User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 27

My Article Draft is updated and resubmitted, thanks for your message left at the draft page Draft:Hamza. El Moutadir

Hello, I have read your comment, I have made my research and brought another source for the living person and resubmit it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moroccoworldnews (talk • contribs) 10:12, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Draft is Tagged MfDDraft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala

Hello Robert McClenon. Am Sandrah.Akol recently I saw the article am developing tagged MfD. How can this article be reviewed and this tag disappears.--Sandrah.Akol (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC) Hello Sandrah.Akol, I have seen your article but you should avoid over resubmission to namespace without clarity of the content. Otherwise i can see notability of this subject--Emf oligo (talk) 14:14, 5 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 3 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:List of Books About Women in History

Thanks for your speedy review of the draft page! Added disclaimer about incompleteness of list. Hermionefc (talk) 17:18, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

State Portal Metrics

Greetings, Robert McClenon. I flagged Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics for inaccuracy because Portal: Minnesota had the wrong info, and someone else on the talk page had had a problem. I don't think there is any rush, but you might want to know. -SusanLesch (talk) 17:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviews

Sorry about this and this, I'd loaded a few up in advance and I'm not getting the popup warning for some reason. All the best, SITH (talk) 18:26, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:StraussInTheHouse - I am not sure what the issue was with Gyus324, because it is gone. With Kryton, I see that you tagged it for G12, presumably a copy of their own web site, and I tagged it for G11 as advertising, and it is waiting for deletion, and my guess is that both G11 and G12 do apply. I don't know what you are apologizing for. We are both reviewing the usual input of crud. I haven't been reviewing that much cruddy input recently because I have been reviewing cruddy portals. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:14, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon, I don't know really, just letting you know I'm not trying to contradict, I agree both could apply, it was a batch copyvio run. And the portal thing is still ongoing? I thought we'd just about got rid of the abandoned ones or ones created from a single template. Is there a cleanup tracking category you can point me to so I can resume helping out? Best, SITH (talk) 22:00, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup tracking categories, like tagging the portals with {{update}}, has no effect. What has an effect is tagging the portals for MFD, and they are still being nominated there, and normally deleted there. The portal advocates then say that problems with portals should be taken care of by tagging and normal editing, but there is evidence that tagging, whether with tags or with categories, doesn't get anyone to fix them. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

You are invited to comment at discussion currently taking place at Relationship of Articles for Creation and New Page Reviewer for pre-opinion on the combined functions of Articles for Creation (AfC) and New Page Review (NPR).

This mass message invitation is being sent to subscribed members of the work group at the project The future of NPP and AfC. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:11, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics

Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:53, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Laredo

Hi Robert. Would you mind perusing through this newly created article and doing a quick assessment? It didn't go through AfC and was created by an SPA so there are always standard concerns (COISELF, PAID, BIO, etc.) when that happens, but this might be a case of NEXIST even though right now the article is only supported by PRIMARY/SELFPUB types of sources. There are some pretty obvious formatting errors (SECTIONCAPS, SURNAME, etc.) that I was going to cleanup, but not sure whether it might be best to DRAFTIFY this to give the creator more time to work on and then have them submit it to AfC for review when they're ready. For reference, I came across this while checking on WP:THQ#inserting a photo help -. -- Marchjuly (talk) 20:45, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jyolleck, User:Marchjuly - I have reviewed the article briefly. The problem, as the first reviewer has noted, is that it doesn't have any secondary sources, sources indicating what other people have written about Laredo's work. As Marchjuly says, we can do one of two things. I can move the article back to draft space, or you can leave it in article space. If you leave it in article space, you need to address the formatting issues, and to look for secondary sources. Also, do you have any conflict of interest, such as working for Laredo's estate? I will review it again, but this is my first pass. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

format problems and afc

I see your comments at Draft:Catherine Cobb and Draft:François Cappus about fixing format issues before the article could be accepted. The problems in these drafts seem opinion relatively minor, and can either be fixed by oneself at least as easily as explaining to a new user how to do it, or dealt with after the article is in mainspace, in the usual way for all articles--there are many wikignomes who really like that sort of work. Of course, it's a matter of degree and judgment--I too will sometimes decline a draft--or even draftify an article--if the errors are so great as to make the article unclear, or represent a really rough machine translation, or make it difficult to see just what the references are--in fact, I declined at least 3 for such reasons this very evening. This is just meant as a discussion, for what we say at AfC usually very closely agrees. DGG ( talk ) 09:41, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DGG - Yes. First, I didn't decline those drafts. I commented on them. I thought that other editors could do just as good a job as I could of cleaning them up. I wasn't sure whether the Cappus draft, which is really more a list of his works than a BDP, was ready for acceptance, but its acceptance is all right. It is true that I sometimes simply comment on drafts rather than accepting them or declining them. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36). Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feedback

Hi Robert, I saw that you rejected Draft: Shai Wininger because you felt the content was not neutral and merely promoted the subject. I would like to resubmit an improved version that addresses your feedback but I’m just not sure what parts of the page are not neutral. I was wondering if you could give me more info, like a couple examples of the parts that aren’t neutral. Thanks in advance, Deb — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debmoher (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debmoher - I don't generally provide a lot of assistance to paid editors. However, I will offer a few thoughts. First, as I said, your draft gives details about Wininger's personal life that are not related to whether and why he is notable. Second, your draft appears to be praising or advertising Fiverr and Lemonade. Third, when I read a draft that contains a lot of marketing buzzwords, I think that it is marketing. It is true that Wininger is an entrepreneur, and he may be an innovator or inventor, although usually an inventor is someone who invents things, not business concepts. However, when a draft says that someone is an entrepreneur and an inventor or innovator, that makes me think paid editing. Well, it is paid editing. You are the editor who is being paid to write neutral-sounding material without being neutral. It is your job to figure out how to do that, not mine. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Some of the editors there might be willing to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page

Dear Robert McClenon, I send you this message regarding the deletion of a page, 3D-CMCC-CNR model, written by me a few months ago. First of all, I would like to thank who, like you, makes several efforts to carry on an important project such as Wikipedia. As a user, I well know how Wikipedia is crucial for sharing and diffusing knowledge. The submission procedure of the "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page let me understood directly how many efforts this huge project implies. I just would submit to your attention some issues that I consider fundamental and that should be taken into account to evaluate the publication/deletion of "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page. One of the main motivations for the page deletion is based on the low number of citations on Google Scholar, undoubtedly an unavoidable source to evaluate scientific works. However, I think that further criteria should be taken into account for the evaluation. The 3D-CMCC-CNR model is one of the tools available in scientific research to forecast climate change effects on terrestrial ecosystems. Simulation models like 3D-CMCC-CNR allow to better understand the modifications of our planet due to climate change under present-day as even more on the long-term. Hence, the model is a fundamental mean between scientific research and society. The simulation of the forest carbon dynamics by the models allow to understand the role of the ecosystems in the climate change mitigation and to plan the best interventions to reduce as much as possible the climate change effects on our society. For this reason, an eventually Wikipedia page of the 3D-CMCC-CNR model would not be an end in itself but a relevant explanation of an important tool in the hands of the human being to understand (and forecast) the modification of the Earth due to one of the biggest issue ever in human history. Another important reason to consider is that the 3D-CMCC-CNR model takes part in several important projects of international level. The most important is The Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project (ISIMIP) (https://www.isimip.org/). This project involves several simulation models to study and forecast the future effects of climate change on terrestrial ecosystems. It is important to highlight that the 3D-CMCC-CNR has increased its relevance starting from the first publication (2014), with almost 1 article published each year on relevant scientific journals, including Global Change Biology (IF: 8.997) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/gcb.14857). Furthermore, the 3D-CMCC-CNR boasts the collaboration of distinguished scientists in forest modelling, such as Peter Thornton, Philippe Ciais, Ben Bond-Lamberty, Trevor Keenan, and Colin Prentice (https://doi.org/10.1093/treephys/tpz034, https://doi.org/10.1002/eap.1837, https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2018MS001275). For the reasons described above, please let me ask to revalue the decision about the publication of the 3D-CMCC-CNR page on Wikipedia or the possibility to resubmit the page. Thanks in advance to take into account my point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 3d-cmcc-cnr (talk • contribs) 19:39, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:3d-cmcc-cnr - Address your arguments to User:Ad Orientem or User:Randykitty. You may resubmit a version of the paper that is substantially different from the one that was previously deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello 3d-cmcc-cnr. The page in question was deleted following a community discussion which determined that it did not meet our guidelines for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Those guidelines can be found at WP:GNG. As Robert McClenon noted above, the article can be recreated but would need to carefully address the concerns raised in the AfD discussion. Otherwise it would likely be subject to speedy re-deletion. Additionally, I am concerned that you may have a connection to the subject of the article which might constitute a conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI before attempting to recreate the article. Thank you for your contributions to the project. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

About my Battle for Dream Island draft.

My draft is about Battle for Dream Island, but the other submission is about the Battle for Dream Island series. Should my draft be more unique? --LittleAwesomeApple (talk) 16:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:LittleAwesomeApple - First, it would help for your draft to clarify the difference between the series, the season, and the episode. This is often a cause of confusion. Second, I have disambiguated the draft on the series, and have requested deletion of the redirect. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon Ok. Thanks for helping. LittleAwesomeApple (talk) 20:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Inside this newsletter, the Editing team talks about their work on the mobile visual editor, on the new talk pages project, and at Wikimania 2019.

Help

What talk page interactions do you remember? Is it a story about how someone helped you to learn something new? Is it a story about how someone helped you get involved in a group? Something else? Whatever your story is, we want to hear it!

Please tell us a story about how you used a talk page. Please share a link to a memorable discussion, or describe it on the talk page for this project. The team would value your examples. These examples will help everyone develop a shared understanding of what this project should support and encourage.

Talk Pages

The Talk Pages Consultation was a global consultation to define better tools for wiki communication. From February through June 2019, more than 500 volunteers on 20 wikis, across 15 languages and multiple projects, came together with members of the Foundation to create a product direction for a set of discussion tools. The Phase 2 Report of the Talk Page Consultation was published in August. It summarizes the product direction the team has started to work on, which you can read more about here: Talk Page Project project page.

The team needs and wants your help at this early stage. They are starting to develop the first idea. Please add your name to the "Getting involved" section of the project page, if you would like to hear about opportunities to participate.

Mobile visual editor

The Editing team is trying to make it simpler to edit on mobile devices. The team is changing the visual editor on mobile. If you have something to say about editing on a mobile device, please leave a message at Talk:VisualEditor on mobile.

Edit Cards

On 3 September, the Editing team released version 3 of Edit Cards. Anyone could use the new version in the mobile visual editor.
There is an updated design on the Edit Card for adding and modifying links. There is also a new, combined workflow for editing a link's display text and target.
Feedback: You can try the new Edit Cards by opening the mobile visual editor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Edit cards talk page.

The editing toolbar is changing in the mobile visual editor. The old system had two different toolbars. Now, all the buttons are together. Tell the team what you think about the new toolbar.

In September, the Editing team updated the mobile visual editor's editing toolbar. Anyone could see these changes in the mobile visual editor.
- One toolbar: All of the editing tools are located in one toolbar. Previously, the toolbar changed when you clicked on different things.
- New navigation: The buttons for moving forward and backward in the edit flow have changed.
- Seamless switching: an improved workflow for switching between the visual and wikitext modes.
Feedback: You can try the refreshed toolbar by opening the mobile VisualEditor on a smartphone. Please post your feedback on the Toolbar feedback talk page.

Wikimania

The Editing Team attended Wikimania 2019 in Sweden. They led a session on the mobile visual editor and a session on the new talk pages project. They tested two new features in the mobile visual editor with contributors. You can read more about what the team did and learned in the team's report on Wikimania 2019.

Looking ahead

Talk Pages Project: The team is thinking about the first set of proposed changes. The team will be working with a few communities to pilot those changes. The best way to stay informed is by adding your username to the list on the project page: Getting involved.
Testing the mobile visual editor as the default: The Editing team plans to post results before the end of the calendar year. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: VisualEditor as mobile default project page.
Measuring the impact of Edit Cards: The Editing team hopes to share results in November. This study asks whether the project helped editors add links and citations. The best way to stay informed is by adding the project page to your watchlist: Edit Cards project page.

– PPelberg (WMF) (talk) & Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 16:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reduce protection for Thiyya

Reduce protection for Thiyya so that the project can be initiated and built up by talks. Kalangot (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thiyya&redirect=no Kalangot (talk) 07:47, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalangot - I do not know what I had to do with the redirect Thiyya. However, if you want it unprotected, you may request the reduction of its protection level to semi-protection at Requests for Unprotection. However, if you want to create a separate article Thiyya, the best approach would be to discuss it at Talk:Ezhava. Have you tried creating a draft at Draft:Thiyya? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Real Housewives of New York City RfC

Hi there, Robert McClenon! The RfC regarding sorting expired, and it did not generate a consensus. There are also points to be made about the RfC not being necessary in the first place due to there being a majority view on the original RfC and preceding discussion on the article's talk page. How should we proceed? I'm asking because AnAudLife recently reached out to another editor to respond to the RfC even though it's expired, so they're still holding on strong to their view as well. Thanks! KyleJoan^talk 04:02, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:KyleJoan - The RFC has expired, but it has not been formally closed. I haven't yet checked whether there is already a request at AN Requests for Closure for a formal closure, or whether one should be requested. If one hasn't yet been requested, you can request it, or you can ask me to request it, and I will request it. I will be looking at whether there has been a request for closure in maybe 12 or 18 hours. That is my advice for now, to wait for closure. If there is edit-warring or personal attacks, you may report them at the edit-warring noticeboard or WP:ANI, but I think it is better to wait for a formal closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand. I'm not all that familiar with the process, so may I ask that you request for closure? Thank you again! KyleJoan^talk 04:59, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the votes and even some of the ones who voted “C” are in agreement with sorting her name with “Lesseps” not the “de”. And people are still voting as of just a few days ago. Should we extend to allow for more input? What’s the rush to close when people are still contributing? AnAudLife (talk) 05:42, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:KyleJoan - I have checked AN Requests for Closure, and our RFC is not yet listed. Do you want closure requested, or do you want to take the suggestion of User:AnAudLife and wait a while? If we do request closure, there is no guarantee as to when we will get it. We might get closure in 2 days, and we might have to wait more than a month for a closer. If either of you request that I request closure, I will request closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:53, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Does closure give a decisive conclusion regarding sorting? If not, is reopening the RfC as AnAudLife suggested an option? I'm afraid if we leave it as it is then the discussion would get archived and the dispute is once again left unresolved. KyleJoan^talk 07:36, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do NOT request closure, I would like to give it more time. AnAudLife (talk) 14:49, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of Names Issue (again)

I am not familiar with the concept of re-opening an RFC, but that could be done by inserting a new {{RFC}} template at the top of the RFC, which would open it for another thirty days, and would start a new cycle of robotically requesting editors to visit it. I don't know of a way to re-open it for less than 30 days. An alternative is to leave it alone, if editors are continuing to express their opinions. My guess is that a close will result in No Consensus between A and B, but might result in the closer teasing out some lesser conclusion. I can request closure, in which case it will be closed in some time between tomorrow and maybe two months, or I can do nothing, in which case it may be closed sometime. If closure is not requested and discussion stops for a period of time (and I haven't checked the period of time), a bot will archive it, in which case it will be a retired RFC that never did anything. If there isn't presently a clear consensus, there isn't likely to be a clear consensus. Just leaving it open in the hope that consensus develops seems futile. I will leave it alone for now. That doesn't mean I will leave it alone on Sunday. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that AnAudLife and I are in agreement on this one. Just so we can put the dispute to bed, I restarted the RfC per WP:RFC#Restarting an RfC. Thank you again for all your help! KyleJoan^talk 16:22, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:KyleJoan - I know what you and User:AnAudLife meant to do. You didn't quite do it. You put in your timestamped signature where the RFC tag had been, but you didn't put the RFC tag back in. I have put the RFC tag back in for you. It will now run for thirty more days before the bot pulls it again. We definitely want to request closure after the bot recloses it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Shlomo Group concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Shlomo Group, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 22:41, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Brian Rosenworcel concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Brian Rosenworcel, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Helgesen

Hello Robert, I have replied to your comment on my draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sally_Helgesen. I would like to know how long it will take for the review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajobryan (talk • contribs) 21:10, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, User:Riffsister/sandbox

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! 大诺史 (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Huffman edit war

Stop quarreling on my talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Can you please revisit the talk and history page of that page?

Going back to July 2017 you can see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Auror_Andrachome and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Digbybare beginning this edit war. Looking at the history and changes on that page it is clear The talk has been beaten to death since the incident.

This was a major controversy, involving just Huffman. The page has his "Net Neutrality position" as a seperate section and a major controversy specific to him as an individual buried under a few lines of text. I kept the text and citations but could add another 20+ articles to help source it if that helps? All I am seeing is a few individuals getting angry as hell I tried to seperate a major controversy into its own heading. Wikipedia's guidelines say that explicitly. What am I not seeing here?

CRIT "Controversy" section. "For a specific controversy that is broadly covered in reliable sources. " This is a specific controversy covered in reliable sources. A simple google search returns hundreds of outlets covering this.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/11/reddit-chief-admits-to-editing-comments-that-were-critical-of-him/ https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-44779237 https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/11/26/reddits-ceo-regrets-trolling-trump-supporters-by-secretly-editing-their-posts/ https://www.businessinsider.com/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-modifies-donald-trump-the-donald-2016-11 https://mashable.com/2016/11/24/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-pizzagate-trolls/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/reddit-ceo-steve-huffman-apologizes-for-manipulating-trump-supporters-posts/ https://www.ibtimes.com/who-steve-huffman-reddit-ceo-sparks-controversy-editing-comments-critical-him-2450793

CRIT The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title

If you look at the edit opencooper reverted, I did just that. I made the topic of the controversy (‎Controversy over political comment manipulation) the name of the section title.

This isn't a reddit specific incident because Huffman was operating outside of his normal duties at Reddit when engaging in this behavior. This isn't UNDUE, this isn't CRIT being used inappropriately.

There has been talk for years about this specific controversy, and edit wars for years. Its doubly frustrating that this is the exact type of PR for the incident of controversy in question ::facepalm::

A major controversy specific to one individual is in line with a separate heading. Everything else involving this entire process is little more than burying me with BS paperwork in the hopes that the edits will never stay. Lets get some integrity here and give a major controversy a separate heading like we do for other individuals. Siihb (talk) 23:19, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To save you some searching RM see the threads Talk:Steve Huffman#This is the new censorship I guess and User talk:Ponyo#Controversies on user biographies. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 00:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another one User talk:16912 Rhiannon#Did you or Beutler Ink want to comment on what work you did on for the Steve Huffman page?. MarnetteD|Talk 00:34, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What do my user comments and talk about the article have to do with the fact that Wikipedia rules which I quoted indicate that should be its own section. Stop trying to muddy the waters. This issue has to do with a major controversy involving one person NOT being a separate heading for that user's wikipedia page. Siihb (talk) 01:38, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism here. Edit war

Edit-warring has been reported at ANEW. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ahuwwhh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User is here to disrupt the article only, not to contribute.Repeatedly disrupting the original work Sambandam Kalangot (talk) 01:27, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:BMW M3

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:BMW M3. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I find your behavior towards me specifically hugely hypocritical

I reached out to you for DRN that I will admit probably should have been better put together. You closed it which was totally reasonable. I then went to here to your talk page, and asked you to revisit the issue again because of the listed reasons. Other users then began to attack me personally, at which point I asked them to stop muddying the waters and focus on the issue. You closed that with a big red box and stated DO NOT MODIFY. I respected your request and moved on. I then noticed your comment specific to me ON THE HUFFMAN PAGE. "User:Siihb - I usually pay very little attention to an editor who always erases messages from their own talk page while leaving a lot of messages on other editors' talk pages and on article talk pages. It usually indicates an editor with an open mouth and closed ears."

However it is perfectly allowable behavior to trim a talk page of comments. So you are holding perfectly allowable behavior against me, and using that as a premise to insult me on a page that is in no way related to me.

Thats a fine example you have set for me asking for help with a formatting issue. Which I might add, was not first brought up by me, and is as of this date, unaddressed except by individuals with affiliations to the paid content editors I referenced in my DRN. I'd appreciate it if you just commented on the merits of the issue and left your personal comments on me or how I use wikipedia to my talk page so I can remove them and not ruin others times with petty personal issues. Have a great day. Siihb (talk) 05:10, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Universe : The Movie

Can you write this on the release category ?

The film was released on October 27, 2019 on Cartoon Network France. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 102.99.38.103 (talk) 16:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lab preparation of nitrogen (October 28)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Lab preparation of nitrogen and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Lab preparation of nitrogen, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Robert McClenon! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Jean Chrétien, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chrétien (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 07:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Adani Transmission

Hi,

My Wikipedia draft of Adani Transmission was declined by you. The reason stated, "The proposed article does not have sufficient content to require an article of its own." It is one of the largest transmission companies in India and has numerable articles covered by Indian news houses. Further, many other subsidiary companies of Adani Group are live as well. Why does it not meet the Wikipedia notability criteria? Can you suggest any changes I can make? Pushpullshove (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pushpullshove - First, do you have any affiliation with Adani Group that is a conflict of interest? Second, have you discussed creating an article on Adani Transmission on the talk page of the parent article, Talk: Adani Group? Third, have you asked for advice at the Teahouse? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon - I dot not have any affiliation with the organization. Also, I will surely discuss this on the Talk: Adani Group and ask for advice at the the Teahouse. Pushpullshove (talk) 06:24, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Map projection. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Robert McClenon,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 805 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

format issue, follow up.

Draft:Nelson M. Oyesiku Yes, heading format needs fixing, but the refs are good enough as they stand--there is no requirement they be in any particular form. . I would normally make the changes myself to the headings and accept, but I have decided this time to accept it as it stands. If none of the wiki-gnomes get around to it, I will fix it later. DGG ( talk ) 05:39, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TED Interview Reply

I have added the main details and additional external references in a subsection of the main article TED (conference). --Baekemm (talk) 22:34, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bundling MFDs

Recently you boldly bundled two ongoing MFDs together at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Basketball. While I'm certain that your intentions were to be helpful, my opinion is that this bundling made it far more difficult to gauge the consensus of the discussion, and ended up being more disruptive than anything else. Since the bundling was done a full 2 days after the start of the Portal:Basketball MFD, it resulted in a lot of seemingly duplicate votes that needed to be manually untangled to understand what happened. My advice: if pages are going to be bundled together in an MFD, they should be bundled together from the start of the discussion. Merging two ongoing discussions together is a recipe for disaster, and, under other circumstances, could have resulted in a procedural No Consensus closure. ‑Scottywong | [gossip] || 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Scottywong - I have reviewed those one-and-one-half MFDs, and have come to the conclusion that my consolidation of them was an unsuccessful experiment. If I had known whether it would have improved the discussion, it wouldn't have been an experiment. Wikipedia guidelines say to be bold and to use common sense, and in this case, common sense includes learning what didn't work. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, thanks for understanding. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 18:18, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ute Lotz-Heumann

Hello. I noticed on the "Ute Lotz-Heumann" talk page you noted that she passed WP:PROF [1]. Given that she passes WP:PROF, I am thinking that tags on the top of the article page are not necessary [2]. I am also inviting Theroadislong to this discussion because they tagged it with {{Primary sources}} - [3]. I'm making the same argument, that since the subject passes WP:PROF there is no need for this tag. I am glad to add a reference to the subject's Google Scholar page as evidence if you think this will be helpful. Anyway, I am wondering what your opinions are on this matter. Thanks. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I added the Google Scholar reference. I also added a JSTOR reference. Cheers.---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Quinn - I am not entirely sure that I understand what your argument or concern is. I accepted the draft but tagged it because I thought that it satisfies the notability guideline but that its sources could be improved. Would you have preferred that I decline it because the sources could be improved? Are you implying that we make a binary distinction between perfect articles that do not need improvement and drafts that should be declined? I think that I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thanks for your response. I am not saying the article should have been declined at AFC because the sources could be improved. I am not implying a binary distinction or any other kind of distinction. To explain further - Along with deeming the article notable because the subject passes WP:PROF, I noticed that a BLP tag, a Primary source tag and a Section tag (create sections) has been placed on the article. There is nothing wrong with doing this.

I suppose it can be seen as using editorial judgement. So, what I was trying to say about the BLP tag and the Primary source tag is, I think it would be OK to remove both tags because the subject passes WP:PROF. But I wouldn't remove those tags unless you agree. As you may or may not know, a university researcher-scientist-teacher may not be likely to receive mainstream press, but still have an impact in her field, as shown by her body of research.

This means the subject can have a notable biography on Wikipedia because you and I have established the person passes WP:PROF. These circumstances may supercede the need to place a BLP and a Primary sources tag on the article. In other words, if we here agree this biography merits inclusion on Wikipedia, then maybe this renders the need for a BLP tag and a Primary source tag moot. So, I am wondering if you agree that it is OK to remove the BLP tag and the Primary sources tag. Hopefully, this clarifies what I meant. If it still seems confusing then simply let me know. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 05:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Steve Quinn - I think that you and I have different interpretations of the BLP and Primary Source tags. I think that you are saying that they can be removed because we do not have a question about notability. I am saying that they should be kept on because, although the subject is notable, the article still needs improvement. I did not apply a Notability tag. I think that the tags mean that, although the article should not be deleted, it should still be improved. Maybe we can discuss this further with other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, yes I agree that we seem to have different interpretations for the BLP and Primary Source tags, just as you described it. My view is motivated by having observed, the subject of this biography does not have coverage in the mainstream press at this time. Also, she is not likely to have coverage in the mainstream press in the near future. So, having BLP and Primary Source tags seems to me to be extraneous at this time. Perhaps as a metaphor, the tags are decorations on this biography article that don't seem to be needed right now (imho).

This seems to mean that any editor who tries to find secondary sources bumps up against a barrier that perhaps cannot be passed. The only caveat are University of Arizona press releases here, but even in these there is only passing mentions of the subject. Anyway, maybe we can open for a wider discussion at the Tea House. As an aside, User:Theroadislong has removed the Primary Source tag, which they affixed to the article in the first place, so I don't have a problem with its removal. Regards, ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:01, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A Disco Ball

Disco ball of unlimited knowledge

I appreciate your contributions! Thanks for continuing to make Wikipedia a productive space. Lightburst (talk) 00:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is it just me, or does it seem like the above editor is thanking every editor who has even a civil disagreement with me, regardless of whether he himself had any involvement therein? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 02:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Windows 98

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Windows 98. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 8 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First and second fundamental theorems of invariant theory

Sorry, but I just don’t understand the issue. I have a book with me right now. I can see the proofs to the theorems (not exactly short). They might be added in the future but there is no need for the tag for that. Many theorem article does not give a proof. We generally don’t tag articles for not giving proofs. —- Taku (talk) 07:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the edits. I think now I understand the issue. I explained the situation in the edit summary. If still not clear, let me know; I will try to do something further. —- Taku (talk) 07:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:TakuyaMurata - Readers don't read the article history and the edit summaries. Edit summaries are for the information of other editors. Readers look for verification to the notes. I wouldn't be able to understand the proofs, having forgotten a lot of higher math when I was studying chemistry, but I know to look in the notes. It is now taken care of, in my view. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

When will it end

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved.

Call-out culture meditation

Hello! Thank you for offering to mediate. Although the article will come out of edit-protection in 5 days, I've been tirelessly engaged in gathering sources to use for expanding the article in its talk page. Please see Talk:Call-out_culture. I feel like this page needs a neutral set of eyes to establish consensus, especially with me being a new Wikipedian! Please feel free to ask any meta question you may have in my talk page. —Srid^YO 19:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	thank you so much I will work on it again until it meets your expertise Submission declined on 31 October 2019 by Robert McClenon Grose27 (talk) 09:31, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fellowship of Friends article

Hello, Robert. You were involved in the creation of the Fellowship of Friends article back in May and you're also listed as a volunteer on WP:DR/N, so I was wondering if you could could help with a situation that is happening with that article. Yesterday somebody editing from the IP address 38.80.239.148 removed the picture, blanked entire sections and deleted the references without leaving any comments on the talk page. The IP that was used for the edits (38.80.239.148) is located in the same area of the headquarters of the organization (Oregon House, CA, USA) so I suspect that it is an effort of the organization to "sanitize" the article in order to attract new members (only negative information and criticism was removed). This happened in the past, by the way. I reverted the deletions but the person undid my edits twice. Since this may be leading to an edit war, I am asking if you could help dealing with the situation. If you can't, please indicate who I should ask. Thank you in advance for your attention. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:25, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:UltraEdit - I see that neither you nor the unregistered editor have tried to discuss on the article talk page. My advice would be to restore your edits one more time and explain on the article talk page what you are doing and why, and request that the other editor discuss. That is the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle. If the other editor doesn't discuss, my advice then has two parts. First, be careful not to approach 3 reverts in 24 hours and not even get close. Second, if the other editor does not discuss, go to Requests for Page Protection and request semi-protection for a limited period such as one week. That is my advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:38, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, thank you for your help. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on the Talk page yesterday and today on the talk page of the person editing from IP address 38.80.239.148 but he/she continues to remove content without any dialogue. At that point I requested Page Protection as you told me and the page is now protected. The version that is now protected is the one after the last edit of the person removing content from an IP address, not the one that was stable since May this year. I can't revert his/her edits because I did it twice in the last 24 hours and I don't want to break the 3RR. What's the process to restore the original version before the IP vandalism occurred? Thanks again for your help. --UltraEdit (talk) 07:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've made the appropriate request. Just wait and see. Sometimes in a case like this the page is semi-protected rather than fully protected. At this point, just wait for an administrator to respond to your edit request, or for the page to come out of full protection. If the page comes out of full protection and the IP again stubs the page, if all else fails, you can always use a Request for Comments, but that is a heavyweight process that takes 30 days, so my advice is, next time, very specifically ask for semi-protection in your protection request. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:21, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, thank you. --UltraEdit (talk) 08:56, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Bonnen

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Dennis Bonnen. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal guideline workshop

Hi there. I'm taking it upon myself to try to moderate a discussion among Portal power users with the intention of creating a draft guideline for Portals, and I'd like to invite you to join this discussion. If you're interested, please join the discussion at User talk:Scottywong/Portal guideline workspace. Thanks. ‑Scottywong | [chat] || 02:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:DPP v Peter Cullen

Hello Robert McClenon, this editor is contributing as part of a class project that I am coordinating (as indicated on their user page). It is not intended as an AfC submission and I would prefer that it stay in the student's sandbox until it is ready to be assessed as part of the course. Is there a way to undo your move? Thanks. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 22:02, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AugusteBlanqui, User:Lawstudent1999 - I have moved the draft back to User:Lawstudent1999/sandbox2. The page had been tagged for AFC review, and when a page is tagged for AFC review, it is normally moved into draft space by the reviewer. In this case, it appears that it wasn't ready for review.

When the work on it is finished, and when it is split into two drafts, they probably should be accepted as articles if, as I understand, they are cases that were decided by a national supreme court. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AugusteBlanqui, User:Lawstudent1999 - I have removed the AFC submission line that says that it should not be removed. It should not be removed while a draft is in the review process, but this draft got into the review process by mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Robert! I am not sure why it was tagged for AFC—I will check that out. I made the sandbox so I may have mistakenly included it. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 23:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:AugusteBlanqui - You didn't accidentally submit it. Looking at the history, I can see that User:Lawstudent1999 submitted it by pushing on a blue button. This may have been a mouse-click error, or they may not have understood what the blue button did. As long it doesn't do the equivalent of blowing up the world, such as erasing all of your user files, or displaying profanity at the WP:Village pump, or whatever, no harm, no foul. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:K-pop

Hi, just wanted to let you know I corrected the syntax on the MfD (it was a pesky | in an external link that caused the template not to work properly). It should be fine now. --Ìch heiss Nat ùn ìch redd e wenig Elsässisch!^{Talk to me in EN, FR, PL, GSW-FR(ALS).} 06:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nat - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)

Hallo Robert, I'm a bit baffled by what happened to this draft. You rejected it at AfC ("does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, ...") and told the editor that it needed "review by a neutral editor", but surely that's what AfC represents. Comparing the version you commented on with the current version, there's nothing of substance which other editors have considered to be puffery or self-promotion - the changes are very minor and a little light copy-editing. The editor had declared her CoI. How else should she have proceeded? I thought about asking this at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Draft:Elizabeth Rowe (flutist) where the article has been discussed, but decided to come here to ask you in person. PamD 10:40, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD - I will try to respond to your points, although it appears that you may not be interested in my reply and are only interested in telling me that I was wrong. First, I did not reject the draft. I declined it. There is a difference. Second, it is true that I did not give the article a detailed review. I gave it an initial review, and decided that it needed to be reviewed in more detail, with particular attention to the fact that it was an autobiography, and Wikipedia strongly discouraged the submission of autobiographies. This appears to have been one of the exceptions where an autobiography was in reasonable shape. I have seen maybe 3 good autobiographies, and maybe a few thousand bad autobiographies, and I wanted to leave it to someone who was in a more patient mood than I was in a few days ago. How the editor should have proceeded was either as she did, but, even better, by asking someone at the WP:WikiProject Women in Red to write it for her. Third, I am aware that sometimes a project or an edit-a-thon have editors thinking that they, and not AFC, will be making the decisions on what to accept. I don't know if the WMF has in fact said that a WikiProject or an edit-a-thon should override usual policy, and so I simply follow the usual procedures. I know that this probably won't make any difference, and that you already have decided that I was wrong. (If you don't mean to be politely telling me that I was wrong, then maybe either your tone is harsh, or I am still not in a very good mood.) Robert McClenon (talk) 17:01, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. Please AGF. I said I was baffled, not that you were wrong. I don't understand the whole AfC process in detail, hence not distinguishing "decline" from "reject", though they probably feel the same to a first-time contributor. I think perhaps there's a problem that a default comment with words like "not written in encyclopedic language" sometimes gets applied when it's not what the reviewer really means - I think I've come across this before. The instruction/suggestion that the article needed a neutral reviewer also seemed weird: what else were you, there at AfC? (OK you were a tired/impatient reviewer: it might have been kinder to newbie editors to stop reviewing sooner, or to pass over, unreviewed, anything not obviously bad and leave it for another reviewer?)

I appreciate that AfC reviewers face a deluge of promotional and/or incompetent rubbish, and I AGF'd that you had actually found something you thought was the matter with this article, but I couldn't see what. I hope that despite this wobble en route to mainspace Elizabeth Rowe will decide to contribute more to the encyclopedia now that she's had a successful go at editing. (If I was "only interested in telling you you were wrong" I'd probably have done so on the WiR talkpage where the article was being discussed, and possibly triggered a chorus of criticism: I chose to ask a question here instead.) PamD 19:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:PamD - Please do not use Assume Good Faith as a cudgel to beat me up with further. Let me try to explain my defensiveness, and also to explain a little more. Yes, I do feel that you are now using AGF as a cudgel. (I know that you don't intend to be doing that.) It is very common in Wikipedia for one group of volunteer editors to dump on another group of volunteer editors. It isn't pleasant, and it isn't pretty, but it may be that there is no easy way to avoid it with ordinary human editors. In particular, the AFC reviewers get dumped on frequently, in various ways, especially for not being sufficiently welcoming to new editors. Also, a specific reason why I didn't give the Rowe draft a long neutral review is that I strongly support the Wikipedia autobiography policy, and was not sure that I would be able to give an autobiography a neutral review. So try to consider that I did the best I could, and please don't beat me up with the AGF cudgel of saying that I didn't do enough AGF. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:44, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects

Hello Robert! Can I ask why did you mention me on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects? --Captain Assassin! ^{«T ♦ C ♦ G»} 12:04, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Captain Assassin! You are listed as a member of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pakistani roads, and you have received a courtesy notice. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:48, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Water Wall Turbine

Hello, As my first contribution to Wikipedia, I've made an attempt to resolve the remaining comments on the draft for the Draft:Water_Wall_Turbine page. Given that you were the last person to review it, would you mind taking another look? If you still feel that some tonal (or other) issues remain, I'd appreciate some further direction regaring which parts of the page they occur in. Thanks so much for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImberAlacritas (talk • contribs) 22:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:ImberAlacritas - I have taken another look at it, and it still looks to me as though it has promotional aspects, but I think that you would be better off to ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Also, I see that you haven't yet answered my question about conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon - Thanks for taking a look at the changes and the hint for where to get further feedback. I'm not the original contributor, but I do not have a COI. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ImberAlacritas (talk • contribs) 06:13, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom notice

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Conduct in portal space and portal deletion discussions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, ToThAc (talk) 16:56, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Loss of books in Late Antiquity (November 18)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Missvain was:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Loss of books in Late Antiquity and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Loss of books in Late Antiquity, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Missvain (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article Review

Hello Robert McClenon thanks for the answer and the instructions on how to create the good article. These days I just read through wikipedia about the rules and terms and then I tried to edit the article according to the rules required. You can find the edited article here.Thank you --Arjanhalili (talk) 17:14, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your draft article, Draft:Brian Rosenworcel

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! HasteurBot (talk) 20:00, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Of Pain --- Notes reviewed..

Greetings Robert McClenon! I've looked over your notes regarding the submission requirement(s) and hope with the information below I have fulfilled your request. There haven't been any issues approving Wiki pages for the other bands on the same record label, so not quite sure why this one is being held up, as many of the references are the same. Thank you for your assistance.

Meets the first criteria requirement of Notability (music), as this artist has been the subject of discussion per multiple reliable sources (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)). These references include and are not limited to 'The Ithaca Times' (newspaper serving the Ithaca, New York; [1]), 'AWAY FROM LIFE' (print and digital magazine serving Europe; [5]), 'Janky Smooth' (print and digitral magazine servering Los Angeles; [6]) and others. It is important to note that many of the same references used on this page were also used and approved on Wiki pages of bands who are or have been labelmates of World Of Pain (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionheart_(hardcore_punk_band) and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xibalba_(band); lambgoat, pitchfork, Idioteq, etc).

In addition, this article meets the fifth criteria requirement of Notability (music), as World Of Pain has released 'two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.' Beatdown Hardwear is a VERY notable record label in Germany, which has produced/established bands such as Lionheart (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionheart_(hardcore_punk_band)) who is currently ranked in the top 10 on the German metal charts (https://www.wdjc.de/mrc/index.php?LG=de&ID=1) and NASTY (https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nasty_(Band)) who is regularly on the biggest metal/hardcore festivals in Europe (see: EMP Persistance, Impericon, Wacken Open Air, etc).

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Robert McClenon

Thank you for creating SOCPURP.

User:Rosguill, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Is there a reason you've created this redirect from mainspace, as opposed to having it at WP:SOCPURP?

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Rosguill}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

_signed,Rosguill ^talk 20:00, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Rosguill - No. I've moved it to project space. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 25 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Case Opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Evidence. Please add your evidence by December 20, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Portals/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, SQL ^{Query me!} 20:38, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Quantenna concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Quantenna, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Holding reply

Hi. thanks for bringing that to my attention. I have no memory of doing this at all, so it is either a complete mistake on my part or conceivably someone has gained access to my ID. I was away from home that day, but I did log on for a while so I will have to check through everything I did and see if there were any other actions I don't recognise. Deb (talk) 18:26, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Update - Well, I've had another look and I can't understand this at all. I'm wondering whether, because I was using an unfamiliar keyboard, I clicked on something I didn't intend to. There doesn't seem to be enough time between my edits for someone else to have come into the room and done it when I wasn't looking. What do you think I should do to correct the error? Deb (talk) 18:34, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Deb - Well, since the user who wrote the comment that disappeared seems to think that it may have been deleted because it was too harsh or divisive, and it was sarcastic, but, as I thought, not sarcastic enough to warrant removal, I suggest just leaving it gone. It was in the section for back-and-forth discussion, which I provide just so that the editors can say snarky things that will be ignored, and it is being ignored by being in the bit bucket. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. It seems pointless to stir things up after a couple of days have passed and things have moved on. Deb (talk) 19:15, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

'My' draft

Please let me clarify. I know you just declined "my" draft. The thing was, I just came upon the category "Pending AfC submissions being reviewed now" and saw this draft in someone else's sandbox. I checked the edit history and found out that the "reviewing" template was not posted by an AfC reviewer but that user himself. I realized that the user must have meant to put the "Waiting for review" template instead. So, not aware that a draft called Draft:Li Zhaoping already existed, I changed it and, simultaneously made several minor changes to help the draft. By the way, I wasn't even the one who submitted the original draft. So can you please transfer the message at my talk page to the user in question, User:Davidypan and tell him about it? Thanks for your understanding. 數神, the Lord of Math (Prove me wrong; My contributions to the world in numbers) 09:30, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

數神 - User:Davidypan has already been notified in their talk page that I have left comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:18, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:57:39, 8 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dubyavee

Dubyavee (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Confederate government in West Virginia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dubyavee (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am surprised at the review you gave to my draft. The article addresses issues that are not covered in any other article. It is too large a subject to fit into the History of West Virginia or West Virginia in the Civil War. There are already TWO articles on the Union government in West Virginia, The Wheeling Conventions, and The Restored Government of West Virginia. There are TWO separate articles on Kentucky and Missouri Confederate governments. I submitted my article to Scott A. MacKenzie, who has written articles for West Virginia History journal and Ohio Valley History, and he approved of what I had written and suggested only two minor additions. I would request that another reviewer take a look at my article and someone more familiar with the subject matter. Dubyavee (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dubyavee - Perhaps the way that my review was provided seemed more negative than I intended. I did not intend to be rejecting your draft, but only advising you to discuss at Talk:History of West Virginia before resubmitting. So discuss at Talk:History of West Virginia. If there is rough consensus there that a separate article is in order, either I or another reviewer will accept it. (I realize that the wording of the review appears negative.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of B D Kavi

Hello Robert McClenon,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged B D Kavi for deletion, because it seems to be promotional, rather than an encyclopedia article.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!

Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

Bensci54 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bensci54 - Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my draft. I didn't even move that draft from the sandbox to draft space, but had moved a different draft from the sandbox into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Editor using my real life disorder to punish me

NAC: Advice given on OP's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2019 (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.

Hi, I need your attention.

An editor is trying to harass me by imposing "no-edits" restrictions to prohibit me from any edits/typo fixes to my comments. This is an insult to my personality and I can't cope with! I took this insult very personally and I don't know what to do. I always respected other people's disabilities and disorders, and I never expected that someone in Wikipedia is so heartless as to use mine to punish me for not liking me. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 15:13, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Aegean_dispute&type=revision&diff=930145565&oldid=930143388&diffmode=source

User:SilentResident - Is this a dispute with an administrator? I don't normally want to get drawn into a dispute between an administrator and a non-administrator. However, if I understand what the issue is, which is that you are copy-editing your own posts after posting them, my advice is to compose your posts in Word or Notepad or WordPerfect or whatever, that is, off-wiki, until they no longer need copy-editing, and then post them to their intended target page. Is that the issue, or have I misunderstood what the issue is? I will look into it further, but what I can see is that it appears that you are posting first and copy-editing afterward and annoying another editor. I don't think that they have any real business being annoyed, but we can deal with the source of their annoyance. Or is it something else? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:54, 10 December 2019 (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.

sorry

Didn't mean to make you feel dumped on! --valereee (talk) 22:21, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Valereee - It is very much the Wikipedia way to pick some other group of Wikipedia volunteers to whom one does not belong and dump on them as not doing a perfect job. That doesn't make it desirable, but it is very much the Wikipedia way. For instance, the backlog of Articles for Creation is several months long, and some editors dump on the AFC reviewers for not doing enough. Oh well. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I know. It's the same working on the Main page. :D I don't think you don't do enough. I think you work very hard, and your work is recognized and appreciated by many people, even if they don't tell you so often enough. I seldom comment at ANI because I seldom think my input would add anything, but I do see what goes on there and do know that you regulars are working hard in a generally thankless area. Thank you for doing that. --valereee (talk) 12:38, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the Main Page is a lot of work by multiple volunteers. Some editors only noticed it when a dispute about some of the parts of the Main Page wound up going to ArbCom, but the real problem was, as is too often the case, simply that two editors did not like each other. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:52, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Unicode

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Unicode. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 08:29:29, 12 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MatWr

MatWr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Waukauyengtipu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for your review. I am writing this comment as unfortunately I cannot agree with your point of view. Having been actively involved in the research of the Guyana/Venezuela region for some years myself, I prepared a separate article about Waukauyengtipu in order to clear up the nomenclatural inaccuracies being spread in available sources, basing my information on tangible results of exploration on site. Truth is that information about Mount Venamo is vague and mostly based on very old, fragmented pieces of information coming in most part from an old expedition made there by J.A. Steyermark in 1960s. The sources provide much better information about Waukauyengtipu rather than Mount Venamo, thanks to D. Clarke's Waukauyengtipu botanical expedition from 1997 - so there is no point in providing information about Waukauyengtipu in a Mount Venamo article. The claim that both mountains are the same thing was put in the Mount Venamo article without having any basis in professional sources has since led to strong confusion, even within the scientific community - having a separate article about Waukauyengtipu will help stop spreading misinformation about the geography of the region.

Another reason why I am so strongly convinced about my case is that I personally led an expedition to Waukauyengtipu mountain in January 2018, confirming my claims regarding the nomenclature with local Indigenous communities and supplementing to the observations made by the 1997 Smithsonian expedition.

I hope you will reconsider your decision. I will be happy to provide any more information should there be a need to do so.

Yours sincerely, Mateusz Wrazidlo

MatWr (talk) 08:29, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:MatWr - I will respond on your talk page within 24 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Jose V. Lopez

You indicated that this subject meets WP:NPROF. What evidence did you find? ~Kvng (talk) 17:51, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kvng - In looking at the draft again, I probably thought at the time that the subject had received a prestigious award, Criterion 2. In taking a third review of the draft, I don't think so. It appears that the draft is something relatively uncommon, which is a long well-written draft about a professor that nonetheless does not establish academic notability. I also don't see a basis for general notability; I don't like the general notability rules, because reasonable editors can disagree and usually do disagree about general notability. However, that isn't the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want to strike your comment on the draft? 05:17, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

User:Kvng - If you think that it needs to be struck, you can strike it. I would prefer simply to have you state that you disagree, or something. I do not really want to over-worry about every draft that I have reviewed in the past month or two months and make sure that I have never left evidence of mistakes. Maybe some reviewers are perfect. I try to do the best that I can, and I am willing to leave that one as it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing your comment, I was going to accpet the draft since sourcing has been improved since you rejected it. But I couldn't see that WP:NPROF was met in a quick check. I will strike your comment. ~Kvng (talk) 18:56, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Botrytis elliptica, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Botrytis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 16:00:38, 13 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Jack Zagorski

Jack Zagorski (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Mana (meal replacement) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, thank you for your prompt feedback regarding the following draft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jack_Zagorski/Mana_(food). First of all, sorry for submitting multiple copies of drafts. I thought that by submitting the second I was overwriting the first. Second of all, I just wanted to clarify the following comment about notable references: "[article rejected because references] do not show significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

I believe that the sources I cited meet these criteria. They are reliable, secondary sources that are independent of Heaven Labs s.r.o., which focus exclusively on our company/products and which are not just passing mentions. However, I also understand that I am a new Wikipedia user and that I have a conflict of interest. So, my overall understanding of your feedback is that the references themselves are not inappropriate, but that we simply need more references, ideally from bigger names. Is that correct? Thanks in advance for the clarification/advice.

Jack Zagorski (talk) 16:00, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jack Zagorski - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and not every draft ever gets approved. I do not normally work with editors who have conflict of interest, although I am glad to see that you have declared your conflict of interest. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:21, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon Thank you for the information. Will take my question there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jack Zagorski (talk • contribs) 08:55, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for creation: Phil Haus

User:Robert McClenon Thank you for your swift review. Does the standard Wikipedia have different notability criteria than Simple English version? I wanted to move an established article from SE https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Haus. --Ubiquitouslarry (talk) 18:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ubiquitouslarry - I don't know anything about the Simple English Wikipedia, but the notability criteria of any two different versions of Wikipedia are different, and in general the English Wikipedia has relatively strict notability rules, in spite of or because of having more articles than any other Wikipedia. I would suggest that you might be able to get answers about the Simple English Wikipedia at the Teahouse, although it is an English Wikipedia information forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Aarthi Ganesh concern

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Aarthi Ganesh, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

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

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry

This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.

No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well RM. MarnetteD|Talk 03:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 19:39:42, 18 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Carlden10

Carlden10 (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Radmila Lolly (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I'm not clear how my Radmila Lolly article doesn't qualify for suitable mentions. She has proven to be associated with celebrities, covered in international magazines, performed at renown venues, and is verified on Instagram. Can you review again and provide specific suggestions? Thank you.

Carlden10 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlden10 - There was a deletion discussion that was closed on 1 July 2019. I said, in declining the draft, that if you thought that she now met one of the notability criteria, please indicate on the draft talk page. You still may discuss notability on the draft talk page and submit the draft for re-review again. If you think that the article should not have been deleted, you may go to Deletion Review and request to reverse the deletion; it is more likely that DRV may say to submit a draft for review, and may specify what criteria should be considered in the draft. If you have any more questions, we can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carlden10 - Discuss notability at the draft talk page, or at the Teahouse. I have not compared the draft article and the deleted article, but the AFD creates a presumption of non-notability, and it is up to you to overcome the presumption. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom evidence

I agree with and will refer to the evidence entered by User:BrownHairedGirl... How can you possibly agree with BHG's evidence when she hasn't posted her evidence publicly yet? Iffy★Chat -- 09:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:52:23, 21 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by MatWr

MatWr (talk · contribs)
- Draft:Waukauyengtipu (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello. Thank you for your reply. In order to present a history of the exploration of Waukauyengtipu (along with botanical observations made during the expeditions), it needs to be granted a separate article. I makes no sense to write about Waukauyengtipu expedition reports in an article about Mount Venamo. Nomenclatural inaccuracies are not everything - these are two separate mountains. Whereas Mount Venamo has no sources providing any tangible information about its exploration history other than fragmented notes. Waukauyengtipu, on the other hand, is much better documented in source materials.

I still hope my proposal will be reconsidered.

Best Regards, Mateusz Wrazidlo

MatWr (talk) 11:52, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Merry Christmas, Robert McClenon!
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! As the year winds to a close, I would like to take a moment to recognize your hard work and offer heartfelt gratitude for all you do for Wikipedia. May this Holiday Season bring you nothing but joy, health and prosperity. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Kemomc52/sandbox

A tag has been placed on Kemomc52/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:DannyS712 - Weird. I don't know what happened here. I see that I moved User:Kemomc52/sandbox to Draft:Vivian Tomlinson Williams, a musician. Oh. I see what happened. User:Kemomc52 did some questionable moves to try move the musician draft into article space, and one of them created a cross-name-space redirect. I think that the student user needs to be told to rely on AFC and to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User: Ross Kolby/Sandbox

User:Robert McClenon Dear Robert. Thank you for your message. I am sorry for updating the sandbox so it seems that I apply two times with tha same article. I am not used to edit on Wikipedia, and it is just a result of me not knowing how to make an article correctly. I believed the Sandbox was a place where I could keep an article for myself and store it. I of course only wish to apply with one version of the article. Should I delete the version I now have saved in my Sandbox? Best, Constituto (talk) 18:15, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constituto - Just work on Draft:Ross Kolby. It doesn't matter what you do with a sandbox, except that if you tag it for review, it gets reviewed, and the reviewer tries to move it to draft space. So play in the sand; just don't throw sand into draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Robert McClenon I see. Thank you. I have worked quite a lot on the Draft:Ross Kolby and I for now do not know how to improve it more without guidance. Would you be able to review the draft for being published as an article here? Or might you give me some advice if you feel it must be improved? I have worked on the inline citations and to make it pass the Wikipedia demands. Best, Constituto (talk) 18:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Constituto - I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process. If you need guidance on how to improve your draft, I would suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse, which has a diversity of experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up!

Thanks for pointing out the additional submission of the Lillian Shalom draft; good to be aware of this type of editing. MurielMary (talk) 20:28, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Hello Robert McClenon: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBig Xrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:15, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lillian Shalom (December 24)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. See the conflict of interest policy for more information.

If this draft is resubmitted, it is recommended that it be nominated for deletion. If this draft is not an autobiography, it may be resubmitted with an explanation on the draft talk page that it is not an autobiography.

This draft reads like an advertisement, but Wikipedia is not for advertising.

This draft is the work of a sockpuppeteer.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:33, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: sandbox (December 24)

Your recent article submission has been rejected. If you have further questions, you can ask at the Articles for creation help desk or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help. The reasons left by Robert McClenon were: This topic is not sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. This submission is contrary to the purpose of Wikipedia. The comment the reviewer left was:

This draft appears to be an autobiography, the submission of which is strongly discouraged. See the conflict of interest policy for more information.

If this draft is resubmitted, it is recommended that it be nominated for deletion. If this draft is not an autobiography, it may be resubmitted with an explanation on the draft talk page that it is not an autobiography.

This draft reads like an advertisement, but Wikipedia is not for advertising.

This draft was submitted by a sockpuppet.

Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 24 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewed my sandbox draft

I have created the Phemex Wikipedia page at my sandbox please let me know why it's not approved and what can I do for the approval. I believe the page is important because its about a bitcoin futures and cryptocurrency derivatives trading platform.(Aureliojohn (talk) 21:12, 24 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

User:Aureliojohn - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. The importance of a page in Wikipedia depends on its coverage by reliable secondary sources. General sanctions apply to disruptive editing or to advertising of cryptocurrencies. If you think that the subject is notable, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:19, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon - Thanks you Robert, Good to see you again. I really appreciate your work and guidelines.(Aureliojohn (talk) 18:31, 25 December 2019 (UTC))[reply]

Good luck

豊かな十年へようこそ/WELCOME TO THE D20s

Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラ PはRobert McClenonたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！
フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE!
ミラ P 04:21, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Miraclepine - Thank you for putting Cdr. Wikipe-tan on watch on my home page. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:30, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To whom it may concern...

Newshunter12 (talk) has given you a fresh pie! Pies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a piping hot pie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GivePie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Merry Christmas! Who knows, maybe the Grinch will steal every portal while you're sleeping. We know what a loss for Wikipedia that would be. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Newshunter12 - I don't think that the warrior princess who is on watch, in the uniform that my mother would have worn a few years before I was born, will allow the grinch to pass. If the grinch enters through the portal, he is a prisoner and can be sent to Admiral Nimitz for interrogation to give evidence to the ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:27, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, User:Newshunter12, I see. You didn't put the warrior princess on watch. User:Miraclepine did that. It doesn't matter. She is there standing watch, and isn't likely to allow a grinch to pass, whether through a portal or to steal a portal. Happy New Year anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 26 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple submissions but unsure about versions

How do I find the different submissions for Sammy Voit? I would like to delete all except the one submitted for review today but I don’t know how to find them. Please help. Thanks Fayerez303 (talk) 02:05, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nick Fuentes (2nd nomination)

Hello Robert McClenon, as the nom of this article at AfD, I wanted to let you know I've rescinded my recent Close as Delete in favor of Relisting for further discussion, based on this request by Magog the Ogre. JGHowes ^talk 22:04, 29 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Evidence. Please add your evidence by January 14, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/RHaworth/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, CodeLyoko^talk 03:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

lol

The person you repeatedly said "wasn't notable" is now a congresswoman-elect one week later

That's tough corporatist — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.43.55.167 (talk) 05:05, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Article Draft is updated and resubmitted, thanks for your message left at the draft page Draft:Hamza. El Moutadir

My Article Draft is Tagged MfDDraft:Ntinda Vocational Training Institute-Kampala

Please comment on Talk:Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease

Draft:List of Books About Women in History

State Portal Metrics

Reviews

Proposals regarding AfC & NPP

Please comment on Talk:Feynman Prize in Nanotechnology

MfD nomination of Wikipedia:US State Portal Metrics

Victor Laredo

format problems and afc

Please comment on Talk:BMW 3 Series (E36)

Feedback

Deletion of "3D-CMCC-CNR Biogeochemical Model" page

About my Battle for Dream Island draft.

Editing News #2 – Mobile editing and talk pages – October 2019

Help

Talk Pages

Mobile visual editor

Edit Cards

Toolbar

Wikimania

Looking ahead

Reduce protection for Thiyya

The Real Housewives of New York City RfC

Sorting of Names Issue (again)

Draft:Shlomo Group concern

Please comment on Talk:70th anniversary of the People's Republic of China

Draft:Brian Rosenworcel concern

Sally Helgesen

Your draft article, User:Riffsister/sandbox

Steve Huffman edit war

Vandalism here. Edit war

Please comment on Talk:BMW M3

I find your behavior towards me specifically hugely hypocritical

Steven Universe : The Movie

Your submission at Articles for creation: Lab preparation of nitrogen (October 28)

Disambiguation link notification for October 30

Draft:Adani Transmission

Please comment on Talk:Map projection

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

format issue, follow up.

TED Interview Reply

Bundling MFDs

Ute Lotz-Heumann

A Disco Ball

Disco ball of unlimited knowledge

Please comment on Talk:Windows 98

First and second fundamental theorems of invariant theory

When will it end

Call-out culture meditation

A barnstar for you!

Fellowship of Friends article

Please comment on Talk:Dennis Bonnen

Portal guideline workshop

Draft:DPP v Peter Cullen

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:K-pop

Elizabeth Rowe (flutist)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Pakistan-related WikiProjects

Draft:Water Wall Turbine

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

ArbCom notice

Your submission at Articles for creation: Loss of books in Late Antiquity (November 18)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Article Review

Your draft article, Draft:Brian Rosenworcel

Please comment on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

Your submission at Articles for creation: World Of Pain --- Notes reviewed..

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Arbitration Case Opened

Please comment on Talk:Mobile Launcher Platform

Draft:Quantenna concern

Holding reply

Please comment on Talk:Bitcoin Cash

'My' draft

Request on 19:57:39, 8 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Dubyavee

Speedy deletion nomination of B D Kavi

Editor using my real life disorder to punish me

sorry

Please comment on Talk:Unicode