User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 24

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

. .

Responded to question on Beyond Curie page[edit]

Hi Robert - I have responded to your question about Beyond Curie directly on the page under your comment. To restate it here, Phingbodhipakkiya is the last name of the creator of the portraits. Jasonyshen (talk) 15:52, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Robert - fixed the other references error you pointed out. Thanks and Happy New Year! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonyshen (talk • contribs) 06:22, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert - I wasn't sure if there's anything else you need from me to complete your review of my Beyond Curie wikipedia draft. Appreciate your help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonyshen (talk • contribs) 05:19, 29 January 2019 (UTC) Jasonyshen (talk) 05:21, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jasonyshen - After searching through my talk page, I found your message. I found your submission, Draft:Beyond Curie. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Your only edits in 2018 and 2019 have been to Draft:Beyond Curie and its reviewers. Do you have a connection with the series? If so, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:04, 29 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Szustkowski[edit]

Referring to the motor sports notability guidelines: The subject (Robert Szustkowski) has completed a number of races of worldwide interest, including among others Dakar and Silk Way Rally. He is therefore a person of growing international recognition in the world of motor sports. The list of rallies is included in the article, as well as the list of regattas.

I (the author of the draft) have no connection with the subject, I am just a fan of sport, including regattas (and to some extent also rallies). I have created an article about Robert Szustkowski for Polish edition of Wikipedia, and given Szustkowski's growing list of international successes, I wanted to create similar article for English Wikipedia.

I believe the draft is consistent with all Wikipedia recommendations and requirements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speedteam (talk • contribs) 14:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cecily Jordan Farrars article[edit]

Robert McClenon

Thank you for expanding Cecily Jordan's article to include the controversy. It looks like you expanded it as well. Good job. I was considering that move myself, but didn't know if it was appropriate or if I would be dinged for moving so much. There are two issues that I don't see. The precedence setting issue of a woman being sued for Breach of Promise. This was the first such case, and the aftermath. The prohibition, like all prohibitions, didn't hold. There is also the Background, which is not mentioned in any article. That there was a shortage of women in the settlement, the situation was so dire that men of quality were trying to induce their sisters to migrate, and the Virginia Company resorted to bribing women, offering them a dowry and marriage to men of "quality". They recruited almost 200 females that way.

Isn't that significant?Oldperson (talk) 16:27, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Oldperson - I didn't expand or edit the article or the draft. Please discuss notability issues about a draft on a draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Twinkle misses the mark again (but is mostly useful). Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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. JMHamo (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request for information about declined article[edit]

Hi,

I'd like to understand more about why you declined my proposed article Draft:Pixel Slate, especially as it was declined as I was in the middle of working to improve it based on your comments from yesterday.

I wrote a question to the helpdesk earlier about the topic, as I don't understand your assertion about the sources not being independent. The current version of the page includes relevant references to articles from The Guardian, Gizmodo, Mashable, ZDNet, Popular Science, and CNet. Additionally, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest since my only connection to the product is that I happen to own one (which, if this were sufficient for a conflict of interest, I believe we'd have a difficult time finding editors for the iPhone page).

If you don't believe I'll be able to show the page to be notable, I'd like your advice on how best to migrate the relevant info from this page to the Pixel Slate section of the Google Pixel page. It does, however, seem like it would be a strange editorial decision to have this be the one major device on the Pixel page without its own page

Thanks,

Lengau (talk) 05:20, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lengau - We can continue the discussion at the AFC Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:49, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Volpe[edit]

Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing and commenting on the article: Harry Volpe.

While a seminal figure in early jazz guitar with numerous mentions in print and online--in addition to his many recordings, of course--Volpe is practically a ghost in terms of published biographical information. The two main published sources are William Bay's book, Masters of the Plectrum Guitar, as well as Volpe's out-of-print, impossible-to-find autobiography.

I referenced both of those books. In your comment, "It appears that this subject is likely notable, but that better sources are required", how would I go about improving?

Thanks again. Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayslearnedstuff (talk • contribs) 14:00, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alwayslearnedstuff - Good question. I will ask at the Teahouse, but my thinking is to accept it as a less-than-well-sourced article. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Thank you, Robert. I read the dialogue on the Teahouse and there are a couple of videos of Harry Volpe which show his face that have recently surfaced on YouTube, taken by someone in Florida when Volpe was was older. Will try and link to them (and yes, you were correct: they are over 25 years old). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alwayslearnedstuff (talk • contribs) 17:45, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On This Holiday again[edit]

The article is being created at mainspace by Jax 0677. Despite my efforts to have it salted as with the draft, another admin disagreed with this. Will have to remind folks that if they want to salt drafts they should salt mainspace as well. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 03:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AngusWOOF - I think that the two alternatives are to take it to Articles for Deletion and address the notability question directly, with Redirect as an Alternative To Deletion, or to ignore it. In view of the history, I think that AFD is in order. The MFD history is an argument for deletion of the article, but won't take it straight to G4. If you nominate it for AFD, I will argue for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:20:52, 8 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Onomatowoo[edit]



Onomatowoo (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following up on declined article, for Eggersmann [Küchen]. Any suggestions are welcomed. I originally wrote the wiki as a complete story like the Bulthaup [[1]] wiki. I discovered from another editor who deleted the article immediately that guidelines had changed since the Bulthaup and Poggenpohl ([[2]]) were approved. The version that you declined was an attempt to complete the story with facts gathered from company information, clearly identifying them. Those have been removed. Each statement is now supported by one or more citations. Any "subjective" adjectives that might be perceived as "advertising" were pulled directly from the citations. If you are willing, I am open to additional specific suggestions as to how to make this article encylopedic. Thanks in advance for your help. Onomatowoo (talk) 14:20, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Onomatowoo - First, it is unfortunate that new editors often prepare a draft article by using an existing article as the example. Often the existing article does not need to exist. See Other Stuff Exists. Second, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process or work with an editor to get a draft approved. Third, do you have any connection with the store? If so, see the conflict of interest policy and make the declaration. If not, you might consider helping us with any of the more than five million articles that we already have rather than with one article that we do not have. Fourth, I suggest that you ask for further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:41:15, 8 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jtahle[edit]


Hi, I have been working on drafting an article for an American Band called Juice. They fit the criterion for musical notability, satisfying the 12th reasoning. Juice was featured on NBC's TODAY show on August 14th, 2018. The segment was televised nationally and was covered on Elvis Duran's iHeart radio program as well.

Should I indicate on the talk page for the Juice draft that it satisfies the 12th reason?


Jtahle (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jtahle - Just as it says. Indicate the reason on the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jack Evans (D.C. politician)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jack Evans (D.C. politician). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

A tag has been placed on User:Maclimberr/sandbox, 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. 7_qz (ゆっくりしていってね!) 16:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, sorry. 7_qz (ゆっくりしていってね!) 16:13, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:7_qz - Go ahead and tag it if you think it needs a WP:G11 tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Should we block? All he's doing is advertising. 7_qz (ゆっくりしていってね!) 16:20, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Already blocked by admin Jimfbleak. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb Test - Dumb Test[edit]

Well, well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:142:4201:F4AE:6CDF:AEFF:1A42:5EB8 (talk) 02:46, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:33 10 January 2019 for assistance on Flash Pack submission by bengomori[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for your feedback on the article and taking the time to go through it.

Was just wondering if you could clarify your comments a little bit.

Notability criteria is defined as:

A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

I believe that this is certainly the case with Flash Pack. Is your concern that some of the sources I have featured contain quotes from the company founders? As opposed to the information being written by a journalist in their words?

And are you able to read all the articles that are partially hidden behind paywalls?

Thanks



. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bengomori (talk • contribs) 09:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page comment[edit]

It isn't necessary to compare a discussion of where an RFC should be to animal waste.

Why yes, yes it is, as that would be a fairly precise commentary on the ACTION. It might also apply to your warning, considering that commenting on the action --not a person -- was exactly what I did.

Perhaps before templating the regulars, you ought to understand the actual content of the templates you're using. --Calton | Talk 14:07, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Šaip Kamberi[edit]

I can not understand that at all.[[3]] Kamberi is an important person representing the interests of the Albanian minority in southern Serbia. Every article about a person is more or less a biography. See athletes, artists or politicians. Yours sincerely--Špajdelj (talk) 13:11, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Špajdelj - First, the draft has no references. Wikipedia cannot accept an article or a draft article that has no references to reliable sources. Second, not every article about a person is an autobiography. Every article about a person is a biography, and may be a biography of a living person. Is the draft written by the subject of the draft, or by someone working for them? If it was not written by the subject, then I was mistaken. Third, I will be glad to discuss any further questions at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. pls keep me searching for some more references--Špajdelj (talk) 17:16, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ice Circle of Vana-Vigala[edit]

I made a small edit here. Does the article, in general, seem promising? I.e. is there a point on working with that. Ivo (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kruusamägi - I think that the draft will be an interesting stub, that is, very short article, if it properly identifies where the ice circle is and has reliable sources. Further discussion can be at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Lena De Winne[edit]

Hi Robert, I have created this page in collaboration with a friend, and it looks as though we have inadvertenly created two drafts. I can only see one of them so I am not sure how to resolve the conflicts and end up with a single draft. Can you give me some guidance please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nigelbmitchell (talk • contribs) 06:37, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nigelbmitchell It appears that User:Oshwah has already history-merged the two drafts into one draft. What you are asking has already happened. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Pizzarias Pizza Chips[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks for the quick review of my draft article. Could you elaborate on the standard for notability? I included two independent journalistic sources. Also, the brand resulted in multiple awards and of course significant sales results. It's worth mentioning that other snack food brands with less impact do have their own articles, for example, Keebler's own https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chachos. I appreciate your guidance! Thanks, Sedimentary (talk) 19:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sedimentary - I suggest asking for guidance at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do, thanks. Sedimentary (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: James Hird (January 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at James Hird instead.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 04:05, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Script malfunction? — CoolSkittle (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:CoolSkittle - User error. Script behaved as designed and so struck again. I had submitted the abandoned draft as my own rather than as the originator. In this case, it didn't matter anyway, because the subject already has an article that is better than the draft that I declined. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:32, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:James Hird has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:James Hird. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aaroncrick[edit]

Hasnt edited since December 2015, if there is something procedural required for the process - great! otherwise it seems odd having conversation with long departed editor! JarrahTree 06:23, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JarrahTree - What about User:Aaroncrick? Did I decline an abandoned draft by this user? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Any sneezing is the result of the dust raised by the sweeping out of debris. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My apology if I have misread edit diffs that didnt make sense to me - https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Aaroncrick&action=edit&section=275 - that is from 2010 I think - he stopped editng in 2015 - so for me https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Hird seems a bit after the horse has bolted, left out to pasture, or simply vanished - from my perspective JarrahTree 06:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
and as James Hird exists - perhaps the draft should be put up for AFD as it duplicates what 'WP:ALREADY EXISTS' - and while you are at it - maybe https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_wizard/version1/old/search#Does_the_page_already_exist? could possibly go as well considering it has neither category nor project tag :) JarrahTree 06:45, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:JarrahTree - I am not entirely sure that I understand, or that you understand. I declined the draft because the article already exists. Drafts go to Miscellany for Deletion rather than to Articles for Deletion. Articles for Creation drafts in draft space have a shelf life. If they are left alone for six months, they become subject to speedy deletion as G13. I haven't nominated the draft for MFD yet so that anyone can compare the draft and the article and possibly update the article with anything that is in the draft but not the article. On 15 July 2019 the draft will reach the end of its shelf life and can go to the G13 dustbin. If you want to tag the draft for MFD, however, go ahead. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
what you say makes very good sense - thanks for finding it and starting it on its road to the bin - sorry I dont make sense at the best of times - but thank you for your effort, and your tolerance of my communication style - what is left of it JarrahTree 09:15, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ambrose Selli (January 15)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission's references do not show that the subject qualifies for a Wikipedia article—that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines for sports persons and athletes). Before any resubmission, additional references meeting these criteria should be added (see technical help and learn about mistakes to avoid when addressing this issue). If no additional references exist, the subject is not suitable for Wikipedia.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
The subject does not appear to satisfy association football notability guidelines. This page has been declined or rejected as an abandoned draft. If it is not edited further within six months after it has been declined or rejected, it will be deleted as a disused draft.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your contributed article, Draft:James Hird[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, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Draft:James Hird. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – James Hird. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at James Hird. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, 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. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. 98.213.51.34 (talk) 02:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jayquan Cutler[edit]

Hello, Robert. This draft Draft:Jayquan Cutler might be of interest to you, given your participation in investigating sockpuppetry related to it. One of the sockpuppets emailed me, asking me to help them finish with this draft.-- Flooded with them hundreds 09:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Flooded with them hundreds - I am not sure that I know what the details are about the suckpoppetry. I haven't touched this particular version of the draft and don't see any particular suckpoppet that has been involved. Is there any more information that you want to share with me? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That draft is old, and expires in late January unless either the occasional editor or the IP address touches the draft. Has there been another copy of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I found the SPI. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user wrote that their "artist" (presumably the subject of the draft) has been in multiple magazines but was denied an article on Wikipedia. It seems this draft was created three weeks after the deletion of the original draft (Draft:Why Cue). The circumvention of draft-space titling is veridical. The sockpuppet's email to me might indicate there could be more waiting to make an entry.-- Flooded with them hundreds 17:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flooded with them hundreds - Hmmm. No. The timing is that Draft:Jayquan Cutler has been there since before the deletion discussion. The MFD was closed on 31 December 2018. That draft was created in July 2018. If they think that the deletion was unfair, the proper procedure would have been to work through the process, but now they have to use email because they are blocked from editing due to suckpoppetry. "The circumvention of draft-space titling is veridical." The semantic content appears to be that they are gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True.-- Flooded with them hundreds 17:59, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Resonance Fluorescence has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Resonance Fluorescence. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Resonance Fluorescence has been accepted[edit]

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 08:06, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Joseph Jenckes Sr.[edit]

You might be interested in reviewing/moving Draft:Joseph_Jenckes_Sr. You moved an article about his son, Draft:Joseph Jenckes Jr., on 25 December 2018. Diogenes99 (talk) 22:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Death of Elaine Herzberg. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Dibutyltin Maleate (January 20)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This draft has been abandoned by an editor who has been inactive for more than a year, but review of this draft appears to be in order.

This will be subject to deletion six months after it is last edited by a human.

Since the author of this draft is inactive, any comments may be addressed to the last reviewer.

This draft has no references.

It is a substance with a CAS number. If a reference can be found and it is not already the subject of an article under another name, it is notable.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:10, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Quantum Psychology[edit]

Hi Robert, thank you for the comment. I posted the answer on my talk page as I am still a beginner on wiki. I think I misunderstood your comment, thinking that the article should be tagged to Willson's book's page, but reading it again it dawned on me that your comment related to a wiki process that needs to happen when a new page title comes that coincides with the book. If this is the case, then my apologies for misunderstanding and thank you for commenting. Ivannaivama (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bent Pin Analysis has been accepted[edit]

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 05:10, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Game development kit (January 21)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
Thank you for your submission, but the subject of this article already exists in Wikipedia. You can find it and improve it at Game development kit instead.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
This page was an abandoned draft that has now been declined or rejected as duplicating an existing article. Any details in this draft that are not in the article may be added to the article. This draft should be allowed to be deleted six months after this date.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 19:32, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:38:38, 21 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Richard Gibb[edit]



Richard Gibb (talk) 19:38, 21 January 2019 (UTC) Interesting, the Royal Archive, The Vatican, The Heralds and English Heritage etc are not reliable sources??? What planet do you live on? What do you regard as Reliable Sources - Marvel Comics?[reply]

@Richard Gibb: Please do not harass other users... ~ Philipnelson99 (talk) 20:00, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Richard Gibb - See my comment, "Fix reference errors", and see Referencing for Beginners. What I regard as reliable references are properly formatted references to reliable sources. Your sources are probably reliable after they are reformatted. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Re-submittal of article David E Shaner[edit]

Thank you for your comments regarding the article for David E Shaner. I have resubmitted the article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:David_E._Shaner. Your further review would be appreciated.

(Ptarry (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

User:Ptarry - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:11, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ptarry - Your only edits in the past year have been to David Shaner. Do you have any financial or other connection to Shaner? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and make any required disclosures. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon - thank you for your feedback. I will review and follow conflict of interest policy. I have no financial interest with David Shaner. I do know him from my time as a student at Furman University and continuing study of Aikido. (Ptarry (talk) 15:42, 22 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]
Per your recommendation, I have added conflict of interest comments to the article.(Ptarry (talk) 00:40, 23 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Draft:Royal Suva Yacht Club[edit]

I'm confused the draft is supported by independent secondary references and isn't written from the viewpoint of the organization. I'm asking that you reconsider your assessment. Dan arndt (talk) 04:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Khan Bank[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, Draft:Khan Bank.

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:21, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JJMC89 - It wasn't my draft. Good work, Twinkle tags. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:16, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. It looks like you had the initial edit in the history due to a page move. — JJMC89 (T·C) 21:17, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:05:10, 27 January 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Deejames007[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

Hi and thankyou for your advice, I asked for advice on the live chat and was told there to put the grammy and oscar independent links in which I did and take out the IDMb and Wiki which I did and then I added the songs that were nominated. and external links. I was told on the live chat the page did qualify? Have I put too much info in now? wasnt my intention to make it sound like a resume.. I did check the references on live chat and was informed they would be accepted and were reliable. look forward to hearing from you and receiving you expert advice! at your earliest convenience kindes regards Deb.

Deejames007 (talk) 13:05, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deejames007 - I do not know and cannot know what advice you were given on the live chat line. I do know that going back and forth between two or more people to ask for advice does not work well. Did you tell the live chat line that you were asking for help with your autobiography? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I do not usually work with an editor to follow a draft through the approval process, and I never work to follow an autobiography through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be having difficulty with English. Have you considered contributing to the Wikipedia in your first language? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Special Barnstar
Well, gotta give it to ya, thanks for reviewing my MfD page. TheWinRat (talk) 17:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 30 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

afc related to Draft:Pauly Valsan[edit]

hi i think the other user who created the article just 2 days back, i have started working behind the article on jan 16 of 2019, the user just use the link i have added in each and every page of the person's filmography to create the article. Thats not a fair i have done the most of the edits and now the credit goes on the other user name. can you please view history of both Draft:Pauly_Valsan and Pauly Valsan so you can see the difference. is there no value for my hard work. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 14:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

hi it's good to have a talk in afc about this matter :) kudos. any way i am not going to use {{copied}} to that talk page, for me an article should be clear and good that's what an wiki editor should be. i have collected some more details from news ref for Draft:Pauly Valsan i will add that later if the article editor didnt do any thing in Pauly Valsan any way once again thank you, have a great day. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 06:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hydraulic Entertainment[edit]

Robert-

I am brand new to wiki as a writer and I seem to be having trouble with me first article that you commented on "Hydraulic Entertainment". I sent multiple submissions of the same article because i wasnt sure it sent the first time and I could not find out how to delete a submitted article. I wasnt trying to "game the system" just trying to figure it out. I am a huge fan and follower of Hydraulic. The music and film that they create give thousands of people incredible enjoyment and I want to publish an article on wiki so more people learn about what they do. This company has created an incredible amount of content in a short amount of time and I hope they continue. I will add more detail to the background section and i know that if published others will add more detail. I have added more references as requested. I am confused that the comment says if I resubmit it will be deleted? It seems I am being punished for being a newbie. I am just trying to be part of the diverse community that is wiki. I would appreciate and help here. Best user CPOlivette

(CPOlivette (talk) 15:59, 31 January 2019 (UTC))[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Hydraulic Entertainment. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:CPOlivette - The warning about deletion is that if you continue submitting multiple copies of the draft they will all be deleted. You submitted two copies of the draft, one in draft space and one in your sandbox, in quick succession. They were both declined. It isn't necessary to submit a draft twice at the same time. The references that you added, such as LinkedIn, Facebook, Itunes, and Amazon, when you resubmitted one copy of the draft are not reliable sources. Before resubmitting the draft another time, please ask for advice at the Teahouse about what are reliable sources and about how to write a neutrally worded draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aprimo[edit]

I observe one COI editor has removed a COI template while it is in draft albeit declaring a COI and then that revised draft has flown through the AfC 'Queue' in almost no time. I'm not 100% convinced it is from a neutral point of view. You previously declined this article ... Any thoughts ? Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:16, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Concern raised at WP:COIN. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for noticing the COI template had been removed. (To be fair, I probably would have approved it even if the COI template was still there as I just always sort-of assume any company article at AfC was made by a COI editor! But it's good it was replaced either way.) Since, in the intervening time, it's now been substantially edited by several other editors, however, I think it may be safe to remove it? Chetsford (talk) 19:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chetsford, User:Djm-leighpark - Discussion of whether to remove the COI template a second time should be at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely. Just wanted to get your sense of the matter before I brought it up there. Chetsford (talk) 19:41, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Chetsford - I put the COI tag on the current version of the article, not a previous version of the article. A reasonably written article by a COI editor is an article by a COI editor. If you take the template off at this point, you will be disagreeing with my judgment that it needs the template, and I will avoid edit-warring and go to the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Got it. My understanding was the template is intended to be in place until cleanup has been effected, but if you feel it has not been adequately done I understand. Chetsford (talk) 20:08, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, cleanup cannot be effected until the neutral editors are aware that cleanup needs to be done. Your opinion may vary. I put the COI tag on as soon as we became aware that the COI tag had been improperly removed. I do not think that removing the COI tag is nearly as important as ensuring neutrality or tagging non-neutrality. If that means that the COI tag stays on longer than would otherwise be necessary, that is what happens when a paid editor removes the COI tag. And I personally think that the statement that the COI tag was removed accidentally is incredible in the etymological sense of not worthy of belief by a reasonable H. sapiens. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree with you. I think we just need to be careful tags are used to raise awareness of issues that need to be fixed, not as punishment. Our ultimate goal should be un-tagged articles. With the subsequent edits that have been made to the article I don't personally consider the template's rationale ("It may require cleanup to comply with Wikipedia's content policies, particularly neutral point of view.") is still active, which is why I suggested we might want to think about removing it, but it's not a race of course so if there are specific concerns related to cleanup you still have I have no problem seeing the tag remain. Thanks, as always! Chetsford (talk) 21:10, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I am now thinking that we may indeed have completely different mindsets. I wish that I could be as optimistic as you, in thinking that there can be such a thing as a neutrally written article by a paid editor. I don't believe that our ultimate goal should be un-tagged articles. Our ultimate goal should be neutral articles, and I am sufficiently cynical to think that we can't get them from paid editors. If the article was written by a paid editor and looks neutral, we have been too quick to be hopeful that it doesn't need cleanup. I wish that it could be only a matter of waving a wand at articles written by paid editors and having them be neutral. Maybe it is only a matter of waving a wand at articles written by paid editors and having them be neutral, but I may be too cynical to realize that we have the wand. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. I do think we'll have to agree to disagree. Among the 99% of terrible COI articles I've seen, I've also seen some good ones. My reading of WP:MTR is that templates are to remain on a page only until the specific issue is addressed. Your position seems to be that a COI editor should never have submitted an article draft in the first place, ergo the concern can never be rectified. While that is a valid opinion to have, I have to note it's a non-policy based expectation. For better or worse, our policies permit COI submissions through AfC and the point of the AfC process is to have a third-party evaluate submissions to see if they are acceptable for mainspace. No one has ever questioned my judgment in promoting an article before now and, indeed, I think we've had enough interaction at AfC and AfD to have developed a respect for each other's competence. In any case, I don't want to belabor the issue, so will leave it there. Thanks for taking the time to respond. Chetsford (talk) 22:00, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

I find this hard to believe. The German edition accepted my article. But maybe it’s substandard

Gee44 (talk) 04:30, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gee44 I had difficulty reading the English draft. It needs reformatting. Maybe the German version was better formatted, or maybe the German version was the original. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A goat for you![edit]

If it’s only a formatting problem... your first objection was different. Yes, my German version is the original and it’s correctly formatted.

Gee44 (talk) 05:21, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Need help in np review[edit]

hi i need your help in reviewing the article Prasanth Mambully, i hope every thing is ok with the article. Please check and review the article.Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 16:04, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a question about it? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it about notability, or tone, or something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Vijesh sreenivasan - What is your concern? Do you have a concern about notability? I have tagged the article for copy-edit. Is there another question? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
no every thing is good i have to add more details on that article. Some controversy happening with subject's new movie, its related to the death of actress Sridevi so if i add that details i think there will be some discussion will happen related to that matter. So its better to get reviewed before that. Any way thank you will work on the tag too. Vijesh sreenivasan (talk) 14:37, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Carlos[edit]

Hi Robert. "unpatrolled"? Fergananim (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict. I was trying to avoid having it marked as reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Chae Hyungwon (February 4)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Mgbo120 was:
submit when you're done with the work since there's a tag showing work in progress
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Mgbo120 (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Mgbo120 - ??? What are the scripts doing now???
I was moving the subpage into draft space and then declining the submission because the notability of the subject has already been decided at AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:41, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon. sorry about that. I guess the tag on the page got me confused while working with the script. I wondered why the page was submitted for review while there's a tag saying it is a work in progress. I thought the article creator placed that.Mgbo120 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

darn[edit]

how are your socks User:Dlohcierekim User talk:Dlohcierekim 04:07, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dlohcierekim I don't mend my footwear. My mother never taught me how (and if she had, I would have known that she didn't like doing it anyway, and wouldn't have paid attention). I do use 5% sodium hypochlorite. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:17, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Seerefb[edit]

Hey. Can I ask why you made this as Wikipedia:Seerefb and not as "Template:Seerefb"? It seems like it should be in the template namespace... thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:32, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DannyS712 Analyst transient brain error. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Oh. I was going to ask if I could tag it for CSD, but you seem to have beaten me to it. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 05:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've created the template. The template is one of various tape-recorded comments for AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:50, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Aprimo[edit]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Aprimo. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ( Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2019_February_6#Aprimo ) ... courtesy notification Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:19, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DRN decision[edit]

Hi Robert,

You are correct in deducing the IP in the DRN is Prisonermonkeys. I forgot my password when I changed devices a few months ago. Ordinarily I would simply re-register with a new account, but I have had long-standing problems with a blocked editor, User:GeoJoe1000 and his many socks, most of which were created for the sake of harrassing me after I referred him to the admins for uncivil behaviour. If I were to create a new account, I would need to disclose my old identity and I am concerned that that would simply invite another wave of abuse that would spill over into articles. None of the admins I spoke to at the time had any solution except to submit SPI reports as needed, but by the time the SPI was completed, he would have created another sockpuppet which required another SPI. GeoJoe1000 has been quiet for six months or so, so maybe he has given up and I can re-register. Is it possible to do this in such a way that I don't have to disclose my old account on a user page? 1.144.104.49 (talk) 06:07, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Prisonermonkeys - That is a question for an administrator. I am not making the policies. Try asking that question at Village Pump (policy) or somewhere that there might be an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:26, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aurélie Pétrel[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon,

I shortened the exhibition list of artist Aurélie Pétrel. Is the article seems ok for you with this change ? Thanks a lot for your answer. --Xosd (talk) 13:51, 7 February 2019 (UTC)Xosd[reply]

Perhaps the draft in question is Draft:Aurélie Pétrel. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Xosd - I did not evaluate the draft, but left it for another review. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Helpful editors[edit]

Truly amazing. People actually come along and post their personal attacks and other nonsense directly to a page headed "Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense", without waiting for you to move them there from this talk page or elsewhere. How very helpful of them. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 16:46, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:JamesBWatson - Unhelpful helpful editors, yes. I didn't intend it to work that way, but I am satisfied to leave the stuff there. Either they don't know what they are doing, or they think that I plan to read it. I have learned that I should read it at my convenience. Oh well. It was originally for stuff from a Famekeeper, but then I created a separate archive, and then he was banned anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Danger Close (film)[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon,

You have declined the publication of the article for Danger Close (film) on the basis that 'This film has not yet been released, and unreleased films are only notable if production itself is notable. (Future films sometimes wind up in development hell.) This draft does not indicate that production has been notable." This is the biggest Australian feature film of the past 30 years, the last ones being GALLIPOLI in 1981 and THE LIGHTHORSEMEN in 1987 and it has a rumoured budget of AUD$25m. Many people over 30 years have tried to make a movie on the Battle of Long Tan, to no avail. One even had Russell Crowe attached in the lead. But, this movie was just completed yesterday - https://www.instagram.com/p/BtlWRClHGSo/ and https://www.instagram.com/p/Bthmhtznvd9/. It is definitely not in 'development hell'. The announcement of the film going ahead in Los Angeles in February last year with the Queensland Premiere (head of state) was huge and was on all major Australian Television, radio, print an online publications (I can provide all of these links if you want to see for yourself). The production was very notable, once again achieving wide coverage in the Australian media as it was the first major Australian war film being filmed in Queensland and the production employed real Australian military veterans as part of the crew and cast - https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-09/army-veterans-forging-new-careers-in-movies/10625652 and https://www.abc.net.au/7.30/army-veterans-forge-new-careers-as-movie-extras/10703866. The soon to be Australian Prime Minister Bill Shorten (federal election in 2 months) even dropped into to see some of the film last Friday at Fox Studios in Sydney. I could go on and on, suffice to say this will be the biggest Australian feature film released in Australia and New Zealand for quite a while.

--BarryCMark (talk) 12:55, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:BarryCMark - You are making statements about the movie in the wrong place, on my talk page rather than in the article. I had to review the draft based on what is in the draft, which is proposed to be seen by readers of the encyclopedia. The draft should speak for itself. If the comments that you have made above have been made by reliable sources, include them in the draft with proper attribution. If there was "wide coverage in the Australian media", say so. Revise the draft and resubmit.
You refer to Bill Shorten as soon to be Prime Minister of Australia after the federal election in 2 months. Won't the result of the election be what decides who is the Prime Minister? Do you mean that he is expected, based on polls, to be the next Prime Minister? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tepito Arte Acá[edit]

Saludos

I just found your messages here as I do not go on Wikipedia that often. Im not exactly a newbie but Im not sure I understand the problem with the submission. The lack of sections is clear enough, but I do not understand why you state that it is written from the point of view of the organization. None of the sources are from Tepito Arte Acá... all of the newspaper articles are specifically about the organization and not published by them. Only the book and the thesis is not focused specifically on the organization, but most of the information is not from those sources. HicksW (talk) 20:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HicksW, The message states it doesn't meet WP: NOTABILITY not that it's WP: PROMOTIONAL or written from the point of view of Tepito Arte Acá. You asked me if the policy had changed that articles should be approved before creation and to clarify if you are experienced in article writing then there won't be an issue but in this case it was clear it wouldn't pass AfC so it needed to be sent back to the WP:DRAFT namespace or it could have risked deletion.
Based on policy question, I'm also concerned you may have had an account before. If you have, please read this policy. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:00, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RhinosF1: Hope I am using this correctly. The idea of it being written by the organization is from what :Robert McClenon wrote here [[4]] It also says that there are no third-party sources about the topic but all of the newspaper/magazine sources meet that. As for being a sock... I started with WP while I was still in school and havent used this account for awhile. Although I am bilingual, I previously worked mostly or entirely in Spanish Wikipedia. Thus the question.HicksW (talk) 21:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:HicksW I did state that the draft itself (not the sources) was written from the viewpoint of the organization. That is, it restates what the organization says about itself. That is neither good nor bad. It just isn't in-depth third-party coverage. You may ask for advice at the Teahouse about what is meant by writing about what third parties have said about an organization. I have no comments on the comment of User:RhinosF1 about past editing. If you think that I should have approved the draft, you may ask for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HicksW, Ah, I see. I'm not saying you're definitely a sock or anything and I even edited across many IPs before creating an account so knew my way around. I've just seen Robert's comment and he's explained that while I was typing this so I'll leave that there as there's not much more to say. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: @RhinosF1: Thank you for your fast answers. Ill see what I can do.HicksW (talk) 21:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
HicksW, No Problem. RhinosF1(chat)(status)(contribs) 21:31, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DR case re: 2019 Rally[edit]

Hi Robert - just wanted to make sure I didn't ruffle feathers here. I figured there was a good chance you'd hop back on and moderate the re-open but I wasn't sure if and when so figured it made sense to point out your previous recommendations JIC the filer had not seen them. My intent was just to assist - I hope it was received as such. airuditious (talk) 06:07, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Test[edit]

Test. 2601:142:4201:F4AE:A9B1:25D9:FADC:3D6B (talk) 17:23, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Nobuhiro Watsuki. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you![edit]

I give up. Why are the standards different in the English version?

I gave references from reliable British and American journals and sources. What else do you want? Weird. Gee44 (talk) 14:37, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gee44 - The draft in question is Draft:Save Europe Now. Rather than asking me about the German version, I would suggest asking the opinion of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Other Wikipedias are less nearly complete than the English version, with fewer than 5.7 million articles, and may have easier standards about what they currently accept. If you think that the English encyclopedia should have easier standards, you can discuss that at Village pump (policy). Or you can try to tell the other Wikipedias to tighten their standards. Or you can ask other editors for their opinion as to whether I should have accepted your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the speedy response[edit]

Hi Robert, just wanted to thank you for the speedy and helpful response. I will do my best to edit the draft page for Graham_Boyd to be neutral. You are right, I do have a CoI, as I work with him in Evolutesix. Thank you Nikyta — Preceding unsigned comment added by NikytaGuleria (talk • contribs) 12:24, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:NikytaGuleria - I moved your COI declaration to the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! NikytaGuleria (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ciara Brady[edit]

Hi Robert, I think Ciara should have her own page, reason being, she's an important character who has been on the show since 2007. I believe the Dool characters list should be for those who have not been on the show for a long time, I.e not longer then 6 months. The page that I've created includes the detailed information which is not meant for the Dool characters list section. So if you could reconsider would be great. Thank you.--Princessruby (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Princessruby - Please read my comments at Draft:Ciara Brady. I was saying, and will say again, that my concern was not that whether Ciara Brady is a major recurrent character, but how to discuss whether to create the article. Discuss at the main article talk page, Talk:Days of Our Lives characters (2000s). I mostly agree, based on your draft, that she is at least as important as other characters who have articles. I will state that agreement if you post a Request for Comments on the article talk page. However, if I were to accept the draft via Articles for Creation, it would erase previous history and cause various problems. Discuss at the article talk page. If you have further questions, we can discuss them at the AFC talk page or the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thank you for your kind words. --Princessruby (talk) 16:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

InVision Wiki draft[edit]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for the fast turn-around on the InVision draft I will respond to your comments below.

1. I have rewritten the intro to clarify that this page is about InVision the company.

2. A better name for this article would be InVisionApp, as that is the company's web name. This is a new article. The Wiki disambuation page for InVision has no entry for InVision Company but lists first 'UV/UX Prototyping Tool', which again, might confuse readers. InVisionApp would match with the Wiki page title.

3. I am a freelance writer who was paid by InVisionApp to create this page. I have no other affiliation with the company. I have declared that in the talk page, and on my personal page. Is there anything else that I need to do?

Thanks again for your help,

Tlvernon (talk) 19:29, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tlvernon - When you are finished revising the draft, you need to resubmit the draft. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and will not be following your draft through the approval process, and I do not know whether your draft will be accepted because I do not know whether the company passes corporate notability.

Fastest Editor in the Verse[edit]

Serenity-Fastest in the Verse
Thanks so much for so quickly offering suggestions on my first article submission (on Louis Rosenblum). Shosh2 (talk) 04:24, 12 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Georg Wolff (journalist) has a new comment[edit]

Thanks a lot for your comment on my draft article. I appreciate the feedback and have responded on thepage: Draft:Georg Wolff (journalist). Thanks! ThomPryce (talk) 18:29, 12 February 2019 (GMT)

Rock it science - accidental creation[edit]

Hello Robert. I recently came across Rock it science at NPP and noticed something was... off. It seems you accidentally created a talk page complete with an AFC decline notice in the mainspace as opposed to at User talk:Rock it science. I have flagged the article for speedy deletion, but wanted to give you a heads up. Best.--SamHolt6 (talk) 03:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SamHolt6 - You are correct that the script was apparently behaving oddly. I tried to decline Draft:Cypress mountain as having malformed references. It appears that I did decline it as having malformed references, but that the AFC script wrote to Rock it science instead of to User talk:Rock it science. I think that you and I are describing the same sequence. I will report it at AFC as a weird bug. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:04, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SamHolt6 - The AFC messages were intended for User talk:Rock it science, a talk page that did not yet exist, so I moved the article page into user talk space. I then deleted the speedy deletion tag. So now the user has the decline message and can fix the draft when they come back to edit. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:52:44, 13 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by TAHayward[edit]


Thank you for your kind words. Re Oli Chang Wikipedia article I have revised the Wikipedia Article on Notability requirements for Musicians and edited the article. I have reviewed aspects of notability for Musicians such as reliable sources, determining that Oli Chang has been the subject of published works that are independent of the musician, I have reviewed Wikipedia pages that he is written about in such as Nomi Ruiz and High Highs and included links to these in the article, I have included the evidence that his music has been performed for a work of media. His Animal Feelings singles are placed in rotation nationally by Triple J in Australia, he has credit for writing music and lyrics in collaboration with artists such as Nomi Ruiz and Thief as Animal Feelings. He is an original performer of electronica as a DJ at Loveless Nights. This music is all his own writing. He is an artist who has developed a solo career post his famous work with High Highs with Jack Milas as written about in Wikipedia. I have rewritten the article in a neutral encyclopaedic tone. I have examined other Wikipedia pages of his contemporaries and colleagues such as Paris Wells and Nomi Ruiz to write in a similar manner. Thank you for re reviewing this article

TAHayward (talk) 22:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TAHayward - Please do not make the case for acceptance of a draft on my talk page. The draft should make its own case for acceptance based on the text of the draft and the sources. You edited the draft, mostly to remove a few non-neutral statements, and resubmitted it, and User:Chetsford declined it, again as not satisfying musical notability. If the artist does satisfy musical notability, that isn't apparent from the draft, and reviewers must base acceptance or non-acceptance only what is in the draft and its sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandbox or Draft: City Express Money Transfer[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon, Please delete the one which takes longer to get approved. Thank you. Your suraj (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shabir Ally[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon, Thanks for trying to resolve the dispute. Could you at least give us your 50 cents on the topic, whether the list of debates could be included like in Michael R. Licona or it should be removed from both? Despite being active elsewhere, I haven't heard back from @GorgeCustersSabre yet. We could benefit from an external unbiased point of view. Thanks in advance. Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 13:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ahmed M Farrag - If you want an opinion, please ask for an opinion at Third Opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert! I requested an RfC as instructed by the 3O page. Cheers! Ahmed M Farrag (talk) 21:15, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention[edit]

Sorry. I misclicked and accidentally removed your post. My apologies. Meters (talk) 08:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Must have been a slow refresh on my Watchlist because I wasn't on hat page. Meters (talk) 08:54, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request re-review of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vini_Viswa_Lal[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon

Requesting your re-rview of page as its recommended for deletion. But now I have added more citations from news media and other details. I was referring similar kind of people wiki which is approved already.

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

Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajishev (talk • contribs) 13:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rajishev - The discussion of whether to keep or delete the article should be made and is being made in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vini Viswa Lal. It is not useful or helpful to make a request here that I re-review the article. Please make that case at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vini Viswa Lal. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rajishev - Your only edits in the past eighteen months have been to or about this article. Do you have a financial or other connection with its subject? Please read the conflict of interest policy and make any required declarations. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon - Sorry I am first time writing BLPs. And regarding second question, big NO. Hes a recently noted screen writer and appreciated all over as you could see on internet. thought will be worth to add in wiki. I took a break from wiki as you could last edit was couple of years back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajishev (talk • contribs) 08:11, 19 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:KEN Holdings Berhad[edit]

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

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) 00:06, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Home Lander - Huh. Someone will wonder where their draft went. The admin was quick to clean up the crud, which is good. I must have moved it from a sandbox to draft space. If I really wanted to know whose draft it was, I could look at my move history. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, interesting, didn't even realize it sent this to you. Using backlinks, I found a mention of it at User talk:Alexander Iskandar but that user's page is such a roadmap of problems I don't even begin to understand it. HasteurBot also left you a notice about it, which is left at User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 19. Hey Fastily, can you see who actually created the above page and if necessary I'll leave them a notice instead? Home Lander (talk) 02:34, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, maybe it was User talk:Thegreenspokeperson? Seems to make the most sense. Home Lander (talk) 02:41, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Home Lander. The creator appears to be Thegreenspokeperson. -FASTILY 03:48, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Home Lander User:Fastily - Thank you for pointing out the notice from HasteurBot in my archive, because that was in November 2017. That wasn't six months ago, but more than a year ago. That is consistent with when Thegreenspokeperson got messages about it. So I moved it two years ago, and it has been eligible for G13 for more than a year and is finally gone. It isn't my draft. Thank you. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:22:35, 20 February 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nliaustemac[edit]


hello dear, thank you for your review on my article but I wrote it on neutral point of view with published source and I don't have any affiliate with Tony Ezenna; I will appreciate if you can guild me in completing this Article successfully.

Nliaustemac (talk) 02:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nliaustemac - Please do not create multiple copies of drafts. You have created two apparently identical draft biographies. It is my opinion that they read as if they were written to praise the subject rather than to describe him neutrally. If you disagree, you may ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse for their opinions. Maybe they can advise you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:28, 20 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Draft: Bhakharwadi[edit]

I dont want to redirect it.I only want to make it mainpage.Thanks--- Bhanwar singh vaish (talk) 00:41, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bhanwar singh vaish - Discuss at the talk page, as advised. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:18, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dot points are standalone points, each should be signed.[edit]

Hi Robert,

You have a recent habit of stringing the same point, the same sentence even, across dot points. Can you please stop that. For everyone else, a dot point is a standalone point that is individually signed and may be responded to individually. What you are doing is making a mess that is difficult to parse. Single sentences should contain no line feeds, let alone dot point formatted line feeds in places that barely call for a comma. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Badi (App) for example. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Shabir Ally[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Shabir Ally. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Semantic content[edit]

Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Haze_(band)#External_links makes perfect sense for me. Surprisingly, because the submission forms offer no preview or other way to check links etc. in what was submitted, I've only now seen what I posted.
OTOH your closure makes no sense for me: Two editors disagree about WP:EL—especially {{Songkick}} wrt WP:LINKSTOAVOID— and about the use of undo to get rid of maintenance templates, instead of keeping them in place or fixing the issues (two {{fact}}, {{one source}} and {{notability}}.) –84.46.52.182 (talk) 14:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Daylight Entertainment[edit]

Dear Robert, I am editing my first draft: Daylight Entertainment. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daylight_Entertainment You left me a message saying "Change the levels, which are too large, of the headings to second-level". Since I am a wiki beginner, could you be more specific about my editing? Is that because the table I made in "TV series" section is too big, too wide? If you can take a look at my draft when you're free and let me know how to improve, that'll be very helpful. Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mclinyang (talk • contribs) 04:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mclinyang - Either you or another editor changed the levels of the headings to be correct. However, your draft was declined as not establishing notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon - Hi Robert, Thank you for your time to explain. So is the topic not notable, or my writing not up to standard? Sorry to bring this up, since my native language is not English. The reason I created this page is that I found Daylight Entertainment's page in Traditional Chinese (which is here), but not in English. There is only a "Category: Television series by Daylight Entertainment". So I was translating the Chinese page into an English version. When doing that, I also added new things to enrich the content. Maybe that causes some problem. So.. should I continue editing my draft...?

Bhakharwadi[edit]

Sir I want to make it to mainpage.If you are manhood person then you can understand how I worked to improve this article at only the age of 15.Please move it to mainpage😭😭😭. Thank You.Reply me soon as possible. Bhanwar singh vaish (talk)

The page in question is Draft:Bhakharwadi. Discuss on the talk page of the main article, Talk:SAB TV. You will need to say more than that you want an article in mainspace. You will need to explain why you think that the series should have its own article. If you do not understand how to discuss, then you may either ask for advice at the Teahouse or try editing in the Wikipedia in your first language. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The user moved the page to main space even though the AFC submission was declined [5]. Sid95Q (talk) 03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Can you help real quick?[edit]

Thanks for your input on my draft [6]. I have fixed everything you and others have given me advice on, but I still get denied article space. Could you help me by either moving it or explaining what I'm doing wrong? Thank you Mr. McClenon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livonia ainovil (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

      Sorry for my double article attempt, it just gets frustrating when you know you've done everything correctly but still can't get it approved. It won't happen again. My apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Livonia ainovil (talk • contribs) 17:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Query[edit]

I have seen pages of actors and actress of less significance and hence choose this topic. I could even name a few actors in Malayalam field example Drishya Raghunath, who has acted in two films and has not achieved any award to be a significant notability. So why is a piece on the young and upcoming actor Adwaith rejected?

Anjana T S (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Adwaith Jayasurya. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Maybe some of the other articles should not have been accepted. I will take another look, but I advise you to ask for another review at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 I have given reference and citations for all statements in the article. thank you for guiding me to TEA

Anjana T S (talk) 18:40, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zak Patel (3)[edit]

Hi Robert,

Many thanks for your comments.

I have made the relevant changes - please advise if I need to do anything else or find other sources.

Used the sources I found to be most relevant as the rest are in his official web site and mot 'impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mopug (talk • contribs) 20:34, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi Robert, please run for a third RFA as you are a very experienced editor. Wikipedia needs someone like you as an admin as you will be a very useful addition to the admin group. So please run for a third RFA without delay.2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 (talk) 14:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 - Who are you? Why do you think that I would unblock you? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am an IP editor and I am not blocked I want you to ran a third RFA.2402:3A80:A7C:1BD7:0:5E:A6B:FF01 (talk) 17:46, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page Stalkers[edit]

Talk page stalkers: Do any of you have any ideas who this is? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
I hope you have a good day :) and have a good life :D AndreiiPanfilov (talk) 01:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert McClenon, This is regarding the page 'Tushar Pandey'. Tushar Pandey is an Indian film Actor. He was a part of the movie 'Pink'. As he is an individual actor we would like you to help us get connected directly to 'Tushar Pandey' page and should not get redirected to the page of the movie 'Pink' Reference links are attached on the wikipedia page of 'Tushar Pandey'. For your reference- IMDB Hindustan Times


Please help us with the same. Thank You. TheRock171 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply] 

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRock171 (talk • contribs) 09:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question is Draft:Tushar Pandey. Discuss on the talk page at Talk:Pink (2016 film). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Xfinity Mobile for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Xfinity Mobile 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/Xfinity Mobile until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

  • Note that I am notifying you as you declined the AFC draft, but the user recreated the article in mainspace anyway. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:12, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This was a fun diff[edit]

A rather amusing edit summary here [7] from an IP whose sole recent contributions are to add this person to any relevant Wikipedia article: [8]. I'm not completely sure how to proceed and know you do a good job with dispute resolution, so am asking your advice on where to go. SportingFlyer T·C 01:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:SportingFlyer - Where to go with a stupid comment by an IP is nowhere. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, it's just one stupid comment - I'm more frustrated with the blatant attempt to get that article accepted after an AfD last year and two DRVs in two weeks than the stupid comment. SportingFlyer T·C 01:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:SportingFlyer - Well, the DRV was inconclusive. I don't know, but I am inclined to think that the IP is a blocked user. That explains why they don't simply create an account and move the draft into article space themselves. If the submitter were a registered user, I would advise them to move the draft to article space, and be prepared to defend it in an Articles for Deletion discussion, and I would be willing to !vote for Keep. I don't plan to go out of my way for an unregistered editor who either won't register or isn't supposed to re-register. They have a plausible case that he is more notable than he was, which is why I told them to go to DRV, rather than telling them to jump in a lake (other than that telling a user to jump in a lake is rude). (Before jumping in a lake, verify depth of lake, to determine whether to wade or swim.) The DRV was inconclusive, and a registered editor could move the draft to article space and defend it at AFD. The draft is entirely the work of an unregistered editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Thank you. I hope we can expand them with their origins and meanings. One thing that troubles me is that at WP Anthroponymy we have decided against making a list of surnames to be created, in case there is no one currently notable with the name, but I regularly come across many surnames like that. I truly feel that is a loss for the encyclopedia. For example Novet.Zigzig20s (talk) 12:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Zigzag20 You're welcome.


Change your heading to Thousands. Good idea. Legacypac (talk) 03:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - You're welcome. I'm a retired information technology engineer. My reaction to the misuse of tools is to deal with the people rather than the tools. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some tools are a bad idea [9] and automated content selection is such a case. Legacypac (talk) 03:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That is a tool that passes a Turing test and therefore does not act like a tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

role of moderator[edit]

As per WP:MEDIATE, "the role of the mediator is to facilitate consensus-building discussion... The mediator is a neutral third-party in relation to both the dispute and all the involved parties." I noted your recent remarks at Talk:Young Living/Archives/2020#Prohibited_marketing_claims discussion under your "fifth statement as moderator" and it seems to me you're overstepping your role as mediator here. You are supposed to facilitate consensus among the participants, and in this case you are expressing your own personal incredulity of the outcome. I would like to respectfully suggest as a moderator you try to be more dispassionate in your remarks. Coastside (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Coastside - Yes. That's why I said that they would need a new moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:50, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Christopher Nolan. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Place notability guidelines for a historical site[edit]

"Places with protected status (e.g. cultural heritage sites) and named natural features, with verifiable information" are presumed to be notable according the wikipedia article on place notability. So shouldn't Frenchtown Washington abondantly written about (including many scholar references) be presumed to be notable? I am told in a draft review comment that it is not. French Prairie in Oregon is a very similar heritage area and has a wikipedia entry, thus presumed notable. Am a bit lost, this being my first ever article. LeCanardQuoi (talk) 04:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Dunn rejected twice before[edit]

According to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Dunn (2nd nomination) nearly the same content was used to create article in 2016 and 2017. And deleted both times. Deletion history got tangled with the fictional character article. Begs the question of who is LandonCharles1 who shows up on 1 March with very first edit being the creation of the draft that was deleted as an article back in 2017 and 2016? David notMD (talk) 10:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:David notMD - Okay. As I thought. It was the actress and not the fictional character who was deleted, and I was right in Rejecting rather than Declining the submission. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:10, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]


Creating a page for Catapult Ventures[edit]

How do I make the proper declaration that I am a founder of the company, but am not paid for my work? Do I still use the

tag or something else?

I take issue with your comment about neutral point of view and citing reliable sources. All sources sited are generally considered reliable publications and are not paid advertisements in any way. Each author of each article sited is well known and generally respected in their domain of reporting. Please suggest any edits regarding neutral point of view. I have tried to construct each sentence to be completely factual and without any adjectives or verbs that would be interpreted as having positive or negative bias. Dliccardo (talk) 17:26, 5 March 2019 (UTC)Dliccardo[reply]

User:Dliccardo - The draft in question is Draft:Catapult Ventures. Does Catapult Ventures earn a profit? Do you receive either a portion of the profit or a salary from Catapult Ventures? It isn't necessary for the company to be paying you to write the Wikipedia draft if the company is paying either a salary or dividends to you. They are still paying you. You use the same tag. You say that you have made every possible effort to write neutrally, and I am sure that is true, but we at Wikipedia know that persons who are involved with a company have unconscious biases, which is why all conflict of interest edits must be tagged. I do not normally walk a draft through the approval process, and I do not know at this time whether Catapult Ventures is notable. If you have any more questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon After reviewing the COI page Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, it seems the more appropriate tag is the general COI connected contributor tag. I have added this to the talk page of that article. I have no idea which statements you do not believe are neutral, but it looks like that comment was removed(?), so perhaps that is no longer an issue. Could you please review your remaining comments at the top of Draft:Catapult Ventures and adjust? You write "...focusing on what the company says about itself." However, all seven references are from independent and respected news publications and those citations are clearly tied to factual statements. You also write "The references are not independent." This is completey false. You also write "This draft reads like an advertisement," Could you please provide a hint to which sentence you believe needs adjustment? Generally, regarding notability, is their a general guideline for how many independence sources should be used? Would adding additional citations/sources convince you that this company is notable? Thank you. Dliccardo (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2019 (UTC)DLiccardo[reply]

User:Dliccardo - If you think that I should have accepted your submission, I suggest that we ask for the review of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes[edit]

Hi Robert. I came across this draft while checking on non-free image use. Although you declined it on March 5, 2019, there is already an article about this subject at List of Pokémon: Sun & Moon: Ultra Legends episodes. The article was created on a day after you declined the draft from a redirect and probably still contains the same copyvios you mentioned when declining the draft (it looks like a copy-paste move). What do you suggest doing here? CSD? AfD? WP:DRAFTIFY makes no sense since there's no need for two drafts. Anyway, whatever is done probably should be done soon since any additional editing of the article is likely going to create more work for whomever cleans up the copyvio. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:19, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Derek DeGrate article[edit]

Sir...what issues do you have with my article? Kingtd1 (talk) 06:13, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. i read your message concerning the duplicate article and i also will improve the current article. However can you help me with the citing style? and in regards to your comment; the i dont have any financial connections with the subject — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingtd1 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kingtd1 - My issues with the article are as I stated in the Articles for Deletion page, and the place to reply is in the Articles for Deletion discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colandro[edit]

Hello Sir,

This is my first effort at creating a page for a public figure in my community, that doesn't have a wiki entry, yet. I only pasted what I have from a charity dinner that gave accolades to prominent benefactors, so I can see why it seemed promotional. I just wanted a jumping off point for the article, so I could revise based on a timeline. I didn't intend for the article to be promotional. If you could please reenter the deleted info. I can rewrite the article this evening and get it back in your hands by tomorrow for a more academic review.

Thank you for your consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gun4Hyr (talk • contribs) 15:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gun4Hyr - I see that you moved a copy of the draft to your sandbox. Do not submit a draft to Articles for Creation for review until you are satisfied that it is ready to be accepted into article space. If it is promotional, as you can see, it may be deleted. For more advice on draft articles, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Dwayne J. Clark[edit]

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

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. Dolotta (talk) 16:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Tassi Hangbé[edit]

Added clarifying information regarding bibliography v reference. Anacaona (talk) 19:26, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Addressed issue of T. Hangbé's political role. Anacaona (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Sankh (2) (March 6)[edit]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This appears to be a duplicate of another submission, Sankh, which is also waiting to be reviewed. To save time we will consider the other submission and not this one.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
There is a better draft at Sankh. This stub-draft can be deleted in six months.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Kreithen[edit]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joshua_Kreithen

Hello Robert, I saw that you commented on this draft that is to be reviewed and I wanted to know your thoughts on it's likelihood to be published. Do you think the subject Dr. Kreithen is not notable enough to be published? Your feedback would be greatly appreciated.

Thank you,

Dave Dcm207 (talk) 23:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dcm207 - For a reader with a desktop computer, the draft is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Joshua_Kreithen .
I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse, or ask one of the previous declining or draftifying reviewers. Please do not simply submit it again or promote it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the subject very likely is notable, but that the draft currently reads like a resume, and you need to rework it to show what third parties have written about him. Other experienced editors can give you advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

itel Mobile[edit]

Dear Robert, thank you for reviewing my sandbox and leaving me comments. Sorry for bothering you due to submitting the sandbox. I wanna say this draft is totally not an advertisement and written in the same way that other mobile phone brands did, such as OPPO, vivo and Tecno. It just contains the basic information of the company, the business area, the achievements and the expansion history. And the product part is a list of each series and basic specs with no promotional words. OPPO did the same part on its pages. These things are all mentioned and reported by independent reliable media coverage (CNN, Counterpoint Research, Indian Express ), no make-up statements. I am confused which sentence let you feel it is an advertisement. Please help to point out and give me some advice, thank you! Pumkin Ding (talk) 08:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soundwalk / Stephan Crasneanscki[edit]

Dear Robert. I understand there are some concerns with my financial involvement in Soundwalk Collective. I declare that I am not financially involved with Soundwalk Collective or Stephan Crasneanscki. I have been following their work since 2010 and I was surprised to see the lack of information on them in Wikipedia, also that two of the later joining members of Soundwalk Collective have wikipedia pages and the founder Stephan Crasneanscki has not got one at all. I decided to spend some of my free time fixing this. I am looking for help to shed light on this fascinating artist and collective, what steps do I take? Please understand I am new here and learning as I go along. Sonnenalle44 (talk) 12:03, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This can continue at User talk:Homer Landskirty. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

editors? or non-editors?[edit]

Hi! R u sure, that this edit took sufficiently into account, that there was no real discussion of my arguments, and that the so called "editors" obviously have no psychology/philosophy expertise (e. g. on my "rabies" argument they reply with "Xanadu" and "Xenu" (whatever that might mean... for me it is just nonsense or non-science respectively...)...)? I mean: is trolling enough to b an editor? Thx. Bye. --Homer Landskirty (talk) 04:36, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Homer Landskirty - Anyone who changes the content of a Wikipedia page is an editor. Third Opinion is intended to be used to resolve article content disputes, and this was not an article content dispute, but there had been more than two editors involved, that is, more than two accounts that posted to the Reference Desk and changed the content of Wikipedia. A non-editor is a reader who does not change the content of a Wikipedia page. Trolls are blocked for disruptive editing. Can asking questions about trolling be a form of trolling? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
regarding ur question: ur question seems to be trolling and a threat... mine not... 2. i still doubt, that improper replies can be considered "editing"... could u, pls, elaborate, how that "Xanadu" and "Xenu" replies r "editing"? the other replies are questionable, too, because: they say that WP just has to copy&paste from governmental (or similar) sources, even if the source is demonstrably wrong and contradicts itself in the same paper... :) i would like to read ur opinion on that, 2... furthermore it _was_ and is demonstrably a dispute about demonstrably wrong article content... 3. currently it looks like, WP just pushes a governmental opinion and even adds some even worse nonsense (e. g. "suicide" in addition to "intent"...)... --Homer Landskirty (talk) 06:56, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Homer Landskirty, every single person (without exception) who has modified Wikipedia in any way has made an edit, and is therefore a Wikipedia editor. They may be a bad editor, or a vandalistic editor, or a malicious editor, but they are still an editor. If you want to be taken seriously as an editor, then please use conventional English here like "you" and "your", not "u" and "ur". Though it may be unfair, those non-standard formulations make you appear ignorant and we expect conventional English from productve Wikipedia editors. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 07:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
1. that seems 2 b another problem: u want me to hop through that type-all-the-unnecessary-letters ring... it is highly unnecessary 2 do so... 2. WP:3O would be highly useless, if a bunch of sockpuppet/trolls/XenuFans/XanaduFans is considered 2 b an editor... 3. so while u use words that neither a jurist nor u can or want to understand in an article, u want me to type in a certain way and u tell me a lot of other useless details and waste thereby my time... 4. i wonder if that is really what WP wants... 5. is there something like a WP-court-house or so? --Homer Landskirty (talk) 10:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Italist[edit]

Hi, thanks for your feedback: it has been a long time since my last edit on Wikipedia. This wasn't meant to be adverting, I just noticed a startup I know was missing: other than the usual guides, can you give me any other specific suggestion to enhance this voice, address problems and submit it for publication again? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triplez3 (talk • contribs) 11:33, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Triplez3 - First, not every startup company satisfies corporate notability. Second, do you have any connection with Italist? If so, please make the required declaration. Third, for specific advice on improving a declined draft, I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon, I hope all is well. I see you rejected User:Julia VanDevelder/sandbox/Jodie Markell as the page already exists (they left me a message on my talk page). If you look at their edit summary, they are a COI editor and per the message I left on their page yesterday they were trying to make an edit request. One of the suggestions from the COI welcome Template was that they create a subuserpage for their edits and have someone review it. Based off this, I believe they were just asking a neutral editor to review it. I don't have time right now but if you are able to re-review the draft, would you be so kind to? They have been very kind and understanding so far. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:HickoryOughtShirt?4, User:Julia VanDevelder - There is a common idea that Articles for Creation can be used to propose new versions of existing articles. This is a reasonable concept, but is not the way that AFC is used. It is used only for the review and acceptance of new articles. If Jodie Markell's agent wants to propose changes to her article, they can request them on the article talk page, Talk:Jodie Markell, or use the {{edit request}} template. Any further questions can be asked at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 03:56:20, 13 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Ghaziakailvi[edit]


Dear Robert McClenon,

I am writing to you about your message to me which said, "Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was: This is a user page and not a draft."

I agree with you that it is actually a user page. I had erroneously thought that I needed to submit my user page for review and approval also. Clearly, that is not the case. My mistake. I will submit a new article for review soon, which is not a user page type. It appears that I may be auto-confirmed now since I have met the 10 edits requirement. Thanks for your help.

Ghazi Akailvi

Ghaziakailvi (talk) 03:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2019 Japanese imperial transition[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2019 Japanese imperial transition. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University[edit]

Can you help me find someone who can explain why the "in Progress" Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard - University of Pennsylvania - Evolution from a Commuter School to a Residential University has disappeared? Thanks! Wa3frp (talk) 14:21, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wa3frp - That discussion has been archived. It was more than two weeks old and had no activity in 48 hours. There is a Do Not Archive Before date, which is by default set to fourteen days after the filing date but can be manually tweaked. A thread is archived if it passes that date and is silent for 48 hours. It appears that that case had consisted almost entirely of your comments, and those can continue at the article talk page. However, if you want the case unarchived and restored to the project page, and if the moderator User:Coastside is still willing to watch over it, I can unarchive it and you can resume adding comments. I don't see restoring the case as useful, but it isn't harmful either. I suggest going back to the article talk page, but I can fish it out of the archive if you and the moderator want. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:42, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the clarification and for your help. I was waiting for a reply from the editor who had started the dispute by deleting the paragraphs in the article. However, I will follow your advice and move this back to the Talk page and see what happens next. Wa3frp (talk) 15:05, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert for the explanation of the archival. I thought the discussion was very constructive and didn't realize it was about to get archived. Sometimes it's helpful to have the discussion on the DRN in that it keeps the focus on content vs. behavior. In this case, the editors were doing well to move things forward productively. I support continuing on the talk page, and if more help is needed, perhaps an RFC would help. Best regards. Coastside (talk) 15:28, 14 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Newsletter No.17[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articulated soft robot[edit]

Hi Robert

It looks fine.

Apologies, I thought I had already left you a message about this :( Chaosdruid (talk) 14:22, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Detransition[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Detransition. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ephixa[edit]

Deleted and ready for you. -- ferret (talk) 13:29, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Ephixa has been accepted[edit]

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More Urgency[edit]

Hi Mr. McClenon. I’m not sure if you remember me, but you once reviewed an article I had submitted. The article in question was Ragazzi di Livonia in my sandbox, an Italian gang. There has recently been some “mob drama” following the assassination of some top mafia figures, and I was wondering if you could help get my article approved while this new found interest in Italian crime is around. I last submitted my article a few weeks ago, but have not heard anything since. I appreciate your consideration for the increased urgency of the article being made public, and I thank you for your time. Livonia ainovil (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sock in WP:AfC[edit]

Hey, have you noticed the recent articles around foreign relations of Vietnam and Jordan? The conversational edit summaries are reminiscent of User:Abdelkader123456, who was banned for Copyright issues. I'm not 100% about it, but would love another pair of eyes looking into the IPs that are posting the drafts, to see if something quacks. Bkissin (talk) 17:07, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bkissin - There are multiple entries in draft about Vietnamese foreign relations. I will check them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bkissin - Quack, quack. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Abdelkader123456. There are three drafts where the titles were previously stubbed down to redirects after edits by Abdelkader123456 were redacted. I am not 100% sure about it either, but I am 99.9% sure about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bkissin - I see that you added another IP address that is being used by Addelkader123456. There probably isn't much that can be done. The addresses can be blocked for between a week and a month, but IP addresses shift anyway, and it isn't to the point where a range block will be used. When the socking is confirmed, I will request deletion of the drafts as G5, the work of banned editors, except for the one that you accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:34:11, 20 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Shankyouverymuch08[edit]


I had a friendly question about the denial of the Oklahoma Humanities page that I created and you responded to. Originally, you had said I needed more sources, which I gathered and added. Then it was suggested that OH needs significant coverage by other sources. I modeled my page off the Missouri Humanities Council page, and I have many more independent sources than that page, so I don't understand how much significant coverage is needed if other Wikipedia pages do not conform to that standard. Please advise what would count as significant coverage for this particular article. Thanks! Shankyouverymuch08 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)Shankyouverymuch08[reply]

Shankyouverymuch08 (talk) 18:34, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lemelle jpg[edit]

The photo is owned by me. Marie Lemelle (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marie Lemelle - I did not question the ownership of the photo. I do not care whether the photo is yours. If you are Marie Lemelle, the draft is an autobiography. If you are not Marie Lemelle, your account name resembles that of a living person. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marie Lemelle draft[edit]

Thank you for the explanation about my photo. How do photos appear with the article or maybe I have characterized my submission incorrectly. Please advise. Marie Lemelle (talk) 15:56, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marie Lemelle - I suggest that you ask any future questions at the Teahouse. They might explain that using Wikipedia for your autobiography is strongly discouraged. As a result, it doesn't matter how you submit your photograph. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WORK IN PROGRESS[edit]

Dear Robert !

Thank you for responding so quickly to my submission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bughub#Your_submission_at_Articles_for_creation:_sandbox_(March_22)

Yes I understand that I should have asked for help first

But now I have your attention ...

Would you mind having a quick look at the article which I am trying to expand ?

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

At present it is just a stub

I would like to learn how to correct the errors ...

Bughub (talk) 07:28, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bughub - Please see Referencing for Beginners and follow the instructions for a reference to a book. If you have any further questions, you can ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon - Thank you Robert ! I will do that now ... Bughub (talk) 15:13, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:04:00, 22 March 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Nwalavalkar786[edit]


Hi, Thanks for the review. Could you help me understand what specific section of the wiki page created was found to be advertorial? We would essentially delete that content and/or edit it for review again. We definitely want to comply with Wiki's rules. Thanks.


Nwalavalkar786 (talk) 14:04, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nwalavalkar786 - Your draft has been deleted. Who is "we"? What is your relationship to the Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation? My recollection is that the draft did not contain any useful information. If the company does not satisfy corporate notability, then removing the advertising may not leave a useful stub. Who is "we"? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

You mentioned that I have not disclosed my COI on my user page. I am a student intern at Plymouth Rock Assurance Corporation (I have mentioned this on my user page) and we(the organization) have significant customer base. In such a scenario, I felt that the company should have a wikipedia page for customers who want to know more about the company. I have included just dry facts as mentioned by the other reviewer (Stevey7788) and am trying my level best to meet wikipedia's policies. Could you help me out set up this page and let me know of whatever changes I have to make to the page in order to get it up.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nwalavalkar786 (talk • contribs) 19:44, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nwalavalkar786 - No. I don't intend to help a COI editor, even a junior COI editor, with a page, because it isn't the responsibility of Wikipedia to help customers know more about a company. I won't interfere with another reviewer helping you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could you atleast help me understand what's the problem with my COI article as you have mentioned. Thanks.Nwalavalkar786 (talk) 13:22, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, As you had mentioned, I have moved my COI from user talk page to article talk page. Let me know if there are any more changes before the draft is moved to articles section. Thanks. Nwalavalkar786 (talk) 14:41, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:REAL by FAKE has a new comment[edit]

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:REAL by FAKE. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your comment. I am wondering why is my filmography too long? I am using the same presentation format that other companies are using, such as this page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNEG. I would like to know why is their filmography not too long? Thank you for your collaboration. Best regards! Tyler Durd (talk) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyler Durd - First, their list of awards is also too long, in my opinion. Second, your filmography is longer than theirs. Third, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Out of 5.7 million articles, not all of ours are good. It is a very common mistake for a new editor to look at one existing article and assume that it should be used as a model for another. Maybe it should, and maybe it shouldn't. Please ask for further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:30, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AFC refusal, created, now at AFD[edit]

Hi. FYI. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Osmodrama ..... I can't see has advanced since your AFC refusal. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:04, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:In ictu oculi - Thank you for letting me know. I will research it and will !vote. I expect to !vote Delete, but want to be well-informed first. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:In ictu oculi - I have done enough research to !vote. In view of the Kickstarter listing being the main mention that I found, it doesn't appear to be original research so much as promotion of a technology. If the issue were whether to delete the article on the technology, I would !vote Keep, only because the idea of some such technology has had a conceptually neat quality at least since I was a boy. However, primates have comparatively poor senses of smell compared to other mammals, which may be why the technology is still in the conceptually neat category. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_24&oldid=974100932"