User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 22

Francisco Morales Llerena
I just did a load of copy-editing on Draft:Francisco Morales Llerena. The notability is also sourced. The article still has issues (mostly a lack of sources for the various claims), but I don't actually understand Spanish so I can't fix those. I would propose to move the draft to article space (and probably call it "Juan Francisco Morales" instead of "Francisco Morales Llerena") to increase the odds other (Spanish speaking) editors will help improving it.

I'm not really familiar with policies and everything around this so I'm not just blindly hitting the "resubmit" button. (it's not my article anyway) Alexis Jazz (talk) 04:40, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alexis Jazz - I would suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse. It appears that you and I are in agreement that the subject is notable but the draft needs a lot of work.  In particular, if the draft is to be accepted based on military notability, his general's commission will need to be referenced.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:58, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * It mostly needs sourcing, but that will be much more likely to happen in main space. I don't understand the general's commission. Is File:LBNCCE-Alfaro-2313-PUBCOM (1).pdf not that? Alexis Jazz (talk) 08:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I sourced the promotion more specifically. I also asked the Teahouse, it can't hurt, can it? Alexis Jazz (talk) 10:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you do not understand Spanish and the sources are in Spanish, you might do well to ask for a co-editor.
 * How/where can I do that? Co-op says "This page is currently inactive and is retained for historical reference".. Alexis Jazz (talk) 15:17, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alexis Jazz - Try the Teahouse or the WT:Wikiproject Military History. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

hello
Thank you for your contributions and respect your wonderful editing on the Wikipedia. By the way, want to be advised you about the article. Regarding 'TeRra' Magazine, it is not simply advertising article, but it seems has to be deleting. The magazine deals with important figures and their heritable works. hope you help to figure out what is standard and 'neutral' means. And the magazine has approved to publish materials as a media company, though. Would like to know and hear your opinion and be advised from you for the wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thomashappyday (talk • contribs) 14:15, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Thomashappyday - The draft appears to be written in order to promote the magazine, and that is not permitted. I did not tag that draft for deletion as spam, but I did caution that, in article space, it will probably be deleted as spam.  If you want advice from other experienced editors, you may ask at the Teahouse.  I do not understand what you are saying about approval to publish as a media company.  If the magazine is notable, then the draft needs a considerable reworking before it will be ready for article space.  I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Deletion of Kevin Wendell Jones
When I first submit the article an admin said it was ok. Then I find out a month later than it was tagged to be deleted. The article was restored to my box. I was told to submit the article differently but only did so to get feed back as to what was wrong and how to improve it. I didn't think someone would see it so soon. Next time I'll just ask the help desk, So Sorry Livinginthepink (talk) 22:39, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Livinginthepink - If you submit an article to AFC, you are requesting that it be reviewed for acceptance into article space. It should be ready for final review before you submit it.  You are correct that asking for comments on the draft, while it is still in user space or draft space, would be a better idea.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:52, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

DRN closing note
I thing in case(s) like the one over here, phrases like the filing party is free to edit the article (whilst true technically) will only allow the warring-editor to utilize it as a blank-check to push rejected-changes and edit-war.Frankly, if I was a newbie (with questionable motives), I would have (probably) gladly taken the particular phrase whilst junking the advice to discuss on the article t/p, given there's no conditional clause, either.I am inclined to think that removing the phrase might be better:) &#x222F; WBG converse 06:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Everipedia
I was thinking maybe you could tell me where I'm supposed to ask this, because I honestly don't know.

Everipedia is written like an advertisement. I added a small bit to it, without any name-calling, trying to state nothing but facts. My edit was reverted with this edit summary: "Please provide independant WP:SECONDARY sources covering the topic. The tag at the very top of the article can be removed now. Thank you for your understanding.".

Can I call WP:BLUESKY on this? Literally anyone can go to Everipedia and verify for themselves that what I say is true. Do we really need completely silly citations from an expert like this? Should I ask an expert to say in public what anyone who has eyes can see? (and some blind people with good screen readers probably too..)

The tag at the very top of the article most certainly can't be removed. (but he tried it before, and was reverted in the next edit)

Officially I should probably talk to QuackGuru, but this seems completely futile already. Going to edit war is a bad idea and complaining about it on the talk page is unlikely to accomplish anything. I just don't know where to go. Alexis Jazz (talk) 19:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Alexis Jazz - What is the question? I agree that the article is written promotionally, and the reverting of your edit is characteristic of ownership behavior.  Have you inquired as to COI?  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * I haven't, but I don't think they have a specific COI with Everipedia because they behave like this on other subjects as well. They may just be misinterpreting policy while being nearly deaf to all those who try to explain this is not how it works as they claim "I am restricted by Wikipedia policy.". The question was what to do because explaining doesn't seem to work, they probably don't break any rules badly enough to warrant a (topic)ban.. I'll probably just rewrite the article from scratch, boldly overwrite when done and let all hell break loose. Alexis Jazz (talk) 22:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes. My own opinion, and I would feel the same if I were well, is that the article doesnt provide enough information abput the profit model.  I think it needs rework.  I know that your issue is with QuackGuru, it is not COI; it is stubbornness.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Khalistan movement


Some DRN participants were making new reverts at Khalistan movement. I put full protection on the article, with a recommendation that it stay protected until the WP:DRN discussion is officially closed. Let me know if you have any other suggestions of what to do. I was already impressed by your patience in going through so many rounds. Still, it's not clear if there are better alternatives. Possibly an RfC, since that might lead to some of the alternatives being clearly voted up or down. At DRN, it seems that a supporter of a weak argument has the option of continuing the debate forever. Not saying that's what's happening here, though. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 16:59, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
 * It is true that too often DRN is used by an editor who is editing one-against-many. These disputes just go on longer and eventually either are failed by the moderator or are taken to RFC or both.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:EdJohnston - Thanks for intervening. Editing (edit-warring) the article while discussion is in progress is forbidden.  I have failed the case and am recommending RFCs (but blocks might also be in order).  I would recommend that the page stay protected until the set date to allow an RFC without edit-warring.  Thanks.  I am recovering from surgery and didn't see it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Hi Robert, Please take care of your health. Kindly accept my best wishes for your speedy recovery.
 * I am not totally sure if RfC is the right way forward as of now since there are multiple sources for this controversial dispute, We certainly made progress in past 25 days. But past 9 days we could not have any intervention from Robert due to his ill health. Can we re-open and reach a conclusion may be with a new moderator (since Robert is still recovering). In my opinion, we should salvage the takeaways from the long discussion at DRN instead of trashing the efforts of all three of us. User:EdJohnston your thoughts on re-opening ? -- D Big X ray  09:32, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
 * User:DBigXray - You may refile and request a new moderator, but I do not think that is likely to help. I don't know if another volunteer will want to take the case after it had dragged on 25 days, which is longer than the usual DRN case, and you didn't follow my instructions when I was still editing.  I think that, with multiple sources and stubborn editors, RFC is more likely to resolve the matter than another round of DRN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 12:15, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Edarem
Hi Robert. Since you do lots of AfC reviews, I'm wondering why Draft:Edarem is even be considered for submission when Edarem already exists in the mainspace. This version appears to be something completely different than the latest version, which by the way appears to be a copy paste job from the existing article and is likely a copyvio per WP:PATT. All of this happended after the two previous AfC reviews, so I'm not faulting the reviewers. Can you decipher what has been done here? -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of most-viewed YouTube videos
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of most-viewed YouTube videos. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Volunteer for content dispute
Hello. I saw the list of volunteers for dispute resolution and I need assistance. my request for My Korean Jagiya has yet to receive an opinion from any of the volunteers. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard Hotwiki (talk) 10:13, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers. Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
 * June backlog drive


 * New technology, new rules
 * New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
 * Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
 * Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.


 * Editathons
 * Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. —  Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)  00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The Signpost
 * The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Iota Tau Kappa


A tag has been placed on Draft:Iota Tau Kappa requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

"G13 -- only edit this year is a bot edit"

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Dolotta (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding your comment on my article
Comment: Does the author have a connection or affiliation with the subject? Please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:11, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Ref at the URL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:T._G._Bharath

Thanks for your comment, Robert. Could you please guide me further? How do I confirm that there is no conflict of interest in this case? What is the basis of this derivation? I have read the CoI policy and do not see any issue in being able to edit the article, apart from the fact that I am just a novice.

Thanks in advance Pristinetulip (talk) 17:44, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Pristinetulip - You didn't answer the question. Do you have a connection with the subject of the article?  Your only edits are to that draft, which makes you a single-purpose account, and so you appear to have a  likely conflict of interest.  If you do not have a conflict of interest, and are merely trying to contribute to Wikipedia by writing one article, you can help us with the five million articles that we already have as much as with one article that we do not yet have.  I did not see evidence of biographical notability of the subject of that draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:12, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Answering your question, absolutely no. There is no conflict of interest here and i obviously do and intend to contribute to other articles as well. Thanks for your help.

Clarity
I'm not sure what you are saying in your post. I was the filer. Your comments said "we can't say that there is strong evidence that the Russians did it" but that is exactly what I am trying to say. Did you mistake me for the editor that has the opposing view? I'm just trying to be clear what your opinion was. MartinezMD (talk) 18:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:MartinezMD -- My error, and I will revise slightly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 2 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. MartinezMD (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

re: moderating un-opened cases
I feel that there can be a subtle cost to officially opening a case. When I'm asking questions in a mediator-ish way on a case I haven't opened, I'm totally fine with someone else coming along and deciding its best to close the case. I partly do it as an opportunity for other moderators to get involved.

Sorry this is so poorly intellectualized; I'm working on it. Xavexgoem (talk) 19:48, 2 August 2018 (UTC) The vagaries of our work here, etc, etc.
 * User:Xavexgoem - That makes sense. I think that particular case is going nowhere, but if you want to handle it, go ahead.  I think that the discussion is too wordy and long-winded to be useful.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:07, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Monocrystalline silicon differential pressure transmitter


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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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. Hhkohh (talk) 08:33, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Theokarfak/sandbox


A tag has been placed on User:Theokarfak/sandbox, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are:
 * It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Business for more information.
 * It is a draft which has not been edited in over six months. (See section G13 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)
 * It appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free Web hosting service. (See section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion.)

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Hhkohh (talk) 06:10, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

?
Did you mean to post an article submission review notice to User talk:Example instead of User talk:Enterprisey? --Guy Macon (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Guy Macon - No, but that is what can be expected with Enterprisey testing his macro in live draft space playing whatever games he is playing. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Thanks for reviewing my submission for David Krain Can you tell me why it did not pass approval or what to do to improve it I looked at other people on wiki in a similar category and saw that it was similar to my submission. thanks for your help

Request on 15:28:39, 6 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Ddkeclipse
Ddkeclipse (talk) 15:28, 6 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Ddkeclipse - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse. You did not include any independent references, and did not establish notability.  You also provided a list that was too long.  If other drafts that were also lacking in information have been accepted, please advise me where they are; I may tag them for deletion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Testing AfC drafts in the New Pages Feed
Hi -- I wanted to ping you because of some major progress on the effort to add AfC drafts to the New Pages Feed, a project that you weighed in on early on. The engineering work has come along enough that it's possible for community reviewers to test out the evolving New Pages Feed in the Test Wiki. Since you do a lot of AfC reviewing, I know that we would value your opinion. Thank you! -- MMiller (WMF) (talk) 19:46, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort closed
An arbitration case regarding German war effort articles has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

For the Arbitration Committee,
 * 1) For engaging in harassment of other users, is indefinitely banned from the English Wikipedia under any account.
 * 2) is topic banned from the history of Germany from 1932 to 1945, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
 * 3) is reminded that project coordinators have no special roles in a content dispute, and that featured articles are not immune to sourcing problems.
 * 4) Editors are reminded that consensus-building is key to the purpose and development of Wikipedia. The most reliable sources should be used instead of questionable sourcing whenever possible, especially when dealing with sensitive topics. Long-term disagreement over local consensus in a topic area should be resolved through soliciting comments from the wider community, instead of being re-litigated persistently at the local level.
 * 5) While certain specific user-conduct issues have been identified in this decision, for the most part the underlying issue is a content dispute as to how, for example, the military records of World War II-era German military officers can be presented to the same extent as military records of officers from other periods, while placing their records and actions in the appropriate overall historical context. For better or worse, the Arbitration Committee is neither authorized nor qualified to resolve this content dispute, beyond enforcing general precepts such as those requiring reliable sourcing, due weighting, and avoidance of personal attacks. Nor does Wikipedia have any other editorial body authorized to dictate precisely how the articles should read outside the ordinary editing process. Knowledgeable editors who have not previously been involved in these disputes are urged to participate in helping to resolve them. Further instances of uncollegial behavior in this topic-area will not be tolerated and, if this occurs, may result in this Committee's accepting a request for clarification and amendment to consider imposition of further remedies, including topic-bans or discretionary sanctions.
 * -Cameron11598(Talk) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:32, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of 7400-series integrated circuits. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Zena Holloway draft
Hi Robert, I have gone over your comments on the original version of the page and tried my best to implement them. I'm not sure if it will be you reviewing the resubmitted draft or another editor? But thought I would let you know what is going on with the page anyway. I have corrected the issues around the inline citations, over-linking etc. I have also taken out most of the peacock statements and tried to rein in the reams and reams of celebrity names, concentrating only on the ones I can find references for. I have also taken out some of the most shameless promotional citations and although most of the sources carry weight in their field, there might still be some bad apples that have slipped through the net. Thanks for your time and I look forward to hearing any other comments or suggestions you may have. Best, Cr@Z Kit-Kat Lovert@lk 13:07, 16 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Crazy Cat Person - I do not follow a draft through the review process. It will almost certainly be another reviewer.  You did a good job with the references, and they are the tedious part.  Thank you.  Thank you also for opposing paid advertising and spam.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Paltering
Since you were involved there for AFC, I'd just like to note a possible conflict of interest issue I've noticed (I didn't raise my concerns yet but just noted it down for further checking): Username suggests "Roger's lab" (COI-username?) and sources added by them on various articles and drafts include some from Todd Rogers... — Paleo Neonate  – 03:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Political userboxes and division
I'm curious about re: political userboxes and the idea that expressing e.g. a Republican or Democratic leaning here might deepen divisions. I'd have thought if anything the opposite is true – isn't Wikipedia a good example of people of different political persuasions coming together to build something great regardless of their other differences? If a few editors of each kind flagged their allegiances, mightn't that just make the nature of that cooperation more visible? I don't mean to interrogate you and I respect your motivation to reduce divisions, I just found your comment interesting and wondered if you wouldn't mind expanding on it. All the best, &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 12:06, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Mortee - I don't want to get into an invisible discussion on my talk page. The place to discuss is either at the RFC or somewhere else in the Village Pump.  However, I am not nearly as optimistic as you that Wikipedia can be used to promote reconciliation in the body politic, or that editors who work together will continue to work together after they see the userboxes that characterterize their opponents as treasonous or demonic.  I see political divisions as harmful to Wikipedia, rather than Wikipedia as an opportunity to heal political divisions.  Wikipedia is not a social experiment.  Further discussion can be at the RFC.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure, I only messaged you here because the RfC was closed. I would have followed up there otherwise. I think I understand your position, so thank you for explaining it. &rsaquo; Mortee  talk 16:37, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:23:15, 21 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Kateryna1987
Hi Robert,

Thank you for providing your feedback on the article about Secure Swiss Data. I took Tutanota wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tutanota) as an example to created a page about similar end-to-end encrypted email. I used as many citations as I could find about that software. Can you please let me know in more details what should I do in order to improve the article and make it valuable addition to Wikipedia? Kateryna1987 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)Kateryna1987 Kateryna1987 (talk) 14:23, 21 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kateryna1987 - All of your edits in the past six months have been to that one draft. Are you associated with Secure Swiss Data?  Do you have an affiliation with the company?  Please read the conflict of interest policy.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Hi Robert, I have been editing other articles previously and was looking for a topic to create an interesting article for some time. Considering that Wikipedia has so many articles it wasn't easy. Because I'm interested in encryption and data protection, I've found out that Secure Swiss Data launched their improved mobile apps, so I've taken that as an opportunity to create an article that will add value to wikipedia. As I've mentioned before, I looked into similar service Tutanota to create an article and follow wikipedia guidelines. As I've put so much effort in that article and I was so happy when I was able to complete it, I would highly appreciate if you will advise what can be done to publish the article. I really hope that my efforts wouldn't be wasted. P.S.: I don't have any conflict of interest Kateryna1987 (talk) 08:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)Kateryna


 * User:Kateryna1987 - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Did you read my comments, or did you simply decide to ask what to do without trying to understand my comments? Your question seems to indicate that you want your hand held by a reviewer who will assist you in revising the draft.  Most reviewers don't work that way.  If you don't understand my comments, then it would be appropriate to ask for advice at the Teahouse.  However, your question is so open-ended that I get the impression that you didn't try to understand my comments.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Basing a draft on an existing article is not always the best way to get a draft approved. In some cases, the existing article shouldn't be in article space and should be deleted.  See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Your draft doesn't make a solid case for corporate notability and reads like an information brochure. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
 * If your real objective is to contribute to Wikipedia, you can help us with any of the 5.6 million articles that we already have, which may be just as useful as providing one article that we don't yet have. Is there a reason why you want to contribute one article rather than to help us with the existing articles?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Sport Participation in Australia Dispute
Thanks for looking at the dispute on Australian Sport Participation.

I assumed it would add something automatically to other users who are mentioned.

At any rate I've requested HiLo48's response on his talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 21:34, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

The RFC has now disappeared from the RFC page and all the users who wish to vote on the RFC seem to have voted.

What is the next step?

The Survey is here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siento (talk • contribs) 01:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure what to do, any assistance would be much apprecated. Thanks Robert McClenon Siento (talk) 02:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Siento - The RFC has completed its 30-day comment period. A bot removed the RFC tag from the talk page because the RFC is no longer open for comments but is ready for closure (assessment).  The next step is to list the RFC as being ready for closure, in the list of RFCs waiting for closure, at the administrator's noticeboard, WP:AN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:28, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Thanks heaps for your assistance. The dispute has now been listed as being ready for closure. Siento (talk) 10:26, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:CMTS
Hello, Robert McClenon. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:CMTS, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Draft space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for article space.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion under CSD G13. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available here.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. Bot0612 (talk) 20:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Bot0612 - It isn't my page. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Firefly - Maybe your bot makes the same mistakes as Twinkle in thinking that I originated a page when I moved it from a sandbox into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Concern regarding Draft:ZDHC

 * Robert McClenon Hello sir ,appreciate your observations, Allow me to add some more refs. ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:RAJIVVASUDEV - It will not help to reference-bomb the draft. Add references only if they will indicate what independent sources have said about the foundation.  If you can demonstrate that the foundation has received attention from third parties, add the references and a description of what the third parties have said, and another reviewer will review the draft.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)


 * Sir, thanks for your advice,I am taking utmost care and cited accordingly, please review and comment.ThanksRajiv Sharma (talk) 03:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought you might want to know that this editor has been blocked for (minor I know) sock-puppetry. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 18:33, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Roxy the dog - Sockpuppetry going back to 2015 isn't minor. I think that minor sockpuppetry is a myth.  On the one hand, it reveals something of the deepest hopes and fears of a culture or people, such as that Wikipedias want to believe that all long-time contributors are basically honest and are net positives to the project.  On the other hand, it isn't true.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:40, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Phew. -Roxy, the dog. barcus 23:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:PDFTron Systems
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:PDFTron Systems. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Not to misquote Seinfeld, but...
... what's the deal with User:Robert McClenon/sandbox? I've mentioned other users in my sandbox in the past, but always either with the intention of opening a discussion in the immediate future or, in the current case, maintaining a discussion of an already-site-banned editor indefinitely as an accompaniment to an SPI no one seems willing to touch despite its being open-and-shut. Maintaining a "list" like that is a little ... weird.

Especially given that the list appears to combine folks who are there because they contribute to ANI discussions in which they are not involved a lot, and occasionally open ANI threads on issues in which they are involved (me), while others are on there because there's near-unanimous agreement they need to be site-banned (Film Fan), while others are on there because they have been site-banned forever (Catflap08). Your putting DF's name and Catflap08's name next to mine appears to have been deliberate, but my (direct) conflict with Catflap08 ended two years before I had any idea who DF was and, yes, keeping Catflap08's name there even though he's been site-banned for over a year comes across as a little weird (I'm not sure if you're aware of the block-evasion sockpuppetry, since it has not drawn a whole lot of attention outside of a few fairly "quiet" SPIs).

Also, you've got Francis Schonken on there twice.

Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:16, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Hijiri88 - The purpose of the list is only for me to check the block logs. That is what it is for.  I'll delete one copy of FS.  The list is used so that I can see which users should be deleted.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:22, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by "deleted"? Also, given how often blocks are issued in error, I'm not sure how useful block logs are when looking at how to address disputes involving long-term contributors. The best way to get blocked, for both new and long-term contributors, is to violate 3RR, so never editing the article space (which effectively guarantees never getting into an edit war) is probably the best way to avoid a block, but it's also a giveaway of a WP:NOTHERE user. Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:33, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Hijiri88 - You are correct that block logs need to be looked at in context. I was referring to deleting users with a dry humor that doesn't come through on the Internet to mean site-banning them.  The block logs do normally indicate why they were blocked.  I recognize that 3RR blocks are usually not as long as other blocks, and do not indicate the same problems as other blocks.  That is what the list is for, just to view block logs.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:38, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, my block log includes more than a few errors for which the blocking admins have since apologized, in at least one case the block was clearly punitive (literally nothing I could have said or done would have resulted in an unblock -- this was maybe not technically the case for this one, but it damn-near was), in another was the result of a miscommunication in which I had already voluntarily withdrawn from a dispute but had not been careful enough in my wording and, once I reiterated as much in a clearer fashion was immediately unblocked, and in one was the result of a bizarre string of events that would not have resulted in me getting blocked had it not been for the fact that another editor was already blocked for a completely unrelated issue. The fact that not all of the subsequent apologies, etc. were explicitly marked in my block log should not be held against me or against any other editors who might have been in similar situations. (A number of my blocks are actually the result of me requesting mutual IBANs to protect myself from harassment and those IBANs later being gamed; in the past I have advised other editors in similar situations to make the same dumb move, which they occasionally did, and it wouldn't surprise me if there were similar instances that had nothing to do with me.)
 * I would appreciate my being taken off the list.
 * Hijiri 88 ( 聖やや ) 05:53, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

✅

Feedback on draft article on sandbox
hi Robert McLenon. Just saw your feedback on the draft article on Draft:David Patrikarakos. Can you clarify the part about the subject having to be in "published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject". Im a bit confused as his work has been reviewed and referenced in reputable broadsheets and other media. As to it being a duplicate page, that then is my error - I was trying to correct the previous draft that had been rejected through getting feedback on another version of it through my personal sandbox. Im new to uploading work for wikipedia. I also do not have a conflict of interest with this subject. Your kind response is appreciated Le Bijoux (talk) 10:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * The best practice when addressing other editors is to spell their names correctly. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:07, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

My apologies Le Bijoux (talk) 12:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I will ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Where does the dispute resolution process take place?
Hi Robert McClenon! Both positions have commented and are ready to resolve our dispute here. Where does the overseen discussion take place? On the board itself, in another area of Wikipedia? And will I be notified? Thanks! SprayCanToothpick (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:SprayCanToothpick - On the board itself, after a moderator volunteers to take the dispute. Keep discussion on the noticeboard to a minimum until a moderator volunteers.  However, discussion at the article talk page is welcome.  (When a moderator takes the case, they are likely to ask you to stop discussing at the article talk page, simply to keep discussion in one place.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Template:UFW
Since you appear to use Template:NSFW on user talk pages within Afc decline, just wanted to make sure you are aware of the recent page move, and to use UFW, which replaced NSFW. Best to you!  Paine Ellsworth   put'r there  14:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Paine Ellsworth - Yes. I noticed when previously declined drafts with NSFW started displaying that that form was deprecated.  Okay.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Palais Kaunitz-Wittgenstein
Hi Robert McClenon, I just wanted to update you that I expanded the Draft:Palais Kaunitz-Wittgenstein, which you reviewed several days ago. While I assume this does not affect the notability of the discussed issue, I wanted to provide you with the opportunity to rethink your verdict concerning NPOV, as my changes might have affected the article in this regard. I am quite sure that it is still complying with NPOV but do not want to surprise you in any regard. --WiR IACA (talk) 14:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WiR IACA - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * , I am aware that following a draft would not be the classical behavior, I just wanted to make sure that your remark does not seem to be improper due to a possible worsening of the draft through my continued editing. I am begging your pardon for any inconvenience and disruption --WiR IACA (talk) 06:46, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WiR IACA - I don't think that I understand what the question is. Who are you saying may be making an improper remark or worsening the draft?  I don't understand.  Your draft is in the queue and will be reviewed sometime.  Do you have a question that I can understand?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You evaluated the draft, which I highly appreciate. I continued working on the draft after your evaluation and wanted to inform you about those updates. Didn't intend to cause any problem, just wanted to leave a friendly note, as people might assess X with A in time T, but might in time T+1 find A as an evaluation for the content that now changed to Y not fitting any longer. I just wanted to avoid causing a feeling of being tricked by a first draft that was afterwards significantly changed. --WiR IACA (talk) 07:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:WiR IACA - Maybe I still don't understand, or maybe I do. It is always assumed that a submitter will continue editing it after it is evaluated.  The history of the article shows what version of the article was in effect when it was reviewed.  That is the way Wikipedia works.  If you knew that, then I don't understand what your concern is.  Maybe you are spending too much time worrying about a reviewer being unreasonable that could be better applied elsewhere.  I still don't understand.  Robert McClenon (talk) 08:18, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe the latter might be the case. Just tried to make sure that you don't feel tricked. But I am afraid it didn't work well. Sorry for the confusion --WiR IACA (talk) 08:29, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 17:59:22, 29 August 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Myringa
Hello I'd like to know what makes the page I created for an artist I admire, less elligible than this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deutsch_Nepal? Could you help me please understand. Thank you in advance Best regards Morda

Myringa (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Uer:Myringa - See my reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Spectroscopy of Multiply Ionized Atoms
Hi Robert McClenon, thanks, but relating to your comment to the draft which you reviewed several days ago, it seems closer to WT:WikiProject Physics, not Chemistry. Koneya (talk) 11:28, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

The rejection of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Turning_Sounds
As advised by the English Wikipedia chat volunteers, I'd like to ask for clarification regarding the rejection. You stated that "The sources do not appear to be independent." I actually put quite a lot of effort into referencing sources, and basically all of independent sources listed are very respectable national-level media. I'd say calling these media outlets non-independent would be quite outrageous where I live - or conspiracy-minded. I'd be happy to give some information on these titles, although I'm convinced that among the editors there should be ones familiar with those. Could you give some specific rationale for classifying these titles as non-independent? We're talking about "Gazeta Wyborcza" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazeta_Wyborcza), "Odra" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odra_(magazine)), "Ruch Muzyczny" (https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruch_Muzyczny ) and "Tygodnik Powszechny" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tygodnik_Powszechny). BTW., the work on the draft is in progress, and there will be more sources referenced, of similar kind, I believe. Thanks for quick review, too. Baskak (talk) 17:15, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Baskak - First, I don't always know how to follow up when someone has been getting advice from chat, because I don't have a written record of what was actually said and don't know whether what the volunteer said and what the submitter thinks the volunteer said are the same. However, that is really a generalized gripe on my part.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Baskak - If you think that I made a mistake in declining the draft at this time, we can always ask for other reviewers at the Teahouse to take another look. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon Thank you for redirecting me. The chat (which I understand is the place for advice, at least that's what Wikipedia's suggestions after rejection made me believe) volunteer stated roughly "you can always ask the editor for clarification here" and gave your page address. I guess the exact wording is negligible. Baskak (talk) 08:42, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Baskak - I have asked for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC unusual circumstances
Just pointing out that you rejected Draft:Joseph K. Taussig Jr. a few days ago for having a preexisting article. But the article has since been deleted as creation of a banned or blocked user. Maybe the draft should be reconsidered? ☆ Bri (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Bri - Yes. My original decline of the draft because there was already an article is as much of a no-brainer as a reviewer does.  However, in this case, the original reason for my decline is no longer applicable.  I have resubmitted the draft for another review based on notability, and will be entering comments on the draft talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Joseph K. Taussig Jr. has been accepted
 Joseph K. Taussig Jr., which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer. Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:00, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Joseph_K._Taussig_Jr. help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Q re: review of Ron Jarmin article
Hi - I have a question about your rejection of the article for Ron Jarmin based on reliable sources. I used the primary source in each case; would adding a secondary source, like a news article about the subject, help? I just don't consider news articles as reliable (or at least wouldn't use them in lieu of the primary source). ThanksShel5136 (talk) 18:11, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * You are asking about Draft:Ron S. Jarmin. First, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources to primary sources.  Second, Wikipedia has a unique concept of notability, which has to do with whether independent sources have written about the person or company or concept or whatever.  Maybe you either need the concept of notability explained to you again or disagree with it.  If you disagree with it, it is still the policy.  I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Shel5136 - Do you want me to ask at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert McClenonI actually updated it using other sources already. The concept makes sense to me. I believe I resubmitted it for re-review. I can't tell if it's in a queue or what. Is it something you're able to take another look at? thanks.  Shel5136 (talk) 13:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Nominating Unavowed for deletion
Hi there. I know you and I have widely different ideas when it comes to deletion but your rationale in Articles for deletion/Unavowed is so obviously incorrect that I have to wonder whether you are using Google settings that hide most or all hits. When I tried searching for "Unavowed" myself, the fifth link was a list of reviews and the third, sixth and eighth links were reviews in reliable sources, i.e., and. If you truly could not find those, you really should consider no longer nominating articles for deletion. Regards So  Why  10:27, 9 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Since I don't know if you have pings enabled or have the AFD watchlisted, I hope you don't mind me leaving you another message regarding this AFD. Could you please consider withdrawing the nomination? I think it's sufficiently clear now that the subject is indeed notable, with 18 sources now in the article and I'd like to take it to DYK and GA then. Regards So  Why  07:56, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: User:Poeticwriter68/sandbox has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at User:Poeticwriter68/sandbox. Thanks! Dan arndt (talk) 03:20, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Dan arndt - First, it isn't my submission, because I simply moved it to draft space and commented on it. We knew that.  Second, it seems that for some reason the AFC script put your comment on the redirect page itself rather than on the draft page.  I don't think that is what you intended, and I don't think the author will see that.  Maybe you should put your comment on the draft page itself.  Thank you.  Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I don't know what the bots were up to at the time. I think I was making a comment on the sandbox article at the same time as someone was moving the page to a draft. Given the lack of inline citations to reliable secondary sources it is not likely to supported to the mainspace any time soon. Any way its all good. Dan arndt (talk) 06:02, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:William Worsley (forester) has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:William Worsley (forester). Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Davidallitt - Thank you for you comments and help as a newbie all appreciated, hopefully my draft is now up to speed.

About Curtis Jones (footballer)
Hi Robert, That article may well have been deleted by the time you read this, and I would be happy to WP:USERFY it. However it would appear to me there is little chance of the article about this young athlete meeting the criteria for mainspace until he has played a match for the Liverpool senior team. I agree with Szzuk's comment in the second AfD: "Delete. He will play professionally at some point in the near future in my opinion but until then it is a delete." (This is a tricky bit: I could write "I'm not going to insult your intelligence by referring back to the policy and guidelines referred to in the two AfDs" but this would be insulting your intelligence by writing "I'm not going to insult your intelligence..." Oh crumbs. If there isn't a WP:ESSAY called WP:RECUSIVEARGUMENTSARERECUSRIVE there should be. Or should not be.) Your thoughts about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:24, 10 September 2018 (UTC)
 * This article was first deleted via Articles for deletion/Curtis Jones (footballer)
 * this article was deleted again via Articles for deletion/Curtis Jones (footballer) (2nd nomination)

About Draft:Youngjae (South Korean singer)
Thank you for the review of the draft:Youngjae (South Korean singer). I would like to ask you some points about the reasons of rejection.

You or the reviewer indicated "the notability." GOT7 has grown a popular music group that gains 9th concert income in the US this year. They had gained furthermore attendance through the world tour this summer as well. There had been biograghy lines about each of GOT7 members in GOT7 wiki page, but they were deleted on 2017-10-24 because of  (→‎Members: removing irrelevant content per Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Korea/Popular_culture#Members_sections) So we needed to prepare other pages to supplement the members' information.

As for "reliable sources", indeed there are less sources written in English, but that is because GOT7 is from Asia and is spreading to other areas. This Youngjae's draft is prepared by volunteers from multiple countries. We searched for reliable sources in several languages (Korean, Japanese, Chinese, and so on) and selected topics which have English sources as well. So please don't regard these sources as counterfeit even though we are from non English-speaking world. We already have Youngjae's wiki page in such languages or even in EU, you might think that is enough. But for other, non-native people, it is hard to read those pages even if they use Google Translation Function which is in progress. K-POP has been popular and spreading to the world recently, there is certainly the need for Youngjae's page from the English-speaking world as well as non English-speaking world. That is the reason why we need the Youngjae's English page. Please reveiw it again.Piano coffee (talk) 09:18, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Piano coffee - In reviewing the GOT7 article again, I see that the approach taken has been to give each of the members of the group an article, and that five of them do have articles. So I think that I agree that Youngjae should also have an article.
 * I don't understand the issue about counterfeit sources. I didn't state that concern.  Where was it stated?  If I didn't state it, discussing it with me seems like a straw man.  I am aware that sources can be in any language if they are reliable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your response, but I still don't understand which sentences or references you regard as the reason of decline from your answer. Not "that is, they do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject (see the guidelines on the notability of music-related topics). ", or " I am aware that sources can be in any language if they are reliable. " = counterfeit, I thought so. A straw man? I don't know how come from the lines above, I don't want to mess your place with a word game. Actually which sentence should we modify or delete? Please indicate them if you are not a straw man.Piano coffee (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I still do not entirely understand your concerns. I declined the draft because I did not think that there was enough information about Youngjae to justify a stand-alone article.  The templates state standard Wikipedia policy on sources.  I did not have any specific concern about sources, but about the amount of coverage and the need for a separate article.  Did you notice above that I then said that if five of the members of the group have their own articles, I agreed that it would be appropriate to have an article for Youngjae?  I agreed that a separate article for Youngjae would be a good idea.  Did you understand that?  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I never referred to counterfeit sources. I don't know why you mentioned counterfeit sources.  I did refer to reliable sources, and I said that reliable sources can be in English or in any language (which includes Korean, Chinese, and Japanese).  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * If you still do not understand, maybe you should consider editing another language version of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Once again, I agreed that a separate article for Youngjae would be a good idea. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:19, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, now I understand what you mean. I thought you were worrying about the sources as well, as it is written in the template. I had explained why we need English version already. Please let me know how to resubmit the draft, as there is such sentence "Please note that if the issues are not fixed, the draft will be rejected again." on the top part of the draft. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piano coffee (talk • contribs) 03:30, 13 September 2018 (UTC) Do we have to wait about 2 months again? Piano coffee (talk) 03:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC) I really appreciate you accepted the draft. I am very glad and other volunteers would be happy to hear this news. Now that this page is in public, many other volunteers will come and help improving this article. Piano coffee (talk) 06:11, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hello
I’m Ronaldo 3455 and you accepted two of my drafts, but I created more drafts that maybe you must see. The drafts of Dillon Francis new album I created it about one month ago. Ronaldo3455 (talk) 22:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Wut_Wut
I also created this draft: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:One_In_A_Million_(Matoma_Album) Ronaldo3455 (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2018 (UTC)


 * User:Ronaldo3455 That points me to the mobile version, which is hard to read from a real computer, just as the regular version is hard to read from a smartphone. I went to the main version.  Please resubmit it after the album is released, providing reviews and chart figures.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Charles Chupp
Hello Robert,

I read you comments and have made a few changes with some help from another editor on wikipedia-en-help discussion board. I am not exactly certain what you thought was unnecessary personal details. I got a few suggestions on the board, and have incorporated them. Please point me to the troublesome text if you still find it unsatisfactory.

Thanks, Steve — Preceding unsigned comment added by Swjewell (talk • contribs) 16:45, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Swjewell - The draft in question is Draft:Charles E. Chupp. The draft says more about his early life than about his works.  Some of the discussion of his early life could be shortened.  Also, there should be more coverage of the reception of his books, such as sales figures or reviews.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I said that I was leaving the draft for another reviewer. If you want to discuss it further, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:24, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 13:12:36, 14 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhi301292
Abhi301292 (talk) 13:12, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi can you please let me know can if i can merge the content in shivoham shiva temple? as in old shivoham siva temple wiki very incomplete info is present on the wiki page.
 * User:Abhi301292 - I see that you replaced the stub with the information in your draft.  While some of the draft is good, it also contains unacceptable language, such as "most powerful Shiva statue".  Discuss your additions rather than just editing wildly.  If you need help, ask for help.  If you are having difficulty with English, ask for help or edit the Wikipedia in your first language.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:19:45, 14 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Car.cin
Dear Reviewer,

thank you for the time you spent in checking the Wikipedia article that I wrote. I would like to ask you some help to modify properly the article (I am new in Wikipedia).

I agree with you that the title has to be changed; indeed, the title I have chosen reads "Stochastic models for turbulent flow simulations". Because of a technical mistake, I did not change the title before the submission. Can I rename the article without exit from the review process already started?


 * User:Car.cin - You can rename the draft by moving it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

I tried to write in a neutral style and to give a short overview of a complex subject. I did not clearly understand your comment about the writing style: you notice that it is written in a style that tends to instruct rather than describe. In my point of view, the difference between describing and instructing is not so neat; what do you suggest to make it more descriptive and less instructive?

Thank you in advance for your help and time. Best,--Car.cin (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)


 * Compare to how other technical articles are written. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Car.cin (talk) 14:19, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

G11
Hi Robert, I've noticed that you've been tagging some user talk pages like User talk:TulipBlack for G11, presumably though inadvertent transclusion by a script copying from the actual promo page. Not a big deal, but if you could check for this it would avoid the talk page appearing at CSD. Keep up the good work Jimfbleak - talk to me?  06:49, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Jimfbleak I see the mistake. It comes from using the AFCH script tool to enter the db-g11 in the comments in a page.  This causes that comment to be inserted both into the page and into the user talk page.  I will avoid doing that in the future.   I will separately tag the file using Twinkle, rather than using the AFCH tool to through-tag it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 11:23:47, 15 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Abhi301292
Abhi301292 (talk) 11:23, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi please help me in getting the Wikipedia page done for the shivoham shiva temple i can give the the draft and you can change whatever you feel its wrong but please help me in getting wikipedia page created for Shivoham Shiva Temple. i am very new to on this platform. Please help
 * User:Abhi301292 - Are you in any way affiliated with the temple? If so, please read the conflict of interest policy.  If you are having difficulty editing in English, you may edit the version of Wikipedia that is in your first language.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi I am not associated with this temple in any way. That's why I am trying to edit the wiki page of shivoham shiva temple beacuse the no information are there on that page only one sentence is there about the temple. my content is not getting approved someone is reviewing and removing that how can someone from outside the country can review it as he will not having enough info. we know better than the people who are not living. so i need to publish the correct info about any places so that the general public should not suffer due to lack of information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhi301292 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Jon Doscher
Hi Robert

Thank you for the review. It is my intention to resubmit this article and I have taken your advice to remove the photo caption and the peacock terms. As you are not doubt already aware Jon Doscher is a filmmaker and had a Wikipedia article from April 2010 to its deletion in March of this year -. He came seeking my help to have the article reinstated because his current article only redirects to 4Chosen: The Documentary. I have rewritten and re-referenced the present draft.

I would appreciate any further help you could offer with my re-submission of this article. Gibmul (talk) 15:44, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Gibmul - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and I am not inclined to make an exception for a paid editor.  I have a very negative opinion of paid editing, and will avoid giving your draft a second review because I do not expect to be neutral.  The deletion discussion said that he was only notable for the documentary, and it appears from the article that he is only notable for the documentary.  If you think that the deletion discussion was improperly closed, you may request a review at deletion review.  If you want to persuade me or another reviewer that your draft is better than the deleted article, you can request that the deleted article be restored to your user space with a Request for Undeletion.  If you want other experienced editors to look at your draft, you may ask at the Teahouse.  I have re-reviewed the draft once and do not intend to review it again, but am definitely not neutral.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

A redirect recently created
Hello. I saw you accepted the submission Talk:Jeon_Jung-kook as a redirect for the moment, just yesterday I wrote to the creator because I also created a page for the same artist Draft:Jungkook and also submitted it so we were in discussion to work together to merge and improve the document just before hers was accepted. We both agree and also teahouse it's appropriate using his stage name instead of full name considering there's no other Jungkook on Wikipedia. I hope we can have some help in how to solve this. Have a nice day. ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 20:46, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Regarding KAVV
The article was semi-protected after more users editing on behalf of the radio station owner tried to remove that section of the article. I also reported one of those editors for making legal threats, and he was blocked. Another editor claiming to edit on behalf of the owner just turned up on my talk page, and I have directed him to your post on the article's talk page. Just thought I should keep you in the loop. EclipseDude (talk) 22:44, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Quick Dispute Resolution Question
How do I notify other parties of the dispute, and who do I have to notify? The party I had the dispute with was simply the listed editor, as all other editors have been behaving reasonably. LarryBoy79 (talk) 12:42, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:LarryBoy79 - Notify them on their talk pages. See the header page for details.  You may use the Twinkle 'tb' (talkback) function.  You may put the drn-notice template on the talk page for the purpose.  Notify all of the editors.  They may agree or disagree with you.  We want to let them know.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!

The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.


 * Project news
 * The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
 * As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.


 * There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See New pages patrol/Coordination for more info to see if you can help out.


 * Other
 * A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.


 * Moving to Draft and Page Mover
 * Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
 * If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
 * Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
 * The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
 * The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 05:44:36, 18 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Malikofori
I am aspiring to become a top wiki editor, I have created some articles in the future and I had gain some type of reputation. I recently created a wiki article on an artiste from Ghana and it was reviewed by you and wasn't accepted. Please I will need your help on what to do as I can assure you he is a notable artiste in Ghana. I have included additional references eg MTV, MTN, Genius etc to prove his notability. Please, I will like to resubmit for your humble review. Thanks

malikofori 05:44, 18 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:malikofori - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. However, I read the draft again.  I asked which of the musical notability criteria are satisfied.  If you resubmit, please answer that question, in a comment or on the talk page.  The overall tone is non-neutral.  It was written to praise its subject rather than describe him neutrally.  If you have further questions, please ask at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 07:31, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Request on 14:14:55, 19 September 2018 for assistance on AfC submission by Necamswiki
Hi Robert - You reviewed an article for Mitchell Goldhar, your comment was "there is already a stub". I thought the stub will be replaced by the updated article. Can I go to the current page and replace the contents with the updated full bio. thx

Hi Robert - Yes I have an affiliation with Mitchell Goldhar and SmartCentres. I work for smartCentres and I am IT for Mitch Goldhar. The bio is written by Mr. Goldhar. I did replace the whole contents before but it was rejected, can I do it now? I added full citations. Thx Hi Robert - what do I have to do for the bio to be updated? Thx (Necamswiki (talk) 19:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC))

Necamswiki (talk) 14:14, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Necamswiki - You were mistaken in thinking that AFC can be used to replace an existing article. Existing articles should be edited, not replaced.  If you go to the stub Mitchell Goldhar and replace it entirely with your draft, you are likely to be reverted, because you should discuss your improvements section by section.  If you discuss section by section, you are more likely to get what you want.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Necamswiki - Do you have an affiliation with Mitchell Goldhar or with SmartCentres? Your only edits are to Mitchell Goldhar and to the talk pages of reviewers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Robert: is this ok to add the following on the top page {Connected contributor | User1 = Necamwiki | U1-EH = yes | U1-declared = yes }? I work for smartcentres, I don't get paid to write the content. I am an IT at smartcentres. The content is written by Mr. Goldhar himself. Do I have to add the COI for paid?(Necamswiki (talk) 17:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC))
 * User:Necams2wiki - You are a paid editor if you are submitting this in the course of your employment. Yes, a properly completed COI template will satisfy the requirement.  As I said, you should discuss your edits on the talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 25 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Robert McClenon - I start on talk page. (Necamswiki (talk) 19:00, 25 September 2018 (UTC))

Please comment on Template talk:Death year and age
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Template talk:Death year and age. Legobot (talk) 04:27, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Submission Draft: Jungkook
Hello, good afternoon. Thank you for reviewing draft:Jungkook, i read it was declined because of lack of activities outside the group. He has already participated in solo activities working on television as host, he participated in the presidential project for One Korea, song that has been center in the recent inter korean summit, besides he has credits as producer and co-directed a special show for the channel Mnet in Korea. He has plenty of activities solo, besides his recent song is the first solo korean song by a solo artist in charting in countries like Malaysia, UK and Japan.

There are important events happening with him, I wish I could have some guidance on how to make possible for him to have a wiki article were the general public can find about his activities because it's information the band's page doesn't have. I would really appreciate some advice because it's really frustrating as new creator, thank you so much. ↳ GiovannaG . . . (My talk) 21:09, 27 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:GiovannaG - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. You may ask for advice at the Teahouse.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Clarification regarding Draft:Dgraph
Quote: "Your only edits have been about Dgraph. Are you affiliated with the vendor of the product? Please read the conflict of interest policy and make any required declarations. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:17, 29 September 2018 (UTC)"

Answer: I've previously edited some articles, and created one in PT-BR called "Criptomoedas". But I used another name (old one, "kgbmichel"), I asked the Wikipedia staff to change my name. Maybe my records got lost with it.

I am not affiliated and do not provide the product. Dgraph is an Open Source project and it's free. To which I am part of the open source community. I see there are many proprietary software that has not been asked about it. I practically mimicked the others to not be too different. If I need to make any further enlightenment, let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MichelDiz (talk • contribs) 04:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Supergirl (season 2)
I've expanded the article somewhat since you last assessed. Can you please re-assess now? Besides, I'm not aiming for FL; but if it is in the mainspace, others will feel compelled to expand it further since drafts are not visible to all users. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  16:29, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kailash29792 - First, I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and I did not say that I would follow your draft through the approval process, and the banner at the top of this page says that I will not normally follow your draft through the approval process. Second, I didn't say to improve the draft and resubmit it for my review.  I said that you were proposing to split Season 2 from the main article, and to discuss on the main article talk page.  Did you do that?  What did the other editors say at the main article talk page? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:11, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Okay, sorry for the misassumption. But can I try bringing Supergirl season 2 to the mainspace using G6? Because once the draft enters the mainspace, the episodes listed under List of Supergirl episodes will be cut-pasted rather than copied. In that way, chunks of data on List of Supergirl episodes will be reduced. -- Kailash29792 (talk)  05:57, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kailash29792 - If you are asking whether you can move the list of episodes from draft space into article space via a G6, which is for non-controversial moves and other housekeeping, then please re-read my advice a second and third time. This might be a non-controversial move, or it might be a contentious move.  It should be discussed.  Please stop asking me to help you game the system in order to split the article without discussion.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:07, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've already posted a few comments at Talk:List of Supergirl episodes. I can only hope they are responded to, and agreed with. already agrees that it is worth entering the mainspace; he and I didn't conspire, I just asked him to help further expand, and he said it already looks good enough to go to mainspace. Kailash29792  (talk)  06:23, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I approve of the Supergirl (season 2) draft because I compared it to similar articles within the Arrowverse and it has more content. I agree that many more editors will be likely to contribute once it enters the mainspace. Matt14451 (talk) 09:21, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * User:Kailash29792, User:Matt14451 - I didn't ask to have a discussion of whether to accept Season 2 on my talk page. I asked to have discussion on the article talk page.  I am closing this thread.  Go back to the article talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 10:27, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
 * Please note that is aware that there is disagreement between multiple editors on the article being moved to the mainspace; these unmentioned requests seem rather bad faith of them, and they need to learn from the editor agreement. --  Alex TW 4:09 pm, Today (UTC+9.5)