HI I see your post and I have made pages before

I am currently in the process of adding to the page that I just made

I am doing this on my cellphone so it's taking a bit to update but I will not be leaving it blank

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 (talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense

Dear Robert - You apparently took no time to look and evaluate where my work is going. Though I am new to Wikipedia, it does not preclude the fact that at least I am able to CORRECTLY SPELL my own name! You call me Bobby Baron. That already tells me you don't pay attention. My name is Barry Baron (mistake number one). The second mistake is assuming my mother has something to do with my research. This is incorrect and it happens to be a deceased sister. I take great care in adding content. You sir, I believe, need to take greater care in researching what you are criticizing. I fear maybe Wikipedia may want to re-evaluate your approach to others judging from the plethora of negative comments herein. Prove me wrong (actually the word is incorrect, but in this case,wrong is becoming a moral issue). I am trying my best to educate the planet a bit more on a subject you obviously have absolutely no concept of its importance. I simply suggest you look before you leap, sir. I certainly heed warnings at an arm's length and research considering the source. I am a former intelligence officer and used to manage interrogations on enemy prisoners; I see where this is going. It's not going to look good on your resume if your comments can't be more constructive and logical. I see the Dunning-Kruger effect (cognitive bias)sneaking up on you. I believe apologies are in order, Sir. BARRY BARON (talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert,

I'm sorry that your opinion of my post is so negative, but i understand it must be a hard life if you're leaving such negative feedback on people's Wikipedia's articles. I must address your point, saying Steven Joseph Barnes is a 'non-notable person' because it is quite frankly rude. How is it up to you to decide whether someone is important enough for their own Wikipedia page or not? I'd kindly ask you to reconsider your review of my article, as it is downright disrespectful to instantly regard my post as a hoax, especially about someone who is a local icon. Although the article does have humorous content, I believe it to be a factual representation of Steven for the benefit of others and its not acceptable to criticize someones writing style.

Cameron

PS I hope this post doesn't appear to be hostile, I'm just very passionate about this icon who I've known since birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenJosephBarnes1997 (talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Robert,

I created the user Romeomancini, even in the italian wikipedia page, because it is for the painter, but I have provided the email with my name and surname anna lisa vergarolo. I am afraid now to change everything, please keep my email address with my name and surname. I am not even sure I am writing in the right place here for you, please let me know. I have deleted the phrase that you thing it is not encyclopedic, anyway in Italy it is history that there was fascism and nationalism before second world war, not an opinion.--Romeomancini (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Romeomancini (talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You, sir, are the POV Vandal

I do not appreciate your outrageous suggestion that I have committed vandalism because I wish to insert balanced information in the Ted Kennedy article. That is not vandalism and you destroy the meaning of the term when you call it such. You are a POV warrior of the worst kind and your repeated edits to revert and remove any balanced info about Ted Kennedy are much closer to the definition of vandalism. An article that refuses to mention negative parts of a politician's life does not meet any encyclopedic standard.--66.176.129.11 12:19, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lying

Kind of a double standard there isn't it? Someone can lie about someone, but the other person shouldn't let it be known that he's lying? I don't agree with that at all. RJII 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from leaving harrassing messages on my discussion board. And please cease from declaring a consensus on the Ted_Kennedy article when no such consensus exists.--Agiantman 19:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have once again left a harrassing message on my discussion board. Please refrain.--Agiantman 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Problematical Accused Viewpoint

But, it is cleverer than you think , McC: majority opinion rules. Of course it is completely illogical , in fact I assume it is a typo error, asit is so contradictory of sources.

Other thing is that , well, arbitration doesn't achieve anything, a little mental spank and a few days in the can at best.

Then, well you get users like me who have a floating IP number.

I think Jimbo in fact knows all this , and is chuckling , as he is very clever .Famekeeper 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

lying

Kind of a double standard there isn't it? Someone can lie about someone, but the other person shouldn't let it be known that he's lying? I don't agree with that at all. RJII 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From FK (refactored)

I was just advised to rectify the absence upon the Holocaust page and directed to othr WP atricles . In the first two , Nazism and German History , the same rectification is required by the utter absence of the facts I sourced and justified ad infinitum under good faith . I now jsut see myself smeared as a filibusterer . This is percisely an example where you McC allow yourself to be , ot put, yourself in error. This adherence to error, in everything except the issue of my incivility will rebound to your user name . If that is something you are willing to accept , so be it . I note actions and arguments as do others . As to the marital , you would if you had perused some of the remarkably interesting history of sourcing and counter sourcing, Know that Str has a problem because those of us born into english have it trip more eassily off our tongue, and hand . He is not to be criticised , I simply refer to an agency of effort , there . It borders on the un-civil , but we do it quite regualrly as otherwise we'd die of sources . However the simple fact of the matter is that WP has at present a complete lack throughout the pages , bar Reichskonkordat and what I did on the Pius XII article that does remain. This is rectifiable in good faith . I for one would be prepared to help . I would not be able to help , if Str1977 continues this battle , a battle which is not to do with POV or MPOV or NPOV . It is to do with faith editing in his case-the very best thing to say is that he genuinely believes [it] . But I cannot continue whilst you McC and he are subverting this NPOV effort . I adhere to wiki source rule, and argument based on pure fact . If I am wrong that this is no more than Str1977,that there is no more conspiracy against the truth, it is =NPOV history , but a reflection of a general lack of under-standing rather than ageneralised form of the evidently recognisable POV from Str , maybe . I do not expect and do nortt remove relevant material from Str or others' belief, why should he take away our history ? I accept his view can stay in , as a reflection of what appears or did o motivate people . However I will hold your user name to be essentially required to further this WP rule above all others, that NPOV is allowed, as its explanation deserves, wherever it deserves , subject to reason and sources (proof) . So , allow that , allow a pure apology based on the willingness of Str for everything and anything necessary that he has already in POV either removing or blocking . As to the legal matters I and indeed he, have at great length discussed the various legal consequences in the ecclesiastical , UN , and civil world . We agree on one fundamental law of reason which is the biblical injunction . However the consequences following on Kaas' action and those to be recognised in NPOV fact , involve the legality of Nuremberg , of the UN and of your local country . The moral law governs all of us , according to both Str and mysself, and it certainly governs all of the WP rules . I would be quite happy to repeat that the reason of humanity is the good , and that all things , WP included , shall be controlled by reason . I have analysed reason enough and it will serve there to all persuasion. There is no WP law that the WP can over-lay on the truth . Everyone is accountable under the law, call it reason or a federal court. If a website promulgates wrong , it is accountable . As you have seen Germans are subject to various laws concerning denial , and a website would be included under this . Such speculations are simply to say that all our actions are noticed . It has taken a long time in the case of the Concordat, indeed it is apparent that even after 2005 minus 1933 years , it has been largely hidden from view but to the close student of history My recent sources make it abundantly clear that the effects were recognised in 193 and since . The WP is out of line , literally . . Do you wish to stop the sourced facts. McC ? So get the blockage under control , stop insulting me unless you enjoy it . Read what I post/ed in an expectation of good faith . If you are not concerned to understand the history , you should pass this necessity to thwart POV over to arbitration . I for one cannot edit in any way , under this blocking , reverting, insinuation, massage and whitewash . I tell you that you are now blocking me by requiring my constant sidetrack into this stupidity . I ask you to stop and study or why should I bother with you except merely as an insulter . Do it yourself , or find yourself a mentor to guide you . I can stick up for what I know to be correct , the sources, which are above WP law , and for that , held sacrosanct . That you do not understand, is your own situation , in this . Str understands evrything at stake , which is to say the reputation of his papacy . Famekeeper 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WP problem . There's avast gap that can only be filled by defeating POV faith refusal to include the missing material . McC I either withdraw to as you say my own website (because WP fails on NPOV) or I await arbitration to result in censure(after civilty) of the POV blocking and the wrongful denial , or Str1977 accepts the inclusion of any and all sourced material . That is , complete justification for all so-called filibuster , FK POV smears , with a mutual apology for logic provocation by him , and giving in to it by me . Of course , perhaps the WP don't want to offend . Now when you guys send note of that , get back to me , otherwise I am not needed . I will tell the editor on Holocaust , that no I am not allowed . OK? WP can moulder without me . Famekeeper 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

JWales Final Responsibility re:Auschwitz Testimony Against Pope Pius XII etc

cc McClenon

I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).

Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wash it out with Soap, your mouth

You are the bully , and daily you prove it. I will indeed, when I have the time, call for arbitration , but not about your bullying . There will be no blocking of course, but as you say it will be the only way to teach abusers what is the result of their malfeasance . Your piss arse lttle bullying is insignificant as it does not seek to radically affect presentation of truth here. I am not concerned with you except that I have archived material on my userpages concerning the Rfc against you, such that it can be resuscitated should a further action be required against your bullying. You are as you are, and welcome to yourself - a proven little liar, caught out and desperate not to look bad-in other words exactly what constitutes the typical bully . Someone insecure in themself who tries to deflect from their personal inadequacy by attacking the seemingly weak . I have proved your bullying at your own Rfc:mCClenon . Str1977 is actively intellectually dishonest , unlike yourself who is too crass not to leave an obvious trail(viz the dishonesty I irrefutably prove at yr Rfc:McClenon . I doubt very much that Mack Le Non is a real name , but you chose or it chose you well . I think you are paid to come in here to act as a bully , as I cannot see that any idealism drives you . Str1977 will have to answer for himself at the time that I choose. I have him cornered at last into an acceptance of the secret annexe, something I have been aiming for for many many months . He holds out on a misplaced working committee of 1 April with Kaasie and the Centre. Maybe Kaas did meet the Centre that day , obviously as he was their leader and had been off for a week with the popes, but that is unlike my sourcing to him , not proved to me as relevant . It is a large claim by him though, and I know why he makes it - to deflect Kaas and his friend Pacelli's guilt , and thus leave the Holy See safe from attack . However they are open to attack through the Secret Annexe of the REichskonkordat, and you have now seen that he cannot defend them there on that score, but only lay his POV open to evident wishfulness. Prudence is not a fact , but a motivation . I will skewer Str1977 on his own edits, as I skewer you and your unattractive bullying dishonesty , on your edits . I have specified these down to the minute and I openly say that you are of bad-faith as , according to your own lights , irrefutable proof is prdicate for such accusation. Go clean your mouth out with soap and say a hundred rosary's for your lie to the Wikipedia . You are not in danger of going to hell, but the christian who defends conscious evil , is . Now spit the soap out, kid .Famekeeper 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

why did you say I was vandilising a page. Only stating the facts poopy head

User Famekeeper:Crisis

What does it make you think to read this headline , McC ? That is my point .Famekeeper

Please discontinue your involvement outside of the article namespace

I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. I am especially disappointed in your case because you offered to switch to neutral if he explained that his 100% wasn't a minimum, he did and you failed to follow through with your word. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. --Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please learn what personal attacks are

Factual accounts of another users clear violations of policy and abuse are not personal attacks. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 (talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural help?

Dear Mr. McClenon: I'm Charles Glasser, and I was retained recently by The Daily Caller to try and see if there was a way to bring some errors to your attention. I'm aware that some people preceeded me in attempting a resolution, it apparently ended in a flame war and looking at your recent note on the talk page for The Daily Caller, you seem to be saying that you consider my request for resolution closed, or in the alternative, raised in the wrong process. Sadly, one fellow who seems to have a deep interest in the Daily Caller has even tried to encourage you to ignore my request because I'm a media lawyer and questioning both my sincerity and legitimacy. (Pls see Daily Caller talk page for my comments/answers). This is by no means a legal threat, that's not how I roll. I am only asking if I can supply SOMEONE with an dry, calm, rational explanation of what's wrong with the article and why. The WP process is terribly confusing, loaded with coding jargon, and as a person of good faith, I'm hoping you, likewise, will show the kindness if not respect to be or to help find a neutral arbiter to hear me out. I am more than happy to answer ANY questions that you may have. Yours truly, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com[reply]

Requesting help w/r/t arbitration or mediation

Dear Mr. McClenon: I'm Charles Glasser, and I was retained recently by The Daily Caller to try and see if there was a way to bring some errors to your attention. I'm aware that some people preceeded me in attempting a resolution, it apparently ended in a edit/flame war and looking at your recent note on the talk page for The Daily Caller, you seem to be saying that you consider my request for resolution closed, or in the alternative, raised in the wrong process. Sadly, one fellow who seems to have a deep interest in the Daily Caller has even tried to encourage you to ignore my request because I'm a media lawyer and questioning both my sincerity and legitimacy. (Pls see Daily Caller talk page for my comments/answers). This is by no means a legal threat, that's not how I roll. I am only asking if I can supply SOMEONE with an dry, calm, rational explanation of what's wrong with the article and why. The WP process is terribly confusing, loaded with coding jargon, and as a person of good faith, I'm hoping you, likewise, will show the kindness if not respect to be or to help find a neutral arbiter to hear me out. I am more than happy to answer ANY questions that you may have. My only wish is to find the right procedural process. Yours truly, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 2601:8C:C301:14B0:D9EC:E0D5:A3D7:6CB9 (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com[reply]

Do yourself a favor...

I've noticed from much of your feedback that you have extreme self-hate and anger. I think it would behoove you to take a break from wiki. Your baseless accusations of other's behavior reek of arrogance and self-doubt. You are insulting many who are trying to do the right thing but can't get past your own hangups. So go ahead and delete this post but you'll think about it I'm sure. 103.73.196.138 (talk) 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Naoki Terada

Hello! Thank you for reading this and sorry for taking up your time. I have been working on an article with my partner for quite a while, but it has been denied multiple times. I believe you were one of the first reviewers on this article and I was hoping I could get some insight into how I can get this published.

First here is the article in question.

---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Naoki_Terada

My first question is why has this article not been approved when the Japanese version has and is basically the same thing just translated?

Japanese article ---> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BA%E7%94%B0%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9

Also, I have been speaking with another reviewer, but I could not get a good answer from them regarding this. The other reviewer kept mentioning sources, but my partner found other similar articles that have much less sources than our article.

Article 1 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arata_Isozaki

Article 2 ---> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazutoshi_Sat%C5%8D

Any insight or help you could provide would be great since my partner is really eager to have this published and we have been working on it for a very long time.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.83.131 (talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Corrections

Hi Robert,

It appears as though you reviewed my work but I cannot find any comments. Just looking to find out what kind of corrections I can make to get this published on Wikipedia. Thanks! Julia Reising (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]