User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 49

A kitten for you!
You did a great job i have been reading your User page and Wiki Articles kudos for your Wiki article publishing achievements here. I hope to learn from you here.

Techy.Sap (talk) 06:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC) 

Closing date of RFC
Hello, the RFC at Talk:Russo-Ukrainian War was started by you on 16 March 2024 and as of now was active for more than a month (nearly 1,5 month to be exact). I think a month is enough for every interested user to express their opinion and to vote at RFC. Since the issue for which the RFC was started previously resulted in quite strong disagreements between multiple users, I think the RFC should be closed by you to ensure a valid WP:CONS due to your status as a moderator at Dispute resolution noticeboard who started this RFC following a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 242. Perhaps it is already time to close this RFC now? If not, then what exact other deadline you think is suitable to close this RFC? -- Po  fk  a  (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Pofka - I will be making a request at Requests for Closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert Glen
Congratulations, you have just made the single worst AFD nomination I have seen in over 15 years editing on this site. Jmorrison230582 (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Richard Wolf (director)
Richard Wolf should also be disambiguated, since we would have 2 people with the exact name. Richard Wolf can be redirect to Richard Wolff (disambiguation).Hairmer (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football&#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 04:31, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 20:30, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:2024 United States presidential election&#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 07:31, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard&#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 12:30, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Barkley Marathons&#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 17:31, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Paul Atreides&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 23:31, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:Line of Duty&#32; on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out! You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name. Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) &#124; Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. &#124; Sent at 07:30, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice essay.
Is "which might cause the horse to become dead" a metaphor? &#45;- Deepfriedokra (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Deepfriedokra - That is a piling on of a metaphor, because the dead horse is a metaphor. A metaphor that can be piled on may be an especially useful metaphor.  In the seventies, sometimes The New Yorker would have a snippet headlined, "Block that metaphor", if the metaphor was amusingly mixed.  I don't think that I am mixing the metaphor, just piling it on or overloading it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

 * You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. 

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:10, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft to be submitted
I moved an article titled Tamar of Imereti to Tamar of Imereti (died 1556), and the declined draft with the former title to Draft:Tamar of Imereti (died 1455), while the original title became a disambiguation page. I hope that you manage to accept the new title of the draft and approve the submission to link related articles to the new titles. Cheers! Xxx2023 (talk) 19:59, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Xxx2023 - I tried to accept it, but it had already been accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Carol Leeming
You commented on the Draft:Carol Leeming page that Leeming might be a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts but your link goes to the WikiProject South Africa page, was this a mistake? Theroadislong (talk) 17:21, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Theroadislong - Yes. The acronym should have been FRSA, which I have changed it to.  The acronym in the page that was cut down to a redirect was wrong, and I didn't check on it.  So the task is to find a reliable source that confirms that she was elected to that honourable Society.  Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I have added the source. Theroadislong (talk) 07:24, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: TOI-715 b has been accepted
 TOI-715 b, 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 Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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/New_question&withJS=MediaWiki:AFCHD-wizard.js&page=TOI-715_b 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) 01:47, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested &#32;at Talk:AT&T Corporation&#32; on a "Economy, trade, and companies" 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 07:30, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate change DRN
So, the settings used by the archival bot on the DRN page are clearly overzealous, as it had somehow already archived our ongoing DRN! Can you please do something about that? InformationToKnowledge (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * User:InformationToKnowledge - I have unarchived it back to DRN. I will change the bot parameter from 48 hours to 72 hours, but the real problem is that the Do Not Archive Until date is being initialized to two weeks after start rather than three weeks after start, and I have requested technical advice on what to do about that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Notably, the bot archive itself remains unchanged - does that mean you would be effectively forced to manually paste the discussion into the same archive once it actually is closed, to prevent the bot from archiving it twice? That, and I hope @Bogazicili saw that the discussion is back in its rightful place, so that we can move on to the next step ASAP. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 08:50, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll add my revised suggestion next week. Bogazicili (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I did not remove the case from the archive, so when the case is finished, it will be archived again by the bot. I am not concerned about the double archival.  This has occasionally happened before.  It should happen less often now that I have changed one of the bot parameters, so that it only archives after 72 hours of silence.  There is still something of a mystery about the Do Not Archive Until date.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello. For the RfC, there doesn't seem to be any new votes in awhile. Should we publicize it in several wiki projects, such as WikiProject Climate change? Bogazicili (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and, I restarted the RFC since it wasn't properly closed. We can let it for a few more weeks I guess. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that to date, virtually all the comments from outside editors (not already extensively involved with this page) have been on length, and not on any of the finer points. Granted, it was my own choice to switch to the four-paragraph format at the last minute which caused this. Arguably, it's better that the lack of community support for the large section size is revealed now than if we had attempted to expand on it later.
 * Still, I wish there was a way to at least get some input regarding our disagreements over the year 2050 projections out of this RFC. I am tempted to use this "restart" as an excuse to withdraw the four-paragraph wording in favour of something like my penultimate proposal (which would be close to Bogazicili's text outside of that area) but I doubt this would work.
 * Otherwise, would I be allowed to write such a proposal as "Option D" (or C3?) in the Survey, and perhaps attach a note to A informing editors it is being depreciated in favour of D/C3? I would just rather not see the RFC end with only one substantive question addressed. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Venezuelan politics case posted
The proposed decision in the open Venezuelan politics arbitration case has been posted. Comments on the proposed decision may be brought to the attention of the committee at the talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:37, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Rafida
Hi! First, thanks for your patience with this case. I really appreciate your help. Second, I wonder if your decision to close the dispute can be appealed. I already admitted that my lengthy statement was an honest mistake; please see the addendum to my list statement. I simply missed the last paragraph of your statement that required us to comment only on the RFC. To close the case is perhaps an overreaction, even though you have every right to do so. With the moderated discussion now closed, I fear that Shadowwarrior8 has successfully bullied their way in this issue, removing and falsifying content with impunity. Should I open a new dispute? If not, where would it be possible to find justice in this case? Thank you for your advice. Albertatiran (talk) 06:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Albertatiran - You ask if you can open a new dispute at DRN. I will not prevent you from opening a new case.  I think it is very unlikely that a volunteer will accept it, but you can try.  I will not reopen it.  I have tried and not succeeded.  If a volunteer asked me for advice about whether to take the case, I would advise them not to take it, because both editors are discussing the other editor as much as they are discussing content.  I don't think that trying to restart this discussion at DRN is likely to be useful.  I think that Shadowwarrior8 has said much the same thing, and DRN is voluntary.  So I don't advise asking another volunteer to reopen the case at DRN.
 * You ask where would it be possible to find justice in this case? Wikipedia isn't about finding justice, but about building an encyclopedia.  If you think that the conduct of Shadowwarrior8 is interfering with building the encyclopedia, you can report SW at WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay.  If you want to involve other editors who might have some knowledge and a different perspective, on the other hand, I would suggest that you ask for other editors at WikiProject Islam.  (Some of them might actually be either Shi'a Muslims or Sunni Muslims.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Climate Change RFC

 * Hello. For the RfC, there doesn't seem to be any new votes in awhile. Should we publicize it in several wiki projects, such as WikiProject Climate change? Bogazicili (talk) 16:12, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
 * and, I restarted the RFC since it wasn't properly closed. We can let it for a few more weeks I guess. Bogazicili (talk) 17:26, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
 * It's unfortunate that to date, virtually all the comments from outside editors (not already extensively involved with this page) have been on length, and not on any of the finer points. Granted, it was my own choice to switch to the four-paragraph format at the last minute which caused this. Arguably, it's better that the lack of community support for the large section size is revealed now than if we had attempted to expand on it later.
 * Still, I wish there was a way to at least get some input regarding our disagreements over the year 2050 projections out of this RFC. I am tempted to use this "restart" as an excuse to withdraw the four-paragraph wording in favour of something like my penultimate proposal (which would be close to Bogazicili's text outside of that area) but I doubt this would work.
 * Otherwise, would I be allowed to write such a proposal as "Option D" (or C3?) in the Survey, and perhaps attach a note to A informing editors it is being depreciated in favour of D/C3? I would just rather not see the RFC end with only one substantive question addressed. InformationToKnowledge (talk) 00:30, 19 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bogazicili - Why did you restart the RFC? What do you mean when you say that it wasn't properly closed?  Do you mean that there wasn't a formal closure?  If so, that is because we didn't request a formal closure.  Why did you restart it?  It was correctly stopped automatically by the bot.  Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * , I restarted the RfC per Requests_for_comment and because there was no Closure requests request. You also didn't say anything about it here Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_245. You also hadn't responded to my question above about publicising it in WikiProject Climate change, so I didn't know you were paying attention. Discussions get archived quickly in Talk:Climate change, so I didn't want the RfC archived before someone can respond from Closure requests. Bogazicili (talk) 20:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Oh I see you said it will run for a month at the top here and mentioned what to do after the bot deactivates it. Do you want me to request formal closure now? Bogazicili (talk) 20:33, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * User:Bogazicili - At this point, requesting formal closure would be a good idea. You can do that, or I can do that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, but I think we could have gotten more responses and a more clear consensus if we had publicized it at WikiProject Climate change. You might see another version of this at DRN in the near future. I'll leave closure up to you unless objects? Thanks for the moderation of this topic by the way. Bogazicili (talk) 21:14, 20 May 2024 (UTC)