User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 18

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

Re: warning that article might be deleted due to lack of content[edit]

I am working in Sandbox and, in line with Wikipedia guidelines, I assumed that I could save an incomplete article and revisit it to add material and citations at a later date. I also read on a Wikipedia website that editors should delete this warning if they are working on draft articles in Sandbox. Any further problems, please advise. Regards, Roget's Minion (talk) 03:02, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I am new To Wikipedia, Please help, thanks Robert[edit]

Hello Robert, sorry for any inconvenience I have caused, i only wish to learn how to use Wikipedia the right way. Could you please help me with the article as I am new to this site and don't fully understand the coding. I appreciate your help , please don't delete my article, thanks. Diddomontoya (talk) 17:50, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Robert, I too am new to Wikipedia and see that you have closed my dispute on "William M. Branham". I posted the dispute on the talk page, but you say I must put it on each user's page. I can try to do that, but do I need to file a new dispute now? I'm sorry, but I don't understand Wikipedia format. This may be the wrong place to put my comment too, but I couldn't find any place for a new subject. Thanks. Danpeanuts 05:35, 08 September 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danpeanuts (talk • contribs)

All Help Appreciated[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review the second draft of the article I am working on, Draft:Shinesty. The obvious end goal is to utilize all of the external sources from the web with content published about the company to create an impartial encyclopedic article. I believe that based on the approved Wikipedia pages I have read from similar companies, I am not far off of this goal. Many if not all of these companies have similar sections and provide very similar information about the companies. I used the agglomerated list of those companies as a template for how to write the draft for this article. I was hoping that you could provide a bit more information about what should be removed or altered in this draft in order to make it appear less like an advertisement. The first paragraph along with the "history" and "business ventures" sections have all been edited to match the style of other pages and I imagine a few tweaks should set this page up for success. I do have a COI in editing this page as I am an employee of the company, and I understand the importance of keeping Wikipedia impartial. Because of this, I was curious if is there a different route that should be taken to make sure that this article doesn't simply fizzle out? Thanks for all your help again. Austin at Shinesty (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Austin at Shinesty - First, please do not top post your inquiry. It is confusing and hard to find. The draft in question is Draft:Shinesty. It is very hard for a connected contributor to write a neutral article. My advice is to ask at the Teahouse, where some of the editors are willing to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I am now editing the page have not add in references yet. Please wait and not straight away delete it. Bryan4562013 (talk) 03:19, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micronation - Republic of West Who[edit]

Hello Robert. I would like to add an article about the micronation Republic of West Who. Wikipedia has numerous articles about micronations, such as, Nation of Celestial Space and the Republic of Molossia. Why was the article on West Who deleted so quickly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cor225 (talk • contribs) 03:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information[edit]

This is to inform you that our article about Akhar2016 looks like an advertisement. Ok I agree but this is a Free Software tool for the public like Wikipedia. We do not get any benefit from this article at all. This is for Public so giving all information on this Wikipedia is actually helping people for their knowledge. We are inspired from existing articles as InPage Baraha If they Exist then why not Akhar 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tej74i (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A favor[edit]

A colleague of mine has created Draft:American Tianxia and asked me for a review .I think it passes the muster, but I feel it would be a bit COI for me to approve it myself - could you take a look and post a formal draft review in a few days, as a favor for me? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus - What is the conflict of interest? My first thought is that the phrase "American tianxia" is something of a neologism. We don't normally have articles on neologisms, even if one reputable scholar has used the neologism. As a minor, easily correctable point, the draft has "tianxia" in at least two places. Look at that very carefully. Because it has quotes inside the internal link, it is a red link. Either get rid of the quotes, or get rid of the links. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COI as in the person who asked me for a review is a personal friend and I feel I could be biased in reviewing it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Versiya[edit]

When he moved the page, he accidentally put it at the draft talk page, then copied the text to the draft page and blanked the talk. I tagged the redirect for deletion, so it shouldn't matter wherever it's pointing. Home Lander (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Home Lander Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages to user space[edit]

I think you should be more careful when moving newly created articles to user space. For example, you have moved Arpit Malviya to User:Arpit Malviya, but the user account has no contributions, and the article was in fact created by User:Arpit11111. (I don't think the article was really suitable for user space, either; Wikipedia is not a personal website.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Kumar Bhoi[edit]

I'm not criticizing you at all. I am very selective about where I do this - as you say, something that is not suitable as an article can be suitable as a user page, but that's by no means always true. Deb (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Bishu baswal moved to User:Bishu baswal created by User:Bishubaswal16. I've marked it U2 before I saw the move but wouldn't have been inclined to userfy it anyway. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a sock? Deb (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, No, Robert userfied the page using its article name rather than its author's name. Looks like Robert's just had a bad day on page moves. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this move
Since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Madware (2nd nomination) will need to be adjusted to discuss its new pagename, all sorts of folks notified, as well as being moved and I've not yet had my first coffee of the day, I'll just point it out and let it be. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, we all have bad days. I've certainly had a few recently, as Rob knows! ;-) Deb (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deb, User:Mike Rosoft, User:Cabayi - Point made. The MFD was one thing, and it was already confused before I made it more confused. As to moves to user space, I do need to be sure that the name of the article and the name of the creator are the same. If so, it may be a valid user page if it isn't spammy. If they are different in detail, it is probably just another A7. I was trying a new technique of moving pages to user space to avoid deletion, and I guess we usually just have to A7 them after al. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I got a warning from you for reverting a specific edit. It was me and another user who reverted each other's edits. Your warning seemed unfair, but I now discovered that both me and the other user got the warning for 3x consecutive reversals. In retrospect, the warning to both of us was more than fair and it helps to keep Wikipedia organized. Thank you! // D.Novosibirsk (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Why is there a signature on top of your page? The garmine (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The garmine - Because it needed deleting. Because it was left over from a previous archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.😁 The garmine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SwisterTwister - I was in an easy mood when I didn't tag it for G11. I thought it was marginal there for draft space, and I think that, while G11 does apply to draft space also, it should be applied only in the most obvious cases. I hadn't been thinking G12, which we agree should absolutely always be applied strictly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done significant research to improve the article, Whataboutism[edit]

Discussion that should be either at WP:DRN or at Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Robert McClenon,

Thank you for your interest in the article, Whataboutism.

Thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, dealing with entrenched viewpoints which appear to ignore reliable sources.

I've done significant research to improve the article Whataboutism.

  1. State before my research efforts LINK ONE.
  2. Article after research and expansion efforts, so far: LINK TWO.

Please also note, at the top of the article's talk page, I've added links to the number of times certain individuals have attempted to get the article disappeared from Wikipedia [1].

Most of the complaints about the article's existence amount to transparently obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:No original research on the part of the complainants. Example, saying something is a "neologism", and throwing around the word "neologism" like a pejorative, based on their own personal opinions.

The research shown in the article itself doesn't bear that out, as I believe you've already observed, yourself. [2]

Please also note, similar attempts were also made, to try to disappear the entire wiki article on the subject And you are lynching Negroes. I've added those attempts, also, to the top of that article's talk page [3].

It appears to be a transparent attempt to remove off of Wikipedia any and all content found to be disagreeable to the country of origin to which the subject is referring to.

When one attempt fails at a deletion debate, well, let's try and merge it away into another article and then chip away at it over time until it's gone from there also.

When that attempt fails, try another deletion debate at another article.

When that attempt fails, try a deletion review at that article.

When that attempt fails, try merger again at a different article to merge somewhere else.

No.

This is well researched, well documented source material. Over a sustained period of time.

It is notable.

Both articles are independently notable, as noted by Cunard at [4] and [5] and [6].

Sincerely,

Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NAC:Further discussion can be at Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Robert, as to the issue of original contention at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, please note I myself removed the Teen Vogue source at DIFF and noted it on the talk page at DIFF. That issue is now resolved and done. Complainants appear to have moved on from that and are now proposing getting rid of the entire article altogether at [7] and [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - My talk page is a reasonable place to discuss an article that is pending review at Articles for Creation. It is not the right place to discuss an article that is at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Discussion should be at the noticeboard. However, discussion at that noticeboard is not working either, both because you are editing the article (maybe a strong warning is needed at the top of the noticeboard saying not to edit the article while a case has been filed), and because there is back-and-forth discussion, which already has not worked. Please take your discussion back to the article talk page, Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Robert, but I was unaware of the dispute resolution noticeboard at the time I was improving the article. And I strongly feel that I should not be forbidden from improving an article on Wikipedia, at the exact same time others are proposing to have that same article disappeared from off the face of Wikipedia. I agree with you the article talk page is a better place for more discussion. I hope you can appreciate the amount of research I have done to improve the article. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - If you didn't know that the article was being discussed at WP:DRN, then you cannot be faulted for being bold and reworking it. You should be ready, and I think you are, for new controversy about the article. I suggest that, if an effort is made to get rid of the article or turn it into a redirect, the best way to prevent that would be a Request for Comments. If there is an Articles for Deletion, you can oppose that, but starting an Articles for Deletion discussion when you want an article kept would be considered disruptive or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, thanks for the advice. Respectfully disagree with you about starting AFD, articles for deletion is the way to bring to the community assessment about whether or not an article should be disappeared. I hope that there are no more attempts to get the page removed off from Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - I will ask about whether it is reasonable for a proponent of keeping an article to start an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:No, you don't have to do that. I don't have plans right now to start an AFD. Rather, I hope simply the research I've done to expand the article, in and of itself quiets down the grumbling about trying to disappear the article itself. Okay? Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I am the person who filed the original dispute resolution. I tore a ligament in my neck a week ago and was laid up in bed until about two days ago. During that time I was immobilized and unable to use a computer. After catching up with my life, I took a look at the dispute resolution and it looks like it has been closed. I was surprised to see that again, no one understood my reason for wanting to make the change in the first place and that the problem sentence still appears to be there, although the references to it have been changed and Teen Vogue has been removed. I do not want to get embroiled in another series of edit wars but I would like to explain my problem with that sentence and see if it can be addressed. What is the best way to proceed here? DeadEyeSmile (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Robert noted, already, above, best place now is article talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeadEyeSmile - As both User:Sagecandor and I have now said, any discussion should be at the article talk page. If there are any further questions, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, but content disputes should go to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, thankfully, DeadEyeSmile and I seem to have amicably resolved all issues, per their comments at DIFF and DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft of BIO page[edit]

NAC:It appears that the submitter is working for the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr. McClenon,

Thanks very much for your information and assessment of the page I am requesting. Can you tell me how I might be able to provide information on the faculty member's impact that would be worthy of a bio page on Wikipedia? I have not done this before so I am not certain how to begin.

Thanks again. Jonloliverru (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Jon[reply]

User:Jonloliverru - The draft is Draft:Brent David Ruben. I said that you would need to provide independent references. A list of his own works is not the same as independent references. If you have further questions, please ask at the Teahouse. There must be on-line summaries of his career. Just be sure to rework them in your own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False Accusation[edit]

Please don't accuse me of doing something I didn't: Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with WorkJam (Company). Zaurus (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:23, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Jonloliverru[edit]

NAC:Any further input should be either by editing the draft or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The faculty member has asked that I provide his Google Scholar ranking for your review. Thanks very much.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8PDU3Y4AAAAJ&hl=en


Jonloliverru (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonloliverru - If the subject of the BLP has asked you to provide your input, you have a conflict of interest that should be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said that a list of the subject's works was not a substitute for references. It still isn't, and you still haven't provided references. Please ask for any further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:12:43, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Adzie[edit]



Hi Robert, would you mind elaborating on what parts you felt the page failed on? Thanks

User:Adzie - In looking at the draft, there isn't one part of it in particular that is the problem, but the overall tone. I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ade Olufeko[edit]

Confusing - there's a redirect from his mainspace article to Visual Collaborative which is more of the same promotion. It appears to be nothing more than a traveling exhibition created by Olufeko to give unknown artists some exposure. I'm thinking it should go to AfD along with the redirect. Your thoughts? Atsme📞📧 09:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme - I'm confused. What is the question? He doesn't have a mainspace article, only a redirect to his roadshow. Do you want to take the roadshow to AFD? Do you mean that the roadshow doesn't have independent coverage? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The roadshow is a promotion that simply provides a platform for unknowns to display their work. I'm of the mind that Visual Collaborative doesn't meet WP:N. They arrange shows for unknowns to promote their work. WP is not a platform for unknowns to become notable. Atsme📞📧 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme - The question that I have is whether the roadshow itself, that is, Visual Collaborative, is notable. It is true that the purpose of the roadshow is for unknown artists to promote their work. The question is whether the roadshow itself has been given independent coverage by reliable sources. In view of the fact that it has been covered in Wikipedia since 2011, I personally think that the burden of proof should be on the deleter to show that it is not notable after all. For a new article, I think that the burden of proof should be on the proponent to show that the subject is notable. In this case, I think that it should be shown that it is not notable. I haven't finished researching it, but I think that I will !vote Keep on an AFD on the roadshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Robert. I doubt that a marketing & promotion company that arranges a single relatively unknown event each year is worthy of having a stand alone article. What is notable about it? The barbeques I host here at the ranch get more attention. There is an art to serving up fine barbeque you know. :-D Atsme📞📧 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorochromasia[edit]

I speedily deleted Fluorochromasia because it was obviously a copy-paste page move from Autoctono~enwiki/sandbox, which itself was a botched move from User:Autoctono~enwiki/sandbox. This had the effect of removing your prod tag. Feel free to renom for deletion if you think you should, but the page being a mess isn't really a valid deletion reason. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabrictramp - Thank you. Far from nominating the replaced article for deletion, I marked it as reviewed. I mark scientific articles as reviewed if they appear to be reliably sourced, because they are expanding human knowledge (or, in Wikipedia, documenting the expansion of human knowledge). I accomplished my objective of getting the mess replaced by a valid short article. I will note that the rules say that an article can be PRODd for any reason, and I still think that, if the choice was between the mess and nothing, nothing is to be preferred, so the PROD. Anyway, I accomplished my objective. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hey,it's Jenevee.I'd like to apologise for cursing at you for something as trivial as a wikipedia page.I acknowledge my sin and hope you can forgive me for it.There's no explanation for saying what I said.Im sorry.

-Jenevee Jenevee (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

A tag has been placed on User:Ptangadprasad/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Gbawden (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gbawden - That's a mystery. First, it isn't my crud. It appears that I moved it, and now Twinkle thinks it is mine. However, I am confused, because the history doesn't show that I declined it. I wouldn't normally have moved it to draft space unless it was tagged as waiting for AFC review. Huh. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Twinkle does same strange things Gbawden (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Notice retracted[edit]

Haha, all apologies for that one :D It was Twinkle's fault, so let's blame it. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. it actually is a bit funny though because the creator must have re-made the page in both places, and now it exists with and without "Dr." in the title. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:El cid, el campeador - That was partly my doing. When a page is moved, this creates a second page, because the old title is a redirect and the new title exists. This only doesn't happen if the page mover suppresses redirect creation, but there are rules as to when the page mover should suppress redirect creation. If the old title is a plausible form of the title, the redirect should exist. Anyway, thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Pt Angad Prasad Tiwari[edit]

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

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

A tag has been placed on Draft:Pt Angad Prasad Tiwari, 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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one is in broken Indian English, not in educated, somewhat overly wordy American English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing the above happened for the same reason it did for me. Robert, somebody needs to create a userbox for you that says something about, "This user receives too many deletion notices not meant for him." Home Lander (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:02, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Cinemasianx[edit]


Instead of placing him as an article for a musician, what if it was changed to the Biography of a Living Person, like his former partner Andy Chanley and his wiki page?

User:Cinemasianx - I don't understand the question. Maybe you are asking about a distinction that you perceive that either doesn't exist or isn't important or isn't seen as important by experienced editors. Every article about a living person is a biography of a living person. The alternatives are biographies of dead people and articles that are about anything other than specific people. (Also, the rules about biographies of living persons apply to any article that mentions living people, even if the article is not a biography and mentions them only in passing. For instance, if I am writing about a city, and I mention its mayor, then the rules about living persons apply, in particular that the statement as to who the mayor is must be verifiable because I am referring to a living person.) Perhaps you are really asking about whether to establish notability based on musical notability or general notability or both. If so, the answer is that your draft will be accepted as an article if it establishes either type of notability. If you have any further questions about notability, I would advise you to ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments[edit]

Robert, on OnePlus OnePlus talk page you mentioned that you could possibly help in formulating a neutral RfC. That help would be much appreciated. How would you suggest to go about this? What would be the next step? When it comes to the editor who I am in a disagreement with, I honestly have a lot of respect for him, but I think that the editor is wrong on this particular issue. Since we two seemingly cannot reach an agreement, external mediation would be great. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:D.Novosibirsk - Do you want mediation, or do you want a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

Hello RM. In my many years here I had never had to file a salt request. I was in the middle of trying to figure out what to do when I saw your post. That saved me some time - thanks :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarnetteD - In this case I recognized it as an article that I had previously nominated for speedy. Just put {{salt}} at the bottom of the page. The deleting admin may or may not actually salt. Some admins have different thresholds than others for how many times the topic has to have been deleted. The other possible action, and both can be done, is to use Twinkle to give the editor a warning for Creating Inappropriate Pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I had checked the logs and noticed the previous deletions. We will see what happens with the salt request. Sometimes it feels like the person creating things like this is taking part in performance art and they don't care whether the article stays or not. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and performance artists are not here to maintain the encyclopedia and need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of CNS Control article[edit]

You proposed deletion of CNS Control article. Article should not be deleted as it is important topic and should be improved instead.

Tomas Ukkonen Cutesolar (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert Gant[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Gant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week[edit]

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your helpfulness to others. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:MelanieN submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Robert McClenon as Editor of the Week. He has been here since 2005, made more than 50,000 edits and previously received this award for the week beginning July 5, 2015. I especially admire him for his helpfulness to other editors, both newbies and established users. He is a major help at the Dispute Resolution page, where he politely and patiently tries to mediate between warring factions, keeping the focus on the issues and never losing his cool. He also helps extensively at the Help Desk and the Teahouse. This kind of work is incredibly important to Wikipedia and I believe it should be recognized.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}
A Guide for how to edit
Robert McClenon
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning July 16, 2017
Editor since 2005 with 50,000+ edits and a previous EotW two years ago. Helpfulness at the Dispute Resolution page, the Help Desk, the Teahouse and elsewhere.
Recognized for
being polite and patient
Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Congrats RM. I know this is the second time you've received this and it was well deserved on both occasions. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 18:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congratulations! Mz7 (talk) 02:55, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for all you do. ―Buster7 ☎ 15:51, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikunj3121994 and how-to manual articles[edit]

Thank you for PRODing Printing a message in C and List of C program examples. I was going to AfD since I couldn't decide on a CSD (other than A3 for the program examples one). I notice the user has just created a Adding two numbers in C so this may get to be a problem if he is intent on creating articles for each of his examples. Let's try to interrupt this further before there are 40 different articles to PROD. Any ideas on the best course of action? I will post to his talk page soon. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Someone just deleted the articles. I wonder where he was getting the source code because he has been blocked before for copyright violations and warned it will be permanent if it happens again. —DIYeditor (talk) 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:DIYeditor - It appears that an administrator just did a Ignore All Rules, which I would like to see somewhat more often with respect to articles that shouldn't exist, but does, on its face, violate the spirit of speedy deletion. I think that the matter is now resolved and we can go back to whatever we were doing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the NPP backlog[edit]

You will be very interested in this about the upcoming trial and you may wish to comment there. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:28, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion for Breizh eo ma bro![edit]

Good morning, I'm French, sorry for my approximative English. I don't understand why you ask to delete this article. Can you tell me how I can create a good article about this album? Land and travel 10:24, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Land and travel - The article did not have any references and so did not explain why the album met musical notability and did not provide enough information about the performer or performers. An article about a musical work should explain why the work is notable, such as with chart figures, sales figures, or reviews. Read Your first article and the verifiability policy and the notability policy. For more information about how to create a good article about an album, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 16 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert Mc CLenon - Thank you. I will use this pages. I thought that it was as on french wikipedia. The page creation is different. Land and travel 8:34, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

05:00:46, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Goziextech[edit]



Hi Robert my draft article for Goziex Technologies Limited was rejected because i cited Youtube, and also did say that have lots of unreliable sources, I will like to ask, do I have to remove only the youtube , and if the company website can be referenced, in terms of text which could be validated about this? if you could please give a general explanation on the affected sources, I could make those amends and resubmit Thank you in AdvanceGoziextech (talk) 05:00, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Goziextech - No. First, I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Second, I do not normally provide assistance to paid editors or editors with a conflict of interest. Third, you have a promotional user account name. You need to change it, as soon as possible. Fourth, if you have not declared your conflict of interest, you must do so as soon as possible. If you have any more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Some editors there are more tolerant of paid editors than I am. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hawaiian Chocolate Factory[edit]

Any objection if I send this to draft space so the original editor can work on it? I agree that it's not ready for article status, but I'm willing to entertain the possibility that it can be sourced and improved. —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred - Go ahead. I only have an issue with the article in article space. If the author wants to find newspaper coverage, that is all right. Go ahead and move it, and I can say as nominator that Draftify is okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:15:43, 17 July 2017 review of submission by Skellingslighthouse[edit]




Brian Michaels[edit]

OK! I have deleted my draft on Brian Michaels. The other draft has been created by a friend of mine, but we didn't know from each other that we woorked on the same project. Sorry - Best regards Skellingslighthouse--Skellingslighthouse (talk) 17:15, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of MELANIE PARRY[edit]

A tag has been placed on MELANIE PARRY requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

capitalized title

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. Pariah24 (talk) 09:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pariah24 - Well, well. I was about to say it isn't my page, but the redirect from the capitalized title is my redirect, and I did leave a redirect when I moved it. Well, well. I would contest the speedy deletion of the redirect, except that the page has also been nominated for speedy deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:43, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion of BrightHR - grounds for notability[edit]

Hello, thank you for taking the time to review the BrightHR page I created. I'm sorry it's not yet met the criteria for notability, however I am confident that BrightHR does meet these criteria.

Here is a list of references to BrightHR's thought leadership in the employee engagement sphere. These are made up of a mix of Business, City and Personal sources and a mix of Independant and Non-Independant sources.

When BrightHR placed a double bed in the office there was a considerable amount of attention and discussion. Again, these are made up of a mix of Business, City and Personal sources and a mix of Independant and Non-Independant sources. These can be viewed below:

This is by no means an extenive list of the publications in which BrightHR has been discussed. There are no conflicts of interest in using these as sources because BrightHR does not sell beds, nor does its software have an employee engagement function. Most of the above references are unaffiliated with BrightHR and the topics they are covering.

Would using the above material to build out an alement of the article make it more notable?

Cosmicsqueaker (talk) 12:10, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cosmicsqueaker - My user talk page is not the place to discuss whether BrightHR is an appropriate Wikipedia article. I tagged it for proposed deletion, and then I tagged it for speedy deletion because it had already been discussed and deleted. You are entitled to remove a proposed deletion tag for any reason or no reason. If the current article is significantly better than the version that was deleted, you may contest the speedy deletion at the article talk page, Talk:BrightHR, and the deleting admin will compare the current article with the deleted article. If you think that the article should not have been deleted because of a problem with the deletion discussion, you may appeal the deletion at deletion review. Also, you may create a new draft that will be better than the deleted version in draft space and may request that it be reviewed. Also, you may ask other experienced editors for their opinions at the Teahouse. My own opinion is that the episode of placing a bed in an office is not really about BrightHR and does not establish notability and that the sources in the first list are not independent reliable sources, but those are only my opinions, and you can ask other editors for their opinions. In any event, it is not useful to provide references on a reviewer's talk page to argue that an article should be kept or accepted; any supporting information should be in the article itself. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection with BrightHR? If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:25, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Hello really sorry to clog up your user talk page. I didn't realise this wasn't the right place to discuss this. I have shared this information on the talk page as suggested however the page was deleted before a discussion was had about the notability. I did declare when setting up the page that I was a representative of the organisation. Would it be possible to reinstate the deleted page so we can hve the conversation? Cosmicsqueaker (talk) 14:02, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cosmicsqueaker - I don't understand why any editor thinks that my talk page or another reviewer's talk page is a reasonable place to discuss an article. You are providing me, or any reviewer, with information about the company that is not in the article. That is, you are asking me to sign off on an article based on information that I have that isn't available to the readers of Wikipedia. Please consider whether that would be appropriate and whether that would be fair to the readers of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cosmicsqueaker - Please read my reply above again. I don't know what conversation you want to have. However, if you want to have any conversation about Wikipedia in general, I suggest that you take it to the Teahouse. You ask whether it is possible to reinstate the deleted page. You may ask for a copy of a deleted article at Requests for Undeletion or to have the deletion reconsidered at WP:DRV. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My moved page[edit]

Robert,

I do not know why my article:

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

Was moved to:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dates_in_Wikipedia

I do not understand the significance of this.

What is the difference between the two?

Jroehl (talk) 19:24, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jroehl - Your article had no references, and probably is of little interest to the general reader but of interest to other Wikipedia editors. First, I thought that it was at risk of being deleted from article space, because it has no references and isn't about the sort of topic that is covered in Wikipedia articles. If you have any more questions, I would suggest asking at the Teahouse. I will try to answer, but, in my opinion, it was more appropriate in Wikipedia space than in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Color change vehicle vinyl wrap ‎[edit]

May I request feedback on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Color_change_vehicle_vinyl_wrap I would like to invite people who have expertise in the subject to contribute once it is out of draft. Is that appropriate? — Preceding unsigned comment added by SeanAndres (talk • contribs) 06:32, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sean Andres - You moved the draft into Wikipedia space, and it didn't belong there, and it has been deleted. You may discuss the deletion with the deleting administrator. If you have a copy of the draft on your computer, you may restore it to draft space. You may request comments from other editors at the Teahouse, but I suggest that you first discuss your (good-faith but mistaken) move of the article to Wikipedia space and learn about draft space, article space, and Wikipedia space. Ask at the Teahouse. I can't comment further on your draft because it was deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Draft:Vehicle vinyl wrap is still in draft space. You may ask for comments on it at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with the article[edit]

Hi Robert

I am new to Wikipedia in regards to writing articles and such. You sent me a message saying my article about Mark Soden was "Peacocking" or I sounded like I praised him too much. How was I doing that?, I was just stating facts. He was a great player, he did a lot for the club. How can I write that in a neutral boring way?. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sully198787 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sully198787 - Wikipedia has a neutral point of view policy and quotes what reliable sources have said. We do not say, in the voice of Wikipedia, that a player was great. If a sportswriter said this, quote them. If a newspaper says that he did a lot for a club, quote the newspaper. If you want to discuss your draft further, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. I have explained very briefly what I see as the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:46, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The draft in question is Draft:Mark Soden. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:51, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your advice...[edit]

Ok, so I'm looking at List of Chibi Maruko-chan episodes and my initial reaction is to revert (undo) the removal of the redirect to Chibi Maruko-chan which caused the article to go back into NPR. What are your thoughts? Atsme📞📧 18:25, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme - I may be really confused. It appears that an editor replaced a long list article with a redirect in 2015. I haven't read the talk page, but I think that replacing a list article with a redirect is a backdoor delete, and calls for discussion either at AFD or at an RFC. The list article was in article space long enough that just replacing it with a redirect was a contentious edit and should not have been done without consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other than that, what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What about WP:NOTTVGUIDE? I'm starting to see more of these lists in NPR, such as List_of_Miles_from_Tomorrowland_episodes Atsme📞📧 19:24, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme - It appears that you are asking for my opinion, so here is my opinion. I agree that the guideline tends to suggest that we don't need those lists. I am not sure that there is anything wrong with those lists, because I have an inclusionist philosophy when it comes to popular culture. (I have a deletionist philosophy about most living people and most living companies.) However, in both cases, the lists existed for more than a year, and then someone decided to replace the lists with redirects. I think that replacing an existing article with a redirect, even if it is a questionable article, is a form of blanking, and should not be done without discussion. (If there is a guideline that encourages blanking by redirect unilaterally without discussion, it is a guideline that needs fixing.) So in both cases, I don't think that the list should have been blanked by redirection, at least not without talk page discussion. I personally think that the right forum to discuss such blanking by redirection is Articles for Deletion, where the action can be Redirect. Good question. I will ask the question somewhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
A new list came up, and I nominated it for AFD. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of births, marriages and deaths in Waterloo Road. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Robert. Certain types of lists are certainly head scratchers, especially when they appear to be something out of TV Guide, so I asked an admin who was familiar with a particular case, and wanted to share his response. I'm just wading through the backlog trying to learn the differences that warrant exemptions from policy or don't apply to policy at all. I'm hoping to avoid making stupid mistakes, or at the very least, if I make one, I will be readily forgiven. 😇 Atsme📞📧 23:54, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "TEM (nuclear propulsion)".

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 12:56, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Legacypac - Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my draft; I only moved it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yup that confirms if you move a draft you and the creator get notified. Legacypac (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After you inferred...[edit]

Hi Robert, hope you are well. Just want to follow up on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:Film_censorship_in_China.23Runtime_columns now that you have inferred "the reduction in runtime of a movie indicates how much of the movie was taken out by the censor." Where do we go from here since you are neither accepting nor declining the case? Thanks and hope you have a great weekend. Supermann (talk) 21:05, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Supermann - If I or another volunteer neither accept nor decline a case, it means that another volunteer is asked to take the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I wasn't sure if the discussion will be archived automatically if no volunteer picks it up. Supermann (talk) 17:19, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Supermann Yes, the discussion will be archived in Two Weeks if no volunteer picks it up. In Two Weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Then what would be our other recourse? thanks. Supermann (talk) 15:12, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Just realized the runtime DRN was closed because I didn't notice the other editor had added a third stmt. I object to her proposal and once again request the runtime columns be added. Could you please reopen the process? I don't think I need to add any further stmt. I only soapbox on the talk page but not on the article page to remain neutral. 50 more films are impacted because no secondary resources analyse them textually other than listing out runtime differences. Many thanks. Supermann (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

:User:Jorge Stolfi/Scratch/Hexahydroxy-2,3-naphthalenedione[edit]

Hi, sorry for the confusion. I had meant to create User:Jorge Stolfi/Scratch/Hexahydroxy-2,3-naphthalenedione but inadvertently omitted the ":User".

I moved it to the proper place. However I may have left a couple of empty pages behind. Can you get them speedy-deleted? Thanks... --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bryan Seely[edit]

Can you please check this page again? Draft:Bryan Seely Twillisjr (talk) 02:52, 23 July 2017 (UTC) User:Twillisjr - I am a little puzzled. First, as the message at the top of this talk page states, I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process, and I will suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. However, second, I don't think that it establishes notability. It is no longer a weird mix of a profile of a non-notable person and a how-to manual. It is only a social media profile of a non-notable person. Third, why are you asking? You haven't edited or improved the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 23 July 2017 (UTC) My apologies for making the request in the first place. It seems that I was asked to review the page and gave some suggestions which were not followed. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and do see some issues throughout. May you have a wonderful day! Twillisjr (talk) 20:28, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Robert, you know my stance on paid editing, and I fully respect yours too and I support it and respect it and I am grateful for all your support for everything else, but please don't ping me to ANI (a confirmed cesspit), if it is for me to be insulted by Beyond My Ken with his 7,568 non-admin edits there. Cheers. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:34, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - Ack. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:36, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably better to ping ANI regulars such as Drmies or Dennis who are better at handling crap like that than I am, and not so deeply concerned with the general combat of advocacy and combating it through NPP. (Drmies is also an Arb). Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:44, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 6, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maglioladitis 2/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:08, 23 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitin Chandra[edit]

In answer to your questions...

  1. I don't see why it shouldn't be requested, but I'm not sure I would do it.
  2. I don't think it's worth the effort, unless the problem escalates. Deb (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sir remove this tag. He is famous in Bihar state of India. Djha12 (talk) 15:49, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Djha12 - If he is famous in Bihar, provide that case. However, notability in one state of the United States or India is not always considered to be general notability. Stop editing disruptively while logged out. Administrator Deb has already blocked you once. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hamoussin fouad[edit]

Don't bother with AfD. That's a clear candidate for speedy deletion. —C.Fred (talk) 23:52, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred - I had my reason for AFD. I thought that it had been created once before, and that an AFD would get it salted quicker. Anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:C.Fred - I now see that all of those articles are the work of a persistent sockmaster. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not surprised there were socks at work, even if I didn't directly...smell them at first. And you have a point: the AfD can create a record and sometimes lead to a snowball delete and salt. —C.Fred (talk) 18:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN[edit]

Hello! I am going to take my first case, so I would like to ask you, would you mind if I link your rules in my statement? --Kostas20142 (talk) 09:15, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kostas20142 - Go ahead. However, don't be surprised if the editors don't read it. I don't know if the editors in my cases read it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I know, I bet they don't. Thank you anyways --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:12, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
For some reason the bot fails recognize me as volunteer, even though I am on the list --Kostas20142 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion F. A. Mann[edit]

I was just beginning to edit the article when you tagged it for speedy deletion. Mann has an article in ODNB and at least one full-length book about him. His work is a mainstay of international law. Now that I've had the time to add refs, perhaps the speedy deletion notice can come down? Much appreciated.

Atchom (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atchom - I removed the speedy deletion tag even before you asked to have it removed. In the future, please do not put fragmentary articles with no references in article space. You may build articles in user space or draft space until they are sufficiently complete so that they will not be subject to speedy deletion or to nomination for deletion. If you do not know how to use draft space or user space, ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:07, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alvin Valley notability[edit]

Could you please look at my comment on Talk:Alvin Valley regarding your notability tag? Thanks. Michipedian (talk) 22:00, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-opening DRNs[edit]

I note that a few days ago you closed the DRN regarding the Battle for Caen due to a lack of response from those of us involved. To note, I never received a notification of your response and (based off comments some of the others have made) I do not believe they did either; so closing took everyone by surprise. The issue is still ongoing with the same circular discussion. So, is there a policy for reopening closed DRNs or does one have to file a new one? Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 05:12, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:EnigmaMcmxc - If you file a dispute at the dispute resolution noticeboard, you are expected to watch it. Maybe a statement to that effect is needed. You may open a new case. The original dispute has now been archived. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:56, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree that a statement to that effect is warranted. I kept tabs on the page for several days, as did others based off their comments; as one noted, this was responded to and archived over a period when some editors were not active (the weekend, I believe). It does seem fair, considering it can take several days for a DRN response and the filer has to notify everyone that it has started, that a notification goes out letting editors know that the DRN has been responded to. Regards, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My DRN on runtime columns was also closed, despite I have been staying on top of monitoring the progress. And Robert hasn't got back to me, either. Supermann (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Supermann - I don't understand what your complaint is. There was only one response after 48 hours. I don't understand your concern about not getting back to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I monitored the DRN daily, but I wasn't pinged about another third stmt request from you. Therefore, I thought the opposition was still modifying her second statement, but I was already expecting a moderation result. Never mind. I have followed your suggestion to initiate RfC. I don't know what can of worms I am getting myself into though. The DRN is not resolved in my eyes. Still, I am grateful for your time.Supermann (talk) 03:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:EnigmaMcmxc - It is true that sometimes a DRN thread waits for a moderator for a few days, but editors should check on its status occasionally. I am willing to discuss some sort of instruction to editors to keep tabs on their disputes. I don't think that moderators should be required to ping editors on their talk pages. Any further discussions can go to the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
RM. Please note that this is Talk:Film censorship in China#RfC about the runtime columns related the DRN - well one of them anyway. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 04:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My articles sppedy deletion request[edit]

I do not understand how you can say that this is not notable but I can tell you it it is notable to over 160,000 people who live in Donegal. GolfingIreland (talk) 02:08, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GolfingIreland - Discuss that with the deleting administrator, or discuss it at Deletion Review, or ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:GolfingIreland - Your article had no citations. There is no way that a reviewer or administrator can know that a subject is notable (other than that its author or its managers claim it is notable) without citations. (Arguments can be raised about whether local businesses meet Wikipedia's notability standards with local citations, but your article had no citations and so was not verifiable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 14:51, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:White House Press Secretary. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

John Barrett (Criminal)[edit]

I found a link that might help. http://www.leagle.com/decision/20011457156FSupp2d1301_11347/SANDERS%20v.%20MOORE Matt Campbell (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)User:Matt CampbellMatt Campbell (talk) 17:02, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Matt Campbell - Please do not provide links or references to reviewers. They must be in the article. If the article has been deleted, and has not been salted, you may create a new better version of the article. (Almost anything would be better than the deleted article with a malformed infobox.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disputes - when other party won't negotiate/collaborate?[edit]

Please suggest what I can do about the following:

Background

Someone contacted me a few weeks ago (outside Wikipedia) with an intimidating and insulting message about my integrity and the accuracy of my work including my Wikipedia article about William Nevin Tatlow Hurst. Also they sent me a fake (scam) message to try to obtain private information about me. I tried to negotiate with this person, offering to share information in a professional manner, but was answered with another storm of accusations, threats and rudeness.

At the same time an anonymous person in Wikipedia has twice deleted some of my facts and references in the above-mentioned article, and gave a false reason (which was only an opinion) for their change.

I believe that if I write on their talk page about this I will be subjected to more abuse.

My question

Is there anything I can do to have my article restored, and have this person told, by an editor with a higher level of authority than me, that they must provide hard evidence not invective to substantiate their claims that my facts are wrong?

Email reply, please, not talkpage, if you do not mind.

Thanks. SurveyorMJF (talk) 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:12:05, 2 August 2017 review of submission by Nguo17[edit]


Hello,

You wrote that my article that I am trying to get published (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Klook_Travel_(2)) has notability issues and a tone of other issues. I am currently going through the notability guidelines and trying to fix some of those issues. Can you touch upon why there are still a ton of other issues?

User:Nguo17 - I did not say that it has a ton of issues. I said that it has tone issues. Those two statements are not the same and not very similar in meaning, only in appearance. (In English, two words that differ only by a silent vowel may have no relationship.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection with Klook Travel? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. If you want advice, you may ask at the Teahouse. Please be sure that the draft is not neutral and does not try to promote the travel agency. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Peacock Alley dispute[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon, I only just now read your concluding statement on the Peacock Alley dispute. To be honest, I was unpleasantly surprised at your allegation that I have engaged in forumshopping, which is defined as trying different forums in the hope of finding one where you 'get the answer you want'. The fact of the matter – and the essential difference – is however that I already got the answer I wanted (broad support for my version) at the very first forum (the Language Desk) where I raised the issue, but that didn't help because my edit still continued to be reverted. Edit warring being out of the question, what was I supposed to do? After reading the dispute resolution page, I decided to ask for mediation, and when that didn't result in resolution of the discord it was mediator KDS444 who suggested to open a RfC on the subject. Marrakech (talk) 10:32, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Marrakech - First, I wasn't the first one to say that you were forum shopping. Originally User:The Banner did that, and I rebuked him for incivility. However, second, if you had already gotten the answer that you wanted, and you went to another content forum, it is still forum shopping, although not in the usual sense. If you think that there is already a consensus for your edits, mediation is not the best answer. Either a Request for Comments or a conduct forum is better. In any case, you were asking the question in multiple places. We can let the RFC run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, sorry to bother you once again about the "defunct restaurant" dispute, but could you please have a look at the RfC concerning this dispute (or ask another administrator to do that; I am not sure whom to turn to). The question is whether I was right in assuming, based on the RfC page, that I was at liberty to end this RfC. Marrakech (talk) 11:16, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop approving machine translations from monolinguals[edit]

Please stop accepting articles for creation created by users using machine translation who have explicitly stated that they do not speak the language of the source article, as you did here and here.

A bot can be programmed to generate new articles from foreign Wikipedias at script speed, but this does not mean they should be accepted as new articles. When an editor does precisely the same thing, they should not be accepted either. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:43, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathglot - I was not aware that the articles were pure machine translations or that the editor did not know German. I assumed that the author did know German and that their English was not very good. In any case, I made a judgment that the subjects were notable as named inhabited places. I will try to remember to check on whether articles are machine translations. However, a much more common, and sometimes valid, criticism of AFC is that we do not accept articles that should be accepted, and the English was better than on some of the articles that we get on inhabited named places in India by editors who should have studied English in high school. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, and thanks for your comments. Please don't assume editors know German just because they're creating "Translations" from it. Here's a page showing 330 "translations" from 14 different languages by a single editor. I first noticed this well-intentioned and prolific generator of crap due to a German translation which contained errors of fact (e.g, the article subject is not about a scientist, but a journalism professor). The damage done by this one editor has still not been repaired, up to two years later, because who's going to go through these, in a volunteer encyclopedia? These errors will probably lurk for years, or indefinitely.
I actually have no problem with relatively poor human English in articles. For example, I'm fine with: Sun big of 1,391,400 km diameter; of heat is it 5,500 C temperture surface, more hotter corona gasses.<ref>''Some ref here about the sun.''</ref> Content like this tortured example is fine in my book, as long as the English is sufficiently clear that we know what the human editor intended, that the facts as stated are correct, and that the citations back them up. Sure, they got the grammar and syntax all mangled, but the facts are correct. Imho, there is no reason to revert a sentence like that: any monolingual English speaker can come in afterward and fix it up without knowing jack about the Sun, because we understand what the editor intended to say, and the reference can be consulted. It's a very simple copyedit job to fix it, and then we've improved the Sun article with more facts, and a reference.
The danger of machine translation is that it gets the facts wrong, and either the English is so good it looks like a human wrote it and so there's no reason to copyedit it or check on it, or the English isn't quite that good, and somebody comes along afterward and patches up any grammar or syntax problems, leaving the factual errors in place, and now it looks great and everyone assumes it must be correct, because hey, good English, and a reference. But it's still wrong; it's just been painted over with a coat of fresh paint, but underneath the hood, it's a lemon. I've corrected errors of fact in articles resulting from a translation error that has stood for fourteen years. So it's vital to catch these at the outset, because if they sneak through, only the bilinguals will be able to determine if it's correct or not, and why would they bother if there's no reason to suspect the article is even a translation in the first place? (You can tag an article that sneaks through in this manner with {{Hidden translation}} to somewhat mitigate this problem of invisibility, but it's still better to catch them at the outset.)
So the AFC folks have a very important role to play in catching this problem and nipping it in the bud. Anytime you see something that either has the ContentTranslation filter tag in it, or that makes you suspect there might be a translation involved, that should immediately raise a red flag causing any AFC reviewer to do additional checks. For example, does the creating editor have a {{Babel}} language box on their user page? If not, you might wish to seek assistance from a bilingual editor to assess the likelihood that the creating editor has a clue.
I don't mean to pick on you, because I think you're doing a great job. Plus, I assume this is a more general problem. Perhaps it would have been better for me to post this at AFC rather than here, but I never heard of it before. Do you agree? If so, I'll create a condensed version for the TP there. Or, since I'm unfamiliar with AFC and you are, you might do a better job at condensing this for that audience. Which would you prefer? I'd be happy to have you do so, if you would agree to it. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 01:45, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 02:19:54, 3 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Xihuliu[edit]



Xihuliu (talk) 02:19, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Rober, it's Xihuliu here. I am sorry if i have ever posted twice of the article as I am still don't quite know the editing on Wikipedia. I have been nervous working on the ediding, i didn't know how i ended up sending twice. Please ignore the fist edition i sent this morning. Thank you so much.

Xihuliu

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your positive and helpful feedback. I'll keep working on the article. Gadje75 (talk) 13:15, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Kenny Wayne Hollingsworth[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Kenny Wayne Hollingsworth, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: contributing to a notable album indcates significance (and is a potential merge target per WP:ATD). Thank you. SoWhy 14:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

12:53:59, 5 August 2017 review of submission by MissusK[edit]



You declined my submission for review on the grounds that it does not have a proper lead sentence, however it is only to be added to an existing article on Swan Hills. I submitted it for review as it's the first writing I've done for Wikipedia and I want to make sure it's OK. Also there's a date problem in the references, that I don't quite understand. I'm not sure if this will like back to my sandbox now so you can see the new section I've written. MissusK (talk) 12:53, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MissusK - First, AFC is not meant to be used for additions to articles, only for new articles. If you want to add to an existing article, either just edit boldly, or discuss on the article talk page first. Second, if you have a question about a date in a reference, ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pages[edit]

Hi Robert. You seem to be on the ball with all the new pages I've created. Don't know how you do it, but that's good.

The Chris Segal page, I think it's notable enough. I'll add to it as time progresses.

However, the other 2 pages, meh. The Dodgerfilms page, I noticed it was deleted twice before, but a lot of the reasons why they were deleted, were a bit outdated. I'm indifferent on whether or not that page should stand, but I would like a discussion on it before (if) it's deleted. I'm not sure if you know anything about the topic, but I listed some of my reasons on the talk page. Hopefully someone responds to them (and it's not just a quick delete).

As for Forest Wheeler, well, I'm surprised he doesn't have his own article. It just gets redirected right back to the TV show he's best known for. I couldn't find a way to remove that redirect, or why it was the case. I made the typo on purpose to get over that, but of course, I couldn't move that page to the proper name.

Penguincw 04:53, 6 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguincw (talk • contribs)

User:Penguinmcw - First, I've tried to take care of the spelling of Forrest Wheeler by moving the redirect into the void and tagging the old redirect for G6. The alternative would have been to ask an admin to move the stub over the redirect. The one-sentence stub on the boy does appear to me to be just barely notable. Second, I don't and didn't have an issue with keeping the umpire. He is ipso facto notable according to baseball notability because he has umpired MLB. This also applies to players. We get a lot of very short stubs on soccer players under ipso facto notability. As to the YouTuber, any references have to be in the article, not just cited on the talk page. It is not useful to create articles whose titles have been previously deleted without discussion, because they may get deleted again, and because the title then may be salted, that is, protected against creation. Go ahead and discuss that on the talk page, but add the references to the article to minimize the likelihood of it being deleted and salted. I am in general a deletionist when it comes to Youtubers, and am not the person to help you on him, just letting you know. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

Hello Robert. Thanks for the reply. Regarding Forrest Wheeler, thank you for moving that page to the correct name. Now for both pages, I do fear they could get deleted, which is why they're so short. I don't want to invest time making the page and all, only for it to be deleted in the end, but it looks like instead of me waiting for the page to be deleted before expanding it, it looks like I have to expand it, and hope it doesn't get deleted. Kinda sucks and unfair, but I can understand. I'll try working on those articles soon, and hopefully whatever efforts I make will stand. I believe there are people out there (including possibly the guys themselves) who would like an article on these 2 people, but almost no one would actually be willing to work on such an article (other than me). Well, off to work I go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Penguincw (talk • contribs) 20:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Penguincw - First, have you looked into Articles for Creation? It is a procedure for developing draft articles in draft space or user space to have them reviewed, and accepted into article space when, in the opinion of reviewers, they are satisfactory in establishing notability and not being promotional. Second, you can request the opinions of experienced editors, either about new articles in article space, or about AFC, at the Teahouse. Third, I think that you are sort of working against yourself if you keep an article very short out of fear that it will be deleted, because stubs, that is, very short articles, are likely to be deleted if they don't establish a case for notability, more likely than longer articles that have more space to establish a case for notability. The exception is that stubs will not be deleted if they establish what I call ipso facto notability, based on meeting a criterion that is clearly specified in a notability guide. The baseball umpire was an example. A one-sentence statement that X was a major general in the army of Kenya would be another example, because general officers are notable according to the military notability guideline. It could however be tagged as needing a reference. So, to summarize, look into AFC as a way of addressing your concerns about having pages deleted, and I personally will not be encouraging about Youtubers. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 6 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Penguincw - What you need to do to prevent the article on the boy from being deleted is to add a reliable source. If you need help in finding one, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hasty Decision[edit]

Obviously the hastily closing of my dispute resolution shows that the censorship here is placed above the search for true knowledge, Mr. McClenon. Unless the editors are well versed in the knowledge of New Testament and Biblical accounts, there is no determinaton of "reliable sources" other than true knowledge. So why prevent even the search therefore of? The use of talk pages should be a positive action toward creating a positive result in the creation of the article. If you had read my report thoroughly I stated the comments are in the history tab as I have not allowed the negative comments from the other editors to remain. This is in the dispute report and not the talk page. It is not an attack on the editors but a cautioning that unless they can prove my sources are not reliable, then they have no case. True knowledge is power, especially in the realm of biblical research and dissemination.Joseph1100 (talk) 13:30, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THETRUTH. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:21, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joseph1100 - Did you read the close of the dispute resolution thread before replying here? I told you to discuss on article talk pages. You have not discussed on article talk pages. I did read your report thoroughly. You said that the comments are in the history tab, but that is not correct; I did not find any discussion in any history tab. I advised you to listen to the advice of other editors. I see that you have again edited Mary in Islam without discussing on the talk page. If you continue to make contentious edits to that article or other articles without being willing to discuss them, you are not likely to persuade other editors. You said: "The use of talk pages should be a positive action toward creating a positive result in the creation of the article." Yes. Use article talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Debra_Neil-Fisher[edit]

Proposed deletion processes are not intended to clean up articles. The subject is arguably notable per WP:BARE. Please take this matter to WP:AfD. I have no COI that I know of. Bearian (talk) 20:32, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merav_Burstein[edit]

After a thorough examination, I launched a new entry into Wikipedia on "Biard - Research and Development Company Ltd." of Bar-Ilan University in Israel.

After collecting the relevant information for the entry, I entered the company information on a draft page. (I've sent you the link).

I will be grateful if one of your editors will see the text and be able to help raise the value to the encyclopedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:BIRAD — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merav burstein (talk • contribs) 07:36, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Merav burstein - I asked you to request a review by other editors at the Teahouse. However, I will offer you a brief review here. The article isn't ready for acceptance into article space. It doesn't, in my view, establish corporate notability. It doesn't include what independent (third-party) reliable sources have written about the company. Because it is only what the company says about itself, it reads like a brochure about the company. Also, at the dispute resolution noticeboard, you referred to a "company page". Wikipedia doesn't have company pages. We have articles about notable subjects including notable companies. Sometimes, when editors use the term "company page", they are working for the company. Are you working for the company? If you want more comments, which may be more optimistic or less optimistic, you may ask at the Teahouse. I don't think that the draft will be accepted. I won't accept it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:20:18, 10 August 2017 review of submission by Ealdahdah[edit]


Hi Robert, which one of the two submissions needs to be deleted? Is there really a duplicate entry?

User:Ealdahdah - It appears that your sandbox version was just replaced by a redirect to draft space. That should take care of the issue. If you have any more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mobile Application Usage in Tanzania[edit]

Hey there AfC buddy! Seen ya around doing great stuff, so thought I'd say hi! Also, I noticed the author of Mobile Application Usage in Tanzania removed your prod tag, and I rolled that back. He also, curiously submitted a draft on the same topic. Anywho, just something for you to keep an eye on, and hi again! Drewmutt (^ᴥ^) talk 04:44, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Drewmutt - I will have to AFD that article then. Once a PROD tag is removed, even by the author, it may not be restored. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted in most arbitration pages please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Supermann (talk) 21:47, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deweni Inima - Deweni Inima (talk) 07:26, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[edit]

please help me restore it to develop it Deweni Inima (talk) 07:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deweni Inima - I can't see the article, because it has been deleted. I can see at least two problems. First, the name of the article was the same as your user name. Were you trying to write an article about yourself? If so, please read the autobiography guideline. Don't write about yourself. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Second, I requested deletion of the article because it had no content. You apparently either forgot to enter the text of the article, or were expecting someone else to enter it for you. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of Listed Buildings in Cornwall (New Pages)[edit]

per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Listed Buildings in Cornwall (New Pages) please help with this, read the comment on the afd first. A Guy into Books (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Aguyintobooks - Thank you. The AFD should be speedy-closed, because that is a reasonable use of user space. I will ask what can be done. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This has been dealt with now. A Guy into Books (talk) 15:12, 13 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dehydrated fruit[edit]

Just a friendly heads up on Dehydrated fruit. You had proded the article, but instead I changed it to a redirect to the existing article, Dried fruit. Cheers! --Fabrictramp | talk to me 03:40, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabrictramp - Thanks. It was a promotional stub and it needed redirecting. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 07:38:28, 15 August 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Daninguyen0[edit]


User:Daninguyen0 - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. However, on re-reading your draft, it still reads promotionally, just not as promotionally. I would suggest that you ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Also, do you have a connection with the company? The only edits you have made have to do with the draft (and previous deleted articles) on the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Re-review of Cassantec AG[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon,

You recently reviewed my Cassantec AG page. I made the necessary additions and changes-- would you mind re-reviewing the page?

Best, Daninguyen0 (talk) 07:32, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Daninguyen0 (talk) 07:38, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Lindy West[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lindy West. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmira Kulkarni deletation[edit]

Please do return my page I will add references please Neha-Purva (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Neha-Purva - If you want a deleted page restored, you need to ask for at Requests for Undeletion. I cannot restore it; I do not have it. You have had several pages deleted. Please read our guidelines and policies on reliable sources and include references when you create a page, so that it will not have to be deleted. If you need advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You had one week in which to add references to the page before it was deleted, and you did not. In the future, please respond in less than one week. It is easier to fix an article than to have it reloaded. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I don't know to ask about to stop deletation can you please ask from me to stop deletation ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Neha-Purva (talk • contribs) 11:39, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Media on Ram Bahadur Bomjon's controversies[edit]

Dear Mr. McClenon, please read my reaction to your decision to put my article among candidates for deletion here: Please do read it till the end. Thank you!DarkAges 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 19:11, 16 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

The place for discussion of whether an article should be deleted is the Deletion Discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Thank you for your opinion. It is surprising to me that a pragmatic list of media links to mainstream Nepalese and international media and quotes from them you call Soapbox, while a mythological cult propaganda (the original biographical page) you did not call to be that. And your other argument "Righting Great Wrongs" is even showing in its definition "On Wikipedia, you’ll have to wait until it’s been reported in mainstream media". (I did not have to wait, it had been already published, and not less than ten years long till today). And that it is too long? There are many people who can appreciate a comprehensive list of media links, though I accept that this topic might be not interesting to you personally. I have seen much longer articles on Wikipedia. Examples: Electric car use by country List of new religious movements , or better List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States , or even List of Hi-5 episodes :): you certainly agree that the List of Hi-5 episodes or List of law clerks of the Supreme Court of the United States are much longer than my article, and had been not deleted. They are totally irrelevant for any other country and nation than the the US/UK, so hardly notable internationally. My article is notable for Nepal and internationally (includes internat. media). I guess that you do not belong among those interested in this particular topic (Buddhism, cults and their influence on media) and cannot see the encyclopedic importance of a Nepalese religious movement's media coverage and censorship cases. It is your freedom not to be, yet I just cannot agree that a topic so widely and so long-time being covered by the big media in Nepal and many countries, is not notable. Yes, and please share with me the link to that Deletion Discussion, I cannot find it anywhere. DarkAges 20:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC)KaliageDarkAges 20:05, 17 August 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kaliage (talk • contribs)

Deletion of Urban Massage[edit]

Sir, Robert McClenon, i have put a lot of efforts on this Wikipedia page. I have added references from reliable sources only. The company has earned good reviews from their customers even from me. You can check the web source of TrustPilot. News sources are reliable though. I'm requesting you to review the page. I know you'r in rush finding errors in other new Wikipedia pages. I appreciate your concern but the page Urban Massage can be improved. It was features by TechCrunch, Daily Record (Scotland), The Scotsman, AngelList. I'm requesting you to restore the page. Thanks very much. --NilamB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@NilamB: Re I found sources are reliable and I have added references from reliable sources only -- CrunchBase, AngelList, Duedil, Reviews.co.uk, Trustpilot, Startups.com do not establish notability because they're directories that in most cases any monkey on a typewriter can register a page on. Startups.com does not establish notability because it is just a listing, not in-depth coverage (1% of a source is not in-depth). The Society of Ticket Agents and Retailers source is affiliated by merit of having the CEO as a guest speaker, the Prestige Apartments citation is also affiliated as a business partner, and so not independent enough to establish notability. The Daily Record (Scotland) and Escapism Travel Magazine pieces are press releases, overglorified advertisements, not real news stories (and I have concern about The Scotsman and The Memo pieces, though they appear to be independent professional reviews). The links to the Google Play iOS App Store are WP:REFSPAM plain and simple. In short, unaffiliated professionally-published mainstream academic or journalistic sources (not directories) are reliable sources. The TechCrunch article (maybe The Scotsman and The Memo) are the only sources I see that meet that standard.
Re I don't know how to write non-advertise contents -- See WP:Competence is required for why that is a very, very bad argument.
Re The company has earned good review from their customers even from me -- Irrelevant to the criteria for page inclusion. Also, that sounds like something a hired shill would say, and we don't really like hired shills (see WP:PAID and WP:ADVOCACY).
Ian.thomson (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, Ian.thomson Thanks, you have found some reliable sources. Is there anyway, you can help me modify the contents. That would helpful. I don't want's defend myself. I admit, i have not enough idea about guidelines. I read them, will try to apply them for sure. Thanks very much. --NilamB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:44, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NilamB: Please read my post again -- most of the sources you found were not reliable. The page will need to be deleted because the first draft is promotional. It is your responsibility to not post promotional material to begin with, not the responsibility of other users to clean up after you. I will delete the article soon. It could be rewritten by summarizing and paraphrasing the factual (i.e. non-opinion) parts of TechCrunch, The Memo, and The Scotsman sources (the only reliable sources you posted). Write material that even their competitors could not deny. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:53, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, [[Ian.thomson i would like to modify the contents then. Thanks for the tip. You are very helpful. Let me modify the contents. If you think, contents are not good then do whatever you should do. --NilamB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 16:58, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You can post a new, non-promotional, reliably-sourced draft of the article in the same spot. I recommend starting from scratch and only summarizing and paraphrasing the sources I highlighted. Ian.thomson (talk) 17:00, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, it really hurts. Thanks very much--NilamB (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:01, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:NilamB - What is your affiliation or connection with Urban Massage? Your only edits have been to create its page and to discuss its page. Please read the conflict of interest policy and make the appropriate disclosure. As User:Ian.thomson says, it is not the responsibility of volunteer editors to help you write a neutral non-promotional draft for your employer, and it is your responsibility to disclose your connection with the client. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You say that you have put a lot of effort on the page. You might consider not trying to rewrite the page to be non-promotional, because it is very difficult for a paid editor to write an article that does not read promotionally. If you are not a paid editor, you might consider working on any of the five million articles that we already have rather than trying to contribute one that we do not have. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprod: Project Peshawar[edit]

Hello, I have deprodded Project Peshawar because I interpreted this edit as a good faith objection to deletion. I would have no objection to nominating this article at AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 00:16, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Extra colon?[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon. Hope you're having a good weekend. I'm confused by your indentation here. Could you clarify—were you replying to me or to the 99...IP? (I'm guessing the latter, but I'm just fatigued enough tonight that I sat there for a minute trying to figure out what you meant.) RivertorchFIREWATER 05:42, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rivertorch - I was replying to both you and the IP. I will assume good faith for now that the IP editor posting the question is not the one who resulted in the blocks. The alternative is that we have a troll. However, if we have a troll, this is a case where the best way not to feed them is to respond as if they are a regular editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:13, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

COI - of a different kind[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon. Because it involves New Page and AfC reviewers along with other maintenance workers (SPI, COIN), an informal chat has begun on some aspects of paid editing. See Conflict of Interest - of a different kind. Please add your thoughts there. It is not a debate or RfC.
From WP:NPPAFC. Opt-out. Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 20 August 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

A case request in which you had been involved has been declined[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon/Archive 18,

On behalf of the arbitration committee, I would like to inform you that the case request named "topic-banning Supermann from all pages related to film for one year" (in which you had been listed as involved party) has been declined. The committee concluded that has no jurisdiction on the issues involved in this case, and that therefore cannot be accepted.

Sincerely, Kostas20142 (talk) 16:28, 22 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution[edit]

I'm sorry if my third statement isn't what you wanted. I haven't been through dispute resolution before so I'm not entirely familiar with the process. What I don't understand is why you took down my statement and let the other editor's stand, since it was also not what you asked for. This is in reference to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Fourth_statements_by_editors .Mole2 (talk) 06:48, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mole2 - Please read my second statement carefully. I had already said you appeared to have the better case, and I didn't ask you to restate your case because it didn't need restating. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then I'll wait to contribute anything else until the other editor makes his fourth statement or you ask me to do so.Mole2 (talk) 18:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon, thanks for your help moderating this dispute. I appreciate it. Mole2 (talk) 06:35, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of ADEYEMI ADERINSOLA[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 ADEYEMI ADERINSOLA requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a real person or group of people, but it does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. — fortunavelut luna 10:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - Well, well. It certainly wasn't my article. I had done two things with it, moving it to title case, since the original title was SHOUTING, and then tagged it for A7. I think that I have learned a minor lesson, and that is on moving a page that I am about to tag for speedy, I should move it without a redirect. Well, well. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I do apologise Robert McClenon, I could also have checked to whom the notification would go, but one rather makes assumptions I suppose. To be fair, since it's been created / moved / recreated something like three times each in the past twenty-four hours, we can probably both excuse ourselves from any confusion?! Take care! — fortunavelut luna 14:12, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - If you used Twinkle, you can't help who gets the notification. Also, I have requested that the BLOCK CAPS title be salted. Apparently the spammer likes to shout. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I was thinking of twinkle's AfD notice which- curiously- does provide the option. Oh well. Thanks for adding salt, too. — fortunavelut luna 14:24, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A particular kind of burnout[edit]

Robert, if you don't mind me speculating or offering unsolicited advice (and if you do, feel free to revert this now with no hard feelings), I have to wonder if in light of Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Comment_on_BITE if you're doing yourself no favors by your work at AfC/Draft review. IMHO, one of the most tedious and grating parts of doing DR is having to constantly push newcomers through the learning curve. You have to teach the same basic lessons over, and over, and over again until it becomes very frustrating and wearisome. Then when you run into a newcomer who pushes back, especially against something which no experienced editor would even blink an eye at, it truly tests your ability not to bite. With the DR work we at least can spend some time working on real disputes which cannot be resolved by merely saying "it's OR" or "you have to have a RS", but with your draft work you're constantly dealing with newcomers. Maybe you can take it and I'm reading something into your VP posting that's not there, but FSM knows that I get tired of it just doing DR and not doing draft work. Most of the time, I can just suck it up and do it one more time, but occasionally I have to take a break. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:52, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TransporterMan - First, I don't revert unwanted talk page comments. Second, your point is well taken that draft work is tiring. I will consider your advice, and focusing on DR and on NPP for a while. My comments about Do Not Bite however are something that I have been thinking and writing for months. As I said, I actually think that the Do Not Bite rule is a good idea as written, but that as implemented it actually does more harm than good. First, it seems that every warrior who has come to Wikipedia to right great wrongs reads that guideline, and begins using it as a cudgel to fend off advice that they should try to be more cooperative, or caution that their conduct may result in blocks. Second, I see some reasonable experienced editors avoid warning inexperienced editors precisely for fear that they don't want to be "bitey". I will take your advice into consideration. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

YGM[edit]

Doug Weller talk 14:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 16,991 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.

Technology update:

  • Rentier has created a NPP browser in WMF Labs that allows you to search new unreviewed pages using keywords and categories.

General project update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech team is working with the community to implement the autoconfirmed article creation trial. The trial is currently set to start on 7 September 2017, pending final approval of the technical features.
  • Please remember to focus on the quality of review: correct tagging of articles and not tagbombing are important. Searching for potential copyright violations is also important, and it can be aided by Earwig's Copyvio Detector, which can be added to your toolbar for ease of use with this user script.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:33, 24 August 2017 (UTC) [reply]

RE: Dispute resolution noticeboard[edit]

Regarding your comment on Dispute resolution noticeboard about "Talk:Ching Hai": Closed as not the proper forum for this dispute. The forum to contest a Requested Move is Move Review. (The forum to contest a Request for Comments is Administrators' Noticeboard, but the RFC was out of place because it coincided with the RM.) All of the editors are advised to read the guideline against forum shopping, because there appears to be forum shopping. Also, this noticeboard should not be used to try to circumvent Wikipedia policies and guidelines including the Manual of Style rule on honorifics in titles. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

  • I appreciate for your comment, but I still need a resolution to my request. Can you please tell where can I further discuss this issue with the administrators or other editors who have no prejudice against the subject of the article? Also I need a clear reason on why "The Supreme Master Ching Hai", the pen name of an author of many published books, and the stage name of an artist should be changed just because some editors think her name is an honorific title? We should not change anyone's name on wikipedia because of our liking, right? I am not making any trouble here just want to make things right. Please let me know where and how can I request for a justice appeal? Thank you. -- Orwuck (talk) 12:48, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Orwuck - You say that you still need a resolution to your request. I think that I said that you may contest the Requested Move at Move Review. You may publish a Request for Comments while the move is no longer pending. However, I may have misunderstood your request, because you appear to be asking for where you can find administrators who will ignore Wikipedia guidelines. You may ask any reasonable question, especially for new editors, at the Teahouse. However, I think that you will still be told that Ching Hai is her name and "Supreme Master Ching Hai", even if it is her pen name, is her name with an honorific. The compromise that I would propose is to treat Supreme Master Ching Hai, which is her name with an honorific, as a redirect to Ching Hai. I would agree to that; I don't know about other editors or about administrators, but redirects are cheap. I have answered your question as best I can for now. You may go to Move Review (but are likely to be overruled), or may ask at the Teahouse, or may create a redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Orwuck - Supreme Master Ching Hai has been an accepted redirect to her name and thus to her web page since 2007. If there are any further attempts to insist tendentiously that the honorific should be included in the primary name of her web page, I will have to take this to WP:AN and request sanctions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)Orwuck: as an uninvolved editor I have copyedited the page to comply with our core policies. The dispute has been resolved and just because it has resulted in an outcome you don't like doesn't mean you should try to change consensus. If this does end up at ANI, I will second a reasonable request for general sanctions. DrStrauss talk 14:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
My talk page is not the place for further discussion of this issue. Please go to Move Review or WP:AN, but be aware that the issue is only one of primary name because there has always been a redirectr. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
User:DrStrauss I saw your edit and it is really ridiculous. Who is Hai????? Please go and search on the internet and please learn some Chinese, or ask any one you think would know the subject, who is Hai? I saw many titles in wikipedia where people use "Prince", "Princess", "Queen" to refer to a subject, and no one say these titles are against wikipedia guidelines, it is very obvious that you are bias when referring to the Supreme Master Ching Hai. Discussing with you is waste of time.; User:Robert McClenon I wonder if you can change the title "Dr. Dre" to Andre Romelle Young instead because it is an honorific name? Or change the name of "Mother Theresa"? There are many more. Why some people deserve and can have their pen/stage name and the other not??? Please give me an answer. As I said very clearly, Ching Hai is a very ambiguous name or phrase. Very few people (maybe only those who opposed to the move) will refer the two words "Ching Hai" to the subject. You can try with your friends if you like, but I know as it can mean many things in Chinese, even English. I will try the Move Review , thanks for the info. -- Orwuck (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Orwuck: good luck, you'll need it. DrStrauss talk 10:40, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, when did I ever say who is Hai? DrStrauss talk 10:50, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Timothyjosephwood. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Mulla koya thangal, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

TimothyJosephWood 15:23, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood - I have no idea what happened here, as in I have no idea why it thinks that I reviewed the page, and it is no longer there. I certainly don't think that I meant to approve it. Oh well. We know that sometimes the reviewed flag is gibberish. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm Timothyjosephwood and I have no idea what happened either. I assume I nominated for a different reason, or something. But it's gone. So. You know. TimothyJosephWood 01:46, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Probabilistic Innovation Theory[edit]

Do you think the publications are sufficiently scholarly that the article doesn't qualify for speedy deletion under criterion A11? I was debating whether that applied; I don't think the tone is so overboard that it's spam. —C.Fred (talk) 17:01, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:C.Fred - I personally think that if it was published, that isn't A11. If you want to nominate it for A11, I certainly won't pull the tag, but will let the admin decide. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars[edit]

When someone emerges from semi-retirement to create a new content contribution such as Manhattan Industries that should summarily pass the smell and Google test, you should give them some time to improve the page before tagging it with soon to be unwarranted concerns. Andrevan@ 05:06, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuo Sagawa[edit]

Hi, I have deProdded this one. Article always had two external links. You may take it to AfD or nominate it for Speedy. ThanksHitro talk 19:45, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Hey, It's The Monkees[edit]

Abbythecat (talk) 21:07, 26 August 2017 (UTC)Robert, could you please help me? I'm having trouble with Sm5574 on the article and talk pages for HEY, HEY, IT'S THE MONKEES. He's very rude (IMO) and he keeps fighting me about edits. Perhaps you could take a look and help me out. He seems to be saying (I think! not sure) that he works for Wikipedia, but he has no user page, and no talk page, & I think he made at least one edit unsigned. If he's not saying he works for Wiki, then he sure comes across as being arrogant (well, he strikes me that way even if he does work for Wiki!). I'm tired of fighting him alone, but I don't want him ruining the article page. Can you please help? Thank you. AbbythecatAbbythecat (talk) 21:07, 267 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abbythecat I'll look. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)Thank you. I'm considering contacting the authorities if Sm5574 doesn't quit bullying me. BTW, who is he anyway? Does he really work for Wikipedia? Abbythecat (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Abbythecat (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)I got a message saying you sent me an e-mail, but I cannot locate it. Perhaps you could tell me what was in it here? Or tell me how to open a Wiki e-mail? I am also requesting permission to delete all of Sm5574's contributions to the HEY, HEY page if it is alright with you. I think he is a fraud (or worse) and I know his information is incorrect (and no doubt fabricated). Abbythecat (talk) 06:11, 27 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Coates Hire speedy deletion[edit]

Hi User:Robert McClenon, I see you have been quick to jump on to the page I've recently created, Coates Hire, and nominated it for speedy deletion. Are you able to provide some evidence as to how it violates the policy, or how the page can be improved? Thanks, Романов (talk) 10:43, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Романов - Since you haven't answered the rhetorical question by User:Alex Shih, I will ask it as a real question. Are you being paid by Coates Hire? No, I do not provide advice to editors whose pages were deleted as promotional spam on how to improve them. You could try building the article via Articles for Creation and getting reviews before moving it into article space. However, my usual advice about promotional pages is not to try to re-create them. You evidently want the page created because Coates Hire wants it, and that has nothing to do with whether Wikipedia wants it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gagik Manoukian[edit]

What to do with this one? Had it on my watch list because it was a prior G12 (along with about a dozen copyvio images on commons). Frankly I'm torn between G11 and AfD. TimothyJosephWood 14:04, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood - This one is problematic. I see that I tagged it for deletion as an unsourced BLP because I didn't like it and it had no references. I didn't like it because, as you allude, it drips with praise for its subject. However, I personally don't think that G11 is meant to apply to non-neutral articles unless they are meant to benefit the subject. If it doesn't currently qualify for G12 as copyvio, I would prefer Articles for Deletion over trying to force-fit G11, and the admin might decline G11. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeeeah... it's arguably poorly written vaguely promotional English, rather than well written obviously promotional English. And I sympathize. I too am often inspired by the beauty of female beauty.
But there's maybe NARTIST 4, that is, if some significant number of the listed exhibitions are permanent, but I'm not seeing much on the fellow anywhere at all, in either English or Armenian, and of course the whole thing is nearly entirely unsourced. Bleh, two AfD's today already. Must be a M Monday. TimothyJosephWood 17:17, 28 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

22:40:26, 28 August 2017 review of submission by Careyjamesbalboa[edit]



hello, I think we have fixed it. thank you.

Pascal Levensohn[edit]

Hello Robert, I just saw that you added a speedy deletion tag for one of the pages i was trying create. I was actually trying to keep the page in my account but i have no idea why the page is published. I am not actually done with the article. If you could give me 2 days time, I can learn more about this and add more references about him. I see that there are tons of references about him on Google news. Hope this is okay? JaneWatson88 (talk) 10:10, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JaneWatson88 -  Done As per your request, I have moved the page into draft space and removed the speedy deletion tag. If you have any questions about draft space, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse or I will try to answer them. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:34, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Wagner[edit]

Hi Robert, that was excellent decision. scope_creep (talk) 16:51, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for helping me out with some responses to deletion recently. You are far more deserving of the mop than I do – I know you have been approached before, but I cannot to seem to find your thoughts about running. Alex ShihTalk 19:48, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alex Shih - At this point I am ready to run/stand for admin if someone will nominate me other than myself. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. If I may be entrusted, I will prepare a nomination statement after scanning over some data. Alex ShihTalk 02:40, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have finished the draft nomination. Could you take a look and fill in the answers when you have time. I imagine one of the initial questions may be how after your first RfA ended unsuccessfully in March 2006, it seems that you have disappeared into inactivity before resurfacing again in April 2013. Was there any correlation? Best regards, Alex ShihTalk 04:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Take your time, it's not live until the time parser is substituted and the page is transcluded. Alex ShihTalk 16:27, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the delay. I have transcluded just now. Good luck! Alex ShihTalk 23:39, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Case opened[edit]

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Evidence. Please add your evidence by 13 September 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arthur Rubin/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Mkdw talk 05:30, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine[edit]

Hi. i know tha tI made a clumsy strat to this article - i did leave a construction tag and clear statement that I would return. the thing is, wehn an intellectual is making this much noise, when I bump into her in this many footnotes while reading in multiple topics in English, it seems clear that starting a stub is legitimate. I sometimes wite new, long, detailed articles. Other times, I start stubs and hope that users who know the topic well will arrive to make it into a reasonable useful article They usually do. Look, I'm sorry I annoyed you, and I'm sorry for my WP clumsiness - I think long-term editors tend to underestimate how awkward and booby-taped with arcane rules and coding this place is. It;'s a wonder new editors arrive at all (excepting those with an ax to grind or a product to promote}. I am here to ask you to either clean up whatever it is you object to, or leave the article alone, as a stub until I or someone else has the time to improve it. Alexandra Laignel-Lavastine's notability is not in doubt, even if my editing is clumsy.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dr.Waldaba Stewart[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 Dr.Waldaba Stewart requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be an unambiguous copyright infringement. This page appears to be a direct copy from http://www.universipop.org/resourcepersons/waldabahstewart.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for how you may obtain it. You might want to look at Wikipedia's copyright policy for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. reddogsix (talk) 15:20, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

London Duck Tours (Woo-hoo!)[edit]

Hello, I was wondering as to why the London Duck Tours Article is going to be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf WIK (talk • contribs) 15:24, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolf WIK - First, did you read the banner at the top of my talk page? I said not to post to the top of my talk page; a helpful admin moved this to the bottom where it belongs. Second, I said to contest the speedy deletion using the button provided for the purpose. However, read the corporate notability guidelines and the rule against promotional articles. If you think that the deletion was wrong, you may appeal it at deletion review. It looked to me and to the deleting administrator like an advertisement for a non-notable business. Also, do you work for London Duck Tours? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm currently unable to contest the speedy deletion of London Duck Tours Limited page. I'm in no way affiliated with this company. I am not breaching Wikipedia's COI.

How can I get the page reinstated now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf WIK (talk • contribs) 18:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I'm sorry for posting at the top of your talk page, I am rather new to Wikipedia. Wolf WIK (talk) 18:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wolf WIK - In the future, to post to talk pages, use the New Section feature, and it puts them at the bottom. What do you mean by getting the page reinstated? You can appeal the deletion at deletion review. You might be able to get the page restored to your user space at Requests for Undeletion, but they will not always restore pages that were deleted as advertising. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BART article[edit]

The section is not limited to "the history of BART's early train control problems." Rather, it describes the history of BART's early years. Many of the events were political or managerial, and had little to do with train control or technology.166.107.163.254 (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

apology and thanks.[edit]

Abbythecat (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC) You can read my apology and thanks at the HEY, HEY, IT'S THE MONKEES talk page. I just wanted you to know how sorry I am that I caused trouble. My thanks to you. With respect. AGF. Goodbye. Abbythecat (talk) 02:26, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail![edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 20:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABgab 20:07, 31 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Love and all that...[edit]

Firstly, this is to thank you for the effort to stand for the Rfa. Secondly, I have to say that yes, there are absolutely clear mistakes in your CSD/prod tagging. But most importantly, multiple editors have commented at your Rfa, and I concur (and I believe the strongest of opposers too would concur), that six months of clear, good tagging and six months of contribution to a GA or two (I can work with you on developing the same; all you have to say is yes) and staying clear of messy dispute resolutions, and you'll have a list of supports out at the Rfa in your next run. Don't let the current situation rock your contributions. Look at even the opposers. Almost all of them have said they really appreciate your contributions here. It's September; March is not that far off. Smile and get back to your contributions. Best wishes, love, and all that too... Lourdes 03:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes - I hear you. However, I don't think that I should take the advice to be someone else. I think that the advice that I am giving at this point is well-meant but for someone else. I will be drafting a concession speech, but it isn't the one anyone is advising, but it won't be hostile. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. I can't understand what you've written. But leave that. Take some time off before you write anything else. Gather your thoughts and come back with the enthusiasm I've normally seen you with. Cheers. Lourdes 03:45, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Lourdes - You can't understand it because I haven't yet written it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I think Lourdes didn't understand the "the advice that I am giving at this point" part of your comment, because I think you meant "the advice that I am being given at this point". Nothing to do with your to-be-written concession post. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[User:BlueMoonset]] - Yes, typo. Thank you. User:Lourdes - Is it a little clearer now? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Thanks and best always. Lourdes 06:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jared Taylor[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jared Taylor. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some Wikilove...[edit]

A turtle in a school of baitfish
Some of us have been where you are now; i.e., knowing in our hearts that we're doing what we believe to be the right thing for WP. Sometimes our core principals fit what is trending today, and sometimes they don't. Robert McClenon, you are a good editor who generously contributes your time and energy when, at times, it seems unappreciated. I just want you to know that I am one of many editors who appreciate your tireless efforts, and all that you have done and tried to do to make WP a better place. 
Atsme📞📧 19:44, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme - Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well said Atsme. Cosigned. Innisfree987 (talk) 21:21, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Innisfree987 - Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You... seem like you might be ready to quit, and... I don't want to see you quit. So whatever you do, don't quit. Feel free to email me, or email me for a number if you need somebody to talk to. TimothyJosephWood 21:47, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Timothyjosephwood - Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I mean that. It's not just a gesture.
We don't always need a hundred thousand admins. Sometimes we just need good old salty bastards to shake things up. We're here to build the encyclopedia that our great grandkids will read, and they will, at least if we do our jobs right.
It's always very frustrating to me personally when someone says "I want to serve more" and the community says no. But... it's a selfless enterprise, and sometimes we have to serve the community despite themselves. Because sometimes fuck the community. We're not here because of them; we're here because of their grandkids, and the encyclopedia they're going to read. TimothyJosephWood 01:24, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I'd seen this admin request earlier before it transcluded, because I could have advised against it, given you some advice, and potentially had a look every now and again in the future so that when you did run, it would be an obvious pass. Although you've got a lot of opposition, you've got a lot of support too and this RfA does seem to be split right down the middle. In any case, I'll say what I do for just about every RfA that I oppose at - it's nothing personal and has no reflection on you as an editor or a person. (This stands to reason; if I did have an issue with you, I'd have mentioned it either on here or on ANI, but I haven't, because there isn't one). For now, I think it would be useful to answer the remaining questions if you want, as you never know - you might change some views. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 21:58, 1 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ritchie333 - Thanks, but, the usual advice to come back in six months doesn't make sense. I will be addressing that usual comment, which essentially is that they will accept me when I am someone else. I will address the comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) It's extremely difficult if not impossible not to take RfA personally. So it's not surprising that that is what you are doing there. What the oppose !voters want to see is improvement in areas in which candidates are lacking or not up to admin standards. I'm sure this will come across patronizingly even though I certainly don't intend it to, but I have seen you improve greatly over the past several years in terms of objectivity and neutrality in communication. If you can and have improved in that, you can improve in the areas the !voters have pointed out as desirable in an admin. (If on the other hand you cannot or more precisely do not want to, then yes it's best not to re-run for adminship.) The important thing is not to let the RfA turnout get you down or stop you from doing what you do best on Wikipedia or from making the tireless contributions which we so value. The important thing is to recognize your own value in the face of the often inevitable painful onslaught of critiques that is RfA. (It's also worthwhile to note that you can withdraw the RfA – which was apparently ill-advised in its timing – at any time. There's no need to stick it out to the end if you aren't answering questions anymore.) Softlavender (talk) 01:31, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Softlavender - Well, first, some of your comments are patronizing, so I will respond with a patronizing reply. If you realize that your comments will be read as patronizing, it is because they are, and is an indication that maybe it would be more prudent not to say them at all. However, second, there seems to be an idea that a candidate can, on proper advice from the community, reshape himself or herself into the kind of person that the community thinks is an ideal leader, or something. I will be drawing up a statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Great editor and very fair", "thoughtful, considerate, and knowledgeable", "without doubt, a net positive for the project", "Level headed", "Has a clue. Is an adult. Is not a jerk', "clearly a huge help to the project", "experience in bucketloads", "seems OK to me"...

    Those are just a few comments pulled in just a couple of minutes from the RfA, and I want you to know I agree with every one of them (especially the "seems OK" one, because you really do ;-).

    I admire your response of not not being prepared to change who you are just to pass RfA in the future. *You* are the Robert McClenon I like and greatly respect, and I think it would be entirely wrong for you to try to change that just to get the approval of a bunch of anonymous nonentities on the Internet for the right to do a largely thankless task.

    I'd love to meet you sometime for beer/coffee/cheesecake/whatever (though given that we live on different continents, it seems unlikely) and I feel sure I'd like the real you even more than I like the virtual Wiki-you. I do hope you will continue to contribute to this important project for many years to come. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 03:20, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Hi Robert. I've had a look over your RFA, and it's up to you what you do, but it's now at the situation where it's not possible for you to be given the tools on this request. Looking at the concerns raised, it appears that a significant proportion of the community feel uneasy with your perhaps slightly over-eager desire to clean up Wikipedia, and also with some of your protectionist beliefs in terms of your comments regarding BITE and the governance of Wikipedia. At the same time the community has indicated there is much in your attitude, work ethic, and personality that they like and admire.

In my experience it is better at this stage to withdraw from the RFA, with or without a statement (though a calm, reflective statement is always helpful). A number of current admins (myself included) withdrew from their first (and sometimes second or third) RFA. Not passing an RFA is not seen as an issue, provided that any concerns brought up are addressed. Sometimes it is difficult to have a clear perspective on those concerns while an RFA is in progress, because there is a lot of emotion flying around, and candidates can often get defensive. My feeling is that you can comfortably address the concerns - pause a little longer before tagging new articles; reflect on the wider community ethos, and accept that while you may personally want more protection and governance for Wikipedia (and a proportion of the community would support you in that), that the consensus is to be open, welcoming, supportive and helpful to new users, so the community would want their admins to support consensus regardless of their own personal feelings. I don't think it would be impossible for you to hold personal views at odds with community consensus, as long as you upheld community consensus. I have often taken part in discussions arguing for black, but when the consensus was for white, I would then carry out white, and do it to the best of my ability. I think this is true for pretty much every admin. It is only where an individual feels that their personal views are so totally incompatible with community norms that they would refuse to follow community consensus that there would be a problem with them becoming an admin. Indeed, such users often have problems remaining as regular editors.

In short - you don't need to agree with community consensus (indeed you can speak out against it, or attempt to get in changed), but you would need to follow it and uphold it. I think you are quite capable of doing that, and I look forward to you applying again at some point in the future when you feel you are ready. Though I would suggest you consult with someone experienced in RFA, such as User:Ritchie333, when you feel you are ready. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 12:05, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I'd like to say that I'm in concurrence with SilkTork: I think it is best you withdraw your RfA. This isn't personal, but at this point I think you would need an immense amount of supports (>100 more than you have now) for your RfA to pass, given the number of opposes. Usually, how things flesh out during the first one or two days of an RfA are reflective of how they will be by the end of the full one-week period. Furthermore, the presence of a (don't mean to rub it in) big number of opposes on the RfA pages can become disheartening for you and other RfA readers. I hope you'll still feel able to contribute to Wikipedia regardless of the outcome and not feel as though you need to leave, like you did after your first RfA, and that you'll review the oppose votes and do your best to adhere to those users' concerns if you wish to run for adminship again, and hopefully there'll be no prejudice to your next RfA candidacy. LinguistunEinsuno 14:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilkTork - I don't really know why it is considered so important that I withdraw the application rather than to let it run and be closed against, but I might as well go ahead and withdraw it. As I said, I think that the usual advice. which is to become a different editor and try again in six months after having become someone else, is well-meaning but not useful advice. I will work on a statement in the next day or two. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:48, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The reason it is considered useful to withdraw an obviously failing RFA is that it a) indicates to the community that you are able to assess consensus (it is a useful asset for an admin to be able to read consensus), b) it closes an incident that may be causing drama (it is a useful asset for an admin to calm drama rather than cause or prolong it), c) it brings to an end what is now a meaningless activity that takes people away from building the encyclopaedia, and d) it indicates to the community that the candidate is thinking more of the community than of themself (some candidates have said they wish to prolong a failing RFA because they value the feedback - though that is what WP:ORCP is for).
As regards not taking on board the concerns raised and adjusting your approach so that it meets more with the communities expectations, well that is your choice, but if you are unwilling to follow consensus, then it may not be a good idea to ask for the tools to uphold that consensus. We have editors who are at odds with the community on various issues, and this is acceptable to the community as we welcome diversity and challenges to the status quo, but folks who become admins who then don't follow consensus get desysoped. None of this is to say that you are in the wrong with who you are and what you believe in, just to respond to your queries with answers. What you do, and how you do it is entirely up to you. I'm just trying to help you with advice because I have been in your position. Regards SilkTork ✔Tea time 18:01, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. At the risk of annoying you as well as the wise heads advising you here, I want to ask you read (or possibly re-read) my essay on RfA. It might help you see things from a different angle, even if that's just to resent me as a busybody. Yngvadottir (talk) 20:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Robert, sorry to intrude at a stressful time, but I have a slightly different perspective than some others in this section. My first RFA went the whole 7 days and I think was about 60% the whole time. That's a bit closer to passing than you, but not much as the threshold has fallen since then. I don't recall anyone suggesting that I withdraw early, when I used to nominate candidates withdrawal was something I and others would recommend when an RFA was tanking and the support percentage falling because the mood was clearly shifting against the candidate, or the dialogue had ceased and there was nothing new to learn. If consistently below 50% used to be the rule of thumb for advising people to withdraw, then logically with the lower passing threshold it would be 45% and your RFA is one that could run the 7 days. It is now over 24 hours since you have answered a question there, so I'd suggest you either return to the Q& A section or if you can't face that withdraw. As I see it there are three areas of contention in that RFA, content contributions, tagging speed and deletionism/inaccuracy. Looking around your articles created I think your content contributions are better than your answer to Q2 implies and that you have undersold yourself. The community has diverse expectations re content at RFA. Clearly you don't have the GA or FA needed to get >90% at RFA, but neither do I or many other admins. The question you could settle, either in this RFA or in the next one is whether you have demonstrated an ability to do inline cites to reliable sources. To me, and I believe a significant block of RFA !voters, that is a skill we expect admins to have. Even if we only use that skill rarely because we rarely if ever add content. There are a couple of things behind that, one of which is that admins are expected by many to set an example that others can follow, another is that we are making decisions abut content, especially in deletion. The second thing is tagging speed. Here we differ, like SoWhy I find speedy tagging of A7s to be bitey and I don't do that myself. But I'm aware that consensus is with you on A7 and I wouldn't oppose on that issue. I'm not seeing many people endorse that part of SoWhy's concerns. Tagging accuracy/deletionism is something that has derailed many RFAs, and used to be a big bugbear of mine. We all make mistakes, and the busy ones among us make more mistakes than those who are less active (though hopefully the proportion of mistakes falls among the hyper active, else they get into trouble). What isn't clear from your RFA at present is whether we are talking about mistakes or a different view of the deletion criteria. RFA is a process whereby we try to appoint admins who will use the tools in line with consensus. If you have an admin who advocates for a change of policy to become more deletionist but who complies with current policy, then that should be fine - provided they will use the tools in line with consensus. I'm not sure whether your definition of "crud" is the same as consensus, and I suspect this RFA could yet hinge on that. ϢereSpielChequers 10:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology[edit]

Hi Robert,
You've probably seen my RFA comment and so I wanted to take the time to apologise,
I sincerely and unreservedly apologise for making that comment which as I said at the RFA should never have been said not ever! - It was completely out of order and should never have been said,
Although it's no excuse and I'm by no means trying to justify the comment but I was unfortunately extremely tired and as such I tend to be more blunt than I normally would be,
Regardless it should never have been said and I will say right here right now (in very polite terms) I was a complete & utter moron for saying it,
I thought it was only fair I apologise directly to you but I wanted to do so when the dust settled abit,
But anyway I do sincerely and humbly apologise for the stupid and very ill-thought comment and I wanted to say thank you for your helpful contributions here,
I wish you all the best with your RFA and here aswell,
Thanks and Happy editing, –Davey2010Talk 20:35, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm also pinging those that replied on the RFA so they can see this Begoon, Ritchie333, Joe Roe)

User:Davey2010 - I can't really accept your apology, at least not right now. Unlike the comments that I referred to as well-meaning advice, I don't think that your comment was made in good faith. However, I do appreciate your recognition that it wasn't made in good faith. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:25, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wishing you well[edit]

Hello Robert,

Let me begin by offering an apology for using the "come back in six months or a year" formulation, which I did not anticipate would bother you. But now I understand your reasoning. In my interactions with you at the Teahouse, I was always convinced that you had Wikipedia's best interests at heart, and I remain convinced that this is the truth. Since I believe that, I want to let you know two things: I am deeply sorry that you are going through this ordeal, and also I hope that you will stick with this project. You have made it clear that you do not want to modify your persona to comply with the expectations of the crowd. I get that. But please make no quick decisions and please consider things carefully going forward. And please be aware that many editors in the oppose section think very highly of you. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 05:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • I regret very much that the community does not recognize your qualifications to be an administrator, which are ample. Best regards. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 11:56, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Best of luck to you Robert. I supported you in the RfA and I'll support you again for the same reason: you look to establish a precedent for quality in the encyclopedia. Not every editor, as was apparent, will understand that but a minority will always be happy with your efforts.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 15:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much what TheGracefulSlick said. Your work is valued whether or not you do it with the sysop flag. ~ Rob13Talk 15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please stick around. I speak for many others when I say that I appreciate having you here. GABgab 20:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Robert, you're probably not feeling too great about Wikipedia right now. I hope you give it some time and think about what your best contributions can continue to be. Been there, done that, think I understand your mysterious "younger and different editor" quip. ☆ Bri (talk) 03:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Statement[edit]

I hope this is still "in process". I'm reminded of Abe Lincoln who, after he was shot and killed (much like some RfAs go – full of criminal INjustice), letters to various people were found in his desk, unsent. Many, for example, were to General Grant, chastising him for this and that in manners that might chill one's spine. But as I said, they were all unsent. This was evidently Abe's way of getting shit off his chest. Then he could write a much more effective letter to Grant. So write your statement, and make it as powerful and nasty as you can. Then put it in a drawer, take some long, deep breaths, and write the "real letter to Grant". Everytime we have a chance to do this, it is a chance to make the system better and more effective. Always remember that just like Wikipedia, you rock!  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  15:14, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Looking forward to your statement, Robert! Alex ShihTalk 16:12, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert should not of course personally attack anyone. But I think that a frank and full response to the concerns raised in his RfA would be welcome and constructive, whether he agrees with them or not. I don't believe that he needs to mince words. I think that speaking frankly is a virtue as long as he speaks the truth and provides good takeaways. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 18:47, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have faith that Robert will follow his principles when drafting and publishing his statement. Over the years, he has scolded me, (justifiably) misunderstood my comments once or twice, but he has always been upfront and truthful; characteristics we should all appreciate about him. Based on my interactions with Robert, I see him as an editor who looks at the facts and is guided by principle when making decisions. I have not known him to show favor to anyone, and that is one of the characteristics I respect most about him. WP could use more like him. I'm looking forward to his statement because I feel it will be an eye-opener for many in a positive way. Atsme📞📧 23:10, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I read your statement below with great interest and I appreciate both your positions and your integrity in expressing them clearly. It is a crying shame your RfA failed, and I feel that more so after reading it. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 03:42, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

I'm so sorry I didn't see this until it was too late. I would certainly have supported your candidacy. Deb (talk) 21:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
I have recently been in your shoes and know how it feels to fail an RfA. I appreciate your contributions and I think you handled the process very well. Thank you for going for it again and I look forward to continuing to see you around! -- Dane talk 02:12, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Robert McClenon 2[edit]

I would like to thank those editors who supported my candidacy for administrator, to comment on what I see as the disconnect between my views and those of the opposing editors, and to reply to those who have offered the well-meaning advice to transform myself into a different editor and try again in a while. I think that the basic problem is that I have an outlook on the English Wikipedia that differs somewhat from that of other editors and is (I think) less idealistic and more cynically realistic. I think that, with five million articles, and as a heavily favored site by search engines, the English Wikipedia should be much more focused on the maintenance of quality, and much less on any sort of expansion or growth, even if that involves a tradeoff with outreach or expansion. Unfortunately, most new editors are not useful or even potentially useful contributors to the encyclopedia. Too many new editors either are self-serving, seeking to promote themselves or their companies, or clueless, drawn by a sort of glamor and seeking a place in the limelight. The English Wikipedia, due to its success and popularity, is being swamped by good-faith useless contributions and by bad-faith contributions, and, unfortunately, should place a higher value on quality than on warmth.

Officially, the English Wikipedia has policies, guidelines, and essays, in decreasing order of importance. Officially, the rule not to bite the newcomers is a guideline. I have said that in practice it has become a dogma, something higher-ranking than policies. I think that some editors go to unnecessary pains to avoid being “bitey”, but I think that the overriding focus on avoiding “bite” interferes with realism on quality. That is what I think. Perhaps I made a mistake in stating my views straightforwardly. Maybe it wasn’t diplomatic for me to say that many of our new articles are crud and need deleting. Maybe some editors would prefer to think that crud is a minor problem rather than our biggest problem. (It hasn’t always been our biggest problem. The English Wikipedia wasn’t always as big and popular as it is now, and wasn’t always the magnet for crud that it is now.)

The English Wikipedia has been remarkably successful. The strategy that was appropriate for its early successful establishment and expansion is no longer the most appropriate strategy for preserving and improving it. To some extent, its working strategy has evolved. However, there are some ways in which it still has ideas that are left over from a past when it was in need of expansion that are not as appropriate to a present when it is in need of quality control. Sometimes there is a disconnect between what we say and what we do. I think that my statements of my outlook were not really as radical as they were taken to be. The English Wikipedia’s attitudes have matured and become more nearly oriented to quality control, but some editors find it jarring to hear them stated (such as that crud should be tagged, and that new editors should not necessarily be worshiped).

I will comment that I still think that my record on CSD tagging is as good as my supporters said it was. I will also defend my PROD tagging, in particular against the correct argument that I didn’t Google for references before tagging a page. Since a lot of new articles are crud, I think that the responsibility should be on an author to provide some indication of notability, not simply to throw a topic at the community and say, “Here is the topic. You write it.” The idea that an author can throw a topic at the community and tell us to write the article is a problem. It also plays directly into the hands of spammers, who will argue that their companies are notable and so should be expanded neutrally rather than deleted. Maintaining quality is, in my opinion, more important than looking for topics for new articles.

As a minor point, I mostly disagree with the criticism that I was too quick to tag articles either for speedy deletion or for PROD. I, and some other editors, disagree with the idea of editors building articles in article space starting with an article in article space that has no references. Articles can be built in user space or in draft space. In my opinion, an experienced reviewer can anyway usually tell when a sub-stub is a sub-stub needing deletion and when it is a work in progress. I am aware that some editors think that editors should be able to build articles in article space that do not initially have references. (I have built articles in user space.)

It may be that some editors actually share my attitudes toward what should and should not be in Wikipedia on a case-by-case basis, but haven’t formulated my outlook as a philosophy and weren’t ready for it to be stated. I can’t speak for anyone but myself.

I realize that those editors who have given me the advice to follow a program which they describe of particular types of editing experience and to come back for adminship in six months or twelve months mean well. I am also aware that it may be appropriate advice for some admin candidates. In my case, I think that the advice means well, but is to become the type of editor whom they view as an ideal editor. I don’t plan to do that, and don’t plan to change who I am. I am willing to submit a new Request for Adminship, not when I have grown up, but when the outlook of the Wikipedia has grown up to accept my approach and philosophy. I am aware that this may not happen.

Some editors in particular advised me to bring some articles up to Featured Article or Good Article quality. I could do that, but I think that there are other editors who do this better than I do. I don’t think that it should be necessary for administrators to spread themselves too thin or for editors in general to spread themselves too thin.

I am willing to submit a new Request for Adminship if and when the attitudes of the community have changed and evolved to reflect what I think is more realistic, rather than saying that I will follow a learning path that may have been appropriate for some editors. I thank my supporters for their support, and those who gave me well-meaning advice for meaning well.

Robert McClenon (talk) 02:25, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Comment: I think the part on the shifting focus and attitude of the English Wikipedia is perfectly on point. As the flagship of all Wikimedia projects, the minimal bar of quality control should be enforced effectively. Contributing to the fifth most popular website on the Internet is a privilege, not a right. When I first started contributing to the project, the prevailing sentiment was to increase coverage, and poor articles with no substantial content were often overlooked. This is no longer the case, as Robert has pointed out. The tendency to favour technicality over common sense can have negative implications (recent example). New contributors should absolutely be responsible for what they write, and that responsibility is described clearly in Wikipedia:Your first article. To correct their editing problems should never be considered as a form of biting, as long as it's done constructively and in a civil manner. I find it rather irresponsible to categorically allowing useless content to stay on the project (but not working on them) simply because they could "potentially be notable" (and having the patrollers to constantly citing WP:OTHERSTUFF). This is definitely not the way to identity potentially good contributors, as based on my experience, these editors are identified through productive discussions on their area of interest and editing behaviour. Alex ShihTalk 05:04, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Don't think anybody could've said it better, R. M!  Paine   – Rouge non-admin
I'm sorry to see it didn't succeed, Robert. Reading what you've wrote here, I wouldn't even say that there is much of a 'philosophical' difference between your outlook and the policies. I think a lot of the opposers are simply disconnected from the realities of new article patrolling. It's all very well being high-and-mighty about inclusionism and not biting the newbies if you don't ever look at the new pages feed or interact with any newbies! – Joe (talk) 14:23, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Joe Roe - What I was sort of saying about philosophy is that some editors look at individual articles and agree with me but don't realize that they illustrate a pattern, and the pattern is that a lot of new pages are crud. That is, some editors agree that any specific page is crud, but not that it illustrates that a philosophy of quality control is needed to keep out the crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As to bite, as I have said, it is in the abstract an excellent guideline (not a policy even, but a guideline). However, the emphasis on do not bite the newcomers has become a dogma, and it has become a distraction from quality control. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO the whole project is jeopardized, long term, if the entry-point quality of articles isn't maintained. More power to you. Bluehotel (talk)
Broadly speaking, I agree. For those of us who edit on minority language wikipedias, it is significant that we encounter much lower levels of vandalism (when it appears, it's usually in English) and spam. This fact would seem to back up some of your arguments. We just don't get the people who create "articles" consisting of their own CV because they don't have the command of English required to understand the basics. Deb (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification[edit]

I would like to respond to a few of the comments that were made in response to my “concession” statement. Maybe I was not entirely clear. I didn’t mean that other editors are not interested in quality control. I should clarify that perhaps where my opinion and those of some other editors differs from another group of editors has to do with the relative importance of quality control and of outreach to new editors. My own view is that maintaining quality control is even more important than an enthusiastic outreach to new editors. The mainstream opinion appears to be that outreach to new editors is the zeroth pillar of Wikipedia. I was criticized for prompt tagging of new articles by new editors, which was said to be bitey. I don’t think that other editors disagree that quality control is important. I think that there is substantial disagreement as to whether it is as important as outreach to new editors. My opinion is that, in the English Wikipedia at least, which is one of the most frequently accessed web sites on the Internet and has taken on a duty to be reliable, quality control is even more important.

I have in the past stated that perhaps we need a special volunteer function which is a group of meeters and greeters whose purpose is to interact with new editors and to assist them in learning the policies and guidelines and culture of Wikipedia. If outreach to new editors is important, it is sufficiently important to have its own volunteers, rather than to have other editors dump on the New Page Patrol and Articles for Creation reviewers.

My own opinion is that the English Wikipedia has been and is very much of a success, but that, because of its success, it no longer should have the same priorities as it had during its first decade or decade-and-a-half when its priority was expansion to cover as much as possible of human knowledge. It now does cover much of human knowledge, and has a problem with editors who want to insert useless knowledge or useless non-knowledge. It still needs to be expanded, especially in some under-covered areas, and in the sciences, which are the expansion of human knowledge. Its policies and guidelines remain the same, but its priority should no longer be expansion, but the control of expansion to include only that which is worth expanding.

I think that quality control is even more important than some other priorities in Wikipedia. Apparently some editors either disagree as to priorities, or disagree as to how to apply the priorities.

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:39, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Whatever happened to the welcome committee anyway? I always seem to be welcoming newcomers, even when I'm deleting their first articles. How would it be if we introduced some kind of safeguard whereby a new editor wasn't allowed to create a new article unless they did it in a specified sandbox-type area and waited for it to be approved before they could create any more? Maybe it would put some off, but it's got to be better than creating an article and not really understanding what's wrong with it and why it's been deleted. Deb (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) @Deb: Hello, isn't that what WP:ACTRIAL will be kind of offering? Alex ShihTalk 07:55, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose so. Thanks for pointing me to that. You know what, another thing that would help would be if there weren't so many guidelines and other non-articles to familiarise myself with! :-) Deb (talk) 08:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Otsego county 26[edit]

Hi thanks for catching my mistake on having no content, I had pressed submit prematurely. You can remove the deletion request. Thanks Bacardi379 (talk) 03:41, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Imzadi1979 wrongly Deleted this page. With you being a more qualified user, could you help me reinstate it Bacardi379 (talk) 04:19, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bacardi379 - I don't think that your work was deleted. I think that it was moved to a version with the correct space in the file name. Try that. Also, in the future, if you are trying to create a file and can't create it because there is a redirect in place, please do not create a file with a misspelled or mispunctuated name. Please either overwrite the redirect or request administrative assistance. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your reply it was so helpful

Yandex.Peoples map[edit]

That page is not unambiguously promotional, because Wikipedia has many articles about produkts of Yandex: Yandex Data Factory, Yandex.Direct, Yandex Disk, Yandex.Money, Yandex Search, Yandex.Taxi, Yandex.Translate, Yandex Maps and others--Ffederal (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ffederal - Did you read the banner at the top of my page that said to use the button on the speedy deletion notice? Maybe all of the other Yandex advertisements should be deleted also. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you have not previously known Yandex products, this is not a sign that the articles are promotional. Look: List of most popular websites. By removing the articles you will lead to a scandal. Yandex-Maps - present in Geohack in each Wikipedia article many-many years. Yandex-Translator - present in the Russian Wikipedia interface. And Yandex products are used by millions of people. If the US does not use Yandex, then it's not a good idea to delete its articles. And you do not delete chinese Baidu, which US does not use --Ffederal (talk) 12:47, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrinscape[edit]

Hi Robert,

Syrinscape was mentioned on: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfinder

With a red link (no page existing).

So we began creating a page.

We were still under the process of a bit of copying and pasting from various text sources when you posted a quick delete tag.

1) We've made some changes to make the text of the page less 'salesy' 2) We have mistakenly deleted your tag = sorry, we are new to this 3) Want to check the page as it stands now and help us fix anything else that is still wanting?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Loomes (talk • contribs) 05:16, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Benjamin Loomes - Okay, thank you for trying to make it less promotional. You probably are not the person to make it read neutrally, since you are the developer, and I have labeled it with the conflict of interest tag. I have moved the article to draft space to allow you to ask for help at the Teahouse in making it neutral. Please ask for further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert. I'm enlisting a bit of help from some more experienced wiki editors who also know a bit about Syrinscape. I'll let them have a go at making it work better and then draw your attention again. Is it safe from deletion if it is on the draft page? And not visible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benjamin Loomes (talk • contribs) 06:01, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, is the page completely gone now? Where do I edit it?

Hey Benjamin Loomes. One of the big reasons editors with a conflict of interest are strongly and basically universally discouraged from attempting to write on these topics, is that is it exceedingly difficult and at times outright impossible to write about them in a way that is anything resembling neutral, and this leads to a lot of frustration for everyone, both the person who loses their work and the person who has to clean it up.
Sometimes the best answer in cases like these is simply go write about something else. You're more than welcome to contribute, and I'm sure you're knowledgeable in lots of subjects that I'm not, but if you're flatly not interested at all in writing about anything other than your personal product, then you may likely be here only for promotional purposes and not here to build an encyclopedia. If you are here to build an encyclopedia, then there are plenty of people willing to help, and maybe when you get the hang of things you can try again to write an article on the product that works, but until then, well... there's lots of other work that needs to be done that doesn't involved this product. TJWtalk 17:35, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. All good advice. Sorry for reinstating the page. I literally thought i was working in the draft space, due to my unfamiliarity with how all this works. Which should be the number clue that I should not be the one to write this article. I will leave this be for now and see if someone else who really knows what they are doing wants to make a start. There is a link to the Syrinscape on Paizo's big Starfinder page so I reckon one of the many geeks who pass through there might do something before to long. Sorry for causing a hassle, and thanks for your help. Benjamin Loomes (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of APEK digital[edit]

Hello,

Is it possible to retrieve the content of the deleted article about APEK digital for improvements? Or if you think that it is not even eligible for improvements, do I at least have the possibility to get the material back?

Thank you! Smehh (talk) 19:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)Smehh[reply]

User:Smehh - You can ask for it to be provided to you by email or in user space at Requests for Undeletion. However, if the company does not satisfy corporate notability, there may not be a lot of improving that can be done. Also, do you work for APEK? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:18, 12 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated[edit]

Hi, I'm Insertcleverphrasehere. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, CSP Incorporated, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

— InsertCleverPhraseHere (or here) 19:04, 14 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:InsertCleverPhraseHere - Twinkle strikes again. I had tagged it for speedy deletion, and it has been deleted. I don't know what caused this stupid message. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, tagging something for speedy using Twinkle automatically marks the page as reviewed. I'm not sure if there's a thing to turn it off in the preferences. ansh666 01:50, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of question[edit]

Why was it deleted?Uncle dan is home (talk) 03:37, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You should know why. At best, it calls for opinions and nothing else, and is likely just to result in aggravation. You were already cautioned a month ago about posting questions at the Reference Desks that serve no purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:00, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: ZETRON[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of ZETRON, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: There is without doubt a multinational company called "Zetron". Whether this article verifiably describes that company should be discussed on its talk page or at WP:AFD. Thank you. Shirt58 (talk) 10:45, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. I noticed that you attempted to file a deletion discussion on the article List of fictional athletes but did not complete the process. Please note that, when listing an article for deletion, a discussion page needs to be made for other users to discuss whether to keep or delete the article. This is typically done by following the steps listed here. Note that if you are editing as an unregistered user, you cannot create a discussion page. Please consider registering an account or asking another user to help you complete the process at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. Thank you. ansh666 01:43, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I saw the bundled nomination on the AfD log and fixed the tag on that one article. Cheers, ansh666 01:49, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ansh666 - If I accidentally left out one of the steps on one of the lists that I included in the deletion package, and if you corrected an error on my part, thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:28, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That is indeed what I did, so you're welcome! ansh666 02:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sex characteristics[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sex characteristics. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter[edit]

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 14304 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a day.
  • Currently there are 532 pages in the backlog that were created by non-autoconfirmed users before WP:ACTRIAL. The NPP project is undertaking a drive to clear these pages from the backlog before they hit the 90 day Google index point. Please consider reviewing a few today!

Technology update:

  • The Wikimedia Foundation is currently working on creating a new filter for page curation that will allow new page patrollers to filter by extended confirmed status. For more information see: T175225

General project update:

  • On 14 September 2017 the English Wikipedia began the autoconfirmed article creation trial. For a six month period, creation of articles in the mainspace of the English Wikipedia will be restricted to users with autoconfirmed status. New users who attempt article creation will now be redirected to a newly designed landing page.
  • Before clicking on a reference or external link while reviewing a page, please be careful that the site looks trustworthy. If you have a question about the safety of clicking on a link, it is better not to click on it.
  • To keep up with the latest conversation on New Pages Patrol or to ask questions, you can go to Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers and add it to your watchlist.

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:16, 19 September 2017 (UTC) [reply]

Help desk discussion[edit]

Thanks for you comments at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2017_September_13#Do_I_have_the_right_to_delete_a_section_that_I_added_to_an_article.3F. Any thoughts on what to do about these personal attacks would be appreciated. It appears to be continuing and escalating in a manner that I've not seen before. --Ronz (talk) 23:10, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ronz - I didn't know that you were the editor who is being accused of bullying the OP. If you are just referring to the posting at the Help Desk that has just been archived, I would suggest ignoring it, because it has been archived. I will take a deeper look. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ronz - I did the research that I said I would do. I see that the OP is asking, in September, about editing that happened in June. I see that you were attacked in June once. I see that there was a brief exchange a week ago. I agree with the statement that you did not make but could have made that you were not bullying the OP but were just trying to edit. At this point I would still suggest ignoring the OP. I referred at the Help Desk to editors who made entirely too much noise about bullying. (Bullying does exist, but so do idle accusations of bullying.) I said that such an editor is either a combative editor or a passive-aggressive editor. Unfortunately, it appears that we have a passive-aggressive editor, whom I suggest be ignored for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:07, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there was a brief exchange a week ago Did you mean [9] this? I've been trying to figure out how well I've been avoiding her, but couldn't find a way to do so. --Ronz (talk) 00:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ronz - Yes. That is the brief exchange. I would suggest ignoring her unless there is a content issue, and then focusing on content. (However, focusing on content is always the advice that I give.) Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is the first editor that I've had oversighted for doxing, and I'm concerned that she's oblivious to her own behavior in her continued attacks against me.
Did you use an interaction tool to find the exchange? --Ronz (talk) 15:15, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ronz - I just looked at the other editor's history. I don't know anything about an edit that was oversighted. (I am not an oversighter, and an edit that was oversighted does not exist.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Thanks for your help. --Ronz (talk) 15:32, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for advice[edit]

Hi. I posted about a problem that I sometimes have with draft space articles and uncooperative article creators. The section I opened is here [10]. I am also a new pages patrol editor. I also left a similar comment request on NewYorkActuary's talk page [11]. Regards. ----Steve Quinn (talk) 03:22, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Quinn - I have nominated the article for deletion. I don't have a general answer, but a deletion discussion is a specific answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:52, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably the best way to handle these types of situations. Editors such as the one, who undermine this process, don't seem too concerned about how things work on Wikipedia. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:57, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, moving an article to draft space is not addressed by policy. There isn't any policy saying that that can be done or should be done or not be done. Moving to draft space is a compromise. If the editor doesn't want to compromise, there are policies and guidelines that support having a deletion discussion. So yes, in such situations, a deletion discussion may be the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Kashi Utkarsh concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Kashi Utkarsh, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:03, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Marco Antonio Zapata concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Marco Antonio Zapata, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NPR Silver Award[edit]

The New Page Reviewer's Silver Award

For completing over 4,000 reviews in the past year, it is my pleasure to award you the silver award. Thank you so much for your hard work and leadership, Robert. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:31, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

ACC needs help![edit]

Hello! I'm Dane, an account creation interface administrator. Our project is experiencing a need for trusted users to help create accounts regularly and I think you would do great in this capacity. Most of these requests come from users who are unable to do the creations themselves. If this interests you and you're willing to help, and you match the following description, then please do apply!

Ideal users are:

We have a very friendly team to help you get started and we also have an IRC channel. If you have any questions for us or about the process, feel free to ask at the talkpage. If you can help out, we would greatly appreciate it. -- Dane talk 05:55, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Johnnyelephant/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. LinguistunEinsuno 03:26, 29 September 2017 (UTC) User:Linguist111 - Twinkle strikes again. It's not my nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops! Sorry. LinguistunEinsuno 03:37, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_18&oldid=1089569389"