User talk:Robert McClenon: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Legobot (talk | contribs)
Bots
1,623,060 edits
Line 263: Line 263:


The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Robert Gant#rfc_58C36FF|this request for comment on '''Talk:Robert Gant''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 70216 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
The [[WP:Feedback request service|feedback request service]] is asking for participation in [[Talk:Robert Gant#rfc_58C36FF|this request for comment on '''Talk:Robert Gant''']]. <!-- Template:FRS message --> <!-- FRS id 70216 --> [[User:Legobot|Legobot]] ([[User talk:Legobot|talk]]) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

== Editor of the Week ==

{| style="border: 2px solid lightgray; background-color: #fafafa" color:#aaa"
|rowspan="2" valign="middle" | [[File:Editor of the week barnstar.svg|100px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 3; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em; color:#606570" |'''Editor of the Week'''
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 2px solid lightgray" |Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]] in recognition of your helpfulness to others. Thank you for the great contributions! <span style="color:#a0a2a5">(courtesy of the [[WP:WER|<span style="color:#80c0ff">Wikipedia Editor Retention Project</span>]])</span>
|}
[[User:MelanieN]] submitted the following nomination for [[WP:Editor of the Week|Editor of the Week]]:
:I nominate Robert McClenon as Editor of the Week. He has been here since 2005, made more than 50,000 edits and previously received this award for the week beginning July 5, 2015. I especially admire him for his helpfulness to other editors, both newbies and established users. He is a major help at the Dispute Resolution page, where he politely and patiently tries to mediate between warring factions, keeping the focus on the issues and never losing his cool. He also helps extensively at the Help Desk and the Teahouse. This kind of work is incredibly important to Wikipedia and I believe it should be recognized.
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
<pre>{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}</pre>
Thanks again for your efforts! [[User:Lepricavark|Lepricavark]] ([[User talk:Lepricavark|talk]]) 14:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Revision as of 14:58, 15 July 2017


Other archives


*Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense
*Famekeeper Archive
*FuelWagon Archive
*Jack User Archive
*John Carter Archive
*PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
*78 Archive
*DIRECTIVEA113 Archive

All Help Appreciated

Thank you for taking the time to review the second draft of the article I am working on, Draft:Shinesty. The obvious end goal is to utilize all of the external sources from the web with content published about the company to create an impartial encyclopedic article. I believe that based on the approved Wikipedia pages I have read from similar companies, I am not far off of this goal. Many if not all of these companies have similar sections and provide very similar information about the companies. I used the agglomerated list of those companies as a template for how to write the draft for this article. I was hoping that you could provide a bit more information about what should be removed or altered in this draft in order to make it appear less like an advertisement. The first paragraph along with the "history" and "business ventures" sections have all been edited to match the style of other pages and I imagine a few tweaks should set this page up for success. I do have a COI in editing this page as I am an employee of the company, and I understand the importance of keeping Wikipedia impartial. Because of this, I was curious if is there a different route that should be taken to make sure that this article doesn't simply fizzle out? Thanks for all your help again. Austin at Shinesty (talk) 17:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

User:Austin at Shinesty - First, please do not top post your inquiry. It is confusing and hard to find. The draft in question is Draft:Shinesty. It is very hard for a connected contributor to write a neutral article. My advice is to ask at the Teahouse, where some of the editors are willing to help. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For Your Information

This is to inform you that our article about Akhar2016 looks like an advertisement. Ok I agree but this is a Free Software tool for the public like Wikipedia. We do not get any benefit from this article at all. This is for Public so giving all information on this Wikipedia is actually helping people for their knowledge. We are inspired from existing articles as InPage Baraha If they Exist then why not Akhar 2016? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tej74i (talk • contribs) 10:18, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A favor

A colleague of mine has created Draft:American Tianxia and asked me for a review .I think it passes the muster, but I feel it would be a bit COI for me to approve it myself - could you take a look and post a formal draft review in a few days, as a favor for me? Thanks! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Piotrus - What is the conflict of interest? My first thought is that the phrase "American tianxia" is something of a neologism. We don't normally have articles on neologisms, even if one reputable scholar has used the neologism. As a minor, easily correctable point, the draft has "tianxia" in at least two places. Look at that very carefully. Because it has quotes inside the internal link, it is a red link. Either get rid of the quotes, or get rid of the links. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
COI as in the person who asked me for a review is a personal friend and I feel I could be biased in reviewing it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 22:23, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Team Versiya

When he moved the page, he accidentally put it at the draft talk page, then copied the text to the draft page and blanked the talk. I tagged the redirect for deletion, so it shouldn't matter wherever it's pointing. Home Lander (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Home Lander Yes. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages to user space

I think you should be more careful when moving newly created articles to user space. For example, you have moved Arpit Malviya to User:Arpit Malviya, but the user account has no contributions, and the article was in fact created by User:Arpit11111. (I don't think the article was really suitable for user space, either; Wikipedia is not a personal website.) - Mike Rosoft (talk) 06:16, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Kumar Bhoi

I'm not criticizing you at all. I am very selective about where I do this - as you say, something that is not suitable as an article can be suitable as a user page, but that's by no means always true. Deb (talk) 07:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for Bishu baswal moved to User:Bishu baswal created by User:Bishubaswal16. I've marked it U2 before I saw the move but wouldn't have been inclined to userfy it anyway. Regards, Cabayi (talk) 07:40, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably a sock? Deb (talk) 07:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Deb, No, Robert userfied the page using its article name rather than its author's name. Looks like Robert's just had a bad day on page moves. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
And this move
Since Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Madware (2nd nomination) will need to be adjusted to discuss its new pagename, all sorts of folks notified, as well as being moved and I've not yet had my first coffee of the day, I'll just point it out and let it be. Cabayi (talk) 08:00, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. Well, we all have bad days. I've certainly had a few recently, as Rob knows! ;-) Deb (talk) 12:15, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Deb, User:Mike Rosoft, User:Cabayi - Point made. The MFD was one thing, and it was already confused before I made it more confused. As to moves to user space, I do need to be sure that the name of the article and the name of the creator are the same. If so, it may be a valid user page if it isn't spammy. If they are different in detail, it is probably just another A7. I was trying a new technique of moving pages to user space to avoid deletion, and I guess we usually just have to A7 them after al. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I got a warning from you for reverting a specific edit. It was me and another user who reverted each other's edits. Your warning seemed unfair, but I now discovered that both me and the other user got the warning for 3x consecutive reversals. In retrospect, the warning to both of us was more than fair and it helps to keep Wikipedia organized. Thank you! // D.Novosibirsk (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

?

Why is there a signature on top of your page? The garmine (talk) 13:32, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:The garmine - Because it needed deleting. Because it was left over from a previous archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:20, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ok.😁 The garmine (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:SwisterTwister - I was in an easy mood when I didn't tag it for G11. I thought it was marginal there for draft space, and I think that, while G11 does apply to draft space also, it should be applied only in the most obvious cases. I hadn't been thinking G12, which we agree should absolutely always be applied strictly. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 3 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've done significant research to improve the article, Whataboutism

Discussion that should be either at WP:DRN or at Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dear Robert McClenon,

Thank you for your interest in the article, Whataboutism.

Thank you for your efforts at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard, dealing with entrenched viewpoints which appear to ignore reliable sources.

I've done significant research to improve the article Whataboutism.

  1. State before my research efforts LINK ONE.
  2. Article after research and expansion efforts, so far: LINK TWO.

Please also note, at the top of the article's talk page, I've added links to the number of times certain individuals have attempted to get the article disappeared from Wikipedia [1].

Most of the complaints about the article's existence amount to transparently obvious WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:No original research on the part of the complainants. Example, saying something is a "neologism", and throwing around the word "neologism" like a pejorative, based on their own personal opinions.

The research shown in the article itself doesn't bear that out, as I believe you've already observed, yourself. [2]

Please also note, similar attempts were also made, to try to disappear the entire wiki article on the subject And you are lynching Negroes. I've added those attempts, also, to the top of that article's talk page [3].

It appears to be a transparent attempt to remove off of Wikipedia any and all content found to be disagreeable to the country of origin to which the subject is referring to.

When one attempt fails at a deletion debate, well, let's try and merge it away into another article and then chip away at it over time until it's gone from there also.

When that attempt fails, try another deletion debate at another article.

When that attempt fails, try a deletion review at that article.

When that attempt fails, try merger again at a different article to merge somewhere else.

No.

This is well researched, well documented source material. Over a sustained period of time.

It is notable.

Both articles are independently notable, as noted by Cunard at [4] and [5] and [6].

Sincerely,

Sagecandor (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
NAC:Further discussion can be at Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:48, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: Robert, as to the issue of original contention at the WP:Dispute resolution noticeboard, please note I myself removed the Teen Vogue source at DIFF and noted it on the talk page at DIFF. That issue is now resolved and done. Complainants appear to have moved on from that and are now proposing getting rid of the entire article altogether at [7] and [8]. Sagecandor (talk) 16:56, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - My talk page is a reasonable place to discuss an article that is pending review at Articles for Creation. It is not the right place to discuss an article that is at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Discussion should be at the noticeboard. However, discussion at that noticeboard is not working either, both because you are editing the article (maybe a strong warning is needed at the top of the noticeboard saying not to edit the article while a case has been filed), and because there is back-and-forth discussion, which already has not worked. Please take your discussion back to the article talk page, Talk:Whataboutism. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, Robert, but I was unaware of the dispute resolution noticeboard at the time I was improving the article. And I strongly feel that I should not be forbidden from improving an article on Wikipedia, at the exact same time others are proposing to have that same article disappeared from off the face of Wikipedia. I agree with you the article talk page is a better place for more discussion. I hope you can appreciate the amount of research I have done to improve the article. Sagecandor (talk) 18:45, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - If you didn't know that the article was being discussed at WP:DRN, then you cannot be faulted for being bold and reworking it. You should be ready, and I think you are, for new controversy about the article. I suggest that, if an effort is made to get rid of the article or turn it into a redirect, the best way to prevent that would be a Request for Comments. If there is an Articles for Deletion, you can oppose that, but starting an Articles for Deletion discussion when you want an article kept would be considered disruptive or disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, thanks for the advice. Respectfully disagree with you about starting AFD, articles for deletion is the way to bring to the community assessment about whether or not an article should be disappeared. I hope that there are no more attempts to get the page removed off from Wikipedia. Sagecandor (talk) 21:39, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Sagecandor - I will ask about whether it is reasonable for a proponent of keeping an article to start an AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:46, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:No, you don't have to do that. I don't have plans right now to start an AFD. Rather, I hope simply the research I've done to expand the article, in and of itself quiets down the grumbling about trying to disappear the article itself. Okay? Sagecandor (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I am the person who filed the original dispute resolution. I tore a ligament in my neck a week ago and was laid up in bed until about two days ago. During that time I was immobilized and unable to use a computer. After catching up with my life, I took a look at the dispute resolution and it looks like it has been closed. I was surprised to see that again, no one understood my reason for wanting to make the change in the first place and that the problem sentence still appears to be there, although the references to it have been changed and Teen Vogue has been removed. I do not want to get embroiled in another series of edit wars but I would like to explain my problem with that sentence and see if it can be addressed. What is the best way to proceed here? DeadEyeSmile (talk) 21:43, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
As Robert noted, already, above, best place now is article talk page. Sagecandor (talk) 23:33, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:DeadEyeSmile - As both User:Sagecandor and I have now said, any discussion should be at the article talk page. If there are any further questions, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse or the Help Desk, but content disputes should go to the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon:, thankfully, DeadEyeSmile and I seem to have amicably resolved all issues, per their comments at DIFF and DIFF. Sagecandor (talk) 00:12, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Draft of BIO page

NAC:It appears that the submitter is working for the subject. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Mr. McClenon,

Thanks very much for your information and assessment of the page I am requesting. Can you tell me how I might be able to provide information on the faculty member's impact that would be worthy of a bio page on Wikipedia? I have not done this before so I am not certain how to begin.

Thanks again. Jonloliverru (talk) 17:35, 5 July 2017 (UTC)Jon[reply]

User:Jonloliverru - The draft is Draft:Brent David Ruben. I said that you would need to provide independent references. A list of his own works is not the same as independent references. If you have further questions, please ask at the Teahouse. There must be on-line summaries of his career. Just be sure to rework them in your own words. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:40, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

False Accusation

Please don't accuse me of doing something I didn't: Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with WorkJam (Company). Zaurus (talk) 02:23, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

14:37:23, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Jonloliverru

NAC:Any further input should be either by editing the draft or at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


The faculty member has asked that I provide his Google Scholar ranking for your review. Thanks very much.

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8PDU3Y4AAAAJ&hl=en


Jonloliverru (talk) 14:37, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jonloliverru - If the subject of the BLP has asked you to provide your input, you have a conflict of interest that should be declared. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I said that a list of the subject's works was not a substitute for references. It still isn't, and you still haven't provided references. Please ask for any further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:43, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

22:12:43, 7 July 2017 review of submission by Adzie



Hi Robert, would you mind elaborating on what parts you felt the page failed on? Thanks

User:Adzie - In looking at the draft, there isn't one part of it in particular that is the problem, but the overall tone. I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ade Olufeko

Confusing - there's a redirect from his mainspace article to Visual Collaborative which is more of the same promotion. It appears to be nothing more than a traveling exhibition created by Olufeko to give unknown artists some exposure. I'm thinking it should go to AfD along with the redirect. Your thoughts? Atsme📞📧 09:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Atsme - I'm confused. What is the question? He doesn't have a mainspace article, only a redirect to his roadshow. Do you want to take the roadshow to AFD? Do you mean that the roadshow doesn't have independent coverage? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:24, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The roadshow is a promotion that simply provides a platform for unknowns to display their work. I'm of the mind that Visual Collaborative doesn't meet WP:N. They arrange shows for unknowns to promote their work. WP is not a platform for unknowns to become notable. Atsme📞📧 23:00, 9 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:Atsme - The question that I have is whether the roadshow itself, that is, Visual Collaborative, is notable. It is true that the purpose of the roadshow is for unknown artists to promote their work. The question is whether the roadshow itself has been given independent coverage by reliable sources. In view of the fact that it has been covered in Wikipedia since 2011, I personally think that the burden of proof should be on the deleter to show that it is not notable after all. For a new article, I think that the burden of proof should be on the proponent to show that the subject is notable. In this case, I think that it should be shown that it is not notable. I haven't finished researching it, but I think that I will !vote Keep on an AFD on the roadshow. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:49, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, Robert. I doubt that a marketing & promotion company that arranges a single relatively unknown event each year is worthy of having a stand alone article. What is notable about it? The barbeques I host here at the ranch get more attention. There is an art to serving up fine barbeque you know. :-D Atsme📞📧 01:13, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Fluorochromasia

I speedily deleted Fluorochromasia because it was obviously a copy-paste page move from Autoctono~enwiki/sandbox, which itself was a botched move from User:Autoctono~enwiki/sandbox. This had the effect of removing your prod tag. Feel free to renom for deletion if you think you should, but the page being a mess isn't really a valid deletion reason. Cheers!--Fabrictramp | talk to me 02:19, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fabrictramp - Thank you. Far from nominating the replaced article for deletion, I marked it as reviewed. I mark scientific articles as reviewed if they appear to be reliably sourced, because they are expanding human knowledge (or, in Wikipedia, documenting the expansion of human knowledge). I accomplished my objective of getting the mess replaced by a valid short article. I will note that the rules say that an article can be PRODd for any reason, and I still think that, if the choice was between the mess and nothing, nothing is to be preferred, so the PROD. Anyway, I accomplished my objective. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Hey,it's Jenevee.I'd like to apologise for cursing at you for something as trivial as a wikipedia page.I acknowledge my sin and hope you can forgive me for it.There's no explanation for saying what I said.Im sorry.

-Jenevee Jenevee (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of User:Ptangadprasad/sandbox

A tag has been placed on User:Ptangadprasad/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section U5 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to consist of writings, information, discussions, and/or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals. Please note that Wikipedia is not a free web hosting service. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Gbawden (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gbawden - That's a mystery. First, it isn't my crud. It appears that I moved it, and now Twinkle thinks it is mine. However, I am confused, because the history doesn't show that I declined it. I wouldn't normally have moved it to draft space unless it was tagged as waiting for AFC review. Huh. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Lol Twinkle does same strange things Gbawden (talk) 15:53, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Notice retracted

Haha, all apologies for that one :D It was Twinkle's fault, so let's blame it. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:49, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. it actually is a bit funny though because the creator must have re-made the page in both places, and now it exists with and without "Dr." in the title. ‡ Єl Cid, Єl Caɱ̩peador ᐁT₳LKᐃ 15:51, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
User:El cid, el campeador - That was partly my doing. When a page is moved, this creates a second page, because the old title is a redirect and the new title exists. This only doesn't happen if the page mover suppresses redirect creation, but there are rules as to when the page mover should suppress redirect creation. If the old title is a plausible form of the title, the redirect should exist. Anyway, thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Pt Angad Prasad Tiwari

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Pt Angad Prasad Tiwari, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. DGG ( talk ) 16:56, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That one is in broken Indian English, not in educated, somewhat overly wordy American English. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:09, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Guessing the above happened for the same reason it did for me. Robert, somebody needs to create a userbox for you that says something about, "This user receives too many deletion notices not meant for him." Home Lander (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

18:34:02, 11 July 2017 review of submission by Cinemasianx


Instead of placing him as an article for a musician, what if it was changed to the Biography of a Living Person, like his former partner Andy Chanley and his wiki page?

User:Cinemasianx - I don't understand the question. Maybe you are asking about a distinction that you perceive that either doesn't exist or isn't important or isn't seen as important by experienced editors. Every article about a living person is a biography of a living person. The alternatives are biographies of dead people and articles that are about anything other than specific people. (Also, the rules about biographies of living persons apply to any article that mentions living people, even if the article is not a biography and mentions them only in passing. For instance, if I am writing about a city, and I mention its mayor, then the rules about living persons apply, in particular that the statement as to who the mayor is must be verifiable because I am referring to a living person.) Perhaps you are really asking about whether to establish notability based on musical notability or general notability or both. If so, the answer is that your draft will be accepted as an article if it establishes either type of notability. If you have any further questions about notability, I would advise you to ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Request for comments

Robert, on OnePlus OnePlus talk page you mentioned that you could possibly help in formulating a neutral RfC. That help would be much appreciated. How would you suggest to go about this? What would be the next step? When it comes to the editor who I am in a disagreement with, I honestly have a lot of respect for him, but I think that the editor is wrong on this particular issue. Since we two seemingly cannot reach an agreement, external mediation would be great. D.Novosibirsk (talk) 13:05, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:D.Novosibirsk - Do you want mediation, or do you want a Request for Comments? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Hello RM. In my many years here I had never had to file a salt request. I was in the middle of trying to figure out what to do when I saw your post. That saved me some time - thanks :-) Cheers. MarnetteD|Talk 02:34, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:MarnetteD - In this case I recognized it as an article that I had previously nominated for speedy. Just put {{salt}} at the bottom of the page. The deleting admin may or may not actually salt. Some admins have different thresholds than others for how many times the topic has to have been deleted. The other possible action, and both can be done, is to use Twinkle to give the editor a warning for Creating Inappropriate Pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:39, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply. I had checked the logs and noticed the previous deletions. We will see what happens with the salt request. Sometimes it feels like the person creating things like this is taking part in performance art and they don't care whether the article stays or not. Best regards. MarnetteD|Talk 02:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and performance artists are not here to maintain the encyclopedia and need blocking. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:15, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of CNS Control article

You proposed deletion of CNS Control article. Article should not be deleted as it is important topic and should be improved instead.

Tomas Ukkonen Cutesolar (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Reviewer Newsletter

Hello Robert McClenon, thank you for your efforts reviewing new pages!

Backlog update:

  • The new page backlog is currently at 18,511 pages. We have worked hard to decrease from over 22,000, but more hard work is needed! Please consider reviewing even just a few pages a a day.
  • Some editors are committing to work specifically on patrolling new pages on 15 July. If you have not reviewed new pages in a while, this might be a good time to be involved. Please remember that quality of patrolling is more important than quantity, that the speedy deletion criteria should be followed strictly, and that ovetagging for minor issues should be avoided.

Technology update:

  • Several requests have been put into Phabractor to increase usability of the New Pages Feed and the Page Curation toolbar. For more details or to suggest improvements go to Wikipedia:Page Curation/Suggested improvements
  • The tutorial has been updated to include links to the following useful userscripts. If you were not aware of them, they could be useful in your efforts reviewing new pages:

General project update:

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:48, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Robert Gant

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Robert Gant. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your helpfulness to others. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

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

I nominate Robert McClenon as Editor of the Week. He has been here since 2005, made more than 50,000 edits and previously received this award for the week beginning July 5, 2015. I especially admire him for his helpfulness to other editors, both newbies and established users. He is a major help at the Dispute Resolution page, where he politely and patiently tries to mediate between warring factions, keeping the focus on the issues and never losing his cool. He also helps extensively at the Help Desk and the Teahouse. This kind of work is incredibly important to Wikipedia and I believe it should be recognized.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! Lepricavark (talk) 14:58, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&oldid=790704568"