User talk:Robert McClenon

Other archives
Problem Archive
Famekeeper Archive
FuelWagon Archive
Jack User Archive
John Carter Archive
PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
78 Archive
DIRECTIVEA113 Archive

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sharon A. Hill on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Turkey on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:United Arab Emirates on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine)

Hi, I read your comment of Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine). Your question is that "if this draft is accepted, an entry will need to be added to the disambiguation page for the primary name. / The disambiguation page for the primary name is Flash (disambiguation)", right? I feel this question is very complexed. I named this article as "FLASH, a Japanese weekly magazine". But Dan arndt (talk · contribs) renamed the article.[1] So the article name did ambiguated. I once added a internal link to the disambiguation page. But Swpb (talk · contribs) removed the link.[2] So I suppose that the article had better to named as "FLASH, a Japanese weekly magazine", and it had better to add a internal link to the disambiguation page. If you could help me to add the link, please undo the edition of User:Swpb, thank you. UikiHedeo (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:UikiHedeo - I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I am sorry for my poor English expression ability. Now I want to ask you that am I still not allowed to move the draft back to its original place and to add an internal link to the Flash (disambiguation) article? UikiHedeo (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User:UikiHedeo - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse or at WikiProject Japan. However, I think that the title should be either Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine) or Flash (Japanese magazine). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion about the article title. I understand that. In other points, you don't matter me move the article to the original place? I don't like spent times in the Teahouse. The "anonymous" not always have interested in or know much about what I want to write in wikipedia, Dont't they? If YOU don't matter to I move the article any more, I want to do that. Because I already worked hard and added much sentences. that is sufficient to persist the article get enough credibility, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UikiHedeo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Please allow me ask you again about that you still request me to add any other sentences to the article? Or have you satisfied by my addition which had already done? Or you don't matter how the sentences except the article title? UikiHedeo (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Pathan film Article

Hi Sir I am AK965 I want to talk to you about pathan film article. I have included information in it as per the comments. If you find this to be a mistake, you can delete it AK965 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

seeking followup on 2018 Talk page of "Robert's Rules of Order" article

I also posted the following on talk - I started a discussion in "Robert's Rules of Order" talk. Being new to Wikipedia editing, I did not know to look at prior year's talks. When I did notice the 2018 talk of that article, I saw that the discussion I had initiated was pretty much a repeat of the 2018 discussion you were heavily involved with. ... Why did the move towards correcting the ROR article lede stop abruptly mid June 2018 ??? I would like your [ Sakuranohi's ] suggested ROR lede (or something like that) to be adopted. ... Natefin (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Natefin - There was a dispute about Robert's Rules of Order at DRN in March 2018. The moderated discussion took place at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_162#Talk:Robert%2527s_Rules_of_Order, and the moderated discussion concluded with the posting of a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order/Archives/2018#RFC_on_Lede and was indecisive, with too little participation in the RFC and no formal closure. I was asked why the discussion ended in June 2018. The answer appears to be that it ended because it ended. Editors stopped discussing it. I think that I have no further knowledge of the matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Natefin I felt that it was obvious that the page was being abused for the interests of RONR, but I received little support and the moderation drew little interest. There was a minor and grudging concession to me (an offer to make a peripheral page for ROR variants) but not the rollback of the coopting of the Robert's Rules of Order page for the promotional purposes of RONR and robertsrules.com. I ran out of steam and moved on to other things, disappointed in the Wikipedia process. It seems I have a couple of allies now, and may be willing to reengage. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Ahmed Adel Alykob

Hello, an article from the Arabic Wikipedia has been added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha m jad (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

RfC question

Did you mean that option "C" means keeping status quo on the page here? I am not sure. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes - I think so. At least, keeping the status quo is consistent with C. I think that if Option C is the consensus, then the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement, but I think that the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement anyway because I don't see any real effort to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I corrected my vote accordingly. I saw your DRNB comment [3]. WP:AE? Well, I do not know, but the endless discussions on talk are indeed concerning [4]. Is that a productive collaboration to improve the page? Definitely not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I now agree that it needs a fix, possibly by admins at WP:AE. I tried to talk with participants but now will leave this page to them. This is a ridiculous waste of time. Even protecting this page forever (as was done in the past) would probably be a positive solution. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

• Please accept my apology for modifying your edit. I had to post a separate comment, you are right. I did just that when someone reverted my edit soon after. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
  • User:My very best wishes - Read the talk page guidelines at least one more time, to understand what you are not supposed to do. I am not sure from your apology whether you understand the nature of your mistake. You may change the content of an article, draft, or project page to reflect changes, but this was a signed comment. Even if my count had been wrong, you would not have been justified in changing it, but in noting the correction. Maybe you were doing article-page thinking, but you weren't on an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Sure, I know this rule. But I thought you would never object to such trivial edit (11-1=10). I would not object if anyone modified my edit in such way. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes - It wasn't a trivial edit. My tabulation was signed and timestamped. It would have been trivial in project space, in draft space, or in article space, if the edit summary gave an indication of why the change was made. It isn't trivial to change a number in a signed check, and it isn't trivial to change a number in a signed votecount. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. This is probably because I do not take my involvement in WP very seriously. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:My very best wishes - Apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Biblical canon on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser on a "Wikipedia technical issues and templates" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft duplicate

Hello Robert,

I posted an iqos draft back in December (I am a PMI employee and you can see my declaration on the talk page). A few days later someone else posted another (upper-cased) IQOS draft which you reviewed and declined. Since you had put up a link on my draft I went to investigate. I asked the user if they were from the company and they have not responded. Since the declined draft seems to be a Google translation of the Russian IQOS entry I enquired internally and there was no COI editing. To the best of my knowledge, this draft was submitted by a member of the public.

Most of the relevant sources that are presented in this (upper-cased) IQOS draft were used in mine as well so I wonder if there is still an actual need to merge? Happy to take your advice on this.

On a related note, you added a paid contributions tag even though I thought I had properly declared my COI on the Talk page. Did I miss anything on that side?

Thank you for your input and hope you have a lovely day.

--Aphis Marta (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Aphis Marta - I added a {{paid}} tag to your draft so that other reviewers will not have to look at your talk page. Other than that, I haven't reviewed either draft in the past week. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick reply. I'll leave a similar note on the article's talk page indicating why the merge is not needed. Hope it's ok with you. Have a lovely day Aphis Marta (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Is Memories (upcoming film) satisfies WP:NFF ?

Hi there, Could you please check the article about an upcoming film which has no production details and release date information? So before doing an AfD/Draftify, just ask your suggestion as you are much experienced. Hope for the reply. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 14:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Onmyway22 - I have nominated the film for deletion. One possible result will be draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback Request: Draft Julia Bentley (singer)

Hi, you commented on my first submission by suggesting to link to a primary page, but that primary page you list is a different person. Currently there are no articles on Julia Bentley (singer). Please let me know how to proceed. Thx Andreaantico (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Andreaantico - Yes. Julia Bentley is a different person, a diplomat. Exactly. That is why I disambiguated Draft:Julia Bentley (singer). So if the draft on the singer is accepted, a hatnote should be put at the top of the page about the diplomat. I did not review the draft on the singer in detail, which is still waiting for review. If you have questions about why I made this comment, you may look up Hatnotes, or may ask for advice about hatnotes, or about the review process, at the Teahouse. Otherwise, wait for another reviewer to review the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Bring back the Nine Relams

Excuse me, DreamWorks Dragons: The Nine Relams page was deleted cause of a copyright problem. I worked so hard to fix it and they deleted it for no reason besides of a thing they did. I need it back since it's already out. There's no problem to delete it. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

User:BMA-Nation2020 - The article doesn't read as if it is out. The article says it will come out in December 2021, which was last month. It needs updating. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.

For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gringo on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 07:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:College and university rankings on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Vikram 1

Hello, I have corrected Vikram 1 article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Draft:Agnibaan into Agnibaan

Please merge Draft:Agnibaan into Agnibaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Kozlovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich

Look please one more time. I added the necessary sources and redesigned the page, I'm sorry that it came to you in the form in which you saw it. it was really unfinished and I continue to work on it. Ilyadante (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)ilyadante

Feedback Requested: Whale Research Group

Hi Robert,

I left a message for you on the Whale Research Group talk page. I tried to tag you but am not sure if I did it properly, so I figured I'd just let you know here. If you could have a look when you get a chance, that would be great.

Thank you very much,

Tyroneslothrop00000 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Re: Political Game Theory

Thanks for your message regarding Political Game Theory. I was unaware of this page's continued existence. I briefly considered writing something on this subject a few years ago and then changed my mind. Apparently some stub or blank page still existed because I hadn't deleted it properly. My bad. I apologise. It appears to have been deleted now so problem solved. wayland (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gallican on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 06:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User accusing others of being an academic in incognito or their students without any evidence

This was very good, but I did not want to take any more space, so I am posting it here, if you do not mind. The same user who opened a deprecated RFC/U to essentially exclude Siebert and I (of course, they also included themselves but they had no choice) is now positing conspiracy theories that some users involved there are or must be Engel-Di Mauro or one of his students or admirers (?!).12 In fact, I had no idea of them until I found one of their articles through Google Scholar. That is why I wish you or someone should moderate the discussion on the talk page because I do not really want to take anyone for conduct issues but what am I supposed to do? Davide King (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King - I think that I don't understand. You have provided diffs, but I am still not sure what the issue is. I see a comment about Engel-Di Mauro, and I don't know who they are. It appears that you may be saying that Nug has implied that someone here is a student of theirs. That comment is so indirect that I would suggest disregarding it. Who is Engel-Di Mauro?

You are again asking me to act as a moderator. A moderator of what? Of the article talk page Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes??? That is not possible. That is an article talk page and is open to all editors, and is not subject to moderation. If you are suggesting that a moderated discussion with a specific editor would be useful, first you will need to get them to agree to moderated discussion. Both you are User:Paul Siebert seemed to think that I had some ability to get some other editor to engage in some sort of discussion. I don't either have the de jure power or that de facto power. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't even been trying to follow the discussion at the MKUCR talk page, because it is too busy, and I don't plan to try to follow the discussion, let alone to manage or moderate it.

If you think that Nug, or someone else, has engaged in questionable conduct, such as casting aspersions, you may report them at Arbitration Enforcement, after reading the boomerang essay again. I don't see a personal attack or other conduct issue, but maybe I have missed something. Remember that if you file a report at Arbitration Enforcement, you will also be discussed. Do you think that there has been a conduct issue? What I see is very long and unproductive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that there are too many editors involved for moderated discussion to be useful. I don't see how moderated discussion with one or two or three editors will be useful either. What do you want to achieve by moderated discussion of what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it basically was an accusation that editors on the talk page must have been not only his current or former students, but perhaps even Engel-Di Mauro himself. I just wanted to know what you thought about it, if you thought it was a personal attack or a conduct issue, precisely because I do not want to take it to AE for the reasons you outlined but I am also really tired of some behavior, though perhaps it is not as disruptive as it appears to me, and I may be at fault for replying still. I just think you have been really good and you have done more than enough, I just wish there was a way to keep us focused and get things done to fix the article (agree on source types, outline, and its name), and I know what you wrote at the DRN and is why I did not write you further here, so do not take that seriously — it was more of a wish because you have been very good for making some progress. So sorry if I wasted your time, all this is stressing me out. Davide King (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King - First, who is Engel-Di Mauro, and why is there a problem with them? On the one hand, the allegation that one of the editors here is Engel or Di Mauro or whoever would be harassment. I had difficulty finding it because that exchange is halfway up the talk page, and the talk page is at 64K bytes now. (It was larger, but the bot has been archiving the oldest threads.)

At some point I think that the article is going to wind up at Arbitration Enforcement anyway.

I think that I am more likely to get something accomplished with regard to the list of Italian political parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Diffs: "Maybe the reason Engel-Di Mauro keeps getting brought up is that he may an editor here, so I guess there could be a COIN issue as well, I don't know. [first diff] ... Or even an admiring current/former student of his, who can really know as there are dozens of editors, but stranger things have happened in the past. [second diff]"

From the link to their name: "Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro is Professor of Geography at SUNY New Paltz, and Chief Editor of Capitalism Nature Socialism. His research areas include socialist histories, soil contamination processes, and urban food production. His latest books are on socialist states and environment and on urban agriculture and ecosocialism." See also the RSN discussion.

Anyway, that was what I thought too, and that is why I wanted to hear thoughts from someone like you if it was indeed problematic, and if there was starting to be a pattern of disruptive behavior (e.g. attempting to extend the RfC, which may have been in line with the rules, but with the article's history it may have been a way to game the system). I also agree with your comments on AE and List of Italian political parties. Davide King (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King - I will reply to a few points. First, I agree that the attempt to extend the RFC to run for another 30 days was disruptive. I don't think that the objective was to get clearer consensus, but to delay a close by 30 days, because the extension was done about one hour after I had tabulated the !votes, so that it could be seen that the closest thing to a consensus was for B. Second, I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and am not familiar with Engel-Di Mauro, and so don't know why that particular professor is seen as such a threatening source. I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and I don't want to familiarize myself with the sources, which would involve more work than I plan to do. But I really don't understand why there are conspiracy theories about that scholar. Third, I think that sooner or later someone is going to file a report at Arbitration Enforcement; but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

In case you missed it, they also questioned your neutrality and your tabulation as not "appropriate" because they falsely accused you, or at the very least greatly misrepresented you, as 'threatening' to take it to AE rather than simply stating the obvious prediction, as you reiterated here. I do not understand it either, but it is interesting you used conspiracy theories because that was my first reaction too. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

User:Davide King - I saw that, and chose to ignore it. Some things are best ignored. However, if someone spends too much of their time focusing on real conspiracies, and a dictatorship, including a communist dictatorship, really is a conspiracy, one may start to see conspiracies that are not real also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree. The problem is that we still have totally different views of what the topic entails. As also noted by other users (Levivich), here TFD nailed it. If one looks at the talk, it is as if it is still C or now even genocide, when the topic should be mass killings and what TFD summarized.123 I do not feel I can get anything good out of it when we have such a different understanding of the topic and the recent scholarly literature, and I already know we are going to be around in circles and I have had enough of it. Should we have another RfC on what the topic entails? A multi-option requested move? Take it directly to AE? I really do not know anymore. Davide King (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions topic area changes

In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.

The topics proposed for revocation are:

• Senkaku islands
• Waldorf education
• Ancient Egyptian race controversy
• Scientology
• Landmark worldwide

The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:

• India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
• Armenia/Azerbaijan

Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.

Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Draft

Could you please review a draft that I worked on with a few other users? It's been waiting for review for two months already. It is Draft:RFA One. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

36 Farmhouse

Hi Robert, Draft Information has been retrofitted in the this article (36 Farmhouse) now. This article is worth staying now. Please review and CONFIRM. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Brahma Chellaney on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Queen Latifah on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Hangor-class submarine (Draft)

Sir, I'm Kishore Editing. I've removed the "redirect link" of the Type 039A submarine from the Hangor-class submarine draft. Could you review the draft again, please; you would find it highly appealing for approval. -Kishore Editing 17:09, 01 February 2022(IST)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Avataro Sentai Donbrothers page

Look, I really try to do what's supposedly done. I tried to even pin the original page for deletion so as for the draft page to be improved over time until it gets approved. But now, the original page has become a den of vandalism and even the deletion mark has been removed by the anons. What am I supposed to do now? Zero stylinx (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Zero stylinx - I have nominated the stub for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, but what will happen if the draft got accepted after the original page's deletion? Will it interfere with the creation? Zero stylinx (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Zero stylinx - I don't understand the question. The draft can be updated and resubmitted for review after 6 March 2022 when the series is broadcast. It should not be submitted before then. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Okay let me rectify this. Let's say that the marked-for-deletion article gets deleted and redlinked. If the corresponding draft is approved, will there be any issues or whatsoever during the redirect? Zero stylinx (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Also unrelated (forgive me for this), but how exactly do we use the Wikipedia Library? (I got invited like a few days ago) Zero stylinx (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

RFC on Target of Ukrainian crisis

Hello Robert! I see that the last vote in the RFC was week ago. Is it time to implement conversion to DAB? Who can close the RFC, may I do it as an involved editor? I'm not so familiar with the rules, and therefore ask you all these questions :) --Heanor (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Heanor - First, an involved editor should not close the RFC. Second, an RFC normally runs for 30 days. Let it run. When the 30 days are completed, the bot will remove the RFC tag, and it will be ready to request closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you for reply. I did not know that. I know that an involved editor may close merge and split proposals, but not WP:RM etc. --Heanor (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for help in Knowledge article dispute

Hello,

I am having trouble adding a section under Gnosticism in the Knowledge article. After being reverted, even though I added reliable sources, I explained in the Talk section of the article that Mandaeans should be listed since their name literally means 'having knowledge'. The Mandaean religion stresses salvation of the soul through esoteric knowledge and since they are the only Gnostic religion that has survived from antiquity, it is important they be listed under religious concepts of knowledge. Other religions are listed in the article where knowledge or 'gnosis' is not as profound as it is found in Mandaeism. I have been accused of providing original research even though I provided reliable sources and everything I added was cited and that it is not notable enough. Mcvti (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mcvti - Continue to discuss on the article talk page, Talk: Knowledge. The other issue besides original research is due weight and balance. The other editors haven't stressed that much, but that is also an important consideration, because Mandaeism is a religion with far fewer adherents than Christianity or even than Judaism. I wouldn't put much emphasis on the etymology of the name of the religion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased opinion, I appreciate the help Mcvti (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

AfC request, with thanks for your work on it already

First, thanks for your important and hard work at AfC. I made some improvements to a draft you (very understandably) declined in January.

Although it may be too soon for GNG (despite some in-depth in NYT and Medium), I think Carrie Severino meets one or more tests for NCREATIVE. Her judicial activism work is widely quoted and discussed. Rolling Stone (2016) called her "a leader of the current conservative campaign to block any Obama Supreme Court nominee." At the Amy Coney Barrett confimation hearings, Sheldon Whitehouse put her on a white board with Leonard Leo, then embellished her name with circles and arrows as a major player in what he called "a $250 million dark money operation" to influence the selection of judges.

If you are not too busy, could you reconsider accepting the draft? I want to add that I first encountered its original author Publius In The 21st Century in a dispute elsewhere; we don't have the same politics. But I was impressed by the civility of Publius, and I want to encourage new editors with good human skills to persist in trying while they gain better encyclopedia skills. Also, in this case, I think Carrie Severino is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The improved draft is now in en.wiki as Carrie Campbell Severino. It has been reviewed and graded C-class. Again expressing gratitude for all your excellent work on AfC. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding Why ' Draft:Secure Password Verification' has not been accepted..

Hi What Kind of Reference was expected...(I am new to Making articles)--Merwinmathew (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Question

Hi, Robert - it's been a while since I worked DNR and I've forgotten some of the protocol. I'm a team member at Project Dogs and noticed this filing at DRN. I forget if uninvolved editors are allowed to comment in the discussion section, and would appreciate your input. Atsme 💬 📧 02:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Atsme - Editors are welcome to join in a discussion. Sometimes additional editors may help to resolve the content dispute. Be civil and concise. Welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for the copyedits in my comment at DRN. I was actually relieved that you closed the case but I was hoping to delete that misplaced fragment of a sentence I left in my comment lest it haunt me for a lifetime. I was sitting in the exam room waiting for the ophthalmologist to enter, and I let my impatience be my guide. My eyes were numbed and dilated, but silly me, I grabbed the iPad, posted my comment, and then realized it needed a bit of copy editing. I attempted to make a simple change before the doctor walked in but I made more mistakes instead. Atsme 💬 📧 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Please Hold (2020 film)

What more do you guys want for my article to be accepted? Espngeek (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:AFC Helper News

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our AFC participants; nothing huge and fancy like a newsletter, but a few points of interest.

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at WT:AFC. Stop on by, maybe review a draft on the way? Whether you're one of our top reviewers, or haven't reviewed in a while, I want to thank you for helping out in the past and in the future. Cheers, Primefac, via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrong Interpretation of Rules?

First, thanks for taking your time with the resolution board and the time to read this. I am confused after reading the rule provided[5] in the Pit bulls dispute resolution page and would like clarification of your opinion if possible. Per guidelines:

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

We each have our own arguments to make on that page. No one responded or quoted mine, until Geogene referenced hospital studies, which I did not edit since the reply. It stood alone before that and should be free to edit, so long as no one directly quoted or replied to, which none were. I don't see a rule not allowing users to adjust their own arguments in the dispute resolution, which leads me to believe these are the only guidelines to follow for this topic, but if you know of another I appreciate you helping me out if you can share it as I am relatively new.

I get that its "best practices" to indicate changes, but best practices are just that, best practices and not actually required, although going forward I will add a summary of changes for best practices.

Secondly, there was no personal attack that I can see.

Per guidelines[6] "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.

Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.

Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.

Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

Threats, including, but not limited to:

Threats of legal action

Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)

Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

At best, one can argue it was a comment about their behavior, but I directly quoted the user from the talk page and referenced the source. So it was not without evidence.

How are you interpreting the guidelines? I'd love to hear from another opinion and thanks again for taking the time to read this.Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Unbiased6969 - Please read exactly what I said on closing the case. I said that there were at least three reasons why I was closing it. First, the back-and-forth discussion before a volunteer agreed to moderate the case was extensive. The DRN instructions say to keep opening remarks to a minimum until a volunteer opens the case. I think that we should agree that there was extensive pre-opening discussion. Second, I said that there had been violations of talk page guidelines. You and I are looking at the same section. We clearly disagree on what is a "short while". You made a series of edits initially. Then you came back eight hours later, and made another series of edits. For purposes of dispute resolution, I think that eight hours is longer than a "short while", because other editors may be composing replies during that time. Then you came back twenty hours later and made another series of edits. So you and I disagree about the second reason, and I am more inclined to rely on a neutral editor (myself) than on a participant as to what is a "short while". Third, I said that there were allegations of personal attacks. I did not say that there were personal attacks. I looked to see if I saw a personal attack, and I did not. However, the allegation of personal attacks is itself a conduct issue. You and I both do not think that there was a personal attack. But there was an allegation of a personal attack, and I hadn't even had time to tell the editors to discuss edits, not editors. The case was already out of hand before a volunteer opened it. That is why I closed the case. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want the opinion of another volunteer, maybe User:Nightenbelle is willing to offer her opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you for the clarification. I was just trying to be sure I did nothing wrong, but in your opinion the duration between the edits was the issue. I can see how different people can have varying opinions on the definition of a short while later. I am just new, so I am trying to learn, and the guidelines are just a starting point since they don't define everything. I am good on getting another volunteer to look at the dispute. I don't know how to do all that and I can see how it was already a lot for someone. Thank you again for taking your time to explain as it did help understand and gain more clarity. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Circling the wagons

Hi. I saw your comment at WP:ARC regarding circling the wagons. I'm responding here because I don't want to clutter up the case page. I respectfully disagree with your assessment. There is value in taking things slow. When you go slow, you're less likely to make procedural mistakes. The last thing you want is to make a decision and then have somebody pop up with a procedural objection. So, you take it one small deliberate step at a time and build an iron-clad case that nobody can object to on some technicality. I know it's frustrating to watch how slow arbcom moves, but the alternative is worse.

On the other side of the coin, there's no advantage to going fast. There's no ongoing damage that needs to be contained quickly. If this doesn't get resolved for a week, or two, or three, it's not going to make any difference. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - I agree with the general idea of not being hasty, and of taking things slowly. I don't disagree with slowness in general. I disagree with ArbCom, and maybe with you, for two specific reasons. First, I think that the slowness could be figured in after voting to accept the case. In this specific case, as in Timwi, it will be seen that ArbCom is being played with (just as Jonathunder is playing with the tools, when he edits at all). Second, I see an appearance of special treatment for administrators. I am partly responding to a comment by Barkeep49 about the gradual loss of administrators, in which he seemed to be expressing the hope that keeping legacy admins was one way to slow that gradual loss. I thought that he was honorably mistaken, because the perception of easy treatment of legacy admins contributes to anti-admin sentiment, which in turn contributes to the toxic culture of RFA, which is continuing the gradual loss of admins. I agree in most cases that ArbCom should proceed slowly. I just think that the slowness in this specific case has more long-term harm than its short-term benefit. So I think that is why and how we disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Dispute

I am not sure what else you all want us to do. No one else is interested and we've both made our points, first through the editing war, and then through the talk page. The whole point of a dispute resolution is because an impasse has been reached; there is literally nothing else to discuss. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bengali Kayastha on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995

Hello, Robert McClenon. Nearly all of the re-creations of Pathan which you mentioned at the latest AfD are created by OE1995. The user is someone who seems to be absolutely determined on re-creating articles for subjects they wish for. I've already opened at a discussion at the ANI on this which didn't get much traction. Salting the pages they touch is only a temporary solution because they move onto other articles and we have to start the process all over. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Removed sourced content in Lachin

Can you please explain why you stated that I removed sourced content in the Lachin page, where I dont?

It was not a removal of the sourced content. User ZaniGiovanni added the statement to the article and supported it with the source, however his statement was not exactly reflecting what source said, and not properly squished into the article. There fore I reverted it, and replied him on the talk page clearly explaining my points. As per WP:ONUS he is the one who should start discussion on the Talk page if there is no consensus on the edit he made or proposed.

you are welcome to joint talk page, if you wish, hopefully with additional editors we can reach consensus. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Abrvagl - I did not make that statement. That is a ping of me, not my signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear now. when and if you have a time (it is straightforward, and should take much time of your), can you please share your view on the this discussion (TALK PAGE). My point is that information reflected on the article is clear WP:RSHEADLINES, and do not have relation to the article, therefore it should be removed. However, it is hard to reach consensus with ZaniGiovanni, because he continuously stating the same thing, which not even related to the my point. thank in advance! --Abrvagl (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for comment

Hello Robert,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my Article for Creation submission. I will edit and add sources as requested. Many thanks also for your hard work and many contributions to the site. RedPurpleX (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your review

Draft here Draft:Da_Vinci_(magazine) "because it is written from the perspective of the magazine and not third parties." What should i write to make it seem like its from a third party? I understand the need of reference. there are multiple EN and JP websites talking about the magazine. But how is it from the perspective of the magazine and not from third parties? its confusing. I'll be adding outside references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WillsEdtior777 (talk • contribs) 01:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Top Model po-ukrainsky (season 7)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. If you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Liz - The thing that tries to trace the provenance of abandoned works strikes again. Well, at least this time it isn't implying that I can rescue it. I guess I must have moved it from a sandbox to draft space. Duh. I thought I might have gotten a useful question or comment. No. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Diambiguated title

Hello! I noticed you recommended that the draft I submitted for Articles for Creation had your comment that the title needed to be disambiguated. The article is currently called Hi-C (microbiology). Would it be possible to change the title to Hi-C (genomic analysis technique) as I wouldn't necessarily classify it under microbiology...And yes, it is an extension of Chromosome_conformation_capture#Hi-C_(all-vs-all) and includes much more recent variations of this technique and its applications in detail. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prakrutiuday (talk • contribs) 06:48, 1 March 2022 (UTC) Prakrutiuday (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Lockwood south issue

Hi, and thank you for your generous contributions to Wikipedia. I was unaware that there was a draft for Lockwood south and all contributions were my own and without the utilisation of any Wikipedia drafts relating to this or any other topic. Thank you An aggressive and ambiguous amphibian's absurd and adaptable anagram alarmed all ants (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Eric Omondi

Hello Robert, Thank you for your comment on the draft article Eric Omondi. Could you please take a look at the article and see if it can be moved to the main space. Thank you. PushaWasha (talk) 12:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Palatine Lodge No. 97

Hi Robert Thank you for your prompt review and feedback on my article Draft:Palatine Lodge No. 97. Can you please provide me with examples of where there is a need for citations from reliable, independent sources. Thanks again and regards --Stev201961 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Stev201961 - I did not review the draft in detail. I left a message on it both for your information and for the information of future reviewers. I see that you have also asked User:Onel5969, and I recommend continuing that line of inquiry. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:1998 Sokcho submarine incident on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:32, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely topic banned from edits related to living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism, broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• A. C. Santacruz (talk · contribs) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that discretionary sanctions for biographies of living people have been authorized since 2014. Editors named in this decision shall be considered aware of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

Draft:Pathaan (film)

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.

---

How to resubmit this draft for review for AfC. Shinnosuke15, 13:42, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I am asking you again. How to resubmit this rejected draft? The draft seem to be in good state, so WP:TNT may not be needed. Thank you. Shinnosuke15, 14:32, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Shinnosuke15 - Do not resubmit the rejected draft. The film has not been released, and there continues to be consensus that the unreleased film is not notable. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pathan (film) (3rd nomination). If you have any further questions, you may ask the closing administrator Scottywong, but see the closing statement:

The authors can make as many drafts as they want, but it seems rather clear that they're not going to make it into mainspace anytime soon. Recommend continuing to reject the drafts if they are submitted for review, and escalating blocks for the author(s) if they continue making forks in draft space.

. Do not resubmit the draft while the film is still waiting for release. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Can it be moved to mainspace after release? As it is a rejected draft, isn't it necessary to delete this and recreate after gaining notability? Shinnosuke15, 17:10, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Shinnosuke15 - Why are you asking now, when it hasn't been released and isn't about to be released? Why are you asking me, rather than one of the closing administrators? It is too soon to be asking about what to do when this film is released. Are you really trying to annoy me, or are you really trying to annoy the closing administrators, or are you just perseverating? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:47, 5 March 2022 (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.

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Adolf Eichmann on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:31, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Asquith Xavier on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Features for new users coming soon (and mentors, like you, wanted!)

Hello Robert

I've been contacting all the established Teahouse hosts and, as you're often to be found there, and work a lot with new users, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each user will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current list of around 80 mentors, I'm reaching out to ask if you'd like to help out and sign up as one? The workload is relatively small; User Panini! reports receiving four questions a month, on average, all of which were simple ones of the type we already get at the Teahouse and elsewhere, and I've had just the one in the last 4 weeks. To view a list of every question asked of all mentors over the last 14 days, click here. If becoming a mentor and being available to help new users on their first few days here interests you - just as you already do at the Teahouse - then please consider signing up at Growth Team features/Mentor list. Existing users can already 'opt-in' to seeing the Newcomer Homepage features via their Preferences. Cheers, Nick Moyes (talk) 12:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Please review the draft Draft:Akash DTH

I have added some academic sources about the subject and I think it establishes adequate notability. Greatder (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Greatder - I have taken a brief look at the revised draft. It is still a division of an existing company, and does not establish that the division should have its own article that is separate from the article on the parent company. Good-quality sources are a necessary and not a sufficient condition for acceptance of a draft. If you have any further questions, you may ask other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Bloody Brothers - An article is live before the release date

Hi Robert McClenon, I have noticed that one article which is an unreleased web series & is too soon to be live. What should be our next step? -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 17:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

User:VKG1985 - It was already moved to user space once and has been moved back to article space. Does it satisfy either general notability or web notability? If so, keep it. If not, write it up for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Disney Wish

Hello, I would like to have your input on the submission for Draft:Disney Wish. It is the first time I created a draft for a cruise ship and would like to know if I need to add and/or fix anything about it. Cardei012597 (talk) 01:10, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Boris Zimin

Hello Robert, I've made changes to the page and I don't see why it still should be in draft status - if you think so, please explain what else I should improve. The notice about relying on a single source is no longer true, can I remove it? Or could you? I would like to make the page visible, and it seems to me that it already deserves being published. What do you think? Thank you, Larisa Mlarisa (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Robert Rennaker

Hi, Robert McClenon,

I've been waiting on a review for quite a while on my draft for Robert Rennaker, so I do want to thank you for being the first to review it. That page in article space you found was from me (in good faith) using the search function to create an article about Dr. Rennaker. I hadn't realized this would appear as a circumvention of Wikipedia's AfC review procedures, but I was somewhat desperate to get this into article space. The page in article space is up for deletion, so the draft may likely be the only thing I'll have afterwards. Could I ask for some advice to prevent its deletion or an additional review from you if it is deleted?

Thank you in advance, Jonknox12 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)