User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 17

06:54:39, 2 April 2017 review of submission by Niclas.hedhman
I have tried to follow similar level of content as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Framework, and an uninitiated reviewer would possibly also call that "reads like a spec sheet for the system". But isn't that unavoidable explaining complex functionality? At some point, one needs to move from "why does it matter?" (the 'notable' part) to "what is it?" (the 'spec sheet' part). I have done some revisions, but I am grateful for any further guidance that you might be willing to give. Thanks.
 * User:Niclas.hedhman - First, I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Second, the article as written focuses on what it is and not why it matters, in my opinion, and goes into too much technical detail.  That is my opinion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting your review and Feedback
Hello Dodger, Greetings, I have made updates to my wiki draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis I will be thankful if you could given me a feedback / review...

Kind regards, Joseph. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - I am not Dodger. Were you requesting that I review it, or that Dodger review it?  Did you request a review at WP:WikiProject Biology?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello McClenon, I am sorry for my mistake... I had mistyped...

BTW: Just as you recomended, I Did request for Reviews at WP:WikiProject Biology...

I will be also thankful if you could offer some feedbacks on my now improved draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis

Thanking you, Joseph. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - In looking over the draft, I think that more discussion of what other biologists have said about their acceptance of or skepticism toward the hypothesis is in order. The hypothesis, if true, changes the nature of the species problem from being essentially an arbitrary choice on a continuum to a discrete distinction.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you have a look
Can you take a look at Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction? It says it was created via AfC, but I don't see any evidence of that. I was about to move it back there, but you do far more work on that project than I do, so I thought I'd ask for your thoughts first. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TonyBallioni - Yes. It appears from its history that it was created in article space using a previous AFC article as a template, and so had the AFC template but never went through AFC.  It's a marginal case for whether it should be in article space or moved back to draft space.  That is, it isn't obviously incomplete or obviously unready for article space.  However, since the author put the AFC template in it, I would say that it is fair to move it to draft space and let it be reviewed.  It's a marginal case.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * My thoughts as well, just wanted to confirm. I've went ahead and sent back to draft. Thanks for the second pair of eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Am I prohibited
…from working on Articles for creation, or not? There was no final reply from discussion participants after I called for a decision, after which I became busy with work and other concerns. What is the bottom line, please? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Leprof 7272 - The bottom line is that there was no final decision. However, my recollection, and I can look it up within a few days, is that the sentiment was that you had a different view of AFC than the AFC reviewers did, and that it would be better to help Wikipedia in some other way than at AFC.  Can you take the responsibility in yourself to find what archive the discussion was archived to?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)


 * You may have to forgive me if I choose to take a "tie goes to the runner" approach and and ignore what I otherwise recall/perceive to be an overstepping of authority. If the sky falls, then we can revisit. But that discussion was here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Leprof 7272 - I have looked over the previous discussion, and at the time I found your persistent demands for a quick resolution and your persistent reminders of the obligation to assume good faith, which had never been in doubt, to be troubling. I still find your comment about an overstepping of authority to be troubling.  You still seem to think that reviewing articles is a right that can only be restricted for cause.  If that isn't what you are saying, please read your own statements as if they were written by X and you were reading them for the first time.  You seem to be determined to hound us or shame us into giving you reviewer privileges based on justice, rather than looking at it from the standpoint of the good of the encyclopedia.  Sometimes, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, someone is their own worst enemy in pushing too aggressively for something.  Now:  What do you think is the function of the AFC reviewer?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Kateryken/Institute for Medical Quality


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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 13:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Boomer Vial - Twinkle is very useful, but sometimes it gives notice to the wrong person. That obviously was User:Kateryken's draft.  I must have declined it at AFC.  After six months, I don't remember that one, because over six months, I have declined hundreds (probably thousands) of drafts.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, well that's weird. My mistake, at any rate. Boomer VialHolla! We gonna ball! 04:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 11:29:40, 5 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust
Looking for some guidance on notability guidelines

Hi Robert,

I appreciate you taking the time to look at my article on the Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust. I'm looking to build up the case for its notability, but I'm not sure what kind of coverage would be most helpful. I based the original article on the one for another Oxford scholarship, the Clarendon Fund, where the only references are the organisation's own website. Is notability for a scholarship more a function of size (i.e. Clarendon fund approximately 350 scholars per year versus our 30) or because their article is more substantial and better developed (i.e. I need to write more)?

Many thanks,

WHT

WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust - First, please change your user name. One account should represent one human, and one human should have one account.  A charitable trust normally has more than one trustee.  Second, notability is based on independent coverage by reliable sources, such as newspapers.  Notability of a scholarship fund depends on how much has been written by others (not by the trustees or administrators) about the scholarship program.  That often does depend on the number of scholarships.  (If another scholarship fund has no references other than its own site, it should have other references.  That doesn't mean that you should be listed, but maybe something should be deleted.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because the other stuff exists in Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should exist, or that something else should exist.)  Notability certainly isn't a matter of which article is more substantial, because notability is a pre-requisite for having an article in the first place.  If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm trying to get my new submission reviewed! I am a noteable individual but my new submission may need some tweaking! I don't see an option to send it for submission though. Thanks!

Osothecrew/ĀR RÄ
Hi! I'm trying to get my new submission reviewed! I am a noteable individual but my new submission may need some tweaking! I don't see an option to send it for submission though. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osothecrew (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Osothecrew - Read the autobiography policy first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an autobiography. My name is Joanne Garcia...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osothecrew (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Osothecrew - I am confused. Why do you say that you are a notable individual if you aren't trying to justify getting your autobiography published?  Is the subject notable?  It doesn't matter whether the author is notable unless the author is the subject.  Have I missed something?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am confused as well. This is very new to me. My apologies. Thanks! Osothecrew (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello
Dear Robert McClenon,

Thanks for your feed back. As you would probably know any concept is actively reviewed at the stage of a hypothesis... And not many people come forward to openly support an innovative solution, as against little creative ones... Especially with this hypothesis which tries solving a age old problem in Biology (The Species Problem).

So not many scientists openly voice support to it, but we discuss the hypothesis over the Research Gate Network..., and more over books relating to it (on Amazon books) have already crossed over 5000 downloads.

The molecular evidence found in the IZUMO1 & JUNO proteins (images in the wiki draft) provides concrete support to the hypothesis. And forms the urgent necessity to get it across to the wider scientific community...

>>The hypothesis, if true, is very significant in that it changes the concept of a species from a continuum to a discrete distinction.

In Nature species are distinct they certainly manage to preserve their identity...! It is just the inability of we humans to recognise their distinction... It is my personal belief that the species problem is more of a Cognitive problem as against a Real life problem... Thought it is cognitively demanding to solve problems like these, but certainly not an impossibility...

Kind regards, Joseph J

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ernest Hemingway
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernest Hemingway. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Pending request for more detailed feedback for Draft:eMoflon
Dear Mr. McClenon, a few weeks back, I asked you to provide me with advice and guidelines how to improve the article Draft:eMoflon. As I am a novice article author, I would really appreciate your help. In your opinion, which passages should be extended, removed or modified to increase the quality of the article? Thank you for your help! RolandKluge (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:RolandKluge - What is your connection with the developer of eMoflon? It appears that you have a history of editing this one draft article only.  If you have a connection with the developer, please provide the conflict of interest declaration.  If not, you might be able to help us as much in Wikipedia with some of the five million articles that we already have as by trying to add one article that we do not yet have.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for your response. I filled out the COI template for the article. Is there anything else that I can do? RolandKluge (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:RolandKluge - Did you read the banner at the top of this page? I do not normally follow an article through the approval process, and do not plan to follow yours, since you are an editor with a history of editing one article.  Wait for another reviewer to review the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Comtribution
I am trying to create a page for someone else. Osothecrew (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Page mover rights request
I just saw your request over at Requests for permissions and wanted to wish you luck in getting it (I am confident that you will). It would make sense for a New Page Patroller to have. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Page mover granted
Hello, Robert McClenon. Your account has been [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=&page=User%3ARobert_McClenon granted] the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when  is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:
 * Requested moves
 * Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Neil N  talk to me 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:NeilN - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 06:02:54, 7 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Nagsail
Hi, I have resubmitted the draft Manju_Latha_Kalanidhi, with adequate reliable sources published in different newspapers. This draft is a new article about the creator of Rice Bucket Challenge. Can you please help me in creating it. Thank youNagsail (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nagsail (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Nagsail - Did you read the banner at the top of my talk page? Your only edits have been to or about Draft:Manju Latha Kalanidhi.  Do you have an affiliation with her?  If so, please provide the conflict of interest disclosure.  If not, I am willing to let another reviewer review the article, and will suggest also that you might be able to contribute to Wikipedia by working on any of the five million articles that we already have rather than on one that we do not have.  Do you have a connection to the subject of the article?  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

18:03:03, 7 April 2017 review of submission by Roncaglia
I have reviewed and slightly simplified the article, adding a few cross-references; the article can surely be further simplified and improved, but I think it should be published; notability is granted by the presence of the painter in the Oxford Art Online Archives and in the Benezit dictionary of Artists (the main international reference work for French painting); furthermore, his paintings were regularly published on the Les Lettres Françaises (among the most influential French reviews of the XXth Century) and the artist was a regular participant in the Salon de Mai (his name was already among the ones mentioned in the Wikipedia article Salon de Mai). Please let me know if you think that the article is now suitable for re-submission.
 * User:Roncaglia - You may resubmit the draft. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and will let another reviewer review it.  If you have questions, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon - Thank you, I have resubmitted the draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roncaglia (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 8
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oleander Sladojevich, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fetish and Croatian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

08:05:56, 10 April 2017 review of submission by AnRoCa
Hey, are there any sections which are ok / which ones do i have to work on, please give me a bit more guidance, what to work on. i don't know, sorry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Save_Cambodia%E2%80%98s_Wildlife THANKS :-)
 * User:AnRoCa - If you want my opinion, it reads much like a fund-raising brochure that is sent out by a 501(c)(3) organization. Focus on what others have written about the organization rather than what it has written about itself.  (If others have not written much about the organization, it may not be notable.)  If you want advice from other experienced editors, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

YGM
eurodyne (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

05:08:09, 11 April 2017 review of submission by Naskgetty
Hi! you reviewed my draft for the Lakota Nation Invitational. There are numerous sites and articles linking to the event. What exactly are you looking for?
 * User:Naskgetty - I need indications that the event is notable in that independent sources, not associated with it, have reported on it. We don't need to know the names of the organizers of the event, for instance.  What is needed is information on what others have written about the event.  If you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Comment left on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Sudhir Kumar Mishra
Hi there Robert, I was just wondering if you had seen the comment left by the main editor of the page nominated that they left here? I am asking as neither yourself or I were tagged in it (we are the other two posts). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TheSandDoctor - Yes, I saw it. I will leave it to the closer to take into account.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't. Thanks for the response --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of page
Hello Robert,

I find that you are deleting a page that is being created. This was just started and not even a single line was added. The work was going to start only. I am not sure why this was deleted even before it started? I went through the relevant rules and could not find a solid reason for this. Appreciate if you could enlighten me on this. Sorry for any trouble. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyworld (talk • contribs) 06:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Tomyworld - You say that you read the applicable rules. Did they include the biographical notability policy and the autobiography policy?  Did you start the page in article space without providing real content?  If so, please do not put incomplete pages in article space that will not be valid articles.  You may develop articles piecemeal in draft space or in user space, and most experienced editors do that.  If you need advice on draft space or user space, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Ivan Parnikoza
Hi, could you move it back please? --TimeWaitsForNobody (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TimeWaitsForNobody - Either you or I can move back Draft:Ivan Parnikoza to Ivan Parnikoza. At present I think it is marginal as to whether it meets academic notability guidelines.  Can you describe his career in more detail and find any more references?  As it is, there is some risk that it could be nominated for Articles for Deletion.  However, if you think that it will survive a deletion discussion (and I don't have a strong opinion), I can move it back, or you can move it back.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for Feed back
Dear Robert McClenon,

Greetings and thanks a lot for all your help. I recently updated my wiki Draft that offers solution to a long running problem in biology "the species problem". The draft titled "Species branding hypothesis" is almost complete.

I will be happy if you would take a look at the draft. I will be also thankful if you could offer me your valuble feedbacks.

Thanking you, With kind regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - See my comments in Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. The Summary section needs to be reworked to be a neutral summary rather than simply a recapitulation that presents the hypothesis as fact.  Also, focus more on what biologists who did not originate the hypothesis have written both about its plausibility and its impact.  (The impact is non-trivial because it changes speciation from a process to an event.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:2017 National League Championship Series listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:2017 National League Championship Series. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:2017 National League Championship Series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft:2017 National League Division Series listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:2017 National League Division Series. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:2017 National League Division Series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robert McClenon
Many thanks Robert McClenon for your valuble comments and suggestions. I had made changes to the Summary just as you had suggested.

>> Focus both on what other biologists, not the originator of the theory, have commented on the plausibility of the theory, and on what other biologists have said about the impact of the theory, if true.

So far I have heard No negative comments or opposition to the hypothesis from others. I would be very happy to hear from other biologist about their views and comments on the hypothesis.

It's my feeling that since this hypothesis deals with a bit complex soultion as against an easy solution; other scientists may not so openly voice comments. Surprisingly I have received just few feed backs, as against the thousands of copies of my books that were downloaded. I also see (on amazon kdp) that many readers finish reading my books till the end. But it could be that the problem (species problem) and its solution (Species Branding hypothesis); are too complex (cognitively demanding) for most readers to arrive with a their personal opinions.

I hope I would recieve more feed backs if the wiki-draft gets published.

Thank you again, Joseph

PS: The articles below could give you some sense of the cognitive Complexity of the Species Problem: http://cogprints.org/9956/1/Bartlett_The%20Species%20Problem%20and%20Its%20Logic.pdf http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/2007_syllabus/2007_readings/a4_Hey_2001.pdf

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - On further reading of your comments, I noticed what I should have noticed earlier. I just noticed that this appears to be your own paper and hypothesis, and you appear, first, to be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize your own work, and, second, you don't seem to be paying attention to my comments.  As to the first comment, are you one of the authors of the hypothesis?  If so, please read original research.  We can only publish your work to the extent that others have already commented on it.  Second, but less importantly, I have provided my own comments, which are that, far from providing a complex answer, you are providing a simple answer to a complex problem.  However, the real question is whether you are one of the authors.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon,

Greetings, I am new to wiki editing and am just getting used to the system. Just to make it clear, I am the proponent of the Species Branding Hypothesis. I just now made a little edit to the draft such that, I took away my name and replaced it by saying 'a researcher'. I hope this helps a bit.

Awaiting your feedback,

Regards, Joseph.

Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis
Dear Robert, Just as you told me to, I read the webpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ... To my opinion my draft seems not a presentation of an original research. It had been already published. Many times as books and other online resources. The links to them have also been referenced in the draft.

Regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Jayabalan.joseph - Since the hypothesis has already been published, I agree that it is not original research. However, it does appear that you are trying to use Wikipedia to provide greater attention to what appears to be a fringe hypothesis.  I am not prepared to accept your draft as it is, because it doesn't present the views of other researchers, or doesn't say that other researchers have not paid much attention to the hypothesis (in which case it is fringe until it is more widely accepted).  Do you want to discuss at the Teahouse, where experienced editors give advice to new editors?  The alternative, which might be a little less friendly, would be to discuss at the fringe theory noticeboard.  I think that the discussion needs to go somewhere that has more experienced editors, rather than just my user talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, As you are aware, the draft has the title saying that it is just a Hypothesis and not a theory... Also the title certainly doesnot claim the draft to be any alternative to the conventional Specieation theory but just a new Hypothesis...

The hypothesis forms the core of my book, which has received comments... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO I know for sure that Ed M.T. who wrote the third comment is a Scientist by profession... https://zfin.org/ZDB-PERS-980624-6

I agree that there could be N number of wiki rules (which I am not aware of) that which could prevent the draft from getting published... But there also should be rules which could favour this draft...

My optimism gets in way just because this hypothesis tries to solve a core problem in Biology (Species Problem), that had been running for more than 150 years... This period in history (today) is remarkable that now we have the Genomic data and the computational power to solve the problem.

Especially the role of the gene Juno was identified just by 2014 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/abs/nature13203.html

Crystal structure of IZUMO1 binding JUNO was solved just last year 2016 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7608/full/nature18596.html

Darwin tried solving the species problem, but lack of data prevented him from doing so...

Species Problem has the huge capacity to bridge the gap between Religion & Science, which are unfortunately a dicotomy today...

I will be happy to discuss the hypothesis with the subject matter experts associated with wiki...

If they see that it is worth to be published then, they as scientists could offer the support needed to publish this draft...

I will be thankful if you could guide me to get in contact with wiki subject matter experts related to this draft...

Regards, Joseph J.

PS: Since I am not a native English speaker, pl be bit explicit in expressing things... I feel that I am not really getting some of your polite ways of expression...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Scientists who support my Hypothesis
I am sorry Robert I did not get you earlier...

I added a list of Scientists who have read my book on Research Gate and who wrote to me back in support of it...

I added the following text to my draft: 'This hypothesis has been favoured by Evolution researchers such as Edward Malaga Trillo, Sriram Kannan, Keith Oliver and Arvind Ramanathan. It does not face any oppositions as of today.'

I have also writtern on Teahouse and also on Fringe theories Notice board...

Regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no clue as to why would someone jump in to nominate my Draft for MfD
I have edited my draft just now to fulfill the comments that you had posted on my Draft page...

Then why would Mr. Orange mike jump to nominate MfD...!

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Some thing is wrong
Hello Robert,

Just an update. I did edit my draft to add the opinion from other Researchers. And just as you told me I posted questions on Teahouse & fringe theory noticeboard. But as you said I dont see any experienced editors give advice to me

Just a guy named Orange Mike jumped in and placed an MFD notice.

Why would people from wiki behave so agressively...?

The system in wiki is either faulty or is speeding in that direction.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 23:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - While I initially disagreed with the deletion, you are speeding in the direction of being a faulty editor by removing tags from the draft, and you do appear to know what you are doing, whether in English or in another language. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

I see in front of my eyes all my hardship pushed to trash... I had worked for weeks on this draft only to see people push it aside in matter of minutes, with out valid reasons... Its hard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 01:33, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Jayabalan.joseph - I am normally a patient editor. Please stop posting your complaints to my talk page.  I tried to advise you and you didn't listen; it turns out that it is because I hadn't noticed initially that you were trying to use Wikipedia to promote your own theory.  However, you didn't take my advice to focus on what other scholars have said about the hypothesis.  I then asked you to post to the Teahouse or the fringe theory noticeboard.  What you are seeing is that Wikipedia does have its own standards, and you didn't seem to be trying to learn what our standards are.  Please do not post any more complaints to my talk page.  Any further complaints on my talk page will be hatted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

-- I do agree that your organisation has its standards... But why would your editors post comments telling that further discussion could be done over the talk page when they dont respond to my qweries on the discussion links which they provide... (say like OrangeMike's talk page)... Is this called wiki standards...? It is up to you to hat this.-

Shadilay
Hi Robert McClenon. You prodded Shadilay back on March 23, 2017, but the article was de-prodded about a week later by. No reason was given for the deprod and it does not seem you were notified of it as well. The song still seems like it does not meet WP:NSONG right now, but maybe WP:NEXIST is possible. Anyway, if not then the next step would be AfD. Perhaps ask at WT:SONG first? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Amaravati Bus Rapid Transit System
Was it really necessary to slap the above article with CSD A1 and template the new user within ten minutes of its creation? It was technically correct, but please keep in mind that WP:CSD says "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.". Sometimes frightening or offending a new user by quickly judging their work can mean those several edits never happen. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Just a reminder
Just as you asked to, the view points of other scientists towards the 'Species Branding Hypothesis' have been added. They are placed towards the end of the draft, if you require any change in its position pl do comment...

Regards, Joseph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayabalan.joseph (talk • contribs) 11:59, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

William H. Bell (fl. 1860s)
Hi Robert McClenon. Since you check lots of AfC submissions, I have two questions about William H. Bell (fl. 1860s) that perhaps you may be able to answer. -- Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 7:02 am, Today (UTC+9)
 * 1) You left an AFC comment back in January 2016 (See Talk:William H. Bell (fl. 1860s)) that the draft would need to be diambuguated. I think the creator attempted to do this, but i'm not sure if they did it correctly. To be honest, I have no idea what "fl. 1860s" is supposed to mean. Do you think the tilte should be tweaked to something else per WP:NCDAB?
 * 2) The article seems to have been sumbitted via AFC multiple times and was declined the last time on March 20, 2017. My guess is that it was at that point the creator decided (perhaps out of frustration?) to move the article to the mainspace. I'm sure this happens quite a bit, and the changes made since the last draft was declined and when it was moved to the article namespace were pretty much stylistic although one source was added. If there's no possiblilty of WP:NEXIST, then an AfD may be the only option (or at the very least Notability). Do think this article meets WP:BIO?
 * User:Marchjuly - Okay. As you saw, I was the first of several reviewers to decline the submission.  It wasn't the originator who moved the article to article space, but another editor who evidently took over being the principal author, but that isn't important.  I agree that the title should be tweaked to something like William H. Bell (servant).  What (fl. 1860s) means is "flourished, 1860s", which is a notation made about people whose dates of birth are not known.  In his case, there is no record of his birth because he was born as a slave.  (There is apparently also no record of his christening.  Church records in the past were often more complete than non-church records.)  In my opinion, there is no doubt whatever that he meets notability criteria.  He was a witness in an important historical legal proceeding, in which his role is well documented.  I don't see an AFD as being in order.  I don't see a notability concern as being in order.  I will have to take another look at the references to see if a concern about the references is in order.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for taking a look and clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

American Phonology Dispute
On the dispute page you volunteered on, LakeKayek is already making changes to the North American Regional Phonology page to fit his views, despite the still ongoing dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:North_American_English_regional_phonology.23Midland_as_part_of_Southern_discussion How is this not disrespectful? What's the point of editing the North American Regional Phonolgy page if there's this dispute going on? I've even in my more recent comments have tried to reach out and find agreement, yet he make changes to the pages to align with his views anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaxonfan (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Klaxonfan - I will take another look. However, the dispute resolution noticeboard is intended to resolve content disputes amicably, and there is nothing that we can do about edit-warring, which must be dealt with administratively.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Request on 07:34:50, 18 April 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Cecilith
Hi! I am trying to add a page for an Italian director called Riccardo Marchesini; first issue: there is a homonym, a canoer with the same name! Second issue: I believe I managed to create a page but it was rejected because "i did not have reliable sources", but I DID quote all possible links: IMDB, magazines articles, web pages with the mentions of the director ad his works! Where did it go wrong? Please Help!!! TA! Cecilith (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Cecilith

Cecilith (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Cecilith - I can disambiguate the title for you if you wish. However, the draft is nowhere near being ready for article space.  It does not currently have any references.  The version that I declined did not have any valid properly formatted references.  If you need advice on completing the draft, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

your review on Newton Mayoral Election 2017
When giving your review on my draft for the Newton Mayoral Election, 2017, you changed the title to Newton, Massachusetts, Mayoral Election, 2017. This title would not be consistent with other mayoral articles, such as the Burlington mayoral election, 2009, and the Boston mayoral election, 2013. I will find another way to include Massachusetts in the article but in the meantime please change the title back. LoganZombieOfTime (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:LoganZombieOfTime - I couldn't "change the title back" because you had never given it a title, but had submitted it from your sandbox. I have renamed (moved) it as requested, but I can't "change the title back" if you merely submit it in a sandbox.  If you knew what the naming conventions were, why didn't you name it?  Anyway, I have moved it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Review on Envision BI
Hi, You flagged an article created by me called Envision BI. I request you to review that again, because it was not meant to be advertised or promoted. I work in the BI field and Use many tools, all the tools has their own Wikipedia page, for an example, Power BI, but Envision doesn't have one. As a wikipedia editor I thought it is my responsibility to create an article for it and as the time proceeds, it will get expanded with the help of other wikipedia editors related to the BI field. So i request for your consideration and let the article remain on the wikipedia. Thanks. rakeshnandi 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshnandi1990 (talk • contribs)
 * User:Rakeshnandi1990 - The article is Envision BI. It consists of only one sentence, which says that the application exists.  That isn't enough information for it to provide any encyclopedic value.  Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see that the fact that a tool exists is a reason why it should have its own Wikipedia page.  If you have any more questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

13:44:20, 21 April 2017 review of submission by Casablanca99
Hello,

I am the editor of Duol wiki page which has been rejected at the submission. To avoid repeating mistakes in the future, please let me know exactly what is not in accordance with wiki requirements (which line).

Regards,

casablanca99
 * User:Casablanca99 - Did you also ask User:Gbawden exactly what was wrong? In my view, first, your draft did not improve much on the previously declined draft, and, second, didn't say anything about the company other than that it exists and has made airdomes.  It didn't say anything about what independent sources have said about the company.  Third, do you have a connection with Duol?  If so, please declare it.  (If not, you might consider helping Wikipedia with the five million articles that we already have, as well as with one that we don't have.)  If you want the opinions of other experienced editors, please ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

04:10:57, 22 April 2017 review of submission by Jameslukere
I want to know the problem if it is the writing style, grammar and sources and I wanted this to be an article. thanks
 * User:Jameslukere - The problem is both the style and the subject matter. What you wrote is a statement of opinion, and Wikipedia articles do not present the opinions of the authors, but summarize what is a neutral point of view on a subject.  If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse.  As it is, you aren't likely to be able to compose a draft that will be accepted if you want to state an opinion, even an opinion that most right-minded people will agree with.  That isn't what Wikipedia is for.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you...
Robert McClenon: Thank you for all your help and contributions...

Good day, Joseph J Ph.D

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 07:13, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
 * That isn't a good-faith thanks when you also insult me. But collapsing this thread too.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

{{hab}

Thank you
Thank you for your kind advices. But I don't know what is facebook. So don't insert this word. again thanks. rupa$$ (talk) 03:26, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Your Review Bubble Draft
Hi Robert McClenon

Thanks for your swift review of the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bubble. I've added two more 3rd party references today (one of which i'm awaiting full citation information for). I'm aware of the notability guidelines, so I'll keep working to ensure the page is as neutral as it possibly can be. I've also considered how other companies in this sector are presented on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planisware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planview

Before I look to re-submit, were there any specific areas where you believe changes to the draft are required. Thanks in advance. Markillman (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Markillman - First, I wouldn't suggest looking at other company articles as guides to what should be in a company article. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains that the existence of other articles does not imply that the other articles should be there either.  Maybe your article needs accepting, or maybe the other articles need deleting.  Second, I thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, but I am not enthusiastic about helping paid editors.  You might do better to ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into that link and perhaps go back to the tearoom again. We are of sufficient note to be included in the Wikipedia list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software) but you'll see that all of the 100+ providers listed there have a page to refer back to. I can appreciate your position though and value your straightforward response. As inferred in several of the Wikipedia help pages 'Rome wasn't built in a day', so I will take this chicken-and-egg conundrum one step at a time. It's not critical to achieve a listing, but it gets harder to respond to the question we sometimes get as to why our software is not on the aforementioned list. Thanks again. Markillman (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school.
Robert, you were kind enough to look at the Talk:Nigel Farage which User talk:EditsEditsEditsEdits raised and I supported. Unfortunately EditsEditsEditsEdits failed to notify other users so you closed it. I haven't been able to contact him but regard this edit as crucial to readers trying to understand Farage and how he came to his current views. It isn't contentious as I've used a WP:Suggested sources and Farage's right of reply -a requirement in the UK code of conduct for quality newspapers -was included and he hasn't denied it. I accept Ukip supporters may find his admission a shock but the edit shouldn't be censored because of the opinions of editors. It should not have been removed. Could you please advise me on how to proceed? I have no previous dispute experience. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

16:57:33, 26 April 2017 review of submission by Pozzo53
Hi there,

I thought that the volume of work done, in the public sphere, would garner a wikipedia page for this psychoanalyst? If I bolster the source material (use main stream media outlets) will that change the editors decision to deem David Morgan unworthy of a Wikipedia page? See this person's page: Anna Motz. Why is she more noteworthy? Secondly, I agree with the list concern and will adjust the conferences for example. But why is this acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morgan_(art_historian), and my page is not?

Thanks in advance and in hindsight for all the hard work you guys do.
 * User:Pozzo53 - I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse for their opinions. My own thought is that the subject probably is notable but the draft needs work to establish his notability.  As we agree, the list is too long.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

15:36:44, 27 April 2017 review of submission by Pozzo53
I fixed up the references, and whittled down the list to avoid turning Wiki into a data collation site.

I think the notability of David Morgan is summarised by his extensive involvement in important psycho-political debates in the public realm.

Thanks in advance for the edit and the advice. If you can ask for a second opinion, if you feel that the article is still not up to scratch, please do so.

Much appreciated.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Volunteer Roll Call
This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC)  (Not watching this page)

Contesting RfC
Hey, you recently closed the RfC at the U.S. 2020 presidential election page but I have some concerns with your closing. You said "The number of No statements, which mean not to remove the speculative candidates, slightly exceed the number of Yes statement." This is not true, someone bolded "no" twice (and I even called them out in the RfC) so that part needs to be edited at the very least. Another concern I have is that it seems like you tallied votes rather than measured the strength of arguments. I'm not necessarily saying you have to change your "no consensus" decision but it would be great if you could explain how the strength of the arguments weren't strong enough on either side to be deemed a consensus. This is important considering that many users hardly put forward a strong argument and seemed to have "voted" instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Thanks, Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Prcc27 - I have noted the double !vote, which still doesn't change the lack of consensus. In the absence of a consensus, I have not cast a supervote, which would be to decide that the Yes votes are more strongly argued or that the No votes are more strongly argued.  I don't really want to argue the merits or lack thereof of the closure at my talk page.  As I noted, I welcome a review of my closure at WP:AN, and would prefer not to go into discussion elsewhere.  I will be glad to answer questions briefly, but I don't see the error of a double vote as changing the consensus.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Give that man a cigar
Finally someone catches on. This is a tough crowd. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - You mean that someone caught on about a typo that changes the meaning from one having to do with either Wikipedia or litigation to one that is sometimes associated with religion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

22:24:15, 30 April 2017 review of submission by Joytotheworld
Hi Robert, Thank you for your review of my Peninsula Hot Springs page. I am not sure what to do, there was a deleted page when I started but the draft said if I was creating a new page that would be fine. I am not the author of the original deleted page. Could you please help me?? joytotheworld.

22:27:32, 30 April 2017 review of submission by Joytotheworld
Hi Robert, Thank you for your review. I am not sure how to edit a previous request where I was not the author. It states Peninsula Hot Springs exists, but I can only find declined ones. Could you please help me???
 * User:Joytotheworld - There was a version of Peninsula Hot Springs in article space. It was deleted as unambiguous advertising.  There is also a version at Draft:Peninsula Hot Springs, which is too promotional for article space, and will be declined if resubmitted, and the version in your subpage of your sandbox, which will also be declined if it is submitted.  If reliable sources that are independent of the management of the resort, such as travel guidebooks, have reported on it, a neutral article might be accepted.  (I am not saying that it will, and I am not saying that it won't.)  Do you have any connection with the resort?  (The author of the other two pages clearly does.)  If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

30 April 2017 submission of edits of Sanjay Poonen by User:BombayGin
Robert, can you suggest what parts of the wikipedia content for Sanjay Poonen need to be cleaned up, so that it is not in your opinion, an article for deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BombayGin (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:BombayGin - No, and, in my experience, when the author of an article asks what parts of the article can be cleaned up, that usually indicates that they have a special interest in getting the article published, which is typically a conflict of interest. There are two problems with the article.  The person does not appear to be notable, and the article is promotional.  The promotional text can be deleted, but, since the purpose of the article is to be promotional, that would leave not much, and the person is not notable.  Please post your conflict of interest disclosure.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

SPI
Hi Robert, just letting you know that I missed seeing the SPI you had opened re, so then added one myself. Hopefully all good, and there are now 4 likely socks, but just thought I'd give you a heads up - the duplication was my oversight. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Decline...
Hi Robert, I saw your decline here. I can see the issues you highlight and I'm hoping to give the editor some one to one support. The concept does seem to be notable and I added one ref quickly to show what is required. This is just a good manners note as I will encourage the new editor to maybe add it to the micro-business article or establish a new one. The new model seems to be more a nano-marketing concept as it may be smaller that the definition we have for micro. Keep up the good work. Victuallers (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't know how we never crossed paths before
but I like your style. Dloh cierekim  18:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dlohcierekim - Maybe you haven't been to Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol, or the dispute resolution noticeboard. I came onto this article for deletion, as with nearly all the articles that I nominate for deletion, from New Page Patrol.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

ping
am watching for developments. Dloh cierekim  20:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dlohcierekim - There are also two other single-purpose accounts who have edited the article, and an IP address who has edited the article, as well as the one surviving account that has edited the AFD. My thinking at this point is that we should just ignore the surviving accounts and their edits for now.  The AFD will close at approximately 0343 GMT, 8 Monday.  There have been three Delete !votes including mine as nominator, and only one surviving Keep !vote, that of another SPA.  As I noted in the AFD, if that !vote is not a sockpuppet, then it was probably either a sleeper or was canvassed.  If the AFD closes as Delete, then that is that, and it should be salted.  If the closer chooses to relist it, or closes it as No Consensus, then it is appropriate to ask for Checkuser for the surviving accounts.  There is no point in asking for SPI resources at this time if we expect the AFD to be closed.  Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Concur. Watchful waiting. Unfortunately, I don't see any improvement in sourcing. So much wheel-spinning.☹ The heroic efforts seem like more than the usual "Oh, no! there trying to delete my baby!" It is interesting that after one was contacted w/ uw-agf-sock, the next appeared. Dloh cierekim  03:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

22:38:45, 5 May 2017 review of submission by Mary OMalley
I submitted my second radically altered Draft: Alter Wiener article based on input received for the original submission. My resubmission was rejected because "it appeared to be a duplicate". I did not intend to have 2 pending articles. The second submission was supposed to replace the first. I confess I am not technical and this process is very confusing to me. Would you please clarify what needs to be done to improve this article and hopefully get it posted? Is there someone I could actually talk with about this process? Thanks for your help.Mary OMalley (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Mary OMalley - When a draft is in neutral and properly sourced form, it should be accepted as Alter Wiener without qualification. For that reason, please make your edits to Draft:Alter Wiener, not to any other draft.  If you need advice about making the tone neutral, please ask for advice at the Teahouse.  I understand that you were not trying to create multiple drafts (which some editors do, thinking that they will increase the likelihood of acceptance).  Since you were not trying to create two or more drafts, just edit the one named Draft:Alter Wiener, and not the other draft.  If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting a review of the article 'Maciej Frączyk'
Hello, My article has been in draft for a long time even though I improved it. Could you have a look at it and tell me what shall I improve to eventually undraft it? Artur Kubacki (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Artur Kubacki - First, please consider asking for advice and a review at the Teahouse. Second, please consider submitting it for formal review via Articles for Creation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Editing News #1—2017
Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

 Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "". In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.



Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.



The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

Recent changes
A new wikitext editing mode is available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices. The 2017 wikitext editor has the same toolbar as the visual editor and can use the citoid service and other modern tools. Go to Special:Preferences to enable the.

A new visual diff tool is available in VisualEditor's visual mode. You can toggle between wikitext and visual diffs. More features will be added to this later. In the future, this tool may be integrated into other MediaWiki components. 

The team have added multi-column support for lists of footnotes. The  block can automatically display long lists of references in columns on wide screens. This makes footnotes easier to read. You can request multi-column support for your wiki. 

Other changes:
 * You can now use your web browser's function to switch typing direction in the new wikitext mode. This is particularly helpful for RTL language users like Urdu or Hebrew who have to write JavaScript or CSS. You can use Command+Shift+X or Control+Shift+X to trigger this.
 * The way to switch between the visual editing mode and the wikitext editing mode is now consistent. There is a drop-down menu that shows the two options. This is now the same in desktop and mobile web editing, and inside things that embed editing, such as Flow.
 * The item has been moved to the top of the  menu (from clicking on the  VisualEditor - Icon - Menu.svg icon) for quicker access.  There is also now a "Templates used on this page" feature there.
 * You can now create   tags (sometimes used as  ) for chemical formulas inside the visual editor.
 * Tables can be set as collapsed or un-collapsed.
 * The menu now includes characters for Canadian Aboriginal Syllabics and angle quotation marks (‹› and ⟨⟩) .  The team thanks the volunteer developer, Tpt.
 * A bug caused some section edit conflicts to blank the rest of the page. This has been fixed.  The team are sorry for the disruption.
 * There is a new keyboard shortcut for citations:  + +  on a PC, or  + +  on a Mac.  It is based on the keyboard shortcut for making links, which is  +  on a PC or  +  on a Mac.

Future changes

 * The VisualEditor team is working with the Community Tech team on a syntax highlighting tool. It will highlight matching pairs of   tags and other types of wikitext syntax.  You will be able to turn it on and off.  It will first become available in VisualEditor's built-in wikitext mode, maybe late in 2017.
 * The kind of button used to, , and finish an edit will change in all WMF-supported wikitext editors. The new buttons will use OOjs UI.  The buttons will be larger, brighter, and easier to read.  The labels will remain the same.  You can test the new button by editing a page and adding   to the end of the URL, like this:  https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Project:Sandbox?action=edit&ooui=1  The old appearance will no longer be possible, even with local CSS changes.
 * The outdated 2006 wikitext editor will be removed later this year. It is used by approximately 0.03% of active editors.  See a list of editing tools on mediawiki.org if you are uncertain which one you use.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. User:Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:19, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:07:08, 9 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by DarinColucci
Question about duplicate review rejection of page Darin Colucci

Hi Robert, I saw you reviewed an article I submitted on Darin Colucci (thank you!) and was rejected because it appears to be a duplicate under review. However, when I click on the other article, (there is a link) it says "draft article currently not under review". So I'm just confused and wondering where the link to article under review is. I believe that may have been an article I was writing, but when I logged in one day, it was blank, so I recreated the new one that was submitted. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to follow all the rules and learn as I go, so any help would be greatly appreciated! Best, Amanda

DarinColucci (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DarinColucci - First, you seem to have confused a username with an article name. You should not use the username of Darin Colucci because it is that of a real person and you do not appear to be Darin Colucci if your name is Amanda.  You should change your user name.  Second, there are two draft articles.  If you are confused about this, ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Neither draft is ready for acceptance.  Both contain non-neutral language and are written to praise the subject rather than describe him.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Mukaiyama hydration has been accepted ...
Just a suggestion but it would be a good idea to consult the chemistry project before approving chemistry articles written as homework by students. You could always ignore the advice we offer, but at least you'd get some high level comments. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Smokefoot - The article in question is Mukaiyama hydration. It was  not labeled as a class project.  It would be helpful if class projects were labeled as class projects.  It would also help if students were given useful information about Wikipedia when given class projects, although this one was not one of the common bad examples.  Who was the instructor?  Was it coordinated through the educational coordination process?  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The fact that the article is a class project is secondary. One needs a contemporary PhD in an area related organic and organometallic chemistry to evaluate such articles.  Such expertise is found in the projects, which is where you should have gone.  Student and their negligent teachers exploit Wikipedia for their homework because of lax practices like yours, although I realize that you were acting with good intentions.  --Smokefoot (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Smokefoot - I am not sure, but I think that I respectfully disagree with your scolding of me. In particular, I have not seen a guideline that requires that drafts or new articles be reviewed by editors with Ph.D.'s, only that Wikipedia welcomes editors with Ph.D.'s.  If you think that I shouldn't have accepted the article, I am willing to discuss at Articles for Creation.  The alternate route in to Wikipedia is the front door, where the quality control check is only New Page Patrol, in which case articles stay unless they are taken to proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion (since inadequate chemistry isn't a reason to speedy an article).  Do you have some specific issue with that article?  (By the way, I have found that, in the past, when I have referred draft articles to WikiProjects, they seldom get feedback, but that isn't your problem or mine.)  As I said, I think that I respectfully disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * When you criticize me for "lax practices", do you mean that I should not have accepted the article? The usual guideline for acceptance is that the article has to be able to pass Articles for Deletion, not that it be free of technical issues, but perhaps you would like to see a stricter standard.  Also, are you saying that students and negligent teachers are exploiting Wikipedia by using it as a reference for their homework, or by assigning homework involving contributing to Wikipedia?  If the former, I don't see how that is relevant to acceptance of an article.  If the latter, then I would say that the issue is not the students at all but only the teachers (and I would criticize the teachers far more severely than merely to call them negligent).  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Have never heard of any PhD requirement. We require significant coverage in reliable sources. Disagreement over sources by PhD's can be discussed on article talk pages and consensus sought thereon.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey thanks for the note. No reason to belabor this.  Here's the deal: If I am asked to review an fully formed, new, large article on specialized aspect, and if that article comes from an editor who has never contributed previously, and the references are to primary sources vs WP:SECONDARY, .... etc,  Then it is a good time to defer to experts, not necessarily PhD's.  Very few editors are able to judge organotantalum chemistry, so why fake it? In any case, happy editing. Not the end of the world.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Dispute resolution on Ethereum
I noticed your volunteer note on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Are you in a position to help on this issue? In particular, would it be possible for you to review the current state of discussion on the |talk page and make an assessment of the present situation? The issue I've raised touches on several content policy guidelines and requires a level of specialized knowledge of the subject. I think this is one reason I have failed to engage the other editors with my concerns. They do not understand the nature and severity of the disagreement. There is one editor (at most 2-3 depending on your interpretation) that I'm in actual contention with, but he (they) have not exerted any effort to provide a reasonable explanation for his (their) opposition. Neither does the dispute resolution process appear to be moving forward. Can you advise me further about what I should do in this instance? Aliensyntax (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Aliensyntax - Have you notified the other editors of your filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard? Do you need help giving notice? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon - I linked to the noticeboard on the talk page. I assume the other editors were also notified automatically when I filled the dispute. Could you explain to me what benefit the noticeboard should provide above and beyond the talk page? Is it possible to get a neutral arbiter involved? I'll make another remark on the talk page shortly to express my concerns and attempt to bring this dispute to a close, but I'm doubtful this will succeed. I feel a critical eye should take a look at the issue. As I see it, the other editors either do not understand my contention or are being willfully ignorant about the very bias which is causing my contention. Someone with no stake in the discussion would probably be able to discern which side of the dispute is being most reasonable in this case. Is it possible to get this kind of intervention, providing the discussion remains at a standstill? Aliensyntax (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Aliensyntax - First, you are supposed to provide notice on the talk pages of the other editors. Please do that.  If you don't know how, please ask for advice.  Second, yes, if the conditions are met, a moderator will take the case and will try to facilitate discussion and compromise.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenon Thank you. I wasn't aware of the talk page notification. I've informed David Gerard of my request for dispute resolution as of the 11th. This user has participated to a very limited extent on the talk page and not at all as of yet on the noticeboard. At present, the only editor to engage in this process is ClarerTheSharer: an admitted bystander in the dispute. I've exchanged a couple of remarks with them on the noticeboard. There was also a user by the name of Warzuckerberg22, who made a single short comment on the talk page, but they don't have a profile. I don't see how I can notify them. As I said earlier, I left a link to the DS noticeboard to inform all relevant parties on the talk page.


 * I'll be monitoring this development over the next few days, but it's seeming increasingly likely that this will draw to a stalemate with little participation or active opposition to my view. What can be done to further facilitate a fair and reasonable resolution? Aliensyntax (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Aliensyntax - I have opened moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Can you help I am wondering why this would be deleted
I have just posted the wiki this is a competition I won and I am trying to link it to the correct page could you help, and is this ok to do this? Treyalexander (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Treyalexander - No. Read the autobiography guideline.  The use of Wikipedia for self-promotion is strongly discouraged.  What are you trying to do, anyway?  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please help Robert
I am the the guitarist that won this competition and I am trying to link the page correctly. Could you guide me a bit, please? Treyalexander (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix this problem but I don't want it deleted Treyalexander (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ned Kelly
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Re: Proposed deletion of article on Robert Kroese
Gee, thanks. Next time, you might consider giving me more than two minutes to put together a basic article.

MJustice (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

&lt;noinclude>
When you apply a speedy delete tag to a transcluded page you must always bracket the speedy tag with &lt;noinclude>&lt;/noinclude>. Your failure to do so in the case of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joelam265/sandbox caused Miscellany for deletion to be put into CAT:CSD. &mdash; RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:RHaworth - Oops. Point made.  I didn't realize it was transcluded, but perhaps what I tried to do was too complicated and dangerous.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Explanation of undoing of edit to User:MSENDER007/sandbox
Hi there, I know that I just reverted your review of User:MSENDER007/sandbox so just wanted to explain a bit further here. I reverted it as you reviewed a redirect to Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise, which I had moved, then you reviewed, and then I declined the draft without us having any knowledge of each other's actions. Hopefully that expands slightly on the edit reason and hopefully you are okay with that. How I found this out was because the sandbox just got reviewed (NPP) a short time ago so it appeared back in my notifications (since I moved page before having page mover right so it created redirect in my name) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:TheSandDoctor - This seems to have happened a month ago, and I don't remember the details, but I don't see a problem. I know that occasionally there are move conflicts on the moving of drafts from sandboxes into draft space.  As I said, I don't see a problem.  The draft still needs references and will still sit in draft space until it has references.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yup, I know it was some time ago. I was just letting you know in case you wondered why your edit was reverted (as a courtesy etc). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Oath Keepers at DRN
Can I suggest that this section be closed/shelved until the user that filed the report returns? I agree with MelanieN that we can't really have a moderated discussion without the OP. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I see she's returned; please disregard. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 13:32:32, 18 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by DoABarrelRoll.dev
Sorry about the AfC, must have hit it by accident.

DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 13:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DoABarrelRoll.dev - Just as I said. It may have been an accident.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 17:34:05, 18 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Lifewider
Hi Robert - thanks for reviewing my HEQC article so quickly. I am at a loss as to how to make this publishable.. That the organisation existed and carried out the work as described is a fact.. also that the work fed into its successor QAA's work is a fact.. I worked in both organisations..and moved from research to policy in the wake of the Dearing Review so I know it happened.. Sadly there is little in the way of a digital trace of its work. Finding references that are not of the subject's own is going to be difficult. Any guidance would be much appreciated Norman Lifewider (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Lifewider - Well, first, if there are no references other than the organization's own, then the organization isn't notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. But was the organization an official or semi-official governmental organization in the United Kingdom?  If so, wouldn't there be at least obscure articles in British newspapers about it?  Second, if you want more advice on how to improve the article, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Request on 19:39:25, 18 May 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Josephgalasso
hi robert. i am still waiting on pending approval for use of photo (andrew radford) who has given me his complete unconditional allowance to use photo. i have sent msg to permission_en site. here is his page (photo seems to appear only when i am logged on, and gets removed one i log off). please direct. i am waiting for a reply from permission_en. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

andrew radford grants permission to use family photo of himself for proposed wiki page.

thanks, joseph galasso

Andrew Radford  Today, 3:14 AMGalasso, Joseph A Dear Joseph,

Here is the answer I got from CUP. It's a family photo, taken by Khadija.

Is this enough?

Best,

Andrew

thanks so much, joseph Josephgalasso (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Josephgalasso (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Josephgalasso - I am not entirely sure what the question is. Is there a question about permission to use an image, or what is the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks robert. i have permission from copyright holder (andrew radford) and have sent email to wiki  (still waiting on approval from them). i believe i might have used the wrong tag last time. i mentioned photo ok for internet use/wiki, and after some time they removed the photo, stating that only approval for internet use was not sufficient. but andrew radford has granted completely free use of photo for all purposes. so, what tag should i use? at the moment, the photo link on page displays < File:Radford Photo.png> but no photo. must i upload it again, or wait for approval from permission_en? which tag grants complete unconditional access to photo? thanks so much robert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

best, joseph 130.166.130.139 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

hi robert, just moments later, it appears the photo is indeed now up for Andrew Radford (but is it secure--or will it be removed again?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

thanks, j 130.166.130.139 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

20:52:38, 18 May 2017 review of submission by EricPfromTustin
Thanks for feedback, I have added more news and citations, as well as tried to remove wording that made sound like an advertisement. Could use copy editing help in that respect. Thanks!EricPfromTustin (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:EricPfromTustin - I suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Oath Keepers at DRN Request for Statement #4
I do not agree fully agree with your summary of NPOV as it applies to the lead paragraph, and as a result my draft paragraph does not match well with your advice. Discussing the NPOV interpretation further within the DRN space seems gauche; is that something I can raise here or does the proposed paragraph adequately speak for itself? Thanks in advance for your thoughts! VQuakr (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

New Page Review - Newsletter No.4
Hello ,

Since rolling out the right in November, just 6 months ago, we now have reviewers, but the backlog is still mysteriously growing fast. If every reviewer did just reviews, the  backlog would be gone, in a flash, schwoop, just like that!

But do remember: Rather than speed, quality and depth of patrolling and the use of correct CSD criteria are essential to good reviewing. Do not over-tag. Make use of the message feature to let the creator know about your maintenance tags. See the tutorial again HERE. Get help HERE.

Stay up to date with recent new page developments and have your say, read THIS PAGE. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Battle of Caucasus Mountain
Is there any reason why you unreviewed the article and didn't re-review it? -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  01:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:I dream of horses - I didn't mean to have unreviewed your review. What happened is that I tagged it, and then promptly unreviewed it.  That is because normally tagging the article leaves it reviewed, and sometimes I want to tag an article but leave it for another reviewer.  If you had already reviewed it, oops.  Is that a complicated explanation?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope! Perhaps use twinkle for now on if the article is reviewed already. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  03:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

About my page
Thank you for your review on my page. (if you need the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Intermed_Hospita ) I want to create a page about Intermed Hospital. I understand that information I uploaded was not sufficient, therefore I will add more information such as history etc. But there are few questions I would like to ask. 1. I work at this hospital and there are no other published online material that I could use for reference on History" section. Is it okay if I just write the section without using strong references? 2. Secondly, as you can see, it is a page about a hospital. Therefore, I am afraid that it is hard to insert scientific information. Probably, it will look like information brochure when I finish editing it.(but this time I will add more detailed information.) 3. Also, the title of the draft page was Draft:Intermed Hospita. (missing letter A) Is it because of the character limit? Because I didnt give title to it(because it was made in sandbox) and I wonder when I finish the page, will it be like this? (coz then I will have to fix it again) 4. What information do you suggest that I should insert on the page? more detailed History? Achievement? Technical features? Please consider my questions :D Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joobii247 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Joobii247 - The title was a copy-and-paste error on my part. Don't worry about that?  However, your draft was deleted due to copyright violation.  Please do not resubmit it in a form that contains copied material.  What have independent third parties, such as newspapers or magazines, written about the hospital?  The article should be about what third parties have written, and should be in your own words, not those of the hospital.  If you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

13:58:10, 22 May 2017 review of submission by Andrew.h.chen
Hello, I am sorry to hear that my submission has been rejected again...For this reason, you mentioned that "I create multiple copies of drafts about the same person". I made some changes every time I submitted the drafts. So could you please tell me how can I avoid creating multiple copies of drafts again? Thank you!
 * User:Andrew.h.chen - First, you are trying to use Wikipedia to create your own autobiography, and that is strongly discouraged. Second, you were already told that the subject (yourself) is not notable, and that your draft is promotional.  Third, the multiple copies are Draft:Andrew Hang Chen and User:Andrew.h.chen/sandbox.  Stop creating multiple copies of the draft.  Fourth, stop using multiple accounts, including User:Amelia yu, to submit the draft.  Fifth, if you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse, and you will probably get the same answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

10:40:30, 23 May 2017 review of submission by Es279
Dear Robert, the submitted page is very similar in structure and content to other approved Wikipedia pages, for instance, TransferWise's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise). TransferWise is also a very similar company in terms of history like Opportunity Network. Moreover, all the references used are definitely established sources (the Financial Times, Forbes, IESE), therefore it is debatable to say it was put just an advertisement. Most of the information shared are facts. Could you please specify which parts do you think are an advertisement? I look forward to hearing from you and I thank you very much for your kind help. All best, Es279
 * User:Es279 - Did you read the notes at the top of my talk page when you posted? I have not compared your draft to other existing articles.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Some of them also read like advertisements, and should be deleted.  Just because your draft consists of facts does not keep it from reading like an advertisement, and does not establish corporate notability[[, which is also required.  I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process, and I will not follow a draft through the approval process for a paid editor.  It is difficult to write neutrally when you are a paid editor, and just because you think that you have written neutrally does not mean that you have written neutrally.  If you want other opinions, you may ask at [[WP:THQ|the Teahouse.  If you were a new neutral editor, I would post there asking for you, but, as a paid editor, I expect you to do your own asking.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robert, I perfectly got your feedback, it was very useful. I spoke with another very helpful editor via live chat and I modified the submission to make it hopefully neutral. Thank you so much again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es279 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Es279 - No. You added another copy of your draft that is slightly different, maybe more nearly neutral, but now your draft is duplicated.  You are apparently in too much of a hurry to get your draft approved, and are working on it hastily, and it will never be approved in its current state containing two copies of the draft, and control information from a misformatted or misused template.  I know that you are in a hurry, maybe because you get paid as soon as the draft is accepted, but you aren't helping yourself.  You have duplicated your draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Thank you so much for your kind feedback. All my mistakes are simply given by the fact that I've never done a Wikipedia submission so all possible mistakes are really in good faith. I cancelled the first part, which I didn't realise at first was left in the post. The second version should be much more fact-based as per feedbacks received via live chat and I also modified the references that now should be in the right format with related metadata. I'm really not in a hurry, I'm very keen on doing this in the best possible way and according to Wikipedia's rules. Thank you so much again for your kind help and I look forward to further feedbacks. All best, Es279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es279 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Es279 - You do appear to be in a hurry. Paid editors often are.  New editors often find Wikipedia confusing and complicated.  New paid editors find Wikipedia a very unfriendly place, and they should not be surprised to find Wikipedia to be both complicated and unfriendly.  Wikipedia isn't meant for promotion or advocacy.  I will not necessarily respond to any further questions or comments, but would suggest that, if you want more advice, go to the Teahouse, although they may not be any friendlier than I am.  Of course, you can't do this "in the best possible way and according to Wikipedia's rules", because the best possible way in accordance with the rules is truly neutral editing by volunteer editors.  I understand that you have been given an impossible job to do.  I can't help you much, and no one can.  That is the way it is.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, User:Alienbraon/sandbox


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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Damnit Robert. What did we say about making articles in other people's sandboxes and then abandoning them?[ Or is it? ]  Timothy Joseph Wood  17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Timothyjosephwood - On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Twinkle can't always figure out who was the real originator, or whose sand it is. The geological answer is that sand is of geological origin, and is older than we are.  It just recycles through beaches, deserts, sandboxes, etc.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Alienbraon - It was your draft once. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Another thing about new page patrolling
If you see a stub, try to sort it instead of using stub. The operative word being "try". I do realize there are legitimate uses for stub. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:I dream of horses Can I do that using the Page Curation toolbar, or do I have to search for the stub type manually and edit the stub manually? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, there isn't a tool available that allows you to stub sort semi-automatically. However, one should avoid "autoitis" or "speeditis"; lack of automated tools or being slowed down shouldn't be the only reason you don't stub sort.
 * I have avoided continuing to bug people who told me they were simply overwhelmed by the prospect of searching for a stub type (there's thousands of types, so understandable), or told me they reserved stub only for when they encountered an article they weren't sure how to stub sort, which is what Category:Stubs is for.
 * You seemed to be a good editor, by the way. -- I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The Epiphany School of Global Studies
I'm wondering if a changing The Epiphany School of Global Studies to a redirect to Nicholas Sparks would be appropriate? There's lots of sources out there for it, but they are all more about Sparks than the school...-- Fabrictramp |  talk to me  23:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Fabrictramp - I don't have any objection to changing the article to a redirect rather than either expanding or deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Need comment response for our artcle ECW Model
We would like to reply to some of the comments that have been listed regarding the ECW model Wikipedia draft.

It has been suggested that the title be called electrostatic and covalent equation. This is misleading and points readers in the wrong direction. That title may make people think that the equation is used for quantum mechanical calculations. However, the ECW model, among other things, is an equation that correlates and predicts the enthalpies of adduct formation between Lewis acid and Lewis basis. In addition to these calculations, in some cases it is able to get quantitative information on properties that  cannot be obtained by other means. A few of these properties are the magnitude of steric hindrance, the magnitude of pi- back bonding, the enthalpy of dissociation of a dimer, etc. Since the ECW model deals with Lewis acids and bases it seems to us that an appropriate title would be Lewis Acids & Bases and The ECW model.

One of the comments mentioned that a large number of the references was of Russell Drago's work. The authors of this draft were of the impression that the references were to back up the assertions made in the article (and not an indication of a popularity contest.) The ECW model is mentioned in many inorganic textbooks as can be seen by consulting reference 1 in the reference 4 listed in reference section in the draft article. ECW is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on HSAB Theory. And several recently published books on acids and bases also discuss the E&C parameters. Would you like all the inorganic textbooks and the recently published acid base book to be listed in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaglePower (talk • contribs) 00:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The draft is currently called Draft:Electrostatic and Covalent Equation. What should it be called?  When you suggest that it be called Lewis Acids and Bases and The ECW Model, is it necessary indicate that Lewis acids and bases, the most general definition of acids and bases?  Is it applicable to Bronsted acids and bases (which are of course also Lewis acids and bases), and Arrhenius acids and bases, or only to non-Bronsted Lewis acids and bases?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

RE: Oath Keepers
Thanks for trying. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN - I don't entirely know why the case was filed, since apparently everyone wanted to engage in free-for-all discussion, and at least they were all being civil, but no one apparently wanted to let a moderator lead the discussion. It can be very hard for editors who have an established position to let another editor lead.  They didn't need to participate; participation is voluntary.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * At some point it is likely to get ugly. If this happens, I would suggest Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics case rather than WP:ANI, but I would hope that it just continues to be an unproductive discussion rather than a vindictive unproductive discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree, the filer didn't even know what she was asking for or what that board is. She is brand new and apparently thought this would be just another place where she could argue for her viewpoint, maybe get a few more people to agree with her. I actually don't think it will get ugly or personal; I edit in some areas where it does get ugly and personal, all the time, and I don't see that kind of dynamic here. She is persistent but polite, and has not participated there lately; I think she may have given up. I've been away for a week and now that I look I do see a bit of a personal dynamic developing between two of the editors; I will say something to them. But I really don't see the talk page degenerating into a war zone. As for AE, actually nobody has tagged that page as being under AE restrictions, although it clearly could qualify if somebody thought it needed it. I will keep an eye on things there, but I am not terribly concerned that it will blow up. And I see there is another admin participating there, Neutrality, who is level headed and good at keeping a discussion on track. I don't think you need to give that page another thought. I just wanted to thank you for trying, and apologize for wasting your time. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MelanieN - First, you didn't waste my time. Second, the whole area is under AE restrictions.  Targeting a page only imposes further restrictions, such as 0RR or 1RR, or may put all editors under the notice that is otherwise given with a template.  Yes, I am probably finished with that page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Decluttering
I redirected it to Hoarding, its antonym. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

My Sandbox
This is my account, and Wikipedia has indicated I can continue editing a work in progress. NOT disruptive editing.06:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let us eat lettuce (talk • contribs)


 * User:Let us eat lettuce - Who in Wikipedia has advised you that you should continue editing your sandbox? Your submissions of it for acceptance into Wikipedia have not been encouraged nor approved.  It is true that you have not yet had it deleted or been blocked, but that hardly means that Wikipedia has indicated that you may continue to do what you have been cautioned against.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * May be a misunderstanding on my part.. Within the initial notice, it was stated okay to continue edits and there is the resubmit button.  anyway the resistance to this seems to be bigger that me.  I certainly do not want to be blocked Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * @Robert, this is the pretty much the only thing Lettuce has said that I agree with.  The templated rejection notices following each AFC submsission all say "editing is encouraged" and the mfd template says "You may edit this page....";  On the other hand, the edits themselves continue to be in the same OR / POV / POLEMIC / RANTING vein despite a lot of effort by many to point to WP:Neutral point of view, NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Let us eat lettuce - Yes, the boilerplate notices say that you may try to improve the draft. However, if editors specifically advise you that you not to resubmit, then it is true that you may edit the sandbox, but continuing to resubmit it is tendentious.  This is a case where Wikipedia's use of wording that is meant to be encouraging just encourages more of the same, and where statements by humans are more important than canned language.  You are wasting the time of the reviewers by continuing to resubmit it.  User:NewsAndEventsGuy - Sometimes the language is too encouraging.  I, for one, think that the ancient Wikipedia guideline of do not bite the newcomers, while a noble principle, has come to do more harm than good.  There is nothing that can be done to prevent that, because WP:BITE, while technically still only a guideline, has become a dogma, something outranking a policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Well, the MfD will conclude in a few days and then it will all be over. In the meantime maybe the best thing is to just let it run. The downside is the volunteer time that is wasted on re-evaluating this thing every day. Lettuce, if you continue to re-submit the article every day without addressing the core issues that have repeatedly been noted to you, it's even odds that an admin will see fit to block you. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes to both NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Let us eat lettuce - See my comments on your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I thought I could contribute some content that I personally do feel is vital. oh well. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts about BITE RM. Can someone please explain why WP:SNOW has not been applied to the MFD. Of those that have posted at it there is only one appose (sic). I have seen deletion discussions for pages that aren't such a WP:POLEMIC closed in 24 hours or less. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * MarnetteD, just FYI, in case you didn't notice the "appose" is the opinion of the polemic's author NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MarnetteD - Have you seen a WP:SNOW close of an MFD as Delete? Most of the SNOW closes that I have seen were of AFD's, and also were where there was an applicable speedy deletion criterion, usually A7 or WP:G11.  I don't see an applicable speedy criterion for MFD's for user space.  I don't see a speedy criterion for polemic.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * As I was implying, I think that WP:BITE actually does more harm than good, in two entirely different ways. First, it causes experienced editors and admins to be too tolerant of new but non-good-faith editors, who may be paid editors or single-purpose accounts.  Second, it is used as a cudgel by aggressive new editors against those who try to caution them, but the aggressive new editors claim that they are being bitten.  In my opinion, if you know enough of Wikipedia to be able to quote WP:BITE, you are no longer a newbie and should not quote BITE in your own defense, but only to third parties.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep I had noticed . I also note that there are still items being added to the sandbox which is another reason (IMO) that a snow close should have taken place. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 18:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:MarnetteD - I don't see what is wrong with expanding or editing a draft. I don't see any urgency for deleting it.  Just because it is being expanded shouldn't be a reason to hasten its deletion, in my view.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * User:Yashovardhan Dhanania - The dispute had to do with what Americans call soccer, which is why that is what I flippantly suggested. I wasn't suggesting American football, a rougher game (and a harder game to improvise with very small teams).  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I understood it clearly, as being from India, we call soccer 'football'. Of course, American football would've been a hard way to resolve that dispute! Jokes aside, I'll just remind you that It's almost time to change the coordinator at the DRN. Although I've added myself to the list, I'll like your comments on that. You can also continue as the coordinator if you want. In any case, I'll always hope to have your guidance in especially tricky cases at the noticeboard (and your occasional humorous closures like this one). Yashovardhan (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment
Impeachment just part of the truth... imo wiki could have a Coordinated efforts to dishonorably discharge the President of the United States - Donald J. Trump, peace Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Let us eat lettuce - That comment is incomprehensible. Dishonorable discharge has a specific meaning in the United States, which is the expulsion of a member of the Armed Forces from the service by a court-martial.  It is roughly equivalent to a felony conviction.  The President of the United States can be removed from office following trial of impeachment, but this is not referred to as dishonorable discharge.  I have no idea what you are trying to say.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * okay, sure... NO argument here.  QUESTION, are the items in my sandbox, listed under Trump resistance and the subheading  Initial Resistance Efforts worthy of incorporation into the Trump resistance wiki?  Others have stated "that article is hugely incomplete at this time."  Maybe the itemized examples are appropriate???   Maybe this could be my way to contribute.  Let us eat lettuce (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Improvement of article "Mehrdad Afsari"
Hello Robert McClenon, After I got help from live help, I deleted External Links in my articles body and dabbled checked the section called "external Links" that I create. Why should this article be in Wikipedia...? My relation to this article might have been categorized as a Conflict of Interest and my article might be not that much satisfying because it is a bout a living person but I am speaking as a photographer who also studied in my subject's philosophy of photography classes 8 years ago and I believe Mehrdad Afsari should be in Wikipedia because of his fame in art industry n the extension and importance of his works and photographs through the world specially in Iran where he came from. It was about a year ago that I was searching about Iranian photographers and I found the page in Wiki but it was a shame that I couldn't find any article about him while there were plenty of articles about living but not that much important or famous or influential photographers and unfortunately they were not even a complete Wiki articles! That was a time I thought my knowledge and my motivation as an emerging artist can be put in a good cause.. Although I didn't have any knowledge how to create an article here but I tried and I will learn more to even complete this one and write articles about other important Iranian artists as well... for the start I choose Mehrdad Afsari and I am kindly asking you to help me out to be useful and complete and continue what I have started. please concern and If there is any problem with the article please notify me. Thank you. Nmirzabeigi (talk) 15:56, 27 May 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Nmirzabeigi - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:42, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for prompt answer. The question is considering that I improved the article base on your suggestions, what is the next step? Is it waiting for review or deleting? Is there anything else I should do for this specific article? Nmirzabeigi (talk) 09:59, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Recent discussion you closed
Hi Robert McClenon. You recently closed a discussion I posted at WP:DRN. I am going to move the discussion to the article's talk page. Can you reopened the discussion, or do you want me to put in a new request?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 23:22, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Versace1608 - Wait another 24 hours for further comments on the article talk page (which may have other readers) and see whether the discussion is useful or inconclusive. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I will do that. If the discussion is inconclusive within the next week or so, I will put in a new request. Thanks for the response.  Versace1608   Wanna Talk? 23:38, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Thairine Garcia
Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Thairine Garcia, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Subject might be important/significant (see also Google News/Books hits for this subject) / use WP:PROD or WP:AFD instead to allow other editors to participate in this decision. Thank you.  So Why  07:29, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Daniel White (1811)
Thank you Robert

I think I caught all of the edits you required. Get back to me please if I have failed in this regards. Also I added in some Categories I hope these make sense?

The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Daniel_White_(Died_1811)

Kind Regards

Sakralamn (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your service at the DRN

 * Here is your much deserved award! Hope that you continue volunteering at the DRN! And Congratulations for your Award! As advised by you, I have taken over as coordinator and hope to keep things in good shape up there! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Draft:Scott Juceam
Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Draft:Scott Juceam, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Not an unambiguous copyright infringement, or there is other content to save. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Primefac - I see it was deleted anyway. Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

14:47:36, 2 June 2017 review of submission by Riskonnect
Hi Robert. Thank you for review of my submission. I have a couple of points I'd like to make about Integrated Risk Management.This content is copyrighted by Riskonnect, and we as an organization are introducing Integrated Risk Management as a concept and not the specific solutions. Are the citations on in this article? Riskonnect (talk) 14:47, 2 June 2017 (UTC)

NPR Review.....
Would you mind reviewing Ivashevka massacre.Many sources and the writing style looks.... Winged Blades Godric 10:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Winged Blades of Godric - What is the question about the article? It appears that that article is not new.  There are two common problems with writing style.  First, the writing style sometimes looks like it was clearly taken either from a web site or from a book, in which case it is almost certainly copyvio, but it is not always easy to determine where something is taken from.  Second, sometimes the writing style just clearly is that of someone who doesn't know much English.  That is the case with the article on the Ivashevka massacre.  I have tagged it for copy-edit.  However, it isn't a new article.  It dates to 24 December 2016.  If the question is whether it should be kept or deleted, because it is in terrible shape, unfortunately, that question has already been answered by the WMF.  There have been several times that the WMF has essentially been asked to choose quality or quantity, and the preference of the WMF is always for quantity.  That is, they would definitely rather have 6 million articles, of which 3 million should be blown up and started over, than 5 million articles, of which 2 million are of poor quality.  What is the question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * not the WMF; they don't make the notability criteria. Blame inclusionists like me, who I hope have firmly established that the principle is to write articles that can be shown notable, and that can be improved. Not that they have to be submitted already in good shape, but that have potential. The ones to delete are the ones that do not have potential, or are so overtly bad with respect to problems like promotionalism or copyvio or blp  as to be harmful.   And it is we here who have established the rule that writing style does not a reason for deletion (as long as its comprehensible)--this is in my view a reasonable accommodation to the contributors whose first language is not English. Opinions can vary on the advisability of that position, of course. But the WMF has done what it can to encourage people to write in their own primary languages.  DGG ( talk ) 03:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG - Are you saying that WP:ACTRIAL wasn't thrown out by the WMF? I had in mind among other things ACTRIAL, which I understood was declined by the WMF, which seemed to establish their preference for quantity over quality.  I do have a few questions about inclusion and deletion philosophy that I will take to your talk page, but I thought that the WMF continues to be interested in quantity, which is easy to measure and brag about, more than quality, which is hard to quantify.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 6 June 2017 (UTC)


 * I've taken care of this one. Sorry you were upset by the discussion on the WiR talk page. I was simply trying to demonstrate how difficult it is to bring in new women editors. My general advice would be to look out more carefully for new editors and try to encourage them as far as possible. Simply refusing their first attempts without any sign of support usually results in their giving up on Wikipedia entirely.--Ipigott (talk) 11:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, okay. I take it you think that the AFC process should provide more encouragement.  I would agree that, all other things being equal, reviewers should provide assistance and encouragement to new editors who submit drafts that need improvement, rather than simply declining them.  Other things are not equal.  Too many drafts, and direct submissions into article space via New Page Patrol, are not capable of improvement, but are crud.  I would like to have less crud submitted and so more time to spend on encouraging quality submissions.  Okay, okay.  I know.  I know.  However, some of the reviewers find the constant reminders of what we should do in a perfect world simply wearisome.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:17, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

The future of NPP and AfC/Work group
Hi ,

In view of the huge and sudden backlog at Special:NewPagesFeed since mid 2016, the WMF has begun a dialogue in a quest to examine the situation and possible solutions. Please consider commenting there if you have not already done so. It is highly recommended to read it all before it becomes too long to follow. The project is at New pages patrol/Analysis and proposal, and its talk page. If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Query Regarding a rejection of the article
Hi

My Submission was declined by the reviewer stating that it looks like an advertisment. Though the article was written from a neutral point of view with independent, reliable and published sources, such as BW Business World, Business Standard, Livemint etc. Please help me understand which part of the article looks promotional so that I can rectify it

Article link- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Kanoria_Foundation

Suresh2489 (talk) 07:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Suresh2489 - Maybe I should have included a note that it also had notability issues. It doesn't say anything about what others have said about the foundation.  It appears to read like a brochure about the foundation.  What have independent sources written about the foundation?  Also, did you read the banner that displayed at the top of this page when you edited?  Do you have a connection with the Kanoria Foundation?  If not, please consider helping Wikipedia with some of the five million articles that we already have, as well as with one that we don't have.  If you want to discuss my decline further, you or I can ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, Thank you for your feedback, can you please refer one or two lines where you feel there is a notability issue. We have drafted the content by taking citations from the interview article & cover stories of renowned media houses; where the CEO is talking about the foundation. For framing the draft, we took the reference of an existing article of Tata Sons . Please help to rectify so that we can do the necessary changes Thank you Suresh2489 (talk)

DRN Newsletter 1
You are receiving this message because you are a volunteer at the The dispute Resolution noticeboard. To stop receiving messages in the future, remove your name from The volunteer list. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 20:09, 6 June 2017 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)

21:02:07, 8 June 2017 review of submission by Picher Alley
I am pretty new to Wikipedia. I am not sure which version of my article on Elizabeth Moule is waiting to be reviewed. In March I submitted an article that was declined, so I completely rewrote it in my Sandbox. I think I submitted it for review by mistake; I meant to ask for input from other editors before submitting a new draft. To compound the problem, I think I hit the submit button twice by mistake. In any event, I would like to be sure that the most recent version of my article is awaiting review. It can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Elizabeth_Moule_(2)

Thank you and my apologies for the confusion, my inexperience and I guess my inability to understand Wikipedia instructions.

heyho (talk) 21:02, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Picher Alley - Which version do you want reviewed? The first version, or the second?  If the second, please add any information that is only in the first version to the second version.  If the first, do the opposite.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

07:41:15, 9 June 2017 review of submission by SurajRokafela
Hello, I sent in an infobox Oba Otudeko for review and it was decline. I will like to urge you to reconsider as there is an approve article about the subject already titles: Oba Otudeko, which i will like to add the infobox to. Kindly review as soon as you can.

Thanks
 * User:SurajRokafela - I do see that there is an article on Oba Otudeko. Your draft, which was only an infobox, did not say that the article already existed.  (Some editors submit infobox-only articles, and they are not satisfactory and are not good placeholders, but there already is an article in this case.)  Articles for Creation is not intended for the review of improvements to existing articles, but for new articles.  Either be bold and add the infobox to the article, or discuss adding the infobox on the article talk page, Talk:Oba Otudeko.  If you have any further questions, ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Bi-monthly Volunteer Awards
Please have a look at WP:DRN/VA. (This message is being only sent to active contributors of the DRN. Other comments are also welcome though) Yashovardhan (talk) 19:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

List of sovereign states in 220
Hello Mr. McClenon. I am the creator of List of Sovereign States in 220, and others such as 501, 502, 1820s, 1830s, 1840s, and so on. The page List of Sovereign States in 220 is already finished. Can you please put it back? Thank you in advance.

Sincerely yours, Alegeregere111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alegeregere111 (talk • contribs) 11:20, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:Alegegerelli - I see that already moved List of Sovereign States in 220 back to article space. All right.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of pharmacies
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of pharmacies. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Lew Gaiter
ProD contested on talk page-- the eternal cycle goes on.Dlohcierekim (talk) 01:52, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Dlohcierekim - Yes. The piece that I PROD'd was a placeholder, with no substantive content, only an infobox.  I hate infobox-only placeholders, but that isn't important.  The version after the PROD was a puff piece for Gaiter, and I deleted the puffery, and marked it unreviewed.  There is a bug in the reviewed status, in my opinion, that an article is marked as reviewed if it is originally tagged for deletion, and either the author or someone else then removes the deletion tag.  It is then marked as reviewed because of the action of the reviewer who tagged it, even though their action was then reverted.  In my opinion, this is a bug, and a serious bug, because it can be and is used in bad faith.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:00, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I just wanted to let you know 'cause I think it'll wind up at AfD, and wanted to keep you in the loop. I like the way you trmmed it down. Dlohcierekim (talk) 12:09, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Guidelines for draftification
Hello, Robert_McClenon.

Do you recall that here you wrote "'I agree that guidelines for draftification are in order, and that it should be an option for New Page reviewers for new pages, rather than being available arbitrarily. I will comment more with 24 to 36 hours. ... Robert McClenon (talk) 05:27, 26 April 2017 (UTC)'"

Firstly, I wish to apologise again for the kneejerk backhand insult I gave you, in response a request for deletion of a draftified page. By way of explanation, I did not then appreciate the quality of your reputation in NPR, and there was a previously history of others more questionably, inappropriately, draftifying things as a means for quiet backdoor deletion.

On further reveiw and reflection, I think it is definitely a good idea that NP reviewers should have the personal discretion to draftify pages that under-done for mainspace. I would like to help in drafting guidelines for draftification. Do you have further comments beyond what you wrote in that thread?

I am also drafting a proposal for a DRAFT-PROD process, whereby any two NPP-qualified reviewers in agreement that a draft is "less than promising" (to be elaborated) will see the draft deleted without further review. It would be essential for this process to be in line with the thresholds and wording for the draftification guidelines. Drafts need an easier deletion process, but easier deletion of drafts means that it is important that mainspace pages are only draftified in accordance with reasonable guidelines.

--SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert. I am seeking to continue this at Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:58, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:SmokeyJoe - I will comment more on the talk page, but here are my brief comments. I am not worried much about the deletion of drafts.  I don't think that it needs to be easier for reviewers to delete drafts.  We agree that draftification is not deletion, and making the deletion of drafts easier could be misunderstood.  I do think that there should be a way to move pages into draft space using a tool that automatically notifies the author.  Any rule about draftification that makes it harder will result in borderline pages being tagged for CSD for A1 or A7 instead, and my objective is occasionally to save a page that is a candidate for A1 or A7 but the topic isn't hopeless.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't agree "draftification is not deletion", instead I see draftification as like a six month PROD. For NPP, I see it being done appropriately. The notification tool already exists and is being used. I linked it twice. There is scope for draftification to be misused, and many people have expressed strong concerns and even objections, in the RfC closed with no consensus. I absolutely do not want to make anything harder for any reasonable NPReviewer. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:44, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Regarding re submission of Draft Srei Infrastructure Finance Ltd.
Hi Robert McClenon,

I have done the required changes based on your suggestions. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Srei_Infrastructure_Finance) please check the article.

Thanks, Shreya11 (talk) 07:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Shreyali - Thank you. As the note at the top of my talk page says, I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process.  I do have a question.  It appears that all of your edits have been about the company and about the Kanorias.  Are you affiliated with Srei?  If so, please declare your connection.  If not, you could also help us with some of the five million articles that we already have, as well as with the ones that we don't have.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Gerda Arendt - Of what? My nation's flag?  Yes.  Something else?  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Look on your right Yashovardhan (talk) 13:50, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thanks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Richard A. Oppenlander


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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - Twinkle strikes again. Usually it gets things right.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I appreciate all the heavy lifting you do in AfC. Your name is everywhere there. Legacypac (talk) 16:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac Yes. And I can't see Oppenlander, because it was deleted as per G13, but I assume that I moved it from a sandbox to Draft:Richard A. Oppenlander and declined it (or maybe just moved it), and its author didn't do anything with it for six months.  If Twinkle were even better, it would notify the real originator, but a real originator who does nothing for six months doesn't have much of a case anyway.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've figured out Twinkle notifies the page creator (often the person who moves it to draft space) but the AFCH script notifies multiple contributors. I just saw 6 editors notified on one CSD G13 request. I'm so used to Twinkle, but I'm going to use AFCH script instead now. Legacypac (talk) 21:19, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Scott Juceam


A tag has been placed on Draft:Scott Juceam, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations 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 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.  DGG ( talk ) 21:48, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DGG - Twinkle strikes again. It isn't my draft (as you know) (and you might or might not know that I was notified).  I only moved it from a sandbox to draft space.  I have copied the G11 notice to the talk page of the actual author.  This must be a different version of the Juceam draft than one that I thought must be copyvio.  At least, it read like a web site puff-piece, but sometimes one encounters something that smells like copyvio, but one can't find the original.  This one isn't copyvio, just tedious.  I think that a good article can probably be pulled together on Juceam; he can pass notability.  However, you tagged it for G11, not A7, and it is spam, just not copyvio spam.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Jim Jennings


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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Legacypac (talk) 08:06, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Legacypac - It wasn't my article, but we know that. We know that you are looking for various kinds of abandoned drafts and tagging them, and that I only moved the draft from the sandbox of User:Dorotheainmiddle to draft space.  User:Dorotheainmiddle hasn't edited in six months.  If she wants to retrieve the draft after it is deleted, she can.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN for Japanese units
Thank you for your notification and time. I haven't gone through this before, so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to start editing a "my side of the story" at Dispute resolution noticeboard or just tell you I'm in, after which we both take turns arguing.

I'm not sure there's much need for the process, though: it's an case where the main issue has already been decided. Having looked at the official Japanese sources, they use American English except for metric unit names where they go with the BIPM's spelling, which happens to be the UK's version. I'm fine with that, and the page has already been fixed. Every other form of nationalistic spelling can just be avoided, which advocates in any case.

The only point of contention, I suppose, is the other editor wanting to plaster a UK English banner on the talk page and take a victory lap, including expanded use of Britishisms. I'm rather loathe to concede that, given the hostility, rudeness, and canvassing that took place. I offered a RfC and reliable sourcing; the other editor opted to notify individual allies to come and support him. One offered constructive criticism; another came in even ruder and more hostile than the original editor. The submission contains at least two lies: I didn't claim the article was a stub, just unreferenced and so badly done (and, as it turns out, plagiarized) that it was in need of a complete rewrite with better sourcing, which I gave it; the submitter never contacted my talk page before or after the. The behavior and treatment certainly stopped me from looking for further sourcing or improvement of this article, beyond the needed changes pointed out by User:Imaginatorium. I'm sure giving him a 'win' will only encourage more of the same, which is rather awful for the project.

Suggestions are welcome but I don't think there's much that can be done about it. I was rebuilding the page but an objection isn't out of line and, having examined the sources, they do support BIPM spellings. Recognizing Japan's general connection to US English is outside this process's remit; so is discipling misbehavior. The article's early form was consistent with using BIPM spellings but American English; the policies, however, don't really recognize fine distinctions like that without going into territory. If there were interest in a comprise like that, you wouldn't've been drug in. Mehhh... — Llywelyn II   12:55, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:LlywelynII - I would prefer not to discuss the article here, because it can be discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. I will be copying your comments to DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd rather you didn't. I'd phrase it more clinically and diplomatically if I'm trying to reach some consensus, not that it looks likely. I was asking you for advice. If you have none, just stick to the first paragraph and answer that. — Llywelyn II   16:20, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, User:LlywelynII - I see that you deleted it. I will suggest that both you and the other editor should tone down your discourse.  The issue, which variety of English to use, when the usual rule isn't applicable because the country of interest isn't Anglophone, is hardly worth the apparent level of noise.  However, discuss at DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
 * There's not a reason for any amount of noise on the merits. We've already established the Japanese metrological authorities use BIPM spellings and corrected that part of the article. It's just the behavior.


 * Apologies if my having posted at such length made you feel uncomfortable; we can wait for someone else if you prefer. In the future, what should I do? Post an I'm in to the moderator's page? Start in on a more diplomatic and clinical description at the ? — Llywelyn II   00:51, 18 June 2017 (UTC)


 * User:LlywelynII - Discuss at DRN. There is no need to respond that you are in on the moderator's page.  You may respond that you are in at DRN.  You did not make me uncomfortable.  I have dealt with editors who were much noisier and more strident than you were.  If an editor needs to be warned, I will warn them.  I didn't warn you.  The discussion should be centralized at DRN, not split across the article talk page and my talk page and DRN and anywhere else.  If you think that you have established that American English should be used, state that case at DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

PROD for Secrets from Within
Hi there, I noticed you proposed Secrets from Within for deletion as the only content is a list with no context. Turns out the list is copied from Scandal (TV series); do you think it would qualify for speedy deletion in that case? –FlyingAce✈hello 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:FlyingAce - In my opinion, yes. I noted that maybe the list should be merged into another article, but it appears that it is already in another article.  I think that A10 is appropriate.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I've tagged it for A10. We shall see if an administrator agrees.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

10:02:04, 18 June 2017 review of submission by EgyptMike
Hello Robert. Thank you for taking the time to review my initial draft -- it is now considerably more developed and I believe now satisfies the notability requirements. I would greatly appreciate your comments and ideally your approval. Thank you! Michael. EgyptMike (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:EgyptMike - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will let you wait for another reviewer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

List of bus_routes_in_Singapore
Thanks for closing it! I had seen the filing and was going to close it soon! Thanks for closing this yourself. The filing had many problems as you noted. Yashovardhan (talk) 15:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Croatian presidential election, 2014–15 ‎
Hello. I saw that You were willing to volunteer in the dispute between me and Tuvixer, but that the dispute resolution was closed. Frankly, I don't know what can I do, as the user seems to be deleting all polls from the agency even in other articles, like (on May 9). He doesn't provide any real sources why does he do that and I simply can't do anything. It seems ridiculous to me that somebody can be so opposed to something as trivial as polls from one agency, but I don't want to let the information be excluded from Wikipedia and I don't want to get banned because of an edit war. As You are an experienced user in conflict resolution, I would like to hear an advice from You, if You have a little time to do that. Thanks in advance, StjepanHR (talk) 09:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC) P.S. Feel free to answer here, I will follow Your talk page until You reply. StjepanHR (talk) 09:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello, , a volunteer at the noticeboard closed your filing on the basis of a statement you made on the article talk page. He didn't specify but my best bet is  which you said here. Note that reverting each other is purely disruptive and can lead to sanctions and even blocks (see WP:3RR and even WP:1RR as Robert had noted that discretionary sanctions apply). Since you have explicitly denied wanting to discuss the matter with the other editor (even if you didn't mean to), the case has been closed. You can re-file but it may have similar consequences. I would suggest reading WP:DISCFAIL if the other editor isn't properly discussing. You can file a request at WP:RSN if the question is mainly about reliablity of the sources. Regards, Yashovardhan (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hello. You have misunderstood something. I am not complaining for the closure, I am just politely asking Mr. McClenon for an advice, since I don't know whom other to ask for it and he seems like a person who has experience in similar situations. The problem is not even in reliability (the agency has been cited by all major newspaper during the last few years), but in reversion of my edits without providing any sensible reason. As You can see, I have stopped reverting his edits, but that will result in a valuable information missing from the page. Also, Tuvixer is well-known for being a hard user to deal with (for example, in an article about Tito and similar) and I simply don't know what can I do with him. Just one example is his labeling of direktno.hr as "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" and telling me to "stop citing them". While I can't deny them being slightly to the right, they are far from being extreme. Their workers include Davor Gjenero (independent liberal, also works with Al Jazeera and is a frequent guest on HRT - national TV), Tomislav Marčinko (centre-right, worked on national TV and is one of the founders of NovaTV - one of three major TV houses in Croatia), Gordan Malić (also often a guest in other media), etc. And direktno.hr is not even important for the discussion. I am just using the example to show You how far can Tuvixer go in his PoV pushing. StjepanHR (talk) 12:20, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The other editor seems to have provided a very clear reason for reverting your edits – they contest the reliability of the source – so the issue is reliability. I stated in my closing statement that as the issue is primarily about reliable sources, the matter should be taken to WP:RSN. The first step when an editor contests the reliability of a source, is to discuss that on the talk page. You have done so. The second step is to solicit external opinions. The reliable sources noticeboard is the correct place for that. The dispute resolution noticeboard however, is a platform for moderated discussion that is designed to gently enforce policies like no personal attacks while allowing editors to get their points across. While discussion on the talk page has been somewhat heated, I believe you have both clearly expressed your viewpoints. I personally do not see what there is to gain from going in circles again, even if they are moderated circles. Please go to the reliable sources noticeboard and ask a neutral question about whether the source is reliable or not. Experienced editors will then help discuss whether the source meets WP:RS and will come to a consensus. You are then free to go and implement that in the article. If any editor continues to revert in violation of that consensus, you should then report to the administrator incidents noticeboard. If you have further concerns about the other editor, you should collect evidence and take those concerns to the administrator noticeboard rather than making vague statements like Tuvixer is well-known for being a hard user to deal with. I hope that clarifies things. If you have any questions, you are of course welcome to ask me or any of the other involved volunteers. TheDragonFire (talk) 12:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank You for the input. I have written a report here: . I hope it will be resolved to include the said polls. StjepanHR (talk) 13:17, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:StjepanHR - I can see why another volunteer closed the discussion, although I would have offered one more chance. You did engage in a personal attack in calling another editor a "fanatic", and you did say that there was nothing to be gained by discussion.  The latter statement was imprudent, and was that got the thread closed.  In the future, if you want moderated discussion, don't rule it out from the outset.  I will add that, if you want to report disruptive editing with regard to the Balkans, it is probably better to go to Arbitration Enforcement, which has a faster and sometimes harsher form of justice than WP:ANI.  Read the policy on ArbCom discretionary sanctions, which applies to certain areas that have been the subject of repeated battleground editing, especially if the areas have been real battlegrounds in history.  See the Balkan arbitration case, and remember that one of the Balkan wars turned into World War One, in which fifteen million were killed.  Arbitration Enforcement is used to cut off efforts to restart World War One (or to restart the Arab-Israeli Wars or to restart the Indian-Pakistani wars).  If you want to report conduct issues having to do with Croatia, go to Arbitration Enforcement.  Otherwise, talk on an article talk page, or at WP:RSN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I admit I reacted a bit impulsive, but I know the user from the other articles (although I wasn't arguing with him back then, but some other moderate users did) and I can't remember anybody reaching compromise with him even at siplest things. In spite of that, I'll try to be more polite with him, but his accusations that my edits "are not sane", that I am employee of the agency, that some of my sources are "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" were simply too much to ignore. I don't want to take more of Your time, so thank You for helping me and I still hope it would get resolved at reliable sources noticeboard. Best regards, StjepanHR (talk) 19:19, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have had experience with that particular editor. As I said above, the Balkans are a difficult area to edit, and an area with a difficult and tragic history including World War One.  If you want to report disruptive editing, report it at Arbitration Enforcement.  That is what Arbitration Enforcement is for.  Either edit collaboratively, or go to AE.  I don't really want to discuss this issue any further.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Me neither :) Just one small question, if you have a minute to answer. What is the next step if there are no answers at WP:RSN? Thank You in advance, StjepanHR (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:StjepanHR - If there are no answers at WP:RSN, then just edit the article. It is true that RSN is sometimes inconclusive.  Read WP:DISCFAIL.  Do not engage in name-calling.  Do you have a specific question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have followed Your instructions and posted the above described controversy here:, but there is no answer in five days since I have posted it. I don't want to receive ban for editing the article without consensus, but it also bothers me that the reliability of an agency cited by four (out of five) largest newspapers in Croatia (24sata - , others are listed at RSN) is disputed by one blog entry (written by obscure leftist Zoran Oštrić, Tuvixer acquaintance from another forum: ) and one non-written claim (hearsay) and I don't want to give up without resolving the case. But, as I have said, I asked for general instructions in case no consensus on reliable sources noticeboard, since it is possible I would need it in future. Thank You once again, StjepanHR (talk) 17:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=787656457&oldid=787610655 --Tuvixer (talk) 18:32, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:StjepanHR, User:Tuvixer - I don't want to try to advise on how to deal with this dispute further. A new request may be filed at WP:DRN.  Alternatively, if you want to report conduct issues, go to Arbitration Enforcement.  Don't try to fight a Balkan war; remember what happened a century ago.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks... and what are next steps?
Hi Robert,

Thanks for the comments you sent to me around mid May in response to a draft article on Sheila Cleary. I made some edits to pick up on your suggestions.

I am new to Wikipedia, so apologies if this is a dumb question... is there something I ought to be doing? I had been assuming it's just a matter of waiting and I'm not wanting to prod because I realise you're probably a super-busy volunteer. I just wanted to check I have done what I need to and haven't overlooked anything.

cheers, Darren Eusebius888 (talk) 12:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Eusebius888 - The case is Draft: Sheila Cleary. It is still waiting for a full review, but I did tell you to put her dates of birth and death in the lede paragraph.  I think that she does pass notability.  Also, throughout the article, refer to her as Cleary rather than as Sheila.  People with Western-style names are referred to in Wikipedia by their surnames after their full name has been used once.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

DRN
Hello, I've recently added myself to the list of volunteers for the DRN. I do have prior editing experience, this is just a freshstart account. I've never done DRN and I was wondering if you had any tips that could help me when working cases. Thanks in advance! Hope to hear from you soon. DJAustin (talk) 14:29, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DJAustin - Welcome. Just follow the cases.  You can learn by watching.  If you have specific questions, ask at the DRN talk page.  That is better than asking on a user talk page because everyone will see it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 20:06:51, 19 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Pgomezgcb
Pgomezgcb (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

Thank you for reviewing the contents of Mr. Jorge Perez, what is copyrighted? This is the biographical information for Mr. Perez and includes all the required references. We've been trying to update this information for the last couple of months and need this completed as soon as possible. Can you steer us on the right direction? Thanks Pablo

Pgomezgcb (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Pgomezgcb - Who is "we"? You say that "we" have been trying to update the article on Perez.  One account should be used by one person, not by a group.  Are you and others being paid by Perez, or are you and others being paid by a group that is paying Perez?  Read the conflict of interest policy.  Also, it appears that your information about Perez was copyrighted and has been deleted.  If you are representing a group with which he is associated, waiving the copyright may not be sufficient, because the copyrighted text is likely to be non-neutral and promotional.  Please contact the deleting administrator.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

"We" meaning the company... This account is only used by myself but I am working with our marketing department to update his profile. There's no copyrighted info on his profile, The previous contributor entered basic information to get his profile online, we are wanting to add more details. I am an employee of his organization assisting his team on updating his Wikipedia profile.

Any assistance will be appreciated. Pgomezgcb (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Pgomezgcb] - You say that there is no copyrighted information on his profile. Is the information copied from your web site?  If so, it is copyrighted.  Also, have you declared your conflict of interest?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

12:10:11, 20 June 2017 review of submission by Pgomezgcb
Hello Robert,

Good morning, we are attempting to update a stale profile of Mr. Perez. When the wiki was created it was with very basic information. We would like to highlight the work done by Mr. Perez to our community.

Thanks Pablo Pgomezgcb (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Pgomezgcb - Who is "we"? One account should be used by one person, not by a group of people.  What is your association with Mr. Perez?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that the draft on Perez was deleted due to copyright violation. Even if you obtain permission from the copyright owner, information from a web site is usually not acceptable for use in Wikipedia because it is normally promotional and not neutral.  Who is "we"?  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Submission for BloombergQuint
Hi Robert McClenon, based on the feedback received by you, I did change the content on the page Draft:BloombergQuint. I do have one thing that I wish to convey to you. In the summary headline, you will see just the word 'Changed.' I accidentally hit the return key while I was typing a sentence there. Hence, you will see just the word, 'Changed.' It was not my intention to write just one word for the summary and I apologise if that made me come across as crass or arrogant. Sorry about that. For the record, what I wanted to write was, 'Changed the content based on the Feedback by Robert McClenon.' Thanks! FlyingBlueDream (talk) 16:32, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:FlyingBlueDream - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Wait for another reviewer to review.  It still looks to me as though it is largely (although not entirely) promotional, and I still see issues as to corporate notability.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Ilka Gedő
The aticle that already exists was written by me, but it was substantially shortened due to alleged copyright violation, although I took over some passages from my own work. I filed a capyright request, so that the article becomes good again, and I have already been waiting for more than ninety days.

The owner of the website http://mek.oszk.hu/07400/07416/ has sent an email to the OTRS team. I will restore the content once the ticket is processed. Ticket number is 2017030410000259 — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

So I decided to rewrite the article without using the passages taken over from my own work.Bíró Dávid (talk) 05:58, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop re-adding content from your blog. It can be re-added once the OTRS ticket is processed. Thanks, — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 12:27, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Bíró Dávid - The draft appears to have been deleted. The article Ilka Gedő is already in article space, and I will leave it to User:Diannaa or other admins to decide whether it contains copyrighted information.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Quiqup: article changes made
TTTZZZCCC (talk) 10:03, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Hi Robert, I've made a series of changes based on the feedback you provided on the Quiqup article - it'd be greatly appreciated if you would be able to take the time to have a look at whether this resolves the issues on neutrality. Thanks!
 * User:TTTZZZCCC - I personally am not persuaded that the changes make the article neutral, but the only real question now is whether it will be further tagged or whether there will be an AFD. Do you have an association with the company?   Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

TTTZZZCCC (talk) 10:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC) Hi Robert, I do have an association with the company, and have made the relevant COI disclaimers on my talk page and the author page. I have removed further material that may disturb the neutrality of the article. Would you be so kind as to let me know if those changes still prove to be insufficient? Thanks.

Governors Institute
Hello! I have made the requested revisions to (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:The_Governor%27s_Institutes_of_Vermont). I'd appreciate it if you reviewed the page and removed your comment. Thanks! -Ellis
 * User:Ellislandry - First, I do not normally follow an article through the approval process. Second, the comment was true at the time that I made the comment, and the history of comments should be kept while the article is in AFC.  I will take another look at the draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Request on 22:42:40, 22 June 2017 for assistance on AfC submission by Soli58
===Hi Robert. Thanks so much for reviewing my article for creation! It's my first article I've submitted so need help. You mentioned tone and notability issues. I have found more links that I will add for notability, but need help on the tone issues. I'd like to create this article because of it's association with at-risk-youth, which I am passionate about. I believe it is a creative way to teach and help at-risk-youth how to choose other options in their lives. His other article was a practice project for editing for me. I kept editing other articles but would go back to the Rhythm Magic, again because of it's association with at-risk-youth. Any help is much appreciated!!!! I'll keep making my own edits before resubmitting. Soli58 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Soli58 (talk) 22:42, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Soli58 - I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse about making your article more neutral. Do you have an affiliation with Rhythm Magic?  If so, that is a conflict of interest and should be declared.  If not, and if you are simply passionate about the organization, you might consider reading existing articles about similar organizations and see how they are written and present the organization neutrally, which is one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks Robert, that's a good idea. I don't have an affiliation with it, so I'll look for similar articles :) Soli58 (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy Deletion of Matin Rey Tangu
I request you go through the subject before nominating it for speedy deletion.It takes time to write an article and while i was citing references it was nominated for speedy deletion.It was so awkward to see that when you put on so much effort to write something and someone comes in and uses deletion tools without giving proper time to the article.I hope you understand my point. Thanks talk 4:30, 23 June 2017(UTC)
 * User:Karankhajuria22 - You should not put an article into article space in Wikipedia until it is verifiable and establishes notability. In particular, do not put an article into article space that either has no references or does not make a credible claim of significance.  Create the article in user space or in draft space (or in a word processor).  Do not put it in article space until it is satisfactory.  If you need advice on how to create an article in user space or draft space, ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk.  It is awkward to have editors put articles into article space that are not verifiable and do not establish notability.  Work on them in user space or draft space.  I hope that you understand my point.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Caerusgallery/Thewriterqq
You might also want to see these:. Thanks, GABgab 17:52, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:GeneralizationsAreBad - Does that mean that there is an abuse filter that is tracking Caerusgallery? I see that it has been deleted seven times.  I suppose that there is a reason why an abuse filter is being used rather than just salting the title.  I don't imagine that there is anything in particular that I should do at this point.  I think that I am satisfied that I tagged it for CSD and it was deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The article creations were caught in the filters for other reasons, I just wanted to let you know that this has been a persistent pattern and may come up again. GABgab 02:49, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I don't think that I want to be told here what the filter is looking for.  The details of the filter may need to be a secret.  Obviously creation of the title needs to be blocked, whether by a filter or by creation protection (salt).  I think that anything that has been deleted seven times should be salted.  I would also infer that there is likely to be sockpuppetry on the part of the spammers who keep creating the article.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Wynyard Group
Hello,

As per your request few more editings have been done on the article. Please let us know if few more need to be done. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wynyard_Group

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by James aaron (talk • contribs) 05:48, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:James aaron - The draft is Draft:Wynyard Group. It is an improvement, in that it is less blatantly marketspeak.  It still does not make much of a case for corporate notability based on statements by independent third parties.  Have you declared your affiliation with Wynyard Group?  You may ask for help at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:21, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi,

Few more editings have been done. Now, Please check. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:James_aaron/sandbox

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by James aaron (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:James aaron - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and in particular I do not follow a draft through the review process if the author has a conflict of interest. Have you asked for advice at the Teahouse?  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I have out the request over there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James aaron (talk • contribs) 04:55, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Wanted to let you know that I'd retired
Thank you for earlier affirming interactions. See User:Leprof_7272 page for details if interested. I have always had great respect for your work and practical ethics. If there is hope for this organisation, it is because of the likes of you. Wish you the best, bonne chance. Le Prof 73.210.155.96 (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on
This is to inform you that an attempt is being made to overturn an RfC that you voted on (2 RfCs, actually, one less than six months ago and another a year ago). The new RfC is at:

Village pump (policy)

Specifically, it asks that "religion = none" be allowed in the infobox.

The first RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 15 June 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

The result of that RfC was "unambiguously in favour of omitting the parameter altogether for 'none' " and despite the RfC title, additionally found that "There's no obvious reason why this would not apply to historical or fictional characters, institutions etc.", and that nonreligions listed in the religion entry should be removed when found "in any article".

The second RfC that this new RfC is trying to overturn is:


 * 31 December 2015 RfC: RfC: Religion in infoboxes.

The result of that RfC was that the "in all Wikipedia articles, without exception, nonreligions should not be listed in the Religion= parameter of the infobox.".

Note: I am informing everyone who commented on the above RfCs, whether they supported or opposed the final consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Billy Barry Page
Apologize for the deletion. My intention was to clean the page not to remove essential information for review. Appreciate the professionalism. Enjoy the week! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtually Human (talk • contribs) 06:33, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:VirtuallyHuman, but the page is a mess and the consensus appears to be that it should be deleted when the period runs. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

So Good
Hi, Robert. I've usually deleted pages with just an infobox because I don't consider this constitutes either content or context. Sometimes I would just redirect them if there is somewhere obvious to redirect to. In this case, however, the title was also not correctly constructed, so, rather than create two redirects, I just deleted it. Are you happy with that explanation? Deb (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Deb - That is fine with me, but I think that if I tag an article that is infobox-only with A1 or A3 it will probably be untagged because other administrators disagree with you, and I try to tag only with what there is consensus among administrators is reason to delete. I have tried discussing this at the speedy deletion criteria talk page, and I don't think that there is agreement.  So go on, you are doing what I think is the right thing, but I can't rely on you when other admins disagree.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I understand your position. Deb (talk) 14:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Not to be nit picky Deb, and I really have very little background on the specifics in this case, but if there is an infobox, then it's explicitly excluded from WP:A3. Whether that may or may not being exploited by some to circumvent speedy deletion of articles categorically disqualified for A7 has been the subject of some debate, but currently thems the breaks. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:13, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also Robert, regarding Henrik Loman (which is why I came here to begin with), if you move an article into draft space, its usually a good idea to add the RfC banner to start the WP:G13 clock running, and leave either a note for the author with a link to the draft, or a temporary cross namespace redirect with a G6 nomination requesting that it be deleted after the author has acknowledged the new location of their article. Otherwise a lot of the time it just ends up being recreated, whether on purpose or not. Timothy Joseph Wood  16:19, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, you're right, Tim. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Deb (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Timothyjosephwood - You mean the AFC banner. I don't quite understand about a cross-name-space redirect, because redirects from article space to draft space are not permitted.  In this case I deliberately moved the article from article space to draft space without leaving a redirect.  In this case I wasn't worrying much about what would happen to the placeholder, because it was a placeholder for an autobiography, and we do not encourage them.  I think that Timothy agrees with me about infobox-only and A1 and A3.  I would like to see an A12 for infobox-only articles.  Many infobox-only articles also qualify for A7, but not all, for instance for schools or books or commercial products or other things that do not fit within A7, or, for that matter, for professional athletes.  (Professional athletes can be BLPPROD'd, but cannot be A7'd, because they have a credible claim of significance even without a reference.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:41, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, thank you. I do mean AfC banner. And yes, XNRs are forbidden, but usually I leave one and leave a G6 speedy delete with a note to an admin not to delete immediately, but to give it some time for the author to realize where their draft is. The issue that this is intended to resolve is that if the user has the edit window open, and you move without leaving a redirect, then it just recreates the article in mainspace, but if you leave a redirect it stops them from doing that. Alternatively, the user may just not know how the message system works, and also almost certainly not know how our deletion system works, and just recreate it outright out of ignorance. Timothy Joseph Wood  01:37, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess I would add than an XNR with a CSD tag is irrelevant, since it's NOINDEXed and it's basically guaranteed that no one is going to find it other than someone browsing CAT:CSD. Timothy Joseph Wood  02:10, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Question about your comment on Whataboutism dispute resolution request
I am new to the DR process so forgive me if I'm not doing it right.

You mentioned "The list of editors does not include all of the editors who have discussed on the article talk page."

I didn't include the other editors because they raised points that have nothing to do with my point but I will add them if you think it is best. Please advise.

Also: Are the other editors automatically notified that there is a DR? If not, how do I notify them?

Also please note that I have changed the title of the section on the talk page because that title reflects my initial point and just seems to confuse people about my current point. After I made my initial point I researched further how WP works and realized that my current point is the proper approach. I tried to update the section title in the DR too. Hopefully I have done that correctly.

DeadEyeSmile (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:DeadEyeSmile - You should notify the other editors on their talk pages. You may use  for the purpose.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Newton in popular culture. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Two Roads Hospitality
Hello Robert McClenon. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Two Roads Hospitality, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: as the result of a merger of a notable company with another, significance is clearly indicated. Thank you.  So Why  13:31, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Salwan public school
Hi, Robert - I'm of the mind that article should've been moved to draft space, and may still need to be. It's one of the worst written articles I've come across in a while. Atsme 📞📧 18:15, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme - Swell. Are you saying that I should have moved the article to draft space?  Swell.  I hope not.  If so (and I should not be surprised), it is another case of dump on the reviewers.  I only move an article to draft space if it appears to be incomplete and being worked on.  As Salwan public school was, both when I PROD'd it and then when I AFD'd it, it didn't appear to be a work in progress.  I agree that it is a bad article, which is why I first PROD'd it and then AFD'd it, but I won't move an article to draft space that has had a PROD removed.  Once the article has its proponent, it would be likely to be moved back to article space, which is just a move-war.  Draftifying it is a valid !vote, but, once the PROD was removed, it seemed to me that it had to go to the judgment of the community, not to edit-warring or move-warring.  What did you mean?  If you just mean that the article is about to be kept when it should be deleted, I agree.  I hope that you aren't just dumping on the reviewers.  I tried PROD'ing it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Being a reviewer myself, I wouldn't dump onto others as others have dumped onto me, but yes to your thoughts that "the article is about to be kept when it should be deleted". It may end up closed as a keep-no consensus unless we can get more activity at AfD....which brings up another thought I had: would it be acceptable and within our PAGs for reviewers to follow-up on our AfD efforts...kinda like an assembly-line process? Atsme 📞📧 18:58, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme - As to whether there is a way to follow up, I sort of think no, because I sort of think that would be canvassing, but we can discuss at a project talk page. As to an article that is about to be kept when it should be deleted, I do wonder whether now whether there may be sockpuppetry.  I personally think that PROD and draftify should be mutually exclusive options for a reviewer.  That is, try one, and if it doesn't work, you did what you could.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Just dealt with a sock/meat puppet situation. *sigh* Re: canvassing - no, it wouldn't be canvassing - we're simply taking it upon ourselves as reviewers to keep up with the AfD log (page watch) which I feel is my obligation to do as a reviewer, particularly when I Prod or submit an article to AfD.  It makes us more efficient in our job as reviewers, and of course, it's remains voluntary. Atsme 📞📧 19:51, 27 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme - In this case, there isn't sockpuppetry. The editors favoring Keep are long-time editors, who have a history of taking part in AFDs on schools.  They have a viewpoint, and viewpoints are fine within project discussions.  (NPOV applies to article space.)  As for meatpuppetry, I will never argue meatpuppetry, because I consider the policy on meatpuppetry to be incomprehensible.  An editor is an editor.  Where I frequently encounter sockpuppetry is AFC, and sometimes with speedy deletion nominations.  I just think that sometimes there is only so much that we can do to get rid of the crud, and it isn't worth being vindictive after AFD has run its course.  The maximum that can be done to a piece of crud is a single AFD, unless there is something bigger behind it like a farm of crud socks.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Apologies, didn't mean to imply the sock puppet situation was the Salwan article. It was a different article.  I've always left the SPI stuff to experienced investigators.  I agree with you about the crud. Atsme 📞📧 01:49, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Atsme - I didn't think you thought that there was sockpuppetry in the Salwan article. I had implied that there might be, and then I verified that there wasn't.  As to who should investigate sockpuppetry, any experienced editor may and should, in my opinion, report likely sockpuppetry if there is behavioral evidence.  SPI has its own clerks and administrators, and, as you presumably know, its own class of highly trusted administrators, the Checkusers, who have access to the IP addresses behind registered accounts.  I make a sockpuppetry report when I see that two user accounts have done nothing but write on a particular non-notable topic.  There are a few combative editors who regularly accuse other combative editors of being sockpuppets; I would prefer to avoid that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I have unreviewed a page you curated
Hi, I'm Adam9007. I wanted to let you know that I saw the page you reviewed, Ap101, and have un-reviewed it again. If you have any questions, please ask them on my talk page. Thank you.

Adam9007 (talk) 02:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Linda LeGarde Grover
Hi - References done. I'm failing to get the image the right size - could you please change it if you know how? Thx. Vizjim (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Vizjim - I am not an expert on images. I suggest that you ask for help at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * User:Vizjim - I assume that your concern is that the image of Linda LeGarde Grover is too large. Is that correct?  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I see that another editor resized it for you. I think that resolves that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:21, 30 June 2017 (UTC)