User talk:Robert McClenon

Other archives
Problem Archive
Famekeeper Archive
FuelWagon Archive
Jack User Archive
John Carter Archive Why was my notcieboard post closed? I desperately need your mediation help?
PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
78 Archive
DIRECTIVEA113 Archive

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station) 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 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gritty 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 21:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard 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 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidence request

Hi Robert McClenon,

The sections "ZaniGiovanni", "Abrvagi" and "Dallavid" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop currently lack evidence. Please add clear evidence directly supporting these statements, or if not possible, remove them.

Thank you very much in advance. For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree - I was about to strike the findings of fact. I will review the evidence in the remaining time that evidence and the workshop are open to see if I can provide a linkage, but it is likely that I will not spend the time to make the connection, and will let others do that. I was about to strike them, and I see that you deleted them, so I concur. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Tools

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

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. When 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!} 02:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Charles III 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 09:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent Chivalry of a Failed Knight RFC

Unsure if I should make a subsection on the talk page, so I'll throw it here first and possibly move it after, but the RFC results aren't consensus as you stated in the closing edit. Per the dispute resolution where I mentioned an RFC would be okay only in the instance it doesn't dismiss the author, you mentioned any closer would consider all options, sources, votes, and discussions to reach a middle ground. Looking at the edit it looks like you only considered votes and dismissed the author outright. Can't just go with large majority for a decision as you leave out what's most important in the author, and what discussion was actually happening in the replies.

Going from the previous discussion above the RFC you said would be considered you have this:

Editors acknowledging male language is okay: Me, Lullabying, Knowledgekid87, Jonchache, Morgan695

Editors acknowledging female language is okay: Cyberweasel89, ThunderPX, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels

Editors acknowledging a mix of male and neutral: Me, Lullabying, Knowledgekid87, Morgan695, AngusWOOF

That outpaces leaving it as female like option A in the RFC.

Looking at the RFC in question we get these:

9/10 in favor for A

4/10 in favor for B

3/10 in favor for C

8/10 in favor for D

Given that discussions for this were also supposed to be given weight I'm going to just not count those who didn't previously discuss or didn't make a comment for the RFC, since they give no reasoning or address any arguments. With that, it leaves it to this:

8/10 in favor for A, though it's more like 7 since previously one of the editors said this was unacceptable above

3/10 in favor for B

2/10 in favor for C

7/10 in favor for D

Key notes are that in A/D editor AngusWOOF goes against those votes in the replies, agreeing to a hybrid of C/D with Arisuin as the name. Editor ThunderPX also puts forth the idea of a compromise (hybrid) layout. Link20XX notes you shouldn't assumed a gender, and wants to defer to official translations (this assumes gender), but that ignores another official translation in the Mandarin release, and goes against the source. SmallJarsWithGreenLabels only wants to acknowledge the translation, ignoring other releases. The narrator discussion ends at the result that regardless of the narrator being all knowing or limited, each character's internal thoughts are using male and neutral language combined for Nagi Arisuin.

Given all the facets together that are supposed to be considered, a hybrid version using only Arisuin in the paragraph, minus the Nagi "Alice" Arisuin for the section beginning, that sticks to neutral language and limits female language to the last bit including a citation link, as laid out by editor AngusWOOF in the replies, would have to be the result. It has the most support between votes, discussion, and the pre-RFC talk page discussions. Using any kind of female language is doing the authoritative statement of a character that was nixed in both the pre-RFC and RFC replies.

Not exactly sure of how you'd want to proceed, but the end result is both not what the actual general agreements reached were, and is the one thing you said would not happen when an RFC was agreed to. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Draco Safarius - I have considered your comment and concern, and am not exactly sure what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to change my close? I am not going to change my close. The consensus was strongly in favor of language that focuses on the gender ambiguity of the character. Are you asking me to set aside my close and return the RFC to awaiting closure? I will do that if one other editor also requests that I set aside the close. I don't plan to revert a close on the request of 1 editor out of 10. You have three choices. The first is of course to leave my close alone and accept that you were in a minority. The second is to request, in a new section on the article talk page, that I reopen the RFC. As I said, I will do that if two editors request it. That would however be likely to result in the reclosing admin also finding a consensus for Option A, with either similar rationale or different rationale. The third is to request a close review at AN. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I was requesting a close change as per the above descriptions laid out where when you factor in the previous comments and the RFC replies, like you said was the case for agreeing to this, it does not leave it as the majority nor anywhere close to strongly in favor. If any of the other voters were opposed to the discussions previously, or the ones in the replies, then they'd have commented/replied had they anything to add. Given that none of them did so you're left with just their votes, previous discussions, and what others were replying with to the RFC which leaves it as a result of two sections. Only leaving me with the impression you went at it biased since you didn't follow through on saying what an RFC closer does. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Closure Review Request notif: ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Draco Safarius (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film 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 12:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Change the route

Hi, can you redirect this wikipedia, thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:D%C5%BEav%C3%A1d_Ramezani 83.122.40.228 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 19:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Characteristics

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

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. When 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!} 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi, can I ask what is the purpose of repeating the same thing ninth time? Are you able to propose any compromise? Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded impertinent, but this simply stems from fatigue with the constant discussions on these topics, which always look the same. That's what the other side's tactics are all about - creating long statements, repeating the same thing over and over again, ignoring responses, unwillingness to find a compromise, etc., simply counting on the opponent's fatigue. Marcelus (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Applied behavior analysis dispute resolution

Hi Robert, I've only just seen that you requested comment on this dispute resolution request, and then closed it down.

I never received any notification that you wanted further comments, which would have been helpful, and for some reason none of the comments on my own dispute resolution request showed up on my watchlist, until your one closing it. Puzzling, because I had previously been alerted there to a lot of discussion about Lithuania!

I did respond to your earlier question, saying I thought moderated discussion might be helpful.

@Sideswipe9th commented on the 27th, specifically asking for a couple of days to catch up and respond.

I appreciate your input, and I will try WikiProject Psychology, but I have to say I'm not sure closing the dispute was the right move here. Oolong (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Oolong - I have looked over the record of the Applied behavior analysis case again, and I am not sure what you think I should have done differently. Are you saying that I should have been aggressive in demanding that you and the other editors say that you needed to sleep on it a few more nights? When you first made a case request, I asked, on 24 February, whether you wanted moderated discussion, or whether you wanted additional editors involved. From your initial statement, it appeared that you didn't have a content dispute, so much as wanting additional editors. You said that you weren't sure, but thought that you wanted outside input. So on 25 February, I asked you and the other editors to read the rules, and the rules state that every editor should check the noticeboard at least every 48 hours and provide some minimal input. I also asked you to state what you thought needed to be changed in the article. On 27 February, after 48 hours had elapsed, I again asked you to state what the article content issue was. I still didn't get an answer after three days. You say that you never received any notification that I wanted further comments. Did you read the rules that said that it was your job to check the noticeboard every 48 hours? It seems that you are saying that you would have liked to have me do a whole lot more work for you. Many of us would like other editors to do a whole lot more work for them.

I wasn't sure that your concern about the article was an article content dispute, so I asked what your issues were with article content. You didn't answer. It seems that you expected me to figure out for you what sort of help you wanted, and to do the work to help you, and to remind you. If I had done that, what would you have said? What would you have said needed changing in the article?

So: Do you have an article content dispute, or do you want other editors to look at the article for possible new ideas or brainstorming? DRN is intended to help resolve article content disputes, usually by mediation or moderated discussion. You haven't really said what you want changed in the article.

Okay. You complained at me, for not taking an article and fixing it when you aren't sure what you want. I have complained at you for giving me a useless complaint. I think that you should decide what sort of assistance you want. If, after more discussion, you have an article content dispute, you can come back to DRN. If you want general advice on the editorial process, maybe you can ask at the Teahouse.

You say that maybe I shouldn't have closed the dispute, but there didn't seem to be a dispute, because the disputes that we work with have to do with the content of the article. You say that maybe I shouldn't have closed the dispute, but you didn't say what you wanted. I am ready to reopen a dispute if it appears to be something other than "We want help, but we aren't sure what sort of help we want."

Let me know what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I created Beatriz García first

I created Draft:Beatriz García on November 2022 before Beatriz García as the editors literally copied my work so I feel the draft should at least be merged into Beatriz García. I have started this discussion on Talk:Beatriz García Dwanyewest (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest - I have tagged the article to have history merged from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Helms Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act 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 16:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests) 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 18:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Surfskating versus Carveboarding

Hi Robert, you left a comment on my Surfskating draft: Draft:Surfskating

You asked me to differentiate between surfskating and carveboarding, which I have done. The Carveboarding article shouldn't even be on here, because that only refers to a specific product that is no longer in production.

Thank you! Beehiel (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A reply to your comment on Draft:Typhoon Jelawat (2018)

A consensus has not been made because no one had replied to my previous topic in the parent article's talk page. There hasn't been a comment in the talk page since October 2019 because of the WikiProject members moving onto the next season, which is why no one had replied yet. The guidelines in notability of tropical cyclones are listed here. I created another topic about the draft as a second attempt. luis 💬 16:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Robert McClenon,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet posting about sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SM City Sorsogon history now Socks the time is 2024 @Robert McClenon ok and rename to (mall) 119.95.127.183 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Userbox

Your preposition userbox gave me a good laugh. Born25121642 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 05:20:34, 17 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ghdfghmp

• Ghdfghmp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:National Beach Soccer Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for deleting the draft. I could not do it but now it looks like it has been fixed!

User:Ghdfghmp - I didn't delete the draft. This was a case of blank and redirect. I only cut down the draft to a redirect to the article. That is a preferred procedure for drafts when an article also exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ghdfghmp (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Declined draft

Hello @Robert McClenon,

Thank you for the feedback! (Draft:Internet of Everything)

I would like to ask a question... I was actually trying to make a stub (not an article) because IoE is not the same as IoT.

The information I used is not useful to start a stub?

How could I create an IoE stub?

Thank you once again! best regards. Idividual1967 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:User:Idividual1967 - Try discussing at the talk page, Talk:Internet of Things, to ask whether they think the topics are separate and whether a stub for IoE is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Best regards. Idividual1967 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Your close of Roald Dahl

Hi, you wrote in your close[1] that No one has objected to changing the heading. Well, in fact I did[2], and not sure why you decided to overlook it. The issue is not whether the quoted remark was anti-Semitic; it perhaps was. The issue is whether a person can be accused, in Wikipedia voice, of anti-Semitism, additionally based on a single remark they made in their lifetime. While sources are free to write whatever they wish, us, we must always source such serious accusations instead of presenting them in Wikipedia voice. Hence my objection to the wording in the heading.

So, no, there was no consensus on this.

Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri - I have reread the discussion, and I see that I sort of overlooked what you had written, and that I partly agree and partly disagree. I don't think that having a subsection in the Controversies section about anti-Semitic remarks is stating, in the voice of Wikipedia, that Dahl was anti-Semitic. It is stating that there is controversy about remarks that he made that some consider anti-Semitic. I can understand why you think that the heading makes that statement in the voice of Wikipedia, but I disagree. I also note that you didn't dispute my comment that no one had objected to the change until after I had closed the dispute. So I see three options that you can take, going forward:

1. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Roald Dahl.
2. Submit a Request for Comments.
3. Do nothing.

Your call.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. No. 3 I suppose. While it annoys me that slightest criticism of Israel's policy is instantly labelled anti-Semitism by some,[3][4] it's not a hill I want to die on, if I may put it that way. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri - He isn't being labeled as anti-Semitic by his detractors because of what he said about the State of Israel. His remarks about the Jewish people are labeled as anti-Semitic by his detractors. At least, that is the way I read between the lines. That doesn't mean that he was anti-Semitic, but it is why some of his remarks are considered by his detractors to be anti-Semitic rather than merely anti-Israeli. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's semantics. "X's speech supported Communism" and "X supported Communism" mean essentially the same for the average reader, next being "X was a Communist". Same with Dahl's remarks: they have already been used to turn Dahl into an "abhorrent" anti-Semite.[5]. I think Wikipedia should try not to play a role in that.

Anyhow, leaving now for other commitments. Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the declining of my draft

Hello and I’m sorry if I haven’t worked on Draft:Giorno Giovanna for many days, quite busy with my personal life. So, when tou explained the reasoning of why my draft is declined, should I discussed with fellow users if Giorno Giovanna is deserving of his own article, especially that when I looked in the history of his article, it was suddenly cut to a redirect with no discussion. Is that what I’m supposed to do? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tyler Toney

Hi this is Cdelapp. Sorry to bother you but could you please help me make my draft ready for submission in any way? I just need to know exactly what I am doing wrong. Preferably I would like to know how many references I need, what ones I have that I can't use, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelapp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cdelapp - As the talk page banner says, if I declined a draft submission, I will probably advise you to seek the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. I am not planning to go through your references in detail. I will repeat that this draft does not explain what reliable sources say about the subject. It says what he or his group say about him, which does not establish notability. If you want a more detailed review, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I did ask at the Teahouse. Cdelapp (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen's trolls

Probably best to just ignore. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Of interest?

Indeed. Please see User:Piotrus/Response#1._Lack_of_neutrality - if you haven't, you may find other parts of my rebuttal essay of interest. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Piotrus - I have looked at portions of your reply, and will read more of it soon. I did not know that Holocaust distortion was a dogwhistle for Holocaust denial. I will leave unchanged what I said, which is that calling any editor any sort of distortionist is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:30, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I fully agree this term is very slanderious, particularly in this context where it's just a synonym for denier of one of the humankinds biggest, if not THE biggest, tragedies. And if you have any questions about anything related to my Responce, do let me know. Btw, I recently submitted my evidence related to, among other things, using this term, to ArbCom here, which is based on my lenght Response. There will likely be some discussion of this on arbcom's talk pages and analysis, I hope. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:58, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:TTT

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

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. When 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!} 04:42, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Well, well, User:Liz, this was different. It appears that what you deleted was not a draft article, but a redirect from a page move/rename that I did, not six months ago, but four years ago. If you, User:Liz, are cleaning up four-year-old dust, thank you, even if it does result in strange messages. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Disruption. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
teahouse @Robert McClenon the draft is rejected pls not ask a teahouse 122.52.66.207 (talk) 07:08, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Errors in Draft Corrected.

The reasons because of which my draft was rejected have been corrected. Please have a look. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Babak_(Rababi) ਗਿਆਨੀ ਪੁਰਸ਼ (talk) 01:28, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Sig with false date

Is this what you wanted? SilkTork (talk) 8:08 am, 31 March 2023, Friday (UTC+1)

User:SilkTork - Yes, sort of, but not at 0256 GMT, 2 April. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:56, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

To get a sig without a date type ~~~, and then type in whatever date and time you wish. SilkTork (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but a careful observer will realize that I typed it in by hand. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

AfC related question

Hi Robert. Since you're involved with AfC, I thought you might be able help me with something related to it. What's the protocol for a previously AfC declined draft that has been subsequently improved upon by someone other than the draft's creator? Is it acceptable for someone other than an AfC reviewer to move the draft into the mainspace if they feel it's now ready? I'm not sure whether the creator is coming back since they haven't edited since the first week of December 2022, and their editing was fairly intermittent even before then. I thought about asking the AfC reviewer who declined the draft to take another look at it, but their user talk page states they're semi-retired and are no longer very active. FWIW, I advised the creator to try and flesh the draft out a little more before submitting it for review, but never heard back from them; so, I started doing so myself. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Marchjuly - My advice is that there are three reasonable ways to do this:

1. Arrange in advance for a reviewer to be ready to approve the draft when you say that you are satisfied that it is ready for article space. Then resubmit the draft, and expect to see it approved.
2. Become an AFC reviewer, while planning to do reviews only rarely. There is no obligation as to how much reviewing a reviewer should do. Then resubmit the draft and approve it.
3. Remove the AFC templates that say not to remove them. The AFC templates say not to remove them because 99% of the time, removing them is done to game the system, but you will be removing them as a valid exercise of Ignore All Rules. Then move the draft into article space. Do not suppress redirect creation. When a draft becomes an article, there should be a redirect from draft space to article space.

Your call. They are all ways to do it. Please do not move the draft into article space without first removing the AFC templates. That leaves annoying cleanup for the AFC reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the detailed response Robert. I think part of the the fun of Wikipedia is learning by doing, and I sort of would like the draft's creator to go through the AfC process so they gain a better understanding of things. So, I think I may wait a bit longer to see if the creator comes back. If they don't, then I at least know there are some options to choose from. -- Marchjuly (talk) 08:23, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Potential sock

You commented on Draft:William Hanson, which is a duplicate of Draft:William Hanson (Etiquette Expert). There are two seperate WP:SPAs that have mostly kept to only one of the two drafts. Do you think this is something that should be brought to WP:SPI? TipsyElephant (talk) 02:08, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

User:TipsyElephant - SPI has been written. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

2024 libertarian presidential primaries

I apologise for not getting to you sooner regaurding it. The sudden response out of nowhere came at a bad time when i was not focusing on wikipedia. @25stargeneral

Yes i would like a moderated discussion, however at this time there are more pressing matter for me personally, and while there are issues that 25 star has yet to address with his statements, right now i do not have the time to debate on wikipedia. Dieselkeough (talk) 20:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Dieselkeough, User:25stargeneral - If you want moderated discussion, first resume discussion on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, you can file a new request for moderated discussion. You can, of course, wait until you both have time to spend on the discussion. During that time, events may change. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I do not want moderated discussion and I already expressed that. I requested page protection at RfPP and got it because of this editor persistently adding poorly-sourced content. That's the end of it for me. 25stargeneral (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Discuss at Talk:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries Robert McClenon (talk) 03:44, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

collaps Howdy, I apologise for not replying sooner. I have been busy with quite alot of things and have bot found much time for wikipedia or all that it entails. The big debate here is that as a list, the source requirements only need to list that it they have actually applied for the presidency under the libertarian banner. Looking at 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries they used a similar system in using the FEC filings as proof to be added to the list. I Beleive that the same system should be used for the 2024 primaries, as the LP nationally does not get coverage, particularly its inside baseball. Notability in the English Wikipedia has made the process of lists such as this clear, that it does not neet to meet the same standards of notability as articles do. As such i beleive that FEC filings are sufficient proof to be added to a list of candidates, but further notability is needed for greater detail on those candidates should a controversy arrive (such as Joe Exotic leaving the 2024 libertarian primaries to join the democrat primaries) Dieselkeough (talk) 00:46, 12 April 2023 (UTC) If you continue to refuse to read actual Wikipedia sourcing policy, you're not going to last long here. We use reliable sources. FEC filings are primary sources that can be submitted by anyone, and there are many joke filings. Someone was literally adding a "time traveler" based on an FEC filing. Please read the RS page I have linked to. You are absolutely incorrect that lists do not have to follow our policy on reliable sourcing, so I know you have not read that policy. Quoting from the policy: The verifiability policy is strictly applied to all material in the mainspace—articles, lists, and sections of articles—without exception. 25stargeneral (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2023 (UTC) User:Dieselkeough, User:25stargeneral - Please discuss at Talk:2024 Libertarian Party presidential primaries. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Re: Your submission at Articles for creation: National Dong Hwa University College of Science and Engineering (April 14)

Hi, please send this message to User talk:林儀承 as I'm submitting this AFC per VRT request. GY Fan★ 06:39, 14 April 2023 (UTC)