User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 8

Earl King Jr.
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents

Since you have been involved in the past with some of this dispute, perhaps you would like to include your opinion. Grammar&#39;sLittleHelper (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for notifying me. There has been disruptive editing by multiple editors, including Earl King Jr., and my own recommendation is that the case be sent to ArbCom.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week
User:L235 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Robert McClenon to be Editor of the Week for his incredible work in mediating dispute resolution, as well as his work at the Teahouse, Help Desk, administrative noticeboards, and his valuable insight in any discussion he contributes to. Although article work makes up just 11% of his edit count, he more than makes up for it with his dedication at help venues and dispute resolution. Also, as an arbitration clerk myself, I can testify that Robert was an absolute pleasure to work with during his term as a trainee clerk. Robert McClenon is truly one of Wikipedia's unsung heroes. This nomination was supported by User:John Carter, User:Mandruss, User: Buster7, and User:GoodDay. You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

Thanks again for your efforts! . Buster Seven   Talk  15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DR style
Hi there,

Do you have some time to talk offline/on Skype chat? I'm happy to discuss here as well if you'd prefer. Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm on vacation and don't have convenient access to Skype. Am I doing something wrong again?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I have email enabled. Why don't you email me if you want to keep this out of public view?  Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
robert mcclenon wikipediaor RFC ==

Hi Robert McClenon. The Technicolor terminology RFC is three weeks old. There have been some responses (and there does seem to be some degree of consensus), but the responses have kind of petered out by now. I have two questions/concerns: Or do you have any other suggestions? For your convenience, here is a direct link to the RFC: Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)      I really appreciate your time and help with this issue. Richard27182 (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Could we request that it be closed by an uninvolved editor? I've read that that is sometimes an effective way to do it.
 * Could we extend the automatic 30 day delisting date just to make sure the RFC isn't automatically closed before the issue is resolved?
 * No. No.  We should let the RFC run to 30 days.  When the 30 days have run, then we should request that an uninvolved editor close the RFC.  Don't request early closure.  Don't extend closure.  Just let it run.  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Robert McClenon     As I've said before, I trust your judgement and I will do whatever you suggest.  But let me explain the reason for my concern.  In WP:RFC, it says:
 * "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time [emphasis added]. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer."


 * If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds like if we wait till the 30 days are up, the RFC will be automatically closed. (CLICK HERE to see the section I'm concerned about.) Am I misinterpreting it? Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * What is the question or problem? The RFC is closed in 30 days.  That means that it is no longer open for the insertion of comments.  You seem to be under an impression that after 30 days the RFC goes away.  That is not what happens.  After 30 days the RFC is "closed" in the sense that it is no longer open for comments.  It is instead listed for formal closure, so that an uninvolved editor can determine what is the consensus.  What is the question or problem?  Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for your reply and also for your patience.      The only problem was that I didn't really understand how the process works.  And you're right, I had been under an impression that after 30 days the RFC goes away.  But your recent message completely clarified all that and I understand it now.  After a total of 30 days, the RFC is "closed" in the sense that no more "votes" or comments will be accepted.  And at that time it becomes "open" for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus.  Your explanation is much more clear than what I got from reading "Wikipedia:Requests for comment."      Anyway I'm sorry I took so long to catch on.  I'll get back to you around the end of the 30 days.  In the meantime, thank you for your help and an extra special thanks for your patience. Richard27182 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That answers that. Perhaps the term "closed" is confusing to inexperienced editors, and perhaps I or someone else should consider rewording the guidelines.  The term "closure" is used in various ways.  Sometimes it really means archival, or being sent off to a talk page archive.  As we now understand, the RFC runs for 30 days, and then it is "closed" in that no more comments are permitted, and then someone is requested to do a "formal closure" to assess the comments that were entered in the 30 days.  Maybe the guidelines are not clear, and maybe they should be clarified.  Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I totally agree. The word "closed" (and its multiple meanings) was what threw me off.  (Along with the less-than-clear explanation in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment".)  Your explanation of the process is simple, clear, to the point, and complete. Richard27182 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined
Hi Robert McClenon, the Zeitgeist (film series) arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 06:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

BLP?
I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone else, so let me put it this way: In general, if a Wikipedia user were to provide a link to an obit of an ordinary person, would it be against the rules? If it is, then all references to it should be zapped. If it isn't, then I can answer the OP's question with certainty, by providing the relevant links. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 02:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't see any rule against providing a link to an obituary of an "ordinary person". (I assume that by an ordinary person, we mean someone who is not notable.)  Links to obituaries of notable persons are the rule and not the exception, so I don't see any BLP violation in providing a link to an obituary of a non-notable person.  If it is used for an article about the non-notable person, then it would seem to me that AFD rather than BLP would be the forum.  However, why don't you take this question to the Help Desk?  (This is a question that should definitely go to the Help Desk and not the Teahouse.)  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon
Can you assist me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? putting their names into news.google.com gets a lot of results. Paul Austin (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What sort of help do you want? I see that you just created the stub article.  If you say that Google gives you a lot of results, then you should first decide which of them are reliable sources, and then both restate the information in those articles in your own words in the stub (avoiding close paraphrase, which is likely to be copyright violation), and reference the articles.  In particular, newspaper articles reporting the disappearance or its investigation are generally considered reliable.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Were the two girls related? Have persons of interest been identified?  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've mailed the memorial Facebook page run by the families. Hopefully they will come to Wikipedia. Paul Austin (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The memorial Facebook page is probably not a reliable source. Newspaper articles are a reliable source.  Please read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources.  Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Battle of the Alamo
The idea behind the last good version was to revert far enough back that both parties would be at an equal disadvantage in the article because information that they feel should or should not be the article independent of their particular point of view is now absent, and when that happens usually parties become more open the idea of working together to get the lines of communication reopened so as to re-add the missing information. From the perspective of psychology, having a third party that both feel is indifferent can also be a factor in inspiring two parties to work together ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend", such as it were). Finding the good version involved going back far enough to find a version that rejected edits made by both parties in favor of a nominally neutral party, so that was the version selected as the "stable version".

As for the protection, I am all for losing it if the dispute is worked out before the protection time expires, but for that to happen I think any good mediator, admin, arbitrator, etc would need to see concrete proof that progress was being made. If it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the community that these two have made progress in resolving their differences over the article content then the article should be unblocked and monitored carefully. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The logic behind the revert is not applicable to this case. This revert is only injurious to my side because it reverts only my edits. There is no reason now for the other party to negotiate in good faith since the revert only reestablishes their skewed version of Battle of the Alamo. I would suggest reverting the article to an earlier point, which includes some of my edits, in order to bring the other party to the negotiating table, per the reasoning of TomStar81. MiztuhX (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * If you check the history of Battle of the Alamo page, you will find that my revert is one long, uninterrupted edit. Even when Dawnseeker2000 and Gaarmyvet added their own edits, I did not revert their edits. Per the WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert," this concludes that I am being charged unjustly with edit-warring for essentially making only one revert.MiztuhX (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I am not favorably impressed by this statement, but am still ready to mediate. User:MiztuhX:  You refer to a revert being "injurious to [your] side".  We aren't supposed to have sides, but to edit collaboratively, and the whole point to dispute resolution is to facilitate collaborative editing versus edit-warring.  You also appear to be assuming bad faith, when you say that there "is no reason for the other party to negotiate in good faith since the revert only reestablishes their skewed version of Battle of the Alamo."  We are all supposed to be trying to edit collaboratively, not to have to offer each other incentives to negotiate in good faith.  I have opened the case for moderated discussion.  Are you willing to discuss, or are you still interested in whose "side" has an advantage?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I definitely want to discuss. However, when I talked about taking sides, good faith, and advantage above, it was within the context introduced by TomStar81: "both parties would be at an equal disadvantage," which I pointed out was not true and needed to be addressed for that line of reasoning to be logical. Plus, I stated that it was unfair for me to be accused of edit-warring since my one, long edit does not constitute 3RRs. But if you are suggesting we forget about those two issues, which sprung out of the original issue (the ramifications of the Santa Anna quote) on the talk page being now discussed on dispute resolution, then let's just concentrate on the last, with the stipulation that I disagree with the former two. MiztuhX (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I hate to lay this on you, but there was a covert reason for my protection as well: It is an unwritten rule in the admin community that when a page is locked down over edit warring, content disputes, point of view issues, conflicts of interest, or other relevant problems in the article the party that complains the loudest is more often than not the party that tips their hand as to being the source of the disruption in the article because said party usually finds it unacceptable that they can not edit as they please, and then proceeds to take one of two extreme-ended actions - make accusations as to the unjust action taken against them, or abruptly become overly receptive to whatever the other party wants so as to end to the lock-down with the goal of starting up the engine of disruption again. Based on your behavior on this talk page, my talk page, and the mediation talk page, you are the odd man out such as it were, and judging from the replies I see here that is isn't sitting well with you. Just an observation, but it would be good food for thought for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your input and that is certainly one way to look at things. I prefer to see it as being proactive and wanting to improve the article by gaining consensus. So, could you now specifically address my comments and the logic behind your revert and if the edit-warring charge was valid under WP rules? MiztuhX (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

3O for David M. Cote
Hi Robert, thanks for the speedy response from 3O. The question has been clarified on the talk page. Would you mind offering your opinion on the matter?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion
Thank you for your responses at Help_desk. I have been editing for most of a decade, and only recently tagged my first article for deletion. I soon learned that I should have chosen speedy deletion instead. I guess I'll have to learn to use Twinkle. Maproom (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So what is/are the next step(s)?
Hi Robert McClenon. It's 30 days since the Technicolor RFC started running, so I thought I'd get back to you. I understand the RFC will be "closed" for anymore posting of votes or discussion, and becomes "open" for formal closure by an uninvolved editor. What I'm not familiar with is how that procedure is initiated; do we have to make some kind of request for that to happen, or will an uninvolved editor automatically take the "case"? And if we do have to make an official request, is it a general request, or would we be inviting a particular uninvolved and unbiased editor to do it? I realize these are a lot of questions, but I'm still quite new at this. As always, I'm very grateful to you for your help, and especially for your patience with me. Many many thanks. Richard27182 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: The Technicolor RFC has had its RFC expired template removed by the Legobot.
 * Latest revision as of 07:00, 21 July 2015 (edit) (undo)
 * Legobot (talk | contribs)
 * (Removing expired RFC template.)
 * I'm waiting to find out how we move on the next step. Richard27182 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution.
Just a note to make clear, after seeing your comments at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, that should I have decided that dispute resolution was appropriate regarding the Electronic harassment article, I would have requested that you not participate as a volunteer. If you want a more detailed explanation as to why, I will of course be prepared to give it, but for now I'll merely draw your attention to the notes at the top of the noticeboard: " Volunteers who have had past dealings with... the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't planning to moderate that dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies - I should have read more closely. I would however suggest that it might be wiser not to use the DRN talk page to discuss cases where 'past dealings' rule out your participation - and in particular, not to use the talk page as a platform for speculation about how dispute resolution in such cases might go. Such commentary does little to engender confidence in the system as a means of neutral resolution, and thus constitutes a disincentive to participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC notice
ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you.
Hi. I haven't heard from you lately, and I was wondering if you're still acting as my unofficial advisor in the Technicolor RFC. (Please see my recent postings to this page.) Thank you. Richard27182 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I had not been aware that I was acting as an unofficial advisor on Technicolor. I mediated a discussion about Technicolor, and closed that discussion.  Do you have a question?  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Hello Robert McClenon. I may have misspoken when I referred to you as my "unofficial advisor" in the Technicolor RFC.  I just meant that, since you had presided over the Dispute Resolution and had started the RFC and had answered all my questions that I had concerning the RFC, I thought of you as the logical person to ask about the next step.      Anyway I do have a question: The RFC is over 30 days old and has been closed for comments, and is eligible to have an uninvolved editor assess the comments that were entered in the 30 days and determine consensus.  This is my question:
 * What step(s) should I take to invite an uninvolved and unbiased editor to do that; to evaluate the "votes" and comments, determine consensus, and formally close the RFC?
 * I hope I haven't been too much of a nuisance these past few weeks. In any case as I've said before, I'm very grateful for your help and patience. Richard27182 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I will post a request for closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you. As always, I really appreciate your help. Richard27182 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC closed already!
Hi Robert McClenon. I'm very surprised (pleasantly) that the Technicolor terminology RFC has already been formally closed. To tell you the truth, I was afraid that no uninvolved editor would want to formally close it, let alone so soon. I do have one question for you: ''Does this constitute the final conclusive end to this dispute? OR If Onel5969 is dissatisfied with the result, are there options available to Onel to try to get the RFC result reversed?''  (I just want to know if it's really finally over, or if there could be more to come.)      As always, you have my sincere gratitude for your advice and assistance. Richard27182 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is in the Balkans
Hello. Can you tell me why did you send me Kosovo is in the Balkans notice? Of course that it is in the Balkans, i dont get it? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Ooo, that. Thanks. Shouldn't that be sent to all users on that page? -- Ąnαșταη  ( ταlκ )  13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Doppler Studios
You are invited to join the discussion at Doppler Studios. See the history and previous opinion. Discussion is on my page. Thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I updated the original user and the timeline of article creation. I'll be honest I'm torn here between asking for a promotion only account block, afd or attempt a WP:TNT myself or a combination. The user account for one year has only contributed to linking that article to the encyclopedia, it has zero interest in any other activity based on the editing history. My main complaints is unreliable sourcing a lot reads like press releases or was discogs which is user generated and therefore unreliable. I asked 78.26 because they are familiar a little more with record labels and they agreed in general. What would you think is the best option? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * My suggestion would be to nominate it for deletion. Blow it up and start over is a valid conclusion of AFD.  I haven't reviewed the editor's history with regard to a block.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * What is your opinion on this "source" [] it reads like a press release. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It is a press release. Why shouldn't it read like a press release?  That is a basis for an AFD saying that nearly all of the sources are either unreliable or promotional.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion
"undo deletion - if thought to be completely out-of-scope, it should hatted instead"

I'm not refactoring or removing text, it's part of my comment that has been duplicated. It appears twice, once on either side of your comment. — Godsy (TALK CONT ) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Restored the deletion, in that case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I noticed, thanks! — Godsy  (TALK CONT ) 21:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your close at VPP regarding OS policy
Hi Robert, hope you're doing well. You indicated in your close of this discussion that there was consensus to support suppression of IP addresses used by editors who accidentally failed to log in. However my reading of the discussion was that is was about expanding policy to include IP editors who didn't realise that their IP address would be publicly recorded create an account after they edit as an IP and then request suppression of their 'before account creation' edit(s). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Corrected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do I need to do anything at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Given that there is consensus (in my view) for the proposal you probably need to change the wording in your close to reflect the proposal. Something like "...permit the suppression of IP addresses (in your close strike from here, and insert:) used by editors who did not realise that their IP address would be published in place of a username. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks so much, that was a great idea! valereee (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Vithoba
Hello user, I have came here from Feedback request service‎ from Religion and Philosophy section. You are requested to give your views on proposed move of featured article Vithoba to Vitthal. Thank you. -- Human 3015   Send WikiLove   17:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you 😼
--50.141.35.49 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * you are good friend. 😸🐈 (meow) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.35.49 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

21:17:05, 2 August 2015 review of submission by Jasecbruce
Dear Robert, Thank you for your review of Ewen Cameron bruce. I have made the changes that you requested. I hope that this meets your satisfaction. I was not sure about the bold face of lede sentence so applied it to opening sentence. Info box formatting - as far as I can see I have done this correct. If not, please let me know. Best.

Jasecbruce (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * (and also I suppose), I have undone the decline because poor formatting is not a valid criteria for declining an AfC submission. If anything, when you see malformed templates you should attempt to fix them and then review the page. Formatting is simple to fix, and drafts should be reviewed on content. I've since moved the page to Draft:Ewen Cameron Bruce. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I did try to fix the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:36:27, 3 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bobtinin
Dear, Robert McClenon. My article was denied for lack of notability and reliable sources, yet most of the references in the article, are to articles from reliable sources. These reliable sources were from secondary sources which are deemed reliable under Wikipedia's definition, especially the fact that most of the said articles are from big-name gaming reviewers and magazines. Maybe I'm just confused and don't know what I'm talking about, but hopefully you can help me see the light haha. Thank you for your time and help. Bobtinin (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Which of the footnotes are reviews that independently assess or describe the game? Please put some language in that says that the game has been favorably reviewed.  Just having footnotes to the game isn't necessarily enough if the reader isn't old what they say.  If you can address that, then resubmit the game and it may be approved.  Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The game is in Pre-Beta right now, so it hasn't been released. This happens on a regular basis with games in development. If you take a look at sites like Metacritic who would usually calculate critic reception, they don't have any available for games in development (in essence there are no proper "reviews" per se), but that doesn't detract from the game's notability. But what I found interesting is that this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarMade was sourced less than mine. StarMade is one of my favorite games, and it's still in development. Not sure how that article was approved (I did not model mine after that luckily :D), although mine does seem similar in the sense that I use reliable sources to reference things other than critic reception. From what I getting, you want me to talk about what big name gaming magazines like Rock, Paper, Shotgun are saying about the game? I think I have two articles from them in there, but what I did was reference those articles to features in the game, gameplay and whatnot so I could reliably source those bits of the article. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I tried posting a query at WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk, but it is poorly watched, so I suggest that you ask for another set of eyes at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, I'll see if someone can help me there. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Comment
Thanks for your help with Roy John article PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I had help. Other editors also did work on the new page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

03:36:08, 4 August 2015 review of submission by Mobcy
Hello Robert,

I'm submitting a comment regarding declining of my article about the youtuber Simon Minter.I don't argue with the fact that wikipedia does actually need reliable and trusted resources, but all the information about my article were collected from the videos uploaded by the youtuber himself on his channel.Plus, this Youtube personality has all his work on Youtube and that its very rare to interview a Youtube personality on a famous magazine or newspaper just like in my case of the article review.I have added several reference links to the article mostly focusing on the youtuber's stats and subscription based info.Whilst the rest of the info can only be found on the videos which he uploads, please notify me if certain info will have to be changed in my article or anymore specific reference links that have to be changed or added , keeping in mind that the person reviewed in my article has never been interviewed in a magazine or a paper.

Thanks for your cooperation, have a great day.

Mobcy (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has a newspaper or magazine ever summarized his work as a youtuber? If he has not been interviewed and his work has not been summarized, then he doesn't appear to me to be notable.  If you disagree, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse or some other noticeboard.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Email
Robert, sorry I wasn't able to respond to your email sooner, but it looks like you worked that one out just fine. Regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Kosovo
I actually closed the RfC at Kosovo with a long reasoning, but then I saw your recommendation at WP:ANRFC that this be closed by an admin. In my judgment, an admin close was not necessary, since the sock's comments were struck out, but I will defer to your judgment about this matter. I have right now reverted my close. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 18:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * If the sock has been blocked, and I see that the sock has been blocked, then I agree that an admin close is not necessary, because the necessary admin action turns out to have blocking a disruptive sock. I will leave it up to you.  You may either reinstate the close, which looks well-reasoned (but hard to find as is), or may leave the request for closure in place for an admin, or you may ask at WP:AN whether to close again.  Now that the disruption has been ended by blocking the sock, it seems reasonable to re-close.  The necessary admin action turns out to have blocking the disruptive sock.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


 * My own thinking is, with rare exceptions, to stay away from anything having to do with the Balkans other than to give an alert about WP:ARBMAC, so that if those editors try to restart World War One, which seems to be what too many of them are trying to do, I won't be in the crossfire. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply. Since I already spent a lot of time reading through the discussion, it seems a waste to not close this and force another person to do it all over again, so I made the judgment call to re-close. Kingsindian &#9821;&#9818; 21:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrators Intervention Against vandalism
Could you please check out Administrator intervention against vandalism. It is very overloaded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:454B:F02:1D85:F7DF (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I am not an administrator. Please try WP:AN.  Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015
Read this in another language •  Local subscription list  •  Subscribe to the multilingual edition

Did you know?

You can add quotations marks before and after a title or phrase with a single click.

Select the relevant text. Find the correct quotations marks in the special character inserter tool (marked as Ω in the toolbar). Click the button. VisualEditor will add the quotation marks on either side of the text you selected. You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team have been working on mobile phone support. They have fixed many bugs and improved language support. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving language support and functionality on mobile devices.

Wikimania
The team attended Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City. There they participated in the Hackathon and met with individuals and groups of users. They also made several presentations and the future of editing.

Following Wikimania, we announced winners for the VisualEditor 2015 Translathon. Our thanks and congratulations to users Halan-tul, Renessaince,  जनक राज भट्ट (Janak Bhatta), Vahe Gharakhanyan, Warrakkk, and Eduardogobi.

For interface messages (translated at translatewiki.net), we saw the initiative affecting 42 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 56.5% before the translathon, and 78.2% after (+21.7%). In particular, Sakha improved from 12.2% to 94.2%; Brazilian Portuguese went from 50.6% to 100%; Taraškievica went from 44.9% to 85.3%; Doteli went from 1.3% to 41.2%. Also, while 1.7% of the messages were outdated across all languages before the translathon, the percentage dropped to 0.8% afterwards (-0.9%).

For documentation messages (on mediawiki.org), we saw the initiative affecting 24 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 26.6% before translathon, and 46.9% after (+20.3%). There were particularly notable achievements for three languages. Armenian improved from 1% to 99%; Swedish, from 21% to 99%, and Brazilian Portuguese, from 34% to 83%. Outdated translations across all languages were reduced from 8.4% before translathon to 4.8% afterwards (-3.6%).

We published some graphs showing the effect of the event on the Translathon page. Thank you to the translators for participating and the translatewiki.net staff for facilitating this initiative.

Recent improvements
Auto-fill features for citations can be enabled on each Wikipedia. The tool uses the citoid service to convert a URL or DOI into a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. You can see an animated GIF of the quick, simple process at mediawiki.org. So far, about a dozen Wikipedias have enabled the auto-citation tool. To enable it for your wiki, follow the instructions at mediawiki.org.

Your wiki can customize the first section of the special character inserter in VisualEditor. Please follow the instructions at mediawiki.org to put the characters you want at the top.

In other changes, if you need to fill in a CAPTCHA and get it wrong, then you can click to get a new one to complete. VisualEditor can now display and edit Vega-based graphs. If you use the Monobook skin, VisualEditor's appearance is now more consistent with other software.

Future changes
The team will be changing the appearance of selected links inside VisualEditor. The purpose is to make it easy to see whether your cursor is inside or outside the link. When you select a link, the link label (the words shown on the page) will be enclosed in a faint box. If you place your cursor inside the box, then your changes to the link label will be part of the link. If you place your cursor outside the box, then it will not. This will make it easy to know when new characters will be added to the link and when they will not.

On the English Wikipedia, 10% of newly created accounts are now offered both the visual and the wikitext editors. A recent controlled trial showed no significant difference in survival or productivity for new users in the short term. New users with access to VisualEditor were very slightly less likely to produce results that needed reverting. You can learn more about this by watching a video of the July 2015 Wikimedia Research Showcase. The proportion of new accounts with access to both editing environments will be gradually increased over time. Eventually all new users have the choice between the two editing environments.

Let's work together

 * Share your ideas and ask questions at VisualEditor/Feedback.
 * Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at VisualEditor/IME Testing if you can help.
 * If your wiki would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace, you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.
 * Please file requests for language-appropriate "" and "" icons for the styling menu in Phabricator.
 * The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
 * The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, usually on Tuesdays at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings.  You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q1 blocker, though.  Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre directly, so that she can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

3O edits
Robert, when you make an edit at 3O please remember to always say in your edit summary how many listings remain on the pending cases list. It's part of the instructions, see the last bullet point under "Providing third opinion." Best regards, TransporterMan  ( TALK ) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC) (Not watching)
 * Okay. Lesson learned.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice
That text was removed on the talk page of AC de la Rive. However, I was stating fact, that someone could take offense to the Article on Luciferian Doctrine, in the way it was written before I edited it. I would be glad to see the article removed. Go back and see what it said, it claimed that Freemasons worshiped Lucifer. I noticed you said it would be acted on, and that is not the case, I said it could be.--Craxd1 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Dear Robert,

Thanks so much for taking the time to review my submission. I worked on the References a lot, but still didn't get things right. Could you please let me know what in particular I should work on?

Your time is appreciated,

Zoe

1001Bookworm (talk) 23:13, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Grand Slam closure
Regarding Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_120 I am hoping it can be re-opened because there was conversation about this in numerous places on the talk, however I may have improperly pointed to them.

Talk:Grand_Slam_Championship was June 15. I definitely made an attempt to discuss the issue. I also pinged Vjmlhds there.

Are disruptive editors able to avoid dispute resolution simply by not responding on the talk pages?

Do you know if there is a better process for me to use to attempt to resolve this? The guy continually removes info form the page without consensus. My every instinct screams 'vandal'. I try to keep an open mind that this may be visual aesthetics but that doesn't explain why they keep deleting the invisible data used to help monitor the wrestlers. Ranze (talk) 23:28, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * First, I didn't close the discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. However, second, I will treat this as a request for advice.  On the one hand, most content dispute resolution vehicles, including third opinion, moderated discussion at DRN, and formal mediation, are voluntary.  Disruptive editors can avoid them by not participating.  However, persistent disruptive editing is a conduct issue.  I see that the editor in question has been warned twice.  I would suggest warning them a third time.  If, after a third warning, they remove content rather than discussing, then it is time to report them to WP:ANI.  I don't think that it is vandalism in the usual sense.  I define vandalism strictly, and there are many types of disruptive editing that I do not consider to be vandalism (but other types of disruptive editing are also blockable).  So my advice is to give one more warning, a Level 4 warning, and revert the content.  If the content removal continues again, make a report at WP:ANI.  That is my semi-involved advice.  Robert McClenon (talk) 01:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

I apologize for the misunderstanding, I misread initially and noticed it was User:TransporterMan who closed it, and noticed they also brought up WP:DISCFAIL which I am attempting to use to provoke the desired conversation on the talk page with a another attempt. Part of the problem is that while they won't engage in talk page discussion, they feel fine leaving "vandalism" warnings on my talk page for reverting their data-blanking. Unlike them, I will not sink to the rudeness of calling them a vandal, even though I personally think their behavior approaches more closely to it than mine does. It's probably more of an exclusionist/inclusionist conflict. Do you know how to give warnings? I don't know about level 4 and stuff. Should I use 1 to 3 first? Ranze (talk) 18:28, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. Do not use levels 1 through 3, because they have already been given level 3.  Give level 4 for blanking and other disruptive behavior.  Giving them anything less than 4 after they have been given level 3 would be ignored.  Give them level 4, then go to WP:ANI.  Robert McClenon (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hindering discussion of others on Talk pages = respectless, uncivil behaviour
@Robert McClenon: On 6 August I started discussion section Wikipedia talk:Civility, to discuss—as the title clearly says—organising that page, and brought in several ideas on that topic. Johnuniq replied that day with a text that is completely off-topic in that section (which behaviour I condemn). 11 August, also you posted some text in the section that did not seem to address any of the questions, ideas I had raised in the section nor the topic of the section. Why did you do that? Discussion pages are meant to give opportunity to editors to start discussions on topics they wish to discuss. If you have no wish to enter into a certain discussion started by one or several others—as indicated by the section’s heading—the only polite, decent, respectful way to behave is to stay out of that discussion section. Cluttering such a section (as you did there on 11 August) with off-topic text that does not address the topic of the section only leads to hindering and frustrating and disturbing the started discussion of that/those one or several other editor(s) and will discourage others to seriously enter into that discussion. In short, it is a threat to the good functioning of Wikipedia.

I advise you, to remove your entered text of 11 August from that section, and perhaps place it in a new section, on the same or another page. --Corriebertus (talk) 11:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * We both thought that your outline appeared either to be more detailed than was needed or to be premature. We both thought that a better way to discuss would not be an outline but a draft in a sandbox.  Telling someone to strike their comments, by the way, is not collaborative.  Maybe my comments weren't collaborative, but neither were yours.  Let's move on and have you prepare a draft in a user page, rather than argue about an outline.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Subtropical-man
I really have no opinion on the topic-ban question; on the one hand his positions are so absurd that they do approach being disruptive, but on the other being wrong isn't a crime. But if you want to see where this person's head may be at, note his topic-ban counter-proposal for wolfowitz and davey... it isn't based on disruption or misconduct but rather the "harm" they have done by successfully deleting hundreds of porn articles. Tarc (talk) 12:55, 12 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bohdan Khmelnytsky. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not sure if this is the right way to communicate with you but I just wanted to say that I wanted to write an article on The Joy Community and not necessarily to advocate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 4Reverend (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

04:04:17, 14 August 2015 review of submission by Hbg1968
Hi Robert, thanks for the suggestions. I have modified it, and will be resubmitting it. ;-)

hbg1968 04:04, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

08:05:00, 14 August 2015 review of submission by Adrianipp
The fact we started with ONLY 3 contries it should not be so harshly treated. also Parliamentary informatics page had at the begining a few years ago mentioning olny 3 countries. I know because one of the country was romanai at the time. now lists dozens but this happened over time not in one bulky article wrote in one shot Adrianipp (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I suggest that this discussion continue (as my note above says) at the WP:Teahouse/Questions, because other experienced reviewers are there, and they may agree with you or they may agree with me. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:40, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

How am I performing?
Hello! You might have gone through the case I volunteer, British Pakistanis. I would like to get inputs from you on my performance. If you could spare a few minutes, can you tell me how am I handling that case so far? If you have comments, any modifications, please feel free to tell me. Thanks! Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  08:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, I think that you are doing well, especially in view of the contentiousness of the topic. On the other hand, it looks as though the discussion may go on forever.  Since I don't see any personal attacks (although I wasn't thorough), I don't think that the case should be failed.  I would suggest one of two ways to change the venue of the dispute.  The first would be, in view of the number of participants and the strong opinions, to ask for formal mediation.  You can do that yourself.  If you do that yourself, then you should express a neutral opinion as to whether to accept or decline the mediation.  The other is to get the options down to two or three, and then submit to a Request for Comments.  That is the usual way that I end a case that isn't going anywhere, but other experienced mediators have other styles.  So my advice is that the case won't resolve itself at this level, and can either be sent to formal mediation or can be sent to an RFC.  You might ask the participants which approach they want, but you don't have to do that.  Robert McClenon (talk) 14:09, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. Appreciate it! Involved parties have expressed concern over RfC. I too think that won't bear any fruits (Indian and Pakistani editors would swarm in). I'll escalate this case to RfM. Can you point me to a page where you escalated a case to RfM from DRN? That'd be helpful. Also, should I immediately close the case in DRN? Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  15:36, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't close the case immediately. Wait until mediation starts.  I will look for a case where I requested mediation.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the last case that I filed was declined because some of the editors didn't want to take part. But here it is:  Requests_ or mediation/Shang_Dynasty.  Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the help. Filed it here (Requests for mediation/British Pakistanis). Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  16:05, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you mention on the DRN page that, because of the contentiousness and length of the dispute and number of parties, you have requested formal mediation? A bot should notify them, but you should mention that at the DRN page.   Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. Yes I did! Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  16:34, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello! The Mediation case has been accepted. Should I close the case now ? If yes, general close? Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:18, 17 August 2015 (UTC) I'll wait till the mediation starts. Sorry for bothering you. Regards— ☮ JAaron95  Talk  14:20, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Ongal
Following up on your AfD attempt, please see Talk:Principality of Ongal. --Joy &#91;shallot&#93; (talk) 09:35, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help Robert. There might be a problem with the ArbCom templates, in that the "The Committee's decision is B|here" links to the letter B. Bromley86 (talk) 20:56, 22 August 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that the problem was that it used the symbol rather than what it meant. I don't know why.  I replaced it with the actual decision.  Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Attempted Mediation - Murder of Anni Dewani
Thankyou for your efforts to mediate. I appreciate your efforts. Situation is clearly impossible. afd (talk) 02:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, because no one follows the rules stipulated at the beginning of the discussion. A total waste of time.--BabbaQ (talk) 17:19, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

DRN Clerk Bot
I've responded at the DRN talk page. Hasteur (talk) 01:43, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Lists of mathematicians
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Lists of mathematicians. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Regarding User_talk:Manoflogan#50.196.167.154
I have clarified and I apologize for my mistake. There was an issue with the browser that I was using. I forgot to login to my browser. Manoflogan (talk) 04:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

04:15:33, 10 September 2015 review of submission by Lyn Dunsavage Young
Lyn Dunsavage Young (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC) Robert: I have re-edited the version of the Randy Thornhorn draft you reviewed, but I can't seem to eliminate the first draft that was submitted ("Randy Thornhorn, Short Story and Novel Author.") For your version of the piece, I spent quite a bit of time researching the sources, which I put into the References at the end (I believe there are 10), but, for some reason, when I reviewed what I had submitted, a number of the references showed up after footnote 1 in the copy, where it definitely shouldn't be. Perhaps the review copy isn't the same as the draft I edited? IF you could eliminate the first draft (NOT the one the has the copy "Randy Thornhorn (born Randy Duane Williams)..." I'd really appreciate it because I don't have an ounce of your computer expertise. I don't even know what languages you're talking about in your bio, given most seem to be linked to computerize. All I want is to get a great literary writer in with all the other outstanding  Southern writers who are in Wikipedia! Anyone compared to Faulkner deserves it (in my book!)Lyn Dunsavage Young (talk) 04:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

European migrants
do they get free dinner when they go to another country, there was a news article about that?184.101.188.152 (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Good work!
That was a difficult DRN case, but you did everything right. Just as you were superdetermined to do (grin). Keep up the good work. On an unrelated note, your recent email was very insightful. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:15, 16 September 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jadwiga of Poland. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

apology
I am aghast at my spelling error - and apologize fully. Collect (talk) 15:23, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

DRN
You may wish to respond to my latest post on the Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard - see here AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:48, 17 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Piers Corbyn
Hi, I was about to take the 3OR for Talk:Piers Corbyn, but noticed that you have already asked some questions on that Talk page. I am happy for either of us to opine, but didn't want to be duplicating your efforts. Please let me know if you'd like to handle it, or if you'd prefer if I did. Cheers. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 01:50, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Go ahead, User:Ryk72. I don't know what the question is.  If you do, you may answer it.  Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Bullying and tag-team,etc.
Hi!. You are probably right wrt "Sandra opposed to terrorism" on Jimbo's talk page. Nonetheless, it's important that you realize there is in fact much biting of newbies as well as bullying and ganging up on established editors who attempt to edit pages controlled by a group of strong editors. I experienced it myself and have witnessed it over and over. If it hadn't been for the kindness of User:Dave Souza, I probably would have left in 2009, which is when I first edited pages that, unknown to me, were owned by the cabal. Oh, I forgot--there's no cabal. But, for one example, a strong group of editors who in fact are not conspirators but are like-minded and powerful enough to control whole ranges of articles, still insists on calling Climategate the Climatic Research Unit email controversy. Happily, I've learned to get along with them, and have learned more about WP rules and about subject matter, changing my views on some. Still, at the end of the day, WP articles having anything to do with climate or creationism are written in a disparaging rather than encyclopedic tone. YoPienso (talk) 14:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Quantum Fields Fluctuations, Time stop
Dear Robert McClenon, I like to know if this action for Quantum Fields Fluctuations, time stop is usual action thanks Malik Matwi --Malik Matwi 16:43, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Matwi (talk • contribs)

Dear McClenon, are there, in this wikipedia, Editors in theoretical physics. this is first time I write an article. May be I couldn't clear some Ideas. but I still edit it, every day I improve it.

Thanks Malik Matwi --Malik Matwi 17:45, 28 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malik Matwi (talk • contribs)


 * Any discussion of the article should go to the Articles for Deletion page. I stand by my decision to nominate it for deletion.  Some editors would prefer to speedy-delete it.  Please do not discuss further on my talk page.  Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration case opened
You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 12, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Arbitration/Requests/Case/Genetically modified organisms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC) on behalf of L235 (t / c / ping in reply ) 20:56, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

Your Comment on Olowe2011's Talk Page
Although the trout comment you gave on Olowe2011's talk page may be appropriate for general use, I seriously think, from the user's past history, the template is a pathway for further trouble. If I were you, I would remove it to avoid further trouble. That's just my recommendation. --JustBerry (talk) 01:23, 29 September 2015 (UTC)