Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 48

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 45Archive 46Archive 47Archive 48Archive 49Archive 50

Wishing you a happy 2024! Happy holidays

Happy New Year!
Robert McClenon,
Have a great 2024 and thanks for your continued contributions to Wikipedia.

   – 2024 is a leap year – news article.
   – Background color is Peach Fuzz (#0FFBE98), Pantone's 2024 Color of the year

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2024}} to user talk pages.

– 98𝚃𝙸𝙶𝙴𝚁𝙸𝚄𝚂 10:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Typhoon Usagi (2007)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 05:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey Robert,

As a new volunteer for dispute resolution, I've been reviewing your activity -- and can I just say THANKS! So much to learn from you! Slacker13 (talk) 15:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Summary

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 17:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz - This is unusual. This is a notice about an expired draft that I really did create when I was mediating a dispute. This isn't a completely misplaced notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

You've been doing a lot of work with content dispute resolution for years, and I think that you having some more tools to handle conduct disputes would be a clear net positive for the project. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Red-tailed hawk - If you are prepared to nominate me, I will be ready to go through the RFA process in about two weeks. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 21:01, 12 January 2024 (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.

— Red-tailed hawk (nest) 21:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Philip Zimmermann (disambiguation)

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

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

A tag has been placed on Philip Zimmermann (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

  • disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
  • disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
  • is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 11:55, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Slim Jxmmi

Pls can you explain how Slim Jxmmi not notable. I cited the page with independent sources.. I think you should reconsider. But you can still help improve the draft pls.. Thank you... 2RDD (talk) 11:59, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, I figured you might have turned off your pings so I had to bring this to your talk. I happen to disagree with you on the subject not being suitable for a standalone article due to no SIGCOV and such. The subject should at least qualify for a stub at best, see this and tell me if it's just "passing mention(s)". He has been the subject of multiple independent news articles here, here, here, here, and probably more since I can't cite the whole internet. I like feel you judged the draft based on its previously AFD'd article. I strongly urge you to reconsider, I'll be on the lookout for your response Thank you. dxneo (talk) 20:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution on the General Collective Intelligence Page

Thanks for looking at the dispute resolution request. However, you stated that you partly disagreed with my point, and suggested my point was that Wikipedia was for spreading ideas from non-published sources. To be clear, I was saying exactly the opposite. I'm looking at this Teahouse process that you suggested and it doesn't seem to offer any concrete resolution. I'll submit the article for AFC review. CognitiveMMA (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac opened

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/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 30, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Administrator Conduct Case 2024-1: Mzajac/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 17:55, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Acts of Peter and the Twelve/Third Summary

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 04:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz - This is different from the rest of these messages. This really was a draft that I created while I was mediating a content dispute. So this is an almost normal G13. Usually I get these for things that I moved from sandboxes into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

ZX Spectrum - additional note

Hello User:Robert McClenon,

regarding the open DRN dispute [|ZX Spectrum], I will probably post a WP:AN issue in less than 24 hours. As I understand, that action will close the DRN case. I have a suggestion and an observation that I wish to communicate to you, concerning the DRN case, but only tangentially related to the case. I don't know whether it is appropriate to post it here or not, and whether I should do it now, or after the case at DRN is closed. Z80Spectrum (talk) 00:14, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Z80Spectrum - First, since you have said that you will probably post to another noticeboard, go ahead and make the comment or observation. Second, if your issue has to do with the conduct of another editor, the appropriate noticeboard is WP:ANI rather than WP:AN. It probably won't make much difference if you post to the other noticeboard; your dispute might be moved. Thank you for letting me know. I won't take any action on your case for 24 hours because I will be waiting for you to act. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I have opened a discussion at ANI [1], but a long-time administrator has closed it, in my opinion, without a good reason.
(irrelevant: also, he appears to be a fellow ZX Spectrum programmer; what a coincidence)
I don't know what to do about the discussion at ANI, and I'm pretty tired (to say it mildly) of reading 200 million pages of Wikipedia tutorials and guidelines. Z80Spectrum (talk) 11:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I forgot about a suggestion and an observation.
My observation is that there were actually two other users partially involved in this dispute: User:4throck and Remsense. They have both failed to notice that Chaheel Riens should not have removed large parts of the talk page.
You have said that WP:TPG is not clearly written, I agree. However, if your interpretation of WP:TPG is the correct one, then multiple users seem to be completely unaware of it. At the same time, the assumed guideline about non-deletion of talk page material seems like an important one, and should have been explicitly mentioned in WP:TPG.
For that reason, I don't really blame Chaheel Riens much. I blame Wikipedia.
Suggestion: somethinng should be done about it. I wont be able to do anything, as I'll be involved in multiple other issues, and for other reasons.
This inappropriate dismissal of my WP:ANI case makes my opinion of Wikipedia even worse than it previously was. Z80Spectrum (talk) 12:15, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jose Silva

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. ✗plicit 05:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Help request

Old stuff that I was already ignoring. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Why was my notcieboard post closed? I desperately need your mediation help?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbinetti (talk • contribs) 23:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

User was blocked less than a week after leaving this message. – Fayenatic London 12:27, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Undeletion request

Robert, I am new to wikipedia. I think I have violated the COI policy. I have developed a page over several years, and hope there is a way that I can get a copy of the text. I will not repost the text. I just want a chance to obtain the text on the history of my family.

Is this possible.? I clearly did not understand the rules and guidelines, as I am not a writer, just a simple database programmer 

Please advise me on how to require the text of my family biography.

Thanks for any help you can provide. user:redtds 14:28, 19 November 2023

This has already been resolved, see User_talk:Redtds#Speedy_deletion_nomination_of_User:Redtds. – Fayenatic London 12:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Closed discussion Sensitivity Analysis

Thanks, you suggest continuing the discussion in the Talk pages but MrOllie never replied. What can I do then? I cannot force him to reply. Please check for yourself Talk:Sensitivity_analysis , Talk:Sensitivity_auditing and the talk page of the same MrOllie. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

User:MrOllie replied, as well as other users; I believe you User:Robert McClenon could give a look at Talk:Sensitivity_analysis. User:MrOllie is still in the right and everybody else is being 'canvassed'. Instead of reconsidering, for having de facto vandalized a page and left it with errors, and instead of offering constructive suggestions for a composition of this disagreement, he still maintains its bellicose attitude on this as well as on other pages, see Talk:Quantitative_storytelling. Is there a way to restrain this editor of to induce him not to engage ad personam? Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 14:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Saltean: - every time you link to my user page as you did here, Wikipedia sends me a notification. Here it led me to personal attacks being made about me to a third party. Kindly stop both the personal attacks and the excessive notifications. MrOllie (talk) 14:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I rest my case. Andrea Saltelli Saltean (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Saltean, User:MrOllie - I closed the case at DRN because there wasn't an article content dispute that had been adequately discussed on an article talk page. However, if there is a dispute between the two of you about the encyclopedia in general, or something specific, that you want me to mediate, I am willing to try to set up and conduct mediation. If so, please say so. If not, please take any discussion somewhere other than my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:21, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Timeline

If you're wondering, yes, seasons like 2023 do have articles dedicated for their timelines. That's why I spun off the timeline portion of 1991. ''Flux55'' (talk) 03:43, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:32, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

2024



Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy New Year

2024

Same location pictured as 2019. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

On the Main page: the person who made the pictured festival possible --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Today a friend's birthday, with related music and new vacation pics --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:37, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Notification: Feedback request service is down

Hello, Robert McClenon

You may have noticed that you have not received any messages from the Wikipedia:Feedback request service for over a month. Yapperbot appears to have stopped delivering messages. Until that can be resolved, please watch pages that interest you, such as Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

This notification has been sent to you as you are subscribed to the Feedback Request Service. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

-== December music ==

December songs
story · music

The 2 December story was about Maria Callas, on her centenary. - Aaron Copland died on a 2 December, and Jerome Kohl (mentioned in November) said something wise on Copland's talk, - yes, regarding a soft(er) stance towards infoboxes.

I probably don't have to tell you, but for equal opportunity with the other candidates: check out the history of the infobox of Callas, and compare Jessye Norman, Kathleen Ferrier and Jenny Lind. Check out the history of Copland, and compare Max Reger, Max Beckschäfer, Colin Mawby (from today's story), and Benjamin Britten (who died OTD). What's the difference? If what you see changes your answer to my question, feel free to change, and ping me. I would like to see a way to avoid in the future hundreds of editors commenting on Mozart RfCs, just to kind of restore the infobox he had in 2006. Happy new era ;) - You - I think - look into the conflict deeper, but - repeating - a wording such as "dislike all infoboxes" is inflammatory and just as overly general as some other vocabulary that doesn't deserve to be repeated. Thank you for more good ideas, but please reword that phrase if you want to win more than a neutral from me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for improving your answer to "Infobox cases continue to divide the community, which is illustrated by the opposition of some editors to an infobox for one of the greatest classical composers." Two concerns: 1) the phrase Infobox cases is ambiguous and is - especially regarding arbitration - often understood as arb cases. 2) Where do you see the community divided in that discussion? - Thank you for the clear statement that the discussion was civil, something that obviously not everybody is able to see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I managed to get the pics to snow (on 28 Nov), and heard a lovely concert, after listening to a miracle of meditative dreaming on 6 December (or just click on music). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:08, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

... and today, to Paris (29 Nov) with a visit to the Palais Garnier, - to match the story of Medea Amiranashvili, - don't miss listening to her expressive voice. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

My story today is about Michael Robinson, - it's an honour to have known him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:16, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Pics up to 3 December (with my shadow in one of them), and a story about Beethoven in memory of his birth. When the arb who wrote the infoboxes case installed the community consensus - in 2015! - I hoped these infobox wars were over, really. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

Today, I have a special story to tell, of the works of a musician born 300 years ago. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:55, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I uploaded more pics, with Christmas trees and related artworks, and I have two women on the Main page (for a sad reason). Our Christmas singing (of my user's infobox music "singen, singen") was pictured! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Guarimba

Hi Robert, kind regards. I hope this message finds you well.

Due to the recent edit disputes in articles related to Venezuela, I was thinking about opening a dispute resolution discussion on the article Guarimba in order to remove the current cleanup tags. However, I understand this can be done if there are only two editors involved, and not more, which I think it's currently the case in the article. I wanted to confirm if this was correct?

Best wishes and many thanks in advance, NoonIcarus (talk) 15:20, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

User:NoonIcarus - I think that you have misunderstood a detail. Third Opinion is only available if there are exactly two editors involved, so that the Third Opinion will really be a third opinion. If there are more than two editors, you can request moderated discussion at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. If there are only two editors, you have your choice of 3O or DRN. For DRN, there also must have been recent discussion on the article talk page, two posts per editor over a period of 24 hours. Also, for DRN, you must notify the other editor(s). Does that answer your questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
User:NoonIcarus - I think that you should discuss a little more on the article talk page. Check who put the cleanup tags on the article, and ask them what changes they want made to the article to make it neutral and to remove off-topic material. If they answer, discuss with them. If they don't answer, remove the tags. If they replace the tags, then you can come to DRN, and I will ask them to tell what changes they want made to the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Kind regards. I believe this clarifies the procedure, thank you. I might have confused the 3O with the DRN
To clarify, I have been the user that placed the tags. I have explained the issues at the talk page and suggested a number of changes to address them, but they have been disputed by creator WMrapids, hence why I believe a DRN could help with the situation. I'm thinking about asking participants about the open RS/N thread (OAS Panel of Independent International Experts), but this would be a more specific change.
Since you're already somewhat familiar with the dispute, I would personally be pleased if you wanted to help to find a solution. No strings attached, of course. Happy editing, --NoonIcarus (talk) 18:25, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Re: Congratulations, sort of

Oh, this is just another case of WP:ARBMAC only going so far. The hard part about policing this topic area is that the average English editor doesn't recognize the various talking points, we just don't have enough volunteers who understand it.

So then I'm typically left to act myself, but then there's often two bad options: if I immediately act in my capacity as administrator to swat down the tendentious edits, it looks like I'm jumping to conclusions and not giving poor anonymous newbies a break, while if I engage with them to try to reason with them, and then - as they escalate the abuse - note the administrative facilities at our disposal, it looks like I'm adjudicating while involved.

I don't think it's productive to think of these as anyone's enemy. If nothing else, it'd be a further waste of our volunteer time. :) --Joy (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Joy - Okay. They are not your enemy, then. They are their own enemy. Maybe another admin will take some action against them, either as an ordinary admin action or as an WP:ARBMAC action. I for one have very little sympathy with poor anonymous newbies, because they can always register an account and be pseudonymous newbies. This was another editor who may not understand the boomerang essay and doesn't realize that you can get yourself blocked by posting to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:56, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Regarding WP:ANI#User:Joy_and_“self_control_issues” If there was clear evidence of nationalist edit warring by IPs, an admin could apply semiprotection to the affected articles. This would not require any deep background in ARBMAC. The discussion at WP:ANI is not quite clear enough for me to follow. EdJohnston (talk) 02:50, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
User:EdJohnston - Okay. I wasn't commenting on the original case. At least, I didn't think that I was commenting on it. I was commenting on the multiple postings at WP:ANI by new editors who complained about established editors and either hadn't read the boomerang essay or were too arrogant to realize that it applied to them or simply were completely clueless. My guess is that they were completely clueless. I don't have an opinion on the underlying case, but I know that Balkan disputes can be a mess. I was expressing a sarcastic sort of sympathy with User:Joy. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:19, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@EdJohnston Yes, there wasn't just blatant nationalist edit-warring, you have to actually delve into the source analysis to recognize the gist of it, and have to be familiar with the specific terminology and its implications. When a Croat calls another Croat a proponent of "Greater Serbia" while analyzing scholarly sources about something from 200 years ago, that's not just a little bit of hyperbole in an otherwise reasonable discussion, that's just a mean-spirited personal attack, that will be understood by the receiving party as hurtful, and any further assumption of good faith is very much in question. --Joy (talk) 07:59, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Charles Keating IV draft

I have added an entry for Charles Keating IV to the page Charles Keating (disambiguation).50.37.92.170 (talk) 09:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Question for an experienced wikipedian

Hello, @Robert McClenon and @Lightoil, I have called on your help on the following User talk page: User talk:David O. Johnson/Archive 1#Revision of my edit on 2024/02/16. Recently, Mr. Johnson and I were having a discussion as to wether a link to a future article should be kept, or if it shoud only be added once established. Thank you for your help, Blocktomo (talk) 22:45, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Request for review

@Robert McClenon

Trying to be bold I just updated an essay WP:TLDR by adding a new section Some quick tips. Since you have a long experience at WP:DRN in handling users writing long responses, you can help reviewing the tips added by me besides may be you too can add some tips.

Thanks Bookku (talk) 12:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:30, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict management case

Fram is not an administrator. Regards! — Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:37, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Usedtobecool - I will revise my statement when it isn't 3 am local time. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:20, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Usedtobecool got here before me. Perhaps review the decision in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Fram? It's dangerous to assume that there must have been valid reasons behind a punishment; mistakes are sometimes made. Yngvadottir (talk) 09:58, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sexual and gender-based violence in the 7 October attack on Israel on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest management: Case opened

Hello Robert McClenon,

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/Conflict of interest management. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:03, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Eurychorda complanata

FYI, I moved this to Eurychorda and merged in the lede, taxobox, and history. Monotypic genus article (genus with only one species) belong at the genus name, if possible. Since the genus article existed already, the draft should have been denied as a duplicate effort, with the author directed to make their changes to the genus article. No big deal, just thought to let you know. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

UtherSRG - Okay. Does this also apply to the genus for a monotypic family? I am aware that monotypic genera are more common than monotyic higher-level taxa. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
For higher level taxa, we reposition at the lowest taxa in the monotypy. WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA explains it all. Species move up to genus, everything else moves down, but no lower than genus. A good example is Batoteuthis... a single genus in a family, and a single species in that genus; the family moves down to the genus, and the species up to the genus at the same time, ending up with all three taxa being described in the genus article. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

DRN for Sweet Baby Inc

Hey,

I just saw that you're offering to moderate the DRN for Sweet Baby Inc. Two points, firstly I'm not sure DRN rule A is appropriate here, as the the article is in the WP:GENSEX contentious topic area. WP:RULED or WP:RULEE seem like they'd be more appropriate. Secondly, there are significantly more than the four listed editors at DRN currently engaging on the article's talk page, where I would describe the current situation as two against many. Those discussions are still on-going and don't appear to be at any sort of impasse where DRN is indicated.

Just thought you should be aware of this prior to opening a DR discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:35, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Sideswipe9th - Thank you for calling this to my attention. I have revised my opening statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Paloma Aguirre

Are you sure it is best to use WP:PROD for these? If successful, it will result in WP:SOFTDELETE. Do we want a stronger result?

Also pinging User:Scope creep who endorsed the PROD. ~Kvng (talk) 17:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Kvng - I will be satisfied with a Soft Delete as the right result. The alternative would of course be to send the article to AFD, and decide whether the subject is biographically notable. I have no opinion on her notability. She may be notable. A soft delete permits a neutral editor to request undeletion. If a neutral editor requests undeletion, they may leave the biography unchanged or improve it. In either case, it can then be taken to AFD on the merits. To be honest, I PROD'd it because I didn't feel like doing a source analysis (and I wasn't prepared to argue lack of notability unless I did a source analysis), and knew that I might be doing a source analysis at a later day. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
@Kvng: @Robert McClenon: I'm pretty detached from it as well. If it comes up again, it will appear in the watchlist. I would have G4 since it was declined at AFC review, which is the legitimate way of deleting it, but ok with prod. If it comes back again, it go to Afd and it will be salted. scope_creepTalk 18:07, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:scope_creep - It is not my understanding that a decline at AFD enables a G4. It is my understanding that G4 is only available when a page has been deleted after a deletion discussion in the address space that the nominated page is in. It is my understanding that a neutral editor may move a declined draft from draft space into article space to contest a decline, and then it will be subject to AFD as a consensus process, so that there is a consensus process for reviewing the unilateral action of the decline. If there has been a change to the G4 criteria so that a declined draft that is sent to article space can be tagged for G4, I would like to know (and might disagree). In this case, the reason why the author did not have the right to contest the decline by moving it to article space is that they are a paid editor. I think that in a while I will copy this discussion to the AFC talk page for clarification. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Not at Afd. If its declined in Afc and then moved to mainspace and its junk, it can be G4'd. I think that is the process as far as I know. I didn't know you could G4 until a few days ago, when I saw it in a conversation. I've not used it as yet. scope_creepTalk 18:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I personally think WP:AFD is the right venue for this. Its not a simple, obvious, uncontroversial case that PROD was designed to handle. If you're not up for WP:BEFORE leave it for someone else. But I respect the experience of the editors here so I'm not going to be WP:POINTY about it. ~Kvng (talk) 19:33, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Moved to Wikipedia talk:Criteria for speedy deletion § Question About Declined Draft Moved to Article Space
I am copying this discussion to the speedy deletion talk page to ask for verification about G4. I mostly agree with User:Kvng that it was not an uncontroversial case, and will say that I was ignoring the rule that PROD is for uncontroversial cases, because what wasn't controversial is that it was paid editing and I didn't want a paid article being indexed in article space. I thought that, under the circumstances, I should do something, and what I could quickly was PROD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

David Wicht Draft Page

Hi Robert. I hope you are well. Thanks for helping me with reviewing my page. I have made some more edits. I do think that David would fit in the WP PRODUCER or WP FILMMAKER category but am not sure how to add this to the page to make the page accepted.

Do you know how to do this?

I have note yet re-submitted my changes as there are still some sources I would like to add and some more editing I would like to do.

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Looking for volunteer guidance on trap-neuter-return Wikipedia page

I'm not an experienced editor, but I'm a subject matter expert in trap-neuter-return (TNR). The edit history is not something I can easily understand, but based on the wayback machine, the TNR page took a turn starting in mid 2021, with the addition of the word "controversial" in the first sentence. Over the last three years the page has been injected with anti-TNR talking points until now it serves largely to discredit TNR. After some dialogue in the Talk, an editor who was mediating the topic, suggested that the next course of action should be the dispute resolution noticeboard. The reason I'm unsure is because one specific editor has been flagged for bias on that page, and the TNR subsection of Feral Cats and has heavily edited 'Cats Predation of Wildlife' all in the same vein. My question is: can the page be moved to consensus when one of the editors insists on maintaining bias they introduced? As I looked at the question prompts to introduce a new topic for dispute resolution, the second question asks if the dispute is about content or an editors behavior. Was hoping to get a neutral third party to take a look and let me know what the best course of action is. Nylnoj (talk) 22:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Nylnoj - I will take a look within 24 hours. What article are the questions about? Is it Trap-Neuter-Return? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Correct, Trap-Neuter-Return is the current focus. Nylnoj (talk) 22:48, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Nylnoj - I am not entirely sure what the question is. As User:TCMemoire says, your choices at this point are multiple RFCs, or DRN. Third Opinion is not an option, because you have already had a very useful Third Opinion input from User:TCMemoire. If you choose DRN, and that will be a good choice, if I mediate the dispute, I will ask questions about what each editor wants to change or to leave the same. That is likely to wind up formalizing the content of multiple RFCs, and will be better than just running in to RFC without prior discussion. Is there a question, or are you only asking whether I agree that DRN is likely to be a useful step? If that is the question, then the answer is yes.
In the discussion on the article talk page, you mention the possibility of rolling the article back to 2021. My experience is that attempts to roll articles back to versions that are several months or a few years old almost always result in more heat than light. I don't recommend going down that alley. If that alley has rats, any community cats can handle them better than you can. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I'll submit to the Dispute Resolution noticeboard. The other course of action would be to make a complaint about an editor to the Administrator's noticeboard. Since I'm new here, I'll follow the advice of those who know more and we'll see how this goes! Thanks for weighing in. Nylnoj (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I opened a Dispute Resolution ticket and now the other editor is saying that they may choose not to participate. On my own talk page hey have accused me of personal attacks and listed several true statements I said along with some that are also true but taken a bit out of context. If the other editor does not participate, what are my options? [[2]]

Nylnoj (talk) 20:41, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

(Sorry to mess up the formatting - for some reason the reply button was not displaying a moment ago) Nylnoj (talk) 23:12, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Dispute resolution noticeboard: Russo-Ukrainian War

Hello, I have just noticed that Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 242#Russo-Ukrainian War was archived and I think everyone in it agreed that RFC is the only possible solution to solve this content dispute. Will you start RFC (Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War/RFC on Listing of Belarus)? Disagreements between users regarding this issue continues at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War#Belligerents: supported by Belarus, so please start RFC by also informing as many as possible likely interested users about it to reach a strong WP:CONS. -- Pofka (talk) 21:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pofka - I have unarchived the discussion, and have stated that if there are no further comments on the RFC, I will activate it in 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Editor experience invitation

Hi Robert McClenon :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

On history merging

FYI it's easier for me if you don't decline the draft before requesting it be history merged into a mainspace article - if the most recent edit to the draft is older than the first edit to the mainspace article then the draft will be autoconverted to a redirect when I do the merge, whereas if the most recent edit is more recent than the first edit to the article (such as a decline edit) then it becomes orphaned on the draft and either confusingly sits there or has to be manually deleted, and I additionally have to manually redirect it. Thanks. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:27, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

User:Pppery - Thank you for the information, and thank you for doing history merges. Autoconverting the draft to a redirect is desirable. I manually redirect a lot of drafts to the articles, and any way of simplifying that is useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Moneyview

In looking at history, Draft:Moneyview was created before Moneyview, and the article copied content from the draft without attribution. At Teahouse, the creator or Moneyview has been asked to explain the situation. David notMD (talk) 11:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Redirects

Hi. I don't at all mean to question your judgment, but I can't help wondering in what circumstances people think that the one from Nibble (unit) to Nibble might ever be used or needed? Deb (talk) 08:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Such redirects often do get a small number of hits, which come from users (e.g. readers who have become accustomed to the disambiguation patterns in Wikipedia article names) having a misconception that a particular article is under a disambiguated title when it is not and inputing that exact name in the search, in the hope that they will get taken straight to that article, and not some other article or a disambiguation page. Some are probably truly useless, but it can be safely assumed that they are not wholly worthless as a class, so an "assumption of plausibility" can be said to apply. Nibble is a word that has multiple meanings, and the other meanings don't correspond to potential encylopedic topics, but it doesn't especially matter, as people can still mistakenly think that the article has a disambiguated name. —Alalch E. 13:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
I'd really like to know what Robert thinks. Deb (talk) 10:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
User:Deb - Occasionally, if I want to look for an article on a subject, and think that it has been disambiguated, I may guess at what the disambiguator is, rather than going first to the disambiguation page, so I think that someone else might do the same thing. I wouldn't guess that Nibble is a combination of a primary page and a disambiguation page, which it is. More generally, my thinking is that any seemingly unlikely search combination will be used at some point. I think that is a case of the law of extremely large numbers. So my thinking is that if a possible search term seems unlikely, someone will try it at some time. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
Okay. But doesn't everyone who starts typing "Nibble" get to see immediately that there is a page of that title? Deb (talk) 15:46, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sir Charles Trevelyan, 1st Baronet on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Request for Review

For a while i've been working on Draft:Tropical Storm Bret (2023), and it has repeatedly been declined by the same person, Drdpw. His reasoning is it is not notable (knocked 50% of power out of a country and affected many more), it is too small (over 17K bytes) and it doesn't have enough references, even though it has 39.

I was wondering if you could look over it and maybe provide a more neutral view.

Shmego (talk) 12:44, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Designating Sri Lanka as a contentious topic

I feel its time WP designates Sri Lanka as a contentious topic. Cossde (talk) 13:04, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Rippling

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 16:23, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Robert McClenon,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi,

Considering that you began an RfC on the use of Tifinagh on the Algeria article, there's been quite a debate on whether or not Tifinagh should be removed from Morocco-related articles, which led to an RfC. Since you seem like a neutral third-party, it would be nice to have some feedback.

Thank you! NAADAAN (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Venezuelan politics opened

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/Venezuelan politics. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Venezuelan politics/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me | my contributions 23:37, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

A goat for you!

You've rightfully heard thanks to this end before, but the fact remains you're just about the closest individual Wikipedia has to a guardian angel—in a concrete sense and not a supernatural one, mind—with how you try diligently to prevent humans from hurting themselves and others through quiet patience. Very concretely, I am glad there are people like you around to help keep the site together, and while I have some patience sometimes, I know for certain that I don't have what you have. I do hope you're taking care of yourself, though. Thanks for the hard work.

Remsense诉 21:27, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ronnie Archer-Morgan

Hi there. Thanks for your comment on Draft:Ronnie Archer-Morgan. I know it's not actually about the article itself, but if you had a moment to read it at the time, is there anything you thought could improve it or make it more likely to pass AfC? If so, please may you tell me, or just edit it yourself.

Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Class of Ronnie Archer-Morgan

Hi there, You recently rated Ronnie Archer-Morgan as C-Class, but I thought it looked more like a B-Class article. However, I am probably biased seeing as I wrote it. Which of the B-Class criteria does it fail to meet, so I can work on improving it? Thanks, JacobTheRox (talk) 09:00, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The ARCA you filed has been closed

Hi Robert, the ARCA you filed has been closed. firefly ( t · c ) 16:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 01:41, 12 April 2024 (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.

thetechie@wikimedia: ~/talk/ $ 01:41, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
  • On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_48&oldid=1231995868"