User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 40

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Adolf Eichmann&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Massive Attack&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:John Rose (Tennessee politician)&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Peng Shuai&#32; on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 20:30, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:American Revolutionary War&#32; on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:James E. Scobey
Dear, I had been advised by Bkissin to connect with someone who has experience in dealing with FloridaArmy's submissions. So, I'm reaching out for this following draft - Draft:James E. Scobey. Kindly assist. -Hatchens (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * - This is like some other submissions for FloridaArmy. My thinking may be a little eccentric here, but it is that there is very little harm in accepting questionable nineteenth-century stubs.  We need to avoid accepting marginal twenty-first century articles because someone is trying to use Wikipedia for promotion.  No one gets a self-serving benefit from questionable nineteenth-century stubs.  The worst possible outcomes are (1) that the stub shouldn't be in Wikipedia and stays here; (2) that the stub shouldn't be in Wikipedia and gets deleted in an AFD.  How much harm does either of these do?  Not much harm if any.  The real harm is in allowing Wikipedia to be used for self-serving purposes, and that doesn't apply here.  (The harm in really crummy stubs is that they set an example for having really crummy stubs in more current stuff.  This isn't a really crummy stub.)
 * In the twenty-first century, anyway, it is only athletes that we get non-notable stubs. What we get on non-notable businesspeople, entertainers, and corporations are long puff pieces.
 * You asked. That's sort of an answer or sort of a non-answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon: Thank you Robert! I second you. Just updated the draft. Could you have a look at it? - Hatchens (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Hatchens, User:Bkissin, User:Theroadislong, User:FloridaArmy - Accepted. Any more edits can be done in article space.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I accept most of Florida Army's drafts, though some are very poor quality, when I declined this one here it showed no evidence of notability, it has since been greatly improved. Theroadislong (talk) 16:26, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that we are all saying more or less the same thing differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
 * @Robert McClenon, @Theroadislong: I'll try to help and update this kind of draft. But, oversight is a must from guys like you. Also, let me admit, I can't keep up a pace with FloridaArmy's draft submission speed. - Hatchens (talk) 03:41, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to ping me with any southeast USA drafts or really anything historical. FloridaArmy usually pings me on them as well, but always happy for a reminder. Like @Robert McClenon I feel there's little harm in accepting these. FA has usually done the research, they just need cleanup. Star   Mississippi  17:51, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I typically only see them when they turn up in a maintenance category that I check, especially if they have the same title as existing articles (which either means that they need disambiguating, or that there is a redirect that may or may not be relevant). I usually either ignore them or accept them, and we will continue to do as we do.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Wrong link
I took the liberty of changing your link to WP:CPOV at Village Pump (policy) to WP:CPP, assuming it to be an error []. If CPOV was actually what you intended, my apologies. Harold the Sheep (talk) 07:20, 28 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Harold the Sheep - Argh. You were right, but the abbreviation is wrong.  There is nothing we can do about it other than recognize that there is a wrong confusing abbreviation.  Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Copy and paste of Draft:2020–21 Bahraini Premier League
I see you requested a merge of page history because the article was a "copy-paste" of the draft. It seems you are mistaken because I created the article from the 2019 one, as I did not even know there was a draft for this. You can tell by the differences between the draft and the article. The article has a results table, the draft doesn't. Some template things are reworded or re-moved which wouldn't make sense if it was copy-pasted. The goalscorers in the goalscoring table are ordered slightly differently, and there are different statuses used for the table, and speaking of the table all the teams are reorganized completely differently. The lede is different and the article has more information on the infobox. Also, the article has the relegation play-offs, while the draft doesn't even mention it. What really happened was I just wanted to create every red link on the Template:2021 in Asian football (AFC) (which I have created 5 already). I was not aware that there was already a draft and I just used the 2019–20 Bahraini Premier League and replaced it with correct information. Another proof for this is I also made the 2021–22 Bahraini Premier League which I also made from the 2019 one, and there is no 2021–22 draft. Thanks for reading and I hope you understand. Thanks, Mwiqdoh (talk) 21:15, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

gosh, why aren't you an admin yet
Thank you a million times over for your smoothing over of my rocky moderation at DRN, and apologies for suddenly disappearing from it when the new RfC started. I'm beginning to think DRN isn't for me. casualdejekyll 02:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Casualdejekyll - I don't think that you really failed, so much as you tried to take on an oversized dispute. We appreciate your involvement, and maybe it would be better if you take small disputes.  This one was and is already outsized.  By the way, there is a discussion at Village Pump about long-running difficult disputes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Brickellia mosieri
Delete made per your request pending move from draftspace -- Tawker (talk) 02:53, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Requested draft
Hi, Can we review the drafted article upon request placed on our talk page? Fade258 (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

new Sayer School DRN case
I would really love to hear your opinion. I closed then realized it was an Admin involved so I've rolledback my edits and I'm just perplexed at this point. Nightenbelle (talk) 18:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Social Darwinism&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 02:30, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Kosovo&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Lee Soon-ok&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 19:30, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Redirect&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:31, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Azov Battalion&#32; on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)&#32; on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:30, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The Italian Political DRN and DRN in general
First of all, Thank you for attempting to tackle that behemoth. I think it was insurmountable. I'm sorry I kept popping in and out. I think part of the failure of that DRN should be on those of us who were on the periphery and just couldn't stick it out with the two central players. You did a heroic job attempting to organize chaos.

I'm sorry that my participation at the DRN is spotty at best. You do so much there, its like you are a one human show there- and its appreciated. I hope you know what an incredible difference you make on WP, and how much better this project is because of your contributions. So thank you. Nightenbelle (talk) 14:08, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Nightenbelle - Thank you for your work at DRN. Also, your involvement in the Italian political parties case did not do any harm.  I had been thinking of trying to close the case as a general close, but then both editors said that multiple rounds of RFCs would be required, and one of them wanted to change the RFC after it was running.  By the way, there is now discussion at Village Pump about long-running content disputes.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally don't think there is any inherent failure of DRN in general but that as it currently is it works best as one feature of a dispute resolution system - a system that doesn't currently exist. casualdejekyll  16:18, 2 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Casualdejekyll - I mostly agree, in particular with your concern that we don't really have a dispute resolution system, although we have a few dispute resolution procedures including DRN. I started a discussion of dispute resolution for long-running content disputes at Village Pump.  I opened the discussion partly because I wasn't sure what to say to the principals in the Italian political parties case, and I still am not sure, except that I am finished with the case and so don't plan to say anything more.  If you have any comments or suggestions, they will be welcome at Village Pump.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:12, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Nightenbelle's sentiment here. Some whales you can't catch but it doesn't hurt any less when you don't. Thanks for giving this one your best effort. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 04:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Detective Conan: The Bride of Halloween
Hi, Robert McClenon,

I've been waiting on a review for quite a while on a draft for 2022 anime movie Detective Conan: The Bride of Halloween, so I do want to thank you for being the first to review it. The movie was released on april 15 2022 and I think the draft need to be an article. Please look that draft and review it. Gellerman (talk) 21:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Sonja Lang
Hi @Robert McClenon! I noticed that you marked this draft as under review. Are you still looking at it? Cheers! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him &#124; talk) 03:23, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:EpicPupper - Oops. I forget why I had marked it under review.  I have unmarked it.  I will look at it again soon, but you can deal with it now.  I apologize for overlooking that I had marked it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 06:14, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

ANI notice
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding List of political parties in Italy. The thread is Disruption_of_consensus_building_process_on_List_of_political_parties_in_Italy. Thank you. — Ixtal ( T / C ) &#8258; Join WP:FINANCE! 12:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks
for. I had been trying to come up with a better explanation, but it seemed that you were saying that Celestina had access to some kind of black magic, which has overtones of racism. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * USER:Phil Bridger See her talk page for her explanation. So I was relying on her words.  But now the whole thing makes no sense.  More when at real computer, maybe.

McClenon mobile (talk) 20:42, 8 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Phil Bridger - If you have read her talk page, she really is claiming to have an unusual mode of perception, which really does seem like magic to muggles. I believe her when she says that she has access to an unusual mode of perception.  I believe that part of what she has written.  I don't believe what she is saying about a tool.  I don't know whether she has completely made that up, or whether she is exaggerating or distorting.  In any case, I think that, with regard to the tool, she is trying to intimidate bad-faith editors, and may have gotten caught in her own web, but I don't know what to believe.  I believe what she is saying about being able to infer from writing in a way that seems magical, but I am no longer sure how much to believe.  And race has nothing to do with it; people of any race can have strange talents or strange modes of perception, and most people of any race don't.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

RE: merging Draft:ARPA-H with new article I made
See my comment on Talk:Advanced Research Projects Agency for Health. Thanks for your help. The draft can be removed, I believe. Danski14(talk) 12:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

UPE proposal
Thank thou Robert, I had already posted at WP:VPR, where your contribution, criticism, modification, counter proposal etc will be more than welcome 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 20:05, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

UPE formalisation
Hello. A discussion is going on at User talk:Scope creep, and WP:VPR, although the latter doesnt look so good. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:usernamekiran, User:Timtrent - That is why I was trying to get thoughts at the Idea Lab first. I am concerned that a poorly thought out idea at Proposals may have derailed the subject for a few months or so.  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)
 * You are correct, of course. I had not heard of Idea Lab previously, and I had already pulled the trigger. It amazes me that people are so literal minded that they do not modify what they see as a poor proposal to make it become a good one. But that is Wikipedia 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 05:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Timtrent - How do you think it could be modified, without becoming an entirely different proposal than you offered? WP:VPR says it is for specific proposals, and your proposal was for a new group of trusted privileged editors.  It says at the top of VPR that if your idea needs workshopping, to go to the Idea Lab first.  VPR says that proposals should be specific; that is why the editors were literal-minded.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Patently I am in error 🇺🇦 Fiddle Timtrent  Faddle Talk to me 🇺🇦 04:54, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that the discussion at Idea Lab is fizzling out. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Innovation Endeavors
Hi Robert, nice to meet you. Thanks for reviewing my draft for Innovation Endeavors. You mentioned reaching out for advice at the Teahouse- I've actually been receiving extensive guidance (and constructive criticism) from the moment I created my account (you can find those discussions on my Talk page, if you're interested). Since then I have collaborated with several experienced editors and admins who have made significant changes to the draft, and following their conclusions on the draft's Talk page, I submitted it. I was wondering if you saw their comments re the company's notability and if you have any further feedback on how the draft can be improved? Thanks again for your help with this, AJ at Innovation Endeavors (talk) 21:41, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

RFC request for Articles of Confederation
Would you be willing to moderate/host a RFC for the Articles of Confederation? The question and text would be exactly the same as the one for the Continental Association, with the names switched out. I won't comment on the issues, except to say they're almost exactly the same as well. and -- Allreet (talk) 20:07, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Allreet - Yes, but I will add language that I forgot to add last time about not commenting in the Survey.
 * I am about to request formal closure on the Continental Association.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:48, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Please add my request for a three-editor panel close, thanks. No comments even to correct misinformation? Please mention in your attempt to cancel the signers of the Articles of Confederation as founders (seriously? maybe think a little about signing onto this one - the Articles of Confederation! What are you doing?) that Allreet is asking you to spearhead this large escalation. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:32, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Randy Kryn - Correcting misinformation in the Survey inevitably leads to back-and-forth, and distracts from the Survey. I will modify the close request to request three closers.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Please realize that this new RfC is all your and Allreet's idea, it was not formed or agreed upon in the dispute discussion. This will be Allreet's fifth recent RfC on America's founding. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

draft: bear's paw, Disambiguated Title
You said my title was Disambiguated but I haven't had my acc for 4 days yet so i wasn't even the one who named it that. If you can, can you change it to " Bear's Paw Galaxy" Thanks, Nolan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nolan Ryfa (talk • contribs) 00:08, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noting for future use: The title was ambiguated, not disambiguated, as Robert said it was. The way to fix it was to disambiguate it. casualdejekyll  00:16, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, ok. Nolan Ryfa (talk) 00:36, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Nolan Ryfa, User:Casualdejekyll - You are both partly right, and one of you is wrong. The template that I applied that says that a disambiguation page is needed itself needed to have its wording corrected, to say that the title either has been disambiguated or will need to be disambiguated.  Changing the title to Bear's Paw Galaxy was correct.  However, User:Nolan Ryfa, you removed the record of the previous decline by Theroadislong prior to resubmitting the draft.  The record of the decline says not to remove this record.  Why did you remove it?  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:07, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * sry i didnt know i removed it. How do i put it back? Nolan Ryfa (talk) 02:27, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability
Hello Robert!

I'd appreciate it if you could check out Ojivolta's talk page. Just in case you didn't get my ping! Mooonswimmer 08:42, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Itzy member Chaeryeong
To answer your question, no, she isn't considered to be individually notable. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 20:50, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Btspurplegalaxy - Then she shouldn't have an article. A reviewer will make the decision.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 15 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It likely won't pass. Someone just made the draft, not knowing the notability guidelines. Btspurplegalaxy 🗩 🖉 21:04, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 16:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)&#32; on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 05:30, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom as a better way to handle disputes
FWIW, seeing the aftermath of the AfD request, where the community did reach a decision in that thread but then failed to take any sort of comprehensive view that meant there were several acrimonious follow-up threads has evolved my thinking on the matter. The problem is that I think you're right that I'm in a minority of arbs here and that even with my revised thinking it's a really hard needle to thread. Arguably by the time the Celestina case request came to ArbCom the "damage had been done". But if it's requested too early then it's not clear that it's going to be the kind of discussion that the structure of ArbCom would handle better. Bottomline is I think ArbCom is an underutilized asset in the community decision making but even if there were more arb support - and here I would be hopeful that such support would grow over time with persuasion - I'm not sure how to actually help the community make better use of it given that we are reliant on the community to file in the first place. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * , it's a question of what is worse: an Arbcom that is elected from barely enough candidates to fill the seats so whoever they are, most of them will get in, or the unruly, unelected mob of wannabe governance obsessives at ANI. The Celestina case was an ANI exception, it was a horrendously long mess with many long, tl;dr speeches from otherwise respected members of the community, but at least the peanut gallery stayed largely away. There is room for improvement in both processes. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh there's plenty of improvement for ArbCom, no question about that. But that's not really what the question is about. As you note there are plusses and minuses to ArbCom and to ANI. The question is when there are more pluses for ArbCom than ANI, is it possible to use ArbCom more often? In theory I'd like the answer to be yes as I think Robert does but not all Arbs agree (or rather for some arbs the plus of community decision making outweighs any of the minuses). So even if there was support for the concept I'm not sure how it would work in reality. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally I would support Robert if he chose to run in ACE2022, but from what I know of him I think he's unlikely to run. He's been carrying DRN year after year and clearly has experience with arbitrating. casualdejekyll  14:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to run for RFA?
Robert McClenon, you're an obvious candidate for someone who should be an admin, given your high level of experience in many areas of Wikipedia, such as dispute resolution, content reviewing, and other mesopedian work. You also are quite helpful to many editors, and you display high levels of civility. Why not consider running for adminship at some point? 2601:647:5800:1A1F:AC77:9836:F360:B403 (talk) 22:39, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I concur with the IP. I even tried to put you up once but got stopped before I messed anything up. casualdejekyll 14:15, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * RFA depends partly on who is nominating the candidate. I don't want to run with the backing of IP editors.  (I think that the English Wikipedia should follow the lead of the Portuguese Wikipedia, but that is only my opinion.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Certainly I think you are a benefit to the wiki both with or without the tools, but certainly I would vote for you at RfA. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 16:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Reply to User:Barkeep49 and User:Kudpung and User:Dreamy Jazz
I have a few thoughts in response.

First, at this point, I am now thinking that running for Arb is not a bad idea. The ArbCom election, unlike RFA, is not a toxic process, and is not likely to be dominated either by a few enemies or by editors who basically would prefer that Wikipedia be an anarchy.

Second, my thinking is that conduct disputes should be sent by the community to ArbCom or taken up by ArbCom for various reasons, including if the history of the dispute is lengthy and complex. Many of the community editors in such a dispute may have strong opinions, and only a few of them are probably familiar with all of historical details. However, it may not be apparent on first glance which of two editors was more guilty of conduct violations such as stonewalling, filibustering, casting aspersions, or sealioning. ArbCom, who has been entrusted with the duty of reading the history, may determine that one editor should be only be given a 1RR restriction and the other editor should be topic-banned.

Third, I have previously stated, and will state again, that when an editor has a block log that is half a page long, ArbCom should determine whether the editor is a net negative, or whether the editor simply needs the periodic timeouts, or whether the editor is being baited, in which the baiters should also be sanctioned.

Fourth, community decision-making works well with trolls, flamers, and other semi-obvious misconduct. (Vandals don't even normally get sanctioned by the community because they simply get indeffed by a single admin, and everyone else agrees.) It isn't effective for the less obvious types of conduct that I listed above, because the community does not have the time to read the history and should not be expected to read the history. I think that this is one of the reasons why civil POV pushing is such a persistent problem.

I may have more comments shortly, but that is it for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2022 (UTC)


 * , Arbcom elections certainly can be toxic. They are not free either of questions from trolls and silly newbs trying to be clever. However, an Arbcom election is possibly not as public as an RfA until actual voting time when IMO a lot of people just go through the list and check the names of users who look familiar, have helped them in the past, or pissed them off. That's why I think voter guides are useful and why I always write one. I also think it will always be unikely that a non admin will obtain an Arbcom seat - unless of course they make up the majority of the available candidates. Now that would really be something I would like to see. BTW, one of the violations Robert omitted to mention was Gaslighting.
 * I think my overall position on ANI vs Arbcom is clear. An independent paper was commissioned on ANI by the WMF some years ago and the summary was that it was not a particularly successful process. I believe that the only participants should be the plaintiiff, the accused, and admins, with a non involved admin doing the closing. This might invite more admin participation than just the regulars such as Beeblebrox and Drmies. If Arbcom is to be improved, then it must be instilled upon the members that they do more than just tally up the numbers of those who come to the public gallery just to pile on, and that they do some real due diligence and background research into the veracity of the claims of those salivating for sanctions - history has proven that a lot of it is vengeance, even among Arbcom's own number. Given that Arbcom has far fewer members than the Wikipedia has admins, it is sad to note that a surprising number of former arbs have left the committee under a cloud.
 * That said, the 2021 line up appears to be the most equitable for a long time, but they haven't really had any cases yet that show what they can do. Never having been on Arbcom, it's hard to appreciate the workload, but there are plenty of Arbs who say the routine non-public work takes up a lot of time; if Arbcom is indeed underused, it should nevertheless not become a surrogate for the deprecated RFCU.
 * I've run for Arbcom a couple of times. I never expected to win a seat. I was just really there to make up the numbers and see which trolls and those with an axe to grind would creep out of the woodwork. As it happens, I didn't actually do too badly, but there are never enough candidates in the running. IN the worst case scenario it could be like a Formula 1 race with only 3 cars - every driver would have a place on the podium and spraying the champers, the likes of Pastors Theo and Oluwa2Chainz among them.
 * I won't name any names, but it's often very difficult to get rid of some of the nastiest users, especially if they are responsible for the provision of a lot of featured content. A court of law rarely takes mitigating 'do-gooding' into account and once guilty, a convict gets thrown into Belmarsh with the rest of the hardened criminals. Even respected admins have lost their tools for undoing Arbcom blocks of such users. OTOH Arbcom has a habit of defrocking useful admins who really should be councelled and just get a slap on the wrist.
 * My position on IP editing should also be clear enough by now (or was while I was still active): I will vote for anyone who is running in a platform of abolishment of it. But while that has relatively little to do with the structures of ANI and Arbcom, it would certainly reduce the workload of both systems. Reforms are required in various places - along with a relaxation for example, of the expiry date of CU data. Such reforms can only  come from  the community but  it is a distinct advantage when among  those leading  the proposals for change are highly regarded and trusted users even if their BARC is occasionally worse than their bite. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I would agree that many editors see RfA as a pre-requisite to ArbCom. I personally do not care whether the person has the tools and I want to see non-admins on ArbCom. There are some parts of the admin toolkit (such as looking at deleted content) that may be useful for a non-admin ArbCom member. Perhaps an extra user group could be created to grant the viewing of deleted pages to ArbCom members who are not admins. Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:13, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Assuming the Arb took Oversight (and I suggest you can't be an effective arb without taking CUOS) they would get access to "deleted content". Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Robert, I think you've long had a well-developed philosophy around ArbCom and you obviously employ that philosophy when providing comments at case requests. I don't agree with it all but that doesn't matter because the whole idea of ArbCom is to have a diversity of viewpoints. I suspect that you might find some elements of the philosophy would evolve should you ever become an arb as the realities of doing the work changes people. I've long thought that in the right conditions a non-admin candidate could get elected. I think the candidate who'd have the best chance would be one who had never tried RfA but I think the second best chance would be someone with your general profile. If you decide to run again I will look forward to reading what you have to say during the election. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Someone who never tried RfA ran last time and got the worst turnout, which I hope is not a bad sign for Robert. casualdejekyll  16:58, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Happy to see you're considering this, Robert. Whenever I think who the committee needs, you're the first person that comes to mind. –&#8239;Joe (talk) 09:25, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Robert, you are in an interesting position. If you were to run at RfA again and it failed again, it would not look good if you were to run at ACE. OTOH, a non admin with your long experience of Wikipedia's back office might make a welcome change on the Committee. If you don't do an RfA and decide to run at ACE, it would arouse curiosity to read what you have to say there and what the results of the election might look like. If Arbcom is your bent (and it appears very much to be), nothing ventured, nothing gained. But I'm not telling you anything you don't know already. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:26, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:18, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Ca' d'Oro&#32; on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 14:31, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Closed discussion as requested
Hi Robert, and thanks for your requested closure at WP:ANRFC. The discussion, Talk:Founding Fathers of the United States, was closed by two other users and me. We neglected to ping you right after the close, so please take this as a belated notice. Thanks again, Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:27, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draftification of Marine resources
Hi Robert. I hope you are well. I'm feeling compelled to share some feedback on your recent draftification of Marine resources:
 * It is a good idea to check for incoming links before draftifying an article. Your move created redlinks in 27 articles.
 * I don't know how any editor could understand how to address a rejection that consists entirely of "This is a dictionary definition", especially considering that the article didn't cite or quote from any dictionaries. The sole source in the article was a United Nations General Assembly resolution. The United Nations General Assembly isn't a dictionary.
 * When the topic of an article is literally "all the useful stuff contained in something that covers 70% of the surface of the Earth", it is notable. I can't believe I have to say this. I hope I don't see page moves like this again. Best wishes, Clayoquot (talk &#124; contribs) 05:27, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Why are you telling AFC submitters they can end up with partial blocks. That's incredibly hostile.
Sentback is ... bad advice and WP:BITEY. We should not being doing that. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:38, 27 May 2022 (UTC)


 * If used correctly and with discretion, it's perfectly legitimate. I can think of a dozen recent cases where I might well have used it. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 08:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Headbomb - I have removed some of the wording from the template. It doesn't change the fact that tendentious moving of a page back into article space should result in a partial block.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That can be address when the time comes, but the warning 'Do not resubmit this draft without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer.' should cover that without being bitey. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 23:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends whom one is warning. As I said: If used correctly and with discretion, it's perfectly legitimate. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I said, I have reworded it so that, as requested by Headbomb, it says not to resubmit without addressing the comments of the previous reviewer. There are other stronger warnings that can be used for tendentious editors.  Also, what is incredibly hostile is the way some editors either insist on submitting a draft repeatedly or move a draft to article space repeatedly.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Rumel_Ahmed
I would like to request the undeletion of this draft deleted under CSD G5. Please restore the page so that I can make edits to it.https://g.co/kgs/bn2QQZ Thank you. "Publish changes" button below —103.124.250.164 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC) 103.124.250.164 (talk) 16:57, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Italian Social Movement&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 22:30, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Bihari Rajput&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 11:31, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:FIBA Men's World Ranking&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 04:30, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:1922 Women's World Games&#32; on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 13:30, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Elissa Auther


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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 16:55, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Liz - At least this time it doesn't tell me, uselessly, that it is about to be deleted. Now it is only telling me uselessly that something I probably only ever moved from a sandbox to draft space has been deleted.  I do notice that no one else was notified of the deletion, but it had been someone else's sandbox.  I see that blocked sockpuppets are also getting these useless notices.  Oh well.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Deletion of the Romanian Brazilians pae
Deletion of Romanian Brazilian page. Hello i'm here to say that my page is unlinked and different from the previously deleted page that bare the same name, i had no idea before i created the page that a similar page got deleted but mine cites sources that are used in other pages such as the romania-brazil relations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vladdy Daddy Silly (talk • contribs) 23:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Scott Beaumont
Scott Beaumont New draft entry – please could you let me know how to solve the problem? He is not the sportsman. 84.71.59.249 (talk) 15:14, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Gehad Hamdy
Thanks. It's a sock mess. I'm sure we'll see the copy pasta back again soon sadly. Star  Mississippi  17:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Star Mississippi - You made an ambiguous remark about if a neutral AFC reviewer thought there was any merit to the draft. I saw the usual demerit to the draft.  After the draft is deleted, another sock will come and create a new version, as you said.  AFC reviewers may either just decline the draft as not meeting notability, or notice that the title is salted, and reject the draft, and report another sock.  I won't discuss the beans.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I responded at the SPI. I'm hoping Girth puts us out of our misery if they concur with the report. I'm tired of whack a mole to be honest, but leave it to others in case they prefer the sock catcher. Star   Mississippi  23:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft review request
I have two drafts, can you please review? Anything else to improve for now? Draft:Lubna Marium and Draft:Ziaul Hoque Polash these two draft.--Ayatul nish (talk) 19:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Twinkle notices
Hello, Robert,

I saw your message at Twinkle Talk about unwanted notifications of CSD G13s that resulted from redirects that you created after moving a page, which were later turned into draft articles by other editors. This exact thing just happened a few minutes ago with Draft:Jakir Hossain where you were listed as the page creator. Since I'm the admin who does leave talk page notices when deleting stale drafts, it is easier to change my behavior than Twinkle's so I'll just uncheck the box that says "Notify page creator" when I see your name at the bottom of a page history. I might make a mistake or two but I'll try not to annoy you with those unwanted notifications. Thanks. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 21:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Liz - They don't really annoy me, so much as give me something to ridicule. But if you can turn off the stupid notices, that is fine.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Charlie Bailey Disambiguation
Hello Robert,

Thank you for your feedback on the Draft:Charlie Bailey (Georgia Politician) page. In regards to the lack of a disambiguation page, I found one under the name Charles Bailey and was wondering if that would work? If so, I am curious if the way the Charlie Bailey page currently links to that disambiguation page is acceptable. Thanks again. LucilleAustero2 (talk) 18:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Lubna Marium
Dear, Robert McClenon Brother, how else can I prove that she is a notable person? Doesn't it prove that there are national and international news in his name? I am adding what I found in his name in Google. If this is not the case with Wikipedia, then how can I work on Wiki?--Ayatul nish (talk) 09:12, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Ayatul nish - Did you read what is displayed at the top of my talk page? If you have questions about drafts, please ask at the Teahouse.  I will also ask you what your association is with Lubna Marium.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * @User:Robert McClenon, Lubna Marium has nothing to do with me. I don't even know him personally. I saw some news on Google and saw that he is a significant person so I did Wikipedia.--Ayatul nish (talk) 16:39, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Lubna Marium - And you don't even know whether Lubna Marium is male or female. Not everyone whom  you find on Google is notable or significant.  But did you see my advice to ask at the Teahouse?  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)


 * There was a mistake in writing. She is a female dancer. Okay I ask the Teahouse how the draft can be improved.Ayatul nish (talk) 18:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Sendbox me
Hello, did you move my training page? What is the reason? I was completing the article.--Liyan baboo (talk) 06:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Liyan baboo - You had submitted the sandbox for review. If you have submitted the sandbox for review, it can be moved to draft space.  You may edit it in draft space.  It is at Draft:Amir Sarkhosh (2).  In the future, do not submit your sandbox for review while you are still working on it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Regarding declined submission
Hi, I saw that you recently declined the AfC submission at Draft:May 2022 Midwest derecho, I've contributed to this draft and I somewhat disagree with the reasoning. A derecho is a type of storm complex that will commonly produce tornadoes along with significant non-tornadic winds, so inclusion of the tornadoes is appropriate. Storm events are often multi-faceted in any case. This might be something to bring up at the talk page. If the tornadoes are a non-starter under that title, something more like Derecho and tornado outbreak of April 4–5, 2011 might be worth considering. TornadoLGS (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Review on Setopati
Hey, Setopati is top level news media of Nepal which is providing news in both English and Nepali language. Meropedia (talk) 02:18, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Thomas Downing (disambiguation) has been accepted
<div style="border:solid 1px #57DB1E; background:#E6FFE6; padding:1em; padding-top:0.5em; padding-bottom:0.5em; width:20em; color:black; margin-bottom: 1.5em; width: 90%;"> Thomas Downing (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

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=Thomas_Downing_(disambiguation) help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Robert McClenon (talk) 07:09, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

DRN Bot
I think our bot broke. *sad face* Nightenbelle (talk) 13:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Nightenbelle - Yes. It also stopped notifying users about drafts that are about to expire.  I notified the bot operator a few days ago, but I think that they are busy blocking spammers.  I just posted a note at the Bot Noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Camille Vasquez RfC
Hello, first of all, appreciate you for setting up the RfC. Just out of curiosity though, why did you decide to only ask about inclusion in the lead and infobox? After all, the initial dispute was about whether the name should be noted at all. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:Throast - Perhaps I did not read the dispute a third time as slowly as I should have. However, my experience is that there are commonly disputes about what should go in the lede sentence and in the infobox, and that, in both my opinion and general experience, disputed matters can usually go in the text of the article.  If you also want an RFC on including Brown Rudnick in the text of the article, I will start another one.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, would it be possible to incorporate it into the existing RfC? If not, don't bother, I don't really care enough anymore. Throast (talk &#124; contribs) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Suki da
Hi, Robert. Can you review Draft:Suki da again. I think it is notable enough in Wikipedia. The song has been released and charted on Japan national chart right now. --PepeBonus (talk) 07:07, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Cartifact
Dear mr. McClenon,

As a former map librarian of the koninklijke Bibliotheek (National Library of The Netherlands) I have been confronted with this phenomenon during my inter(national) career (1979-2017). As the wikipedia page looks now it seems to be an explanation from a dictionary. The emphasis should be more on the material form on which a cartographic expression is used and not on the cartographic expression itself.

Since a long time it has been a topic in the world of map librarians. On the website 'Map History / History of Cartography: THE Gateway to the Subject' (http://www.maphistory.info/mapsindex.html), that is updated by the former map librarian of the British Library (1987-2001) Tony Campbell it has its own chapter under the heading 'Miscellaneous' (http://www.maphistory.info/topics.html#oddities). And I myself wrote an article concerning this subject in the peer-reviewed 'Journal of map & geography libraries'.

For the reader of wikipedia it seems elucidating to know that cartifacts come in every form are and expressed in/on many unusual materials one may meet in every day life (http://web.archive.org/web/20150906092947/http://persons.kb.nl/jsmits/cartifact/list.html).

While creating the page I was not aware of it being deleted in 2005 and I have not used any text previously published on wikipedia. I'm not aware that it is a neologism, but the term 'cartifact' was introduced by J.B. Post, former map librarian at the Free Library of Philadelphia and since then established itself in common use with map librarians and professionals in the field of cartography.

With kind regards,

Smi953 (talk) 10:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Aaron Violi
You have just declined my submission, because another article on that subject already exists. That's fine. I realised the duplication a few hours after I wrote it almost weeks ago. I would have deleted my draft if I could have found a way, but couldn't. There needs to an obvious way to do so, to save work for people like you. HiLo48 (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * User:HiLo48 - Well, first, you can delete a draft, by tagging it for G7, author requests deletion. But, second, the preferred answer is to redirect the draft to the article, rather than to delete it.  Redirects from drafts to articles are common; they are what is left when a draft is accepted.  So redirection rather than deletion is the answer.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:28, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. But the most important words in my comment are "There needs to an obvious way to do so". Neither of those approaches seems obvious to me. HiLo48 (talk) 02:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)