User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 9

Draft: Maia Chung

Thank you Robert McClenon for your recent review of Draft: Maia Chung. I am however not certain I have completely grasped the errors that I continue to dog this submission. I do hope you are able to comment on my most recent amendments and please also furnish a bit more detail on the actual infringements. Thank you again.

Please comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Deaths in 2015. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

Dentren is back

Hi Robert,

Dentren, the claimer of Talk:War_of_the_Pacific#Third_Opinion:_Original_synthesis_issues is back. Obviously, I can't substantiate his claims. Would you be so kind to continue the thread?. --Keysanger (talk) 23:13, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Dentren has put the same tags again [1]. Without new rationale. I am at my wits' end. Can you talk to him?. --Keysanger (talk) 10:18, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I don't see any reason to be banned from the article or to get an interaction ban. I am not involved in a edit war, I haven't done personal attacks against nor disruptive edits and I didn't violate the rules of Wikipedia. Moreover, you and me (and other) agree that Dentren is unable to substantiate his claims.

Please, be so kind and help me: explain which reasons lead you to the proposal.

Greetings, --Keysanger (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

My preferred proposal, as I have been stating for some time, would be formal mediation. I do not claim to be an expert on that particular war. What I can see is that that is an article where the interaction between two editors, Keysanger and Dentren, is toxic and is making improvement of the article difficult. Another editor has said, and this may or may not be true, that you are misrepresenting sources, and there appears to be a rough consensus that you are editing against consensus. If so, and if you think there is a local consensus which does not represent the community consensus as a whole, you should use an RFC rather than persistently editing to state your position. That is my opinion. Please discuss at [WP:ANI]]. I tried to direct the two of you to formal mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

You are receiving this message because you are a party to the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case. The Arbitration Committee has enacted the following temporary injunction, to expire at the closure of the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case:

1. Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to to genetically modified organisms and agricultural biotechnology, including glyphosate, broadly interpreted, for as long as this arbitration case remains open. Any uninvolved administrator may levy restrictions as an arbitration enforcement action on users editing in this topic area, after an initial warning.
2. Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day within the topic area found in part 1 of this injunction, subject to the usual exemptions.

For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) (via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:59, 6 October 2015 (UTC))

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Arbitration temporary injunction for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case

DRN case: ESS (what's happening?)

Hey Rob, just wanted to check in about the RfC and case. So I'm gonna just prod you a bit here for an update and ask if you wanted me to possibly handle that while you deal with the ArbCom case that I saw above. No hassle either way but it's there if you want to take the offer. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 09:24, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Me again; would you mind if I were to take over and re-open to work on the RfC? I think I could get them to work with it but I don't want to impose. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 03:29, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

User:Drcrazy102 - On the one hand, I have no objection to you working with the other editors on the RFC. On the other hand, please do not re-open the case without discussion on the dispute resolution noticeboard, because it really would feel to me like a statement that I had failed. That is, don't re-open it without discussion, unless you really feel that failed and are willing to tell me why. If you want to advise them to refile, I don't object. I am less optimistic than you. Please, unless you really want to say that I did a poor job, do not just re-open it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:23, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no way you failed considering you were dealing with three hard-headed editors and two absentees. I was only going to re-open to continue the RfC discussion but I can probably do that on the article talk page and use my sandbox pages to hold the draft language. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 01:35, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

That sounds good to me, User:Drcrazy102. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:37, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

WotP

I would like to know your opinion in this case. --Keysanger (talk) 11:58, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor update

This note is only delivered to English Wikipedia subscribers of the visual editor's newsletter.

The location of the visual editor's preference has been changed from the "Beta" tab to the "Editing" section of your preferences on this wiki. The setting now says Temporarily disable the visual editor while it is in beta. This aligns en.wiki with almost all the other WMF wikis; it doesn’t mean the visual editor is complete, or that it is no longer “in beta phase” though.

This action has not changed anything else for editors: it still honours editors’ previous choices about having it on or off; logged-out users continue to only have access to wikitext; the “Edit” tab is still after the “Edit source” one. You can learn more at the visual editor’s talk page.

We don’t expect this to cause any glitches, but in case your account no longer has the settings that you want, please accept our apologies and correct it in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences. Thank you for your attention, Elitre (WMF) -16:32, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Notability

I was told that school newspapers were a verifiable source and usable as references. But according to you universities that have been around longer than you have been born are not credible. When I looked at other sorority pages, their references lead to dead links. May I ask why those are more reputable? I'm not completely understanding the basis of article declination based on references, seeing as how there are no consistent criterion for "judgement" Naiele3 (talk) 08:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

Your collapse

Question: How are we to stand any chance of resolving these issues if people keep unilaterally suppressing discussion about them? Do you have some special authority on that page that I'm not aware of? ―Mandruss ☎ 00:03, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

I have no special authority, but, as a dispute resolution volunteer, I know a thread that is going on and on and getting nowhere when I see it. A thread that is going on and on and getting nowhere is a candidate for a dispute resolution mechanism. If this were article space, I would recommend moderated dispute resolution, bringing in a neutral party. As it is, it looks as if a Request for Comments would be in order, or letting it drop. Anyway, since I only collapsed the discussion, so that some editors can ignore it, and did not archive it or hat it, discussion is permitted to continue invisibly. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:33, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Poe dispute

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.

---

Hallward's decollapse of summary comment

Hey Robert, Hallward and David Levy recently visited me about "hatting" their comments as well, which is why I have refused any further interaction with the case. They seem to not realise that commenting on the editor and their actions is not accepted in general practice by DRN due to its unhelpful nature per the spirits of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA if not the wording. At any rate, enjoy the fun of dealing with literary fans. Cheers, Drcrazy102 (talk) 04:20, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

You seem to not realize that discussion of editors' actions is explicitly recommended on both of those policy pages. As for what is and isn't tolerated at DRN, that's a separate matter (and one with which I'm largely unfamiliar, admittedly). In my first message on your talk page, I noted that "if [Kevin and I] addressed the wrong aspects of the dispute or committed some other procedural error, it's reasonable to bring this to our attention. Instead, you've accused us of violating one of Wikipedia's core policies by engaging in personal attacks (an accusation of misconduct far more serious than anything that Kevin and I attributed to Joe)." In your reply, you stated that "calling someone or their edits frivolous is deemed to be commenting on them and their actions in a negative and judgemental way which is considered a Personal Attack." You later contradicted this direct acknowledgement by claiming that you "have never accused either of [us] of actually breaking any part of the NPA policy [and] merely used it to show [your] reasoning".
I wanted to address this matter on your talk page (in the hope of ensuring that similar incidents were prevented in the future), but you informed Kevin and me that you "will regard any further attempts to discuss such things on [your] talkpage as attempting to harass [you]", which isn't the sort of comment that I expect from a dispute resolution volunteer. —David Levy 08:57, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

DRN

I must say that DRN's procedures are rather unclear to editors lacking advance familiarity. The practice of simply collapsing non-compliant comments (with no effort made to assist users who contributed them in good faith, or even to provide detailed explanations of where they went wrong) seems bitey and counterproductive. Additionally, I'm curious as to why Joe's comments about other editors (including his incorrect attribution of someone else's comment to me – mentioned by name) have been left untouched.

I will review Joe's comments and collapse them as appropriate. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

You advised us to "direct all comments to [you], the moderator, and not to each other. That is, please do not engage in threaded discussion." Given the context, I interpreted the "threaded discussion" instruction as pertinent to comments made "to each other". When I replied to you, Drcrazy102 continued the thread, seemingly confirming this interpretation.
I don't understand what purpose a prohibition of threaded replies is intended to serve at DRN. It's as though someone copied the Arbitration Committee's format without stopping to consider its applicability (or lack thereof) to an informal process.

There seems to be a perception that those of us mentioning Joe's conduct are attempting to misuse DRN as a forum in which to address a behavioral dispute. In actuality, Kevin and I are trying to communicate that it's not the appropriate forum. Joe is abusing the DRN process as a means of forum shopping. He has absolutely no desire to cooperate with other editors on the matter at hand. From day one, he's rejected each and every possible solution other than his own. Even on the DRN page itself, Joe has described his edits to the article's lead as "obviously necessary" and reiterated that his desired resolution is to end the "quibbling" that's stood in his way. His proposed "compromise" entails exactly the same changes for which he's argued (and initially edit warred) from the beginning. (He responded in kind when I suggested actual compromise wording on the article's talk page.) Surely, this is isn't how DRN is intended to function. —David Levy 08:57/14:11, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see a behavioral dispute. Holding a minority opinion stubbornly is not an abuse of DRN. DRN is intended only to discuss article content and not conduct or actions by other editors. (In this respect, it is different than talk pages in general.) I don't see any evidence of forum shopping, because I don't see a discussion of this article in any other forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

Please take any further discussion of moderation of this article to the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page for possible participation by other DRN volunteers. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:54, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

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.

Please comment on Talk:Yugoslavia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Yugoslavia. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

wrong button

Hi. I pressed wrong button. I was in a process to explain something. --Ataman (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

A DRN award for you

		Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Award, Grade 3
		For your dedicated work in DRN. You deserve this. —☮JAaron95 Talk 19:13, 23 October 2015 (UTC)
		This award comes in five grades: Base Grade (no stars, awardable to DRN volunteers or to individuals involved in a dispute) and Grades 1-4 (1-4 stars, respectively, awardable only to DRN volunteers).

I am assuming that this is primarily for the Poe case, which actually was resolved to the satisfaction of the editors, including one who was wasting time with conduct allegations. The Earth Systems Science case was a failure because the "one" editor listen to my counsel that an RFC would be his best approach. How does one award this award? Is it available via Twinkle? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically for this dispute. I've followed your fine contributions to DRN and I know your dedication. No, twinkle does not have this option. You can manually give this awards using the templates {{subst:DRNA-GB}}; {{subst:DRNA-G1}}; {{subst:DRNA-G2}}; {{subst:DRNA-G3}}; {{subst:DRNA-G4}}. Grades 1-4 are awardable only to DRN volunteers. Regards—☮JAaron95 ^Talk 09:35, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Some of the contributors may not agree with me, but I think it was a good job. Deb (talk) 16:36, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

They didn't agree with my process, which was to try to use a process, but they didn't disagree with the final result. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Snow Bowl (2008)

I replied to your comment. Please reply there and my talk page. --74.130.133.1 (talk) 01:17, 25 October 2015 (UTC)

Bukarester FC

Bukarester FC was a team from Liga I, it is notable, but there is not so many information about it because it only survive 4 years till the War started. They were professional also, why did you declined again the article?--Alexiulian25 (talk) 07:26, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Bukarester FC what do you think about it now ? Can I submit it ? Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:00, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Please help me to split this table in 2 tables : 2006–07 Liga II, because all the seasons of Liga II have 2 separate tables for the 2 series. I do not know how to do it, I here for football, I am a beginner in editing. Thanks !--Alexiulian25 (talk) 01:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

You missed the point...

The two sections linked to only contained two editors, me included, so I am unsure how you came to the conclusion to decline the request for a third opinion based on there bring "at least [other] unregistered editor".EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:04, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Can somebody change an article name

The article L. G. Dupree has the wrong name, it should be L.G. Dupre instead. Can somebody change it ?. Tecmo (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Moved. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your help on the Third Opinion Request

Thank you very much for your your kind responsiveness to the Third Opinion request for the page Talk:Social_Bonding_and_Nurture_Kinship, and for taking the time to understand the problem and suggest some solutions. I will follow your recommendations.81.57.24.88 (talk) 14:17, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #5—2015

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

Did you know?

You can use the visual editor on smartphones and tablets.

Click the pencil icon to open the editor for a page. Inside that, use the gear menu in the upper right corner to "Switch to visual editing".

The editing button will remember which editing environment you used last time, and give you the same one next time. The desktop site will be switching to a system similar to this one in the coming months.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs, added new features, and made some small design changes. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages like Japanese and Arabic, making it easier to edit on mobile devices, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements

Educational features: The first time you use the visual editor, it now draws your attention to the Link and ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽ tools. When you click on the tools, it explains why you should use them. (T108620) Alongside this, the welcome message for new users has been simplified to make editing more welcoming. (T112354) More in-software educational features are planned.

Links:  It is now easier to understand when you are adding text to a link and when you are typing plain text next to it. (T74108, T91285) The editor now fully supports ISBN, PMID or RFC numbers. (T109498, T110347, T63558)  These "magic links" use a custom link editing tool.

Uploads:  Registered editors can now upload images and other media to Commons while editing. Click the new tab in the "Insert Images and media" tool. You will be guided through the process without having to leave your edit. At the end, the image will be inserted. This tool is limited to one file at a time, owned by the user, and licensed under Commons's standard license. For more complex situations, the tool links to more advanced upload tools. You can also drag the image into the editor. This will be available in the wikitext editor later.

Mobile:  Previously, the visual editor was available on the mobile Wikipedia site only on tablets. Now, editors can use the visual editor on any size of device. (T85630)  Edit conflicts were previously broken on the mobile website. Edit conflicts can now be resolved in both wikitext and visual editors. (T111894) Sometimes templates and similar items could not be deleted on the mobile website. Selecting them caused the on-screen keyboard to hide with some browsers. Now there is a new "Delete" button, so that these things can be removed if the keyboard hides. (T62110) You can also edit table cells in mobile now.

Rich editing tools:  You can now add and edit sheet music in the visual editor. (T112925)  There are separate tabs for advanced options, such as MIDI and Ogg audio files. (T114227 and T113354)  When editing formulæ and other blocks, errors are shown as you edit. It is also possible to edit some types of graphs; adding new ones, and support for new types, will be coming.

On the English Wikipedia, the visual editor is now automatically available to anyone who creates an account. The preference switch was moved to the normal location, under Special:Preferences.

Future changes

You will soon be able to switch from the wikitext to the visual editor after you start editing. (T49779) Previously, you could only switch from the visual editor to the wikitext editor. Bi-directional switching will make possible a single edit tab. (T102398) This project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, similar to the system already used on the mobile website. The "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback. This feedback page uses Flow for discussions.
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help, and report it on Phabricator (Korean - Japanese) or on Wikipedia (Korean - Japanese).
• Local admins can set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki. If you need help, then please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.
• The weekly task triage meetings are open to volunteers. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration, though. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you can't read this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

— Whatamidoing (WMF) 04:16, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

DRN II

I've never been to DRN before & so this will be the first time (for me) seeing how it works. I didn't know you were a moderator. I thought you were a only a clerk. That's why I had nominated other editors for moderator :) GoodDay (talk) 18:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

There is no distinction between moderators and clerks at DRN. We are all volunteers and have no special authority. Any volunteer can act as a moderator. Any volunteer can act as a clerk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

That's cool :) GoodDay (talk) 19:02, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

If you look at the recent cases, you will see that I was moderating Proportional representation until I closed it as getting nowhere. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:06, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ok, I see :) GoodDay (talk) 19:22, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Suggestion about article name

There is an article named Charley Ane, because the article Charlie Ane was created first for his son who is not as relevant in football. Ane is either known by Charles Aner or Charlie Ane. Should this article name stay the same ?.Tecmo (talk) 17:16, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Both Anes are known for American football. I see no mention of either of them being known as Aner. Is that a typo in your post? Perhaps an RFC is in order, or a disambiguation page for the surname. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:30, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Request on 12:18:02, 1 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Awoodwa

• Awoodwa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gridcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, thanks for reviewing Draft:Gridcoin. I do not know what else to do with this article to make it neutral. I removed the links that were not third-party and added more links that were third-party. I sanitized it down to what I thought was an encyclopedic entry. I've added definitions of what it is and what exactly it does, nothing more. Can you add more specifics in your comments? Each time it has been rejected, standard boiler-plate information has been displayed showing the problem in very general terms which honestly is not that helpful at this point. It seems like the article has just been auto-reviewed by AFCH or whatever that script is and the standard verbage displayed. I thought updating this article would be fun, however at this point I really don't want to use or edit any Wikipedia article ever again. I'm kind of over it. Thanks, Andy.

Awoodwa (talk) 12:18, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

As the banner for posts to my talk page says, I would prefer that Articles for Creation questions be discussed at the Teahouse to get the input of other experienced editors. I will take it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

20:29:06, 1 November 2015 review of submission by Awoodwa

• Awoodwa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Gridcoin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, thank you for the follow-up on "Draft:Gridcoin." I now have something to move forward with before I resubmit the article again. Andy.Awoodwa (talk) 20:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

1 November - ECLOGUES OF CALPURNIUS SICULUS

Dear Robert - Thank you very much for reviewing and accepting my draft article for the Eclogues of Calpurnius Siculus - much appreciated. Best regards CharlesCHRM2 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

That one was easy, in fact one of the easiest drafts I had to review. Thank you for submitting an easy draft, as in, a clearly well-written and encyclopedic draft. Many of the articles that are submitted are crap or crap. If it was great 1800 years ago, it is probably still great. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:38, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Forum Shopping

Defense of forum shopping omitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:44, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi Rob. I see that you made my Help Desk post and closed it due to "Forum Shopping". But the reason I opened a discussion to Help desk was because there was no solution reached for either side of the discussion, basically equaling to no solution for anyone. You'd have to see the discussions and everything because the whole thing became more complicated than it was supposed to be. Just letting you know. (N0n3up (talk) 03:47, 2 November 2015 (UTC)) I did see both sides of the discussion. You evidently want someone to answer you quickly. In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Do you want me to close the WP:DRN case? If not, just wait for a moderator. Is there an actual national emergency in the current United Kingdom about the former British Empire? If so, Wikipedia isn't here for the purpose. David Cameron can deal with it. Stop forum-shopping. Do you really want to be blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:53, 2 November 2015 (UTC) You talk to me as if I were the "bad guy" through this whole dilemma. Just keep in mind who brought the sources and who chose to discussed his edits instead of edit-warring. (N0n3up (talk) 04:02, 2 November 2015 (UTC))

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Bud Harner AfC Rejection

Robert, The page is not an autobiography. I am not Bud Harner. I created this account to create his page. What can I do to verify the page is NOT an autobiography? Budharner (talk) 23:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

07:22:54, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Thirstyforeigner

• Thirstyforeigner (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CobaltAir (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, Thanks for the quick review of CobaltAir. Perhaps I have entered this under the wrong section - any advice on listing it as an airline company rather that 'notable'? It is a current company in Cyprus and hiring staff. Thanks Thirstyforeigner Thirstyforeigner (talk) 07:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be requesting the input of other experienced editors at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:04, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

15:57:48, 6 November 2015 review of submission by Kbkrenek

• Kbkrenek (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CHI St. Luke's Health (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I was wondering if you could give me some tips on how to rewrite certain sections. I'm pretty sure the part with close paraphrasing is the Awards section, and I'm not quite sure how to reword official names of awards and organizations. The names of the awards and organizations are really long, such as "the International Organization for Standardization’s ISO 9001:2008 Quality Management System certification." Would you recommend just deleting the entire awards section?

If this is not the section with the problem, please let me know where I should focus my attention. I really appreciate your time!

Thanks for your help, Kelli

I take all questions about Articles for Creation declines to the Teahouse for the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

NORN Closure

I'm concerned about the closing of the NORN discussion regarding the Southern Strategy. The closing comment doesn't clarify a decision on the matter and, instead, refers to the edit warring noticeboard. The result of the edit warring noticeboard is irrelevant to the discussion of Springee's OR argument. Of all of the uninvoled editors that responded, Rhoark made no distinction, Blueboar said Springee was making an OR argument and that the majority viewpoint appeared to support a top-down view, and Fyddlestix also dismissed Springee's OR argument and recognized scholarship as supporting the top-down view. So I don't know why this was closed without an actual decision regarding this issue. I was hoping you'd give me your perspective on the results of the NORN discussion. Please recognize that a decision on the edit warring noticeboard has no bearing on whether Springee was making an OR argument to refute what multiple reliable sources said. Scoobydunk (talk) 05:21, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Is this a personal attack?

Robert, you recently warned Scoobydunk about civility and personal attacks. I understand that previous instances should be seen as before the warning. However, this is after the warning[2]. I feel this does count as a large personal attack. Would you please offer your thoughts? On a side note, I'm a bit dismayed that I think Scoobydunk is getting off with a simple wrist slap given the recent edit waring dispute. Thanks.

I'm clarifying when personal attacks are allowable by WP policy. Clearly at some point, it's allowable to claim someone is being "uncivil", is "wikihounding", or is "tendentiously editing", and I'm explaining how I belief I'm afforded the criticisms I've made based on user behavior. I'm not taking this as a new opportunity to attack a user, but trying to get clarification of the policies concerning personal attacks.Scoobydunk (talk) 16:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

User:Scoobydunk, User:Springee - Both of you!! Both of you are hereby banned from my talk page. Take your dispute to Talk: Southern strategy or to WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding C-status

Dear Robert, thank you for message. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmad_Fawzi currently holds a C Status, could you let me know which specific aspects I should improve to get it an A or B status? Klhartog (talk) 19:28, 9 November 2015 (UTC)77.173.150.195 (talk) 19:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

19:41:05, 9 November 2015 review of submission by Aagreeny4

• Aagreeny4 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is not an autobiography.

The reason I resubmitted it was because the person who declined the article the last time, I had a conversation with them and they were giving me conflicting points than others have given me. Also I would ask about specific information about suggestions that they said to work on and when I had a question they would say they didn't know what I was talking about and would say they never stated that. I was resubmitting it in hopes of getting the correct view of what I need to work on in the article.

What exactly would you suggest to work on? I have some good notable sources like academic journals and Washington post, NY times, statements from congress to show the notability and independent sources. Then I also have other sources that mention his for additional information. Aagreeny4 (talk) 19:41, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

I am taking this to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Fixed the post...

I think IO have fixed the article mostly doing what you have requested. Is there anything else that I need to do? Can you give me some idea of the timeline for its approval? RiotHockey (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Highest grossing hybrid films

what eles needs to be done to Draft:Highest grossing hybrid films — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.38.157.176 (talk) 21:31, 11 November 2015 (UTC) :As my banner says, if I declined your Articles for Creation submission, I will request the advice of other experienced editors at the WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

It does appear that you added a definition of hybrids. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms arbitration proposed decision posted

Hi Robert McClenon. A proposed decision has been posted for the Genetically modified organisms arbitration case, which you are listed as a party to. Comments about the proposed decision are welcome at the proposed decision talk page. Thank you. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Promotional tone in Draft:ZendyHealth

Hi, Robert McClenon, and thanks for all your great work at the Teahouse and at AfC. I saw your comment about this draft reading like an advertisement, and was wondering if you could be more specific about which phrasing you found problematic. I've rewritten some of it to address that issue, but apparently not enough. It may be that I've been looking at this draft long enough that I'm seeing the improvement over what it had been rather than what still needs to be changed. Do feel free to change some of the problem wording yourself; the draft creator hasn't had a problem with my previous removal of POV from the draft, so I'm sure your contributions would be welcome as well. Thanks in advance for whatever assistance you can offer. —GrammarFascist _contribs^talk 03:57, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

False accusation

Did you see the response at User talk:Art LaPella#November 2015? One problem with templating the regulars is that if you make a mistake, the problem is greatly compounded. Johnuniq (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

06:13:52, 13 November 2015 review of submission by Brifans

• Brifans (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Briana Roy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request on 06:15:15, 13 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Brifans

• Brifans (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Briana Roy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I DO NOT KNOW HOW TO CITE MY ARTICLE USING FOOTNOTES ? HOW DO I DO THAT PLEASE HELP ME I AM NEW

Brifans (talk) 06:15, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:46:27, 13 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by 1tawom

• 1tawom (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Angus McGill Mowat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert, Made several changes per your suggestions and still didn't make the grade. Could you have another look and tell me what you think?

thanks! 1tawom (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

1tawom (talk) 21:46, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

18:40:51, 14 November 2015 review of submission by 71.170.17.236

• 71.170.17.236 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Elizabeth Anne Hin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, Thank you for your speedy review. Please give me more specifics on what items need citation. Is it the Robert Louis Stevenson reference or Elizabeth Hin's Grail publication or forthcoming works. Thank You, Sarla Matsumura

I am taking this to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:56, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Dear Robert, Thank you for noticing I was writing in english Wiki my article!! and for doing it so soon :) . I have moved it to Wikipedia spanish. Do you think that´s all I have to do by now? Will it be reviewed again?. Best monday wishes!! Aura Arobayo (talk) 09:42, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea whether your article will be accepted in the Spanish Wikipedia. I do not know Spanish except to recognize it, and I know little about the Spanish Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:15, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Hansjörg Wyss

Hi! Thanks again for reviewing the 3O request on Hansjörg Wyss. Did you see my latest Talk page note asking if you might be able to edit the section a bit? I understand if you're not able, but even any recommendations you might have would be helpful. Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 17:41, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

22:05:31, 16 November 2015 review of submission by GoldCar

• GoldCar (talk · contribs)
  • User:GoldCar/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: new article on Johndale C. Solem

I see your preferred style of putting the "/ref ref "s at the end of the previous line; good; thank you.

I am not sure if Wikipedia prefers the title “Johndale Solem” or “Johndale C. Solem”. What is standard practice? Maybe it doesn’t matter because the REDIRECT gets to both?

I think this article is ready for “review” and I would like it to be “submitted”. Any previous article, including any submitted by UareNumber6, should be ignored, and it should be considered that this article replaces all others. I am looking forward to an “administrator” doing this.

Thank you, GoldCar

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	You're an awesome User! Growtopia rocks! OmegaPhantom (talk) 21:55, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Atlantis

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Atlantis. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:30:40, 18 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Sam Parsons 1981

• Sam Parsons 1981 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Missrepresent (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi I am a bit miffed at why the article I have created keeps getting declined. it is more than factual and she is a woman doing more than most men in drum and bass and you;re not suppptoting itt?

Sam Parsons 1981 (talk) 13:30, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

We will discuss at WP:Teahouse/Questions where other experienced editors can comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:53:45, 18 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ropege

• Ropege (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Pem Gerner (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert.

Thank you for your very prompt feed back. Time was needed here to come to grips with Wikipedia's citation requirements before replying. Whilst the submission was repeatedly checked before submitting for accuracy of references it is realised (and this by following up on on Wikipedia's very useful links) that citations are a further level of verification. The way forward is obviously to resubmit with the submission fully in accord with Wikipedias citation requirements, and this may take several to-ing and fro-ing attempts to get it right. The alternative approach is to seek professional assistance from those well Ropege (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)experienced in writing Wikipedia submissions. It is apparent such professional help is available as several of the existing Wikipedia sites online of celebrities in the media, entertainment and sporting fields, but also political figures clearly bear the hall-marks of professional preparation assistance. This latter suggested approach of seeking professional support before re-submitting seems the preferred way forward to reduce/eliminate to-ing and fro-ing. If you can suggest persons or organisations from whom one can seek such preparation help that would be of considerable help. However, if you cannot, in order to maintain a professional detachment - and that is appreciated - then such help will be sought independently.

Your other comment was that the submission read more as a resume rather than a encyclopedic article. The story behind this notable person seemed best told chronologically, but your point is well taken and that will be addressed too in a further submission which will be as prompt as possible but will be delayed a bit due to an immediate major interstate relocation.

Again, many thanks for your help to date.

Kind regards,

Ropege.

Ropege (talk) 23:53, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I will reply at the Teahouse to seek comments from other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Allie X Arbitration

Thanks for your views; obviously I can't remove the request, and I would discuss things with them, but they aren't saying anything other than I'm "attacking" them by requesting assistance. I have several topics open on the talk pages and neither one has bothered to respond to them. So I should request moderated dispute instead of arbitration or returning to the ANI? Do I have to wait for the probable declining from arbitrators or can I go ahead and try the dispute resolution? Thanks. SanctuaryX (talk) 03:05, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, you have to wait until the arbitrators decline the case to ask for moderated dispute resolution. If they decline to participate in moderated dispute resolution, then you can go to WP:ANI and note that, while moderated dispute resolution is voluntary, they have left you no alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

12:34:03, 19 November 2015 review of submission by Stephenjonathansandmann

• Stephenjonathansandmann (talk · contribs)
  • User:Stephenjonathansandmann/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I hope you are well. Thanks you for your time. I'm sorry for frustrating you by resubmitting the page again without editing the 'draft'. I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong because when I search for drafts named "autotrader.co.za" only a single draft appears. Please help guide me to edit the 'second draft'. Also regarding 'corporate notability', autotrader.co.za is the largest online automotive marketplace (verified by the highest, relevant, independent South African authority, the Interactive Advertising Bureau of South Africa (see link: rhttp://iabsa.net/news/auto-trader-smashes-online-records-on-crest-of-android-app-launch/) and is award nominated too for a Bookmarks award (the Interactive Advertising Bureau of South Africa's awards for digital marketing). in addition to this, autotrader.co.za's US equivalent, autotrader.com has a Wikipedia page. Please let me know if there is anything else I can do. Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjonathansandmann (talk • contribs) 12:34, 19 November 2015‎ (UTC)

In Robert's absence, I think the problem that he's telling you about, and that is explained in the feedback box at the top of the sandbox draft, is that you were repeatedly submitting User:Stephenjonathansandmann/sandbox, having also submitted Draft:AutoTrader.co.za. I notice that you had removed the feedback from Draft:AutoTrader.co.za, so I've added it back again. It's there to help you and future reviewers (and to give you a resubmit button when you need it); the feedback will be removed by the reviewer if and when the draft is accepted for publication. - David Biddulph (talk) 13:55, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks David, I appreciate the help. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and removing that comment was not meant to cause anybody any problems. So, I see that the same copy is on both drafts now, should I click 'resubmit' please? Thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stephenjonathansandmann (talk • contribs) 15:31, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 19:36:28, 19 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Avzuquete

• Avzuquete (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:DETIboot (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert,

First of all, thank you for your revision.

This was my very first contribution to Wikipedia, so I'm still a bit confused with what some of the requirements mean exactly.

When you say "Please improve the submission's referencing, so that the information is verifiable", I can think on two different ways to tackle this requirement: (1) add more references or (2) fix some problems with the existing ones. The first option, unfortunately, is not really an option, because we added all the references we have to our work/contribution/solution. The second option could be the access to the referred publications, which in some cases may not be accessible to everybody (some are provided through Web pages of publishers, such as ACM or IEEE). Is this the problem? We need to improve the access to the content of the the referred articles? All the articles, or just our own, describing DETIboot?

Best regards,

André

Avzuquete (talk) 19:36, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

I will ask for the input of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

19:41:05, 19 November 2015 review of submission by Mikecasey52

• Mikecasey52 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The RAF Masirah & RAF Salalah Veterans Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Please explain why you are rejecting my page

I will ask for the input of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:11:05, 20 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NMSWizard

• NMSWizard (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CirrusPoint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I added more references and still my page is rejected, i thought the smartsblog and other references were enough? please explain

NMSWizard (talk) 03:11, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

I will ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks I appreciate your timely response and help in moving this project forward. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by NMSWizard (talk • contribs) 03:52, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 15:14:33, 20 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by NMSWizard

• NMSWizard (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:CirrusPoint (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Robert I have tried to fix the reference issue, by citing some 3rd party sources, I don't understand, CirrusPoint is a noteworthy company with innovative solutions as described by "Smartblog" reference it discusses other other companies and other solutions too.

NMSWizard (talk) 15:14, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

Help needed at DRN

You are receiving this message because you are signed up as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. We have a number of pending requests which need a volunteer to address them. Unless you are an inexperienced volunteer who is currently just watching DRN to learn our processes, please take a case. If you do not see yourself taking cases in the foreseeable future, please remove yourself from the volunteer list so that we can have a better idea of the size of our pool of volunteers; if you do see yourself taking cases, please watchlist the DRN page and keep an eye out to see if there are cases which are ready for a volunteer. We have recently had to refuse a number of cases because they were listed for days with no volunteer willing to take them, despite there being almost 150 volunteers listed on the volunteer page. Regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

03:53:03, 21 November 2015 review of submission by Aagreeny4

• Aagreeny4 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Mike "Greeny" Green (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have taken this paper to the writing center at my school, Eckerd College 4 times. Each time with the comments and suggestions after my declines. They are professionals and have written Wikipedia pages, and they can not see what the problem is and why I am being declined.

I would like to talk to your supervisor to see why I am being declined and to discuss with them why you are treating me so rudely with your remarks.

Aagreeny4 (talk) 03:53, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Aagreeny4 We will discuss with other experienced editors at WP:Teahouse/Questions.

19:38:19, 21 November 2015 review of submission by Lyndaship

• Lyndaship (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:HMS Oswald (N58) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for being so quick in reviewing my first attempt at an article Robert. I'm obviously disappointed that it was declined and to be honest a little surprised. I know the article is not up to much but this submarine is the only one of its class which does not have its own page and I therefore linked back to the class article where it has a horrible red link for the Oswald. I gave one reference for the info I provided, I could give another 5 books to verify the info but newspapers are a bit beyond me ( and I've not seen them quoted in any other ship articles). Anyhow I've provided a web reference with a bit more info and will resubmit the article for your consideration

16:38:40, 22 November 2015 review of submission by Bordeglobal

• Bordeglobal (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Autism Parents Association of Trinidad and Tobago (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I am confused why this has been rejected. You have a similar organization listed in the SAME format and yet is listed: here

I put the government act it was approved by as well as the news article telling about the organization and its notable inclusion (see External links) perhaps you missed that?

I will please need a specific reason rather than general. APATT has a general News page to show their impact here but I do not know if you accept that.

Bordeglobal (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:03, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Articles for Creation submission Thomas J. Carroll

Hi Robert, I received this message, but I'm not sure to what it referred (i.e. what was the comment):

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Thomas J. Carroll. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

RobSVA (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

I left a response (concurring) and a quick question in the same place. Thanks again. RobSVA (talk) 22:43, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Response to AfC notification comment: Draft:New Swears

Hi Robert, I have modified the New Swears page so that the article says "New Swears have received significant attention..." rather than "significant notoriety...", as before. Hopefully that will be satisfactory for acceptance. Thanks for your time on this. Cluetrekk — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cluetrekk (talk • contribs) 00:43, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

rupert loydell request for more references

Hi Robert-- do you mean more online refs for what I have already written or that it needs more content in general? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annabluebell (talk • contribs) 01:01, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I am taking discussion to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

quite frankly it is the dumbest case I've ever seen

You post a warning about an unregistered user "repeating themselves and would not discuss reasonably," yet not even an hour later (59 min according to the time stamps) that same unregistered user posts more repeating themselves to exactly the same talk page that has the warning. This behavior is out of control. Abel (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I've alerted the IP to discretionary sanctions. However, just ignore unconstructive talk page comments; they don't affect the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Your alert was ignored almost immediately, which suggests that the alert was ineffective in communicating any message. Abel (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

---

Also, "one of the mediators said that the FEE building is somewhat notable so I had to rebut his error" and "Hillside doesnt matter for economic education" strongly support the idea that the entire dispute resolution process accomplished absolutely nothing. Abel (talk) 17:58, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Disruptive talk page comments should be ignored. Disruptive editing of the article can be dealt with by Arbitration Enforcement now that the warning has been issued. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not know that. Abel (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Jones DRN

I appreciate your work at DRN, but I think it's time to wrap up. I think it has established that the content dispute is overshadowed by the behavioral problems, especially the reluctance to follow WP:DR and WP:CON. --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

I like your focusing on getting a RfC collaboratively written. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

18:55:44, 24 November 2015 review of submission by SunshineState 1

• SunshineState 1 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Bethesda Urban Partnership (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi - For my first new page I tried to keep it short and factual with links to online articles. Where did I go wrong? Thank you!

I am taking this to the Teahouse for the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:16:20, 25 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Smokyhallow

• Smokyhallow (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:John Zurier (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Smokyhallow (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Dear Robert, I thank you very much for your review of my draft article: "John Zurier." I would greatly appreciate some specific feedback to understand why the article was declined and, hopefully, meet the Wikipedia requirements. You left a review comment: "The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners." I received the same review comments from a prior reviewer and I therefore added 8 footnoted references to support the text (prior to your review). I thought this would answer the critique for insufficient inline citations. What more do I need to do? I appreciate your kind suggestions! Sincerely, Smokyhallow (talk) 03:16, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

I have taken this question to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

01:31:56, 27 November 2015 review of submission by We are Chos3n

• We are Chos3n (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chos3n (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi can you help we need a page up http://www.mtv.co.uk/taxonomy/term/4657

I will be posting your inquiry to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Hi RM

I just wanted to pop round as say please don't worry about the gender confusion at the ANI thread. I have the gender neutral option ticked in my preferences and it has been interesting to see people think it is one or the other over the years. The Arnette is from France via Ireland and comes from my grandfather. Cheers and I hope that you have a pleasant weekend. MarnetteD|Talk 23:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Your PROD of Chos3n

Hello, I have removed the PROD you placed on Chos3n. I feel the UMA award is at least as prestigious as many "awards" that the community in AfD discussions has found sufficient to merit notability (the Urban Music Awards at least has their own article!). Feel free to initiate a full AfD discussion if you wish. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Okay. The author won't be around to defend. They were indeffed for being purely promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

'C'-class article assessment

So, remember when we had that discussion at the Help Desk about how to figure out Start-class vs. C-class articles? Well, I've written something up on the subject. I have no idea if you will even find this useful, but I thought I'd let you know that it's out there. And if you have any suggestions for that essay, please feel free to drop me a line and let me know! --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Ronnie Apteker

Thanks Robert. I have taken your advice and removed that sentence Picknick99 (talk) 19:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Lola LC87

Hello, I wanted to mention that this F1 car does (or would) pass notability but also that the author of this draft (which was earlier rejected by you) is an IP hopping editor who has had three blocks since August, for persistent disruptive editing of F1 pages as well as his usual habits of starting articles in talk-pages, flooding articles with images and removing deletion templates etc. He has already moved on from the IP he used to create this draft. His edits are habitually unreferenced and display the trademark odd grammar etc. seen in this draft. Over the last few months, members of the F1 project have moved his talk-page drafts to mainspace and then fettled them up, but he's very prolific and adds reams of unref'd text to articles as well as creating unsourced new ones. He has taken no notice of any messages left on the various talk-pages (including about sources) and it is doubtful if he's even seen a lot of them. It will be interesting to see how he reacts to the declinature notice. Apologies...didn't mean to take up so much of your talk-page. Regards, Eagleash (talk) 21:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

As expected notice removed and re-submitted without fixing. Eagleash (talk) 21:06, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. He's gone to the help desk. Project members could help him out (again) but there's only so many times.... Regards, Eagleash (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I think that's a different IP-hopper. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I believe it to be the same editor as indicated here. Eagleash (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I was referring to a different IP at the Help Desk, not the AFC Help Desk. Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry! I normally only confuse myself not others! The IP editor has returned today with yet another address and has submitted the draft again, without fixing it and the miscellaneous template seems to have disappeared. Eagleash (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Request on 23:19:07, 28 November 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by PoppyJr78

• PoppyJr78 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rafic Nakib (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Rob. I am a bit lost between different reviewers. one asking me for citing the reasons why the person is worthy of being instered to an encyclopedia, and then when I give some reasons another claim that i am using peacock terms etc.. FYI I will be writing two pages for this same person in Arabic and French. And let me be clear with you about some points: First it's clear from the info available on wikipedia that there is a lebanese newpaper called "AlMustaqbal" and it's one of the top newspapers in in Lebanon. Fine. And it's clear from the references I added to my article from independent sources like BBC, CNN, Daily Mail, NY Times etc.. that this newspaper was targeted in 2008 by terrorists who torched its headquarters after attacking it with grenades and heavey weapons. When a media is being attacked in such a savage way who is the person responsible on facing such a huge challenge? Who is the person that upon his strength will depend the survival of the newspaper or its closure?. Of Course it's the General Manager. My article is about this person. And I have cited enough refrences that show that Rafic Nakib was the GM of this newspaper until his death earlier this month. so when you have enough proofs that: the newspaper really exists. and it has been targeted by different types of attacks, and that the head of the political line it represents was assassinated in 2005. and there is an international tribunal in the hague investigating his murder. and the article also includes reference that Nakib was the closest friend of the assassinated Hariri since childhood and he managed to keep the newspaper going in the most difficult and risky circumstances. in your opinion this man who faced guns with pens do ont deserve to be remembered in one page on wikipedia? He was a brave man, a lion heart for freedom of speech, and he is far more worthy than loads of superficial singers and corrupt politicians who have many pages on Wikipedia. Please approve the page and I promise I will try my best to keep editing and updating dit to perfection.

I think highly of freedom of knowledge for all, that's why I like wikipedia and support it. this is my first article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Rafic_Nakib )and this man is really worthy being remembered, so please do not turn my reuqest down, because it will put me completely off the site which its arabic version is in need of significant improvement. Please have a look again on the page and if it's okay, reply ot me and I will resubmit it for approval.

PoppyJr78 (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I will be discussing your draft at the Teahouse, where other experienced editors may also comment. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	I have to say, I've enjoyed you seeing you around and found it amusing when we both patrolled and reviewed an article. Beneficial minds think alike, SwisterTwister talk 22:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert, thank you for the input. I would be glad to remove the page. How does one recall a draft from consideration?Schillerbrand (talk) 18:44, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Do you have Twinkle installed? If you have Twinkle, you can tag it for speedy deletion as a user request. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Hardap → Hardap Recreation Resort

Hi Robert, still getting my sea legs so hope I am not putting this in the wrong place. Thank you for the comments re Hardap. It is definitely Hardap Recreation Resort. I managed to find a copy of the relevant Government Gazette and added it to my draft. I am still fine-tuning it, but thanks for the encouragement. Stralitzia (talk) 20:56, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

02:46:39, 2 December 2015 review of submission by Anonhiststudent

• Anonhiststudent (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Jacob Riis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm trying to create an entry just for The Making of an American similar to How The Other Half Lives. It's supposed to be a standalone entry. Happy to fix it if that's the case.

Thank you for asking. I am taking your question to The Teahouse for the input of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Silvius Magnago

Hey Robert, you inserted your final statement (that's a third opinion) before Noclador's comment. Since it looked like, as if you had answered to the IP's comment a bit higher (which certainly wasn't a "third opinion"), I thought it would be okay, to put it behind Noclador's opinion. Please correct me, if I'm wrong: You deemed Noclador's contribution to be "a third opinion", right? Is that okay for you? --Mai-Sachme (talk) 09:06, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, but not needed anymore. I got a good advice, I'll try to stick to. I just wanted to ask kindly, whom you were referring to, the IP or Noclador? Cheers, --Mai-Sachme (talk) 16:46, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't care who provided the third opinion. Stop quarreling. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

15:17:02, 2 December 2015 review of submission by Hoptman

• Hoptman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:JCI Insight (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert McClendon, Thank you for reviewing the page Draft:JCI Insight. This page was created for a medical journal that was officially launched this morning, so I wonder if the page was declined because the reference would not link until just now. If you click the link in the reference (New Kid on the Block: http://dx.doi.org/10.1172/JCI85448), it will now open the Editorial that announces JCI Insight in the Journal of Clinical Investigation.

Please let me know whether this resolves the issue.

Best regards, Maya Hoptman Associate Director The American Society for Clinical Investigation maya.hoptman@the-jci.org

It appears that you have a conflict of interest in that you are employed by the society. I will be taking your issue to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Linaloe ximena/sandbox

A tag has been placed on Linaloe ximena/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 removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 17:24, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Iranian peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Iranian peoples. Legobot (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

Proportional Representation

Hello, User:BalCoder has removed an entire section, "PR in the broader family of voting systems", from the Proportional Representation article without reaching consensus.

This section was not created by me, and existed in the WP article before I became an editor. It is also extremely well sourced, and presents the three families of voting systems which numerous sources use to classify voting systems: PR voting systems, mixed member voting systems, and plurality/majoritarian voting system. This simple-to-understand classification is universally used by scholars, journalists, and advocacy groups alike from all political persuasions. Please see the Talk:Proportional representation as well as the older version of the WP article for a list of sources. BalCoder has attempted to mislead editors into believing I created this section and that he/she is reverting to an earlier version of the article when in reality, it is the other way around. Please review the above mentioned pages. Thank you for your assistance.Ontario Teacher BFA BEd (talk) 01:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:43:06, 5 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Cilla1987

• Cilla1987 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Charlotte Devaney (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi there Robert

iv been trying to get the wiki page re-instated for Charlotte Devaney for some time, she has just gone top 40 with her current single and has a ton of media links ,as well as appearaing in how to lose friends and alienate people credited, so wondering whats dosnt make her notable? I refer to this link http://www.ariacharts.com.au/chart/singles shows her new single Flip it ft Snoop Dogg at no.38 in the National Australian Chart , she is also playlisted on Every national and regional radio station in Australia currently

thanks (Cilla1987 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)).

Cilla1987 (talk) 21:43, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

I will take this to WP:Teahouse/Questions for comments by other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:50, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon OK many thanks, pls take notice of the link i just edited into the message

regards (talk)

Lola LC87/88

You have nominated both for deletion but the LC88 article (not a draft) is not mentioned in the AfD you started for the draft of LC87. It would be worth either creating a separate AfD or having both the draft and the article mentioned in the same AfD, to avoid any confusion. My 2p is that the LC88 article is not ripe for deletion but the draft LC87 is. It's worth letting you know that a number of editors have spent some weeks/months clearing up after the creator of these drafts and articles (he used to create articles in talkspace), and we have decided to stop bothering in the hopes he might learn how to reference articles himself instead of relying on us to do it. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 17:05, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My apologies, I've been informed (should've seen for myself) that it wasn't you who nominated LC88 for deletion. Nonetheless, the problem is the same. Cheers, Bretonbanquet (talk) 18:42, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

It seems that another editor mistakenly applied the MFD tag to Lola LC88, for which it was not applicable, because it should be AFD. I removed the incorrect MFD tag. Also, the IP has twice removed the MFD tag from Draft: Lola LC87, which is disruptive editing. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:22, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I see there's been a bit of untagging and retagging going on with both articles, but with the draft (LC87) deleted, I hope the IP will take note and try harder next time. I agree there was no point in blocking. I may recreate LC87 at some point, with more extensive referencing. I can improve LC88 as well, when I have reference material to hand. Thanks for your input on this, cheers. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:38, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

The tagging and untagging was being done by two editors, the IP, who kept removing the MFD tag from 87, which was disruptive, and an experienced editor was incorrectly applying the MFD tag to 88. In any case, I think that the situation is taken care of. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Review of Gill Fielding draft

Good Morning. Thanks you for your attention to my draft regarding businesswoman Gill Fielding. I have gone through the article today and removed every remaining reference to Gill's first name (apart from the opening paragraph, of course). I have also removed some superfluous phrases and adjectives where I could see this may have contributed to a non-neutral tone. I have also linked the 'rags to riches' description to the Wikipedia article on this phrase to evidence the factual nature of this statement. I'm not sure whether the listing of Gill's businesses is contributing to reviewers' impressions but I have included all of these - with references - as I feel they are relevant to someone whose notability is through both business and TV appearances. However, I have no issue with removing all of these if reviewers feel this will help move the draft into the article space (to avoid going back and forth, I will faithfully make any specific adjustments in the article space if you ask me to on condition of approval). Thanks again and I will resubmit now. Regards.Neil Neilho (talk) 11:07, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be replying at the Teahouse for the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you Robert for your latest comments on this article. I would appreciate you taking this to the Teahouse for assistance; thank you for the offer. I will await your further comments. Neilho (talk) 20:47, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

19:41:18, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Alakov

• Alakov (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:The Humberview Group (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for reviewing the article. Could you kindly let me know what sources would be independent in a case of a business article? I found to mentions on Bloomberg and though this would be sufficient.

Thank you again!

I will be replying at the Teahouse for the comments of other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

21:31:45, 7 December 2015 review of submission by Cva.kunst

• Cva.kunst (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Theo van Amstel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, how can I move the page to the dutch wikipedia ? thanks

I have asked at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Analyze my page.

You can analyze my page if you want. --Tarkattack (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft: Daniel Clitnovici

Please Look at research of Clitnovici playing with Notable & Professional Soccer Team Universitatea Craiova in Romanian Liga 1 2002-03 & 2005-2006 : http://www.craiova-maxima.ro/c/210/sezonul-2005-2006.htm & http://www.universitateacraiova.ro/echipa.php Article stating something about Clitnovici wanting two citizenships Australian and Romanian while at Universitatea Craiova http://www.gds.ro/Sport/2005-08-29/Miza+pe+straini/ Consistency with World Football.net See two spells at Romanian Club 2002-2003 and 2005-06

Finding more and more with incorrect spelling on surname Spelt "Clitnovich" - http://www.gds.ro/Sport/2002-08-23/A+venit+%E2%80%9Ecartea+verde%E2%80%9C+a+lui+Clitnovich/ & In game lineup from what I can translate - started this game: http://www.gds.ro/Sport/2005-07-16/Stinga+a+jucat+o+repriza/ Romanian Wikipedia Page on this club has Clitnovici there on two occasions: https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_juc%C4%83torilor_de_fotbal_str%C4%83ini_din_Liga_I

Name Spelt "Clintovich" in 2002-03 and "Clitnovici" in 2005-06 on this clubwide website: http://www.craiova-maxima.ro/c/198/echipa.htm this is the same player with last name spelt in correctly from my research.

Name Spelt "Clintovic" with image http://www.craiova-maxima.ro/album/details.php?image_id=436

Clitnovici is more noteworthy than many soccer ppl on wikipedia example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Barnes_(soccer)

I will attempt to make contact with contact details on website and ask/clarify for validity. http://www.wnyflash.com/academy/coaching/?staff_id=20 = 11/22-Subject has stated that he did infact play professionally in Romania with UCraiova in Liga 1 and in several other nations. Clients contact details are 9702229584 he has asked to be contacted for any questions as he has never contacted Wikipedia stating he never played professionally or to remove from website. Not sure what that now means with regards to previous OTRS, ticket no: 2009010910019026. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ssanchez1978 (talk • contribs) 14:55, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

I will be asking for the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Aflatoxin B1 Submission declined on 7 December 2015

Hi Robert. I am writing to clarify that my article on Aflatoxin B1 is a class project and I am supposed to add the information submitted for review to an existing entry on Aflatoxin B1. I want you to know that I actually did add the information to the existing article before submitting draft (same as what I added to existing page) for review. It appears I wasn't supposed to submit my draft because the page already exists and this may be the reason why my submission was declined? Also, is it correct for me to have gone ahead and added the information to the existing page on Aflatoxin B1? Please clarify.570ma (talk) 16:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Who is the instructor for this class project? We sometimes have a problem with instructors giving student assignments who don't follow the guidelines on Wikipedia Student Assignments. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, students are permitted to add information to existing articles. Are you saying that you did edit the existing article (if so, okay) or that you did not edit it? Drafts that have the same subject and title as existing articles should not be submitted to Articles for Creation for review, since AFC is a process for reviewing proposed new articles, not for reviewing revisions to articles. Significant revisions to existing articles should be discussed on article talk pages first, not through AFC. If you were told to submit a draft of the existing article, then you were given incorrect instructions. Does this clarify anything, or do you have more questions? Who is your instructor? (That is, what is their Wikipedia user name?) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:14, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

The articles in question are Aflatoxin B1 and Draft: Aflatoxin B1. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:17, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, the misunderstanding is from me and not from my instructor. I have already added the information from my declined article to the existing entry on Aflatoxin B1. Actually, I did so before even submitting the draft for review!

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for your comment. Gong Ju-young (talk) 08:21, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 16:29:10, 10 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Ricklarsen lux

• Ricklarsen lux (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Christoph Ernst Friedrich von Forcade de Biaix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I understand that that you rejected my English language article for Christoph Ernst Friedrich von Forcade de Biaix. I am not really sure why, because there appears to be some unwritten double-standard for which I don't know the rules. A German language article for the same person, with the same source citations/references is on Wikipedia for more than one year in accepted form. I am not the author of the German-language article.

My article improves on that article with additional information that was not included in the German version.

Could you please 1.) explain what information you would like to see in my article that is not in the German version, and 2.) could you please apply the same quality standard in an equitable manner to both articles? Rick Larsen (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC) Rick Larsen Lux Rick Larsen (talk) 16:29, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

I am taking this question to the Teahouse for comments by other experienced editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula (talk) 13:01, 11 December 2015 (UTC)== Request on 13:01:39, 11 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula ==

• Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula (talk · contribs)
  • User:Kudanthai sister Dr. Smt. K. Manjula/sandbox/KUDANTHAI SISTER DR. SMT. K. MANJULA (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

User: BeccAWilson

Hello Robert, thanks for your help. We will continue to forge on. I am not the owner and CEO of Spherexx, although I see why you would assume that. I am an employee. We set up the User name as such for housekeeping purposes. I do wish to comment on the removal of our edit to Yield Management. I obviously failed to cite properly in the body of the article and I will try again. As written, the Yield Management in the context of Multi-family is simply untrue. "Chief among the new vendors is Property Solutions...." is not cited--but it is still printed there and no one has nuked it or cited it. The statement is simply not true. We just want to be listed among the software providers for yield management. We are not asking to be "chief." Appreciate your input.

All requests about draft articles go to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Hansjörg Wyss

Hi Robert! I'm writing to follow up about Hansjörg Wyss. As you suggested a few weeks ago, I posted at the Teahouse asking for advice on what I should do next following the third opinion decision. Another editor advised that I place a new request edit template on the discussion. I added that template about a week ago, but I'm stuck until someone can help with the edits to fix the issues. Since you're already familiar with the content and your opinion was that it isn't what it should be, would you have time to come back and make changes? Thanks! Heatherer (talk) 16:21, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

17:25:47, 11 December 2015 review of submission by Aranoco

• Aranoco (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Www.iranridex.com (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is obviously meant to be a question about the declined article, and so will go to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

A special barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	I have not seen a bad review from you yet, but you seem, sometimes, to lack the courage of your convictions. Stand up tall and dare to be right! And if, every so often you are wrong, take it on the chin with pride. Fiddle Faddle 19:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Genetically modified organisms case closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

1) Standard discretionary sanctions are authorised for all pages relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed.

2) Editors are prohibited from making more than one revert per page per day on any page relating to genetically modified organisms, agricultural biotechnology, and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed and subject to the usual exemptions.

3) Jytdog and DrChrissy are placed indefinitely under a two-way interaction ban.

7) DrChrissy is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

8) Jytdog is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

9) Jytdog is admonished for their poor civility in relation to the locus of this case.

11) SageRad is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

12) Wuerzele is indefinitely topic-banned from all pages relating to genetically modified organisms and agricultural chemicals, broadly construed; appeals of this ban may be requested no earlier than twelve months since the date the case closed.

For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 20:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Genetically modified organisms case closed

Tebufenpyrad

I'm getting second thoughts about this because the original stub features some useful elements (namely, the infobox). Maybe we should consider a copy-paste merger (with no need for history merge as the edit history of the draft is trivial). I've cancelled the Speedy deletion for now. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Actually, I think there is no way to avoid a history-merge if we are to keep the infobox. I suggest you go for that. Finnusertop (talk | guestbook | contribs) 06:46, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I've request a history merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Tebufenpyrad a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into Draft:Tebufenpyrad. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. 570sou (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't know why you think that I attempted a copy-and-paste. I requested a speedy deletion of the stub. The speedy deletion was declined. I then requested a History Merge. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:06, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Pinging 570sou --Rubbish computer (Merry Christmas!: ...And a Happy New Year!) 22:16, 13 December 2015 (UTC) I was not aware . When i opoened my draft there was a comment which said "Please consider placing that on the talk page of the editor who performed the cut-and-paste move."570sou (talk) 22:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Then something in AFC was confused. Okay. We should wait until the history merge is completed, which make your draft the article. The point is that, at present, your article is in draft space, and the stub in article space, and your draft is much more complete, but the stub has an infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

18:11:54, 13 December 2015 review of submission by Msreza24

• Msreza24 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Msreza24/sandbox/I Love You More Than Words (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Draft:Tup Tup Palace Resubmission

Hi Robert McClenon, thanks for reviewing my draft and for your constructive feedback. I take your point regarding elements of the article being perceived as promotional, though I assure you this is not my intention. I have found it rather difficult with this article as the subject matter does lend itself to that sort of language, but I appreciate that this could be viewed as unencyclopaedic. In order to remedy this I have completely removed the sections 'Design Style', 'Sound System and Music Policy', and 'Drinks Brands', given that these elements were largely my own observations of the venue (rather than facts corroborated by reliable third party sources in citations). I have also altered the general wording in accordance with Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View guidelines, and added some critical opinion to the 'History' section in the interests of parity. Finally, I added some negative press reports regarding a woman who was seriously assaulted at the club to the 'News Coverage' section. Following this edit, I noticed some feedback from Onel5969 and have implemented those suggestions also. This has now resulted in me removing the photo gallery, and amalgamating the 'News Coverage' and 'Television Appearances' into one piece of prose under the 'History' section. I hope this addresses your concerns and my draft now meets with your approval for publication. Best wishes, Laurahartley (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will ask other editors at the Teahouse for their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Kriyananda Dispute Resolution

I have an honest question about your blocking out part of my comment. Why is my asking what the "dispute resolution" is about considered 'not commenting on content' and needs to be censored, but the other editor's 'dispute overview' is a personal attack (like accusing me of "pushing an agenda") which is clearly not about content but that didn't get blocked out by you?

I'm not trying to cause trouble. I'm just trying to understand.Dhworld (talk) 22:12, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Help me to approve my new article -

Hi Robert McClenon

As I am new on wikipedia, today i have created biography about Indian based company's MD which also has some relevant news sources. Please help me or suggest me how to make this article approved on wikipedia. check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Sumchit_anand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pnanda1 (talk • contribs) 10:25, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Your article was deleted as containing copyright violating information. If you want help in creating a version that may be acceptable, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

17:39:48, 17 December 2015 review of submission by Joe-lake1954

• Joe-lake1954 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Chimp Management Ltd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Just wanted to understand how this article would need to be changed to be accepted?

Joe-lake1954 (talk) 17:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I will ask other editors at the Teahouse for comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Sign of Peace

    I'll extend the olive branch.
    What imeant it might be a good thing for not remembering, i meant that i had forgotten any notions of negativity that i had with your name. I don't see anyone that way anymore. In fact, that was the main reason of returning. Just forgetting, but also learning. Lucia Black (talk) 18:31, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Thanks for keeping an eye on DRN as always, but I've got this one under control (ethnic disputes are my specialty ;) ) - I'll be keeping them both on a short leash but would prefer if I take care of this one if thats OK? :) Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 01:59, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Okay. In that case, the name of the editor who was being commented on was malformed. Okay. We haven't seen any Balkan cases recently. They sometimes get really nasty. Those Balkan editors haven't forgotten World War One. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

When you've seen as many ethnic disputes as I have, your eyes start to glaze over eventually. Steven Crossin (was Steven Zhang) 02:19, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

11:00:38, 18 December 2015 review of submission by Catalina.Butnariu.ml

• Catalina.Butnariu.ml (talk · contribs)
  • User:Catalina.Butnariu.ml/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I resubmitted the ‘Chat Enabled Collaboration’ article for review after adding another reference as suggested. If that is not enough I will try to add more 3rd party references. I do not mean to waste your time, please let me know if this will solve the problem.

Draft:St. Nicholas Church, Stendal

In effect, Lutheran. According to the German article on Stendal, it's part of the Evangelical Church in Germany. I'll add that to the new article. Sca (talk) 17:13, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. That is important. We cannot reference the German Wikipedia, but we can reference its source. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

The Evangelical Church in Germany stems from an early 19th century merger, instigated by royal decree, combining the Lutheran and Reformed (Calvinist) denominations in the Kingdom of Prussia. See: Prussian Union of churches. Sca (talk) 17:31, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

How's it look for this little article now? Sca (talk) 16:57, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Puzzled by your revert. Sca (talk) 22:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

You aren't supposed to remove reviewer comments. You didn't know that. The acceptance script removes all review comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:40, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Sca (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

File:Xmas Ornament.jpg

To You and Yours!

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 21:54:05, 19 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Jaisondlovu

• Jaisondlovu (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Zhombe District Service Center (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

jaisondlovu (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

could "Draft:Zhombe District Service Center" be deleted please (jaisondlovu (talk) 21:54, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

Consensus building restarted at Racial segregation

FYI, finally a named account (an uninvolved Wikipedian) commented on the alleged copyright violation with a modicum of details on the Talk Page, and I could provide a reasoned answer. (Has an interesting take that I had violated copyright by transposing another Wikipedia article on blood laws used by Native Americans, btw.) But at least it is constructive, polite and we are finally getting somewhere. Zezen (talk) 22:48, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Redirects of drafts.

If there is nothing linking them, is there a problem just nuking 'em outright? Anmccaff (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 13:29:48, 22 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Phumelele123

• Phumelele123 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, thank you for taking time to look at my article. The article you referred to was rejected on the 8th of October 2015. The article which was submitted yesterday (21st December 2015) is an updated version of the first article. Please consider the most recent article for review. Many Thanks

Phumelele123 (talk) 13:29, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

You have created two copies of your draft. Please do not create multiple copies of drafts. It splits your work between more than one page and confuses the reviewers. Please determine which draft you want to speedy-delete and which draft you want to to work on. I am taking further discussion to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to review my list of Honorary Fellows of Magdalene College, Cambridge so promptly. I think the crucual point you are missing is that this is part of wider initiative to listify, rather than categorise, such honorary fellows, and that 14 of the other Cambridge colleges already have lists here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_Honorary_Fellows_of_colleges_of_the_University_of_Cambridge I contend, with some conviction, that it is at best inconsistent to reject this list, which I intend to expand as time permits, without deleting the other 14 pages, So I intend to resubmit .Rcb1 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)rcb1Rcb1 (talk) 23:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Add an RFC comment to your draft stating that there is an initiative to list the honorary fellows, because a category exists for the lists, and that lists of honorary fellows are considered notable. Remove or redlink people who are not blue-linked. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

14:59:34, 23 December 2015 review of submission by Phumelele123

• Phumelele123 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Phumelele123/sandbox/The Buffelsdraai Landfill Site Community Reforestation Project (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for taking your time to review my article. I am fairly new to Wikipedia, I was not aware that I had created multiple copies of a draft both in a sandbox and in draft space. The copyright violation has been removed in my latest submission (which you declined). Please consider re-reviewing the article. Many Thanks

You still have two copies of your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #6—2015

Read this in another language • Subscription list

Did you know?

A new, simpler system for editing will offer a single Edit button. Once the page has opened, you can switch back and forth between visual and wikitext editing.

If you prefer having separate edit buttons, then you can set that option in your preferences, either in a pop-up dialog the next time you open the visual editor, or by going to Special:Preferences and choosing the setting that you want:

The current plan is for the default setting to have the Edit button open the editing environment you used most recently.

You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has fixed many bugs and expanded the mathematics formula tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for languages such as Japanese and Arabic, and providing rich-media tools for formulæ, charts, galleries and uploading.

Recent improvements

You can switch from the wikitext editor to the visual editor after you start editing.

The LaTeX mathematics formula editor has been significantly expanded. (T118616) You can see the formula as you change the LaTeX code. You can click buttons to insert the correct LaTeX code for many symbols.

Future changes

The single edit tab project will combine the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab, like the system already used on the mobile website. (T102398) Initially, the "Edit" tab will open whichever editing environment you used last time. Your last editing choice will be stored as a cookie for logged-out users and as an account preference for logged-in editors. Logged-in editors will be able to set a default editor in the Editing tab of Special:Preferences in the drop-down menu about "Editing mode:".

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the following Wikipedias in early 2016: Amharic, Buginese, Min Dong, Cree, Manx, Hakka, Armenian, Georgian, Pontic, Serbo-Croatian, Tigrinya, Mingrelian, Zhuang, and Min Nan. (T116523) Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. The developers would like to know how well it works. Please tell them what kind of computer, web browser, and keyboard you are using.

In 2016, the feedback pages for the visual editor on many Wikipedias will be redirected to mediawiki.org. (T92661)

Testing opportunities

• Please try the new system for the single edit tab on test2.wikipedia.org. You can edit while logged out to see how it works for logged-out editors, or you can create a separate account to be able to set your account's preferences. Please share your thoughts about the single edit tab system at the feedback topic on mediawiki.org or sign up for formal user research (type "single edit tab" in the question about other areas you're interested in). The new system has not been finalized, and your feedback can affect the outcome. The team particularly wants your thoughts about the options in Special:Preferences. The current choices in Special:Preferences are:
  • Remember my last editor,
  • Always give me the visual editor if possible, 
  • Always give me the source editor, and 
  • Show me both editor tabs.  (This is the current state for people using the visual editor. None of these options will be visible if you have disabled the visual editor in your preferences at that wiki.)
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help, and report it on Phabricator (Korean - Japanese) or on Wikipedia (Korean - Japanese).

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!

Whatamidoing (WMF), 00:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

A Barnstar for you!

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you so much for helping me fight vandalism from an ip. You deserve this! 2002:43F4:3ABB:1234:8414:C5C3:563B:8A4 (talk) 01:24, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

That was a different type of vandalism, in vandalizing the vandalism noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy Holidays to you, your family and friends. May you have happy editing!

		Happy Holidays to you and your family and friends!
		May this season bring you joy and happiness and happy editing!.Mark Miller (talk) 02:58, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion

Hey, you removed my request at Wikipedia:Third opinion, please help me understand if I did not follow the process right. I thought I followed it properly. I can modify my request, let me know if something needs to be excluded or added to it. If it's the question of the third editor being involved, he only had minimal participation in the beginning and Wikipedia:Third opinion says that there is an exception if extra editor had minimal participation. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 00:34, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

There were several issues with your request, and maybe I should have responded differently, but it really wasn't quite right for third opinion. First, even if the third editor was minor, there was a third editor. Second, your statement of the question was extremely non-neutral. If I hadn't removed it, I would have changed it to something like "Questions about article content". Third, because the discussion was in three different sections of the talk page, I couldn't really provide a single concise answer, or ask you to provide a single concise question. Because there are multiple related issues, third opinion isn't really relevant. I suggest that you try a request for moderated dispute resolution at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Thank you for asking. Also, be civil and concise. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

01:38:36, 26 December 2015 review of submission by Afnanrauf

• Afnanrauf (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Afnan' Rauf (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:40, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi Afnanrauf - There are several issues with your submission. First, is a potential conflict of interest - please read that link to see what that refers to. Autobiographies have inherent issues which are very difficult to overcome, and are highly discouraged on Wikipedia. Second, to have an article, a subject has to display notability. This means that they have to have in-depth coverage from several independent, reliable sources. Take a look at WP:GNG and WP:NARTIST to see what qualifies as notability. WP:RS is a good place to show you what qualifies as a reliable source. A quick search on Google News, Newspapers, Scholar, Books and Highbeam turned up a single hit, and that was not a link which would qualify for notability purposes (being a bio on a commercial site). Robert's pointers to citation formatting is also a good link. Another good place is WP:Your First Article, which can help you in drafting a first piece, and MOS:LAYOUT which can help you structure and layout your article. Hope this helps. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 13:58, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Park Cho-rong

Do I need to do something? If yes, what are those? I'm sorry I'm new to this. Thank You! --AlofVar (talk) 23:23, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

I will discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:39, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Gratitude

	Gratification
	Thank you for reviewing my article on James Swartz. I changed the promotional language. I deleted the word 'renowned' and hope that the article now is up to wikipedian standard :) Best Georg from Germany :) Georg nonduality (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:42:21, 28 December 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Believeingood

• Believeingood (talk · contribs)
  • User:Believeingood/sandbox/R.B. Walsh / Risteárd Breathnach (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re. Richard B. Walsh's list of publications - you say I should shorten it. About how many should I include? Believeingood (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Believeingood (talk) 03:42, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Editors in dispute resolution

Hello,

Regarding "one other registered editor and an unregistered editor have taken part in the talk page discussion and in the editing of the article, but have neither been listed nor notified". I am the unregistered user (before I created this account). All editors involved have been included and notified accordingly.DevilWearsBrioni (talk) 10:18, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Newton Howard review

Robert,

Thank you for your prompt attention and feedback regarding our article. I have removed external URLs and added lots of citations and so I believe that the page is ready to go, now. However, I'm writing to explain one point of confusion - yes, this article is a duplicate, but the account that was used to create the original has long been abandoned/lost. Dr. Howard can't remember that uid or pwd (or the staff member who worked on it last) and so we would just like to publish this draft version under my ID and have that lost account (and article) removed. Can you do that? Thanks so much .. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbrink8 (talk • contribs) 17:50, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Either I don't understand the question, or you didn't understand what has happened to the draft. Draft: Newton Howard is your draft. The abandoned draft was deleted, and I moved your draft into draft space. Dr. Howard should not have been edited the draft anyway, and still should not. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Please trim the list of his publications, which is too long. Please submit the draft for review. It is waiting to be submitted. If you don't know how to do that, ask me to submit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Rajesh Kamat

Hi. I'm new to AfC, but I just noticed that when you declined the submission of Draft:Rajesh Kamat your sole reason was that his name was used inconsistently in the article. I thought we were only supposed to decline a submission for reasons that would probably cause it to be deleted if nominated at AFD, and I'm pretty sure the inconsistent use of given name/surname would not be a valid deletion reason? Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 16:49, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

In retrospect, I probably should have commented without declining or approving. In looking back at it, part of the reason why I declined it was that I was annoyed that the author didn't seem to be making enough effort to improve it, but I probably should have commented rather than declining. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Ah, I can understand the frustration, thanks. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 09:32, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Unfortunately, a common problem at AFC review is editors who resubmit an article without trying to improve it, or with only the most minimal efforts at improvement. Some of the AFC reviewers think that they are playing a lottery game, trying to find an easy reviewer who will let the article through. They don't realize that AFD is an even more contentious process than AFC, and that if they do find a reviewer who doesn't notice that the article isn't good, and promotes it to mainspace, someone, anyone, will come along and AFD it. Sometimes, when the review points out that a particular phrase is promotional language, the editor will delete that phrase, but will not rework the rest of the article, so the rest of the article still contains promotional language. If I see that a draft is being tendentiously resubmitted, I will MFD it. Some AFC reviewers disagree, and think that AFC reviewers should make a good-faith effort to improve the article. My own thought is that the author is supposed to make a good-faith effort to improve the article, and that an AFC reviewer who makes a good-faith effort to improve the article is providing an optional and noble service. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Those are interesting thoughts, thanks. I think my feelings are largely along the same lines. I'll be happy to help improve submitted articles providing the article author is clearly making an effort too, but if they're just trying to get a dodgy article accepted with minimum effort I'll be a lot less keen to help. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

22:32:15, 29 December 2015 review of submission by Aviation Expert I

• Aviation Expert I (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Coastal Environmental Systems Inc (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert. Not sure if this is the best and or only way to communicate with you but it's what I found in poking around. In response to your question, the article is about both the company and the weather stations they have produced. It is somewhat often that pilots and weather buffs wish to know "where" their data is coming from and if is both qualified and of consistent high quality (Metadata that might allow the users to confirm this information directly from the data is not yet used in this community). Often the quality of the data is judged by both the manufacture and the agency that is providing the data. As this data is used both for aviation (operational data) AND forecasting it is of interest to several different communities. I am trying my best to not be promotional and stick only to the facts. There are really only two companies that produce the very high quality stations (kind of like a Boeing/Airbus type of thing) and I notice that the other company, VAisala, has a Wikipedia page which is quite promotional and noted by Wikipedia - so I'm trying really hard not to be. Additionally this one company (Coastal) has produced, as I mention, most of the weather stations used for these two functions (aviation and forecasting) in North America. I can keep trying but any help you can offer would be appreciated and if there is a better or easier way to communicate - I would appreciate that knowledge as well. Thanks!!

Thanks

Thanks Robert for your help. HNY--White Tiger (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

2016

	Happy New Year 2016!
	Did you know ... that back in 1885, Wikipedia editors wrote Good Articles with axes, hammers and chisels? Thank you for your contributions to this encyclopedia using 21st century technology. I hope you don't get any unneccessary blisters. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 23:12, 30 December 2015 (UTC)    –

Hello

Hi, Erick3814 here, I just do not know how to talk about myself or whatever it is, feel free to talk to me......ER Erick3814 (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2015 (UTC)Erick Rosales (talk) 00:24, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

06:24:28, 31 December 2015 review of submission by 124.253.156.66

• 124.253.156.66 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Mandakinibansal99/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)