great, at least you got that right. And? CodeInconnu (talk) 06:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:CodeInconnu - Either discuss further at the article talk page, or use a Request for Comments, or report the user at WP:ANI, but try to resolve the content if possible. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:CodeInconnu - The disruptive editor in question has been indefinitely blocked. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for telling me, I found out yesterday. Problem solved, I hope. CodeInconnu (talk) 05:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Barbara (WVS) ✐  ✉ 02:15, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

17:39:59, 3 January 2018 review of submission by Syedshas[edit]


Hello Robert thanks for the previous review, as mentioned in comment there is no references for this Kurumambapatti Zoological park article, now i have updated reliable references for the article this article is important for people of salem city in tamilnadu and peoples who want to visit this small zoo — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedshas (talk • contribs) 17:41, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Syedshas - Wikipedia does not base whether to accept article on whether it is important to the people in one city. The English Wikipedia has a world-wide readership, and notability is not local. If you have questions about notability, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]


its not for local people . its for whole india and whoever tourists visit yercaud its located in the foothills. i agree wikipedia is have worldwide readership previously u have declined due to no references. now i have updated with refernces. its a tourist place so only article need to be published which will be useful — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedshas (talk • contribs) 21:30, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Art photographer, Ostróg the younger/Walery[edit]

Thank you for your welcome! This photographer used several pseudonyms, including "Lucien Walery " and "Laryew", especially in Paris. There is a lot of his work on Wiki Commons. Do you think it should all be linked up? Best wishes, --Po Mieczu (talk) 11:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Po Mieczu - The pseudonyms should be used as redirects. But the article says that the pseudonyms may have been Ostrog or a brother or someone else. The article should state what is known by reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:35, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:35, 4 January 2018 review of submission by TMaikai[edit]


I am currently editing the page that was declined. Can reference the schools history page on their website on the Wikipedia? I am hoping to have this page ready for re-submission this week.

User:TMaikai - Yes, you may reference an organization's web site in an article about the web site. However, it is a primary source and does not establish notability. It establishes what the organization says about itself, which is useful, but is not enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Eva Bartlett[edit]

Hello, thank you very much for esplaining why my article on Eva Bartlett was not allowed. I am quite surprised, because an article on Eva Bartlett is ok on French Wikipedia. Also because her notability is real, as Channel 4 wrote a full article about her, as Snopes did, while The Guardian talks about her in the lasst weeks, she will give a conference in London by the end of the month... I know it's a very controversial subject, about propaganda and about war, but I'll try to add sources and links, because I think this subject is important... Thank you !--M.A. Martin (talk) 09:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.A. Martin - First, please do not post to the top of my user talk page. Put your reply at the bottom of my page. As the banner says, posts to the top may not be seen. Second, the French Wikipedia has different rules than the English Wikipedia. Third, I did not say that an article on Eva Bartlett was not allowed. I simply did not accept the draft that you submitted, and I see that you have revised it. If you have questions about submitting drafts, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:09, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Original Barnstar
For the outstanding work you do each day and for your help today in particular. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:18, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, User:Dlohcierekim. It really appears that the editors dislike each other or are angry at each other but do not really disagree about that much. There isn't disagreement that she is sometimes referred to in the past year as the leader of the free world, only as to how to say that. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Interestingly, what makes that phrase contentious about Frau Merkel has very little to do with Frau Merkel and much to do with Mr. Trump. In the English Wikipedia, arguing disruptively about Merkel is not subject to discretionary sanctions, and arguing disruptively about Trump is subject to discretionary sanctions. The underlying issue is, in my opinion, that Donald Trump has a different idea as to whether he is "leader of the free world" than did Harry S. Truman, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, Richard Nixon, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, George H. W. Bush, William J. Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. That is my opinion. Anyway, they need to stop arguing and start talking about the Angela Merkel article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL. Well giggling. Personally, I would prefer Frau Merkel over Herr Trump any day for leader of the free world, but that's the way the cookie crumbles. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 21:59, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am usually surprsied at the content at the heart of an edit war. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dlohcierekim - There isn't much content, or at least much content difference, at the heart of the edit war. Perhaps that is the surprise, or the whole point. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sammy Sosa[edit]

Hello Robert. You have removed my request for a third opinion. Other editors were involved before, not after, not at the same time. Since the disagreement is still open, what other means would you recommend me to follow? --Osplace 15:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Big 10 Conference (West Virginia) High School Football[edit]

Robert: You stated my article reads like a brochure for the conference. I am simply presenting the history of the high school version of the Big 10. I have sighted a sports history book and an on-line school history page. I have created links for every school that has a Wikipedia sight and external links to all the member schools that have one. I eliminated the word "proud" which I had used twice. What exactly needs to be done for my article to pass this edit? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGT1998 (talk • contribs) 05:05, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for the useful tip Jakelewis2 (talk) 19:24, 6 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arancha Solis (duplicate article)[edit]

Good morning Robert Mcclendon, thank you for your comment. I'm new in wikipedia and I thought that just I uploaded one article. I thought the second article will go with the references that I need, I didn't though it was duplicated. Now just only have one for revision o how can I delete the second one? because I only see in my sandbox one. Thank you Actorespain (talk) 16:24, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Actorespain - It appears that you requested that the other copy of the draft be deleted, and it was deleted. There is now only one copy, and I moved it to Draft:Arancha Solis. Please put the references in the form of footnotes. Do you know what year she was born? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Teicholz[edit]

Hi there. You had declined my article because I had citations as hyperlinks instead of footnotes. I think I have fixed that but I got dinged again. Please advise and I think all of my hyperlinks are appropriate now. Thanks so much. Leslieaun (talk) 23:45, 7 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Shammar in Syria[edit]

Have I misinterpreted your closure comment at Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Shammar#Shammar_in_Syria - I understood "If discussion continues and is inconclusive in 48 hours or more" to mean "inclusive within 48 hours", but now I fear you might have meant "inconclusive after 48 hours"? Batternut (talk) 18:36, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Batternut - Inconclusive. I meant that, if there has been discussion for 48 hours, but it remains inconclusive in the sense that it hasn't resolved anything, you can file at DRN again. Talk for two days. If that doesn't work, come back. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks. I'll see if I can tidy up the new request I just created! Batternut (talk) 18:43, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arancha Solis. Article[edit]

Good afternoon Robert McClenon, Thank you for your comments and help. I have added the year of birth that you asked for and I added the references too. Do you think the article is Ok right now? Thank you Actorespain (talk) 00:22, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Peter Strzok[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Peter Strzok. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Coordinator[edit]

I have removed Yashovardhan Dhanania from the upcoming DRN coordinator due to inactivity. Really the only two people eligible are you and I. I'm giving this opportunity for you to volunteer, otherwise I will just continue. Let me know if you would like to pick it up come February. Nihlus 07:31, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nihlus - I'll take the assignment. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

11:02:15, 9 January 2018 review of submission by 21CT[edit]



Hi Robert Thank you so much for reviewing my submission. I would really appreciate your help with this. As you can see from the article, WildCats is the result of a merger of two long-established funding initiatives. Many of the references that I added do actually acknowledge 21st Century Tiger and ALTA as funders of their work in the acknowledgement section of the paper (see reference 1 as a case in point) and the projects that the papers were based on were in part funded by one or other of the initiatives. What would you suggest I do to make the article better?

Thanks Esther Conway — Preceding unsigned comment added by 21CT (talk • contribs) 11:02, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:21CT - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Also, please change your username to something that is not promotional for an organization. One account is one human, not one organization. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I owe you[edit]

Although this is too late, but please accept my thanks for acting against those vandals on my TP. I wrote to let you know that I have not forgot your good effort. Regards, --Mhhossein talk 13:21, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:29:56, 11 January 2018 review of submission by Bestword57[edit]


I need to change the name of my Wikipedia page to Achen League. It keeps wanting to search for Archie L. League which is not his birth name.

Thanks in advance, Bestword57 (talk) 03:29, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Deljou Art Group[edit]

Hi Robert, I noticed you have accepted Deljou Art Group at AfC. I'm not convinced that the article should have been be accepted. I suspect the author has a COI, and the sourcing is problematic: 8 references to deljouartgroup.com (the subject), two to artexponewyork.com (definitely not an independent, reliable source, one to mapquest (to source their place of business?) and then www.cv-magazine.com, which says nothing about the business. cv-magazine (or Corporate Vision) is a business that is "committed to working with all of our nominees and winners to promote their success throughout their industry and beyond and making sure they gain maximum exposure and really benefit from their win". Make of the google mail attachment what you will, it's also not a valid source. To summarize, this article is almost entirely based on what the source has to say about itself. Since you did the AfC review, I wanted to check in with you before I nominate it for deletion. Mduvekot (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mduvekot - Go ahead. I may have been too quick to accept a draft that had plenty of sources without checking their quality. If you do nominate it, I will take my time, at least one day and less than seven days, to review and decide whether to defend my acceptance, conclude that I was mistaken and it should be deleted, or be neutral. Go ahead and AFD it if you think that is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, I understand that AfC, like NPP is severely backlogged and we're all just scrambling to get through. Mistakes happen. If you think that upon reconsidering, you might not have accepted, I'd prefer not to get you involved defending something at AfD that you don't really support. All the best, Mduvekot (talk) 01:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mduvekot - I don't understand. I will only defend it if I think it needs defending. Go ahead and take it to AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the motivation[edit]

I took your recommendations to heart, and I got my first page published, Charles Irving Elliott. KlausVonVilver (talk) 14:07, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly reminder[edit]

Just a reminder to remove the archive locks from the DRN case when closing in addition to putting the close above the filing editor as seen here. Thanks. Nihlus 18:20, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, please let me know if you have seen this as I had to clean up more of your closes. Thanks. Nihlus 03:55, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nihlus - Take a look at the archive lock dates. You didn't need to clean them up. I had already cleaned them up by setting the date to the past. That has the same effect as deleting them. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe changing them is the best course, as typos are possible. Additionally, the filing editor needs to go in the archive since it causes formatting issues as discussed here. Nihlus 05:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have been leaving the filing editor in rather than deleting the filing editor since you asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:05, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Nihlus - So you are there. I had been sort of wondering, since you haven't been commenting on filings or answering questions on the talk page, only proofreading my closes. Better that than nothing. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure a parting shot is necessary at this point. We are both volunteers here, and I've needed to focus more time on my real life lately. Nihlus 17:27, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I know. Yes. We are all volunteers here, and we each did what we had time to do. You didn't have time to provide real help such as opening or mediating or closing cases. Okay. You did have time to scold me for the details of closing my cases. Okay. I didn't have to complain about being complained at. True. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps others aren't volunteering as they see this is how you intend to treat them for not doing "enough" to satisfy whatever requirement you believe is necessary or perhaps your concern with how people spend their time when editing will keep people away. Regardless, either one is unbecoming of someone who wishes to lead others or recruit others into a collaborative environment. Therefore, I don't believe you are qualified for the coordinator position and have reservations about your attitude towards the DRN in general moving forward. Nihlus 22:45, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Computing Referral for Draft:Multivariate Quadratic Random Number Generator[edit]

Hello, The instructions for submitting an article for review at the Wikiproject Computing page were unclear at best and on its Talk page there is some discussion of the request mechanism not working. Is there a way to see if this article has been submitted for review? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carvalho1988 (talk • contribs) 23:24, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carvalhol1988 The article in question is Draft:Multivariate quadratic random number generator. I don't see how to request a review of a Draft, just a variety of other types of reviews. I don't see the discussion about the request mechanism not working. Maybe I have missed something. You can just make a request on the talk page, or you can ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk about how to get a draft reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:20:03, 16 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Quovadiszero[edit]


Greetings Robert; You requested I provide more references for notability. This my first time so please excuse the lack of skills. I cannot figure out how to get the icons for references inserted. I am sure it is easy but I cannot figure it out.

Secondly my format uses direct references from newspapers from the era. I thought those proved to be effective. Please give your opinion.

I am also using references from my published book which includes much well documented information on Miss Lloyd, plus I own the original artifact my book was based upon. Does this cause a problem?

I have been in contact with her surviving grand daughter who has supplied first hand family knowledge of Miss Lloyd. How do I enter those as a reference?

I do understand the "lede' paragraph and will rewrite.

Any help you can provide is graciously accepted.

Thank you for your time


Quovadiszero (talk) 00:20, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Quovadiszero - The way that you used the quotes from the newspapers is distracting and non-standard. References should be in the form of footnotes. Personal correspondence is generally not considered to be a reliable source, and your correspondence with the granddaughter may not be usable. I don't know what you mean by the original artifact on which your book was based. You may use your own book as a reference, although that might be seen as a conflict of interest, in particular because it could be seen as you trying to promote sales of the book. I would suggest that you ask for further advice about references at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Ed Brown (boxer)[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. HasteurBot (talk) 14:01, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't my draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 16 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Swazzo in DRN[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon, with re to this, I do not know if this is the right place to comment. Sorry I overlooked the notice on the talk pages of the other users involved. However, I had added the notice by the time you mention it the second time. I commented on the problems and problematic circumstances I found. Thanks Iñaki LL (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am moving on, since the editor in question is unresponsive. Regards Iñaki LL (talk) 23:24, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iñaki LL - Do you wish to withdraw the request for dispute resolution? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know how the resource works, I came for a solution to a straightforward situation, not immediate but at least effective, and for whatever reason it is not giving. I moved on and left a message on Swazzo's page, I do not think the user in question is responding, and I do not think you will restore the last good version, so feel free to close it. Iñaki LL (talk) 08:58, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Valerievalpal/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.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that User:Valerievalpal/sandbox, a page that you created, has been tagged for deletion. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. JustaZBguy (talk) 20:33, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JustaZBguy - That isn't my article. Go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summer Rose (Submission by Placey33)[edit]

Hi Robert, Thank you for your advice on the Summer Rose submission; I'm new to the community and I really appreciate the input and feedback on why it was declined. A page for Summer Rose already exists in Swedish #REDIRECT [[1]]. Since that had already been reviewed/approved and published, is there a way to transfer/copy to English so I can make proper edits to that rather than start anew? Thanks again, Pam Placey33 (talk) 16:32, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Placey33 - If you want advice about translation, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick DiOrio (Submission by hcman4dd)[edit]

Hi Robert, Thank you for commenting on the Dominick DiOrio page! To answer your question, I believe that he satisfies musical notability, as his many compositions are published through major music publishers, is frequently noted in publications on choral music, and is the conductor of NOTUS. His presence and contributions in the choral world are on par with other conductors listed on Wikipedia. I do have a question regarding "See Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information for the length of the list of works." I understand the content of the posted link, but I also know other composers such as John Adams include their lists of works on their pages. Is there a reason that the list of works is allowed on some composers' pages but not all, and what do you suggest would be a better alternative? Thank you so much! Hcman4dd (talk) 18:55, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teshi patel[edit]

Thanks for the heads-up on this sandbox. I've speedy deleted the spam again and closed the AfD. There were no real facts even to show notability, just promotion for the company and its products. I blocked the original account under user name policy, and a second account as a sock of the first. Teshi patel's version was sufficiently different from the earlier that he may be a different person, so I haven't blocked yet. However, clearly another COI account so I've fired a warning shot. Cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:00, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jimfbleak - Thank you. Sometimes I think that the community of reviewers for AFC is a little too kind in terms of taking the zeroth pillar of Wikipedia even more seriously than it is meant to be taken. Outreach to new editors is not officially one of the principles of Wikipedia, but it has a status that is comparable to being the zeroth pillar of Wikipedia. Do not bite the newcomers is officially only a guideline, but it has become a dogma, something that takes precedence over common sense. Most new editors should be welcomed, but some are not here to improve the encyclopedia, either because they are not new, or because they are only here to promote something. Thank you. I don't know what Teshi patel thought a reviewer would be able to do with the sandbox anyway, since the title was salted, but maybe he gets paid if it gets accepted, and he has to try. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eyecare10[edit]

Hi Robert. I am contacting you in reference to my page International Pediatric Ophthalmology and Strabismus Council. What changes can I make so that it is not read like an information brochure? I have tried multiple attempts, but I would really appreciate some guidance.

Thank you.

User:Eyecare10 - I don't think that you really want my answer. If you are affiliated with the organization, whether as an employee or as a volunteer, you are likely to write something that will read like an information brochure for the organization. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse, where you might find other experienced editors who are more attuned to helping editors who have a conflict of interest act like they are neutral when they aren't. I will not be of much help. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:15, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:gregorybarry[edit]

Not sure what I can do. I looked carefully at the materials from ACI Alliance. I care deeply about the impact that CI's make to people with severe to profound hearing loss. The materials on Wikipedia on Cochlear Implants have been written by people who fundamentally object to the device. If you have any advice about the article, please do so. I have found that the implant is a life-changing prosethesis for the appropriate candidates. I was attempting to put more in the record without attempting to change the existing CI article, which is extremely biased. It includes a citation from AAO that indicates that the cost of a CI is $100K. That is a lifetime cost and is not at all what someone who receives one spends.

The existing Wikipedia article does not cite many studies (which I included) that have demonstrated very high cost-benefit factors for the intervention.

I believe that the article submitted was well-researched, comparable to other nonprofits (I modeled it after many others in Wikipedia), and not promotional.

Thank you for your consideration.

The page in question is Draft:American Cochlear Implant Alliance. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Gregorybarry - I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:gregorybarry[edit]

Do you have any specific suggestions about the ACI Alliance article?

Most of the citations were from outside journals, even if they some written by people from the organization (Otology and Neurotology (peer reviewed), Cochlear Implants International (peer reviewed), Hearing Loss Magazine, Volta Voices, etc.)

Thanks.

Thank you[edit]

Thank you. For deleting Catagory:Derringer. I didn't notice the typo until it was too late.--RAF910 (talk) 00:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Racial views of Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines[edit]

Hello, and may I thank you firstly for all your valued contributions. Secondly, thanks for taking the time to comment about me (someone who you've never met) on the recent, and thoroughly entertaining ARBCOM case that has been filed and thus, forms part of the harassment against me. Thirdly, and speaking of said ARBCOM case, could you please see your way clear to not starting linked discussions on various talk pages as it simply makes for more drama. Fourthly, and this is the cruncher, could you please have a read of WP:TALKNEW, with regards to the, and I quote: "Don't address other users in a heading: Headings invite all users to comment. Headings may be about specific edits but not specifically about the user.". Hey don't worry yourself though, I'll pop along and fix it for you. It's a great little guideline that could beat anyone to the Booker Prize any day of the week. Much hearty regards and happy editing! CassiantoTalk 11:01, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your Follow-Up Thought on Joefromrandb RFAR[edit]

Did you mean to write that ARBCOM should look at editors who (have) provoke(d) editors who are easily provoked? I think you might have, but I'm only saying that based on other things you've previously written. I may be parsing your comment incorrectly but I don't believe that's what you wrote. Toddst1 (talk) 21:57, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Toddst1 - Yes. I didn't elaborate on it much because I was getting very close to word limit. I have said it in both Joefromrandb and Cassianto. I think that, when a particular editor becomes the center of a great deal of conflict, and the ArbCom has to conduct a hearing, the ArbCom should not only consider sanctions against the editor in question but consider sanctions against the editors who provoked the editor. I may have said it more clearly in the previous Joefromrandb request. Provoking an editor who is easily provoked is fun, but is harmful to a collaborative electronic workplace. I don't know of an obvious way to deal with such editors, but attention should be paid to the problem. I suggested some sort of discretionary sanction, but I can see that that might not work well. It may be that occasionally an editor and their interactions just become so much of a problem that the ArbCom needs to identify the editors who have been doing the provoking and sanction them. I realize that it is policy that blocks are meant to be preventive and not punitive; maybe editors who have a history of provoking another editor need to be given a yellow card. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I get it and I think you have a good point. I know you Quite a few others think I've been guilty of doing that once to Joefromrandb. I thought you might want to reword it a bit to be sure the point came across. Toddst1 (talk) 14:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toddst1 - I don't recall thinking that you provoked Joefromrandb. I will prepare a statement when the case is opened, but right now my statement is very close to word limit. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Yeah, I don't remember if you were on of the folks saying this but a few months ago JFRDB was edit warring on something and told me to "fuck off" and I responded by putting a civility warning template on his talk page. Later, several folks at ANI thought that me responding with a template was provocative. I didn't see it as such when I did it, but I learned long ago that my definition of acceptable behavior is not in the mainstream. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toddst1 - I don't agree with Do Not Template the Regulars, and so I don't see any reason why just giving a template to a provokable editor should be viewed as a provocation. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize. The piling on that went on here, including a few admins left me still smarting. I struck my throwing you in that group above. Cheers. Toddst1 (talk) 01:05, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Toddst1 - Okay. The October ANI, that was closed inconclusively by TomStar81, who then took it to RFAR, and he was then also piled on for filing at RFAR after closing the ANI. In looking it over, my only involvement was to ask the ArbCom to take the case and to ensure that it went both ways, that is, that it dealt not only with Joefromrandb and with the editors who provoked him. It now appears that that is finally what will happen, and that that may happen in both the Joe case and the Cassianto case. I think that the ArbCom does need to revisit infoboxes, if only to mandate that RFC is the proper way to dispose of infobox conflict in order to avoid edit wars, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Jessica McCormack has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Jessica McCormack. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom, etc[edit]

Thank you for your ping. I have avoided looking at the "case" much, but having checked I see that the diff has already been posted there, along with further untruth. According to the editor, I 'brought an intimidation game along the lines of "I just sent a bunch of super-secret evidence to ArbCom in e-mail and you're in such big trouble now".' I'm afraid that's just nonsense. There was no "intimidation game" - a request for him to stop lying about me is not intimidation, and it is not the first time I have had to make such a request to him, I'm afraid I also did not say anything along the lines of 'you're in such big trouble now'. Such manipulating of reality runs through the evidence he posted about me (I didn't check the truth of the statements on Cass), and if you actually check his initial statement with a questioning mind, checking the diffs to see they support some rather hyperbolic claims, you will see a gap between reality and the the claims. – SchroCat (talk) 07:13, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SchroCat - Please do not post about the case to my talk page. I am not an arbitrator. My opinion shouldn't matter much to you, but my opinion of the case is more likely to be influenced by the fact of postings to my talk page than by personal statements to me by editors who don't like each other. Please don't post about the case to my talk page. Give your evidence to the ArbCom. Anything posted to my talk page may be provided as evidence to the ArbCom, but you knew that. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies: it was meant as a response to your post on the other page and about the misrepresentation of that exchange. Please do not take it as being "about the case" - it's just my clumsy wording that has given that impression. - SchroCat (talk) 16:51, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
thanks for your comment I'll try my best Thanuje D Dissanayake (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:49:21, 27 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jjab4566[edit]



Jjab4566 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

 I did not know the revision had been submitted twice.  Sorry about that.

Jjab4566 (talk) 16:49, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:46:02, 27 January 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jjab4566[edit]


 Hey Robert.  I hope you get this.  I sent yo a message earlier about the "two" articles that appear to be the same.  This is the old one.  Apparently you have not seen the new one.  So, I will edit this one as the new one.

Jjab4566 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jjab4566 (talk) 20:46, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jjab4566 - See my comments on the version in draft space, which I have submitted as pending for review by any reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation[edit]

Dear Robert - Having done a mere month in the Afc arena, I've found it can occasionally sap the spirit. So I just wanted to thank you for all that you've done and are doing. Very inspiring. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 21:52, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for helping me with my sandbox mishap. Cdtuba (talk) 03:43, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback on Rush Soccer[edit]

Hi Robert,
I saw you left a comment on the draft I submitted for publication (Rush Soccer). Thanks for your feedback. I believe you made a good point. I invite you to have a look to a similar type of organization ( obviously at different scale) called City Football Group. The article describes the "City Way" and their philosophy. It pretty much describes what the group thinks about itself and their beliefs. Pretty much of what you think about my article too. Should have I rely solely on what others have written about the organization like you mentioned, it could have been really quickly inaccurate. I took my sources out of their by laws and regulations when I am stating facts. Readers need to make their own opinion afterwards. When I am not stating facts, I relied on online articles about the organization itself ( which could be considered as "what others have written about it" like you said) . I tried to keep a certain balance between both sides of spectrum.
Again, much appreciated your feedback. I always strive to improve in my writing. Best, --Pelo1007 (talk) 06:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened[edit]

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others. This case will address the behaviour of Joefromrandb and editors who have interacted poorly with them. However, on opening, who those editors might be is not clear to the committee. Before posting evidence on the relevant page about editors who are not parties to the case please make a request, with brief supporting evidence, on the main case talk page for the drafting arbitrators to review. Evidence about editors already listed can be posted directly at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 11, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 18:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Knovos salted?[edit]

Hello, you mentioned on a declined draft submission that Knovos had been protected from creation. Could you clarify this? I want to make sure the new Knovos has not been deleted under a different name.--SamHolt6 (talk) 17:45, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamHolt6 - What new Knovos or Draft:Knovos? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The draft has been salted. It appears that it has not yet been salted in article space, but that is a detail. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:52, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Its a moot point now, but I wondered if Knovos had been created under a different name in the past. I saw that Knovos had been speedy deleted in the past, but salt is rarely applied for a first time deletion. Do you know of any other names the article had been created under?--SamHolt6 (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It was repeatedly created in draft space, and has only been salted in draft space. I would ask the deleting administrator, User:Jimfbleak. Why? Are you planning to write a neutral draft that satisfies notability, or are you reviewing a sandbox, or just curious? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Another copy of Knovos was deleted by Checkuser User:Bbb23 as having been created by a sockpuppet of a blocked or banned user. There is evidently a history of paid editing. I would prefer that all paid editing be banned, but I understand the rationale that a complete ban would simply force it underground. In any event, I dislike all paid editing. Maybe User:Jimfbleak or User:Bbb23 might know whether any other names have also been used for it. Bbb23 should be able to tell you what account is the sockmaster, and the sockpuppet investigation often contains interesting historical information about misconduct. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the assistance. SamHolt6 (talk) 02:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've now protected the article space version too. User:SamHolt6, five attempts to spam in user space and draft space by two accounts, one of which, KnovosWiki, I'd blocked as a spam user name violation, the other as a sock of that. The checkuser found that even the KnovosWiki account was itself a sock. No good guys involved in creating this article Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

FYI[edit]

In the US flight is, generally, admissible as evidence of guilt. Silence, no; but flight, yes. EEng 04:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:EEng - What about requesting free board for three months in a county jail in a state on the other side of North America? Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We are more or less in agreement. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
See O. Henry for instance. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:43, 31 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OMC[edit]

Hello, I had a feeling that my recently submitted article didn't have enough content. That is fine because I still have more to write. I would highly advise against merging it with BCTC because other than the fact that it is housed at BCTC, the school has no connection to it. OMC is a Fayette County High School with Fayette county teachers and staff. Thank you, Ral 33 (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merger discussion for Wheat sprout[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Wheat sprout—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Phonet (talk) 03:36, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

AfC barnstar[edit]

The Articles for Creation barnstar
For exemplary patience at AfC. Chetsford (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Composers connected with Liverpool City Region[edit]

Thanks for your comment on my draft.

I had not appreciated that there was a separate format for lists in WikiPedia. Would there be any advantage for an article of this kind to be structured as a Wiki List? One large column would need to be in a free format.

Perhaps I should have submitted it for review at an earlier stage before committing a lot of effort into developing it. I am probably about a third of the way through the eventual list.

Alan.jones.ski (talk) 13:55, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Kb.au (talk) 03:19, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kb.au - It isn't my draft. As you will notice, I moved it to draft space and declined it. I don't think it needs deleting from draft space, but that is only my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Kill it. Kill it with fire. There is nothing left now that the spam was removed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:28, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, hmm yes but what happened to the rest of the article's history? It's not at the original user subpage. Kb.au (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:57:24, 2 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by 103.206.174.13[edit]

Promotional sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]


So, I can understand there are a lots of guidelines and conditions for creating a wiki page... But, because I've been given a review that the ref don't show the subject's notability, What should I do? I've added almost 20 references. And, please help me

103.206.174.13 (talk) 11:57, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saisripavi, User:103.206.174.13 - First, why are you editing logged out? Second, why did you put "J" after the title? Were you trying to create an article that has been protected against creation? I will respond further shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:42:13, 2 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Devzboi1[edit]


for two main reasons, The first is because of the importance of this article, and I need to be very attractive and interesting to the reader, as well as to love it, secondly i need professional help to cover this article further. I hope you'll help me finish the last part


Devzboi1 (talk) 20:42, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Devzboil - First, Wikipedia articles are not meant to be "attractive" to the reader, but to be informative and written from a neutral point of view. You appear to be asking for help in using Wikipedia to advance your career. That is not what Wikipedia is for. Second, I do not provide professional help in the sense that I do not do paid editing of Wikipedia, and I am opposed to paid editing of Wikipedia, and it is my opinion that paid editors of Wikipedia do not earn what they are paid. Please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Rabbits (podcast)[edit]

Hi! Thanks for your speedy comment on the draft. I thought it could be considered notable especially because of its reviews & mentions on Time, USA Today, etc. -- also because its sister podcasts have pages. Obviously WP:INHERITWEB but I thought that combined w/ the multiple references in major publications was sufficient. (It also has 2k+ reviews on iTunes, not that that necessarily means anything!) ohmyerica (talk) 02:44, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ohmyerica The draft in question is Draft:Rabbits (podcast). I will be asking for comments at WP:THQ. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Civility in infobox discussions case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 17, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Civility in infobox discussions/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:49, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

20:59:47, 3 February 2018 review of submission by NoahGMark[edit]


I'm requesting a re-review of this entry because I believe that it meets the requirements for a Wikipedia page. The submission's references do adequately show the subject's notability. The information in the article is supported by IMDB, which is the industry standard for credits in entertainment. IMDB page for Noah Mark The program that I currently Executive Produce, The Ultimate Fighter, is written about extensively on Wikipedia. It therefore stands to reason that being the Executive Producer of this program is notable and worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. I understand that it is frowned upon by Wikipedia for anyone to write their own page, but I also understand from reading Wikipedia's guidelines that people are not prohibited from creating their own page. The other reference I provided for the page, stating that I won a World MMA Award in 2017, is provided directly from the World MMA Award website. This is certainly a reliable source for information on the World MMA Awards. World MMA Awards Therefore, the submission's references are adequately sourced and verify the subject's notability. Please reconsider publishing this page. Thank you.


NoahGMark (talk) 20:59, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:NoahGMark - IMDB is not normally considered a reliable source by Wikipedia. However, I will be asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the draft is an autobiography, and their submission is discouraged. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for your kind words.

Not autobiography by any means, I know very little nor have met the subject except by what I have recently researched. I totally forgot my original username from years ago and have not submitted to wiki in years (and forgot how to do everything).

I became interested in subject when one of my students mentioned him to me during current events portion of class. You could have been meaner but I really appreciate the act of kindness with your comments. Thanks for your feedback and feel free to reach out to point me back in correct direction with your comments that you left me. Thanks, Caroline N. Horse_Enthusiast 01:30, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

User:Wschewning - If you are not William Chewning, your username may be in violation of the username policy, and you might want to change it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Livin Lite rv[edit]

I just spent about 12 hours researching and writing the article that was apparently immediately deleted.

I am an experienced wikipedia article. I am hoping to start this article and continue to add to it as I can find additional sources. I do not work for the company, I am simply interested in creating a place that's a resource on the company, their history, and their products.

User:Utahredrock - The article has not been deleted. It still exists at Draft:Livin Lite RV. It has been declined because it needs improvement if it is to be accepted into article space. You may ask more questions at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:42, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

RFCs[edit]

The subject is under discussion by the Arbitration Committee. Please provide any comments in the Arbitration Committee case. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:44, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm disappointed to see that you think RFCs the ideal way to resolve disputes on infoboxes. The recent one for Cary Grant should have told you that they cause more harm than good and are a colossal waste of time. The inbox brigade will only continue to open an RFC on every article without one until they have a majority. I do not want to keep seeing month long disputes with RFCs. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 08:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Submission Declined[edit]

Hello! I see that you have declined my submission at Draft:Arduino Nano. I am going to move it back to my sandbox n7: I started it yesterday and it is not ready for submission at all. I have no idea how this {{AfC Submission}} template ended up in my sandbox. However, if you could review my submission at Draft:Arduino UNO, that would be great. The topic is quite notable, well referenced and has some pictures and an infobox. I hope you find it good enough to be accepted. Thanks, L293D (✉) 14:16, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case reminder[edit]

You had recently provided a statement regarding a request for arbitration. We would like to remind you that the case is still open and evidence will be accepted until 11 February. Evidence may be posted at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Joefromrandb and others/Evidence according to the instructions of this page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kostas20142 (talk) 12:40, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kostas20142 - I have already provided the evidence that I was planning to provide, but I see that there is a reason why you have provided this notice to commenters, which is that there has been very little evidence offered. Everyone wants to ask the ArbCom to do something, and then no one wants to coooperate with the ArbCom, or something.... Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure[edit]

this is what you intended, as I just did the same thing. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim - Yuck. There is something wrong with a template if it permits good-faith editors who are trying to edit the talk page to modify the template that is being transcluded onto the talk page rather than adding a warning to the talk page. I think that I have finally reverted that edit. Yes. I think I accidentally broke the template, which was the template's fault. Yes, I think I have fixed it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Been there, brother. Been there. -- Dlohcierekim (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dlohcierekim - I think that there is a fragility to the template, and maybe to other templates. If one inserts the {{coin-notice}} template on a talk page, and forgets to substitute it, which is an oversight that even an experienced editor can make, then, under certain circumstances, that I have not yet identified, if text is added immediately after the template notice (such as an explanation of how serious the issue is), then the text is inserted into the template rather than only onto the user's talk page. I will report this as a bug. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:33, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Pascal Levensohn for deletion[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Edwardx (talk) 18:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edwardx - It's not my article. I have notified User:JaneWatson88 of the nomination. The article and the draft have a complicated history, and I have also nominated the draft because it is a duplicate of the article (whether or not the article should be kept). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It is good that WP:Twinkle informs the article creator, yet I guess it is not realistic for nominators to check for rare exceptions like this. Edwardx (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts in reviewing new pages!
The NPP backlog at the end of the drive with the number of unreviewed articles by creation date. Red is older than 90 days, orange is between 90 and 30 days old, and green is younger than 30 days.

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 3819 unreviewed articles, with a further 6660 unreviewed redirects.
  • We are very close to eliminating the backlog completely; please help by reviewing a few extra articles each day!

New Year Backlog Drive results:

  • We made massive progress during the recent four weeks of the NPP Backlog Drive, during which the backlog reduced by nearly six thousand articles and the length of the backlog by almost 3 months!

General project update:

  • ACTRIAL will end it's initial phase on the 14th of March. Our goal is to reduce the backlog significantly below the 90 day index point by the 14th of March. Please consider helping with this goal by reviewing a few additional pages a day.
  • Reviewing redirects is an important and necessary part of New Page Patrol. Please read the guideline on appropriate redirects for advice on reviewing redirects. Inappropriate redirects can be re-targeted or nominated for deletion at RfD.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. 20:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:52:05, 10 February 2018 review of submission by Lynneuna[edit]

Have studied your comments and have edited for more neutral language. Would appreciate re review as want to get this bio included in Wikipedia. Thank you.

Lynneuna (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lynneuna - Thank you for reworking the draft. I will ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. I see that you have a history of editing only Draft:Cynthia MacAdams and no other drafts. Do you have an affiliation with MacAdams or her studio or agent? If so, you are required to declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. If not, and if you are only trying to improve the encyclopedia by adding one article, you can help us at least as much with any of the five million articles that we already have as with one that we do not yet have. Are you working for or with MacAdams? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In answer to your question regarding COI, I have worked with Cynthia MacAdams. I do know her. I feel she is a notable photographer and should be included in Wikipedia. I have also begun to make some small edits to other articles within my realms of expertise. The Wikipedia world is certainly fascinating and I am attempting to learn the ways of communicating and editing. A couple of people have edited Cynthia MacAdams since the last communication and improved it. I am hoping it is ready to be published. Please advise.Lynneuna (talk) 19:30, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Admin's Barnstar
Thank you! Wonnral (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notify[edit]

Hi, I saw the note you left in the article Gjirokaster. Can you help me by telling me what method should I follow to inform other editors?(Bes-ART (talk))

User:Bes-ART - I think that the instructions at DRN should say, but any notice on their talk pages is satisfactory if it is clear. It must be on their talk pages. There is a template for the purpose, but it is not required. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the Requested commens[edit]

Hi. Please take a look at the Comment request for The National Memo article. Following your comment on dispute noticeboard, I've raised the request for comments. But I noticed that when I add proposed edits table the whole section disappears from this section. What I am doing wrong? Should this request contain "proposed edits"? Thank you. -- Bbarmadillo (talk) 11:03, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bbarmadillo - You are a paid editor who is trying to rewrite The National Memo to be a better advertisement for your blog. If so, it is really up to you and your customers to have the proper knowledge of Wikipedia in order to do what you are trying to do, or at least to acquire that knowledge without making excessive demands on the time of volunteer editors for assistance with tools. It appears that you are trying to use a template in order to create the Request for Comments, but that the template is not behaving in the way that you expect. Templates require knowledge of how they work in order to be used properly. If you can't figure out how a template works, use a different template or don't use a template; don't ask real volunteer editors for a lot of hand-holding with tools. I don't know what the problem is. When I create a Request for Comments, I don't use a template, and I am able to edit it myself without asking for hand-holding. I will be taking this discussion to your talk page where it will be seen by other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Y~ruwiki/TEM (nuclear propulsion)[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Home Lander (talk) 01:51, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Home Lander - It certainly isn't my draft, and I see that I said that it didn't say enough. Twinkle strikes again, and it notifies me about pages that I moved from sandboxes. I concur. Let it go. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yep, sure enough it did it again. I accidentally notified Alex Shih about one earlier. Home Lander (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:35:59, 14 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Jan Albert van den Berg[edit]


Dear Robert

Thank you very much for all your helpful comments!

I’ll consider the important pointers provided by you in editing the proposal.

Thank you very much!

Kind regards

Jan-AlbertJan Albert van den Berg (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Albert van den Berg (talk) 09:35, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Therapy[edit]

Thank you for your comments.

However, your critique that the 'health benefits' - after having suggested to remove the 'list of health benefits' are still there is not quite true. We have dropped the list of health benefits in the proposed article but fail to recognize that for an established Public health practice you do not tell the readers of Wikipedia which key health benefits can and shall be expected. The article clearly spells out, as is common practice in scientific articles, where the limitations of the benefits are. However, several hundred published research articles in peer-reviewed journals have found a reduced blood pressure, heart beat and reduced cortisol levels... again and again. To withhold or suppress this factual information in an article on a Public health practice, such as Forest Therapy, does not make sense. Hence, we have reduced the list of benefits - as requested - and reformulated the research so that the main origin of the health benefits, the phytoncides, does in fact lead to reduced blood pressure, heart beat and reduced cortisol levels. We do hope this meets the desired standards.

Following the comments of the editors we have further reduced the section on health benefits and relabelled it 'health effects', hoping that the more neutral term 'effect' (positive or negative) does not violate any of the editorial standards in Wikipedia. Still, it is common practice in international medical references to speak about health 'benefits' as long as these benefits are underpinned sufficiently well by research findings.

As we are a large group of scientists from Australia, Austria, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and the US we feel that it is more than timely that the Public health practice 'Forest Therapy' can and should be made more known. Hence, our intention to place an article in Wikipedia as users 'Geopingo' and 'Wasserlurchi' have tried. Since our first attempt of a draft article via user 'Geopingo' has been very rudely and in a truly unsubstantiated way been deleted with only user Jimfbleak being helpful in his comments to shorten, straighten and consolidating our wording, we asked another colleague, user 'Wasserlurchi', to retry with an amended version.

As scientists we surely understand the need to be precise in wording and, like Wikipedia. We appreciate that information and findings are presented in an authentic and genuine way - and on top of that replicable.

Consequently, we do hope that our most recent draft article now finds the acceptance of editors in Wikipedia.

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasserlurchi (talk • contribs) 00:46, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reply on Forest Therapy, and Possible Compromise[edit]

User:Wasserlurchi, User:Geopingo - First, who is "we"? The rule in Wikipedia is one account, one user. Second, if you are using the first person plural pronoun "we" on behalf of a group of scientists, do you have any financial or other interest in promoting forest therapy? Read the conflict of interest policy. Make any appropriate declaration. Third, although journal articles may be written to promote a particular therapy, treatment, or program, Wikipedia articles must be written from a neutral point of view. There are no exceptions permitted to the neutral point of view policy. All of the versions of your draft that I saw were written in a highly promotional manner, such as is commonly used when trying to promote a particular treatment methodology. So I will restate the question to you? Do you, the scientists, have any financial or other interest in promoting forest therapy? If so, declare it. If not, I am willing to make a suggestion. If none of you have a conflict of interest, and you are simply being too enthusiastic in promoting a therapy mode, then I will suggest that maybe User:Jimfbleak or another administrator can unprotect Draft:Forest Therapy and instead protect Forest Therapy so as to allow you to try to compose a Wikipedia article about it that complies with Wikipedia strict neutral point of view policy (as judged by experienced Wikipedians, not merely one that you think is scientifically valid). So: Do any of you have a conflict of interest to declare? If not, perhaps you can agree that you need to write in a different style than you have been using. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Forest Therapy[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon,

User Geopingo had stated clearly when submitting her draft article on Forest Therapy that she had neither a financial, promotional nor commercial interest in the subject matter, hence there was no conflict of interest whatsoever.

I myself as an international expert in empirical research state here and now that I have no financial, promotional nor commercial interest in the subject matter of Forest Therapy whatsoever. Forest Therapy is a research subject of substantial contemporary interest as underscored by the funding which goes into it at present, particularly in countries like Japan, Korea and Taiwan.

Again, allow me to point out that any validated and substantiated research findings about medical benefits of a Public health practice should be of interest to the wider public. In fact, this has been acceptable practice in Wikipedia (see, for example, Extracorporeal shockwave therapy, the latter being very beneficial for patients with Plantar fasciitis.

Hope, this helps to clarify matters.

Sincerely, Wasserlurchi — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wasserlurchi (talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

06:50:59, 16 February 2018 review of submission by KarmicRedemption[edit]


KarmicRedemption (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) Removed external links, added more independent references and publications KarmicRedemption (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC) KarmicRedemption (talk) 06:50, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:KarmicRedemption - In my opinion, it still reads promotionally, but I will ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:32, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Sun and Her Flowers[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon, I happened upon Draft:The Sun and Her Flowers and have made some improvements. Can you take a look and let me know your thoughts? Thanks. Hmlarson (talk) 23:09, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a bout of insomnia, I ended up truncating what was left of the draft. However, my final opinion is reject the article and suggest any useful content be added to the article about the author instead. David notMD (talk) 10:54, 17 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANI Discussion[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Administrators noticeboard Incidents regarding an issue with which your name has been mentioned. GizzyCatBella (talk) 11:36, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

03:42:33, 19 February 2018 review of submission by Pompey1[edit]


Pompey1 (talk) 03:42, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pompey1 - Why did you add "Pikedsatin" at the end of the draft? Does that have a meaning? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: User:Linton.zeng/sandbox[edit]

{{subst:User:Ale_jrb/Scripts/CSDHelper|action=decline|page=User:Linton.zeng/sandbox|tagger=Robert McClenon|declinetext=Neither WP:G1 not [[WP:G2] apply in the userspace.|admin=yes|newbie=no}} ~ GB fan 11:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

19:49:24, 21 February 2018 review of submission by 156ableitem[edit]


Thanks for taking the time to review my stub. I wasn't at all surprised that the subject didn't meet the requirements to establish musical notability, but where I'm more perplexed is in relation to the determination about independent sources. As I read and try to better understand the essay on the matter for future reference, I think I grasp that the Department of Defense source would be deemed (too) connected to the subject and possibly viewed as promotional material, as the Department is reporting on one of its own. Is this correct? SPIN, on the other hand, I'm a bit perplexed by. As a reputable music magazine separate from the source and the source's employer, wouldn't it be classified as independent? Regardless, I have nothing to challenge about your determination about the draft, just looking to better my future efforts.

Thanks again! 156ableitem (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:156ableitem - You may be right about SPIN, but it doesn't change my judgment to decline the submission. If you want to discuss further, please go to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cave for troll[edit]

I'm still a month behind looking at the Teahouse archives. One archive seemed very short, and then I discovered why. The last item on the page was a cave you created for a troll, whatever that means. Anyway, most of the questions on the page were in that cave. I'm sure that's not what you intended and I have to wonder how those questions looked before archiving. At this point, I don't think it's a problem that I removed that hat.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 21:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vchimpanzee - Thank you. Apparently the {{hab}} template at the bottom didn't get archived properly. I tried to enclose something with {{hat}} and {{hab}} that was clearly trolling. In folklore, trolls are often ugly creatures that hide in dark places such as in caves or under bridges. By enclosing the trolling between the templates, I meant to create a "cave" to hide the troll. Apparently it didn't work properly. Thank you. Do you understand now, that Internet trolls are compared to mythological trolls, which sometimes hide in caves? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Modern-day trolls...I always picture them as needing a Podiatrist. And sun block. Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 01:14, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

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

Request on 23:31:21, 24 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Rasadeva[edit]


RE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Marlis_Jermutus Hi Robert, thank you for your review of the proposed page. I've edited the article and will resubmit. The heavy reliance on WikiCommons articles comes from the lack of digital references to events in Germany and Ireland in the 1970s and 1980s.

Some artists have their art on permanent display in museums, some artists have displayed their work in museums for exhibitions. Most artists exhibit their work for a period of time in a gallery. The references here reflect that reality.

I wanted to put in something about her notable life, but I have yet to catalog her interviews online. I'm guessing that kind of 3rd party source is acceptable. Thanks again.

Rasadeva (talk) 23:31, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rasaveda - Wikimedia Commons is not a reliable source. If there is a lack of digital references to events in Germany and Ireland in the late twentieth century, then printed reliable sources may be used, but not unreliable digital sources. If you have further questions about what sources may be used, or other questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request[edit]

Comment probably relevant, but reference to guideline not relevant. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Per, Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#Joining a case already in progress, your comment here is unnecessary as I am already handling it. Coming in to ask essentially the same question is not helpful, especially when it is only 20 minutes later. Thanks. Nihlus 03:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Coco Austin[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Coco Austin. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:36, 25 February 2018 review of submission by Perkins49thovi[edit]


The reason given for the rejection of my page was that "the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Iron Brigade instead." However, the Horn Brigade and the Iron Brigade are not only two separate units, but have very little in common, save for that both originate in the Midwest region. They served in separate armies, in separate theaters of war, and under vastly different commanders. I do realize that the page for the Iron Brigade includes a section entitled "Other Union Army Iron Brigades," to which the Horn Brigade would be a welcome addition; however, I believe that the actions of the Horn Brigade warrant a page of their own, just like the Iron Brigade of the East, due to its uniqueness and performance in battle. Perkins49thovi (talk) 04:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perkins49thovi = Oops. Because you put in an incorrect link, I used an incorrect link. The existing article appears to be Eastern Iron Brigade. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Eastern Iron Brigade is also not the same unit as the Horn Brigade, if that is what you are implying. The Horn Brigade was a unit in the Army of the Cumberland, whereas the Eastern Iron Brigade served in the Army of the Potomac. I believe there is some confusion about the nicknames being used. The Horn Brigade was known as the "Iron Brigade" of the Army of the Cumberland, in reference to the famed Iron Brigade commanded by Rufus King and John Gibbon. But it is no more than a reference. The two brigades were separate units in every capacity, and there is not a page that exists as of yet that contains information on the Horn Brigade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perkins49thovi (talk • contribs) 20:00, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Perkins49thovi - I've taken out the incorrect link, and will take another look in a few hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:57:54, 26 February 2018 review of submission by pkrai[edit]


Dear Sir, We have received the following communication with regard to our attempt to create a Wikipedia page on Pradeep Rai, a renowned senior advocate and chairman of a leading media group. We would like to submit that the earlier submission referred to in the communication has already been deleted and is not awaiting review. Further, we have re-submitted the article after having addressed the problem of duplication and copyright violation. Please let us know what further actions/corrections/changes have to be made in this regard. wiki pkrai (talk) 12:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:wiki pkrai - Who is "we"? Who are you, and who is paying you? If you are editing on behalf of a group or organization, please make the required disclosure as specified by the conflict of interest guidelines and the paid editing guidelines. What further actions and corrections are needed can be considered after you make the required disclosure. If you have any more questions, please ask them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 26 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:02:16, 27 February 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Htberk[edit]


Hi, my original version of United States Bridge Championships found here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships was rejected based on notability (only primary sources). I have since updated it in two ways.

First, I have decided to split up the one page into multiple pages, one for each category. This way it allows me to go into more depth for each category without worrying that the article will be way too long and hard to read. I do not wish to resubmit the original article, but will still be using the information on it to construct the other articles.

This leads me to the first section I have been working on to make its own article. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:United_States_Bridge_Championships_-_Open

On the subject of notability, I have found multiple New York Times articles in relation to the subject matter at hand, and have submitted this article for review. Is this enough for notability? If not, what is the threshold that I need to achieve in order to have "notability".

Thanks for your time.


Hi- Have you had a chance to read this note and look at the notability of the newer article I created (which just has the first section of the older article as I am splitting it up as to not overwhelm the readers).

Thanks and let me know what you think. 11 March 2018

Htberk (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Htberk - I will comment more shortly, but my main recommendation is to ask for help at the Teahouse. Your decision to split the article into multiple articles may very well be the right thing to do, but it also makes review a little more complicated. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Why would this make the review a little more complicated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Htberk (talk • contribs) 01:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Help me[edit]

Hi , Robert I am sorry for disturbing you ,but I don't know what happened in my talk page , please if you have the time help me,I am sorry.--Salsabil rajhi (talk) 06:35, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa! Robert, all your user boxes and other items are now posted on SR's talk page. Must have happened when you posted a notification to him. He definitely needs your help! Tribe of Tiger Let's Purrfect! 07:38, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) SR had transcluded Robert's user page instead of linking his username. A common-enough mistake. Now fixed. — jmcgnh(talk) (contribs) 08:06, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Salsabil rajhi, User:Tribe of Tiger, User:jmcnh - Please restate any requests for help. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:26, 27 February 2018 review of submission by Wiki pkrai[edit]


Thanks for the update. This regards your query seeking clarification on who "We" are. We are a small group of junior legal practitioners working with Senior Advocate Mr Pradeep Rai. ('Senior advocate' in India is a designation conferred on an advocate by the Supreme Court or a High Court. Only Supreme Court and the High Courts have the power to an advocate as a Senior Advocate). Writing for this page is part of our overall work with Mr Pradeep Rai. Please do let us know any other information we need to furnish in this regard.

Please get it okayed on the two main points, since Wikipedia asks if it is 'paid work'. It says: "A paid contribution is one that involves contributing to Wikipedia in exchange for money or other inducements." Details here:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Paid-contribution_disclosure.

Wiki pkrai (talk) 12:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

15:15:31, 28 February 2018 review of submission by Hturnt[edit]


I am requesting a review because i believe this subject to have adequate notability; perhaps not to everyone, but the topic of skateboarding is a very large one and it is growing rapidly. The fact that one of the most famous skateboarders, Chaz Ortiz, does not have a Wikipedia article was surprising to me, as he is known by anybody who skateboards or watches Street League. Also, the sources that I listed are ones that cover all sports, and some that cover all of skateboarding. These sources both have coverage of a specific person of the sport of skateboarding, so I believe it is notable.

Hturnt (talk) 15:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Hturnt - There is discussion at the Teahouse. Since one respected editor says that they think that he passes general notability, I am inclined to accept after you resubmit. However, please discuss with us at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #1—2018[edit]

Read this in another language • Subscription list for the English Wikipedia • Subscription list for the multilingual edition

Did you know?

Did you know that you can now use the visual diff tool on any page?

Screenshot showing some changes, in the two-column wikitext diff display

Sometimes, it is hard to see important changes in a wikitext diff. This screenshot of a wikitext diff (click to enlarge) shows that the paragraphs have been rearranged, but it does not highlight the removal of a word or the addition of a new sentence.

If you enable the Beta Feature for "⧼visualeditor-preference-visualdiffpage-label⧽", you will have a new option. It will give you a new box at the top of every diff page. This box will let you choose either diff system on any edit.

Toggle button showing visual and wikitext options; visual option is selected

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

In the visual diff, additions, removals, new links, and formatting changes will be highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Screenshot showing the same changes to an article. Most changes are highlighted with text formatting.

This screenshot shows the same edit as the wikitext diff. The visual diff highlights the removal of one word and the addition of a new sentence. An arrow indicates that the paragraph changed location.

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 Editing Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode, which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and improving the visual diff tool. Their work board is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes[edit]

  • The 2017 wikitext editor is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. It has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. The team have been comparing the performance of different editing environments. They have studied how long it takes to open the page and start typing. The study uses data for more than one million edits during December and January. Some changes have been made to improve the speed of the 2017 wikitext editor and the visual editor. Recently, the 2017 wikitext editor opened fastest for most edits, and the 2010 WikiEditor was fastest for some edits. More information will be posted at mw:Contributors/Projects/Editing performance.
  • The visual diff tool was developed for the visual editor. It is now available to all users of the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. When you review your changes, you can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. You can also enable the new Beta Feature for "Visual diffs". The Beta Feature lets you use the visual diff tool to view other people's edits on page histories and Special:RecentChanges. [2]
  • Wikitext syntax highlighting is available as a Beta Feature for both the 2017 wikitext editor and the 2010 wikitext editor. [3]
  • The citoid service automatically translates URLs, DOIs, ISBNs, and PubMed id numbers into wikitext citation templates. This tool has been used at the English Wikipedia for a long time. It is very popular and useful to editors, although it can be tricky for admins to set up. Other wikis can have this service, too. Please read the instructions. You can ask the team to help you enable citoid at your wiki.

Let's work together[edit]

  • The team is planning a presentation about editing tools for an upcoming Wikimedia Foundation metrics and activities meeting.
  • Wikibooks, Wikiversity, and other communities may have the visual editor made available by default to contributors. If your community wants this, then please contact Dan Garry.
  • The <references /> block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. This has already been enabled at the English Wikipedia. If you want columns for a long list of footnotes on this wiki, you can use either <references /> or the plain (no parameters) {{reflist}} template. If you edit a different wiki, you can request multi-column support for your wiki. [4]
  • 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. We will notify you when the next issue is ready for translation. Thank you!

—User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 23:14, 28 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On disagreeing[edit]

RE usually disagree? I found that a little surprising. For what its worth, I feel I rarely disagree with you. I guess my voicing of complaints from an outside perspective is easy to find disagreeable, and my commonly employed communication style seems to rub you poorly, but I am attempting to work on these things. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:10, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:SmokeyJoe - Okay. Good. We agree after all about subpages of sandboxes maybe. I think that only the /sandbox page or nummbered sandboxes after it are exempt from deletion, and that named subpages are just user pages. Maybe we agree on that. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also I think that we agree on more than we disagree about the math stubs and drafts. I think that I have forgotten more math than a certain editor has learned, but I am willing to defer to the judgment of the mathematicians in WP:WikiProject Mathematics. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Express Entry Post By New User[edit]

(I thought this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Express_Entry would be an easy post to start with. Now I know none of them are easy. :)

A few questions before I start consolidating my Express Entry Post with the previous one.

Would Immigration Agencies count as secondary sources? All reputable agencies are legal experts and work daily in the interpretation of the Canadian Immigration Law. I am thus inclined to think that the immigration services (those who can prove that their author is a qualified Immigration Consultant and also boasts a good reputation amongst users) would be the most up to date secondary source available. What is your opinion?

There are other secondary sources but they usually focus on the amounts of people who use express entry, and not the details as pertains to its inner workings.

Thanks A Million! Onkreukbaar (talk) 07:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:38:41, 3 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Powerd By AMAS[edit]


Please clarify how you believe this draft " appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally". I think I was very neutral in just stating the facts. Please point out som eexamples.

Powerd By AMAS (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:39:27, 3 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Powerd By AMAS[edit]


Please clarify how you believe this draft " appears to have been written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally". I think I was very neutral in just stating the facts. Please point out som examples.

Powerd By AMAS (talk) 11:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:45:22, 5 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Esta Pretorius[edit]


Good day Robert McClenon Thank you for your feedback on the article "The Gadget Shop South Africa" The sources referenced are from independent news or blog sources - and not sources created by The Gadget Shop South Africa

Would you please be of assistance so I can understand where the promotional content is? Is it the sources that is the problem?

Please also see an article which gives subjective opinions and hence my confusion for the article being declined Things such as "leaders in classifieds" etc are posted on this article yet it was accepted? Junk Mail Digital Media

Your assistance will be greatly appreciated Thank you and have a lovely day

Esta Pretorius (talk) 06:45, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Esta Pretorius. I am an administrator and can view deleted drafts. I read this one, and overtly promotional, advertising-type language was everywhere within the draft. Wikipedia articles must be written from the neutral point of view, and your draft violated that policy. Perhaps the worst of the promotional language was "After more than 12 years in the industry The Gadget Shop maintains it’s vision to be the go-to store for all innovative, unique and new gadgets, gizmos, toys and hi-tech products for the South African public and maintains it’s national footprint with the public." But there were many other examples of such promotional language. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:12, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esta Pretorius - If there is another article which is in article space and has overly promotional language, that is probably because no one has requested that it be deleted. If so, either you or another editor may tag another article that is an advertisement for speedy deletion as an advertisement. If you have any more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:20, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Esta Pretorius - I have a question. Do you have any connection with Gadget Shop South Africa? Please read the conflict of interest policy. If you have any connection with Gadget Shop, you must declare it. In particular, if you are editing in the course of your employment, you must make the declaration in accordance with the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 5 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicated message of disrupted editing[edit]

Hi, I just noticed that you had left a message about disruptive editing on my talk page, where there had already been another users comment about it. Would it be okay if I deleted it? Cheers! Mirthpines (talk) 10:53, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mirthpines - First, you edited N disruptively twice, so you got warned twice. Second, however, you are almost always permitted to remove messages from your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:BiondVax[edit]

User:Robert_McClenon Just wanted to let you know I have read your concerns regarding Draft:BiondVax. I would like to explain that I have done my best to create a neutral article, with reliable sources, and have been transparent regarding my connection to the topic. I am not an experienced editor, and frankly even if I wanted to, I wouldn't understand how or why I'd try "to keep it under the radar". (I had to look up 'sockpuppet' on UrbanDictionary!). I welcome input from experienced editors such as yourself on how to improve the article. --WanderingJosh (talk) 13:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:WanderingJosh - I am the wrong experienced editor to ask for help on how to improve an article that you are being paid to edit. I do not work with paid editors and am not here to help paid editors. You may be able to find an editor at the Teahouse who will be willing to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Leonor Anthony[edit]

Hi, Robert - Draft:Leonor Anthony is back in the AfC queue but I'm not seeing much difference from the way it was when you sent it back to draft space except for a few minor edits by a now blocked user. I'm thinking to send it back to Draft because it still reads like an activist promotion rather than a notable BLP. Your thoughts? Do what you will with my blessings. Atsme📞📧 00:12, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme - I didn't really "send it back" to draft space, at least not as I would use the phrase. That, to me, implies moving it from article space to draft space, a half-delete. I moved it from a user sandbox to draft space. I didn't accept it or decline it, but it was then reviewed by another reviewer who (as you say) has been blocked as a sockpuppet. I would describe the question as whether to leave it in draft space (decline it) or to promote it to article space. I would suggest either asking the author to disclose any conflict of interest, or asking for a review at WP:WikiProject Visual Arts. In looking at the history, it is likely that the author is the subject, and also possible that the author is being hired by the subject. Notice that the author has never edited anything else. That is my thought. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:57:44, 8 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by MrUntitled[edit]


Hi, it's pretty difficult to improve upon an article that has been deleted. I understand why it was not approved but it does feel a bit harsh to make people redo the whole thing as opposed to giving them the chance to make the necessary changes.

MrUntitled (talk) 13:57, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

MrUntitled - I apologize for the wording of the message if it encourages you to improve the draft. You should not be encouraged to approve a draft in the case where an article on the subject was already deleted after a formal deletion discussion. It has been the judgment of the community that the company is not notable and that the previous article was not appropriate. You may ask to have either the deleted article or the deleted draft restored to your user space by making a request at Requests for Undeletion, and you may try to develop a draft that shows that the company is notable. However, that is typically a high hurdle to clear if there has already been a deletion discussion. You may ask any further questions at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, are you affiliated with Elias Software in any way? If so, that would be a conflict of interest, and it is even more difficult to get an article approved if you have a conflict of interest and there has already been a deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alpha Centauri case[edit]

Commenting here, since I'm not your target audience on the dispute resolution talk page. For what it's worth, I think the problem was essentially insoluble. In my opinion, what's going on is that Kvaelen has little expertise in the subject matter, and after a month of talk (and a full novella's worth of verbiage), remains convinced that arguing long enough and hard enough will allow the edits to be made. I understand ArianeWiki is a professional astronomer, but does not have a good "bedside manner", which tends to escalate disputes. In this case, pretty clear patience had been exhausted. So, no good answer.

I may be next in the barrel, I'm having a dispute on Superconductivity where it's pretty much the same issue of not understanding the material and adding noise to articles. Maybe the right answer is to take it to WP:Dramaboard when it happens. Regards, Tarl N. (discuss) 20:55, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tarl N. - I don't really know what the issue was in the first place anyway. I did see that originally Kvaelen made a large edit, and it was reverted as needing consensus, and that all efforts that I made to get him to specify any specific edits failed because he went on and on and on.
The other thing about Arianewiki is that they erase notices from their talk page. This is permitted but is not the best practice, and can appear to be disruptive.
I can't recommend starting off going to WP:ANI. Unless it is very clear that one editor is being disruptive, it is likely that the thread will be categorized as a content dispute (and it does start as a content dispute) and closed without action. My advice on Superconductivity would be to try to request knowledgeable help at WP:WikiProject Physics first. Then, if the noisy editor still persists, there may be a better case at WP:ANI. I do think that I will provide instructions on what I think should be done next in a few cases including Alpha Centauri.
It doesn't seem that my sarcastic humor did any good or harm. Okay. It made me feel better.

Robert McClenon (talk) 00:09, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chuckle. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:13, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Jersey-related AfDs[edit]

I read your statement at ARBCOM explaining how there is no obvious reason why there should be battleground editing in the area of New Jersey. I think you are missing the subtle point. Which is that all the articles being warred over are about politicians, and Alansohn is a politician himself. The topic of post-1932 politics of the United States is undoubtedly a battleground topic. The case label is fairly inaccurate. Prince of Thieves (talk) 12:51, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prince of Thieves - If the articles being warred over are politicians, then discretionary sanctions over biographies of living persons also apply. In that case, I will add to my statement to say that arbitration is not necessary because Arbitration Enforcement is already available. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration with the Axis Powers during World War II. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

00:31:08, 13 March 2018 review of submission by Lynneuna[edit]


Lynneuna (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Hello. I am requesting an update on the re-review of Cynthia MacAdams article. It is currently located in the sandbox of Carlosdanna. He is currently blocked and I am wondering if this will affect the publishing of the article. I have heavily edited the article and others have also contributed to the editing after you called for feedback. Carlosdanna was helping me with the proper formatting for the sources and references, but has been cited for sockpuppetry. We are two separate people. Two separate accounts. I understand what might be the misunderstanding. However, any issues derived from my being a novice and needing help with the source formatting. My understanding has grown and I am looking forward to contributing editing to Wikipedia. Please advise if the Cynthia MacAdmas article can be published in its current revised form.Lynneuna (talk) 00:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lynneuna - Did you read the notice at the top of my talk page? You are an editor who has a history of editing one article. Do you have an affiliation with MacAdams? If so, please make the proper conflict of interest disclosure. I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Please ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I am receiving guidance from other editors now. Regarding COI, I stated previously that I have in the past worked with Cynthia MacAdams, so I know her work. I felt that she is notable for Wikipedia. Recently, when Kate Millett died I read her Wikipedia page, and other pages of photographers such as MaryEllen Mark and thought that I'd like to create such a page for Cynthia MacAdams. I intend to edit other Wikipedia pages as I have time.Carlosdanna, who has helped with the source formatting early on does not have any association with Cynthia MacAdams. He was just trying to help me out as a newbie. I think that he still may be blocked. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lynneuna (talk • contribs)

Draft: The Untouchable (band)[edit]

Robert, I wasn't sure if you have seen my reply to your request for information about my article submission. In case it fell through the cracks (I know that you are extremely busy), I have copied it below.

Hello Robert, thank you for your speedy response and inquiry about notability of The Untouchable. I have been motivated to write this article for many years (I was a disc jockey at a large NJ/Philadelphia radio station in the 80's), due in part to the repeated references in interviews by James Osterberg (Iggy Pop) to this all-girl band's influence on him and his band The Stooges after seeing them perform in 1967. Most recently in the Jim Jarmusch film "Gimme Danger" he again credits them with "shaming" him into taking his band seriously, as they were so much better than he was (his words). After researching this, many other details were discovered. As mentioned in the article, after being signed by Charles Koppelman of Koppelman and Rubin, the were assigned producer John Boylan to record their first single. Present at that recording session was world renowned studio designer and architect John Storyk (who designed Electric Lady studios as his first project), who also notes that his first time in a recording studio (Bell Sound, NY) was with The Untouchable at this session. So there is quite a bit of "six degrees of separation" with the band (who broke up in 1969) and many notables in the music world. The Jarmusch film also peaked the curiosity of a writer for Ugly Things magazine, which resulted in a multi-paged article in issue #45 in 2017. It is for these reasons that I believe this band needs to have a presence on Wikipedia for historical perspective and reference.DMV2017 (talk) 11:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:DMV2017 - Do you have a connection with the band? If so, please declare your conflict of interest. (I am asking because your only edits in the past few months have been to the band.) I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I suggest that you ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:58, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:DMV2017 and Robert McClenon, see my comments at Draft talk: The Untouchable (band), where a copy of the post which started this thread was made. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:38:59, 14 March 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Dthomson102467[edit]


Hi. I made updates to my original submission and re-submitted it. I'm wondering if I didn't apply the changes properly because I haven't heard back from anyone on it. This is the first article I've tried to add to Wikipedia so any help you can provide would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks, Dthomson102467 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC) David Thomson Dthomson102467 (talk) 20:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dthomson102467 - I do not normally follow a draft through the submission process. However, in this case, the draft still has no independent references, and so I will decline it on notability grounds (which I referred to in my previous decline). The only edits that you have made have been to this draft. Do you have a connection with the organization? If so, please declare your conflict of interest. You can ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

10:59:35, 15 March 2018 review of submission by Spiros4m[edit]


Spiros4m (talk) 10:59, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Just to say that I have read thoroughly this article and I have to say that it is quite comprehensive, especially when reading carefully from step to step. Of course it takes too much time to read and make sure that relationships and calculations are correct. However personally I did it and I did confirm the reliability of this article. If you allow me, I would kindly suggest you whenever you have time to have a good look again. Given that I am not seeing any mistakes, this article looks really interesting and it can really consist a very brilliant theory. Many Thanks for your time and consideration. Spiros Papathanasiou El. Engineer, Phd 4M S.A.

ACTRIAL - next steps for the Future of AfC & NPP[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts reviewing New Page and AfC submissions and your support for the ACTRIAL initiative.

The conclusion to the ACTRIAL report commissioned by the Wikimedia Foundation strongly reiterates our long-time on going requirements for the NPP and AfC processes to be improved. Within minutes of the trial being switched off, the feed was swamped with inappropriate creations and users are being blocked already.
This is now the moment to continue to collaborate with the WMF and their developers to bring the entire Curation system up to date by making a firm commitment to addressing the list of requirements to the excellent suite of tools the WMF developed for Curation. Some of these are already listed at Phabricator but may need a boost.
The conclusions also make some recommendations for AfC.
A place to discuss these issues initially is here where you are already a task force member.

Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC. To opt-out of future mailings, go here. From MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:02, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty PRODing[edit]

Robert, the article you proposed for deletion has been in existence for less than 30 minutes, and I am actively editing it. Don't you think that this is a bit premature? J-Mo 03:11, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bullying case from a group in Wikipedia ES (Spanish) in editing articles related to the Venezuelan presidential candidate Javier Bertucci[edit]

Respectfully, I have to contact a Wikipedia administrator, because I noticed a bullying on Wikipedia ES. The pages involve are in Spanish, but I'm adding translations Link. Here was what I wrote to the user in his English Common page (https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Taichi), he blocked me Spanish page and I couldn't talk in his Spanish page because he put in place restrictions such as blocking me or requesting more than 50 edits to edit in his page. Please read his discussion page that will direct you to the other pages with translations in English. I can explain more as you request it from me. Thanks,--Edugraph (talk) 12:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Google translation/traducción de Google: La Wikipedia en inglés no tiene absolutamente ninguna autoridad sobre Wikipedia en español o sobre Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons no tiene absolutamente ninguna autoridad sobre la Wikipedia en inglés o la Wikipedia en español. Cada Wikipedia es autónoma y establece sus propias reglas y procesos a excepción de unas pocas reglas impuestas por la Fundación Wikimedia. (Wikimedia Foundation y Wikimedia Commons no son lo mismo.) Las personas que son administradores en una Wikipedia no son administradores automáticamente en otras Wikipedias y cada Wikipedia elige, disciplina y elimina solo a sus propios administradores. Deberá utilizar los procesos proporcionados por la Wikipedia en español para resolver sus inquietudes. Wikipedia en inglés no puede ayudarte. English: English Wikipedia has absolutely no authority over Spanish Wikipedia or over Wikimedia Commons. Wikimedia Commons has absolutely no authority over English Wikipedia or Spanish Wikipedia. Each Wikipedia is autonomous and establishes its own rules and processes with the exception of a few rules imposed by the Wikimedia Foundation. (Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Commons are not the same.) People who are administrators in one Wikipedia are not administrators automatically in other Wikipedias and each Wikipedia chooses, disciplines and removes only its own administrators. You will have to use the processes provided by Spanish Wikipedia to resolve your concerns. English Wikipedia can not help you. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks 2[edit]

Hi Robert, can you assist. I am assisting students to learn to use Wikipedia and I asked them to start work in their sandboxes. You have been helping, but I see that you have moved some work to drafts saying this is the "preferred" location. Can you tell me when this was decided? As it is it just leads to confusion for them and me because their work is not where it was expected. If this is policy then why is the sandbox still available? Victuallers (talk) 13:40, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victuallers - Did they Submit the sandboxes to AFC for review? If a sandbox is Submitted to AFC for review, meaning that the author is requesting that it be reviewed for acceptance into article space, it is useful and preferred first to move it into draft space with a title that will be the title of the article. If a student is simply editing in a sandbox for testing, they do not need to Submit the sandbox for AFC review. Maybe they think that Submit only means request another look for any reason. It means request a review for acceptance into article space. What are you trying to teach the students? What is the nature of the project? Have you discussed the project at the Educational Assignment Noticeboard? If you have any more questions, please ask at ENB or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I can see what happened now. That makes sense. I should have tipped them off that pressing the review button might result in their work being moved. Maybe I would have found that out at EAN. Thanks for your help - I understand. Obviously its a shock when it goes, The student in question has started another article in their sandbox and I'm not sure they understand where the first one disappeared to. Victuallers (talk) 14:36, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Victuallers - What are you teaching your students, and what are they trying to do in the sandboxes? Maybe I can give better advice if I know what the purpose is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2018 (UTC) Thank you Robert. The students are Masters students who are on a course on Digital Marketing. Many of them are working in their second language. This enables them to write about notable Chinese subjects with authority. They all understand the 5 pillars are they have been tasked to create information about subjects that relate to digital marketing in an academic way. When they feel confident then they are experimenting with adding work to Wikipedia. The work is in "in" today and I asked them all to post no new work to Wikipedia outside their sandbox over the weekend (to prevent them just pasting and running away). Sorry for late reply. Victuallers (talk) 08:05, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ANi[edit]

Another user removed [5] likely by accident. However, since the IBAN/TBAN is passing with leading Admins supporting it I am really surprised you posted what you posted. Legacypac (talk) 18:48, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Raakshas: India's No 1 Serial Killer Afd[edit]

You may want to consider bundling Anti-Social Network, Compass Box Killer, and Mumbaistan into that nomination. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:35, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJMC89 - Done. Of course, this only applies to what is left after you have redacted the copyvio. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:22, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mumbaistan and similar - AfD notice[edit]

Hi, is there a reason you're putting the AfD notices at the bottom of the page? WP:AFDHOWTO is pretty clear about putting them at the top, is there something I'm missing? ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 23:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bellezzasolo - Sloppiness, probably. I don't generally put AFD notices on articles manually, but that is necessary when bundling; like most reasonable NPP editors, I normally use Twinkle, which does it right. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:58, 17 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've never done bundling, so wasn't sure whether I'd missed something. After all, these are pages that are more notice than content. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 00:10, 18 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DRN: Broadridge Financial Solutions[edit]

Hi Robert, I was in the process of preparing a note for the Broadridge Financial Solutions discussion at resolution noticeboard when I noticed the discussion was closed. My apologies, I was not on Wikipedia over the weekend so I only saw your note today. I am disappointed that there has not been more discussion, however I did not consider the matter to be resolved. I do suspect that Spintendo is not going to comment again, as it has been more than a week. Is it worth re-opening, or would you recommend another course of action? Danilo Two (talk) 18:59, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danilo Two - On the one hand, if you want to try to re-open, you may do so. I don't know how likely that it is to help, because, as you said, User:Spintendo has not commented in several days. You may try. Further discussion on the article talk page may also help. Is there any specific content issue that prevents resolution? The alternatives include a Request for Comments, and also formal mediation, which is also voluntary, but is a slow process that can take months. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologise for not responding. If Danilo would like to re-open that is fine with me. I will have to be more vigilant in responding, I had thought there would be more time too, but I suppose Mr. McClenon isn't running a cocktail lounge there, and visitors are expected to keep it moving briskly I will try to be quicker next time, if there is a next time. Thank you both Spintendo      00:32, 20 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice on my proposed article, Multisensory learning. I have added the references as suggested. jnhmunro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnhmunro (talk • contribs) 19:45, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

March 2018[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Osplace 03:56, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Anti-Flame Barnstar
For keeping a level head and staying cool with the whole Sammy Sosa/discretionary sanction warning with another user. You were clearly correct in your actions. Drm310 🍁 (talk) 14:52, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Interveinal[edit]

I think you moved a little fast on this and missed the comment on the Interveinal and the section on Talk:Interveinal. Please read Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 144#RfC: Cross-wiki redirects to Wiktionary before attemptiong to remove or delete the page. Nessie (talk) 15:42, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]


Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban[edit]

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:36, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification of wording of Barbara's topic ban[edit]

Sandstein has closed the User:Barbara (WVS) ANI discussion with a topic ban worded "is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from medical articles". Following discussion with Sandstein regarding the scope of that topic ban (User_talk:Sandstein#What_the_topic_ban_covers), it is felt that further wording is required. Therefore it is proposed that the wording of the topic ban is amended to read:

"By consensus of the community, Barbara (WVS) (talk · contribs), also editing as Bfpage (talk · contribs), is topic-banned (WP:TBAN) from health and medical topics, including anatomy and sexuality, broadly construed, and is also banned from interacting with Flyer22 (talk · contribs) (WP:IBAN)."

As you took place in the discussion, please visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal_for_clarification_of_scope_of_topic_ban to give your views. SilkTork (talk) 08:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Recent Help on Race Winning Brands[edit]

Hello, Robert. This month you gave us a few suggestions to edit a Wiki page. I took to those suggestions, greatly edited the page, removing all promo-talk, etc. Is there any way you could take another look at it, please? And let me know if the page can be published? Draft:Race_Winning_Brands Thanks for all your help! Kyle.T.Welch (talk) 16:14, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kyle.T.Welch - Did you read the banner at the top of my talk page when you posted this request? First, I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. However, second, you are a single-purpose account with a history of only editing Race Winning Brands and its subsidiaries. This behavior, focusing only on one set of companies, is usually typical of conflict of interest editors. You have not made a conflict of interest disclosure? Should you? If you actually do not have an association with Race Winning Brands, and really just want to contribute to Wikipedia, you can help at least as well with the 5.5 million articles that we already have as well as with one that we do not yet have. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kyle.Welch - In my opinion, the draft is not much of an improvement. It is still about what the company says about itself, not what others have said about it. The improvement is only that it is now one draft and not seven. I can ask for another reviewer at the Teahouse. It doesn't appear that the draft is about to be accepted, but I will still ask whether there is a self-serving reason why you are interested only in this draft article. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've copied this discussion to Draft talk:Race Winning Brands so we can centralize discussion. Legacypac (talk) 17:59, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the advice on my proposed article, Multisensory learning.[edit]

I have added the references as suggested. Draft:Multisensory learning user:jnhmunro — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jnhmunro (talk • contribs) 16:31, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

21:27:21, 26 March 2018 review of submission by GaryS73[edit]


GaryS73 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

i'm new to this so please provide some guidance as to specifically why this was rejected. thank you.

GaryS73 (talk) 21:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:GaryS73 - We already have an article on Covenant Aviation Security. What are you trying to do? Were you trying to add to the article, or to replace the article, or what? If you really don't know how to use Wikipedia, maybe you should try to learn by playing The Wikipedia Adventure, or ask for advice at the Teahouse. What were you trying to do?
Also, if you are employed by Covenant Aviation Security, read the conflict of interest policy and make the required disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.Aroorbach9 (talk) 02:50, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft submission Jeronym Zajicek. As to your question regarding musical notability, a number of works by this composer were published by a commercial sheet music publisher not associated with the composer. Commercial interest in his works should attest to notability of his music. As to your suggestion to submit the article to the classical music project group - I am not a skilled wikipedia writer, I just don't know how to do it. Can you help? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Karel dragoun (talk • contribs) 20:09, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Margot Robbie[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Margot Robbie. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you[edit]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy
For the assistance that Robert McClenon provided at a recent AN/I involving myself, I hereby award them the Barnstar of Diplomacy. The input and feedback provided by you was invaluable and much appreciated. Feedback is always important, but to receive it from an experienced Wikipedian such as yourself meant so much more to me, and I truly appreciate the time you spent on this matter.  Thank you very much! Spintendo      07:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review Newsletter No.10[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Notability
General notability guideline
Subject-specific guidelines
See also

ACTRIAL:

  • ACTRIAL's six month experiment restricting new page creation to (auto)confirmed users ended on 14 March. As expected, a greatly increased number of unsuitable articles and candidates for deletion are showing up in the feed again, and the backlog has since increased already by ~30%. Please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day.

Paid editing

  • Now that ACTRIAL is inoperative pending discussion, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary.

Subject-specific notability guidelines

Nominate competent users for Autopatrolled

  • While patrolling articles, if you find an editor that is particularly competent at creating quality new articles, and that user has created more than 25 articles (rather than stubs), consider nominating them for the 'Autopatrolled' user right HERE.

News

  • The next issue Wikipedia's newspaper The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it, including ACTRIAL wrap-up that will be of special interest to New Page Reviewers. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. The Signpost is one of the best ways to stay up date with news and new developments - please consider subscribing to it. All editors of Wikipedia and associated projects are welcome to submit articles on any topic for consideration by the The Signpost's editorial team for the next issue.
To opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:06, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_20&oldid=838586456"