Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 13

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

Hi Robert, On the basis of your suggestions, I have defined the location of CMS exactly and whatever else required for this page you can talk to me about it. Thanks for your guidance and suggestions. Kind regards SHAHRUKH KHAN BALOUT — Preceding unsigned comment added by SHAHRUKH KHAN BALOUT (talk • contribs) 07:06, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responses. I'm afraid I am not a regular contributor and do not have a registered account. As an English translator, I was asked by my colleagues at the French finance ministry to help find out what the problem was with the English draft. I am not trying to get anyone to take sides, I simply resubmitted the draft after being told it would be accepted and was then trying to find out why it had been declined again. The reason I didn't respond for several weeks is that I have been on holiday from work and I was waiting for a response to the new submission. I will ask my colleagues at the French finance ministry to try and amend the draft and will not bother you again with any more questions. Kind regards, Ruth Brown193.188.156.131 (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Draft: RL Leaders

[edit]

Hi Robert, Took your advice again and shortened the section about the company founders. Please review it at your soonest and let me know if it can now become an official article. Thanks, as always. Evaki1972 (talk) 02:12, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. Thank you for the input. Not sure then how to talk about the company history without mentioning the founders and their backgrounds, which led to the pairing and formation of the company. But I can take some of that out and re-submit again. Thanks again. Evaki1972 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

You reviewed my page on July 2. I followed your advice and took out any market-speak or "buzz words." My sole desire is to give the company a page as I think it's a valid topic/company, so I appreciate your advice! I have submitted it for your review! Thanks again. Evaki1972 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Evaki1972 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for sawtoothing

[edit]

Hello Robert,

I added the appropriate link for "sawtooth wave" as requested. Just let me know if any other changes are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickr79 (talk • contribs) 22:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Mining District

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I was wondering if you had a chance to look over the Teahouse to see what other editors thought? I look forward to hearing back from you! DanielVGarcia (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Park City Mining

[edit]

Hello Robert,

I saw that you had turned down our draft for Park City Mining and was wondering how I could put that in the Park City page? It is quite a lot of information and would absolutely ruin the flow of the page, however most of it is quite important, what would you suggest? DanielVGarcia (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be asking at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks so much, please let me know what everyone else thinks! DanielVGarcia (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re-reviewing of Diffuse field acoustic testing article

[edit]

Hi Robert!

You first reviewed my article in 4th of May. I have made the changes you asked but there is now 24 days since nobody reviewed this article. Thanks a lot for your help ! Félix HIE Félix Hie (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixhie (talk • contribs) 06:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

I've finally understood what you expected about links. Is it good now ? Felixhie (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


19:35, 10 July 2016 review of submission by tisya teezy

[edit]

Hi Robert. thank you for reviewing my article of TISYA TEEZY who is originally known as DAVID MUTUKU MUTISYA.I have removed the unreliable citations and the last statement that brings contradictions. Nearly all of my sources consist of local based platforms may not be considered as reliable sources. Please review the changes and advise me.

16:09:24, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Kylesalsa

[edit]


First off, thank you for taking the time to do what you do, I can see you spend countless hours keeping wikipedia the reliable and trustful source that it is. I can see you contested the publishing of a page I submitted for Robert Harding Picture Library, there was something mentioned about advertisement and external links, although I was unsure as to what exactly was being asked? Please let me know what in particular is needed to get this page published? It is not for advertisement or the sale of any items. Thank you so much for your help with this.

continued...all external links have been removed from the body, citations/references added that are more "notable" as requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylesalsa (talk • contribs) 16:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon- to answer your question...NO, I do not have any affiliation with the agency. Also, what would be an example of another reference to use? I know not every published wiki submission has been written about extensively, I am happy to add better references if you could just clarify what some of those may be? Thanks again! Kylesalsa (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my last comment, I will let another reviewer deal with the draft. I would decline it, but will let another reviewer deal with it. If you want to expedite the review, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:57:26, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Electrocdwiki

[edit]


Hello. To better establish notoriety I have added a couple of sentences in the "bio" with a few external references. The list of works has also been improved. Whuld this updated version now be publishable? Thanks for your time, Jean-François Denis

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wnek

[edit]

Hello, "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. " Being an 'orphan' article does this imply that there are no other links or connections to any other articles relating to Z.A. Wnek? If that is the assertion please refer to http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygmunt_Aleksander_Wnęk which is the result of untold man-hours in research and effort to achieve its current status. Mr. McClenon, if indeed the assertion that Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk is still an 'orphan' article please advise how best to introduce the link/connections you cite. As stated previously, I am a complete novice and am finding it difficult in negotiating the 'Find Link tool' which is not that helpful. Thanks for your time! (Bronka2016 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC))[reply]

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:00:22, 2 July 2016 review of submission by Aroger0821

[edit]



I put four very viable references. Please re review. If you have any other questions please ask me. I intentionally wrote a short article because I have never written an article before so feel free to give me pointers. The references I gave were from his place of work, the Smithsonian, and different boards he has been on.

Unfortunately, none of the references were in the form of In-line citations. I have declined it again. If you need help putting the references in footnote form, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:56:16, 2 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tobiabj

[edit]


Dear Robert McClendon, I rewrote the CCF Artists Project entry the next day following your suggestions and submitted it for reconsideration. There has as yet been no response. Thank you. -- Blaise Tobia

Tobiabj (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the resubmitted draft still didn't have a proper lede sentence. Instead, the header had the words "new article content", which is a space-filler, and suggests that the article wasn't edited effectively. I declined it again. If you need more help, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:58:05, 4 July 2016 review of submission by Aroger0821

[edit]



Hi, Mr. McClenon, I relieze that you have high standards for Wikipedia and I am trying really hard to add the footnotes but i have no idea how and i have gone to every resource you sent me and youtube as well. This article is a tribute to my grandfather John Furth who helped me pay for schooling so i could improve on some personal things. I would really appreciate it if you could post it so that at the Forth Of July celebration I can surprise him. I am totaly fine if you edit it on your own but I have no idea how to do it on my own. Thank you so much for reviewing my past two submissions.

Alexander R

Hey, Robert - I am inspired to help create this BLP. I found several RS, such as this one and wanted to touch base with you first since you correctly declined the submission twice and I respect your judgment. Atsme📞📧 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will be glad to review if you revise the draft and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Robert. I think it would be best if I start from scratch and simply create the article. I can get a stub published in a few hours, and then expand on it over time. I've spent the last half-hour researching RS and the man is clearly notable. Atsme📞📧 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be appropriate to do it that way? My concerns are COI plus the draft is unacceptable for a BLP of this quality. Atsme📞📧 15:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:59:31, 4 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sushi rider

[edit]


Ciao Robert

thank you for swiftly reviewing my recent draft submission. Though the company is trying to create innovative software solutions - they are a young company and therefore have not received many citations to indicate their notability. How would you, please, recommend to improve the article?

Sushi rider (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:48:43, 4 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Moose139

[edit]


Hello Robert, you kindly reviewed my draft article Remote Ischemic Conditioning and made a good suggestion with which I agreed. I edited and reposted but you have not responded. I don't know if your intent was for me to post it to the Teahouse? I am very new to this so please help me navigate the process. I don't even know if this the proper spot to respond to you. Thank you Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Moose139Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:19:41, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Mizee.singer

[edit]



Dear Robert,

The reference I have taken, is from a news paper and a magazine website. And the rest are media websites. I think I have fulfilled Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if you are looking for anything specific. I have a few certificates and a few paper cuttings which might help.

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Cunningham Oke

[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review my first ever "Wikipage"! I will keep learning and trying. Klossoke (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Klossoke[reply]

14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Review of High Performance Computing Software Development Tools

[edit]

I submitted my draft last week, but the review thread appears to have been deleted from this page. I corrected the redlinks and while there, also tidied up the table a bit. I believe it ready. Please consider for publication. Thanks, Smk-slab (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because this article is highly technical in in nature, I suggest that you ask for comments at WikiProject Computing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:53:43, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n

[edit]


22:54:20, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n

[edit]



Hi, what exactly about this page reads like an advertisement? Is it the facebook mention?

I am asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:47:00, 6 July 2016 review of submission by 70.118.225.205

[edit]


The NBC News stories are published on their YouTube channel but only retained on the NBC website for a limited time. May we reference the Youtube NBC news channel as a source? There are several publications we have in PDF format including CES, WIRED Magazine and the NAHB that are not online since many of the classes and articles date back to 1999. How do we provide references to the older training classes and publications?

Request to re-review Louis Danziger

[edit]

Can you please re-review Louis Danziger. The sources were cleaned up per your direction. Thank you... KamelTebaast 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made one more comment. Please address it and wait for re-review (or ask for re-review at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:37:52, 6 July 2016 review of submission by AlexPash

[edit]


I have made some changes and hopefully it should be fine now. If not, could you please give me some advice. Thank you very much.

It looks somewhat better, which isn't to say that it is ready for mainspace; it isn't. It still reads more as though it is looking for customers than describing a company. If you want further advice, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:45:04, 6 July 2016 re-review of Once (app)

[edit]

I checked the sources again and hope that i excluded invalid ones. If not could you please let me know which are valid and which are not. Thank you very much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa wac22 (talk • contribs) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am declining the submission because too much of it looks like a description of how to use the app rather than of why the app is notable. If you disagree, then please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion

[edit]

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

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

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:02, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Jenhefer

[edit]


Hi, thank you for your feedback of my first article. I was unaware that using trademark signs was a violation. I'm a bit surprised that the article was rejected, as I followed almost EXACTLY other Wikipedia pages for ERP solutions like SAP ERP, Oracle Corporation and Deltek to name a few. I actually read almost every ERP Wikipedia page before writing this article.

In any case, I've removed the trademark symbol and would request that the reviewer take a look at other ERP pages for comparison against this article. My article is no different, follows the same format and sections and history of each of the other ERP pages.

I do understand the rejection though and would suggest that someone (if not me) write an article about Momentum as it manages almost the entire financial process of the United States federal government. (billions of transactions)

Jenhefer Jenhefer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:31:19, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Alishaj98

[edit]


Hi Robert, following up on your responses to my question regarding the VeryApt Wikipedia page from a couple weeks ago. I am not affiliated with the company, however, I am a student at the Wharton School of Business and a part of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation department. As a student fellow, one of our tasks is to follow Wharton startups and create Wikipedia pages to learn more about them. Next, I know you stated that my article sounded less like an advertisement like some, but you still declined it. I would love to hear any specific feedback you have to improve the article so that I can get it approved. Thanks in advance.

I would suggest that you ask for advice and help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer)

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Notice

[edit]

You may want to look an an ANI notice I placed here Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Isotype explained better

[edit]

Hi Robert_McClenon, thanks for reviewing my draft page. It was not so clear where the data came from. I hope I made that clearer: I added an explanation that this is a visualization based on 3 existing Wikipedia lists. No new data have been added to Wikipedia. Instead the purpose of the page is to make these metrics, an overwhelming collection of numbers, more accessible using a commonly used visualization tool: Isotype. [1] Cheers, Erik Zachte (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Eric Zachte - If the table is to be its own article, it will requires the same references as are used in the parent article. If the table or tables are to be included in other articles, they do not need their own references. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A comment of mine

[edit]

User talk:Daniel kenneth#On further thought Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 14:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:43:38, 11 July 2016 review of submission by Chrissymackmack

[edit]



I tried asking about getting the draft page deleted at the Teahouse but I have yet to get a response. Then I tried asking through IRC that the other draft be deleted but they said that there was no need to and that it would just make more sense more me to copy the information that I have about John Basedow and paste it onto the draft that keeps making my post be declined. I just wanted to check and see if that would be the right move or should I just keep trying to get the draft deleted so that I can submit my version with no problem

Either will do. I have tagged the existing draft for speedy deletion. If you copy the added material to the existing draft, you can remove the speedy deletion tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of User talk:Robert Kei Koga

[edit]

User talk:Robert Kei Koga, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Robert Kei Koga and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Robert Kei Koga during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Conference of Translation Services of European States

[edit]

Dear Robert, This is Ruth Brown from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. We were in touch on 31 May/1 June about this draft entry (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?) atitle=Draft:Conference_of_Translation_Services_of_European_States&redirect=no) and you commented that if I resubmitted then you would accept it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_491). I did that but it has now been rejected again. I wonder whether you could help me to resolve this. Thanks! Ruth 193.188.156.131 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:193.188.156.131 - I have moved your post to the bottom of my talk page where it belongs anywhere except in the Teahouse. First, it isn't easy to talk to an editor who edits only every few weeks and who edits from a changing IP address. It appears that you do have a registered account. You should have a unified login if you regularly edit on other languages. If so, please use it. If not, please create one. Second, please discuss the decline with the most currently declining reviewer, User:LaMona. but her memory might not be fresh because she declined several weeks ago. If you really want to get your article approved, it really would help if you would pay attention to its status more regularly, rather than just showing up every few weeks. You may, again, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will comment that the previous reviewer (a month ago) said that the draft consisted of too many long lists. That wasn't a matter of enough sources, but of style. Please discuss that with the other reviewer, or at the Teahouse. By coming back here months after our last discussion, it appears (and I may be being too quick to take offense) that you are trying to get one reviewer to take your side against another reviewer, after leaving the review process alone for a long time. Can we either discuss this at the Teahouse or discuss this on the draft talk page, rather than discussing with one reviewer against another? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Robert. I am very willing to discuss, but would like to say that it would be preferable for "Ruth" to create a username since replying to an IP address is inaccurate at times. LaMona (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some of the edits to the draft have been from a registered account. Please either create a registered account (and coordinate with any existing registered accounts), or use your registered account. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Resubmission/Edit of Draft:Once (app)

[edit]

Hello Robert, I edited my article again and hope that now it will align with the wikipedia guidelines and is worth being published. Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa wac22 (talk • contribs) 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"comment on content"

[edit]

I would like to do that, but why is it you see fit to allow the attempt by two editors with a well-know POV to censor this article and Two editors with a well-known POV to stand but my complaint about being called a pov editor to stand? Im no longer willing to deal with DR/N if thats how being even-handed works, allowing one person to insult and a complaint about being insulted is removed as a comment on a contributor. nableezy - 22:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That comment was made in the case request before I had taken the case as the moderator. I am willing to close the case as failed or as a general close if you wish. The rule to comment only on content hadn't been made when the POV comment was made. Do you want me to close the case, or to continue with moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first time that comment was made before you took on the case as moderator, and I didnt respond then. The second time was however after, in the comment at 23:21, 12 July 2016. Most objectionable I find the attempt by two editors with a well-know POV to censor this article and remove from it what is easily seen as less favorable information about this politician. I dont have a problem focusing on the content, I brushed that foolish little bit aside in an opening sentence, but I do have a problem being admonished for merely objecting to a repeated attack whereas the attack is allowed to stand. If youd like to enforce things evenly Im fine continuing, otherwise no Ill pass. nableezy - 07:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentorship definition

[edit]

What are the guidelines for mentorship, is it co-editing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. Ask the mentor or ask the closing administrator at WP:ANI. However, be aware that any failure to cooperate in full with the mentor will probably result in a site ban. So find out what the rules are, and comply in absolute full with them. Don't try to figure out how to push the limits. Ask what the guidelines are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't "figuring out how pushing" for any limits, I don't believe I was assigned a mentor yet in an official capacity. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I simply assumed you were the admin here Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC

[edit]

Robert, could you do me a favour and take a look at this draft for a second opinion. I would be tempted to accept the article. I'm beginning to have having mild concerns about the reviewer's experience, but I don't want to be seen as discouraging anyone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that the article should be accepted after one change. That is that the lede sentence needs to be revised to be of the form "A VR Coaster is a ...". Other than that, it meets notability and neutrality standards, in my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It was accepted, so then I fixed the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:50:27, 13 July 2016 review of submission by George Aniruddha

[edit]


This is an article written in Bengali. The font used is Avro Bangla.

We cannot accept articles in Bengali, or in any other language than English. Translate it into English or submit it to the Bengali Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:20:34, 13 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n

[edit]


Nevermind, I will consult the teahouse.

Disclosure

[edit]

In this edit you commented out a "meta-discussion", however you didn't notice that I had replied to that comment, so you should comment out my comment as well. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where you responded. It wasn't directly below the meta-discussion. Anyway, I think that I am about to close the thread and start it over. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. It was below my own comment. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In reverting some of the comments, you accidentally reverted other changes to other discussions. I am sure that you didn't intend to do that, but at this point the dispute resolution has gotten completely out of hand, and I had to fail it. You may go back to the article talk page and discuss again. If discussion is inconclusive, the closure of the case was without prejudice, and dispute resolution can be restarted again (if discussion resumes and is inconclusive). In the future, please don't revert talk page discussion in general. You might cause collateral damage (and you did). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my intention, and I am surprised this happened to me. After all, I have been around some 8 years. Thanks for your efforts, in any case. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, in posting the DS alert, I am not suggesting that you did anything wrong. I posted it on the other editor also. I'm finished with that case. If it comes back, someone else can moderate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i understood. I really appreciate your efforts and courtesy. Debresser (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other section

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I really don't understand how to prove notability any better than I already have. Everything is linked and sourced to reliable sources. IMDb is a very credible site that will only credit a person if it is proven and known. Everything that is posted is cited corrected by the site. What more do I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad Berk (talk • contribs) 01:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will ask at the Teahouse, but I think that they will say that IMDB is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:39:09, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Adrisfrety

[edit]



We improved and corrected the article and need to be review.More information and links were added. Regards, Adris Frety

You are probably wasting your time if you are trying to get your autobiography approved. Wikipedia isn't a social medium and isn't here to accept a page about you unless you pass its peculiar standards of notability. Please read the various policies that are listed in your welcome, and they will explain what Wikipedia is and isn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Who is "we" anyway? Are you one person, or multiple people? Group accounts are not permitted. Also, read WP:Notability (people). You are probably wasting your time trying to get your autobiography approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:05:25, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Breyer Group

[edit]


The submitted article sounds like an advert rather than an encyclopedia entry. Could you suggest changes please?

Don't use Wikipedia to advertise your company. Don't create a user account that is a corporate name. Change the user name to be a pseudonym for one individual who uses the account. If multiple people use the account, don't do that. Also, read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

[edit]

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:44:06, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Soccerlad604

[edit]


Hello, I'm waiting for a page to be reviewed. Are there any updates? I can resubmit the article but Wikipedia has notified me that there's already a submission being considered for review since June 26.

A kitten for you!

[edit]

You seem like you need a kitty

Alakazam Kalazam (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

alcatel-lucent enterprise

[edit]

per your request I updated the alcatel-lucent enterprise sources to cite notable sources such as bloomberg, wsj an zdnet. All company website sources have been removed. If you click on each source number it links you to the correct source. I have resubmitted the document for approval. 19oink (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors

[edit]

Hi! I was asked to look at Draft:The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and I was able to add two independently-published book sources. Is it possible to get this draft into the mainspace now, or should I try to find some more sources (South China Morning Post) first?

I met some people at a Hong Kong Wikimedia meetup and they wanted me to help fix the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

After reading the advice I went ahead and chopped the timeline up. I'll add some South China Morning Post sources and perhaps remove some of the primary source info that I deem to be too unimportant
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and removed some overciting in the division list. I would like to get this article out of the door so please let me know what else needs to be done. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tired?

[edit]

Re: Help_desk#Request_on_01:51:59.2C_15_July_2016_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_AxelRR. If a reviewer is too tired to review all references, shouldn't they take a break from reviewing? ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You meant https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk#Request_on_01:51:59.2C_15_July_2016_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_AxelRR

I was trying to offer advice to the author, which is that if they overwhelm the reviewer with unreliable references, the reviewer may not check the reliable ones. While I agree with you in the abstract, I also would advise authors to take advice that recognizes that the reviewers are human beings. If an author was told that they have too many unreliable sources, and they add new reliable ones after the long list of unreliable sources, they are only half heeding the advice. I didn't mean that the reviewer was fatigued, anyway, just overwhelmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing with me in the abstract and for trying to help the author. I'm not sure the draft would be improved by removing the lesser references or reordering things to get the reliable sources to show up earlier in the list of references. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Ross - Personal and Business

[edit]

Hello Robert...you reviewed my draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Gavin_Ross and asked is is about the person or the business.

I understand the guidelines and in no way am i trying to promote Gavin as a business. However, i find it difficult not to include what he does as a professional seeing as it is what he is known best for.

How can i correct this?

thanks

peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fongool (talk • contribs) 02:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Fongool (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC) User talk:Fongool[reply]

Well, are you trying to write about him, or about his company? I have neither approved nor declined your draft because I find it difficult to assess, and I can't approve it as is, but I don't want to decline it. My suggestion is to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in any great hurry to expedite the review of a draft at the request of a paid editor. Wait for another review. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Gavin Ross

[edit]

Hey, Robert McClenon, I noticed you recently reviewed Draft:Gavin Ross. The author of the draft recently revealed in a Teahouse discussion that they have a COI. They have yet to make it clear if they are being paid or not, though. I thought you would like to know before reviewing the article further. You can go directly to the discussion by clicking on the Teahouse wikilink I provided. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just made some civil but blunt comments at the Teahouse and am finished. Someone else can review it. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you, Robert, for alerting me to the corrections I need to make. Not sure I understand it all yet, but I will fix it as soon as I get the hang of how things work. Just starting out on Wikipedia. Your diligence is much appreciated. --Robert Gates Innerdesert (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:06:23, 21 July 2016 review of submission by TNSteam

[edit]


Hi Robert, Thank you for reviewing the Wiki page I am creating. I have removed the references to the companies own page and added a few more independent references. Would you be able to let me know if you think this might be more acceptable? Thanks Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNSteam (talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have very little interest in re-reviewing submissions by paid editors who don't make the disclosure, and even less interest in reviewing submissions by corporate accounts, since corporate accounts are never permitted, and this poster ignored the advice to change their user ID a week ago. Change your user ID to one that is legal, make the paid editing disclosure, and wait for a reviewer who is more willing to work with paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Note: The user has been blocked for advertising. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:58:59, 21 July 2016 review of submission by Jgd2828

[edit]


Hello, would you please mind explaining me how to get the references in line? Thanks

See Referencing for beginners and Referencing. If you have any further questions, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Evoqua Water Technology article

[edit]

Thanks Robert for the feedback. I will work on finding other reliable sources to credit my work. Do you have any advice on how to include the brands and products without making it read like catalogs. I really appreciate your help. I have spent a long time trying to get this send thru approval. Any advice is very helpful!

I also have a few questions about edits that have been made to my page by Jim.... I see that he removed the Trademarks and Registration marks from some of the brands I mentioned. Is a wiki page not allowed to include trademarks and registration symbols? Also, I am editing the page to find additional out side sources other than the Evoqua News site. It is okay to have a few sources that are from the evoqua newsroom page? This source includes several news releases about the product/services. If you could get back to me with some feed back that would be great! Thank you,

Whitney Norris —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are you working directly or indirectly for Evoqua Water? If so, please make the conflict of interest disclosure, and, if required, the paid editing disclosure. If not, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse, but find magazine and newspaper articles that have discussed the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon , I am a current communications intern for the company. I have read the COI and fully understand and have included my paid editing disclosure at the top of both my main user page and talk page. I have included several magazine and new articles from outside sources to the newest draft version I sent in for approval. I also have made sure the content is very non-bias, and very informational about the water industry. I don't know if you received my other note on my talk page, but here it is: Robert, I truly appreciate your time contributed on Wikipedia. I am learning a lot with Wiki as I have been drafting this page. I think Wiki is a great platform where others can learn just about everything. Hence, why I have drafted a page about the water industry. I am an intern for my current role in the company, so I am just here to learn as much as I can. This Wiki page is just a step in my learning process. I don't expect you to "help a paid editor" get their page approved, I understand that is not your responsibility on Wiki. Just thought, you could assist in my learning process.

Thank you Robert, Whitney Norris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whit.marie (talk • contribs) 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

06:52:49, 23 July 2016 review of submission by Rajendrarajun

[edit]



As suggested by Robert McClenon, the 2009 wikipedia background to the article was deleted. An attempt has been made to locate published references to the subject and they have been quoted and cited with links to the original sources. The main references relate to the subject's life period 1895 to 1975 with career period 1918 to 1955, it took a lot of effort to collect these and there would be more but at this point of time - these are the references available. Please take a look at the article again and let me know your thoughts. Perhaps you may find it improved from the previous version.Rajendrarajun (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What I can see is that the References are listed twice, in two different formats. This is very distracting. I can also see that the draft needs copy-editing for English. Neither of those is reason to decline it, but neither of those is reason to accept it. I will wait for others to do the second review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The references listings have been edited as per your suggestion. Could you take a look at the edited article pleaseRajendrarajun (talk) 05:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My original comment was that it read like an advertisement. I also made comments about the references, and about the need for copy-editing for English. It still reads as if its purpose is to praise the subject rather than to describe him. (Also, the sheer number of references, mostly to the same works, is WP:CITEKILL or WP:BOMBARD.) If you want the comments of other experienced editors, I can bring it up at the Teahouse. Otherwise, as noted, please wait in turn for review. Do you want me to ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

=Draft:Syed Najmul Hassan Kararvi

[edit]

I don't see that "Please provide a proper lede sentence of a form such as "Syed Najmul Hassan Karavi was a Pakistani Islamic scholar and author" or something like that." is a sufficient reason to decline an AfC draft--especially since the article aleady contained an adequate lede "Syed Najmul Hassan Kararvi, caste Shia, sect syed was a scholar of Shia Islam. " No one style is mandatory. (I'mm not sure of accepting it, because demonstrating notability if challenged remains a problem). DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to agree, and I am thinking that I may have entered that as a comment, and there may have been a mouse error in which I tried to select a more specific cause for the decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes, I too have made a number of similar errors. The AFC interface is remarkable for the ease at which it can go wrong. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WTFPL third opinion

[edit]

Hi, I thought you were giving a third opinion at Talk:WTFPL after getting clarification? What happened with that? Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn’t seem to be monitoring that page until after I posted here to ask you about it, so I’m posting here again since I’ve just responded. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I’m sorry to say it, but your reply there, after your comments on User talk:GoodDay, makes me seriously question your reading comprehension. You say you aren’t clear about something that was explicitly stated five days ago. I’m not trying to be mean here, but WP:Competence is required, and you’ll just confuse the situation if all you do is get confused about situations. Granted, I’m going off a sample size of two, so you may take this complaint with a grain of salt. But please, make an effort to understand the words you find on the page, or else don’t bother involving yourself. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Often it is the editor who has asked the question who hasn't done a satisfactory job of explaining what the question is, and no amount of reading by a third opinion volunteer can parse it. In this case, you have stated your position, but until I understand both positions, I am not qualified to answer. If you just want someone to agree with you, why don't you agree with yourself? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I stated both positions. In my recent reply to you on WTFPL, I even quoted the part where I stated both positions. Did you miss that? —67.14.236.50 (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

DRN question

[edit]

I've filed a case and I want to know how I'll find out if my case has been "opened"? --HamedH94 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
no i meant "how will i be notified?" --HamedH94 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just watchlist the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also be sure you have email notifications turned on for your watchlist. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

and what is meant by "back-and-forth discussion"? --HamedH94 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) HamedH94, that's something you should ask him on the DRN page so that everyone will see it. It's possible others don't know what exactly Robert meant, but they didn't want to ask. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I answered that at DRN, but will restate here. In normal talk page discussion, it is proper to reply to a previous post, indented. However, if a discussion gets to DRN, discussion between editors has already been inconclusive, and is likely to just go on and on further. So, at DRN, at least if I am the moderator, don't address comments to another editor, only to the moderator at the base level. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

so after 30 days, we count the votes? and if we're outvoted, but the arguments were more valid in the threaded discussion, there is no other way? --HamedH94 (talk) 04:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:HamedH94 - Please read Requests for Comments. An RFC is not technically a vote. As the policy explains, strength of arguments is taken into account by the closer. As to what happens if the vote is against you but you think that your arguments have been stronger, I will simply ask whether you are certain that your arguments are stronger. I haven't read the arguments, and I don't plan to be the closer, because I was involved by being the moderator. However, your persistence in asking for a way around consensus, now that consensus seems to be running against you, is troubling me. It appears that you are refusing to accept that you may "lose" in terms of not getting your way. Read drop the stick and other policies, guidelines, and essays, that will give you advice on how to "lose" gracefully rather than asking whether you can take the other editors to WP:ANI. If not, you are heading for a block. Try understanding that you don't always get your way. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Coat of arms of Enkhuizen

[edit]

Last March you refused approval upon Draft:Coat of arms of Enkhuizen. I have been working on the poor language, as did somebody else. Unfortunately, the rest of your criticism about this article was not very clear. Can you take another look at the article and explain if there are more problems? The Banner talk 10:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is a major improvement. I had some concerns about notability, but I will agree that notability for historical articles can be established by two references, so I think it passes notability. It needs a link to the name of the city. Other than that, I think it is ready to resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Levant

[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks again for your help at the DRN on Southern Levant. Unfortunately we remain stuck in an interminable argument at Talk:Southern Levant. Would you be able to find a couple of minutes to see if you could help us get some perspective? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:26:28, 26 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Adamkhandr

[edit]



Adamkhandr (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Dear Mr. McCleono: I have incorporated all the changes that you have suggested in the draft of my article. Your recommendations were very useful in improving the article. I was wondering if you would review the final draft and give me your opinion. Thanks. Sincerely, Dr. Adam Khah Adamkhandr (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:14:13, 28 July 2016 review of submission by Kkubiak

[edit]


We've added references. Is this better?

(talk page stalker) We? Is your account used by more than one person? -- Gestrid (talk) 15:57, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is actually a two-part question. First, as User:Gestrid asks, is your account being used by more than one person? If so, that is not permitted. Second, if your account is being used by one person, but on behalf of an employer, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:28, 28 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:44:56, 29 July 2016 review of submission by Aimeliholm

[edit]


Thanks for reviewing my submission. I wasn't aware that a previous article had been submitted on this subject. I have now modified the old article. Kind regards, Aimee

17:11:34, 29 July 2016 review of submission by Bibliografi

[edit]



Hello, I have amended the article, George Christy, and formatted the sources correctly, however, the list of sources at the end of the article includes those from the original draft and I am unable to delete them. Can you help, please? My article is at url: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:George_Christy

Many thanks, Catherine

You have duplicated the draft. Have you tried removing the duplicate portion of the draft? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the tone of the draft is breezy and informal. Can you try rewriting it in the neutral formal tone that is typical of Wikipedia articles?
If you are still have having difficulty, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Call for Help

[edit]

Hey, I was wondering if you could talk to a new user who is actually a meatpuppet. I recently started an AFD on another new user's article, and the new user brought in a friend of their's to create an account to support their side of the debate. I was going to let the meatpuppet know about their mistake (without reporting them, as that could be considered biting the newcomers), but I'm afraid it may sound a little biased coming from me, since I'm the one that started the AFD. Since you haven't been involved in this at all, do you mind talking to at least one of them? The meatpuppeteer is AnujKaps and the meatpuppet is GeetikaPandya. -- Gestrid (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will think about how to address this. I personally find the rule about so-called meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible. However, I do see a violation of the rule against canvassing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! -- Gestrid (talk) 21:14, 29 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]





Dear Robert, Thanks for your note re: canvassing. I am aware of that clause and have been extremely careful not to canvass.

The page i have created that s being discussed for deletion <Chamba Chukh> is something being discussed quite widely in our community in Himachal offline. I have in fact contacted my friends who are also from the region to NOT edit the page and also to not get onto the discussion board. however if they do, they should expressly specify that they know me and should state that upfront in the interest of complete transparency.

I will ask them to refrain from entering the conversation entirely, if that is more desirable. I can put forth their arguments through my own Username, if that is preferable. I am trying specifically to learn the etiquette of the wiki community to avoid such mis understanding, before doing too much.

Thanks, Anujkaps (talk) 07:42, 30 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
Thank you for all you do ! Moxy (talk) 16:18, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:40:27, 31 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 96.233.195.79

[edit]


Dear Robert MCClanon,

I'm new to creating documents, therefore I may have, inadvertently, created another entry for the Middlehope, NY subject. Please review the longer version of the subject, as I apparently am in the learning stages of contributing to Wikipedia. The identity of the hamlet of Middlehope, NY has been reduced by the fact that the US Postal service has removed (consolidated) postal location from the hamlet, thus leaving it's rich history of our community a 'irrelevant' place in history. Please help me to re-establish the identity of our hamlet, dating back to 18th century America, by including some core information about the locality. Thanks. PS: how do you include document links, I would love to include some historical items about the subject, and instruction in the help is no help.


96.233.195.79 (talk) 16:40, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, you are editing from an IP address. Are you also User:Akmillar? If so, please log in to edit. Second, you need to provide links to appropriate articles. If you have specific questions about references to history that are not answered by Referencing for beginners, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 31 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Young Duplicate Submission

[edit]

Hi Robert,

Thank you for responding to my submission! I think I accidentally created two submissions from my sandbox. How can I edit the one that is still queued for review? - my sandbox page says "this submission is a duplicate." You made a suggestion about the lede sentence, which I wanted to add. I have requested deletion of the draft Alfred Young that I created to dispell any further confusion. Best, Dlynn Dlynn55 00:59, 1 August 2016 (UTC) User:Dlynn55 - What is the question? You have tagged Draft: Alfred Young for speedy deletion. You can edit your sandbox. When the draft is deleted, your sandbox can be moved to draft space. What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do I still have a submission queued for review? A link to my draft replaced the content of my sandbox instead of the draft being deleted - I have continued to edit the draft.

If I do have a submission queued how can I ensure that Draft:Alfred Young (now the only copy I can find of my article) is the content that will be reviewed? Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dlynn55 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've been informed that I now have no submissions queued for review, ostensibly because my sandbox page was moved to a draft page.

May I recover my place in the queue? I was not requesting to have my sandbox article moved to the draft space while it was already queued for submission.

02:20:04, 3 August 2016 review of submission by Chfsh01

[edit]


Hello, thanks for your rapid feedback. Another reviewer quickly made the changes re the external links and a few others. Could you kindly let me know if the article is ready for re-submission, or if there is anything else? Thanks so muchChfsh01 (talk) 02:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC) chfs01![reply]

It still reads promotionally. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse about how to make it read neutrally. (By the way, do you have an association with the optical company? If so, you must declare it as conflict of interest.) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closing

[edit]

Did you mean to put DRN in your comment here? Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:13, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but on further review it probably isn't a good issue for DRN because it appears to be a case of a tendentious editor, and the best way to deal with them is to tell them to file an RFC. Changed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 3 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on handling Unseen character going forward?

[edit]
NAC: This case is still at WP:DRN. Side discussion here is out of process because it would make the moderator non-neutral. You may ask for general advice at a general advice forum, such as the Help Desk, identifying the article in question and the fact that it is at DRN and asking where to go next. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:19, 3 August 2016 (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.

I saw your comment on DRN that you will have to close the discussion if the other parties do not comment soon. My concern is even though the IP was notified multiple times in the first round of talk page discussion and DRN, and chose not to participate, he came in shortly after and contravened the compromise Rms and I had reached, and then when I created the second DRN request, he hasn't responded to it (I notified him on every IP he's used), but a week or so after you close the DRN, the IP will return and revert again now that semi-protection has expired. So, I am not sure what the next step would be when this happens, I've never gone beyond DRN, is it RfC, or is it the Mediation Committee? Or do you think this case qualifies for the Original Research noticeboard? An IP that constantly reverts, but won't participate in DRN, does that qualify as edit warring and should I take him to ANI/3RR for it when he resumes? Is that going to be helpful with someone with a dynamic IP that can't really be blocked?

Also, I'm a little wary of interacting with Rms125a@hotmail.com. At times he seems interested in compromise, but also seems eager to back out of that compromise given an ounce of encouragement, and I see he has been blocked 11 times for personal attacks and edit warring, he seems to have a history of being a difficult editor and I'm loathe to get crossways with him. He has edited the page with a compromise solution, which is to put Vera and Maris in a "Disputed 'unseen characters'" section. While my first impulse was to wholeheartedly embrace the compromise and be done with the whole thing. But then I realized that labeling these characters as "disputed" but not providing any reliable secondary sources that actually call them disputed runs afoul of WP:WEASEL; the only people who dispute their unseen character status are a couple of Wikipedia editors, so we're still stuck in original research territory. I feel like I should point this out, but the guy has already attacked me and accused me of so much, I feel like I have to walk on eggshells around him lest he take my objections to his compromise as some kind of antagonism. I'm at a loss for the best way to handle this. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2016 (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.

Request on 02:22:17, 4 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Chitecfan16

[edit]


Hello. I'm writing because I don't understand why my entry on China Rapid Finance was rejected. The only feedback received was "This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources"

In fact, my brief article was neutral in tone and included 13 citations of "independent, reliable, published sources" including the South China Morning Post, Bloomberg, Financial Times, TechCrunch, Crowdfund Insider and other relevant sources.

Given that just about every fact in the entry is attributed to independent sources, what else do I need to do to have the entry accepted for publication?

Thank you.



Chitecfan16 (talk) 02:22, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:Sachitanand $ingh/sandbox has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Sachitanand $ingh/sandbox. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:21:10, 4 August 2016 review of submission by JacquesBramhall

[edit]



I've improved the D. Chamberz article by removing the non-independent sources, adding much more information, adding better sources, and fixing formatting. I submitted the page a second time about two weeks ago and have still yet to see a response, and don't see it in the pending articles for creation.

What is the issue exactly? Who should I contact about this? User:JacquesBramhall - Your revised version of the article is waiting for review. It may take two to four weeks before it is re-reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:13, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:28:58, 5 August 2016 review of submission by Nexus65

[edit]


Hi Robert,

We made the changes you had pointed out and wanted to see if you could take a glance.

Thank you,

Do you have an association with the company? If so, please make the proper declaration in accordance with the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:06, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 00:20:45, 6 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dagumpf

[edit]


Hello Robert. Thanks for your help with the article. I mistakenly created two drafts, but I only wish to have one. How do I go about deleting one of the drafts, and then submitting the other for approval and publication? Note: I'm new to Wikipedia and don't know how to use the editor tools well. Thank you very much.

Dagumpf (talk) 00:20, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have already asked which draft you want deleted. Which draft do you want deleted? Which draft do you want to be reviewed? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thanks for your prompt response.

I'd like to delete the second draft, which was saved on 2 August 2016 at 09:28

I would like to ask that Wikipedia please consider accepting the first draft (saved on 18 June 2016‎ at 14:23).

Thank you very much

Dagumpf (talk)

Comment by a friendly passer-by. Hello Dagumpf. Your draft fails to provide references to independent, reliable sources that devote significant coverage to the topic of your proposed article. In my opinion, your article cannot be accepted in its current form. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:01, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have tagged one copy for deletion. However, the version that you want reviewed has not been submitted for review, Also, as User:Cullen328 notes, the references are not independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage. It will not be reviewed until you resubmit it, but it will not be approved with its current references. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with the company? If so, please provide the required disclosures under the conflict of interest policy and maybe the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:11, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen, I'm really grateful for your offer to help and comment.

I am not associated with the company I'm writing about.

I am new to Wikipedia. From from your comments in Talk regarding my article, I undersatnd that it is insufficiently written to be accepted. To qualify, it must provide information that can be corroborated by a reference that is (a) judged to be reliable by Wikipedia, (b) independent of the company being described, and (c) judged to provide significant coverage of the statement made in the article.

If you can please confirm that I've understood your comments clearly, I will then go ahead and rewrite the (first) draft of the article carefully.

Now that you have tagged the second draft for deletion (thank you!) what steps should I take to actually have it deleted?

With heartfelt thanks

Dagumpf


Dagumpf (talk) on

User:Dagumpf - Your draft Draft:The Sun Exchange Limited has not yet been formally submitted for review. Do you want one of us to submit it for review? I would advise you not to submit it for review yet, because it needs more independent reliable sources added. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Thank you Robert, the article is not yet ready for submission.

I'll take some time to rewrite it, taking into account the comments kindly provided by you and Cullen.

When it is ready, I will request (a) that one draft is deleted, and (2) that the other, re-drafted article be formally submitted for review.

Thanks for your detailed explanations and patience.

With heartfelt thanks

Dagumpf


Dagumpf (talk)

01:20:17, 6 August 2016 review of submission by WikiRonnie

[edit]


I update the references , company name, version, The information regrading the programming language exist in the refrence manual, there is also lots of infor the ATEasy product page http://www.marvintest.com/Product.aspx?Model=ATEasy

Thanks for your review, Can you review again and provide more suggestions? I'm not expert in Wikipedia, so any help is welcome so it can be published.

The only references are those of the manufacturer, and are not independent reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an association with the manufacturer? If so, please provide the disclosures required by the conflict of interest policy and possibly the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:15, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:48:30, 6 August 2016 review of submission by WikiRonnie

[edit]


I update the references , company name, version, The information regrading the programming language exist in the refrence manual, there is also lots of infor the ATEasy product page http://www.marvintest.com/Product.aspx?Model=ATEasy and many articles regarding ATEasy can also found here: http://www.marvintest.com/KnowledgeBase/default.aspx?task=go&search=ATEasy&searchtype=AND

Thanks for your review, Can you review again and provide more suggestions? I'm not expert in Wikipedia, so any help is welcome so it can be published.

Please comment on Talk:Truck

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Truck. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

july 25 review of submission by brian hittelman

[edit]

Thank you for reading the article I submitted recently, and for your input and suggestions regarding its rejection. I'm new to Wikipedia, and I made the careless mistake of trying to cut and paste a document into the Wikipedia format. I'm sorry that much of the information was poorly formatted, some sections a little too long, and didn't contain proper footnotes. I will attempt to correct these errors and resubmit an article in the near future (I may even recruit an acquaintance who has written some articles to help me out). I do believe my subject, Michael Frimkess, is a significant artist worthy of a Wikipedia entry, and deserves to have a thorough and accurate biography along with his peers. Please feel free to contact me if you have any further comments or suggestions- thanks again! Brian — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brirb315 (talk • contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brirb135 - The article in question is Draft:Michael Frimkess. As I mentioned when I declined it, the issue has to do with the WP:Footnotes. If you need more advice about how to improve the quality of the footnotes, or how to shorten the sections that are too long, I would suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:23, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of Mercedes Richards

[edit]

Thank you for reviewing Mercedes Richards' biography.

I have modified it according to my knowledge but I am not sure of having done it properly because it is my first contribution and I am starting to figure the page out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RocioPe (talk • contribs) 08:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbcom case

[edit]

"I think that there is actual impropriety here, but there certainly is the appearance of impropriety." Did you miss a word somewhere? --NeilN talk to me 17:28, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No. The wording may not have been optimum, but I meant exactly that. I thought that there was an actual impropriety, but that is arguable. There is definitely anyway the appearance of impropriety. I am considering changing the wording, but the wording is what I meant. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As written it's rather confusing, since "but" usually implies a contrast. Your intent as stated here would be clearer if broken into two sentences, along the lines of "I think that there is actual impropriety here. Certainly is the appearance of impropriety." Mr. Language Person (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Case

[edit]

Your statement that the phrase "I forbid anyone to disagree with me!" was a quote from me is false. Michael has been saying I said that, though I never did (nor did I say any variation of that phrase, nor even imply it). Michael doesn't seem to be lying about this, as he's never said it was a quote from me, either. Rather, it appears to me that he was presenting it as his interpretation of what I was saying, incorrect as it may be.

I felt it would be more appropriate to respond here, as the case page is not intended for discussion, only statements by involved or interested parties. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:01, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:MjolnirPants - Okay. In any case, the words appeared to be his, and appeared to be inappropriate for an administrator. The real issue is whether the ArbCom should review his fitness to be an administrator. If he is misquoting you, then that is further evidence that his behavior for an administrator is problematic. I think that the place to discuss his use of words is in the Arb case after it is opened. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:31, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. the implications are something to be discussed after the case is opened, at that place. I just wanted to make sure you had all the facts for your statement. I also don't mind admitting that I loathe the thought of anyone thinking I might actually utter such a thing as that. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:41, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Hardy arbitration case opened

[edit]

You were added to a mass-message list because of your displayed interest in this case. The Arbitration Committee will periodically inform you of the status of this case so long as your username remains on this list.

You were recently listed as a party to and/or commented on 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/Michael Hardy. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 25, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kharkiv07 (T) 17:23, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:49:08, 11 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by MUC-Panda

[edit]


Dear Robert, Many thanks for your fast response concerning my draft 'SWARM project'. I'll try to collect better sources. Because it's a German project many articles / sources are written in German. May I link to German sources too? Thanks in advance and kind regards MUC-Panda (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC) MUC-Panda (talk) 18:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You ask one question, whether you may link to sources that are in German. The answer is yes. Although sources in English are preferred, sources in foreign languages should also be used. In this case, since there is an article in the German Wikipedia, my advice would be to copy its sources into the English draft. If you have any more questions, you may ask at the Teahouse, but I think that the primary question had to do with the use of references in foreign languages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

[edit]

I appreciate your suggestion to close the ANI that was opened against me, but it ignores that fact that the entire ANI is a harassment of me because I am a woman. That is unacceptable. I could not, in good conscience, encourage a woman or girl to engage with Wikipedia after this. It is "gamergate-ish" - the way that (presumed) men piled on to find fault. I will be leaving Wikipedia, and have advised others of that. If women are attacked for being women, this is not a place to be. The ANI should have been closed long ago. But it was allowed to go on even though there was no substance. I'm outta here, and I'm doing it publicly. LaMona (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LaMona. I have been watching this since near the beginning when Rexx came to you asking that you look at your review of an article. At no time in any of this did he or anyone else reference or even hint at whether you were a man or a woman. I am a woman who has worked with women and girls my entire life including my own children and I maintain a strong feminist stance so I am acutely aware of situations where women are treated in ways that are less than men. I know you have done a huge amount of work for Wikipedia, but believe you have applied unilateral rules to the review process which are not part of the original remit of the AfC process, and in my comment asked, in I hope a gentle way, that you review those standards. I did not know you were a woman nor do I care. You are an editor first and one who has worked hard for Wikipedia. This collaborative project requires the checks and balances that arise when of all of us work together; we all are capable of working outside the boundaries of what the collaborative project has designed and all need to review periodically where we are in terms of those boundaries. I have watched and in a small way worked with both Rexx and Andy for quite along time and at no time ever, ever, have they ever acted in a way that led me to think they were treating women any differently than they would men. I understand believe me, inequality, but also refuse to use that to hurt other editors whether they are men or women. We as women do not further ourselves by damaging anyone. I don't think what you are accusing editors of on this whole issue is fair, and we above all must be fair or we do ourselves as women no favours when we treat others as we have been treated lowering our own standards. There are clear instances in my own history on Wikipedia when I was held to some standard of behavior that would not have applied to men as in, she is aggressive, and Wikipedia has some work to do in the area of how women are treated, but this was not such a situation. When you condemned editors who asked you to review your own work you condemned both men and women as you did me, and that's not fair either. It's not easy to accept criticism when there has been hard work especially if you don't agree with the criticism, but unfair accusations don't fix anything. I don't mean to sound patronizing in any way and respect the sheer volume of work you have done, but I don't like to see people treated unfairly either men or women. Best. (Littleolive oil (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2016 (UTC))[reply]
I've commented on this directly at the ANI, but here, I am simply going to second Olive's wise comments and I think LaMona is well advised to listen to her. Montanabw(talk) 20:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Andersen.

[edit]

Hello Sir,

I fixed my sources/citations per your request. Thank you for the help!

Best,

CarlosManzana (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)CarlosManzanaCarlosManzana (talk) 03:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Martin J. Andersen.

[edit]

Hello Sir,

I fixed my sources/citations per your request. Thank you for the help!

Best,

CarlosManzana (talk) 04:00, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Draft.
Message added 17:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

GABgab 17:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrally worded RfC

[edit]

You wouldn't be interested in helping me draft a neutrally worded RfC? DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:25, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean on the Cham Albanians? I am willing to help draft a neutral RFC. Just bear in mind that I will want it to be neutral. Put the draft wording on this talk page, and I will put in the boilerplate and we will work it. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome, thanks! Will get back to you shortly. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 12:06, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert. Sorry for not getting back to you earlier. I put the RfC on hold because I was hoping SilentResident would go ahead with the AE report which I believe would have settled this and several other issues as well. The article is highly toxic and I strongly believe it will remain so unless admins/arbcom intervene. Anyhow, in case you'd still be interested in helping out, here's the relevant part of the wiki article (which I claim is OR):
Muslim Chams were not keen to fight on the side of the Ottoman army, but already from autumn 1912 formed armed bands and raided the entire area as far north as Pogoni. As a result hundreds of Greek villagers were forced to escape to nearby Corfu and Arta. Thus, the members of the Muslim community were treated as de facto enemies by the Greek state.
The blue/red is to highlight and differentiate between the two sources used to substantiate the section in question. There's emphasis on "but" and "thus" because that's what the issue at hand boils down to. Just to illustrate my point, here's an example of SYNTH from the NOR policy page:
The United Nations' stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world.
I'd like to add that in previous discussions I've tried to explain that there's ambiguity with regards to context in both sources, but I'd like to avoid that now since it would likely complicate things and result in the discussion getting sidetracked. I'm fairly certain that keeping it simple and straight to the point is the only way to attract non-Balkan editors, but I'm not sure how to proceed from here without making it too bloated. Let me know what you think. DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 11:40, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:DevilWearsBrioni - I will be looking at your request. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with proper citings / footnotes

[edit]

Hi Robert, I have just submitted a request for an undeletion of my sandbox created page "Keith St John" which I had not been able to edit back at the time suggestions were sent to me for improvement. I was not aware of needing footnotes / verifications / proper citations to be included at the time and subsequently my life was quite busy and I was not able to make the corrections within the 6 month 'grace' period. I'm hoping for a simple"undeletion" and then I am wondering how I might be able to get some good guidance on how to best handle the necessary issues to have my page accepted!

Thank You very much and have a wonderful day,

Keith St John (talk) 19:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Help with proper citings / footnotes

[edit]

Hi Robert, I have just submitted a request for an undeletion of my sandbox created page "Keith St John" which I had not been able to edit back at the time suggestions were sent to me for improvement. I was not aware of needing footnotes / verifications / proper citations to be included at the time and subsequently my life was quite busy and I was not able to make the corrections within the 6 month 'grace' period. I'm hoping for a simple"undeletion" and then I am wondering how I might be able to get some good guidance on how to best handle the necessary issues to have my page accepted!

Thank You very much and have a wonderful day,

Keith St John (talk) 19:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments on your talk page. I will not be helpful about getting your autobiography accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:40, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What to do after a noticeboard discussion

[edit]

Robert- you were kind enough to help me with a dispute resolution board filing last month, which other editors rejected. One of your suggestions was to file a request for formal mediation. That was also rejected. Another suggestion was to get input from a noticeboard. I was wary because I've seen a lot of postings that get little or no response. I used a somewhat provocative heading to get attention, but tried to make sure the actual request was neutrally worded. It's here, still ongoing. Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#‎Does NPOV apply to gun articles? My question is about what happens once the discussion dies down. It doesn't look like noticeboard discussion get any official closing, like RFCs do. My concern is that editor on the talk page will reject any outside input, saying something like, "that doesn't affect us", in which case it would have been a useless exercise. What's the right procedurre going forward? Felsic2 (talk) 20:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Some noticeboards have formal closure. Some do not. It appears that WP:NPOVN does not have formal closure. However, you ask what to do next. I will be as neutral as I can in my advice, but it does appear that you have to recognize that you can't always find a way to push your viewpoint to acceptance. Local consensus appears to be against you. You did use a non-neutral heading to try to get attention, and that wasn't really a good idea.Also, remember that firearms issues are subject to discretionary sanctions, so that tendentious editing can be sanctioned. In any case, you have two choices. First, you can file a neutrally worded Request for Comments and accept it as final binding consensus. Second, you can let the subject drop. Those are your choices. RFC, or nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, using non-neutral headings is tendentious? I didn't realize that. I'll post an RFC. Thanks. Felsic2 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
One more question - which "RFC category" should I use? Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#Categories None seem obvious to me. Felsic2 (talk) 00:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like 'soc' to me. No. Using non-neutral headings isn't tendentious, just annoying. It is forum shopping that is tendentious. But RFC is a permitted last forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:00, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. FYI, I used a heading that I thought would get attention because my previous effort to clarify the meaning of the policy went unanswered. Wikipedia talk:Neutral point of view#‎Due/undue weight. Felsic2 (talk) 01:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page of a policy page is often not the right place to ask questions about how the policy is applied. Its purpose is to discuss possible changes to or clarifications of the policy. The Help Desk or Teahouse are better places to ask questions. Use an RFC, or accept that consensus is against you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I find the issue of "consensus" to be very confusing. In one recent discussion, there seemed to be three editors arguing "pro" and two arguing "con". In a situation, is either side arguing against consensus? Is it not OK to keep talking over an issue to try to find consensus? Also, I read on WP:CONSENSUS that "consensus can change". There seems to be a tightrope between following the steps at WP:CONSENSUS#Consensus-building, which include a variety of dispute resolutions procedures, and WP:FORUMSHOP, which seems to discourage using those procedures. In this case, I sought resoltion at DRN and MEDIATION, both of which were rejected by other parties before they began. Then I went to the NPOV noticeboard, but you seemed to suggest that doing so couldn't lead to a resolution either. So, at your suggestion I've done an RFC. Yet some people have accused me of forum shopping. This process seems mystifying, and full of hidden traps. Anyway, I won't take up more of your time. Thanks for your advice. Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you did go ahead and open the RFC, and it is neutrally worded. You are permitted to comment on it non-neutrally, of course. To clarify about consensus-building and the oddities of the consensus process and forum-shopping, the guideline that you were reading doesn't say to use a variety of dispute resolution procedures. It says that there are a variety of dispute resolution procedures. Forum-shopping consists of trying multiple procedures until you get one that goes along with you. Using DRN and then NPOVN did have the look of forum-shopping. For a content dispute, it is always permitted to escalate to RFC, which is the last step in content resolution. It appears that the RFC is more or less even but with slightly more support for inclusion. Do you have any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have many questions, but I don't want to impose on your time. Let me ask just two. I thought the DRN filing was essentially a null effort since it was closed before it got started. Is there only one "bite at the apple" as far as dispute resolution goes?
Is a comment like this, "anti-gun agenda pushers", a personal attack? It's the kind of thing that gets tossed around pretty frequently. I think I've been careful not to reply in kind, but these comments really make a discussion difficult. What should I do? Felsic2 (talk) 01:17, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
To state that another editor is pushing an agenda is not a personal attack. It may be accurate or inaccurate, but on its face it is a statement about someone's views. It does appear that you are pushing an agenda. It also does appear that editors who disagree with you are pushing an agenda. If you really think that other editors are being disruptive, give them the required alert as to discretionary sanctions, and, if they continue to be disruptive or tendentious, report them to arbitration enforcement. As to what you should do, you know what you should do, which is to let the RFC run its course. Why do you ask? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose that just about everyone who starts an RFC is a "POV pusher" in some way. But it was the dismissing of an argument by using an ad hominem attack that I thought was against the rule: Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. But I guess the policies can't be interpeted as written. Thanks again for your help and advice. Felsic2 (talk) 01:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:48:22, 15 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Lurend

[edit]


I have added some solid references for the Beaumont Library District article and made a few other corrections, including adding the geographical coordinate positions. Hope this passes muster!

You added some Further Readings, but they aren't in the usual proper form for references. If you are having difficulty with the references, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lurend (talk) 18:48, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You for the reply Robert,

I think there must be some misunderstanding with my original message. I am definitely not looking for help with any sort of autobiography. Sorry for any confusion.

Keith St John (talk) 22:30, 15 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is some problem. Your user name is User:Keith St John, and you appear to be working on an article about Keith St John, who appears to be a living person. Are you Keith St John? If so, the draft is an autobiography. If you are not Keith St John, why are you using his name? If you are not Keith St John, you need to change your user name. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:13:25, 16 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Zayzeeltd

[edit]


Thank you for your review of the article 'Maryam Elisha', on August 15, 2016. I have reworked on it and re-submitted it for review. Zayzeeltd (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zayzeeltd (talk) 10:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest either waiting for another review or asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:46:59, 16 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Owula kpakpo

[edit]


You recently declined a new article I wrote title Jayso and the reasons for the declined I have not been privy to till date. So can you help me and give the reasons why you declined my article. Thank You


Owula kpakpo (talk) 10:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC){{SAFESUBST:Void|[reply]

The article is not visible. If you are able to view the article, then there may be a problem affecting certain browsers, but I am unable to view the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:50:15, 16 August 2016 review of submission by Owula kpakpo

[edit]


I want to know the reason why my article was declined because the reasons that was given first has not been visible to me.

Assuming Bad Faith

[edit]

Hello dear Robert McClenon. First of all I wanted you to know that appreciate your neutral stance and advises on the Noticeboard. I appreciate your recommendations. My I ask for your neutral (or personal, or unofficial, or whatever) opinion on something that has bothered me? As a kinda-novice Wiki user, even after 5 years of Wiki activity and contributions, I am not sure how exactly could handle this myself. More specifically, lets say tat it happened that an editor with whom I was in a dispute with until very recently, has now assumed bad faith of my part and I do not know how to react/respond to that. Can you tell me in a unofficial lets say, level, what what could you have recommended to someone being assumed of Bad Faith, to do? I am thinking, just ignoring the Bad Faith comment is just the best and most appropriate thing to do. But even if I ignore this, it is my first time I am assumed of bad faith of my part and I feel unsure on know how to handle it. I could appreciate if can you let me know what, logically, the other editors could have done in my place? (and yes, I am aware of what it is: WP:BadFaith). Sorry for your time, and any advice could be greatly appreciated. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:01, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the comment. I find that generic comments such as how to deal with an allegation of bad faith tend not to be helpful, and that it is not possible to give useful answers to them. Allegations of bad faith cover such a large spectrum that I can't answer in general, but, in general, comments that impute bad faith fall into two classes. The first is those that are just unpleasant. They should be ignored, and that is probably but not necessarily the case here. The second is comments that rise to the status of personal attacks. They should be called out at least with "I object" and possibly with a warning on the talk page or even a report to WP:ANI. I don't find questions such as yours to be easy to answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:51, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[2]. The "false narrative you've created about me" - I am not sure either. But can't be helped but sound like assuming Bad Faith of my part. Well, thanks anyways for your time to reply to my concerns. Have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:21, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, you are creating a narrative about DevilWearsBrioni, that they are persistently claiming original research. You can't expect another editor to be pleasant when you first start to report them to Arbitration Enforcement and then back off. Either go ahead and file, orlet it drop. You can't expect ANI or arbitration enforcement to be pleasant. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"when you first start to report them to Arbitration Enforcement and then back off" you got that impression? In fact, I posted it on the AE but it was removed by someone else [3] and I was informed this removal was done due to not using AE formula for such reports [4]. That is why, currently, I am re-designing it to meet these AE standards... Someone gladily shared an example draft on how these reports are made, and I work based on it (meet word cap, and provide necessary diffs, etc): [5] Since this is my very first time on the AE, I am kinda cautious and I try to not rush it, because I want it to be a good report and without errors, not a problematic one. I am sorry and I am sad that the impression I have given to you is that I backed off. -_- -- SILENTRESIDENT 13:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. It doesn't matter. If you either do file the report or don't, you can't expect DevilWearsBrioni to be friendly. Of course they think that you are creating a false narrative. You are creating a narrative. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I do not expect him to be friendly. I have not asked for that editor to be friendly. We are not here to make friends, right? There is Facebook for that. Just I was looking for a neutral opinion because I do not want to misunderstand the other editor's words. And the best way to do that is by seeking for a third advice. And you have provided it, for which I thank you. My thanks for providing me that neutral opinion. - However, I can't help but take note of "when you first start to report them and then back off" and "You are creating a narrative" during our conversation, a hint that you are developing a negative opinion of me which is unfortunate because I wish editors could not be so eager to judge other editors, and show some understanding for what they have been through. But, okay. This too doesn't matter, I guess. But for me, it will matter where I will have to look for a neutral advice in the future, if need for it arises. I will probably have to look the other way around. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:11, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I still think that I am neutral. I only said that you are creating a narrative, both about yourself and about DevilWearsBrioni. That is just the way it is. Of course he thinks that it is a false narrative, and you think that it is a true narrative. That is just the way it is. Anything creates a narrative. I am still ready to give you advice. Bear in mind that I may also give DevilWearsBrioni advice if they want help in writing a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If he asked for your help, I can't see how this can be a problem. Giving someone a helping hand is a sweet thing to do. -- SILENTRESIDENT 16:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:I have listened to what you have said about creating a narrative and I have weighted the possibility that I may be overreacting against the editor DevilWearsBrioni, and therefore, I have decided that I better withdraw my AE Report (in part because of this, besides for other reasons such as the lack of ARBMAC warnings towards that user on his talk page). I did not fill the AE Report but at least I have informed him that the Balkan-related topics (in which he has records of disruptive behavior), are falling under ARBMAC so he has to be more careful from now and on. Especially after he has reassured me that he is aware of the ARBMAC. However, I want you to know that if I did not fill the AE Report, does not necessarily mean I will turn blind eye to any future disruptive behaviors and possible ARBMAC breaches in Balkan-related articles, and especially from users who are already aware of ARBMAC. I am saying this just in case, because, if this happens again, if such kind of incidents ever repeat, then, no one can say this is a "narrative". Thanks for being honest with me and have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 17:49, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:Dear Robert, my apologies for keeping posting in your talk page. I know you must be very busy and the last thing you will want, is someone posting in your talk page for a dispute that everyone could have wished/hoped belongs to the past once and for all. May I ask if the Arbitation Enforcement is the only option in dealing with certain disruptive editors, or is there another way? I'm asking because I am not 100% sure if this is the most effecttive option, or that there are other better options that I have missed. Could really appreciate if can you (or someone else - dunno where to ask) inform me what exactly my options are for dealing with persistent incidents. I have double checked Question Faqs in Wikipedia but still I am not sure if AE is the only way. The weekend has once again stressed me a bit, because some unfortunate developments with the user DevilWearsBrioni have occurred again, some disruptive incidents I wish didn't happen. He has repeated further disruptions in the ARBMAC-protected Expulsion of Cham Albanians article where he restored the Original Research Tag a couple more times in spite of the outcome of all past noticeboards and the DRN resolution. Someone has given him a formal ARBMAC warning on his talk page today, but I can't say if the ARBMAC warning will make him reconsider his disruptive stance. But just in any case, I could like to tackle the issue in the proper way and without missing anything, if time comes and need arises. But I am still not sure about the range of options available in dealing with persistent disruptive editors. Is the Arbitation Enforcement the only viable solution? -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:50, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:SilentResident - I will reply at your talk page because this thread is hard for me to find on mine because it is in the middle. (I know that it needs archiving.) I will point out that DevilWearsBrioni is not the only editor who is tagging the article. I would suggest that a request be made for formal mediation. If that is accepted, that is that. If it is declined, the next step is either an RFC or Arbitration Enforcement. Since this is a content dispute that is aggravated by conduct issues, I would prefer to see a content settlement rather than Arbitration Enforcement. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:51, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Fuad Halim has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Fuad Halim. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Portal:Fuad Halim

[edit]

A tag has been placed on Portal:Fuad Halim requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section P1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a portal which would be subject to speedy deletion if it were an article.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. bonadea contributions talk 15:59, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pearson (musician)

[edit]

Hi there - you have been so helpful as I learn the building of the page for musician Jack Pearson. I was wondering if you'd direct me in how to provide those references you say I need so I can get that box removed and the page up and visible? Jackguitarfan (talk) 19:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Referencing for Beginners. If you have any questions after that, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:22:27, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Akonstantino

[edit]


Hello!

I've been notified that my arcticle is declined because there is a previous article about Nicholas Jordan (Draft:Nicholas_Jordan). I've contacted with the author of the prevous article and he agreed that my article is more informative than his one. He also noted that he want to remove his article as outdated.

My article is the most updated one, it has triple more references than the previos article (which has been deleted)and more structured content.

So i would kindly ask you to review my article as a basic wikipedia material about Nicholas Jordan. I'll be very happy to get a feedback from you.

Akonstantino (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am asking for advice at the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:18:43, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Tomfid

[edit]


I've edited the Vensim draft to make it less promotional, per your flag. If you have any further suggestions, I'd appreciate a pointer to particular language that's problematic.

Looking at other items in the List of computer simulation software, they're generally less encyclopedic, but have not been flagged as promotional. For example, the Wolfram_SystemModeler page uses self-citations almost exclusively and the Anylogic page practically gushes over its own virtues. I think it's intrinsically difficult to describe a commercial product without mentioning features that could be construed as promotional.

Thanks for your time - much appreciated.

I am asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:29:32, 17 August 2016 review of submission by Tpalum24

[edit]


Hi Robert,

I was wondering if I could ask you for some advice on my submission that you recently declined. You stated you felt it was promotional rather than neutral and I was wondering if you could point me in the direction of where you felt it was leaning towards promotional rather than informative.

As for your comment on most of the references being from the company itself, I did get the information on their product's names off of their website. Each product has its own page on the website, so I thought I was just being succinct in getting all the references from where I got the information. The information in my submission, besides the products name, almost entirely came from other sources rather than their own website.

For instance, I look at 3M's Wikipedia page and the majority of their products do not even have references, and it states a citation is needed, should I omit the references since they are from the company's page itself? Should I omit the list of products itself?

Even so, 3M's page has 3M's website as a reference for the products they do have references for.

Is the point you are trying to make that I should be looking for sources outside the own company for reference on their products?

Any advice you have towards my questions, or in general about my submission, would be very helpful.

Thanks

Tpalum24 (talk) 15:29, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I added some changes where I thought I could have came off as promotional towards the company. I see what you meant by it coming off promotional but I think my changes should have eliminated the promotional tone.
I think the only other question I have is about the product list. I realize this generates a lot of the references from their own website so does this create a problem or should I leave it as is?
Tpalum24 (talk) 21:31, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Pearson (musician)

[edit]

I had mistakenly made my user name the name of the page (my first wiki attempt) and so it appeared I was the subject I was writing about - which I am not. It have since been changed properly and I have provided many links and references of this artist to show notability. Can you please clear your "decline" so it can be published? Thank you!! I have spent the last 2 full days on this and would like to see the finished product. whew. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackguitarfan (talk • contribs) 21:17, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not ask a reviewer to 'clear' their decline. You may ask them to re-review, and they have the right either to re-review or to let another reviewer re-review (which may involve waiting). However, the declines are part of the history of the draft. Also, please see my comments on your talk page about the use of copyrighted material. Please answer the question of what your association is with the musician. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 10:55:25, 18 August 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Akonstantino

[edit]


I just want to note that the reason why the previous article was deleted is poor refernce base for notability. The new article contains mach more references to a noticeable sources such as Wall Street Joiurnal, Bloomberg, Reuters. This is the main improvement and i hope that there are no any reasons to delete the article.


Akonstantino (talk) 10:55, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is in draft space and is not at risk of being deleted. The issue is whether to approve the draft by moving it into article space. I have asked for advice at the Help Desk but have not gotten an answer. I have now asked for the deleting administrator to review your draft and the deleted version to confirm that your draft is better. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:31:35, 18 August 2016 review of submission by Lurend

[edit]


Changes and enhancements were made to confirm notability, please confirm receipt and approval.

I suggest waiting in the review queue, or asking at the Teahouse for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jarrod Moses

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I am new to Wikipedia and you have been editing my submission "Jarrod Moses". I would love to get this approved and I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction. I have made several drafts but I now think that my final draft is up to date with the proper criteria that wikipedia asks for. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisdaner (talk • contribs) 12:53, 19 August 2016 (UTC) User:Nisdaner - You have created two copies of the draft on Jarrod Moses. It isn't clear which one you want to submit, but you haven't submitted either. The references are inconsistently formatted in both. Do you want me to ask for advice at the Teahouse, or will you ask for advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC) Hi Robert,[reply]

I made changes and enhancements that confirm notability, I resubmitted the article in sandbox (this is the copy that I would like to be approved). Can you please confirm that this is the correct way to get my article approved and finished. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nisdaner (talk • contribs) 17:51, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nisdaner - If you want the version in your sandbox reviewed, and do not want the version in draft space reviewed, it would be helpful if you would either request that the version in draft space be deleted, or ask another user to request that it be deleted. That would allow the sandbox draft to be moved into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft article for J. Peter Burkholder

[edit]

Hi Robert, At your suggestion I have removed the redlinks from the draft. Cjfreitag (talk) 16:24, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:46:47, 19 August 2016 review of submission by Adam Rotenberg

[edit]


Hi Robert. Thank you for taking a look at my submission. You had cited that there were no references included in my draft, but I was hoping to get a specific reason why the article I sited were not sufficient enough for the company to be considered notable. I'd really like to fix the problem and I appreciate your feedback. Thank you!

See my explanation at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

21:08:10, 20 August 2016 review of submission by Apersonofinterest20

[edit]


Hi I am sorry, I opened an account under Jackarmstrongartist initially to try to get this person listed within the encyclopedia as I believe he deserves a place in history.

The article is not about myself, I am not Jack Armstrong so I realized I needed a more neutral user name, I couldnt seem to delete the other account. I would love to contribute to wikipedia and have this published and would be grateful if you could use this account and this article as it has been updated taking into consideration all previous comments and advise received from other members.

None of this material is speculation, it is all based upon facts and I would be very grateful for any help or advise you can provide to assist me in getting this published.

This article is not for monetary gain by means of selling anything or promoting this individual it is just purely factual information I believe needs to heard.

I have raised this question at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:35, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gamergate controversy. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unseen character RfC

[edit]

The RfC on Unseen character isn't going that well. It started out fairly well, but there is a new user named Handthrown (just registered July 29, 2016) who has joined in and is being disruptive. His/her comments are long and rambling, stray well outside the scope of the RfC, unsurprisingly for someone so new betray a complete lack of understanding of policies like deletion and no original research, and what's more persists in making sarcastic comments about me. Another editor has warned this person that this is not helpful, and I have warned Handthrown to maintain civility and stick to the question raised by the RfC, but he/she persists in disruptive comments, and it is derailing the RfC. I collapsed the off-topic discussion with the breaches of civility in it, but then realized as an involved editor it was inappropriate for me to do so, so I reverted myself. Could I ask if you could look in on this discussion and curb the disruption? [6] Thanks. Mmyers1976 (talk) 05:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

First, while I agree that Handthrown's sarcasm is unhelpful, I am not sure that it rises to the level of calling for a warning. Second, in any case, the real reason that the RFC was being derailed is that you didn't include a Survey section for the !votes only, so that the Discussion was being cluttered with, guess what, sarcastic Discussion. So I have added a Survey section. That is really, in my opinion, what is needed to get the RFC back on track. See if that works. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see any serious breaches of civility. Could you please point them out to me? I think that the problem is the structure of the RFC, but I think that that can be (and is being) fixed during the poll. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This was my first RfC, I didn't realize that it is supposed to have a survey section, it doesn't appear to be suggested on the instructions at WP:RFC. Now I know, thank you for setting that up. While Handthrown's incivility was not the worst I have ever seen by any measure and there was no one comment that was a flagrant violation of WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, in aggregate the tone was aggressive toward me and it was contributing to a disruption of the discussion. For instance, distorting my words about WP:PERFECTION, and distorting my mention of WP:AFD in response to her assertion that the article wasn't contributing anything and should be "taken away" (she did both multiple times in her comments), that is considered incivility under 2.(e) of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL, and the condescending comment "If you want to discuss this any further please take it up with Mmeyres1976. Just please go easy on him, because he means well" would qualify as 2.(a) of WP:IDENTIFYUNCIVIL. Her reference to my comments about the article surviving three previous AfDs, that that puts the article "outside the law", that's not really assuming good faith about me or the people who contributed to the AfDs. And in general, there were a lot of unnecessary comments about me, against the policy directive to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". So again, no one single blatant personal attack, but a lot of little comments and tone that taken together violate the spirit of the policy. Mmyers1976 (talk) 14:25, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The instructions for RFC's do not specifically state that there should be a Survey section and a Discussion section, but experience has been that a Survey section makes it a lot easier for the closer to assess consensus, and minimizes the risk of having discussions distract from the RFC. I will note that there is a certain naming oddity about RFCs. It officially stands for Request for Comments, and it works just fine in most cases as a way of getting comments. However, the primary use of the RFC process isn't as a request for comments, but a request for consensus. If the purpose of the RFC is to get consensus, and yours has that purpose, then it can be difficult to separate back-and-forth discussion from viewpoints and consensus. I will take another look and see if I see serious incivility, but on previous readings I didn't see serious incivility, only a lot of sarcasm. Those are my comments for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

From Johnegood

[edit]

Hi Robert, I am somewhat baffled by the question of how to write and navigate thru Wiki. I understand the feedback that I was given that the article for Burton Edelson was inadequately documented leaving too many questions open. At this point, I despair of ever learning the semantics and protocols of wikipedia. Is is it possible to hire an expert to do the research and the submission? Would that be frowned upon? What started as a fun project is, now that I'm about 12 hours into, another nasty chore full of confusion and frustration.. I'm sure a good researcher who knows wikipedia could do it in 2-3 hours. Is such a person findable?

This communication with you is an example of the problems that I face. Is editing source code the right way to respond to your kind invitation to answer a question? It feels wrong. Plus there's a weird delay so I'm typing and correcting missed letters at a snail's pace. Morse code would feel better than this. And now I realize that I have no idea how to ever get an answer...sigh. john edelson (reachable as [redacted] ) |- By User:Johnegood

07:09:25, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Roffball

[edit]


Hello, I have removed external links from the article.

Dear Robert and Martha, Please let me know how I can make my draft ready for re-submission. I'd really appreciate your help. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.142.158.9 (talk) 20:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You removed the references, probably when you removed the external links. The references must be restored before the draft can be considered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:30:43, 24 August 2016 review of submission by Alex92126

[edit]
As I noted, the draft has no references, and so does not establish notability. If you have any questions, either about references or about corporate notability, or something else, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Dear Robert

Thank your for your feedback regarding the article I wrote for Nianga Nolag ('Innocent') Dimi. I have now amended the title to ensure his surname is shown at the back, and so he should be referred to as Dimi throughout the article.

In addition I have amended the footnote links to ensure they all show the direct websites and not under google translate.

Your re-review will be greatly appreciated, please do let me know if this is ready to be accepted!

Thank you very much for your help, much appreciated.

Best regards Martha

03:06, 25 August 2016 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martha Hunta (talk • contribs)

09:14:36, 25 August 2016 review of submission by Autowinspec

[edit]



Dear Robert, I made some additions. I would like to publish the article for autowinspec robot because it is uncommon among wind turbine inspection robots. I tried to insert some photographs of the robot but anytime I tried to upload the photos some abuse filter does not allow for this. Unfortunately there is also no article for acoustoultrasonics the NDT method used by this system to somehow link it. I could write an article regarding acoustoultrasonics on a second stage.

Duplicate drafts

[edit]

I have asked about your AfC declines of drafts as "duplicates of another submission which is also waiting to be reviewed" before. You decline drafts for that reason even when the duplicate is not in fact waiting to be reviewed, and even when you yourself agree that the submitted page is the one that should be reviewed, not the other one, as you did here. I find that extremely unhelpful, entangling the AfC process in more red tape than necessary, and in red tape that may well be beyond a new user's abilities. I would ask you to please stop declining drafts as duplicates when there is no submitted duplicate. Huon (talk) 01:37, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft Adana Gundogdu Schools

[edit]

Hi Robert

I have changed the first section slightly. There are in fact 5 different schools located on the same campus. Hope it makes more sense now

Angelamatheson1975 (talk) 18:35, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adana derby

[edit]

You didn't review it though did you, you just hashed out the same old stupid argument. I'd like to know which bit of it has no reliable or independent sources because clearly there's a) a lot of them b) they're significant and c) reliable Abcmaxx (talk) 14:34, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Abcmaxx - I will be commenting at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:52, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

louis ginsberg (poet)

[edit]

Thank youBinaryPhoton (talk) 02:32, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

09:27:47, 29 August 2016 review of submission by Iphigenia Wang

[edit]


Hi, I am a new editor in here, and as one of Uk Museum's placement student from China, I am not very familiar with Wikipedia UK, and may I ask some confused questions in here? I am a bit confused why the Wikipedia UK doesn't allow an independent article of " snuff box" exist? In my sense it's a notable cultural stuff in European cultural art.Here are many different styles of snuff boxes in my placement museum, they include both aesthetic and practical value, and I also found an independent article “Snuff bottle” which refers Chinese snuff decorative box in Qing Dynasty. Qing Dynasty is a similar historic period with Victorian period,it seems both snuff bottle and snuff box could represent both different special cultural sense and similar cultural link together. Also in my placement museum, here are some touched snuff boxes'stories with soldiers.For example, here is an interesting Highlanders’ Regimental tradition adopted by General Wemyss about recruiting the new soldiers. The General with a “snuff mull” in his hand and followed by an attendant with a bottle of Whisky, went down the ranks, and to every young man that he wished to enlist he offered snuff. This signal was perfectly understood, and the young man would step out of the ranks and take the snuff and his dram while the clerk recorded his name.Another example is a rectangular tontine silver snuff box which has four hinged compartments for snuff. On the lid is an inscription explaining ownership, which was the last remaining Officer on the list who was serving with the Regiment.It's normally considered this box is belonged to four different regimental officers who purchased it together, and when an officer died in the battle, the others kept it until the last keeper. It stands for a precious friendship of these officers. So why do you highlight the art value of snuff bottle, but ignore the same value of snuff box? Thanks indeed for read my long questions, looking forward your reply, and have a nice day! Iphigenia

I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert,

thanks for your comments on the article for Austrian pianist Cornelia Herrmann. As suggested by Pax85, I did change the wording (in order to avoid copyright problems). He said that was the most important thing to improve. I have done that. I have also added two more references, an article in an American newspaper and an article in a music magazin called 'Una voce poco fa'. There was no need for major changes in the references. May I say that I really find it confusing that one person tells me one thing and then other people say other things. I have changed the article many times now and, in my opinion, it really does fulfil your criteria. Thank you, all best Hmm2015 (talk) 09:42, 29 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Robert you had queried whether I was connected with Alzheion in my Draft: Alzheon article. I am not connected, just interested in Alzheimers disease and the search for a cure. Thanks DHeidtman (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: User:FelixBertram/sandbox has a new comment

[edit]
I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:FelixBertram/sandbox. Thanks! Mduvekot (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Greger DRN case

[edit]

Would you consider revisiting your close? The case doesn't really involve a large number of disputants, it only appears that way because Alexbrn asked me to include more. The main disputants have been myself, him, and Jytdog recently. Almost all the others either came from WP:FTN to offer brief comments, or were SPAs/possible socks trying to eliminate the Hall content. The issue is simple and straightforward, so I think WP:DRN is appropriate. I do not want to do an RfC because editors from FTN (who mostly do good work, and I am not casting aspersions) will vote in a bloc, skewing the result. I've also generally never found the RfC process to be good for anything. Everyone has already been notified of this discussion and offered initial comments. I hope you will consider just going through with the process. If not, I will list it at WP:M. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the issue is very simple, concerning whether two lines of text are covered by BLPSPS. The process would definitely be lightweight and quick. --Sammy1339 (talk) 15:17, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am copying this to the dispute resolution talk page, WT:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

20:51:58, 31 August 2016 review of submission by 2015Cruiser

[edit]


Hi

Viking River Cruises changed their corporate structure when they launched Viking Ocean Cruises. They created a Parent company called Viking Cruises.

I'm trying to distinguish the difference between Viking Cruises (the Parent) and the 2 Subsidiaries: Viking River Cruises and Viking Ocean Cruises

Once the Viking River Cruises page is created, I can move all the specific Viking River Cruises info (Fleet specs, Itineraries etc) to this new page. And then make the Viking Cruises page just about the corporate structure.

Thanks! 2015Cruiser (talk) 20:51, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Maryam Elisha

[edit]

Hello Robert, you reviewed this Draft:Maryam Elisha before and after I reworked on it, you said it passed notability but still left it for another editor. It was reviewed by User talk:SwisterTwister and rejected based on notability. Again, I have reworked it and added more reference,all of which are of reliable sources. I haven't resubmitted it though. Could you please look through it and advise me? I do not want it rejected again. Thank you. Zayzeeltd (talk) 01:15, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Daniel A. Portnoy

[edit]

Hi Robert. Thanks for your suggestion of removing the red link, I have made this change and welcome any additional feedback. Aaron W. (talk) 23:48, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Hallet Davis Pianos

[edit]

hi. I think i may have deleted your connection to the draft? I deleted the article edit at the top and now there is no connection to pending review? Oops? — Preceding unsigned comment added by HS188EP (talk • contribs) 21:52, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the restore! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HS188EP (talk • contribs) 22:48, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case opened

[edit]

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/The Rambling Man.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Evidence.

Please add your evidence by September 17, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For non-parties who wish to opt out of further notifications for this case please remove yourself from the list held here

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:04, 3 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Olivia O'Brien

[edit]

Hi Robert, I made all the changes you asked on my draft about references errors, Thanks for the review! 

Tomatodelavegas (talk) 11:25, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Please Robert work on Luke Shen-Tien Chi page. I personally feel really bad. That I'm a bad editor. However, after reading his story. I really think he deserve to be part of Wikipedia.

User:223.104.177.248

The article is Draft:Luke Shen-Tien Chi.

Hi Robert, i made the changes you asked for. Thank you, Tomatodelavegas (talk) 07:34, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert, what do I need to do next? I don't have any news about your review or what's going to happen? Tomatodelavegas (talk) 15:51, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft is waiting to be re-reviewed. Please be patient. Reviews often wait for a few weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My edit on Mother Teresa talk page you reverted

[edit]

Hi Robert. I was trying to fix the talk page since some contributors messed up the formatting and duplicated a part of a section. You reverted my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mother_Teresa&diff=prev&oldid=737757832 but I was only removing duplicate text and some markup that may have messed up the page. I may have missed something -- if I did, I apologize -- but it seems more like a false positive to me. :) BytEfLUSh | Talk! 21:46, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 18:22:22, 5 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by ZEIBUNISHA

[edit]


because i've got of this banknotes


SZ SWARTZ (talk) 18:22, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Constantine Sneed House

[edit]

Hello. Someone keeps adding vandalism ("Carly Trump") and I keep having to revert it. Is there a way to stop them please?Zigzig20s (talk) 06:21, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You are an experienced editor. You should know what to do about vandalism. However, see the vandalism policy. First warn the vandal (I have done this for you), and, if the vandalism continues, report the vandal at the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert - I have corrected all of the links to document Jack Pearson has notability outside of his own website and did not copy information therein. I have also responded to your requests regarding knowing the subject - Would you please check the page again for major errors and allow me to resubmit it? Thank you for your patience - I could use lessons! Jackguitarfan (talk) 19:30, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

23:28:39, 6 September 2016 review of submission by CIUS

[edit]



I created a infobox for the American Cochlear Implant Alliance. It was my understanding that I needed to create this in the sandbox so that I could then link it to the wikipedia page that I created on the same topic. The infobox was rejected because the draft consists only of an infobox, and has no references and because the draft has no text. The text is the wikipedia page I created and it is still waiting review. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:American_Cochlear_Implant_Alliance_Foundation). I'm not sure how to link the infobox with the article and I'm not sure how to resolve the issue of the infobox being rejected since it was designed to be on the wiki page. I would greatly appreciate any help/suggestions.

Thank you.

CIUS (talk) 23:28, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CIUS - I have copied the infobox into the main draft, and will let another reviewer review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:26, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your previous help with moving the infobox to the main draft. My username (CIUS) has now been blocked because it "gave the impression that the account represents a group, organization or website". I created a new account as suggested. Is there anyway to get the draft of article switched to the new account? When you reviewed the article is was not accepted the article because it needed more reliable sources to make it notable. I'm just curious if I start over or if I can somehow move the article and try to make the changes needed for acceptance. Again, I appreciate all the help. LeahB (talk) 18:19, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:LeahB - The draft is in draft space. It isn't in user space. It isn't associated with any particular account. You don't need to switch it to the new account or move it, and I am requesting that you please do not try to create another copy of the draft. One of the things that complicates work for the reviewers is users who, usually in good faith, create multiple copies of drafts, and then we don't know which one to review. Just edit the draft in draft space. Please don't try to switch it or move it or create a new copy of it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:09:28, 7 September 2016 review of submission by Gemmatoth

[edit]



Can you please review edited version and let me know if I need further edits? This is my first article and appreciate your feedback. Thanks! Gemmatoth (talk) 17:09, 7 September 2016 (UTC)Gemma Toth[reply]

Comment

[edit]

I have to say I didn't appreciate your tempest in a teapot comment at Katie's talk page. You know how contentious the issue has been on the Unseen character talkpage even before the RfC, hell, even before I got involved. You know that we reached a compromise consensus in the DRN, only to have that compromise consensus immediately contravened by the IP who hadn't deigned to participate in it, which was very frustrating, which was why I started RfC at your recommendation. You know I came to you with concerns about Handthrown's sarcasm and comments which were out-of-scope to the RfC 19 days ago. You dismissed the concerns then, said it was my fault for not having a survey, but then when you put the survey in, her tendentious editing, refusal to get the point, and digressions from the focus of the RfC, if anything, got worse. I'll own that both my initial response in Handthrown's AN filing and my ANI filing against were borne out of my frustration with how protracted what should be such a simple issue has become, but that frustration built slowly and is well-earned, and Handthrown's behavior has played no small part in that. Maybe this did blow up more than it should, but I think that could have been avoided with some reigning in of Handthrown 19 days ago. And yes, I filed the ANI while I was very frustrated, but many people come to ANI like that, with something that feels more personal to them than it would to an uninvolved person, and for Wikipedia to allow uninvolved non-admins to pile in and mock people who file ANI reports (this is apparently something at least EEng if not the others in my ANI have been doing habitually), it's appalling that it is allowed to go on without action by admins, it's guaranteed to escalate conflict, not resolve it. I know you had nothing to do with that and don't have any control over that, but after being piled on there, to stumble on you belittling it "behind my back", as it were, was salt in the wound. I mention all this because I've had occasion to see you in action many times and you always seem so measured and reasonable, avoiding even the hint of snark, and I've always respected you for that, so this seemed out of character. Mmyers1976 (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:47:16, 8 September 2016 review of submission by Neurolady27

[edit]


Hello Mr. McClenon,

I started editing some Wiki pages on "Vibratomes" and "Microtomes," and moved to create a new page on "Precisionary Instruments" because there is already one for "Leica." However, my draft was declined, and I revised the article for "Precisionary Instruments" to now have a neutral tone that only states facts, and removed any language (to the best of my ability) that make it sound like an advertisement. In addition, I followed your recommendations to include more peer-reviewed publications that reference Precisionary Instruments, and included these published sources. I also deleted most of the links to the company's website so that the article can have its neutral tone.

I would like to request a re-review of the article, and make any additional revisions if necessary. Once this is completed, I would like to write an article on "Campden Instruments," which is another biology company that makes vibratomes.

Thank you!

Tigrayans

[edit]

I did not understand why he blocked my Dispute resolution notice board--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 19:18, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What you, User:Sennaitgebremariam, wrote was not entirely clear, but it didn't seem to describe a content dispute. If there is a content dispute, please explain it at the dispute resolution noticeboard and list and notify all of the editors who have been involved, not just Otakrem. As the dispute was written, it appears to be a conduct dispute. Sockpuppetry was mentioned, which is a conduct issue, and DRN does not deal with sockpuppetry, or with other conduct disputes. If there is a content dispute, please summarize what the content issue is, and list all of the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


It is not true, but it's been well described Dispute resolution noticeboard--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 22:43, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sennaitgebremariam - What is not true? Is there a content dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is,

for the reasons I have already written--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I proposed again Dispute resolution noticeboard--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 17:11, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the problem is contained on paragraph Notable Ethiopian Tigrayan people, where there are not accepted Axumite kings from Otakrem without specifying why it was recommended by The Voidwalker after the umpteenth time to change by Otakrem, to turn to Wikipedia: Dispute resolution noticeboard
I want there to be a compromise with the restoration of the page with Wikipedia template: Accuracy disputes--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 09:39, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  1. for the second time in the closed discussion?
  2. but what do you need?
  3. It means by content?
  4. inform all publishers which if any is just one?
  5. but she is a volunteer who must mediate and try to help users get agree?--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Excuse me but you're an administrator of wikipedia?--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 17:44, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am not an administrator. Most of the volunteers are WP:DRN are not administrators. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse has not answered my questions--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sennaitgebremariam - I will try to answer your question. You didn't state a content dispute. Discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is inconclusive, you can file a third request for dispute resolution, listing all of the editors. Since you are clearly having difficulty with English, you might consider editing a different Wikipedia, or you can ask at the Teahouse for someone to help you with English. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


but you're kidding, I have no problem with English

what you want to know exactly--tell me Sennaitgebremariam (talk) 08:48, 14 September 2016 (UTC) User:Sennaitgebramariam - If you don't have a problem with English, try communicating in properly formatted sentences. What is the content dispute? Do not identify a particular editor, but a particular aspect of the article. Try filing a third time, and list all editors, and describe a content dispute, and use proper English. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Draft:Benjamin Yonattan

[edit]

Thank you for moving this draft article to a Draft space location. I believe that I have resolved the reference errors that you mentioned. If you have other suggestions, just let me know. Laatu (talk) 19:35, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

[edit]
Thank you very much for your advice! The refusal was not frustrating because you suggested exactly what to do. I have already added the information to the Brucella abortus page. I hope that "Brucella fans" will find it very useful. Marsuareze (talk) 20:37, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Marsuareze - The statement that it may be frustrating is not my words, but those are canned words that are provided with every decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was just talking about the general situation... I didn't mean to put extra words to your comment, excuse me for not making my point clear. Marsuareze (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Murder of Seth Rich. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Articles for Creation barnstar
For your tireless contribution to AFC. Whenever I'm reviewing I'm always seeing your name, and looking at your talk page it would seem that this barnstar is well deserved. Keep up the good work!! David.moreno72 09:48, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Article Draft Suggestions

[edit]

Hi Robert,

I created a Draft article and opened a request for feedback.

I was wondering if you could please have a look when you have time.

Thank you! 77.242.185.193 (talk) 15:57, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. I responded, though I don't know if that was the appropriate place to. 77.242.185.193 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:42, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS 4 THE SUGGESTION, WILL DO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R1077566 (talk • contribs) 19:19, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Brucella Draft Suggestions

[edit]

Thanks for your comment, I understand that both tables are huge, that's why I thought of the scroll down presentation... Would you suggest some way for this information to be included, or your advice would be no to add this information to Wikipedia at all? Thanks again. Marsuareze (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2016 (UTC) User:Marsuareze - I don't have a specific suggestion on how to add two tables of such size other than to see if you can reduce their size, because they appear to cause a technical problem. I would suggest asking for technical advice at the Help Desk or Village pump (technical). Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:56:47, 12 September 2016 review of submission by Ysimpson

[edit]


Thank you for reviewing the page. I tried to use the most basic language to describe the work of the politician Yvette Simpson who is a member of Cincinnati City Council. What language do you suggest that I use to make her in compliance that will be acceptable for publication on the Wikipedia site. I wrote in the manner just like other pages that feature other Cincinnati City Council members such as John Cranely, Christopher Smitherman and Chris Seelbach. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ysimpson (talk • contribs) 18:56, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ysimpson - First, I haven't yet read the other three biographies, but will refer you to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which is that the fact that they have articles does not mean that Simpson should have an article, but maybe they shouldn't. Second, are you Yvette Simpson? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy and the autobiography guideline, which strongly discourage writing about yourself or people with whom you have a close connection. (If you are not Yvette Simpson, you should change your username, because you are impersonating a real person.) If you are Yvette Simpson, as I assume, referring to yourself in the third person is easily seen through. Third, please do not create multiple copies of drafts. It does not increase the likelihood of being accepted. Fourth, the language is non-neutral and is written to praise Simpson rather than just to describe her. (That is one of the reasons why Wikipedia discourages editing by persons associated with the subject.)
User:Ysimpson - Having read the biographies, I have a few comments. First, Cranley is now Mayor of Cincinatti. Second, it appears that Smitherman and Seelbach both meet general notability guidelines rather than political notability guidelines. Third, the articles about Smitherman and Seelbach appear to me to be more nearly neutral than the draft Simpson article, which is written to praise her. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 12 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 20:21:10, 13 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kfidler0823

[edit]


You recently re-reviewed my article on Michael Drapac, and declined it for lack of significant coverage. I don't see how this is possible, as he has been covered in dozens of notable and respected publications and has numerous articles on his works in real estate, investment, and professional cycling. I only cited 14 sources because that was all I needed to write the article, but there are dozens and dozens more.

You also accused me of trying to "game the system" but not changing anything before resubmitting it. I left three different messages on the previous reviewer's talk page about two weeks apart basically begging for some insight as to what more I could provide to get this article approved and each message was ignored. That's why it was resubmitted without altering anything - I can't see what else needs to be provided in order to prove his legitimacy. He's the co-owner of one of the most successful professional cycling teams in the world (Cannondale-Drapac) and created Australia's first pro cycling team (Drapac Pro Cycling).

Can you please provide some more insight as to why this article was declined and what more I can provide in order to prove his notability and get this article approved? Kfidler0823 (talk) 20:21, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments at the Teahouse. Include links to related articles. Review the tone to be less hagiographic. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

I saw your brief discussion with User:UY Scuti about participation at DRN and I was wondering if I could help out. Back in February of this year, I attempted (as a new editor in an unknown area) to help out with the Reseller Ratings case, which I botched because I didn't even know the 5 pillars. Since then I have read of a lot of Wikipedia policies that could help me at DRN, and was wondering if I could join back up (the first time, User:TransporterMan sent me away until I knew at least something about policy). However, I wanted the go-ahead from you before I resumed. Any advice? Joel.Miles925 17:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Have you been observing at WP:DRN and following its proceedings? Have you also been observing at WP:ANI? I realize that ANI is for conduct disputes rather than content disputes, and that ANI is generally unpleasant, but it does help a DRN volunteer to have a little grounding in what happens at ANI, among other things so as to know a little more about the difference between conduct and content. Actually, my advice would be to help out at Third Opinion for a while, which is an even lighter-weight dispute resolution forum than DRN. After helping out at Third Opinion, and watching at DRN and ANI, you will be more ready to volunteer at DRN. Have you helped at Third Opinion yet? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 14 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
While I have been monitoring DRN (and ANI, just not as much as I would have hoped) fairly closely, I haven't been helping at 3rd opinion. Thank you for the advice! I'll go over to 3O first. Joel.Miles925 00:26, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Geography

[edit]

Greetings! The RFC question on the geographical location phrasing for Eritrea has just expired. Could you please assess the consensus and formally close it? Kind Regards-- Soupforone (talk) 02:18, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments

[edit]

Hi Robert, thank your for your comments on Draft:Federico_Pistono, I responded and updated the article. 77.242.185.193 (talk) 13:37, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see you added COI to the article, but I don't think it's accurate. It says: "family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial or other relationships". It's none of them. As I stated, I have been following his work for years and I come from a town nearby where he was born, but I don't have direct connections with him. 77.242.185.193 (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I will take your word for the lack of COI and will remove the tag. However, when I see a single-purpose account who pushes aggressively to get a particular article accepted and makes no other edits, I am cynical and assume that they have a special interest. I would advise that you may get a friendlier welcome in Wikipedia if you find other ways to help out besides pushing to have one article accepted. Also, there are advantages to registering an account. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the suggestions! I am new to Wikipedia so this is great feedback. I registered the account and will start looking around. Please see my response to the comments you made in the article. Omnipodin (talk) 21:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I cleaned up the article, and started making contributions elsewhere. Thank you for the guidelines and the suggestions, it really helped. Can you please have a look at the latest draft and give me feedback? Omnipodin (talk) 19:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

00:17:13, 17 September 2016 review of submission by Mason Riley Bowman

[edit]



Can you just please Submit this infobox please. My son is very experienced with guitars, and he really wants to be on a infobox on google search, and on Wikipedia. So Can you just please Submit this infobox please?

User:Mason Riley Bowman - It isn't entirely clear what you are asking, but I see several problems. First, an infobox is only a summary of the content of an article. I will not submit an infobox without an article. Second, read the notability policy. You haven't said anything to indicate that your son is notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense of having already been covered by other media, and so he will not be the subject either of a Wikipedia article or a Wikipedia infobox. Third, read the conflict of interest policy and the autobiography guideline. We strongly discourage editors from editing articles about themselves or a closely connected person (such as a relative) or company. If you have any further questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16 September 2016

[edit]

Hi Robert,YOU SAID This does not appear to be a draft article, but an issue about an existing article. If this has to do with an existing article, discuss on the article talk page, or edit the article, providing reliable sources. If this is meant to be an article, read Your first article and expand this draft with sources. Thank you for your polite replay can I say frankly speaking Identifying reliable sources: In the event of a contradiction between this guideline and our policies regarding sourcing and attribution, the policies take priority and editors should seek to resolve the discrepancy. These files of wikipedia are not reliable sources File:Psammetichus II Cartouches Aswan.jpg File:Obelisk Solare Rome from south cropd.jpg 

The only reason some archaeologists haven't come up with mine on their own is their own natural bias or hidden motivation .

Please check it out with fair archaeologists. thanks again for your nice politeness. — Preceding unsigned comment added by R.azz.miligi (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:R.azz.miligi - It still isn't entirely clear to me what you are trying to say. What do you want changed in what article? If you want an article changed, you may edit it boldly, but be prepared to discuss on the article talk page. It appears that you have a concern about the reliability of sources. If so, please explain clearly what it is, and I may try to direct you to how to address it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you have any further questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About your mistaken understanding on what I wrote in the Teahouse

[edit]

I started to post this response at the appropriate place in the Teahouse when I discovered it had already been archived so I'll post this here on your Talk page. I was quite taken aback when I read your response and I have to say I was dumbfounded by it. I never dreamed that you would react to it the way you did and I can only assume you simply misunderstood what I meant. I think if you go back and re-read it with an objective mind you realize that I didn't mean it the way you took it. For your connivence I have put a copy of it below here:

And every editor should know that, "The fact that you edit from an IP address may have contributed to the other editor's prickly response. There are experienced editors who have concluded that IP editors tend to be more disruptive than registered editors," is a violation of policy, as Wikipedia requires all editors to assume good faith edits, as long as it isn't vandalism. So there is no excuse for that.

Could you please point to the word(s) that led to your erroneous impression? I would appreciate it, since I want to understand what happened. Thanks in advance. __209.179.36.56 (talk) 04:18, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:02:08, 20 September 2016 review of submission by Vshure

[edit]


Hi, thanks for your recent review of my article on Stormpath, Inc. Prior to my resubmitting, I was wondering if you can give it a quick once over to see whether it meets the required standards now? (This seems better than resubmitting repeatedly.) I think there should be adequare independent sources now, and all the ones that were not sufficiently independent have been deleted (along with associated content if no independent source was available). Thanks!

Articles for Creation - Christopher Slade

[edit]

Hi Robert Thank you for your comments on the draft page for Christopher Slade. Rather than Christopher's history with the Pioneer Corps, it is his role as Administrator of the Displaced Persons camp at Bergen-Belsen Concentration Camp, a position he held from around September 1945 to June 1946, that is of primary interest. It was there that Christopher was awarded the Vatican Medal, and there that he came into contact with Marlene Dietrich. PaulOssura (talk) 05:50, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion about Joe Karam on dispute resolution board

[edit]

Hi Robert Can you explain how dispute resolution works. You say the moderator facilitates discussion, in which editors can try to persuade each other, and the moderator can try to facilitate compromise. Who is the moderator? Is that you? What is the next step please? Histrange (talk) 08:17, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I have now had a look at some other disputes and have a rough idea how it works. Histrange (talk) 08:39, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As to who the moderator is, we have a group of volunteers, and one of them will be the moderator. It isn't always me. The next step forward is that a volunteer will agree to moderate, and will provide detailed instructions. If you have looked at other cases, perhaps you have an idea of how it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 13:53:54, 20 September 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Robynbrody

[edit]


As noted in the Talk page, someone needs to review the draft of the article I wrote for Aaron L. Brody, but I am a rookie and not sure how to make it happen. Is this message enough to get someone to accept the article as a draft to begin the process of getting it published?

Robyn

Robynbrody (talk) 13:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robynbrody - First, please do not create multiple copies of drafts. It confuses and annoys the reviewers. You have created two copies on Aaron Brody. Do you want Draft: Aaron L. Brody or User:Robynbrody/sandbox/Dr. Aaron L. Brody reviewed? It would help if you requested that the other copy be deleted. Second, please read the conflict of interest policy, which discourages writing about members of your family. Third, you ask about getting someone "to accept the article as a draft to begin the process of getting it published". The article already exists twice as a draft. Do you mean that you want it reviewed? If so, which version do you want reviewed? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The version in draft space is the properly formatted version. The sandbox version is badly formatted and can be ignored. However, see Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information as to the length of the list of published works. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Draft: Pfisterer Group

[edit]

Hi, thanks for your comment. I deleted the red Link directly. Can you mabe tell me how long i will have to wait until my article is reviewed? I'm waiting since the beginning of August :(. Maybe you can help me. Thanks a lot! 87.191.203.40 (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It has been accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:31:15, 20 September 2016 review of submission by Dtorres3212

[edit]


Good morning! Thank you so much for letting me know what was needed on the Patricia Bernstein draft. I'm requesting a re-review because I followed your advice and added additional outside sources highlighting the page's noteworthiness. Please let me know if this is acceptable. Thank you, again.

05:28:29, 21 September 2016 review of submission by Factsonlybaby

[edit]


hello - can you please help with this article?

I dont know hot to change the things you requested to change.

User:Factsonlybaby - Read Referencing for Beginners. If you have any questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Saddlebrook Academies

[edit]

Hi Robert, i was looking at the above mentioned page as its one of very old pending drafts, and it seems like they addressed many of the concerns from when you last reviewed it. So i wanted to approve it, but am new to AFC and didn't want to overstep. :-) Would you mind to take a look and let me know if it can be approved? -- Ntb613 (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ntb613 - I already looked at it, and wanted another reviewer to look at it and the other articles that have been waiting 30 days. If you are a new reviewer (not one of its authors) and think that it can be accepted, I would encourage you to be bold and accept it. Thank you. Welcome to reviewing. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Being Bold! ;-) -- Ntb613 (talk) 15:28, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:33, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:27, 23 September 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo

[edit]


I am requesting one because he declined my page when there were clearly references on the page

User:Mannyadebayo - When I said that there were no independent references, there were no independent references, only the church's own web site. The draft provides no indication of notability. Its purpose is to encourage people to attend the church. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

17:31:38, 23 September 2016 review of submission by Mannyadebayo

[edit]


What about http://www.vanguardngr.com/2016/08/rccg-64th-annual-convention-pastor-kalejaiye-oyitso-others-promoted/

Review of Draft: Simonne Jones

[edit]

Hey Robert, I am waiting for over a month now to get my draft finally reviewed and released. I followed your advice and made some changings. Please be so kind and look at it once more so that it can be released.

All the best,--Nerdofmusic (talk) 10:49, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


01:37:19, 24 September 2016 review of submission by Hash Murda beatz

[edit]



Hi there I am trying to figure out what and how I can improve on my submission do I need to include websites and webpage links to back up my submission for the the body of the article I am writing

User:Hash Murda beatz - First, read the autobiography guideline. Second, read the verifiability policy, the notability guideline, and the conflict of interest guideline. If you still then want advice about how to use Wikipedia to promote yourself, you may ask at the Teahouse, where other experienced editors will give you discouraging advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:10, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP/AfC

[edit]

Hi Robert. Because I have always very highly valued your work on Wikipedia, I took the initiative to invite you to a discussion on DGG's talk page. Unfortunately, your comments there give me pause. You are of course free to continue to participate there or anywhere else, including the central work group discussion you suggested which is now under construction, and I'm sure your positive comments will be welcome, but I will not be pinging you again. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:24, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - Thank you for your comments, and I appreciate your pinging me initially. I understand that I wasn't as positive as you would have hoped for. However, I recognize that we are both working for the same objective, which is to support and improve the quality of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but we need to be convergent with these objectives, and understand the meaning/function of active teamwork. Criticising those who do the actual work is not helpful. See: this comment at NPP. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:43, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP & AfC

[edit]

A dedicated venue for combined discussion about NPP & AfC where a work group is also proposed has been created. See: Wikipedia:The future of NPP and AfC --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:45:49, 24 September 2016 review of submission by Nitschka Alexandra

[edit]



I am new to this process. I have read several of the FAQ, but am unclear as to where and how to submit verifiable articles that I am listing below:

http://www.tvn-2.com/variedad/cultura/Conmemoran-Eduardo-Ritter-Aislan-exposicion-Biblioteca-Nacional_0_4577542270.html http://laestrella.com.pa/opinion/columnistas/centenario-eduardo-ritter-aislan-1916-2016/23962585 http://www.panamaamerica.com.pa/ey/el-legado-de-ritter-aislan-se-expone-en-la-biblioteca-nacional-1044004 http://www.binal.ac.pa/binal/component/content/article/84-noticias/295-eres-luz-y-palabra.html http://panamapoesia.com/pt28.htm http://www.artepoetica.net/eduardo.htm

Please comment on Category talk:Violence against men

[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Category talk:Violence against men. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I don't see the point in leaving comments like this. I've noticed you've done the same on other drafts. Chris Troutman (talk) 20:15, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris Troutman - I have considered your comment and intend to continue to make the comment when it is appropriate, for at least two reasons. First, an article does need links to other articles. Second, it is more difficult to assess whether a separate article in order if I can navigate to related articles to see how much coverage there already is. I won't and don't decline an article because it needs links to other articles, but I think that the comment is often needed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for the answer. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:48:36, 25 September 2016 review of submission by Fh240

[edit]


Thanks for your review. You left a comment saying that "There doesn't appear to have been significant third-party coverage". I'm not sure if I understand your comment. The article is based on peer-reviewed published papers, but describes the cryptographic protocol in a way that is more accessible to common readers. The subject is on E2E verifiable voting, which should be of interest to many readers (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_auditable_voting_systems). The DRE-i protocol is the latest development in the E2E verifiable voting field, in that it shows for the first time that an E2E verifiable voting system can be "self-enforcing", namely without needing any trusted tallying authorities. This advancement has been recognized by the ERC independent reviewing panel in the award of a 1.5m euros ERC starting grant on "self-enforcing e-voting" (http://cordis.europa.eu/project/rcn/106591_en.html). The protocol is also featured on the ERC website (https://erc.europa.eu/erc-stories/towards-next-generation-e-voting). In the past I've contributed several wikipedia articles on cryptographic protocols based on peer-reviewed papers (AV-net, DC-net, YAK, J-PAKE) and they are well-received by the readers. I have enjoyed my editing experience with Wikipedia and being able to contribute to this community. I couldn't see how this one is different. Does this mean articles on cryptographic protocols based on peer-reviewed papers are no longer welcomed by Wikipedia? Are peer-reviewed papers from recognized publication venues no longer considered sufficient independent sources? I have also had a look at a few other existing E2E voting system pages on wikipedia including Bingo_voting, Prêt_à_Voter, Punchscan, Scantegrity and ThreeBallot. I have carefully read those existing pages, but I still couldn't understand what is missing in this declined article. Your guidance is much appreciated. Thanks.

06:20:56, 26 September 2016 review of submission by Tlhkg.kana

[edit]


Thanks for your review, Robert. Could you please advise if which are the specific areas we need to revisit - say introduction/ reference/ gallery etc? Looking forward to hearing from you and I'll further edit the draft.

Fragmented User_talk:Chic500

[edit]

Hi, please see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Chic500&action=history

Apparently you have moved the user AnweshaB talk page to a draft talk, when moving their draft article from the User: page to the Draft: space. And a redirect was created in the old location.

Then User:Céréales Killer moved the redirect to a new User_talk: location when the user changed their name.

Could you merge the old user's AnweshaB/Chic500 talk page contents at Draft talk:Satyarup Siddhanta into the current User talk:Chic500 ...?

Regards, CiaPan (talk) 14:43, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft for Draft:Frederic Bertley

[edit]

Hello Robert,

Thanks for your comments. I removed all external links from the body of the article. Let me know if you have any other suggestions. Thanks. Best, TFIPR (talk) 15:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

[edit]

Greetings, you are invited to join Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia.

To join the association, add your name to the list here.

To indicate your membership of the association, you may care to add the following template on your userpage



Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia

{{AWWDCCW}}
This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia

The motto of the AWWDCCW is Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia, which abbreviates as "DCCW". This association is for those who believe that Wikipedia should be a place for "Dialogue Among Peoples", not a place to clash.

Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia
Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia
{{User wikipedia/AWWDCCW}}
This user is a member of the Association of Wikipedians Who Dislike Clash of Civilizations in Wikipedia.
 {{User:TheStrayDog/COC}}
This user can see the Clash of Civilizations on Wikipedia projects and can reject it.

The Stray Dog Talk Page 15:28, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:44:18, 27 September 2016 review of submission by Pandamanitkul

[edit]



What do l need will Thai wiki be reliable source

Why Nahathai Thewphaingam is ok.

Another Wikipedia is not a reliable source but a circular reference. If you have further questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

[edit]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Expulsion of Cham Albanians". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Stone Tower

[edit]

Hi Robert, I have made the changes you suggested on this draft topic. Please read and sign-off when you have a moment. Riaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Dean (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_13&oldid=1146635796"