Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 16

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

Happy New Year Robert McClenon!

[edit]
Happy New Year!
Hello Robert McClenon:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, JustBerry (talk) 00:31, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Robert McClenon}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Request on 16:35:01, 1 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaykris

[edit]


I submitted an article for creation entitled: Evidence-based Anatomy. I got a message explaining that it could not be published because of copyright issue. However, I own the copyright of the material I wrote- I published it in open access where i paid to have all the rights; the material is from a publication of mine that I own the copyright to (Yammine K. Evidence-based anatomy. Clinical Anatomy 014 Sep;27(6):847-52. doi: 10.1002/ca.22397.

Sincerely.

Kaissar

Kaykris (talk) 16:35, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kaykris - I can no longer view the material in question because it was deleted for copyright violation. However, even if you own the copyright, it is likely that Wikipedia cannot accept the material as is, because everything in Wikipedia is under a CC-BY-SA copyleft. In order to have the material published, you will need to release the copyright for use by others in accordance with the copyleft. If you have more questions about Wikipedia and copyright, you can ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, and they will probably say what I have said. (I don't think I have completely misunderstood.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:19:38, 2 January 2017 review of submission by Santapc

[edit]


Fixed all the errors in red in the page

thanks, Robert. Have made those sections into a list form as that was more apt for the technical topics — Preceding unsigned comment added by Santapc (talk • contribs) 15:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Santapc - I do not normally follow a draft through the review process. Thank you for your attention to the points that I made on review. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

23:23:45, 2 January 2017 review of submission by Rag danneskjold

[edit]



Hello and thank you for considering what I hope to be my first Wikipedia entry. There were to issues that reviewers flagged, I have addressed one by adding several more sources.

Your suggestion was to merge the entry, on the speech of the US Ambassador to the UN, into the larger entry regarding UN Security Council Resolution 2334. I originally wrote about the speech because the speech received adequate coverage independently and will be significant as part of U.S. Middle East Policy (this, and a speech given last week by U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry). Also the article I authored regarding the speech goes into significant detail -- detail which is lacking for the other members of the Security Council.

Nevertheless I did attempt to go into the page on UN Security Council resolution 2334 and make my addition. The page, however, unlike most pages on Wikipedia, does not allow me to make any additions.

I would like to resubmit my entry and perhaps have it linked in the article on 2334, however, I do not want you to think I disregarded your guidance. Please advise on what you think is best given this situation. Thank you in advance for reviewing this first entry of mine. I'm hoping in the future as I get better I'll be able to do this without issue. Rag danneskjold (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rag danneskjold - I have looked into the context further. The parent article has been given extended-confirmed protection in accordance with the third Palestine-Israel arbitration case, so that it can only be edited by editors with 30 days and 500 edits, due to frequent sockpuppetry with regard to articles about the Arab-Israeli conflicts. This is why you were unable to edit the article. I will have to look into whether you would be allowed to create a new article in the area of Israel and Palestine, such as the US rationale on Security Council 2334. I will ask further. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for looking into this. I looks forward to hearing your response. I understand the need to ensure that posts are not manipulated in a biased manner (and being a scholar of Middle East issues and the Arab-Israeli conflict I understand how fraught the subject is). Rag danneskjold (talk) 19:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Blue Swords article

[edit]

FYI that I removed the A1 tags on the 1970-73 Blue Swords articles that you placed. Was able to find out what it was talking about and think link to the main article in the infobox. They could still use some work, and I'm not sure if they should have their own articles (I am not an expert on international figure skating...) Just letting you know in case you want to improve them or tag them as something else. TonyBallioni (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

War of the Pacific arbitration 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/War of the Pacific. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 17, 2017, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/War of the Pacific/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

11:29:36, 3 January 2017 review of submission by J.Kaesser

[edit]


Dear Sir, my submission is a result of a much broader theory of unification. To explain the background of the mentionned character of Dark matter would mean presenting all the ToE. This would mean a totally different, lengthy article. But as this article would be based on the same publications as the old one - as a free researcher it is difficult to get an idea published and to find out whether anybody did cite it- I fear that it will be also rejected. So maybe you can give me a hint how I can improve my publication status. With best regards Jürgen Kässer

11:49:28, 3 January 2017 review of submission by J.Kaesser

[edit]


Dear Robert McClenon, my submission is a result of a much broader alternative theory of unification. Explaining in detail the background of the mentionned character of Dark matter needs presenting all the ToE. This would mean a totally different, lengthy article. But as this article would be based on the same publications as the old one - as a free researcher it is difficult to get an idea published and to find out whether anybody did cite it- I fear that it will be also rejected. So maybe you can give me a hint how I can improve my publication status. With best regards Juergen Kaesser

User:J.Kaesser - It appears that you are saying that this is a new alternative Theory of Everything, but that it has not previously been published in a physical journal. If that is correct, Wikipedia is not the place to publish it. Has your theory previously been published? If not, the original research policy applies. Wikipedia only covers what has already been covered by reliable sources, primarily secondary sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to know where initially to publish a new theory, you might ask other physicists at WP:WikiProject Physics. If you have questions about Wikipedia policy, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any other questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you!

[edit]

Hi Robert, I just wanted to say happy New Year, and to thank you again for all your help in getting my article published. It's thrilling, being able to contribute, and your help was invaluable. Health and happiness! Aaronchaotix (talk) 23:27, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance at Earthquake prediction

[edit]

Hello Robert,

Last July, you commented briefly on an RfC at Earthquake prediction. We are having problems again at the article, and I am trying to formulate a new RfC that will lead to a more definitive outcome than the last one. I was hoping you could take a few minutes to look at what I've proposed, and at @J. Johnson:'s objections, and help us formulate a useful RfC? Thanks. JerryRussell (talk) 02:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JerryRussell - I haven't yet looked at the page. I will say that the key to any successful RFC is stating the question concisely and neutrally. (Many RFCs are not stated concisely and neutrally, starting off argumentatively or vaguely). I will also say that I personally think that earthquake prediction is fringe science, and that it should be presented as fringe science, but that any RFC needs to be neutral. I will look at the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, thanks for your advice about the RfC. @J. Johnson: still thinks the RfC is a misfire. He wrote:
...you seem intent on ignoring the advice Robert and I have given you on "how ... to get the most useful feedback". To wit, to "pose the pose the question in a concise and neutral way", and to focus on a single question. You have chosen to ignore that, so there is little reason to expect this RfC to be any more successful than any before, and for all the usual reasons.
Now, I plead guilty to ignoring JJ's advice to focus on a single question. To me, this is a manifestation of JJ's ownership behavior: he would be happy if we spend two months debating one single question, while he can continue to dominate everything else in the article.
However, I did try to follow your advice, to make the RfC as concise and neutral as I could. Would you do me one last favor, and take a look at my 'finalized', active version of the RfC? Talk:Earthquake_prediction#RfC_on_Earthquake_prediction_2 If I've violated your advice, please come back here and continue a discussion of where I've gone wrong.
Or if the RfC looks OK to you, perhaps you could copy or re-iterate your opinions on the RfC questions, as you expressed them in our "third opinion" consultation?
Also, would it be considered appropriate to make a list of editors who have participated in discussions at the talk page since the July RfC, and ping them? JerryRussell (talk) 03:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:JerryRussell - Okay, I will take a look tomorrow. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, thanks for your votes at the RfC. Regarding my first two questions, is there some way that the wording could be changed to make the result more useful? The questions did elicit the response from you that I was hoping for, namely that This article should both discuss the fringe science as fringe science and present the mainstream view that earthquake prediction is not currently feasible.
In the previous discussion about the RfC, I would say that JJ has argued strenuously against these interpretations of the policies. My intended "use" for the questions, was to demonstrate the contrast between JJ's view, and the editorial consensus. Are you saying that is not a useful purpose? JerryRussell (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

19:17:32, 5 January 2017 review of submission by Slynharris

[edit]


Hello Robert. As you can seen we have submitted this article several times and the main reason for refusal has been lack of notable sources. We have talked online with other editors have done additional research. When we look at a similar company - KUKA (which does have an article on wikipedia), we are in line with our quantity and quality of references. Therefore, we are confused and would really appreciate additional assistance if possible. How many or what other types of sources do you need? The company isn't great at PR so articles written about them are not plentiful. Please advise if you would. Thank you! SlynharrisSlynharris (talk) 19:18, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slynharris - I would have been able to help you more if you had asked me a few days ago. Your article was deleted by User:RHaworth as unambiguous advertising. You should discuss that with the deleting administrator. I will comment that articles on companies that are declined may be declined either for notability reasons or for tone reasons, and it would appear from the history that both are applicable. I will remind you that Wikipedia may not be used as a means to advertise or promote your company. I will also ask you what your affiliation is with the company. If you have any affiliation with the company, it must be declared in accordance with the conflict of interest guideline. You say that the "company isn't great at PR so articles written about them are not plentiful". That statement appears to be doubly irrelevant. First, it appears that you are doing the PR for the company. Second, articles written for PR purposes are not what we look for to establish corporate notability. If you have any further general questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. If you have specific questions, ask User:RHaworth. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dre Manning

[edit]

Hi there. I declined the speedy request on Dre Manning based on your objection on the talk page but changed it to WP:PROD since I can't find reliable sources about the subject. Please see if you can edit this article so it meets WP:NMUSIC, otherwise it will be deleted anyway. Also, remember that per WP:CSD every non-creator user can remove a speedy tag in good faith. Regards SoWhy 11:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:47:54, 7 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Medyamax

[edit]


As you reviewed my article and see that i have a old version of draft makes it dublicate and i request it to be removed so i can re-submit my article as properly. Besides that I made the suggested corrections to my article. It is quiet complicated for me to figure out how to delete it. pls. I need your kind help. Thank you. Medyamax (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC) Medyamax (talk) 05:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medyamax - First, did you create the older draft, and do you want it deleted? Second, your only edits have been to the Esther Nash draft. Are you working for Esther Nash? What is your association with her? If you have a connection with her, please declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest guideline. Third, the references are not in the form of footnotes, which are required for a biography of a living person. If you need help with the footnotes, ask for help at the Teahouse, but be prepared for comments that the draft does not establish her notability. Fourth, I don't think that the establishes her notability, but I haven't reviewed it in depth. If you want the comments of other experienced editors, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Organizational behavior

[edit]

User:Robert McClenon, it has been three weeks since I placed on its talk page a request for comment (rfcid=480D2F3) regarding proposed changes in the organizational behavior (OB) entry. No comments have been made over the three weeks. Specifically, I requested comments regarding (a) moving the list of contributing disciplines toward the bottom of the entry and (b) focusing the list more tightly on disciplines or subdisciplines (e.g., social psychology) that were close contributors to OB, rather than disciplines that contribute to virtually all social sciences (e.g., statistics) or have barely contributed to OB (e.g., biological anthropology as proposed by Happydays). Would it be appropriate for me to begin editing the contributing disciplines list given that there have been no comments in the three weeks since I posted an rfc? Iss246 (talk) 16:05, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Iss246 - Be bold and go ahead and edit, but the final result should be consistent with the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Robert McClenon, Thank you. I will do my best. Iss246 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop normalizing AfD

[edit]

Giving you a heads up since you put the first prod on Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension. If you feel like commenting you can here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stop Normalizing Alt Right Chrome extension. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response by author on International Day of Planetaria page

[edit]

Thanks for the feedback! Some history might help. The IDP was organized in Italy and is supported by the International Planetarium Society, but the IPS has never taken ownership of it. There is a change in leadership in IPS and we are trying to reinvigorate the society, especially the international aspect. Several planetariums have observed the day (as you can see in the references), but there is a lack of focus on the goals and a confusion on how the goals are to be accomplished. This is the last year for the day in its current format. In 2018 it will become International Day of Planetariums (and so sorry, I need to change the title to Planetaria for this year). It will expand to an option of two days and will have clearly-defined goals and how to meet them. It will take a while for me to get everything together on the IPS website to properly promote it. I am the editor of Planetarian, the IPS journal, a post I have had for the last 10 years. IPS is *entirely* volunteer, and since my retirement from my planetarium position I have been working nearly fulltime on other areas of communication, promotion, and image building. There is hopes that one day we might have an executive director, which we desperately need, but unless/until we can increase our membership we cannot fund the position. So - the wiki entry is one of the things I could think of to legitimize and publicize the day that doesn't cost money. :)

Thanks for reading. Sharon Slshanks42 (talk) 01:18, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slshanks42 - You may have a misunderstanding of what the purpose of Wikipedia is. It is not a medium for you to use to "legitimize and publicize" an organization or event. If the organization or event has not already had substantial coverage by secondary reliable sources, it isn't notable. If you want to discuss further what is and is not appropriate at Wikipedia, you may ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:56, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More on International Day of Planetaria

[edit]

The International Planetarium Society is trying to become a more-recognized international organization - or, one of the organizations "that declare international observances but are not as widely recognized."

It is a small organization - not nearly as large as the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, the museum alliance, ASTC, and certainly not as large as the American Astronomical Society or the International Astronomical Union.

We are small because there are so many more astronomers than there are planetarians. We are also very - very - hard to classify or categorize. You cannot get a degree to become a planetarian, although there are planetarians with terminal degrees - Neil deGrasse Tyson is director of the Hayden Planetarium in NYC, for example. Dennis Simopoulos is the retired director of the Eugenides Planetarium in Athens.

We are science communicators - mostly. We are artists - some of us. We are public presenters - some of us. We are computer programmers, graphic artists, teachers, and composers - some of us. There are an estimated 4,145 planetariums in the world, according to Loch Ness Productions - some as large and exciting as the Hayden and the Adler in Chicago, and others as small as one-person mobile domes in every corner of the world.

I think my wording placed me in a catch-22 situation: that an international day sponsored by the IPS cannot become more recognized without a presence on Wikipedia, but because it is not well know, it cannot have a presence on Wikipedia?

Thanks again.Slshanks42 (talk) 02:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slshanks42 - Unfortunately, I have to be negative. You are hardly the first person who has come into Wikipedia to establish a name for an organization. However, getting an article in Wikipedia is not the way to establish a name for an organization. It is a way to document an organization that is already notable otherwise. If you want to discuss further, you may come to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deprodding of Return to earth

[edit]

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Return to earth, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. The article about the film will be notable due to its subject matter. Article can be preserved and tagged that it needs refs. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to it. Instead, feel free to list the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! DonFB (talk) 07:48, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ehsan Sehgal

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ehsan Sehgal. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Deletion

[edit]

Hi. I noticed that you've proposed for deletion an article (Political Game Theory) which I've only just created and am still in the process of writing. Isn't this a little premature? It seems a bit harsh since I've only just created the page as a stub and am just getting started on it.

wayland (talk) 22:49, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wayland - To be honest, no. I wasn't premature. Some reviewers say that a reviewer shouldn't tag an article for deletion until it has been in article space for 15 minutes. Your article was in article space for half an hour, and was and is unready to be in article space, because it has no references and does not make a credible claim of significance. If, as it appears, you plan to work slowly on the article, it can be moved into draft space, where you will have plenty of time. Now that you have removed the PROD tag, neither I nor anyone else can PROD it again, but it can be nominated for deletion at Articles for Deletion, where it will probably be deleted. Do you want me to move the stub to draft space? If not, it is still likely to be deleted. Article space isn't for unreferenced very incomplete articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am not aware of draft space. Please give a link to a Wikipedia page which explains draft space. wayland (talk) 15:20, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) User:Wayland, Robert is correct. If you don't have at least a few sources to start an article with, it's usually better to work on it in your sandbox prior to publishing it as an article. New unsourced articles are very likely to be deleted. TimothyJosephWood 01:24, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:Drafts. I will move your article to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think I may owe you an apology Mr. McClenon. Draft pages didn't exist when I did most of my Wikipedia editing (quite a few years ago) and the fault is mine for not staying up to date with more recent developments. I see now that draft pages were introduced in 2013. Thank you for updating me. wayland (talk) 18:03, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You

[edit]

I just wanted to thank you for giving me my first barnstar. I am a high school student, just starting to edit wikipedia. P.S. I see we are both share the same faith :) - User:Mothman27 —Preceding undated comment added 03:58, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 17:29:42, 14 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Rozybienert

[edit]


Hi, I was wondering what improvements can be made on this article in order to make it a more suitable encyclopedical content. In my opinion the language used is quite neutral and free from adjectives which may indicate a precise positioning regarding the content. Nonetheless, I am determined to follow your advice concerning the content adaptations. I would be really thankful if you could give me some examples on how to improve it. Many thanks Rozy(Rozybienert (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)) < of message -->Rozybienert (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over your draft and will ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. I would be really thankful if you could provide me with specific guidance to improve and adapt the content. (Rozybienert (talk) (～～～～) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozybienert (talk • contribs) 16:26, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, regarding Telecoming´s page and following Wikipedia´s guidance, I have included solid external references on the firm, which are independent to it´s activity (deleting media and other "promotional" sources) and in which the company has no influential capacity. In addition, the page has encyclopedical value, since it provides neutral information on a Spanish company´s core business and on its evolution, with a purely information angle which could be useful for readers to understand the nature of the firm´s activity ) Please let me know, how could I adapt the contribution to Wikipedia´s standards, since I am really willing to collaborate (Rozybienerts (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rozybienert (talk • contribs) 11:09, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rolfing dispute

[edit]

Hi Robert, Thanks for reviewing. I am confused, because I cannot find the Rolfing section on the archive of the dispute board, and I question whether this is another sign of foul play. I would love for evidence to exist that this dispute was raised, and that other editors were not interested in utilizing mediation for resolution. Thanks Cyintherye (talk) 18:56, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Here Roxy the dog. bark 19:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cynintherye, User:Roxy the dog - There was some error in closing and archiving the dispute, and it is closed with a previous dispute. I will try to fix it. In the meantime, it is in the last dispute in the archive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The case above this one didn't have an archive bottom, and so swallowed the remaining cases. Fixed. The rules say that one shouldn't edit an archive, but that doesn't mean not to fix an archive that is incorrect. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Subst AfD

[edit]

Information icon Hi Robert McClenon. When nominating an article for deletion, as you did with Hot Go Spring Paradise, please remember to substitute the template like this: {{subst:Article for deletion}}. This way we assure the inclusion of the hidden text that enables the javascript most often used for closing AfD discussions to remove the {{Article for deletion}} template from the article. I removed it manually from Hot Go Spring Paradise. Thank you. — Sam Sailor 23:22, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sam Sailor - Okay. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Blacketter

[edit]

Dear Robert McClenon,

I would like to ask that the page Ryan Blacketter: Draft be removed. While I appreciate the early interest in my book by a contributor two years ago--and the more recent revisions submitted by a different contributor a few months ago--I absolutely do not believe my single indie novel warrants any mention in an encyclopedia. Again I appreciate the interest that these authors have shown, and I have every respect for Wikipedia, but I have had a dead Deleted Draft Wiki link on my Google pages for some time, and I wish to have it removed. My fan base is quite small. Perhaps one day my successes will warrant such a page but I am certainly not there yet. 

Ryanblacketter (talk) 02:48, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The topic appears to be Draft:Ryan Blacketter. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ryanblacketter - I have requested the deletion of the draft as per your request. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for assistance on AfC submission by dmorlitz

[edit]

I believe that I have removed all of the questionable content based on the original comments. There was a comment about the copyright detector which I am not sure I fully understand. I have tried to run the duplicate detector tool to see the results and I have not gotten the same results as a previous reviewer. I do not believe that any of the content on this page is copyrighted, so I think it is ready to go. Dmorlitz (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC) 07:55am Eastern 15-Jan-2017[reply]

may i have the link to my document so i can add citations

Check article

[edit]

Hi! For Draft:IT4IT Reference Architecture I did another link check here and copyvio check here, added some more refs and made a preliminary clean up. maybe you have another look. ATBWikirictor (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Wikirictor, User:Dmorlitz - I will let the two of you continue working on the article. I will only involve myself if asked any specific questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Micro-state? No, I do not think so!

[edit]

Excuse me Mr. Robert, the Sovereignty of the Order was given in 1113 by Pope Paschal II, the four judgments of the International Courts only recognize the rights of inheritance, not a microstate. If, however, the part of the donation of the island and the communication to the United Nations of its independence could create a questionable situation, for the time you could omit, waiting for final positions. Thanks and best regards. Sebastian60 (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Robert Goodfellow

[edit]

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

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. 1989 (talk) 23:43, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

Whops! --JustBerry (talk) 04:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:JustBerry - Thanks. That case is accursed in multiple ways. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, yes. --JustBerry (talk) 04:20, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 05:22:20, 16 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kangelone

[edit]



Kangelone (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, I appreciate your feedback and your time in reviewing my proposed Preston Market article. I am a little confused as to why it has not been passed as I have reworked the article with feedback provided from Swister Twister and added relevant links to external and independent articles. Also, I can see that Dandenong Market's page is live (even though it is listed as an orphan page and has recognised issues).

Kind regards, Kangelone (talk) 05:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kangelone - Maybe when you worked with another reviewer you didn't fully understand the feedback that they gave you. You say that you added relevant links to external and independent articles. You didn't add any footnotes, and you didn't add any references in the References section. Also, I declined your draft primarily for tone reasons rather than notability reasons, although I see both. Your draft reads like an advertisement. If you don't understand that, ask for another review at the Teahouse from another reviewer. As to the other article, see other stuff exists; the real issue about it is not whether it presents an argument for accepting your draft (which is not up to acceptance), but whether it also should be deleted. It does have references, which would be the first argument for keeping it, and yours does not. Your draft has external links in the article body. Your draft has peacock language. Are you working for the market? Do you want to ask further questions at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:42, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Zjb1601A/sandbox

[edit]

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 (talk) 10:13, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:58, 16 January 2017 review of submission by Rozybienert

[edit]


Hi Robert McClenon. The article has been deleted. Please could you share with me recommendations on how to improve Telecoming content, in order to make it more suitable for Wikipedia? The language is actually neutral and given the facts portrayed, the information references have been neutral and independent from Telecoming: including media pieces, reports and other independent sources. I would be really grateful for your advice. Firma: (Rozybienert (talk) (Rozybienert (talk) 14:44, 16 January 2017 (UTC)).[reply]

@Robert McClenon: Pinging addressee. --JustBerry (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rozybienert - You write: "The article has been deleted." You are confusing me, because the article has not been deleted. It has been declined, which is not the same. If it were deleted, it would no longer be there. It is still there, and can be improved and resubmitted. I suggest that you ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also, Wikipedia is more interested in what others have written about the company than about what the company has written about itself, and Wikipedia also tends to ignore what the company has asked others to write about it, such as press releasses. My advice is to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Rosybienert - Also, your only edits have been with regard to this article. If you have a connection with Telecoming, you should declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest disclosure. If not, you might consider that you would be more easily able to improve Wikipedia by helping us with the more than five million articles that we already have than one article that we do not yet have. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Geographic features

[edit]

Hello, Robert. I didn't feel comfortable with posting contrary advice at the AfC Help Desk, so I'll just post a brief note here. The notion that geographic places are presumptively notable applies only to populated places. For unpopulated geographic features, suitability for an article depends on whether there are reliable sources that do more than simply verify the existence and location of the feature. This is stated in WP:GEOLAND. NewYorkActuary (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:NewYorkActuary - Okay. Thank you. We can let the original reviewer comment on whether the references were sufficient to establish notability for the mountains. I have the odd thought that if you can see the mountain from a great distance on a clear day and ask what its name is, it is notable, but that is my thinking. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 16 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

review submission

[edit]

Hi User:Robert McClenon. Sorry to get back to you this late. I have merged both the drafts of the oroantral page together and it is now ready to be reviewed. Link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) .Let me know if there are any changes to be made. Thanks in advance Justryingtohelp (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 21:59:50, 18 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Ch2017

[edit]


You reviewed the EERE page and rejected it because it contained copyrighted material. This is an article about a government agency of the U.S. executive branch and contains information available in the public domain. Could you reconsider based on that fact? Or could you please tell me specifically which parts were rejected because of copyright concerns?

We would like to revise and resubmit but now the page is no longer on my sandbox. How do I get it back? Thank you.

Ch2017

Ch2017 (talk) 21:59, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ch2017 - It appears that the original document that I reviewed has been deleted because of the copyright violation. I can't comment further. Another reviewer has also commented. If you want to edit an existing article, the best thing to do would be to discuss the proposed edits on the article talk page. If you have any general questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

deletion of allasch

[edit]

Hi! Aren't you a wee bit hasty? You've PRODded allasch immediately after the initial version, not even an hour after the first edit. You also claim it is unreferenced, despite it already having been referenced from two other articles and two interwiki links at the time of your PROD. It has no citations yet but even if someone is allergic to doing research it's trivial to copy in German links.

I don't intent to extend the article beyond stub stage, I've created it only because of seeing a horrendous mistranslation in a song's article (vodka is an unflavoured or very mildly flavoured drink -- the very word comes from "water", allasch is intensely flavoured). I think the drink is more notable than that song (for an English reader -- the song is a part of Polish culture but not important elsewhere), even if the drink's popularity outside of Leipzig is mostly historic. - KiloByte (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Civicacy of Milford Schools (Ohio) & deletion of material from Milford High School (Ohio)

[edit]

A deletion of the Civicacy of Milford Schools (Ohio), as well as deletion of material from the Milford High School (Ohio) was made. The explanation was:

The history of the schools of a pair of counties may not be notable in terms of coverage and awareness of that school system outside those counties, and the title and lead paragraph stating that this article is about "civicacy" and "peoplification", both of which are nonsense words, is a problem, with nothing indicating what material in the rest of the article has anything to do with those.

To the contrary, the sources provided substantiate all of the content derided as "nonsense words." This was not original research. Furthermore, Milford Schools are a system, which include among them Milford High School.

Here are articles and categories which further explain American education:

We love our schools. A separate page with the rich odyssey is deserving in a district of Milford's size. Thank you.--Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle (talk) 22:21, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at my user talk as well. Might be best not to have too much decentralised discussion about this. Robert, my place or yours? Primefac (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Iolair, Gaelic For Eagle, User:Primefac - We can continue at User talk:Primefac. Leave the pre-edit status quo as is or I will suggest that WP:ANI is a better forum. Characterizing the neologisms as nonsense words was harsh but accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Vigilant Christian

[edit]

I have never understood how how WP:A1 and WP:A7 can be used together. If there isn't enough content to understand what an article is about (A1) how do you know it is an eligible subject for A7? - GB fan 02:49, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:GB fan - I am not sure what the subject is, but it appears to be a person. If so, I am not sure who the person is. Is that sufficient context? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, I am not entirely sure whether it should be A1 or A7, but I am certain that it should be one or the other. Should I tag it as one of them? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Vigilant Christian
Personal information
NationalityCanadian
OccupationInternet personality
YouTube information
Years active2012-present
To me this seams so simple. A1 means the tagger after reading the article does not know what the subject is. If the tagger does not know what the article is about, how can they know it is about one of the eligible subjects that is encompassed by A7? To me these two criteria are mutually exclusive, if one applies the other doesn't.
In this case, if you had looked at the article history you should have seen the last edit before you tagged it, my edit declining A1, six minutes before you tagged it as A1.
This was the article as you tagged it (just an infobox). There is enough there to tell this is a person, where they are from and what they do. It is completely ineligible for A1. When you tagged it I was looking at their YouTube channel. A7 was appropriate but A1 was not. - GB fan 11:07, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I do agree that they are mutually exclusive, but perhaps you and I understand multiple tagging differently, because I was tagging in the alternative. I don't see the article history and can't, but my recollection is that it hadn't been tagged previously. Okay. In any case, it isn't in article space, and there is a version in draft space which may be being made into a reasonable article. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The history had been restored so you can now see it. I declined an A1 at 02:37, 20 January 2017 and the next edit at 02:43, 20 January 2017 is your request for an A1 and A7 deletion. There is some confusion right after that because of hstory merge but those two are clear. - GB fan 11:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, User:GB fan - Maybe I made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mesodinium nuclear code

[edit]

Thanks for creating Mesodinium nuclear code, Manudouz! Wikipedia editor Robert McClenon just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Interesting. If I am not mistaken, these ciliates, which have slightly different genetic codes, are eukaryotes just like we metazoans (but not quite like us in the genetic code).

Dear Robert. Yes, you're right. We (metazoans) and ciliates are eukaryotes However, the evolutionary split with our unicellular relatives is probably as old as 1,000 million years! And there is an incredible diversity of subtle variations in alternative genetic codes among these ciliates. Manudouz (talk) 22:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Manudouz - That's a very long time ago by geological standards, well before the Cambrian explosion. I didn't realize just how different and diverse those ciliates are from us metazoans, as different as they can be and still be eukaryotes, a small world of their own. Interesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 23:39:50, 22 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Medyamax

[edit]


Yes, both article created by me, mistakenly dublicated.. I want the dublicate page to be removed. Regard to other question, if any conflict of interest, I do not have any benefit or money involves regard to submitting this article. I am her colleague, in the past had many art and fashion events attended; my article is to help her recognize since she is known in the fashion, media and art.. I did few other links and improvements, pls. need your kind help on my page to make it ready to submit. Thank you.Medyamax (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Medyamax (talk) 23:39, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Medyamax - I have requested that your first draft be deleted. However, your current draft still does not have the references in the form of footnotes, which are required for a biography of a living person. If you need advice on how to insert the footnotes, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

[edit]
Appreciation
Hi there, My name is Harish. I AM NEW TO WIKIPEDIA. Recently you have made a comment on my article {This draft needs copy-editing for grammar and punctuation} titled " Income Computation and Disclosure Standards " ( My first Article ) and I am glad you have made that. I am eagerly awaiting for my first article to be published without any unreasonable delay,of course, if and only if it makes any sense.I am very much grateful to you if there is anything I can do to make my article get published. Eagerly waiting for your reply. 
     Hopy you can feel my euphoria. 
     Thanks again! Harishsama1998 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:13:56, 24 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by AmyPetit

[edit]


Hi Robert,

Thank you for reviewing my article about CROWDYHOUSE. You say the draft has notability issues which I can understand as I didn't find very good sources and I should look for better ones in order to show why I think this page should be on wikipedia. However you also mention tone issues, but I don't really understand why as I thought I was being neutral here. I am new on wikipedia and it is the first page I am trying to create. I would be glad if you could help me. I would really love to improve my wikipedia contributions.

Have a very good day.

Amélie

AmyPetit (talk) 09:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:AmyPetit - In looking over your draft, I agree that the tone is neutral, but it doesn't establish notability. If you have further questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:44:26, 24 January 2017 review of submission by Prashanthkelahatti

[edit]


Dear Robert McClenon,

Thanks for reviewing my article "Anagondanahalli", and I would like to highlight few points which would help you in reviewing my article
1. I have added the references to the article.
2. I was born and grown up in this Viallage and I, myself an best reference to it :)
3. Removed the images which was copyright violation - Trust me I am innocent! :) :)

User:Parshantkelahatti - Your personal knowledge of having grown up in the village is not considered a reliable source. If you want our policies explained to you in more detail, ask at the Teahouse. As I explain above, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process, and I will let other reviewers deal with your article, but you should be aware that we require reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meygal and Mézenc

[edit]

Thank you for your answer and sorry for my late reply.
I didn't know this difference between "deleted" and "declined" (it doesn't exists on the French Wikipédia). Thank you for this information.
I didn't know either that the French and the English Wikipedia have different standards. Thank you too for this information.
The problem is solved concerning Meygal, as I see. I'm pleased to note it. I added sources for Mont Mézenc. Is it good now? Cordially. Jean Fume (talk) 01:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jean Fume - If one of your drafts has been accepted, then maybe that answers that question. I will look at the other one shortly. As I said, the English Wikipedia and the French Wikipedia are two different projects and may have different guidelines. If you have any more questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thank you. Jean Fume (talk) 03:05, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So Japanese wikipedia isn't reliable huh?

[edit]
NAC: Troll turned to stone at sunrise. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 25 January 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.

This is why people don't waste their time contributing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rzombie1988 (talk • contribs) 05:15, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) @Rzombie1988: WP:CIRC を読んでください。EvergreenFir (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) Hi Rzombie1988. Just for reference, Wikipedia does not even consider itself to be a reliable sources when it comes to Wikipedia article per WP:WPNOTRS. Article content added/edited/removed by anyone with Internet access, so there's no assurance that what is written is 100% accurate 100% of the time. Article content is only intended to reflect what is said about the subject in reliable sources, so it's best to treat any content which is not supported by a citation to a reliable source with care. Moreover, as someone who actually edits occasionally on Japanese Wikipedia, I say you need to be pretty careful in simply assuming that what's written there is accurate because the standard of sourcing common to Japanese Wikipedia does not seem to be as vigorous as to what's in place here on English Wikipedia. I'm not claiming that Wikipedia is perfect and everything you'll find on Japanese Wikipedia is WP:OR, but the former does seem to be doing a better overall job of adhering to the five pillars than the latter in my opinion. If you can find reliable sources used in a Japanese Wikipedia article which support the information you want to add to an English Wikipedia article, then you can use them per WP:NOENG. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:35, 25 January 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.

Attack page titles

[edit]

When tagging a page with an attack title, pleasedon't mark it as patrolled. When you do, you're giving the attack a little more publicity. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:12, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Od Mishehu - That sounds like an issue with how Twinkle does the tagging. I will inquire about how to deal with that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Drifting Sun

[edit]

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your message. I don't really have much else to add, my article is what it is, I would of course be willing to improve its contents but it has been rejected for the reason that the references I have provided for it aren't good enough apparently. These are fully verifiable sources from genuine magazines, some of which have a fairly high profile within the progressive rock world, if that's not good enough for wikipedia then so be it.Fasching web radio (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fasching web radio - The obvious sticking point with Draft:Drifting Sun is that you have provided an overwhelmingly long list of references, but none of them are in the form of footnotes. If you feel that putting the references into the form of footnotes is too much work, then maybe creating a new article with its sources is not the way that you want to contribute to Wikipedia. If you simply are having difficulty with references, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:24:06, 26 January 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Kaykris

[edit]


Dear Robert, I was chatting yesterday with Huon, and i replied to all his questions. The name of the center (Center for Evidence-based Anatomy, Sports and Orthopedic Research) was indeed created on 2009, by that time the center started their research in meta-analyses and they published 2 orthopedic meta-analyses (1. Efficacy of preparation solutions and cleansing techniques on contamination of the skin in foot and ankle surgery A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS, and 2. Antegrade intramedullary nailing for fifth metacarpal neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis) then continued with anatomical meta-analyses which took long time to be accomplished before publication. And then only after 3 anatomical meta-analyses (MA) publications that the concept of evidence-based anatomy has been published (based on the know how and the experience gained by performing such MA). Huon asked me whether any poles stated that Kaissar Yammine was the first who created this concept and I replied by yes; and i added the title of the published paper which confirmed this claim (I sent him the full text manuscript). He also asked me to develop a bit more the general overview of the topic , which i did. Thank you for your support Kaykris

Kaykris (talk) 15:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:38:43, 26 January 2017 review of submission by Kaykris

[edit]


Dear Robert, I was chatting yesterday with Huon, and i replied to all his questions. The name of the center (Center for Evidence-based Anatomy, Sports and Orthopedic Research) was indeed created on 2009, by that time the center started their research in meta-analyses and they published 2 orthopedic meta-analyses (1. Efficacy of preparation solutions and cleansing techniques on contamination of the skin in foot and ankle surgery A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS, and 2. Antegrade intramedullary nailing for fifth metacarpal neck fractures: A systematic review and meta-analysis) then continued with anatomical meta-analyses which took long time to be accomplished before publication. And then only after 3 anatomical meta-analyses (MA) publications that the concept of evidence-based anatomy has been published (based on the know how and the experience gained by performing such MA). Huon asked me whether any poles stated that Kaissar Yammine was the first who created this concept and I replied by yes; and i added the title of the published paper which confirmed this claim (I sent him the full text manuscript). He also asked me to develop a bit more the general overview of the topic , which i did. Thank you for your support Kaykris

User:Kaykris - I have re-read the draft, and I find it incomprehensible. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. If another reviewer or User:Huon approves it, then it is approved, although, if so, I may tag it as needing rework. I will not approve it in its current form because I find it incomprehensible. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Parashar bapu

[edit]

Sir help me to show my Wikipedia site Parashar bapu 18:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parashar bapu (talk • contribs)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A cupcake for you!

[edit]
Oh dear you have beaten me, keep up! :) ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 23:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Goh

[edit]

I have not completed creating the page so there is no references. So can you don't be so impatient and just wait till I'm done?

User:CO16 - First, don't put an article into article space until it is ready, meaning until it has its references. Second, when you have put in the references, you can pull the WP:BLPPROD tag, but every biography of a living person must have at least one reference. If you want to know how to create an article in user space so that it will not be tagged for deletion, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok I have done it now. I will not put into article space until I have done it. CO16 (talk) 12:34, 29 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN Not showing my Username

[edit]

Heya Robert! I was just wondering if you could help me with something - I've recently become part of the Dispute Resolution Moderation Team, and I've added my name and the such, but when I resolved an issue, it hasn't added my username under 'Last Volunteer Edit': https://puu.sh/tEQQr/b544b7ebcd.png

See how JustBerry is put there, not me, even though I was the last person to post to the dispute. Do you know how I can fix this? Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) 01:11, 30 January 2017 (UTC) @Robert McClenon:[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Hi, I'm Adam9007. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, The company party, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Adam9007 (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

Kittens!

Stevie jean (talk) 03:50, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Robert McClenon's talk page.
Message added 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Have a good day, ItsPugle (Talk) at 05:57, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

telco production afd

[edit]

Please declined this article Telco Productions Inc.Open Source 2.0 check me 02:44, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, As suggested by you, I had made necessary changes to improve the readability of the article and located many published references to support the articles authenticity, kindly view the updated version and consult with your colleagues at the Teahouse. The link for your reference is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Draft:Puttana_Venkatramana_Raju&oldid=735790825Rajendrarajun (talk) 08:39, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Article Mahavir Singh (freedom fighter)

[edit]

Dear Robert, You requested speedy deletion of the article Mahavir Singh (freedom fighter). I have given new information to the article along with references and a picture. I hope you will understand why it should not be deleted. Regards, Protyay Mukhopadhyay Che12PM 15:36, 1 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Che12Guevara (talk • contribs)

Draft:Peerless Network

[edit]

Hi Robert - you deleted my article submission for Peerless Network claiming that it didn't meet the criteria for "significant" mention. I've searched, and there really doesn't seem to be a definition of what significant means to wikipedia. Perhaps you can direct me to a formal, quantifiable definition? I do find it odd that a few editors have used this claim, but all provide different reasons - not enough articles (I've provided over a dozen); no "high profile" mentions (really Inc. and Crain's aren't high-profile? How about Wikipedia itself?); hasn't been in business for at least 10 years (this one made me laugh out loud).

At this point, I'm really uninterested in posting to wikipedia as it seems that all the editors want to do is deny "newbies" the ability to post an article. You guys use the claim that I haven't shown significant notability - but each editor uses different criteria, and you can't provide a solid definition. And when I suggest that my article is more meaty than many on wikipedia, they throw the argument that I can't use other articles as a guide, since there is a lot of junk on wikipedia (I personally find that hysterical). Then I typically get hit with the assertion that I must work for the company and must provide a conflict of interest disclosure (I don't work for them, my neighbor does and I thought it would be a good learning ground - it was, just not in the way that I anticipated).

The fact is that the company is notable - and probably handles most of your phone calls - whether you are aware of it or there was an article written about it. That's because it runs one of the largest US tandem networks and has invented systems that allow your calls to travel as successfully and cheaply as they do.

Not sure how to delete the article completely from the system - but that is probably what needs to happen since I can't improve it anymore that what I've already provided. And for the record - I did go to the Teahouse a while back, but the system wasn't working and I never did get a response to my inquiry. Jlk0221 (talk) 21:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jlk0221 - I am not sure whether you are asking a question or whether you are just expressing an opinion. I will comment that I didn't delete your submission. It is still in draft space. I declined to move it from draft space into article space. I don't know whether you want to discuss its notability, or just are frustrated. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You made statements above about what Peerless technology does in routing calls that go beyond what is in the article, and could make a better case for notability. Why not add them, with reliable sources, to the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the EERE page

[edit]

Hey there! Sorry to bother. But since you seem like a very experienced user (and you've kinda-sorta dealt with some of this already), I wanted to ask you a little question. A few weeks ago, you chatted with user:ch2017, who left a post here on your talk page after she created a draft article in her sandbox that she wanted to replace the EERE article with. (It was later deleted for copyright issues.) I'm one of her colleagues, and I'm helping out because I know a bit more about Wikipedia. (I've never really had a permanent account, but I used to spend a lot of time reading up on WP policy and editing as an anon.)

Anyway, long story short: I did a major overhaul of her draft and its sources (that's at User:Es2017/sandbox) to fix the citations and language. I've:

1. Posted on COI/N. 2. Posted on the EERE talk page.

... But I haven't gotten a response to the first, and the second is absolutely dead. user:ch2017 previously tried to submit her draft directly from her sandbox to AFC, but since this isn't a totally new article, I don't know if that's the best approach. What's the best place to get a review on a draft if the talk page doesn't seem to be working? Es2017 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Es2017 User:ch2017 - I haven't looked at COIN. I do see that there is no response on the talk pages. If you want advice of other editors or a review by more editors, you can ask at the Teahouse, or you can find an appropriate WikiProject, but I am not sure what WikiProject is appropriate. However, if you want action rather than discussion, you can be bold and, as an uninvolved editor (if you don't have a conflict of interest), move to sandbox content to the article page in one edit. If anyone dislikes that, they will revert, and you can discuss. If so, do not make the bold edit a second time; that would be edit-warring. So either go to the Teahouse for more comments, or be bold and replace the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for your quick response! :) This is very helpful. Unfortunately, I definitely do have a COI, so I'll give the Teahouse a shot. Es2017 (talk) 16:26, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At the Teahouse, you might either get a non-conflict-of-interest editor to pursue the edits further or be directed to a WikiProject. Thank you for asking reasonable question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

16:57:33, 2 February 2017 review of submission by Kaykris

[edit]


Dear Robert,

Just to know whether you had time to send the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Evidence-based_anatomy to an other reviewer as you mentioned it in your last comment you sent to me.

Sincerely.

Kaykris

User:Kaykris - I had not been planning to ask another reviewer to review it, but to let you submit it for review by another reviewer. Do you want me to ask for review at the Teahouse? I still find much of it incomprehensible, and that may be a bias on my part. Do you want me to ask for another review at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:05, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:41, 2 February 2017 review of submission by Kaykris

[edit]


Yes please.

17:20:45, 2 February 2017 review of submission by Kaykris

[edit]


Will I be able to receive the comments in the Teahouse by email if I am not logged in?

User:Kaykris - While Wikipedia does support the ability to email a user, it shouldn't be the usual way to get feedback, especially not on a draft, where feedback really should be viewable by the community. Email feedback really should only be used in special situations where privacy is preferred. If you aren't logged in, you can log in and look for feedback. I will ask for feedback at the Teahouse, but it will be in Wikipedia, not by email. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:38, 2 February 2017 review of submission by Kaykris

[edit]


I got it , thank you

Draft:Peerless Network again

[edit]

I agree that the information about Peerless' contributions is important, and originally had them in the article, but was told that they could not be substantiated and I should remove them. I guess I was kinda doing both - asking a question and voicing frustration - the question being - what or where is the formal definition or guidelines on notability and significance? The frustration part is that I can't find one/either, and everyone one seems to have their own ideas on this. My other frustration is that I can't seem to get this article published even though I believe that I've followed the guidelines AND the article is just as strong if not stronger than many other articles (which I am told isn't a good argument - regardless of whether true or not), clearly isn't an advertisement, and Peerless is already mentioned in Wikipedia (or at least their subsidiary is). I'm kinda thinking that if I was a more seasoned writer, perhaps this article would be approved. I'd certainly appreciate your help if you are willing - but will say at the onset that there are no additional references to pull - these are all there are. I can certainly add back in the information on the patents and such if you think it would be helpful. Thanks and sorry for the frustration. Jlk0221 (talk) 19:43, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jlk0221 - I would suggest that you ask your questions, including about notability guidelines, at the Teahouse, but you previously said that you weren't satisfied with your experience there. I don't really have much to say further, other than to try the Teahouse again, and that I will reply at more length later. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:27, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

oroantral fistula page

[edit]

Hi robert. I've previously posted in your talk page about the Oroantral fistula draft that is ready to be reviewed but have not gotten a reply from you since. Just wondering whether you're currently reviewing the page or it is put on hold for some reason? Anyways I have merged both the drafts of the oroantral page together link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Oroantral_fistula_(2) Thanks in advance Justryingtohelp (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Justryingtohelp - I have too much history with the article and will let someone else review it. Have you checked on the review at WP:MED? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I can't seem to find any review of it in WP:MED , can you please link me to it? Justryingtohelp (talk) 13:23, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Justryingtohelp - That request appears to have scrolled into the archive. I am not planning to review that draft again after it had had copyright violation, and after all the confusion about multiple drafts. Please either wait for it to come up, or make another request at WT:MED, or request a review or advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you can't bother to ping me, how am I to know you expect a response?

[edit]

I had no idea there was anything being discussed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:American Legislative Exchange Council.23Section .22Convening the first U.S. state constitutional convention.22 because I'm not watching the page and you failed to correctly ping me. Next time you create red links, you might consider investigating why that is. This is a competency issue. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:12, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker), Don't you think that may be just a touch of WP:ABF? TimothyJosephWood 20:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Timothyjosephwood: Not at all. I'm not doubting Robert McClenon's interest in helping. He made an assumption that my last name was capitalized (it's not because I mistyped when I created the account) and when pinging me he didn't notice the red links. This could have been prevented with previewing the edit and there's also an option under preferences for the system to warn you when you mis-ping. And yet, the pings didn't work. I didn't want him to think I was ignoring the conversation at ANEW; I simply assumed it was done. Accusing someone of screwing up isn't attributing anything to motives, just attention to detail. Chris Troutman (talk) 21:59, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to interrupt about a detail here, but where is this option under preferences for the system to warn me when I mis-ping, please, Chris troutman? I'd quite like to have that. Bishonen | talk 22:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
@Bishonen: Absolutely. Preferences -> notifications -> "failed mention" and/or "successful mention." I learned about this in a Signpost technology report late last year; thanks to Matěj Suchánek for pointing it out in the comments. You can't ping IPs so I always get a failed mention for those but otherwise it's a good safety in case I mistype. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:41, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much, Chris. Bishonen | talk 22:46, 3 February 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Yeah, no joke. I had no idea this was a thing. And as a rule, I usually watchlist any conversation I have a good expectation will go on for some time (hence why I'm here). This may be a case of "mistakes were made on all sides," and there's nothing wrong or nefarious about that. TimothyJosephWood 23:28, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.2

[edit]
Hello Robert McClenon,
A HUGE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers!
Most of us requested the user right at PERM, expressing a wish to be able to do something about the huge backlog, but the chart on the right does not demonstrate any changes to the pre-user-right levels of October.

Hitting 17,000 soon

The backlog is still steadily growing at a rate of 150 a day or 4,650 a month. Only 20 reviews a day by each reviewer over the next few days would bring the backlog down to a managable level and the daily input can then be processed by each reviewer doing only 2 or 3 reviews a day - that's about 5 minutes work!
It didn't work in time to relax for the Xmas/New Year holidays. Let's see if we can achieve our goal before Easter, otherwise by Thanksgiving it will be closer to 70,000.

Second set of eyes

Remember that we are the only guardians of quality of new articles, we alone have to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged by non-Reviewer patrollers and that new authors are not being bitten.

Abuse

This is even more important and extra vigilance is required considering Orangemoody, and

  1. this very recent case of paid advertising by a Reviewer resulting in a community ban.
  2. this case in January of paid advertising by a Reviewer, also resulting in a community ban.
  3. This Reviewer is indefinitely blocked for sockpuppetry.

Coordinator election

[edit]

Kudpung is stepping down after 6 years as unofficial coordinator of New Page Patrolling/Reviewing. There is enough work for two people and two coords are now required. Details are at NPR Coordinators; nominate someone or nominate yourself. Date for the actual suffrage will be published later.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group

[edit]

As you are a member of the above task force we're just letting you know about an up coming election for two coordinators for the New Page Review System. Full details at New Page Review Coordinators

If you no longer wish to receive messages from this project, you may opt out here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


Improving title of article | transcription of Arabic-Persian script

[edit]

Pls can you help me on the following re art. Keykhosrow Keshâvarz:

- I would like to change the title of the article to Keykhosrou (instaead of Keykhosrow) Keshâvarz, for reasons of consistency of transcription. What do I have to do?

- How serious do you take consistent transcription of Persian terms (or Arabic for that matter)? I can see from many relevant articles that most authors don't bother much, but I would very much like to have transcriptions as consistent and near to the original as possible. It makes the whole thing much easier for users when it comes to identify words in a Persian language dictionary or in the Farsi Wikipedia.

Thanks and have a good start for the week to come 80.123.45.51 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:80.123.45.51 - I am not entirely sure that I understand the question. If you want to change the name of a page, you can request that someone move it. If you have a question about transliteration, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nevosophy Scandal

[edit]

Hello sir! may I ask the specifics as to why the 'nevosophy scandal' page should be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by LynWoodburgh (talk • contribs) 05:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:LynWoodburgh - It isn't an encyclopedic topic that is notable that reliable sources have already written about. It appears to be a rehash of an issue that you have with administrators that may be appropriate on a project page but does not belong in article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:04, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

But if one were to consider 'wikipedia' a reflection of all 'encyclopedic topics' then it is also true that, any subject can be both derived from and deduced to, philosophy. Is this not representation enough of the 'spherical' nature of knowledge? (talk) Robert McClenon

The last paragraph above was not added by me but by User:LynWoodburgh, and the use of my signature appears to be a Wiki-forgery. I thank any other editors who have either deleted LynWoodburgh's rants or tried to reason with LynWoodburgh. User:LynWoodburgh - Any further attempts to attribute your eccentric opinions about what should be in Wikipedia to me will be reported at WP:ANI. Any further non-encyclopedic pages will be tagged for deletion. It appears that you are not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, but to engage in mischief, but I will wait about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:42, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No need to go to ANI - just ping me if there's more of the same. My finger is already halfway on the block button. --NeilN talk to me 15:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN - If you have this talk page watchlisted and are checking his contributions, thanks. Ranting is common enough (and has been a problem on the Internet and Usernet since before Wikipedia), but forgery is something else. (Well, forgery did happen in the alt sector of the Usenet, because the alt sector was a lawless world like the Old West, but forgery violated the code of the West even then.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, watchlisted and checking contribs (deleted their last page). Not sure the signature thing was intentional though. I've seen my sig copy-pasted by newbies in unexpected ways and unexpected places enough times that cause me to have a healthy dollop of AGF for these types of situations. --NeilN talk to me 16:03, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. We know that there is stupidity. We know that there is obstinacy. Perhaps the signature thing was stupidity, but the real problem is the obstinacy. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence of the most recent deletion, which means that you deleted it without a non-admin tagging it. Cool. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hao Qi Chang Liu from Originzhao

[edit]

Hi, Robert,

This is originzhao who just created the page Hao Qi Chang Liu. I created the page as a placeholder while I am translating what I have about the topic into English and about to post the results in 2 hours. I see the page is somehow deleted. Can I still have it back?


Thanks, originzhao — Preceding unsigned comment added by Originzhao (talk • contribs) 16:43, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Need correction

[edit]

Hello, thanks for the help. I'm new here and will like you to please help me in correcting errors made on the article cece maintain. Eddypep (talk) 17:00, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eddypep - What sort of help do you need? There are two problems with the article. First, the references are inconsistently formatted. (That is better than no references.) I do not claim to be an expert in the formatting of references, and you might do better to ask for help at the Teahouse. Second, the English isn't very good. I can help with that. What sort of help were you asking for? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:14, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Premi creations

[edit]

Just an FYI they've already been given final warnings for this. :( Chrissymad ❯❯❯ ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chrissymad - I've gone to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rookshot

[edit]

I saw your PROD on Rookshot and I speedied it instead. I felt like it qualified under A7. That user has been doing a ton of weird borderline-sketchy things with pop punk bands this week, so I'm keeping an eye on their contribs. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Help request

[edit]

Hi! I have been asked to write up an editorial for The Signpost. It is at User:Guy Macon/Draft of Signpost Editorial. If you have time, could you give it a quick look and correct any glaring errors you spot? Thanks! --Guy Macon (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of LIfe

[edit]

A tag has been placed on LIfe requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from an implausible typo or misnomer.

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. CatcherStorm talk 17:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:CatcherStorm - Huh. Anyway, I only created the redirect in cleaning up the crud, and you beat me to cleaning up the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First Publishing

[edit]

Speedy deletion nomination of First Publishing Ltd

Thank you Robert for the welcome and sorry for messing up, just for my understanding, was the post deleted because I didn't have time to add enough information into it or was it deleted because the subject wasn't of interest ? Erajapu (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on requestor's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:42, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The Magic Carpet Tour

[edit]

Read my response and allow me to finish " The Magic Carpet Ride Tour " I was just starting to cite notability — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talia Jonet (talk • contribs) 18:56, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Talia Jonet - First, you created two copies of the article. The one that is a duplicate, The Magic Carpet Ride Tour is the one that I tagged for speedy deletion. Second, the first one is The Magic Carpet Tour. I tagged it for proposed deletion, which gives a week to improve the article. It is a good idea not to create articles in article space until you have added the references and otherwise made the case for notability, because any page in article space is subject to various methods of deletion if it does not satisfy Wikipedia policies and guidelines. You can create articles in draft space or user space, and move them to article space when they satisfy policies and guidelines including notability. If you want advice about how to create articles in draft or user space, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:26, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, its been taken care of !! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Talia Jonet (talk • contribs) 19:28, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Stop reporting

[edit]

Can you tell me what is the reason for nominating speedy deletion for my article 'DMI Foundations Trust'. If you dont know how about my article, dont report. You are discouraging me. You may read the contents of my article. If you are so intelligent, just tell me the valid reason why you have suggested my article for speedy deletion. I have removed speedy deletion tag unknowingly. You are doing all these things intentionally. Behave yourself. Dont interfere in my articles. What do you know about DMI Foundations Trust? You may not know about all these stuffs. But you are ready to complain others as if you are good in writing articles. I am a new writer. Dont flatter as if you know everything. These are the words from my heart. So, behave yourself. Dont behave like a child. Even they are good than your sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edson Frainlar (talk • contribs) 19:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Edson Frainlar - If you want advice for new writers of articles for Wikipedia, ask at the Teahouse. If you want advice on how to create an article about the DMI Foundations Trust, ask at the Teahouse, and they will advise you to create it in draft space and have it reviewed, and will also advise you not to lecture me. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

BTW

[edit]

I meant my comment in the sense of "RfC and NPP are exercises in disappointing people." TimothyJosephWood 22:09, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood - I think that we agree. NPP disappoints would-be writers in Wikipedia because our first obligation is to the readers. That means removing crud from article space, preferably before the crud gets indexed in article space. Our obligation is to the readers, to ensure quality. In the case in point, I think that the disappointed would-be writer has a problem with English, but that is another issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, less worrisome about indexing with NPP, although I'll be the first to admit I still mostly do NPP through recent changes, so I'm hardly a shining example of reducing the backlog.
In a purely philosophical sense though, I would say that our first obligation is to the mission, and the readers benefit from that. The mission would be worthwhile even if we were only making a time capsule of human knowledge. I'd like to imagine that if we realized some global catastrophic event was imminent, Wikipedia and Google Books would be among the first things we would shoot into space, Carl Sagan Voyager style.
I don't know that the average reader would notice if our quality suddenly dropped 10%, however you measure that. But you would eventually lose the idea that WP is useful, and with that we would lose WP, because that's the reason volunteers are here to build it. TimothyJosephWood 23:04, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
I want to make my own: the What's a Barnstar barnstar. LoudHouse1 (talk) 23:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Change your attitude

[edit]

Even now you haven't changed your attitude. You said that iam not proficient in English. I accept because I used to accept my faults. You said to ask doubts in teahouse. They will clarify my doubts. For discussion alone I need to approach teahouse in that sense then for what purpose you proposed my article to get deleted. Do your business. Even now you are not answering my question properly. I am wondering how you have created all that non sense articles. And you are self praising about you by showing those filthy articles. Edson Frainlar (talk) 11:50, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Edson, it looks like basically every article you have created has been nominated for deletion, and done so by several different experienced editors and administrators alike. This should probably be a sign to you that you likely do not yet have a very good understanding of our policies and guidelines, especially those concerning notability. Incessantly posting confrontational messages on the talk pages of multiple users is not going to fix problems with your articles. In fact, it is likely only going to earn you a judicious block for harassment if you continue.
Most users here are willing to help you, including those at the Teahouse, which you have already been directed to in the case you have specific questions. But if you are determined to be belligerent, that pool of helpful editors will likely quickly dry up. TimothyJosephWood 13:09, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

[edit]

Many thanks.I have worked with Diptera for 50 years.Wiki offers a splendid opportunity to give them a platform.Best regards Notafly (talk) 20:48, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Notafly - We also have an editor who is entering many species of Coleoptera and one who is entering many species of Lepidoptera. I recall that all of them are very numerous orders in a very numerous class. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:43, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I just saw that they and the Diptera and the Hymenoptera are the four most numerous orders. I am not surprised. The insects not only outnumber us mammals in terms of species but they outweigh us. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Mark Tuan and Draft:Mark Tuan (2)

[edit]

Hello Robert,

I actually was not aware of the Draft:Mark Tuan page before I submitted Draft:Mark Tuan (2). I wrote the entire draft of Draft:Mark Tuan (2) myself and when I saw that there had already been another draft, I didn't consolidate from the first draft because, frankly, I didn't know I was even allowed do that since it was not my work. As I'm sure you can tell, my draft features a lot more content and sources than the other, although I did include the sources that were present on that article as well

This is my first time writing and submitting to Wikipedia so I'm learning as I go, I suppose. Just let me know what I should do and I will!

Thank you! Pandalexa (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive PROD and BLPPROD tags

[edit]

Hello and thanks for your dedication to Wikipedia. Over the last few days, it has come to my attention that you have a (probably recently developed) habit of placing PROD and BLPPROD tags on pages only minutes after they have been created. Maybe you have never been told this before, but this is disruptive.

Indeed, for PROD tags it shows that you haven't taken the time to assess the notability of the topic and that your PROD is based not on notability, but on the current state and sourcing of the article (sorry to be blunt but "does not provide enough information to be notable" is downright nonsense because what does or does not provide enough information is the Wikipedia article, and what is notable or not notable is the topic of the article, and obviously the article and its topic are two different things). It is therefore absolutely baseless. Furthermore, it is totally counter-productive as the PROD tag may lead the creator of the article to stop working on it, resulting in the article staying in the same undeveloped state. In some cases, it may be against WP:DONTBITE.

Further, for BLPPROD tags, putting a BLPPROD tag on an article that is obviously under construction is at best useless, at worst bullying behavior that has no place in a collaborative project. Once again, it may fall under WP:DONTBITE.

I would suggest you wait for at the very least a couple of hours after it was last edited before you PROD or BLPPROD-tag a newly-created article. Thanks and regards, Biwom (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Biwom - I will consider your comments, but on first thinking I respectfully disagree. I will consider your comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And the same goes for this hasty A7 tagging, only 3 minutes after creation. Adam9007 (talk) 03:54, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Melania Trump

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Melania Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need help

[edit]

For some months I have been working on a Draft for Bond 25 called Draft:Bond 25. It looks reasonable so far with citations backing up what I type on it. Things with it have been fine until just now when it kept telling me to revert a previous edit I've done for the draft to what I've done before I added a bit more content on there. I tried clicking on every link, 'restore version', 'rollback (ATF)', 'rollback' or 'rollback VANDAL' which didn't make these links go away. I feel like I'm going around in circles trying to solve the issue and revert the draft to its previous state. Can you please help me so I could continue to edit the draft without seeing the links.

The links can be seen when going to the draft by clicking view history then clicking prev on the latest edit.

Thanks --Mi600740 (talk) 02:05, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

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

TonyBallioni (talk) 02:54, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Robert. I just saw this when I clicked my contributions to go back to another page. No idea what happened. I tried to mark it as reviewed myself. Must have clicked right after you or something. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:TonyBallioni - Easy to understand. Edit conflict. The same box on the curation tool either reviews or unreviews. I am surprised that doesn't happen more often. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:06, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. With 15,000 pages to pick from though, it lowers the chances :) TonyBallioni (talk) 03:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

citing you

[edit]

that thing i cited is probably the comment about my editing that made me the most happy, ever, especially with regard to the self-reflectiveness in it. Jytdog (talk) 06:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Photograph licence

[edit]

15 February 2017. Hi Robert. Regarding the photo of Oliver Harrison. A Wikipedia licence agreement by the photographer Richard Townshend was sent directly by him to: [email protected]. a couple of days ago. I can provide a copy of the email (he sent a copy to me) if you would like to see it? Regards N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Underground Art (talk • contribs) 12:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC) (Underground Art (talk) 12:37, 15 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

User:Underground Art - I have no concerns about the photograph of Oliver Harrison or the article about him. I tagged the article for deletion as an unsourced biography of a living person. It now has sources. If there is an issue about copyright on the photograph, please address that with whoever raised the issue about copyright on the photograph. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have messaged the person who brought up the query. Regards N (Underground Art (talk) 19:46, 15 February 2017 (UTC))[reply]

Stop hand

[edit]

That's from the top of the articles talk page. Context. Doug Weller talk 06:21, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

AFD: Sui Love

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I see that you commented on the Secret Fairy Wish Dance deletion discussion. You might also have an opinion on a similar article, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sui Love. --Slashme (talk) 11:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Slashme - Please do not ask other editors to participate in deletion discussions. It is canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:17, 16 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User talk:ShubhBank

[edit]

A tag has been placed on your user page, User talk:ShubhBank, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to be blatant advertising which only promotes or publicises a company, product, group or service, and which is a violation of our policies regarding acceptable use of user pages; user pages are intended for active editors of Wikipedia to communicate with one another as part of the process of creating encyclopedic content, and should not be mistaken for free webhosting resources. Please read the guidelines on spam, the guidelines on user pages, and, especially, our FAQ for Organizations.

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. O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 07:35, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - Bizarre. It gave me the speedy warning. I had made the first entry on the user talk page, a speedy deletion notice, and was therefore seen as the creator of the user talk page. Then the user put another spam message on the user talk page itself, and you tagged the talk page for speedy deletion as G11, so it notified me of your G11 nomination. Anyway the real offending user has been blocked as a spammer, and this just illustrates the occasional oddities of Twinkle, which is nonetheless a very useful tool. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:01, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
we'll get you G11'd of of these days! :p Sorry about that Robert- there's a note on my talk page from admin about that very same thing. Apologies! O Fortuna!...Imperatrix mundi. 09:07, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi - No apology required. We were both tagging crud that needed tagging. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:12, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review a page

[edit]

Hello,I just created a page called Joel Orleans amponsah and will like you to review it.. ThanksEddypep (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:52, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Henrico

[edit]

Sorry, I thought I did an "undo". I try to treat these as individual cases. Deb (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Civility Barnstar
For your incredible contributions to the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, I award you another Civility Barnstar. Wear it with pride next to your other three. MereTechnicality ⚙ 20:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Gujarati Article for Raja Dahir.

[edit]

Give other contributors some time. I just started creating the article. I will add all the relevant details and links as I progress. I meant to create a page in "Gujarati" wikipedia. Before jumping to conclusion and suggesting deletion, try to communicate with fellow wiki contributors. J J Parikh 05:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

User:Parikhjigish - It appears that the article that you are referring to is not in English. This is the English Wikipedia, and there is no need for reviewers to wait before tagging an article that is not in English. Also, if you wish to contest a deletion tagging, there are procedures for contesting a tagging, but articles should be in English. If you are referring to a different article, please name it with a link. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:49, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


You can take this article off English wiki. I learned how to create article for Gujarati wiki.J J Parikh 05:56, 19 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Parikhjigish (talk • contribs)

New Page Review-Patrolling: Coordinator elections

[edit]

Your last chance to nominate yourself or any New Page Reviewer, See Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Coordination. Elections begin Monday 20 February 23:59 UTC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:31:58, 19 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by RolandKluge

[edit]


Help on making Draft:eMoflon more neutral Dear Mr. McClenon, Thank you very much for the time that you invested to reviewer my article! I was very sad to see that my article was rejected again, especially because my tone appears to be inappropriate (compared to my previous submission).

Even after re-reading the article, I cannot figure out, which passages should be reworked or omitted. The references that I provided are all from peer-revieweded conferences, workshops, or journals. It appeared to me that this should suffice to show the notability of eMoflon as requested by the previous reviewer (User:Smmurphy).

Do you have concrete hints for me, which passages to rework, omit, or extend?

My inspiration for writing this article was the VIATRA tool, whose articles appears to lack any references. In how far does my tone deviate from GrGen's article? Their tone appears to be bold, appropriately, to my mind.

I would appreciate your help very much!

Best, Roland

RolandKluge (talk) 08:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr. McClenon, could you confirm that you read my message? I recognized that you answered posts that were added later to your talk page, already. RolandKluge (talk) 19:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hostile environment in dispute resolution

[edit]

I'm presented with a situation in the current dispute resolution where I feel that I am being baited into responding when I would prefer not to in order to defend myself from various accusations. It would really help to have a moderator shut this discussion down as soon as possible so we can get on with the issue at hand. I'm going to stop responding now to any further off-topic messages there (even if more accusations are levelled at me) in the interest of ending the back-and-forth cycle—but I want it on the record that this in no way means I have nothing to say about these accusations or the behaviour of the person stating them. —Firespeaker (talk) 01:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Firespeaker - I hope that I have taken care of that. That justifies my sometimes controversial rule that some moderators don't use that there is to be no back-and-forth discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, enforcement of that rule is indeed helpful here, thank you. I realised I was in violation of the rule when I let myself get baited into responding, and regret letting myself get into a back-and-forth. It won't happen again. —Firespeaker (talk) 03:46, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have unreviewed a page you curated

[edit]

Thanks for reviewing Jasminum andamanicum, Robert McClenon.

Unfortunately Adam9007 has just gone over this page again and unreviewed it. Their note is:

Hasty A1 tagging.

To reply, leave a comment on Adam9007's talk page.

Adam9007 (talk) 04:33, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:09:46, 21 February 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by FelixundStein

[edit]


Dear Robert,

I hope you are well. Thank you very much for providing comments on a first version of my draft article. I have since amended it and sent it off for review again. I really appreciate you support.

Kind wishes,

Felix

FelixundStein (talk) 13:09, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:FelixundStein - I see that you have moved the references. As I explain, I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I am not planning to follow a draft that will be subject to ArbCom discretionary sanctions as American politics. I think that I dislike Mr. Trump and his hangers-on as much as you do, and I can't be neutral. However, Wikipedia takes a neutral point of view. You may wait for a reviewer to review your draft, which may take a few weeks. You can ask for help at the Teahouse, and you just might be able to get a reviewer who isn't an American, and so isn't either in favor or or against Mr. Trump, but I don't know how well that will work. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review - newsletter No.3

[edit]
Hello Robert McClenon,

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Still a MASSIVE backlog

We now have 805 New Page Reviewers but despite numerous appeals for help, the backlog has NOT been significantly reduced.
If you asked for the New Page Reviewer right, please consider investing a bit of time - every little helps preventing spam and trash entering the mainspace and Google when the 'NO_INDEX' tags expire.

Discuss this newsletter here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:35, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC

[edit]

Voting for coordinators has now begun HERE and will continue through/to 23:59 UTC Monday 06 March. The coordinators will do their best for for the advancement of the improvement of NPP and AfC and generally keep tracks on the development of those things. Coordinators have no additional or special user benefits, but they will be 'go to' people and will try to keep discussions in the right places. This very much involves this project too, especially with growing renewed interest around the site about what WP:ACTRIAL was all about.

Please be sure to vote. Any registered, confirmed editor can vote. Nominations are now closed.

Discuss this message here. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from this list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request to review a page

[edit]

Hi, I created a page called Joel Orleans Amponsah and a tag was place on it to add more links which i have done.I will like you to please review it for me and notify me for any error.... ThanksEddypep (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eddypep - Is the page in question Joel Orleans Amponsah? What are you asking me to review? I don't see a tag on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Eddypep - I see that a tag was placed on the page, and that you removed the tag, but did not address the issue that was identified in the tag. Please don't remove tags without at least discussing them. That leads to edit-warring by the addition and removal of tags. Discuss it with the tagging reviewer, or ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:11, 22 February

2017 (UTC)

thanks for the advice,it won't happen again. Anyway, the tag stated that I should improve the article by adding more links,which I did.. So I will like you to please review it.. Eddypep (talk) 07:04, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

05:26:25, 22 February 2017 review of submission by 2016worldc

[edit]


]]

Hi,reviewer! I am writing about the article of The Nod. There is some questions about putting some cover art pictures of The Nod.What is the reason to edited all of his cover art pictures? Can you advise me how to put pictures in right ways?

Korean's news paper links

https://search.naver.com/search.naver?sm=tab_sug.top&where=nexearch&oquery=the+nod&acq=%EB%8D%94+%EB%85%B8%EB%93%9C&acr=1&qdt=0&ie=utf8&query=%EB%8D%94+%EB%85%B8%EB%93%9C

http://www.wikitree.co.kr/main/news_view.php?id=291332

Official Sony Music Korea Blog http://blog.naver.com/sonymusic2/220800273599

Best Regards

Han User:2016worldc - If you want advice on how to add images, you may ask for help at the Teahouse. I declined your draft because it has no references. If you need advice on adding references, you may ask for help at the Teahouse. Adding images is not necessary to get your draft accepted, but adding references is necessary. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

15:56:50, 23 February 2017 review of submission by Nishantsah

[edit]


Hello. My page Draft:Gaur_gopal_das was refused to be published. I have made some small edits. I have only a little experience making new pages. Please let me know what changes can be made to improve this one further. Thank you :)

User:Nishantsah - The page is still not neutral and appears to be written to praise its subject rather than to describe him. If you want the advice of other experienced editors, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Hi Robert

Thank you for your input into the article on Peter Mylonas. I'd really like to make the amendments you suggested but could you please be a little more specific as to which parts you find to use "peacock language"? I'm struggling to see this as I've read similar articles on other martial artists like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mas_Oyama, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Starling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoshiji_Soeno. I would appreciate any feedback. Again, thank you for your input. HoundDog17 (talk) 22:03, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois Budget Impasse

[edit]

Hi, do you know if there's any more feedback for my article? I put in a lead paragraph and am eager to get it published soon! Thanks! -Mrpastry909

Sailfish smartwatch speedy deletion during I am still editting the article is unwise, so to say

[edit]

Hi, you have placed speedy deletion while I was still yet editing just new started article and BEFORE its was even finished. That is not fair IMHO, under construction template was set. Any deletion request BEFORE any new article is in anyhow more or less but "finished" state is just disturbing in editing article and get ppl angry. And against kindness IMHO. You have right to set deletion but only after, not while I am writing in wiki editor. Be serious: I am writing something, haven't finished even 10% and you set speedy deletion , so I should ask for semi-protection? Respect my work and time please. Ocexyz (talk) 10:01, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Indexing of new page

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I created a page for Data Ladder, but I've noticed it hasn't been indexed by the search engines yet. In my experience the pages I created have been indexed pretty quickly by Google, so just needed some clarification on this. Thank you! BioWriter818 (talk) 18:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)BioWriter818[reply]

User:BioWriter818 - The page in question appears to be Data Ladder. I would prefer not to be asked a question about why a page, of which a previous version was speedy-deleted as advertising, has not yet been indexed by search engines. Are you affiliated with the company and seeking to have the article available for search engines? If so, please make the conflict of interest declaration. One possible reason is that the page may not yet have been reviewed by New Page Patrol, the volunteers, including myself, whose mission is to keep Wikipedia free of crud, and crud includes advertising. I would prefer not to be asked the question that you asked. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:BioWriter818 - Your page has not yet been reviewed. My guess is that those reviewers who have reviewed it have been uncertain about whether it should be kept or should be deleted again, and so have neither marked it as reviewed nor tagged it for deletion. That is also what I have done this time around. Do you have an affiliation with the company? In any case, it appears that other reviewers share my uncertainty as to whether to accept the page or delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

04:45:09, 28 February 2017 review of submission by Rimib1215

[edit]


Requesting a re-review as I have added citations and links to the article. Please advise if there are specific areas that need to be worked on. Thanks!

User:Rimib1215 - First, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. However, second, I have reviewed the revised draft. The specific problems include that the references are inconsistently formatted, and the draft contains peacock language. The more general problems are that the draft is an autobiography, which Wikipedia discourages, and that I am not persuaded that the subject of the article is notable, and no amount of work will overcome a lack of notability. If you want further advice, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viola group ‎( needs more third-party references to be ready for article space)

[edit]

Hi Robert, I would like to resolve this issue, but i am not sure what needs to be done- would it be possible to elaborate? I would highly appreciate your help, Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orlysetv (talk • contribs) 10:44, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orlysetv - Third-party references are independent references to reliable sources not associated with the company, such as major newspapers, or business magazines. The company's own web site and press releases are not independent. If you have more questions, I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rule on 'back-and-forth discussion'

[edit]

Hi I wanted to ask about the rule you stated for the Planet of the Apes DRN - Third statement by moderator "I see that one of the rules in the statement of rules has been disregarded. However, the resulting exchange has been useful. I said not to engage in back-and-forth discussion, and there has been back-and-forth discussion" -- I suppose this is about repeating the same arguments.. which is a common occurrence. Where can I read more about these rules? I can't find it. Thanks. Shiok (talk) 11:37, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shiok - That isn't a general rule. That is a rule that in a list of rules that I use when I am the moderator. They are at User:Robert McClenon/Mediation rules. It is true that repeating the same arguments isn't useful, but I am not aware either of a general rule about that. However, the mediation policy says that a mediator is in charge and can specify the details of how the mediated discussion is conducted, and I don't allow back-and-forth discussion when I am the mediator or moderator, because I find that it repeats the same arguments. That rule isn't in effect if someone else is mediating, unless they have a similar rule. Is that an answer? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes certainly, although I see that you meant 'back-and-forth discussions' to be - 'do not reply to the comments of other editors', instead of repetitive arguments per se. I guess it's easy for many to deviate from the rules in the heat of dispute. May I suggest that the reference to the FAQ page can be made more prominent? because I missed it the first time around. Thanks for clarifying. Shiok (talk) 01:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:39:45, 1 March 2017 review of submission by Karenbosborn

[edit]


Hi Robert! I finally found someone else that can work on this project. How do I add them to be an editor of the page or should I just tranfer ownership of the page to him?

His name is Joe Paul.

Karen Osborn [redacted]

User:Karenosborn - That draft is in draft space, and pages in draft space don't have an owner, and belong to the whole community. Anyone can edit a page in draft space. (By the way, please read the article ownership policy, which says that articles don't have owners.) Just ask him to edit the page. That is all that needs to be done. Anyone can edit a page in draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BagelFox

[edit]

The Article Talk — Preceding unsigned comment added by BagelFox (talk • contribs) 03:06, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:BagelFox - What do you mean? The article is Coolpad Catalyst. You haven't provided a complete sentence either here or there. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

What to do about editor who appears to be making COI edits?

[edit]

I see a brand new editor creating a bunch of articles about a line of new products from I believe are from just one company. This suggests to me a potential COI. But I am afraid to report it.

I ask you because I think you might have seen one of those articles. I am very cautious to raise any COI concerns, because it seems to me that our policies are designed to make raising COI concerns nearly impossible and to punish anyone for even suggesting COI editing. Consider: Wikipedia:Don't cry COI.

I also noticed this comment. I have been meaning talk to you about that as well.

--David Tornheim (talk) 14:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: I will take a look if you want me to. Email me if that makes you more comfortable. --NeilN talk to me 14:48, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@NeilN:Thanks. I will email you. I'm just going to send the editor's name and the kinds of products. --David Tornheim (talk) 14:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:David Tornheim, User:NeilN - Well, that essay that you cited above is an essay, not even a guideline, and I partly agree and partly disagree. My own approach with editors who appear to be paid editors or conflict of interest editors is usually to ask them, usually on their talk page, whether they have an affiliation, and, if so, please declare it. Usually I get no answer. Sometimes they disappear. (If they really were newbies, then one can argue that I bit them, but I have my own opinion on WP:BITE. While I think that it is in principle a good idea, I personally think that, partly because it has achieved the status of a commandment, it actually does more harm than good, because I think that new paid editors need to be bitten. If they really were paid editors, they probably changed user name.) That is my approach, to ask them. If they answer that they have an interest, okay. If they answer that they don't, invite them to contribute to Wikipedia by editing the five million articles that we already have, rather than trying to add one that we don't have. If they don't answer and continue COI editing, they can be reported at WP:COIN, but it seldom gets that far, in my experience. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Thanks for the advice. I will get back to you on this comment, in a separate section later. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:04, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Another question--new editor: What if editing while logged out?

[edit]

If it appears an editor has accidentally edited while logged out, what is the proper thing to do? I know that sometimes there can be issues of accidental outing. I think I saw a newbie editor do that. --David Tornheim (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:David Tornheim - I normally ignore editing logged out unless there is a reason to address it. It occurs to me that one thing to do that completely avoids outing is to ask the IP whether they have a registered account. I don't really want to give much advice on that subject because I am in a (possibly large) minority who believe that editing logged out should be greatly restricted. (Also, I have found that long-time unregistered editors are often arrogant in insisting that they value their privacy, and that some of them know beyond knowledge that they protect their privacy better that way than with pseudonyms. Never mind that they are factually wrong, but some people know some things beyond knowledge.) Anyway, it is often just as well to ignore the editing logged out. (Doing a non-admin close of an RFC is a different matter, but that isn't what you asked about.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page watcher) If I think it's accidental I usually shoot them an email asking if the IP was them and if they want suppression/revdel. --NeilN talk to me 22:46, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:NeilN - That is, of course, if they have enabled email, which is one of the uses for enabling email. Also, User:David Tornheim, that is an administrative function, available to NeilN, and not to you or me (unless one of us runs for admin and is elected). Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"That" refers to revdel. Anyone can email another editor provided, as Robert says, they have email enabled, and give them a heads up. It's a pretty collegial thing to do, IMO. --NeilN talk to me 22:57, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's sort of what I figured. I'll refer them to you NeilN--if that's okay--if I see it and email it. I imagine other admins would probably do the same if requested. --David Tornheim (talk) 00:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. --NeilN talk to me 00:05, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:George Wylde

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:George Wylde. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to go for assistance

[edit]

Hello, Robert McClenon! I am currently having an issue right now on the Hindu article and I am unsure how to proceed from here. I recently added an infobox to the top of the article page that lists "Total population," "Regions with significant populations," "Religions," and "Languages" for Hindus around the world. This infobox's format is identical to the format already in use on the page for Christians, Jews, and Muslims. However, one user (Ms Sarah Welch) kept reverting that addition. We then proceeded to have a lengthy discussion on the talk page for that article (which you can read here). He/she originally claimed the information for the infobox was unsourced, which is untrue seeing as I cited this 2015 Pew Research study in the infobox itself for where the data came from. Ms Sarah Welch then claimed using Pew Research's data was POV-pushing, which it wasn't because Pew Research is a reliable, non-partisan organization. Statistics from Pew Research were also used on the pages for Christians, Muslims and Jews so this isn't some random source that I chose to push an agenda. After almost a day, Ms Sarah Welch has refused to accept that Pew Research is a reliable, non-partisan organization and keeps saying I am "prejudiced," "ignorant" and POV-pushing for using "dated and inaccurate data." Both of these claims are untrue as there is already a map on the exact same article page that uses Pew Research data. So, this source already in use with community consensus. Obviously, it's not "dated and inaccurate data" if the exact same data already being used in the exact same article with no issue. I have explained all of this to this user but I am not sure how to move on from here because it doesn't appear like the message is being received. I posted on the "third opinion" dispute resolution to get a more neutral voice on the matter, but so far only one other person has chimed in on this issue and they sided with me saying that "Using the Pew figures is also fine" but this did not convince Ms Sarah Welch. Should I report this user? Should I file a report for edit-warring? Or is there a more productive way to proceed with this? If you could advise me here, I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you. Kamalthebest (talk) 22:29, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kamalthebest - I have looked over the dispute briefly. Is the issue one of whether to include the infobox or not include it at all, or is it a matter of whether the numbers in the infobox are the best available numbers? It appears that she has been deleting the infobox because she has questions about the numbers in it and whether there is original research. If so, are there other numbers that she would prefer? I don't want to get into a lengthy discussion here about the infobox itself, because that should be discussed on the article talk page. As to what to do next, first, I see no reason to report the user; you will probably be told to discuss on the article talk page, but if you report her, you may also be cautioned for being too quick to report rather than discuss. Second, a third opinion is not in order, because another editor has already offered a third opinion. You could file a request for moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Another possibility would be a Request for Comments, and that is also what will happen if moderated discussion is unsuccessful. My thought is to try to discuss further for another 24 hours, and if that does not result in a compromise, I would suggest a Request for Comments unless either of the other editors suggests DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, you don't need to refer to User:Ms Sarah Welch as 'He/she' when her gender should be even more apparent than mine. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:01, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: The issue is whether to include the infobox at all, because the data is certainly not OR. Like I stated, the data came from this 2015 Pew Research study that was cited. This data is already being used on the pages for Christians, Jews, and Muslims, and this map on the exact same article page with no issue so it is reliable. There is no better source that documents the Hindu population of every county as a raw number, rather than a percentage. The only alternative would be to use multiply percentage values for religions from various censuses by total populations, which is a less accurate way than directly going to the raw number of Hindus in a country. Also, using data from different sources would make comparison between population numbers less meaningful because different sources can come to different conclusions. But regarding the third opinion, since a third opinion has been offered so would that be enough to move forward and make the appropriate edits? I will make the Request for Comments just in case too, but doesn't the third opinion settle the debate? Kamalthebest (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Kamalthebest - A third opinion doesn't settle a debate. It is only another opinion. Sometimes the editors who requested it accept it, and sometimes the one with whom the third opinion didn't agree ignores it, or even argues with the third opinion editor. The only form of dispute resolution that really "settles the debate" is a Request for Comments, which establishes consensus. Disregarding the consensus established by a Request for Comments is normally considered disruptive editing. So is edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, that makes sense. Thank you. Kamalthebest (talk) 01:40, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viola group ‎( needs more third-party references to be ready for article space)

[edit]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the need for more external third party sources- " I suggest that you find third-party references, not just internal references and press releases". The issue is that the internal links are to Viola's portfolio companies' Wikipedia pages ( which i assumed you would prefer rather than linking to their websites- correct me if I am mistaken) and in the "Exits" section ALL links are to very reputable third party references. The only company link in this whole page is under The "company website" section- which i assume should lead to Viola Group's website. Would highly appreciate your additional input/clarification regarding this issue as I am still unsure how I have failed to comply with your feedback. I am really hoping to get it right!Orlysetv (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC) Thanks Orlysetv (talk) 07:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:35:46, 5 March 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Carolgriffiths5

[edit]


Dear Robert

I submitted an item on Diane Larsen-Freeman in December. You returned it requestion more references, and also a more neutral tone, which we provided and returned it to you. But it is still not available on Wikipedia, neither has there been any further correspondence about it that I am aware of. Since Diane is a major figure in the Applied Linguistics field, it would be nice to have her listed. Would you please be able to get back to me with information. [redacted]. Many thanks, Carol


Carolgriffiths5 (talk) 14:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolgriffiths5 - You say that you added references, but it appears that you only added her own books. You then resubmitted the draft, and it was declined again in December, and it is currently an unsubmitted draft, still waiting for someone to add third-party references and otherwise establish her academic notability. Please add third-party references. I may reply at more length later, but this is what needs to be done. If you have further questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:32, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: I gave the user some advice on how to improve the references, on the talk page here: Draft_talk:Diane_Larsen-Freeman. P.S. if you prefer I not ping you on your talk page when addressing you, please let me know. --David Tornheim (talk) 20:19, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

06:31:41, 7 March 2017 review of submission by 2016worldc

[edit]



Hi,reviewer! We are reporting that the article about The Nod has to be removed or deleted for the time being. The decision we have came up with is that the new album is coming out soon which means all those details for The Nod have to be rewriting. We have appreciated that you have done for us. Please removed this article of The Nod! New details of The Nod will be coming up soon then. Many Thanks All the best Team The Nod

User:2016worldc - Who is 'we'? Does this account belong to one person, or to a team? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why not revise the draft rather than deleting it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:2016worldc - I declined the draft about four weeks ago because it had no references. Now it has one reference, but that appears to be to the Korean Wikipedia, which, like the English Wikipedia, is not a valid reference. I see that the draft has been resubmitted, but I am about to decline it again because it has no valid independent references. Once again, is your account for a person or for a team? Also, does your account have a connection with the subject of the article? If so, you must declare it under the conflict of interest guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

]


Diane Larsen-Freeman

[edit]

Dear Robert

Just wondering about the article on Diane Larsen-Freeman. Are you able to give me some idea of progress, or if I need to so anything else

Many thanks, Carol [email protected]

Carolgriffiths5 (talk) 17:04, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carolgriffiths5 - It isn't clear why you are asking me about progress. I declined the draft in December as not having references. It appears that you resubmitted it without adding references, and it was declined again. Why are you asking me about progress, when it is the job of the submitter of a draft to make the progress? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You added her books as the references. You need to add third-party references. See academic notability guidelines. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Louis A. Perrotta M.D.

[edit]

Thank you for accepting my article. You are the best. I am so grateful. Many Thanks!!!!!--Mgenzac (talk) 14:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mgenzac - I had my reason. I saw a lot of comments. They appeared not to be comments about the draft, but about the man. Discussion about how significant his work was is controversy about his importance, which is, in my view, its own notability. The article should survive a nomination for deletion, which I don't expect, and that is the standard to which drafts should be held. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 9 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Worrying creation of articles

[edit]

I am very worried that Figfires has created a slew of spurious articles. He has taken the names of 'ancestor figures' from Anglo-Saxon dynastic family trees and created articles on them as if they were: a) historical, which many were demonstrably not, e.g Woden, and b) that these legendary figures were somehow kings of the Anglo-Saxons. Quite obviously the ancestors of the alleged founders of kingdoms could not have been kings of these kingdoms themselves. Also the first use of the term 'Anglo-Saxon', and 'English' for that matter, dates to around the time of Bede (672/3 – 735AD), whereas all the ancestral figures would have lived, if they existed, before 500AD. Figfires seems to have escaped scrutiny by using the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as a reference, however, the chronicle only refers to these figures as ancestors of certain kings, it makes no assertion that they were rulers themselves, or where they might have ruled. I do not usually have any contact with Wikipedia due process, so do not know where to raise this matter officially. Urselius (talk) 14:53, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Urselius, User:Figfires - There is discussion on the talk page of Figfires, User talk:Figfires. For comparison, I created two articles on British Isles ancestor figures that have not been questioned, at Bile (Irish legend) and Clothru. It appears that the figures that he is referring to are legend was since been codified as history when historians were more accepting than they are now. I know that both the Anglo-Saxon line and the Irish line go all the way back to Japheth and from there to Adam. That doesn't make them historical. It does make them notable, but they should not be presented as fact. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem about articles being created about some or all of these figures as the mythical or semi-mythical ancestors of various Anglo-Saxon royal lineages, the problem is that they are being presented as historical rulers, and specifically Anglo-Saxon rulers. The term 'Anglo-Saxon', and indeed 'English', was not used much before the age of Bede (c. 700AD). Neither did the cultural concept of ethnicity that these terms indicate exist before this time. Therefore, the concept of a person living before c. 500AD being an Anglo-Saxon ruler is just wrong. Urselius (talk) 21:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Chibson

[edit]

"Chibson" is actually a real term, not made-up, for fake Chinese copies of Gibson guitars.

That's not to say it's notable; just, it's not "made up". 86.20.193.222 (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Viola References

[edit]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your feedback regarding the need for more external third party sources- " I suggest that you find third-party references, not just internal references and press releases". The issue is that the internal links are to Viola's portfolio companies' Wikipedia pages ( which i assumed you would prefer rather than linking to their websites- correct me if I am mistaken) and in the "Exits" section ALL links are to very reputable third party references. The only company link in this whole page is under The "company website" section- which i assume should lead to Viola Group's website. Would highly appreciate your additional input/clarification regarding this issue as I am still unsure how I have failed to comply with your feedback. I am really hoping to get it right!Thanks! Orlysetv (talk) 10:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Orlysetv - I am not entirely sure that I understand the issue. What are you saying about the portfolio companies? Wikipedia may not be used as a reference. What is the "Exits" section? If you need more advice, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And another

[edit]

Schannel (YouTube channel) - Another infobox only article created by an obvious COI sock, just in case you're keeping a stash of these to try again with the CSD criteria at some point. TimothyJosephWood 20:20, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Brilliant Idea Barnstar
Thank you so much dear Robert_McClenon. Sorry I was not aware of this. I am an Indian Govt certified trainer for Ministry of MSME. Rajiv Chand (talk) 22:09, 15 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN notification re Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Ali Watkins discussion

[edit]

TIA for your help. Is Thucydides411 the other editor I should notify? That might be helpful as Thucydides411 had remarked on the use of UNDUE as an objection. Humanengr (talk) 14:05, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Singapore DRN thread

[edit]

Hi Robert. I just wanted to drop you a note to let you know that I've offered at DRN to mediate the dispute on the article talk page, rather than at DRN. While it looks somewhat straightforward, experience tells me that it might need a more active approach through mediation, rather than just moderating the discussion, and this particular case tickles my fancy, so I've offered to mediate it going forward, off DRN. Hope you're well. Steven Crossin 22:56, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to AN discussion

[edit]

Hello. Would you come to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Victuallers and User:Sander.v.Ginkel - questions for comment. --George Ho (talk) 04:36, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sebastian Gorka. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

NITRONIC

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitronic is not a promotion or advert. I could see how Twinkle could mistake it, but I tried to be upfront with the COI statement. It is not finished, it's late and I needed to save. Contributor1972 (talk) 05:16, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Contributor1972 - A COI statement in the first person should not be in the article. It can be on its talk page. Do not put unfinished articles in article space. I am aware that COI editors always say that a promotional article is not a promotion or advert but information; that doesn't change the fact that the decision as to what is permitted and what is not permitted is made by neutral editors, not by COI editors. The mere fact that your COI statement is in the article is COI enough. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. The COI statement indicated my involvement with the trade name, but I am not benefitting directly through pay or the links. I know the companies linked through my day to day business, thy have not asked for the article or the referenced links. I was not aware that the COI declaration in the article (which has been moved to the Talk page) would be an issue.
It is still not complete (is anything ever really complete), but now has references for the information on the page. If it needs notability I will need more time for documentation. A copy is saved in my sandbox if it is actually deleted.Contributor1972 (talk) 15:41, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

General information for new editors is available at the Teahouse. As to the COI statement, notice that there is never any first-person singular or first-person plural in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is written always only in the third person. I, for one (and I am using the first person singular on my talk page), will tag anything haviis ng the first person as G11. If the page isn't finished, in the sense that it isn't ready to survive speedy deletion tagging or a deletion discussion, it should be moved to draft space. Do you want it moved to draft space and the G11 tag deleted? I will leave the G11 tag on it if it stays in article space. In my view, it is promotional as it stands because it reads like a spec sheet, and doesn't have enough information as to why the products are notable. Do you want it moved to draft space, or do you simply plan to contest the speedy deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:53, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have a copy saved. I spent way too many hours on it today creating tables and referencing where that little information came from. Maybe make it a stub of AK_Steel? Not sure what else to do at this point. Contributor1972 (talk) 16:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Contributor1972 - Two points. First, Twinkle is just a set of tools. Twinkle doesn't decide whether to tag an article for speedy deletion. A reviewer does. Second, I see that you added <TM> labels to the article. Trademark symbols are never used in Wikipedia. As a reviewer, if I see TM or R symbols in an article, they are in themselves usually reason enough for me to tag it for G11. In your case, I am just leaving the article tagged, and will let an administrator decide whether to delete it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing recent edits. I'll remove the offensive, but seemingly appropriate <TM>'s. I appreciate all the feedback and I have another question.
What does the Category: Named alloys contain? Is it a category that should be removed? Contributor1972 (talk) 17:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Contributor1972 - I am not an expert on categories. Ask questions about categories at the Teahouse. Removing the symbols won't, in itself, make it non-promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon, when you have a moment, please take another look at the article. I think that it is acceptable now. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 01:28, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User page noticed

[edit]

Wanted to drop a line, I 'borrowed' some of your templates and such for my user page. Seems we actually have some things in common. Anyways, I do appreciate the help - even if I was a bit of a rebel when you found me. I think I've got a better sense of how this works now (sandbox it first & don't disclose what isn't there). Cheers! Contributor1972 (talk) 04:07, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk question

[edit]

I'm just dropping you a line to see if you managed to take care of the issue you asked about at the ref desk. Just curious (and hoping for good news) is all. I watchlisted, so you can just reply here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:31, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MjolnirPants - I assume you mean the CryptoLocker malware. My desktop machine is in the shop. The first person I talked to said that I would have to re-install Windows and re-install all of the applications. The second person said that they can remove CryptoLocker, leaving the applications as is, and can sometimes decrypt the files, and sometimes not decrypt them. I took it to the second, which is the repair team at an office equipment vendor. I am expecting an update call today or tomorrow. I took a complete backup of all of my files at the end of January, so I have them even if the decryption fails. I also have a laptop, and am using the laptop now. So I don't yet know if it is good news or sort of good news. That is, getting the system and applications restored is sort of good news. Getting the files decrypted would be good news. I wouldn't say very good news, only because the whole problem is bad news. Anyway, it is now astronomical spring in the Northern Hemisphere. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm glad you found someone who might be able to decrypt the files. Like I said, with enough reference material you can decrypt anything, so hopefully the tech will be able to get you back to where you were before you caught the malware. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MjolnirPants - Well, I didn't research your posting in detail, but I think that I disagree that you can decrypt anything in finite time. You can decrypt anything in infinite time, but that is theoretical. As to what happens in infinite time, I am more inclined to look to religion than science. We shall see. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:16, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You left out my caveat: "with enough reference material..." It's a very important caveat to what I'm saying. Absent it, I would agree wholeheartedly with you. Of course, by "reference material" I mean "verifiable plaintext". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:03, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MjolnirPants - The technician hasn't asked me for the January backup. The January full backup would be enough plaintext to reverse-engineer the encryption. I didn't understand that by "reference material", you meant the plaintext. Yes, 6Gb of plaintext should be enough for any known encryption technique. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
He may not ever need it. The last bit of ransomware I had to deal with personally had numerous vulnerabilities that allowed me to crack the encryption (and even extract and publish the key) fairly quickly. Bear in mind that I'm not a cyber security expert, either. I do desktop and extension application development and integrated systems. But there's a lot of information out there on flawed ransomware, and google knows where it all is. I've got my fingers crossed that you haven't lost a month of data. Good luck! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:MjolnirPants - I have the computer back. The malware has been removed. I don't have the February files decrypted. I think that I have enough files with both the encrypted version and the plaintext that it should be possible to reverse-engineer the key by brute force. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm quite happy to hear that! I'd offer to help you out with that, but I'm sure you don't want to share personal data with some random Wikipedian, and just to reiterate: I'm not a cybersecurity expert by any means. I know just enough to shoot off my own foot only one time in ten or so. I've done it before (decrypting data and shooting myself in the metaphorical foot, but specifically the former), but you'd most certainly get better and faster results from someone who was an expert. There are plenty of them out there.
To be perfectly honest, there's a slight chance your files were hashed and salted, which brings the possibility of decrypting them back to the "theoretical", but the vast majority of cryptolockers I'm aware of don't do this for obvious reasons: after the first victim paid them off and spread word that their files were not decrypted, subsequent victims would be much more likely to write off their data as a loss. I just want to be sure I'm not giving you the impression that recovery is guaranteed, but I am pretty well convinced that it's very likely. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:20, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

early childhood trauma

[edit]

hi, would you be so kind as to have a look at the revised draft for early childhood trauma? They've done a lot of work and got rejected again, my concern is that it has been a hasty decision, and the article is fine as a stub (and quite NPOV now). I've used the previous version as an example in my Slate op-ed about our unfriendly approach to newcomers, the current version is much better and still got rejected - I believe it is quite unreasonable to deter people this way. Pundit|utter 17:54, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pundit - I am not exactly sure what you are asking me, but I will comment. First, I haven't read your op-ed piece, but, based on the title, the issue doesn't have to do with very short articles. The original article that I declined was long, and the current, recently declined version is not "very short" by any test. Second, it really appears that you may have a slightly different concept of Wikipedia than it has always had of itself. Please read again the neutral point of view policy, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Many new editors, like you, don't entirely understand just how stringent NPOV is. It is easy enough, when writing about things that no one can be against (or that no one can be in favor of), to fail to see that something departs from neutral point of view. The draft, as written, is basically in favor of policies, programs, and actions to support childhood resilience. So are we all, but we don't express opinions, even non-controversial opinions, in the voice of Wikipedia. Third, if your basic message is that Wikipedia is too unfriendly to newcomers, then you have come to the wrong editor to express your view, because I am in a minority who believe that Wikipedia goes too far to try to be friendly to newcomers, both to those who have a special vested interest and those who are simply clueless. Since you have an opinion that is likely to be of interest to many existing editors, with which I strongly disagree, I suggest that you ask other experienced editors for their comments in a public forum such as the Teahouse or Village Pump (policy. We can continue this discussion, but, as I said, I think that you have come to the wrong experienced editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Your calling me a "new editor" made me chuckle. Given that I've served different roles (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser, steward, ombudsman, etc) and have edited wiki for over a decade, I've assumed I have lost my newcomer badge a while ago and that I have a reasonably good NPOV understanding. Thank you, that's refreshing to feel a greenhorn again! Now seriously. Taking your approach literally would require an article about homeopathy to state that there are different views and that *maybe* it works. NPOV does not mean we are not supposed to express a clear view found in academic sources. I'm baffled by your perception that we're too lenient on newcomers. I suggest you read a bit more research about the reasons for editorial decline on wiki. Cheers Pundit|utter 08:59, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Long Reply, not to a Newcomer

[edit]

User:Pundit – Okay. I didn’t check on your history, and you obviously are not a new editor.

I will elaborate what I said, although now I am wondering whether, far from being asked new-editor questions, I am being set up by being asked questions to which there is a politically correct answer. I will nonetheless offer my own honest opinions, although I am aware that they are probably politically incorrect in WMF terms. First, with regard to neutral point of view, the example that you provide of homeopathy is not applicable, because there is a difference between a neutral point of view on facts and a neutral point of view on matters of policy or advocacy. On homeopathy, or other fringe issues, the neutral point of view is to present mainstream science as the accepted point of view, and to present the fringe viewpoint as a fringe viewpoint. The problem, as I saw it with the first version of the early childhood trauma paper (and probably as the second reviewer saw it with the second version) was not with presenting the facts as seen by ‘a clear view found in academic sources’, but with subtle policy advocacy in the voice of Wikipedia.

Second, as to what appears to be your primary concern, about an unfriendly approach to new editors, it is not entirely clear what you think should be done differently. In particular, are you saying that we should lower the quality standards for articles, both at articles for creation (in the case in point) and at new page patrol, and so should have accepted the article, and should in general accept more articles whose quality we now question, or that we should have reworked the article for its author, or that, while declining the article, we should have smothered the editor with love, or what? I will explain my comment about friendliness to new editors. The guideline do not bite the newcomers is a good idea in principle, but it has essentially taken on the status of a dogma (as opposed to a guideline), and, in my contrary opinion, it manages, with the best of intentions, to do more harm than good. The good that it does, in terms of promoting a welcome to good-faith new editors, is outweighed by the unintended harm that it does, both in terms of reluctance to deal quickly and decisively with bad-faith new editors, including spammers, who need to be bitten, and by being used as a cudgel by combative editors who argue that they are being bitten when they are cautioned to be civil and edit collaboratively. I am aware that my opinion may be considered politically incorrect. You advise me to read research about editorial decline on wiki. Perhaps the research does indicate that new editors are being turned off by their interactions with the gatekeepers (who perform an essential and mostly thankless job of maintaining quality). If so, the problem may really be that many first-time editors think that they can best contribute to Wikipedia by creating one new article. They have selected the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia, developing a new article, complete with references. New editors can instead help us with the five million articles that we already have, as well as with one article that we do not have. Maybe the key to reducing new-editor turnoff is some way to advise new editors to try some less difficult task, rather than for the encyclopedia to lower its standards to be more welcoming to new editors who want to contribute one new article. (Also, some of them want to contribute the wrong article, such as one on their employer, in which case all of the above comments apply, and more.)

I am not entirely sure whether I understand your argument. Maybe you haven’t explained it to me clearly. I don’t think that particular draft should have been accepted, and am not sure whether you are saying that we should lower our standards to be more welcoming to new editors. I see that new editors often feel frustrated, but that may be because they are trying to help us in the most difficult way; I don’t think that we need to lower our standards to welcome and retain them. I am aware that my viewpoint is shared by many experienced editors, but is politically incorrect because the guideline not to bite the newcomers has become a sacred policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for an elaborated reply. I don't think it is about lowering the standards. My main point is that with drafts that show some promise and are well academically grounded, we should make an effort to educate - so when declining a draft, a reasonable, constructive feedback is necessary. Just think about it: if a well-educated and skilled scholar tries to write on WIkipedia, and s/he is in good will, but does not know the standards, one of the most frustrating and demotivating responses is a generic refusal. I agree with you that the original draft that you discarded should not have been published, I'm only making a point that it did not require extraordinary effort to direct the author to make it better (and neutral)  :) Pundit|utter 05:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Pundit:--Since you know so vastly about what's the best approach to help other editors and how that WP shall survive---why don't you really dirty your hands at the AFC/NPP rather than merely writing some op-eds and so?Cheers!Winged Blades Godric 08:11, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Winged Blades of Godric:It definitely is easier to write an op-ed here and there than do hands-on work, I agree. I have to admit that I don't have a one-size-fits-all recipe for the best approach, though... I just think that sometimes we are too harsh (but sometimes we probably are too lenient). Perhaps the best way to go about it is to accept feedback, whenever it occurs. Pundit|utter 14:46, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the Op-Ed

[edit]

User:Pundit - Now that I have read the Slate op-ed piece, I will comment and take issue. First, I now see that the draft on early childhood trauma and resilience was indeed selected to make a point, but that it was not a valid example, and an experienced editor (a functionary, indeed) should have known that they were being sloppy with important details of how Wikipedia works. The op-ed says that it is about very short articles. The example on early childhood trauma and resilience not only is not a very short article, but was not deleted. It was declined in AFC review, a different process. Readers who are not familiar with the complex workings of Wikipedia do not know the difference, but the distinction does matter, and the op-ed was sloppy in using that draft as an example.

Second, and this really is about stubs, I personally disagree strongly with the idea of deleting hemovanadin, but that is because I think that there is a missing notability guideline. There is a concept that has no official name, but is widely used, that I refer to as ipso facto notability. Some subjects are notable by virtue of a fact. For instance, the military notability guidelines state that general officers, and anyone who has been awarded his country’s highest award for valor (e.g., the US Medal of Honor) is notable as such (as long as the notable fact is properly attested, such as a newspaper recording that the medal was granted). Some professional athletes, such as all Olympians, are ipso facto notable. Some politicians, such as state legislators, are ipso facto notable. My own opinion is that all proteins should be considered notable (whether or not all Pokemons are notable).

The op-ed makes some interesting and valid points in general, and in particular about hemovanadin, but its use of the example on early childhood trauma was less than accurate, and did not serve the readers of Slate well. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is definitely easier to write an op-ed that is sloppy in its details than it is to do hands-on work. I agree that we are sometimes too harsh and sometimes too lenient, and I have tried to explain my own view there. I agree that feedback is useful, and my feedback on the op-ed is that it wasn't constructive feedback to the AFC process and wasn't entirely accurate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I accept and respect your opinion. FYI, a draft of this op-ed was consulted and commented on by quite a few prominent wikimedians (with 10k+ edit count, and also often experience from various projects), and they did not take issue with my view on notability. Of course, views can differ. Pundit|utter 10:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pundit - You say that a number of other Wikipedia editors reviewed your draft, and they did not take issue with your view on notability. I am not sure what point you are making, because I didn't disagree with you about notability. I only stated my opinion that all proteins ought to be considered ipso facto notable, entitled to an article if documented by a proper academic source, and I acknowledge that that view isn't contained in a notability guideline. (I think it should be, but that is my opinion.) What are you saying? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, I misunderstood you. And back to the original article - I only pinged you about the article on early childhood trauma, because I agree it should have been erased, but I simply also would like good-will, knowledge-driven authors to be attracted to Wikipedia. I don't have a good answer to this problem, as I also understand that writing detailed feedback for each deletion is impossible, and I've done my share of deleting without much feedback. I'm simply observing the fact that we are somehow failing in the area of feedback to good-will expert newbies. Pundit|utter 15:48, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Pundit - You are still using terminology sloppily, and that won't help you to make a case among other experienced editors. You say that you agree that the early childhood trauma should have been erased, but I never said that it should have been erased. I declined it at AFC, which is not the same as deletion or erasure. I don't know why you use terminology so sloppily; if it is to present a deliberately studied informality, I don't understand it. More to the point, we have implemented a great deal of robotic good-will feedback. New editors receive lengthy canned messages when their talk page is created by the first message to them, inviting them to the Teahouse. Other than that, the New Page Patrol reviewers don't have the time or the resources to welcome new good-faith editors individually; we are quite busy in dealing with bad-faith editors and totally clueless newbies, and the AFC reviewers likewise are busy. We have implemented a considerable amount of positive robotic feedback, and I don't see how we can really provide much more human feedback than we do. Do you have a suggestion, or do you just want to make sloppy observations? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Instead of sticking to one project specific lingo, that is lengthy and descriptive in this case ("decline at AFC" vs "erase") I'm using a term that any Wikimedian will understand. Do you really insist that it makes you not understand the point? Picking on wording in a discussion makes sense, if there is some confusion. Is there? Anyhow, "rejected" would have a probably been better​. Robotic feedback clearly didn't work well in the discussed case, no? Pundit|utter 07:07, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regading PROD of Fijiansheroes.

[edit]

Hey! I was just wondering what made you PROD this article instead of, say, WP:A11. I'm still struggling with how to apply Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion in weird cases like this, so any advice would be appreciated. TheDragonFire (talk) 04:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:TheDragonFire - I wasn't sure that the author had made it up, which would be WP:A11. It was a doubtful case, and in doubtful cases I normally use PROD rather than speedy. I have found that the one-time authors who create cruddy stubs seldom bother to de-PROD them after I have PRODded them, which says something about the authors of crud, but I am not sure what. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:14, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

17:38:37, 21 March 2017 review of submission by Davidb95

[edit]


I am requesting a reconsideration of your rejection of this draft article. The article was modeled after an already published article on the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which is a similar organization to the Postal Service Board. The draft article will also correct a "dead" link in the existing article on the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - See the Jurisdiction section - which cites the Postal Service Board of Contract Appeals. I am not sure how the draft article fails to meet the notability requirements, and I also don't understand what references could be included that would be better than cites to federal statutes and regulations that created the Board. I appreciate your consideration of this request. Davidb95 (talk) 17:56, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Davidb95 - First, please sign your posts (although a bot will probably sign your post soon). Second, I do not normally follow a draft all the way through the approval process, as the banner on this talk page says, but will let another reviewer review it. Third, however, you still don't have any references. At a minimum, you should include references to the statutes and regulations. Fourth, if magazines, newspapers, etc., have written about the Board, and they probably have, references would be helpful. Fifth, for general advice to new editors, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 21 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DRN

[edit]

You can close my DRN, we've resolved the issue on the noticeboard. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:09, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Nándor Fa

[edit]

Dear Robert!

I am ready with the article about Nándor Fa. I corrected the script according to your comments. If you agree please move the "draft".

Regards! Zsolt Szabó Szabo Zs (talk) 18:40, 22 March 2017 (UTC) User:Szabo Zs - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will look at your revised draft. In the future, when you are asking about an article, please identify it with a link (in brackets). Robert McClenon (talk) 23:08, 22 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szabo Zs - You still haven't addressed my question of what his name is, that is, of which of his names is his given name and which is his family name. You refer to him in one place as Nandor Fa and in another place as Fa Nandor. Which is the Hungarian form and which is the Western name order form? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert! Sorry I thought that I responded to the question about the name. His first(given) name is: NÁNDOR, and second (family) is FA. Hungarian order is: FAMILY name+given name - FA NÁNDOR. The western form is as we know: NÁNDOR FA. Szabo Zs (talk) 20:21, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Szabo Zs - You say that his first (given) name is Nandor and that his second (family) name is Fa. Based on what you are saying, you mean that his first (family) name is Fa and his second (given) name is Nandor. A Hungarian name template should be used. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning... ลลิตา พนมยงค์

[edit]

If you were not aware of it and just to let you know in case...we have a slightly different procedure at WP:PNT: if an article has been listed there for two weeks and is still untranslated, it should be nominated for deletion (prodded). So it was a tad early :). I'd say BLP-prod would be ok, though. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 18:51, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Sidius87/sandbox/Wychhound

[edit]

A tag has been placed on User:Sidius87/sandbox/Wychhound, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may be soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:

  • It is a redirect to an article talk page, image description page, image talk page, mediawiki page, mediawiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, or user talk page from the article space. (See section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

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. 2607:FB90:6628:54BC:793A:1192:C45D:6572 (talk) 01:12, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging article for speedy

[edit]

Can you please just wait a few minutes after an experienced editor creates an article before tagging it for speedy? Thanks. Ethanbas (talk) 02:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert!

[edit]

I noticed you left some information at the bottom of my page entitled "F. Warren McFarlan". Seeing as you are an undoubtedly well established Wikipedian, I was wondering if you knew anything about getting the page approved. Currently, it has an "unassessed" link at the top of it.


Thank you for your help!

Jake or... Jkmarold55 (talk) 04:22, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jkmarold55 - The page has been tagged for deletion as a copyright violation. It cannot be assessed, reviewed, or otherwise approved until it is completely rewritten in your own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About F. Warren McFarlan

[edit]

Information icon Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give F. Warren McFarlan a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Jkmarold55 (talk) 06:16, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of F. Warren McFarlan

[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 F. Warren McFarlan 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.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/print-profile.aspx?facId=6508. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

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

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:21, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Diannaa - Twinkle misses the mark again (but is still extremely useful). It isn't my article. I only moved a much shorter very incomplete version from article space into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, thanks for the ping. I will make sure the actual author gets notified. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 16:49, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox only

[edit]

And another. I wish there was a bot to categorize infobox only articles. It would greatly help making an argument to revise CSD. TimothyJosephWood 13:55, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Timothyjosephwood - Yes. That is, in my opinion, more innocent than many of the infobox-only articles about which I have been complaining. That appears to have been an infobox-only as a placeholder, where the author created the article with the infobox only in order to hold the place while they compose the article. I don't know why they do that; it may be to try to get the title into search engines, but the title doesn't go into search engines until a reviewer checks it, and no reasonable reviewer will check an infobox-only. It now does have text. However, just because I can, I have BLPPROD'd it. I do think that we need a new CSD category for infobox-only, because I have never seen and probably will never see an infobox-only that should be kept, but I have seen a lot that slip through the CSD cracks and need to be PROD'd. Infobox-only articles always will either be deleted or completed, but I think that there should be a cleaner way to deal with them. (If the author contests the PROD, it can be taken to AFD, and if it is still only an infobox, it doesn't have a snowball's chance at AFD.) Robert McClenon (talk) 18:18, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Removing Speedy Deletion Tag

[edit]

Sorry, I did not know that you can't delete tag. Next time, I won't delete it.Shubhamtantia22 (talk) 22:20, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Shubamtantia22 - The message on your talk page said: "Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself". Just as importantly, don't try to publish an article about yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How do I edit now-closed dispute page?

[edit]

I responded to your questions on my user page, but I do not know how to edit the now-closed dispute page to correct the mistake I made there. Here is a link to my answers (which follow your questions): https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:VoteFair&curid=6660717&diff=772336514&oldid=772330229#Who_Are_You_and_When_Did_You_Quarrel_with_BHG.3F VoteFair (talk) 04:24, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:VoteFair - You don't need or want to edit a closed dispute resolution page. Why do you want to do that? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you for the clarification. (The initial request for a change came from an admin: [[1]]) VoteFair (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this nomination for speedy deletion

[edit]

Just to remind you that WP:A3 says: Don't use this tag in the first few minutes after a new article is created, i tagged it as test instead. --DashyGames (contribs) 05:18, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: regarding the article, do you think that it's a A11? i searched on google, found nothing, literally. --DashyGames (contribs) 05:29, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

List of horse shows

[edit]

I've always been under the impression that "list of..." articles didn't need references if all the listed subjects had their own articles. I based the list on List of horse races and List of horse breeds, with the assumption that everything listed would be either an existing article or notable redlink that somebody needs to create. I know it's also short, but categorization is pretty bad and not all the show articles are listed in the same place. I think there are about twice that many we have articles for, and probably 10 times more that should exist, so the list is probably going to be under work for a long time. I can provide refs for all of them, but I didn't think I needed to. White Arabian Filly Neigh 22:00, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:White Arabian Filly - I think you are right about the references if they are all to properly referenced articles. I could see that the list is very incomplete, because there have to be hundreds of horse shows (about which I know very little). If you are ready for it to go back to article space, it can go back to article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:14, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

08:09:21, 29 March 2017 review of submission by WIZRADICAL

[edit]

{{SAFESUBST:Void|

I have edited the particular article but am uneasy wethere to unleash it for another scrutiny Could you check my draft once more .By the way I am not a COI even though my edit history may seem so as I have been a editor for only 6 days.

User:WIZRADICAL - You have edited the draft and resubmitted it. It is better. However, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. If you want advice, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:18, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Isla Nublar

[edit]

It's in mainspace now. Just letting you know in case you want to do any more AfC cleanup on it. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

[edit]
Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:New pages patrol/Reviewers#BACKLOG.
Message added 23:55, 31 March 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

A cheeseburger for you!

[edit]
Thanks for the help Princekweks (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_16&oldid=1088054377"