User talk:Robert McClenon

Other archives
Problem Archive
Famekeeper Archive
FuelWagon Archive
Jack User Archive
John Carter Archive
PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
78 Archive
DIRECTIVEA113 Archive

Inappropriate edit summaries - To warn or not to warn?

Hey Robert McClenon. I wanted a third opinion on this issue and didn't feel comfortable going to the Teahouse about it. There is a editor on Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election who will frequently insert their opinions into edit summaries, often going (strangely) with "it's so Joever" or "Comeback" when adding new polls to the article. It certainly doesn't seem like the right use of edit summaries, and truthfully this user does not do it every time, but it seems like the user is relishing that the results of the polls indicate poor news for the incumbent government. I wonder if I'm just getting my knickers in a twist about this particular annoyance, as the user is for the most part an constructive member of the project. If I should address this issue, do I take it to the user's talk page or to the talk page of the Opinion polling article? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Bkissin (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Bkissin - I would suggest that any discussion of the edit summaries be on the user's talk page, so as not to get any third parties involved. I don't know exactly what the connotation of Joever is meant to be, and I would suggest both asking what they mean by Joever and asking them why they think that this use of the edit summary is appropriate. I also was thinking that asking about questions about edit summaries might be an appropriate question at Village pump - Policy, but not if you have also expressed your concerns to the user, because then someone at the project page will check to see what page you are talking about. So I think that a question on the user's talk page would be reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I let it slide for a while until it came up again and then I finally tried to address it civilly at the User's talk and we'll see how it goes. Bkissin (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Closure for RRR RFC

*Re-posting the earlier message at the bottom of the talk page*

Hi,Robert.

You had kindly raised a RFC on 3 Aug in RRR talk page. Talk:RRR#Survey. It has been more than a month now and all the comments so far have been unanimous and positive. Legobot has now closed the RFC. Can you kindly guide about the next steps? Can I now include the section which people have voted positively about? And what should I do if any individual continues to do stonewalling and deleting that section even after consensus in the RFC? SaibaK (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:SaibaK - Since my only involvement in the RFC was to start it, I was uninvolved and have closed the RFC as approving the addition of the section. Add the section. I see that no one opposed the inclusion of the section, so maybe the editor to whom you refer has accepted that they are in the minority. However, to answer your question in two parts, first, no one can stonewall because discussion is finished. You may edit the article. If an editor deletes the section, my advice is to restore it once, with an edit summary saying that you are restoring it as per the RFC. If it is deleted a second time, make a report at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Robert McClenon SaibaK (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion earlier. As predictable, the disruptive user in question continues to ignore RFC and remove the section.

As per your advice, I reverted the removal once while citing the RFC, and since that didn't stop the user from deleting it again, have now followed the next step of your advice and made a report at WP: ANI. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user @Jayanthkumar123 despite consensus achieved through RFC )

I now await the outcome of the result. If there's any other procedure I must follow then please let me know.

Thanks for your kind guidance. SaibaK (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Film Afrika

Thank you for your comment. It is difficult in the Film Industry to find sources that do not sound peacock like.

Should I leave out the Emmy Awards cite? Is this considered reliable? How else would I mention that their films have received Emmys but by referencing the site?

I fear I am still confused as to what to include and what not to include. I am getting rather tired of snide comments. All the articles I am referred to in order to correct the draft article are ambiguous. No-one has direct access to the truth. The article is constantly being declined on the views of two or three editors / administrators. I am getting worn down and feel pretty insulted by the tone of their comments. Some have implied that with a Drama and English degree, I should be able to read, and can't. I have been very civil to Tim Trent and now receive a snide comment about how he has been banging a drum and I only hear every seventh bang.

I am not sure how to take this further.

Frankly what I am getting paid to do this job for Film Afrika is not worth the abuse that I have received from the editors.

I don't find any of it collegial. It is patronising, patriarchical and humiliating.

When I mention my views, I get blocked and told to stop as if I am some kind of perpretator. It seems that snide little in-jokes and fired off comments are only reserved for a select few editors / administrators who seem to take the elitist stance that because they are not getting paid they are in some way superior.

I resent all these tones. This process has been extremely damaging to me.

In the process, out of some kind of spite, my own page was removed during an exchange between me and the editors. The timing was too coincidental for me not to view it as a slap from them for me fighting back at their insulting comments.

Frankly, I feel like leaving the page to be edited by someone else.

When I suggested this, I was blocked and severely reprimanded for soliciting work from them. I was also told that it would be "positively fraudulent" for me to still get paid for the David Wicht page.

It seems this cite is filled with landmines and that the editors and administrators enjoy watching a new writer walk into them and giggle into their sleeves. Except they don't giggle into their sleeves, they are outright abusive at worst, belittling at best.

None of this behaviour would be tolerated in any other context. But it seems to be tolerated here on Wikipedia of all sites. One of the most respected sites in the world.

The editors say that they are trying to help me and then slam me with "naughty child" comments as if I just don't know how to listen, instead of giving me clear instrucitions.

I have edited other pages FOR FREE on this site.

I consider myself intelligent and well read.

I do not deserve these ongoing attacks.

I would like to tag both @FiddleFaddle and @Theroadislong,Double Grazing to view this, but I don't know how to tag them. One of many things it seems that i don't know how to do.

I am told there is a process to report editors, but frankly I am so worn out by finding which specific code to put where, I don't think I will.

I am a well respected award-winning celebrity actress, Casting Director and Script Supervisor in South Africa.

I do not deserve the level of disrespect levelled at me, but when one says this, one is accused of making threats.

The only people who win here are the Editors.

I hope it is highly entertaining for all of them to keep belittling and humiliating people trying to learn a new skill and publish a page. I did publish the page for David Wicht EVENTUALLY although all the credit was taken away from me, as they said they had needed to change it so much. This is not collegial. It is nasty. And unnecessary.

I will continue to work on the Film Afrika Draft, and attempt to implement the changes. I however am appalled and shocked by the treatment I have received.

Wishing you a great day

Karin van der Laag Karinvanderlaag (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply to User:Karinvanderlaag

Okay, User:Karinvanderlaag. I will try to reply to your comments, and I will copy User:Timtrent and User:DoubleGrazing. I don't know how much effect my comments will have. You have said some extremely unkind things about the reviewer community, and I don't think that we deserve it. I don't think that it is fair or kind to the reviewers to say that they giggle at your difficulties or that they are abusive.

Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, developed by volunteers who work on it as a labor of love. Our readers trust that the encyclopedia that they read will have been developed without commercial influence. You are entering Wikipedia as a type of editor who has an inherently awkward role, the paid editor. Perhaps we should be more discouraging up front about paid editors than we are, because most paid editors do not work out. It is true that we do not offer paid editors the level of advice and support that we offer to new unpaid editors, and that we expect paid editors to be able to learn from system documentation.

If you believe the extremely unkind things that you said about us, that we were giggling at your failure to understand the rules, and that we were abusive, when we were trying to advise you clearly and neutrally about what we expected, then maybe you do not have the temperament to work in an anonymous electronic office.

We do not deserve the level of disrespect that you provided us.

You were repeatedly warned that you could be blocked for introducing unsourced statements into articles. You were not blocked for that. You were blocked for making legal threats, because you said that what we had said libelous and a legal attack, and that you had screen-captured our statements to you as evidence. You were then blocked because this appeared to be a legal threat. You were unblocked when you specifically said that you are not making legal threats.

Maybe User:Timtrent or User:DoubleGrazing will have other comments, but I think that you have explained that your emotional makeup is easily upset by working in an anonymous electronic office, and that your own mental health might benefit from not exposing yourself to the stresses of Wikipedia. Not everyone has the temperament for Wikipedia. If you think that we are laughing at your difficulties in listening to us, this site may be too stressful for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As you will have noticed paid editing is barely tolerated here, especially poor quality editing such as yours. Reference your comment “I am told there is a process to report editors” you can find the venue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents be aware of WP:BOOMERANG though. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I think if you look clearly back through editors comments to me you may (or may not) agree, that they were disrespectful to me. "We do not deserve the level of disrespect that you provided us" is exactly how I felt.

However, I am putting all of this behind me and will never be a paid editor again. I think that is where all the problems started.

Please re-look at certain editors comments. I wonder whether comments like "taking the piss" and insulting my ability to read are considered to be collegial? Not in my book. But either way, we agree to differ.

The fear from my side is that any retort will result in some sort of process that will result in another block.

So I would like to leave this here, now and move on.

I was told not to thank one of the editors for his help, as he asked me not to.

To all editors, I express my thanks for your guidance.

I continue learning as a volunteer unpaid editor.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, sir, a comment about my mental health and emotional makeup is off-side. How is it fine for you to make these assumptions and call this collegial, and when I express distaste I am told I will be blocked? These are personal comments in anyone's book. You have no knowledge of me, my mind or my emotional / mental state. These comments have no place on a site like this.

Would you be happy with a comment where I say: "your degree did not help you to read and write properly" (as one of the editors - not the entire "editor community" said to me? Of course you wouldn't. I am sure you would call for an immediate block of my profile.

I had no idea that Wikipedia allowed such personal comments. When there is a response from the new editor a kind of patriarchal attitude insinuates itself, as if the new editor is somehow hysterical. How is this allowed? I have been brought up to help train those who need training. In South Africa we have been taught that there is no such thing as incompetence, it is all lack of training. I think for some editors it would be useful to employ this strategy.

We need to be able to take it as well as give it. My comments to the editors (individually), not the entire "editor community" were in response to their sometimes highly sarcastic remarks. The fact that you even speak of an "editor community" is an "us" and "them" kind of othering. Surely the more experienced "us" should be extra collegial to the less experienced "them"?

I am an actress by profession and very used to taking notes. I am able to admit when I am wrong. I have not seen evidence of this from the specific editors I have dealt with - except for a quick "my bad" after another comment on whether I had declared myself to be a paid editor. The editor was wrong, but did not apologise to me. Just a quick "my bad" when he was put right by another editor.

The subtlety here is that "helping" the new editor and making snide comments do not go hand in hand, but yet seem to be deemed collegial.

Any teacher (I also teach) knows this. No-one learns through being ticked-off and effectively having their intelligence questioned. I am sure you would agree.

I had expected reasonable men and women on the other side of these keyboards. Luckily I did find some.

Surely it is about making the site better and helping those who read it to learn as much as possible.

The fact that there is even a label for Editor War, should be evidence enough that collegiality is sometimes not adhered to.

Freedom of speech is an international human right in most civilised countries.

I really hope not have any of these kinds of discussions or "feedback" again.

I will continue editing and learning. I am sure I will need guidance and ask for it. I really hope that comments about myself as a person will no longer happen.

I do not seek a response to this letter, but if you are compelled to respond, I will read it and leave it at that.

I hope you day is wonderful.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case is now open

You 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/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision posted

In the open Backlash to diversity and inclusion arbitration case (also called Yasuke), the proposed findings and remedies have been posted—though you are not mentioned in any of them. If you wish, you may review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the proposed decision, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Proposed decision. SilverLocust 💬 00:25, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Your NAC at ANI

The filing party was NOT imdeffed by boomerang. HistoryofIran was the filing party. Please amend your NAC before it is archived. Thank you. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Wood Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Strangerthings7112 - Is there any specific reason that you are asking for my comments on this AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Twitter on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lady Gaga on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask your opinion on incivility?

Hi Robert, I was looking at the admin elections call for candidates, and I thought I recognized your name. I couldn't quite remember from where, so I looked at our talk page histories to see if either of us had ever left each other any messages, and I saw this brief and very old interaction. I'm writing because in that interaction, when I had reached out to you because you were listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, my main concern was incivility, and that concern went completely ignored. It was over four years ago, so I'm not trying to ask exactly what happened. We are all busy, and I completely understand. I guess my question is, in general, what is your opinion on incivility on Wikipedia? Thank you, and good luck in your upcoming admin election. GrammarDamner how are things? 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply About Incivility

User:GrammarDamner - Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. It is not easy to define civility, which is not primarily a matter of the avoidance of certain offensive words, although the avoidance of those words is a very good idea. Civility includes treating other editors with respect. One known issue with electronic media is that some people don't automatically recognize that another source of words on the other side of the screen is also a human being with feelings, and so they don't use the same courtesy as they would in face-to-face conversation.

In re-looking at the 2020 issue, I think that the reason I ignored the concern about incivility is that you had come to me through DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and DRN is a content noticeboard, and civility is a conduct issue. Content issues and conduct issues are dealt with in Wikipedia by different procedures and different dispute resolution procedures. DRN is not a forum to discuss civility issues. Civility can be discussed at WP:ANI, preferably after the reporting party has read the boomerang essay.

On the English Wikipedia, I think that incivility problems fall into three main classes:

• 1. Clearly inappropriate posts, typically having the nature of personal attacks. These usually result in a block.
• 2. Editors who are not only rude, but appear to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, who don't seem to be here to work on the encyclopedia. They are almost always indeffed.
• 3. Experienced editors who are clearly working to contribute to the encyclopedia but who treat other editors disrespectfully. These editors are problematic because the community cannot agree on whether they are net negatives or net positives. They often have lengthy block logs consisting either of short blocks for incivility, or of long or indefinite blocks that are then lifted after discussion. There is no right answer about these editors.

Your dispute was with one of the third class of editors. This editor is something of a paradox, just as is the editor's user name.

My own opinion is that ArbCom, who have agreed to handle cases that the community cannot decide because it is divided, should accept cases about a few of the most troublesome of these editors and decide whether they are net negatives, and should be either banned or greatly restricted, or net positives when restricted. That is my opinion, and I don't think that it is generally agreed that ArbCom needs to handle such cases. Otherwise these editors will bother the community from time to time.

I think that sort of sums up my views on incivility in Wikipedia. There is a continuing problem with a few editors who are contributors, but who treat other editors with disrespect.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Closure of Wudu Dispute

if you can kindly reopen the dispute on Wudu and give me the opportunity to respond. I have not abandoned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Nasserb786 - On the one hand, Rule A.11 says that you are required to respond to questions by the moderator within 48 hours. You had not responded within 72 hours after my previous post, and had not edited in that 72 hours. I do not keep cases open indefinitely for an editor who is taking a break from editing. So I acted within the rules in closing the dispute. On the other hand, I am willing to open a new dispute about Wudu if you give the other editor proper notice, and if they reply to the notice. So that is almost the same as reopening the case. If you open a new case and the other editor responds, we can start knowing what has already been said. So you are welcome to refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 18 draft article moved to main page

i am requested you to please move the draft to the main page because I have all suitable references and the draft is fully ready so please check it and please move it to the main page 2000editor (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2000editor - No! The title in article space is create-protected, also known as salted. I couldn't move the draft to mainspace even if I tried to move it. You may:

• Consult with other editors. Some of them have already advised you, on your talk page, to slow down.
• Make a request at Requests for protection to unprotect the title. It will probably be denied. They may advise you to consult with the protecting administrator.
• Consult with the protecting administrator, User:Liz. She may explain to you why your persistent requests to move the draft into article space have made it necessary for her to salt the title.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

DRN

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know regarding the 15.ai dispute resolution case that you're mediating that the initiating editor User:Ltbdl was recently indefinitely blocked so will be unable to participate going forward. I do not how that factors into the issue of abandonment by filing party.

Cheers, Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am unsure if this is the right place to put this, but I am part of the party that is invested in the dispute. Based off of the rules that the moderator showed me, I believe that as long as activity occurs every 48 hours, discussion regarding the dispute can still continue, only without the user. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would also like to encourage that you place a statement in the dispute, as you have made some talk topics on the talk page that could help with a dispute consensus.

On a less formal note, I am unsure of how disputes like this end, especially ones that take long times like this. If you have any advice for this dispute, that would be great. Thank you. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to encourage that you place a statement in the dispute, as you have made some talk topics on the talk page that could help with a dispute consensus.

I do not think the topics I have created factor into the current dispute. None of the topics I have created deal with the dispute about whether the website is under maintenance or abandoned. The issues I have brought up are deeper issues involving the history of the article and how it reached the state that it is currently in. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Keys to the White House on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Our Admin Election Test

Hello there. As we're preparing to move from one stage to the next, this is just a quick note from one member of the test group to another, wishing you well in the process of this new alternative to RfA. It seems that there are more of us in this group than some in the community anticipated, so i hope that doesn't make the experience any the worse for all of us. Whatever our individual results, i thank you, along with the rest, for stepping up and testing this process; happy days, ~ Lindsay^Hello 07:19, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Good luck with it, Robert. Drmies (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:LindsayH, User:Drmies - The insult was far less serious than some of the others. If I had been the only person being insulted, it wouldn't have been worth banning them. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:54, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that at the Queen of Sheba DRN Afrodiplomacy was a sock

Now blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Doug Weller. So the other editor was right about the filing editor. I didn't think it was useful to spend DRN time when there were conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sensible. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

October music

story · music · places

My story today is about a composer and choir conductor, listen to his Lamento. - My story on 13 October was about a Bach cantata. As this place works, it's on the Main page now because of the date (but Bach wrote it for the 20th Sunday, not the Tuesday after the 21st Sunday after Trinity). I sort of like it because today is the birth date of my grandfather who loved and grew dahlias like those pictured. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:12, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Happy whatever you celebrate today, - more who died, more to come, and they made the world richer. Greetings from Madrid where I took the pic of assorted Cucurbita in 2016. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:59, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Honorific nicknames in popular music on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Draft:The Gatekeeper

Better review this and remove The Gatekeeper (2024 film) because there's no gatekeeper title yet only gatekeepers with an s. 122.55.235.127 (talk) 06:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Israel–Hamas war infobox on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Commiserations

I know you will, should you choose, be an excellent admin one day. 🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦 23:59, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Manchester, Calgary

1. Yes, it is an officially recognized neighbourhood of Calgary, Alberta. Multiple official City of Calgary websites list it as such, which I will provide a few examples below: - Calgary Administrative Boundaries Map (make sure to enable the "Community Districts" layer) - Community Profiles (calgary.ca) (search for the page titled "Manchester") - Data (calgarypolice.ca) - Phase 4 REALIZE Chinook Communities Local Area Plan | Chinook Communities Local Area Planning | Engage (calgary.ca)
2. As far as I am aware, Alyth/Bonnybrook/Manchester was a former community that consists of the modern day Calgary industrial communities of Alyth/Bonnybrook, Burns Industrial, Highfield Industrial, and Manchester Industrial. It was disambiguated sometime around 2006 into the modern day communities I listed. Manchester Industrial is an official community of it's own separate from Manchester or Alyth/Bonnybrook (being the industrial areas that surround Manchester), but is not the focus of the draft article.

CnekYT (talk) 01:45, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Wolf

Hi, I'm one of the editors involved in the dispute regarding the addition of a sentence to the Wolf page. I didn't realize you were offering to assist in creating a Request for Comment, and I'd like to accept that offer after all. Nagging Prawn (talk) 22:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Nagging Prawn - I will follow up within about the next 16 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:50, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Nagging Prawn - Please provide me with the exact wording of the sentence that you want to add to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

One wolf was even known to have eaten 181 Payette's short-winged grasshoppers in a single sitting.

Here it is, hope this suffices. Nagging Prawn (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Nagging Prawn - A draft is available for review at: Talk:Wolf/RFC on Grasshoppers. Please review and comment. I will move the RFC to the talk page and activate it when we are satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm satisfied with this iteration of the RFC, thank you! Nagging Prawn (talk) 05:09, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

References

SATG Corp

Hi Robert,

I noticed this edit, where you made a table by hand to do a WP:NCORP source analysis. If you are interested, there is User:Red-tailed hawk/SATG CORP.js, a userscript that can help with generating these sorts of tables.

— Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:46, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Red-tailed hawk, but I don't do that by hand. It only looks like I do it by hand. I do it in an Excel spreadsheet, and then use the Excel2wiki gadget: [1]. I will take a quick look, but I will probably continue to use the Excel2wiki gadget. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Ah! Well, in that case, my apologies for the intrusion. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 02:59, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem, User:Red-tailed hawk. Now we both know that there are at least two ways to simplify developing a cleanly formatted source analysis table. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

DRN on face masks... it's like stuck pixels. Also I need a break.

• sigh* I don't know how I couldn't have seen this sooner. After reading the post from Retraction Watch, as well as a few papers... that mislink is like a freaking stuck pixel. And... of course... there's no consensus on what to do whenever this happens. I mean, how do people react to stuck pixels.

Which, like the occasional defective monitor that comes out of the factory, science is going to have the occasional misrepresented source. The question is whether it's just an accident or indicative of something else (like The Bell Curve).

If I ever come back to this, I think it might be worth going to a village pump, since it's likely multiple policies are going to be affected. In the meantime, I'd like to take a bit of a break and close this DRN. Reason: I just read the latest CIDRAP headline. Combined with some climate news I'm reading, as well as my other work, I think it might be prudent for my sanity to put this on ice.

I'll leave it up to you and others whether to close or suspend it. ⸺(Random)staplers 05:20, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Meri Guriya

Hey, Thank you for your time on Draft:Meri Guriya but the one you mentioned is a 2017 serial and the draft is of show of same name aired in 2022.182.182.96.218 (talk) 182.182.96.218 (talk) 12:47, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:35, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Articles for creation on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:31, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Short description on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

Big Ben move review

I just wanted to let you know that your comment at the Big Ben move review (not DRV) came across as personal. It makes no odds to me whether you endorse the closure or not, that's entirely your own prerogative. However, comments are supposed to be policy-based and focus on the reason for closure and instead you've implied I'm wasting everyone's time.

I opened the discussion in good faith and I opened the move review in good faith, not to waste editor time. A.D.Hope (talk) 00:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Faults and Shear Structures of The Bushveld Igneous Complex

Thanks for your review and comments relating to the draft “Faults and Shear Structures of The Bushveld Igneous Complex”. The draft was written purposely to be included into the Bushveld Lemma and I reviewwed and edited the draft before submission. I incorporated this student’s work into https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bushveld_Igneous_Complex now. You might want to review now and, if necessary, make it correct Wikipedan style. Thanks. C.wolke (talk) 12:53, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:C.wolke, User:Nev.vorster - Was this submission part of a class project? Are there other students in the class working on other drafts or articles? Articles for Creation is not a procedure for review of additions or changes to existing articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Daria Lodikova

Greetings, Robert. I note that you sent this article to AfD last year at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daria Lodikova. It was draftified but the author moved it back shortly after, without much apparent improvement. Do you believe that the current version of this article addresses the issues that led you to sending this to AfD last year? Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 22:19, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

User:Spiderone - Yes. I nominated it for AFD because it only had one source, which did not establish general notability, and the article did not satisfy the presumption of tennis notability. The originator has added multiple sources. I haven't analyzed the sources and am not planning to analyze the sources, but the sources very likely do establish general notability. I wanted it sent to draft space to improve the sourcing, and the sourcing appears to have been improved. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

No problem at all. Sounds like it served its purpose. Spiderone^{(Talk to Spider)} 10:51, 17 November 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2024 (UTC)