User talk:Robert McClenon

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

Evidence word count

You can save time by using Word Counter instead of copy/paste in Word. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:02, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your efforts with Magneto (generator). Another dispute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reciprocating electric motor has been running for more than seven days. I have looked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Administrator instructions but it is not clear how I get an administrator appointed. Could you tell me please? Biscuittin (talk) 10:07, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #2—2015

Did you know?

With Citoid in VisualEditor, you click the 'book with bookmark' icon and paste in the URL for a reliable source:

Citoid looks up the source for you and returns the citation results. Click the green "Insert" button to accept its results and add them to the article:

After inserting the citation, you can change it. Select the reference, and click the "Edit" button in the context menu to make changes.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's performance, the Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 11:00 (noon) PDT (18:00 UTC). You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug. Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal.

Recent improvements

VisualEditor is now substantially faster. In many cases, opening the page in VisualEditor is now faster than opening it in the wikitext editor. The new system has improved the code speed by 37% and network speed by almost 40%.

The Editing team is slowly adding auto-fill features for citations. This is currently available only at the French, Italian, and English Wikipedias. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections by contributing to the Citoid service's definitions for each website.

Citoid requires good TemplateData for your citation templates. If you would like to request this feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

The special character inserter has been improved, based upon feedback from active users. After this, VisualEditor was made available to all users of Wikipedias on the Phase 5 list on 30 March. This affected 53 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh.

Work continues to support languages with complex requirements, such as Korean and Japanese. These languages use input method editors ("IMEs”). Recent improvements to cursoring, backspace, and delete behavior will simplify typing in VisualEditor for these users.

The design for the image selection process is now using a "masonry fit" model. Images in the search results are displayed at the same height but at variable widths, similar to bricks of different sizes in a masonry wall, or the "packed" mode in image galleries. This style helps you find the right image by making it easier to see more details in images.

You can now drag and drop categories to re-arrange their order of appearance ​on the page.

The pop-up window that appears when you click on a reference, image, link, or other element, is called the "context menu". It now displays additional useful information, such as the destination of the link or the image's filename. The team has also added an explicit "Edit" button in the context menu, which helps new editors open the tool to change the item.

Invisible templates are marked by a puzzle piece icon so they can be interacted with. Users also will be able to see and edit HTML anchors now in section headings.

Users of the TemplateData GUI editor can now set a string as an optional text for the 'deprecated' property in addition to boolean value, which lets you tell users of the template what they should do instead (T90734).

Looking ahead

The special character inserter in VisualEditor will soon use the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki will also have the option of creating a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Instructions for customizing the list will be posted at mediawiki.org.

The team is discussing a test of VisualEditor with new users, to see whether they have met their goals of making VisualEditor suitable for those editors. The timing is unknown, but might be relatively soon.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you translate from English into any other language? Please check this list to see whether more interface translations are needed for your language. Contact us to get an account if you want to help!
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• File requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the character formatting menu in Phabricator.

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

-Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 17:50, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Third opinion opinion

If you don’t mind my asking—how was my Third Opinion request? I think it was my first time using that, so I’d appreciate any feedback, mostly on its neutrality. How would you have worded it yourself? Feel free to delete this post if you prefer not to answer. Thanks, and thanks for responding to the request! —174.141.182.82 (talk) 16:48, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Replied on my Talk. —174.141.182.82 (talk) 19:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Request by Factchecker for extension of deadline to present evidence in defense of Collect

FWIW, I was never notified of this case and only discovered it by accident several days ago. I believe I can put forward substantial evidence suggesting that parties filing the case against Collect have engaged in the same misbehavior they accuse Collect of, or worse, and have deliberately violated content policies to improperly put left-leaning POV spin into WP articles, and that it is Collect's resistance to these improper editing tendencies, rather than his own alleged violations of policy, that has landed him in their crosshairs. I understand that the committee may wish to proceed according to a normal timetable, but given the circumstances I think it only fair that I be granted a brief extension to present evidence in his defense. In this case we have numerous people working against one, and it would appear they've been preparing for this case for some time before filing it. I request an extension until 5pm GMT on Sunday April 12th to make additional submissions. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 18:13, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:New Kadampa Tradition. Legobot (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

notified

left User:Middayexpress and User:AcidSnow and User:Largoplazo have been notified on their talk pages .Hadraa (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

Do not post Arbcom-related material to the talk pages of the ArbCom clerks. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
"Is there at least one diff of Collect abusing BLP in the way described? Could somebody point it out to me?" This is a question about a draft proposal. I asked it before and was rewarded with personal attacks. May I ask it again in the hopes it might be answered? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:42, 9 April 2015 (UTC) Ok now I'm completely confused How is it that Mr. X is allowed to post a long nonsense list and I'm not allowed to refute it? Can you please either hat his list or un-hat my response? You hatted it with the note "unproductive back and forth", but in actual fact you left the "back" intact and only redacted the "forth". Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:14, 10 April 2015 (UTC) "Arbitration Workshop Threaded discussion in the arbitration workshop comments subsections is not permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)" Please explain what this means Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC) IN PARTICULAR can you please make a small bit of explanatory effort instead of making your comments as terse and cryptic as possible? Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 11 April 2015 (UTC) Please respond to my question at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Collect_and_others/Workshop#Question_for_the_committee Please do not simply hat this request and then log out. At the very least could you either answer my question or explicitly refuse to do so? That way I won't be confused into thinking that there is some other place I"m supposed to respond, and I will clearly understand that I'm expected not to respond. Centrify (f / k / a FCAYS) (talk) (contribs) 15:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Aergas has Returned

He has unilaterally reverted edits on the page once again. I reverted them back to the original form of the article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mexicans_of_European_descent&diff=656620168&oldid=656348461

Alon12 (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

Jr. comma RfC

You're invited to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#RfC:_Guidance_on_commas_before_Jr._and_Sr. Dohn joe (talk) 02:00, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

3O on Dalmatian Italians

Hello, it appears that requesting a 3O is useless because some editors ignore the outcome. Can you give a look please. Regards. Silvio1973 (talk) 12:29, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Vandalism

Users Director and Tuvixer made only vandalism in Dalmatian Italians because I ordered list of notables with other enty and word [entered] is obvious neutral because Yugoslav army was later fought by Croat army: Croat is independent State after a war against Yugoslav soldiers. May you block Tuvixer?Teo Pitta (talk) 16:19, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

reported Tuvixer removes POV's banner and engaged edit war here; may you block him? Teo Pitta (talk) 16:48, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

word [vandalism] was used firstly by Tuvixer versus me in other articleTeo Pitta (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Minority language

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Minority language. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

I am new and I need help. I am not an expert in this.

Hi Robert---I am all new to this. You just closed out my request for help in my editing Don Lane (Santa Cruz) article. I AM a registered user--perhaps I didn't fill out the form correctly. Can you help me at all? The discussion on Talk doesn't seem to go anywhere. Why is there a Admin lockout on the page?

My Problem is true and my postings honest.The Man of Heart (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

re: Discretionary Sanctions

Does this mean I'm forbidden to edit Balkan-related topics in future or? --Yerevani Axjik (talk) 21:56, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:David-King

Hi, you may remember I requested intervention in a dispute between myself and User:David-King on the Battle of Old Trafford article. You may also remember that User:David-King made no attempt to participate in any kind of dispute resolution and the request was closed without incident. However, this user has since continued to make edits that go against the (minimal) consensus established on the article talk page by misinterpreting the comments of myself and User:Cliftonian to suit his whims and misinterpreting the sources to fit his agenda. I'm not expecting you to step in and put a stop to this shitfest, but I would appreciate some guidance as to what measures I can take to get at least someone to help settle this dispute. I'm afraid I'm just not getting through to User:David-King, and it's getting quite frustrating to talk to a brick wall. – PeeJay 08:15, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Help desk question

Should we tell the IP at the help desk who asked about AFDing "Turkish Airlines Flight 1878" that if he/she registers and becomes autoconfirmed then twinkle can be activated and it makes starting an AFD easy? I'm not sure I want to give advice like that on an open page like the help desk (in case there are trolls watching.) RJFJR (talk) 15:20, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Never mind, the IP says they don't want to create an account so it doesn't matter. RJFJR (talk) 14:07, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

indentation

I assume you won't mind I indented your comment on the religion thread to make it clear you were responding to me, not continuing my comment. The actual full quote was "I don't care what color the baby comes out, as long as it comes out Catholic." μηδείς (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

L235 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

--L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 02:23, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Fumble fingers

Sorry about the accidental rollback I just did. -Roxy the Viking dog™ (resonate) 06:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Talk page

Hi Robert, since I am not listed as a party to the ArbCom case at hand, would you mind removing or striking that erroneous notice on my Talk page? Thank you, Softlavender (talk) 02:21, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Fort Lee lane closure scandal#Neutrality

Will you intervene once more? --George Ho (talk) 19:34, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	This is for all of your tireless work, especially in helping at DRN and clerking for ArbCom. I must say that it is an incredible honor to work with you. Thanks for your service on Wikipedia! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 23:13, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

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.

---

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Peter May. Your edits needed to have consensus- it was completely inappropriate to make a radical change like this without consensus, I'm trying to start a proper discussion at Talk:Peter May. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:10, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, the best place to discuss this is Talk:Peter May, not my talkpage. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:21, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

This "warning" is more unconstructive and inappropriate. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:44, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Could someone explain why? Their actions were to make a move without consensus, when I tried to revert the change, they contested my attempt to revert, and instead started a WP:RFC, instead of following the proper procedure at WP:RM. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Pages can be moved without prior discussion:

" If you have no reason to expect a dispute concerning a move, be bold and move the page." [WP:RM]]

Complaining about a RfC, which is an attempt to gain concensus, and insisting on a strict move-procedure, looks like an attempt to game the system, and to push your personal preferences. If you really insist at a strict move-procedure, then start such a request. But you could also simply participate in the RfC, and respect the outcome. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 10:11, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not gaming the system, I believe that the move was controversial, and they should have forseen that it would be- whilst they believe the writer is important, they failed to acknowledge that the cricketer was also important too, and so their move was controversial. I'm not trying to "game the system", I'm trying to get the move debated as per the proper procedure for controversial moves. If consensus says that the cricketer is not the main article then that's fine, however there should be a discussion to this controversial move, which should have taken place before it was moved. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:17, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

Also, I don't approve of being told I'm "gaming the system", I'm trying to do what I believe is best for the encyclopedia, which is undoing a controversial move, and having a proper move discussion. As you think I'm trying to game the system, this is notification that you are banned from my talkpage indefinitely. Same for Robert McClenon, for making a controversial move and then complaining when I tried to undo it and get some legitimacy in the move. Any posts to my talkpage by either of you will be considered harassment. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:32, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I will note that I did think that the cricketer was important also. That is why I made the disambiguation page primary. If I had not thought that both people were important, I would have made the writer primary. As far as the talk page of User:Joseph2302, we aren't on it, but on my talk page, and I haven't banned Joseph2302 from it, even for a now stricken personal attack. It appears that Joseph2302 doesn't want certain types of posts on his talk page. He may miss useful information by banning some editors. I will point out that some posts, such as ANI notices, override a personal talk page ban. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I see no evidence in the history that User:Joshua Jonathan ever posted to User talk:Joseph2302, so that the ban from that talk page appears to be a pre-emptive strike, possibly to keep his talk page free of comments that can be considered critical. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:35, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm striking the user talkpage ban, but the reason for it was I didn't (and still don't) feel that either of you are assuming good faith towards me. I was entitled to contest Robert McClenon's controversial move yesterday (albeit I was a bit heavy-handed), but I still felt that your comments were harsh. Fundamentally I disagree with how this discussion happened, but I'm glad an actual discussion had now taken place. As for @Joshua Jonathan:, I was very unhappy that they believed I was "gaming the system", when all I've been wanted to do is have a discussion about the move- although we don't agree on the outcome, I believe everyone should be allowed to participate in the discussion without their integrity being questioned. Everything I've done on the move/RfC discussion I have done in what I perceived to be the best interests of the encyclopedia. The talkpage ban was a pre-emptive move, because at the time I didn't want to discuss the topic further. I still stand by my comments on the discussion, but if consensus is against me, then that's fine too- I don't really have anything to add to the discussion. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

My apologies for my statement; it was overdone. I've striked my comment too. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 18:25, 7 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Post-hatting comment at ArbCom talk page

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.

---

Hello Robert, I hope you can please answer a brief question for me about something that happened recently at this hatted ArbCom talk page section. The first comment pinged FactChecker, but he did not get there until after you hatted the section. When he got there, he nevertheless inserted the last comment of the section. There doesn't seem anything objectionable about the content of FactChecker's comment, and neither you nor anyone else seems to have objected to it at the time. It might have been better (though more convoluted, bureaucratic, and time-consuming) if FactChecker had formally requested your permission to insert his one and only comment in that thread. Anyway, it's now become an issue at WP:ANI. Do you regard this edit by Factchecker as a big deal, or not? Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:56, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Way to ask a question in a neutral manner. Since AYW's already poisoned the well, let me point put that the opinion they're is trying to undermine is that only clerks and Arbs should hat discussions on Arb pages, and when a discussion is hatted, that's the end of it. If not, pretty much negates the entire purpose of the hat, which is to stop the discussion in its tracks. BMK (talk) 06:43, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm not trying to "undermine" that general rule. I'm just suggesting that some infractions or exceptions are no big deal, especially if ArbCom and its clerks raise no objection when they occur. And I wanted to know if that is correct. I won't have any more to say about FactChecker for the foreseeable future, as I have said plenty already.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Fact-checker was formally warned by an arbitrator for conduct on ArbCom pages. Nothing more needs to be said about Fact-checker; there have been no subsequent violations. The posting of case-related questions about ArbCom pages to the talk pages of case clerks is not permitted and is considered tendentious. Both editors in this thread are being formally warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:41, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

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

Please comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Siege of Kobanî. Legobot (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Notification

Just because I have this talk page on my watchlist, I just thought of notifying you about this discussion. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:02, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

Somalis in the United Kingdom RfC

Hi Robert (if I may). You might recall that we had a brief discussion about mediation for the Somalis in the United Kingdom article after another editor posted at ANI about it. There was an RfC active at that time, and you reported that it needed to end before any mediation could begin. The RfC, which was part of this section of the talk page has now been closed by a bot. Can I ask whose job it is to assess the consensus of the comments? I think it's pretty clear, but I was involved in the debate, so I'm not neutral. I'd like to get this cleared up before I consider mediation. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:30, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

User:Cordless Larry - The usual procedure is to request closure at WP:AN, or to wait for a request to be made in WP:ANRFC at WP:AN. However, the RFC can be closed by any experienced editor, admin or non-admin, and the request is simply a way to get the attention of an editor who is familiar with closing of RFCs. I have closed RFCs in the past and have gone ahead and closed your RFC. I think that we are now in agreement that, given how many issues keep coming up at that article, a request for formal mediation would be in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert, and sorry about the fact that I didn't frame the RfC with a clear question, as you noted. I'll look into requesting mediation when I get the chance. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:14, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Questions

Hi Robert. I would like to know when is an okay time to redact unsatisfactory wikitext after a rough consensus? Also, what is the policy regarding external forum announcements pertaining to Wikipedia? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 02:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

If the redaction of "unsatisfactory" text is based on an RFC closure, it can be done at any time, but discussion on the talk page would be a good idea. I am not entirely sure what you mean about external forum announcements, because they sound like external spam. What do you actually mean? Can you be more specific? I have a dislike of overly general questions about Wikipedia, because some questions are asked in order to get an answer that can be used to wikilawyer, but I can see that your questions appear to be real questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:09, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for that. I know that there is a policy somewhere on the mutability of consensus, especially a rough consensus; however, I was unsure as to the appropriate length of time when that would come into play. Is there an extant policy on how to appropriately word external forum announcements? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

What do you mean by external forum announcements? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Are there any templates that editors can use for general announcements on Wikipedia activities, events and such? Best regards, Middayexpress (talk) 16:42, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

I suggest that you take these questions to the Help Desk. I am sure that some of the regular editors there can address your questions. What are external forum announcements, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Not sure yet, but thanks. Cheers, Middayexpress (talk) 17:05, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

ANI/DRN

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.

---

Thanks for your help, I never though my first thread would go that badly. I was hoping the ANI thread would remain open though because of the user's incivility and personal attacks in the thread itself. Is that a good idea? Rider ranger47 ^Talk 01:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Taking this to WT:DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I'm involved, you know, but I must express a strong disappointment for both closures. @Rider ranger47: did his best. But imnsho your choose for lassez faire cannot work when one of the involved parties trolls. What I was looking for was 3O about the tag I tried adding, what I got is a bunch of trolling. --Vituzzu (talk) 07:59, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

See my comments at WT:DRN. It was clear that the moderated discussion was not working. DRN does not assign blame for why moderated discussion is not working. Go back to the article talk page. If there is conduct that you think is further trolling, please first read the boomerang essay and then, if your own conduct is appropriate, report the trolling in a new thread at WP:ANI. It might result in the troll being blocked, or the editor might collaborate with you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

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

RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr.

Following the closure of a recent RfC you participated in, I have started an RfC on the separate but related issue of commas after Jr. and Sr.. Please see Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC: Guidance on commas after Jr. and Sr. and feel free to comment there. Thanks! —sroc 💬 06:03, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Re:safety behaviors

I am a bit confused why you left me a message, I think that was already said on WT:DRN. Rider ranger47 ^Talk 15:28, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I shall try to be clear.

Please, let me be very clear. I have not suggested Paluzzi was a member of the Abstract Expressionism Movement. What I have suggested is that his work in the late ‘50s and early 60s was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I received this suggestion from a professor of Art History at the school from which Paluzzi received his two degrees. What I also suggested was that per edits by JNW there are no published references as to Wilke, Wols or Zao Wou Ki being part of the Abstract Expressionism Movement or that their work was stylistically similar to the Abstract Expressionists. I also suggested that Modernist contradicted himself by deleting Romul Nutiu for not being an American when there are a number of non-Americans on that list. I hope to continue making positive comments and hope others will also add to these discussions. Sirswindon (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2015 (UTC)

Your ANI close

Robert, I didn't "strongly caution Dr. K. for on-wiki raging" in my long final post in this ANI thread — not even close — I said, mildly, that his description of "vile attacks" was "overly colourful" and that all the people on the talkpage seemed angry. Nobody else in the thread had said anything critical about Dr. K. at all. So it seems you weren't summarizing the thread or its outcome, but expressing your own opinion about Dr. K.'s conduct in closing the thread — a rather extreme opinion IMO — and cautioning him as from yourself (though in that mealy-mouthed passive voice)..? I don't understand why — it's surely not the usual use of a closing note. Understandably, Dr. K. was upset. Is there something I've misunderstood about the situation? I seem to remember that the last (and probably only previous) time that I posted a query on your page, you ignored it. Right, here it is. That's your prerogative, but you understand it's a little chilling. I'd appreciate it if you'd please reply to this one, because I'd like to know if I've got something wrong. Bishonen | talk 19:28, 15 May 2015 (UTC).

Well, Dr. K. reverted the close, and I left the revert alone. Maybe I was alone in thinking that Dr. K. was also out of line. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

The caution was meant to be from me. I can understand that it was misunderstood. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:54, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

• Hello Robert. I can't say for sure if you have been pinged in relation to the discussion which was started on Bishonen's talk page in relation to the above (I've thought diffs would do that but I've been reliably informed that pinging doesn't necessarily always work anyway). Either way, I wish to notify you of that discussion and to assure you that you should feel free to comment there if you wish; it relates to concerns which have been raised but is an informal discussion. Ncmvocalist (talk) 18:48, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

The caution was meant to be from me. Your caution, not based on any objective or even acceptable criteria, should in future be kept to yourself. Otherwise it is unconstructive on-wiki behaviour. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)

Trout

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

This suggestion that, well, somebody, anybody, has to blocked makes me glad you don't have access to the tools. Could you try in the future to refrain from commenting on disputes you don't seem to want to take the time to understand, since such carelessness costs us contributors, who simply tire of being insulted by the uninformed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to WikiProject TAFI

	Hello, Robert McClenon. You're invited to join WikiProject Today's articles for improvement. Feel free to nominate an article for improvement at the project's Nominated articles page. Also feel free to contribute to !voting for new weekly selections at the project's talk page. If interested in joining, please add your name to the list of members. --Bananasoldier (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hello Robert! Just want to thank you for you attempt to smooth things over in the SDUSA Lede discussion at DRN. It's disappointing to me that the discussion failed. In light of how bitter it ended, do you think it would be best if I refrained from moderating for a period? I always liked helping at DRN, but if that's what you think is best, that's ok with me. Please advise. EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 07:03, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

User:EnglishEfternamn - I am replying here because a combative editor is on your talk page. I think that you made a good-faith mistake in coming across as not entirely neutral. I don't think that you should refrain from moderating, but you should learn from your mistake. I do suggest that you formally ban Dame Etna from your talk page. I would suggest being even more neutral in future moderation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:56, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough, thank you.EnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 02:57, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	This is for your (over) three months of diligent service as an arbitration clerk. It was an incredible honor working with you. I hope to work with you in the future- perhaps at DRN? Good luck, and happy editing! --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 22:36, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan. Legobot (talk) 00:05, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

HFCS

Hi Robert. Do you have time to take a quick look at the High fructose corn syrup page? --sciencewatcher (talk) 13:13, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Dispute on Proposed Supercarriers - resolved?

How can you call this dispute "resolved" when only one side of the argument participated? - Nick Thorne ^talk 02:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

You chose not to participate. You did not express an opinion against the use of the RFC. If dissatisfied, go to the dispute resolution noticeboard talk page, or participate in the RFC. Sometimes silence is assent. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I did indeed choose not to participate and I gave my reason at the time - my position had been grossly misrepresented, but you in turn choose to gloss over that. Not the actions one would normally expect from a neutral "mediator". - Nick Thorne ^talk 00:28, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

Violence and Buddhism

Thank you for your input. I might have to put in for DR; except by inference, I cannot determine what the other editor's actual position is. Thank you for the suggestion. Ogress _smash! 19:40, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

You don't need to know what the other editor's actual position is. The other editor states what their position is, and, when there is a moderator, the moderator can ask questions. I didn't answer partly because I didn't know what the controversy was. If the case were at DRN, I would ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

I'll consider it as the other editor has replied to the RFC, but to date continues to not speak to me about their position. A girl can hope, though... Ogress _smash! 19:10, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

About dispute resolution noticeboard procedure

I am not very familiar with the process at the noticeboard, so I wanted to ask you about it before I do something I maybe should not. Both I and StBlark have now submitted summaries of the dispute over Rosaline as an unseen character. I would like to briefly reply to StBlark's comments in the discussion section but do not know if that is appropriate to do. 99.192.72.177 (talk) 04:58, 1 June 2015 (UTC) (=99.192.92.80)

why did you revert off topic collapse in RfC?

Here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Zeitgeist_(film_series)&oldid=665178691&diff=prev

1. WP:TPO guidelines recommend a collapse when conversations go off topic
2. I left the collapse expanded by default

I'm helping people to not get distracted by a side conversation. What point is there in removing it? How does that help anyone? OnlyInYourMindT 14:34, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I have to agree with OIYM. Your intentions are of the highest order but you are overstepping the limits of your involvement on this topic. First by first crafting the RfC in your words and then by editing/collapsing a section of the RfC when you deem some portion of it to be 'off topic'. The DRN case was yours to administer as you saw fit. The RfC belongs to the community and the last person that should be editing an RfC is the person who created it. My suggestion is to revert your collapse and walk away from that page and let the editor community on that page do its thing. For better or for worse WP is governed by mob rule. Everybody has a say, everybody can edit. No one person, not even an Admin, is allowed to take things over. That is a big change from a top down corporate society that thrives on order and system. It takes some getting used to but if a person wants to prosper on WP they need to make that adjustment. We can contribute a little but then we have to step back and let others do their thing. Cheers! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 18:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

I could explain my reasoning (I didn't think it was off-topic), but will defer now to the advice of User:Keithbob. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks Robert for your flexibility and well intentioned efforts! -- — Keithbob • Talk • 04:29, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More of Zeitgeist things

I just received what I would call a very intense personal attack by Andy The Grump on my user page and also in the RFC in progress. I think its uncalled for and not accurate. It is about as nasty as it gets. The same user once called me a little shit at an ani. Is there anything you can do. I don't think I deserve this kind of treatment. Its just a content dissagreement. Earl King Jr. (talk) 11:12, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I am not in charge of the RFC or the talk page. I will take a look. If there are personal attacks, they can be reported at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Bangalore Case

Hi, I am the new user of Wikipedia, I am not aware of Requested Move. You are unnecessarily suspecting me of an failed RM. Which I have not initiated at all.

Now I have initiated the RM in Bangalore talk page. I have also suggested an workaround for the issue, where I hope that no one would object any more. Intention is not to remove Bangalore wiki page but to introduce new Bengaluru wiki page itself. As you are the expert wiki contributor, I request for your help and guidance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AVINHSN (talk • contribs) 18:58, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

As an uninvolved editor can you fix the mess at Talk:Bangalore? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

The new inexperienced editor needs to read WP:Redirecting to see that Bengaluru already redirects to Bangalore. Many inexperienced editors think that copy-and-paste copies of articles are the way to provide alternate titles. I will try to explain to the new editor how redirects work. If he listens, everything will be all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:02, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, DrK got it. [1] --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:05, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC close

You made a somewhat controversial RFC close here on Ayurveda. There were twenty participants. Based on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/OccultZone/Archive, it would appear that the following users are all socks of each other:

• Delibzr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bladesmulti (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• నిజానికి (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• VandVictory (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• AmritasyaPutra (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Based on that somewhat overwhelming sock participation, can I get you to reevaluate that close?—Kww(talk) 00:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I just wanted someone that wasn't going to be accused of favoring one side to take the steps.—Kww(talk) 02:05, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

The White House cat

You're asking WMF to do something that has the potential to jeopardize the reputation of Wikipedia. Ain't gonna happen. But good work on reversing the close. That shows class. If more people were willing to clean up after themselves (even on things like this that aren't really their fault) this place would run much more smoothly. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:17, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What does the White House have to do with the socks? The socks were from South Asia. Did Clinton appoint one of them to an ambassadorship? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, like other deep abuses of Wikipedia, like Qworty, the ugly truth will come out. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

More like Kumioko than Qworty. Pretty lame outcome but I'm not too worked up or that surprised by it. 50.0.136.194 (talk) 05:04, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

American politics decision

I am not sure the incoming discretionary sanctions for the American Politics topic would sufficiently cover the Zeitgeist issue. The movement is international and the movies touch on subjects other than U.S. politics such as the Chirst myth theory. Not sure if the third movie even touches on national political issues at all, judging from some of the descriptions and reviews I have read. Seems the third movie is more of a run-down on political and economic concepts of international appeal. Discretionary sanctions do exist that cover BLP issues, fringe science, and 9/11, but it still probably does not cover every aspect of the Zeitgeist dispute.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 23:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

What is your point? Enough of the first two movies does fall within DS so that DS can deal with disruptive editing. The disruptive edits either have to do with the movement or with Peter Joseph. The latter is already in DS, and the former will be in a few days. Are you saying that ArbCom needs to impose expanded DS, or that DS won't work, or that edit-warring is the right answer? I don't think that you suggesting edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Just saying the American Politics decision and prior decisions may not adequately cover the Zeitgeist topic area. It doesn't just involve American Politics, 9/11, or other topics already covered by discretionary sanctions. There would likely be some dispute about whether TZM and the related films are all covered under the discretionary sanctions even after the American Politics case closes. Andy is saying he will take it to ArbCom and that is probably the best way to handle it if things don't change soon.--The Devil's Advocate _{tlk. cntrb.} 03:57, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Your strike at DR/N

Instead of striking the entire statement, you could have struck on the volunteer lead in and used superscript to indicate it was a 3rd party comment. Would you please remove the strike of the entire statement since the poster stands by it? Thank you - sorry to be a bother but I think it's only fair to remove the full strike. --Atsme^📞📧 23:34, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I know that I could do that. I understand that the poster stands by it. I won't unstrike. If the coordinator thinks that I exceeded my authority, that is different. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:22, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, understood. Thank you. --Atsme^📞📧 16:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #3—2015

Did you know?

When you click on a link to an article, you now see more information:

The link tool has been re-designed:

There are separate tabs for linking to internal and external pages.

The user guide has more information about how to use VisualEditor.

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has created new interfaces for the link and citation tools, as well as fixing many bugs and changing some elements of the design. Some of these bugs affected users of VisualEditor on mobile devices. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. The worklist for April through June is available in Phabricator.

A test of VisualEditor's effect on new editors at the English Wikipedia has just completed the first phase. During this test, half of newly registered editors had VisualEditor automatically enabled, and half did not. The main goal of the study is to learn which group was more likely to save an edit and to make productive, unreverted edits. Initial results will be posted at Meta later this month.

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations are available at a few Wikipedias through the citoid service. Citoid takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. If Citoid is enabled on your wiki, then the design of the citation workflow changed during May. All citations are now created inside a single tool. Inside that tool, choose the tab you want (⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-auto⧽, ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-manual⧽, or ⧼citoid-citeFromIDDialog-mode-reuse⧽). The cite button is now labeled with the word "⧼visualeditor-toolbar-cite-label⧽" rather than a book icon, and the autofill citation dialog now has a more meaningful label, "⧼Citoid-citeFromIDDialog-lookup-button⧽", for the submit button.

The link tool has been redesigned based on feedback from Wikipedia editors and user testing. It now has two separate sections: one for links to articles and one for external links. When you select a link, its pop-up context menu shows the name of the linked page, a thumbnail image from the linked page, Wikidata's description, and/or appropriate icons for disambiguation pages, redirect pages and empty pages. Search results have been reduced to the first five pages. Several bugs were fixed, including a dark highlight that appeared over the first match in the link inspector (T98085).  

The special character inserter in VisualEditor now uses the same special character list as the wikitext editor. Admins at each wiki can also create a custom section for frequently used characters at the top of the list. Please read the instructions for customizing the list at mediawiki.org. Also, there is now a tooltip to describing each character in the special character inserter (T70425).

Several improvements have been made to templates. When you search for a template to insert, the list of results now contains descriptions of the templates. The parameter list inside the template dialog now remains open after inserting a parameter from the list, so that users don’t need to click on "⧼visualeditor-dialog-transclusion-add-param⧽" each time they want to add another parameter (T95696). The team added a new property for TemplateData, "Example", for template parameters. This optional, translatable property will show up when there is text describing how to use that parameter (T53049).

The design of the main toolbar and several other elements have changed slightly, to be consistent with the MediaWiki theme. In the Vector skin, individual items in the menu are separated visually by pale gray bars. Buttons and menus on the toolbar can now contain both an icon and a text label, rather than just one or the other. This new design feature is being used for the cite button on wikis where the Citoid service is enabled.

The team has released a long-desired improvement to the handling of non-existent images. If a non-existent image is linked in an article, then it is now visible in VisualEditor and can be selected, edited, replaced, or removed.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at mw:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, each Wednesday at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q4 blocker. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the Editing team's Q4 blocker project with the bug.
• If your Wikivoyage, Wikibooks, Wikiversity, or other community wants to have VisualEditor made available by default to contributors, then please contact James Forrester.
• If you would like to request the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki, please post a request in the Citoid project on Phabricator. Include links to the TemplateData for the most important citation templates on your wiki.

Subscribe, unsubscribe or change the page where this newsletter is delivered at Meta. If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 17:31, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indian Space Shuttle Programme. Requesting you to add your opinion. Regards Thanks. M.srihari (talk) 07:09, 8 June 2015 (UTC)Srihari

Please comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Pedro Nava (politician). Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Tina Turner can there be a portal of Tina Turner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.174.60.72 (talk) 16:48, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN

Hi there. I'd like to have a chat with you offline over the next day or so to understand a bit more about your DR style (I've done this with many a dispute resolution volunteer before, TransporterMan included). What timezone are you in? Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 16:05, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I see you've ignored this. Noted. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 02:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't see this, because I was getting so many comments. I am in EST. I apologize. Do you want me to stop being a moderator, or do you want to offer me advice? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Mostly offer advice :). From what I've seen you don't have email - so send me one - cro0016gmail.com. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 14:26, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

I had email enabled, but it seems to have disabled itself. I am trying to get it re-enabled. I will send the email. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Your request re DRN Supercarrier edit

Robert you asked for a more detailed evaluation of your edit, so here it is. (Let me note to avoid an internal-copyvio issue that the italicized text below is taken from this edit by Robert McClenon.) Before starting, however, let me say in advance that I'm doing this at your request and as a courtesy to you (sideways as it may be), but I'm not going to debate it with you, though I am quite willing for you or other editors to comment upon what I say here as and to the degree that they may like:

• There has been discussion on the article talk page, but nearly all of it was a week ago. I suggest that the editors go back to the talk page and see if discussion works.

If the discussion was a month old then I might well have agreed with this assessment, but a week is nothing in Wiki-time. Also, I wouldn't have disagreed if you had said something like, "There was discussion on this a week or so ago and it seemed to be progressing nicely, I'm going to close this and suggest that you try to revive that discussion. If you can't, feel free to come back here." (That is, Robert, if it was progressing nicely; I'm not saying here that it was, just giving a possible example of something I could have agreed with.) If it had been a month old, then I might have closed the case for lack of recent extensive discussion, but again a week (or actually 11 days in this case), is nothing.

• I see that one of the editors does not think that this case should be accepted, but doesn't say why.

He most definitely says why: that in his opinion there's a black-and-white, absolutley-correct outcome and that we shouldn't even consider taking the case for that reason. Now, of course, we don't generally do that, but there is no question that it has been done in the form of rendering a neutral opinion (much like 3O) and immediately closing the case as resolved (due to the fact that there is no possible other outcome). That's procedurally different than just refusing the case, but has the same practical result. I have no idea whether or not he was right because I haven't looked at the facts or whether that would be a proper handling of the case. But your saying that he hasn't said why is factually wrong and unnecessarily confrontational.

• Participation in this noticeboard is voluntary, but saying that one doesn't want to participate, without saying why, isn't helpful.

First, he hasn't said that he doesn't want to participate, he's said that he thinks that it shouldn't be accepted; he may very well be willing to participate when he sees that the case will be opened. Second, no editor is required to say why they don't want to participate and to say that isn't helpful is, once again, factually wrong and insulting, especially when snarkily said that it "isn't helpful."

• I also see that there are multiple comments on contributors. Regardless of how dispute resolution proceeds for this article, the editors need to learn to comment on content rather than contributors.

My principal objection here is on the "need to" phraseology. Telling people that they need to learn is just a backwards way of saying that they're stupid or ignorant and is a direct insult. As has been discussed over at the DRN talk page, any admonishment is fraught with problems of making the volunteer or DRN in general unwelcoming and potentially non-neutral, but that problem is there even more so when you insult people as well. I also object to giving any conduct admonishment at all at this point in the case since the conduct allegations are very minor and just in passing, though I probably wouldn't have complained you doing that if that was all that was here and had been expressed in a non-insulting manner.

You asked, and so I've set it out chapter and verse, more directly — and forthrightly — than I might have if you hadn't asked. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 16:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay

Thank you. I don't entirely agree, but I will review your criticisms and try to learn from them. (I do sort of feel that my less-than-ideal choice of words was rammed down my throat publicly on the DRN talk page, but I understand that you did what you had to do. I do feel that my mistakes have been less serious than those of some other volunteers, and that I have been chastised more severely than they, but that is my opinion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:46, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

For what it's worth...and I'm dealing with a fairly bad cold right now, so consider my judgment perhaps a bit impaired...to some degree it seems to me that TM's concerns are not so much with what you said but rather the manner in which you said it. On the one hand that's a good thing, since it means that the underlying thrust of your points is reasonable. OTOH, Dispute Resolution in particular is all about diplomacy, and as coordinators, how we say things can have a disproportionate impact on the course of a case. I'm reminded of a non-wiki incident in which an argument ensued after I told someone "you're acting like an asshole" and they took it as "you are an asshole". Semantics really is the devil's business.

After re-reading, I'm feeling a bit less confident of my own assessment, so I'll leave it at this: I hope my observation didn't ruffle anyone's feathers, and if you see this TM, I'm certainly not out to misrepresent you in any manner, and Robert, my advice would boil down to...try to err more on the side of the velvet glove than the iron fist. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 18:31, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Robert, I would say you always have the best of intentions and your efforts are always in good faith. I also give you high praise for being able to listen to feedback from other editors when you've bumped your head so to speak. I think that T-man has come on a bit strong because this one post is indicative of your general approach to the dispute resolution participants which tends to be harsh and administrative rather than understanding and helpful. When I look at your DRN cases it appears that you are just going through the motions and are looking for ways to dispose of the case rather than building trust, cooperation and consensus. You also seem to approach DRN as if it was ANI focusing almost exclusively on behavior. In addition you disallow discussion by forcing the participants to comment only in their preassigned areas. You ask questions and then find fault with them or their answers. You take a tense situation and infuse it with further tension until the participants act up/act out or go away and then you close the case. You seem to feel that everything is black and white but that is not the case at DRN as mediation, consensus and resolution all have a thousand shades of gray. Resolution is only built via a painstaking process of very slow negotiation.

DRN cases are not administrated they are moderated and there is a big difference. A successful DRN wants to help other people who are in distress. Yes, some small amount of occasional discipline is required but patience, flexibility and compassion are the primary qualities of a good DRN moderator.

I'm also concerned about the effect you are having on new volunteers at DRN. I see your policeman's mentality rubbing off on the newbies and you unintentionally chased away a new DRN volunteer when you elbowed them out of their first DRN case.

Finally.....everyone is different. We all have different skills and different aptitudes. I know that you are an ArbCom clerk, and though I have not looked at any of your ArbCom work, I'll bet you are very good at it because it's almost purely an administrative role that sets up and maintains boundaries for the participants. So if you don't have the patience for the nitty gritty of herding a bunch of cats who don't like each other than DRN may not be the thing for you. And there is no shame in that because you have many other skills and talents that are needed on this vast project. You are welcome at DRN but you will need to really focus on and develop your mediation skills if you want to make a real contribution there and avoid threads like this one. I wish you well and sincerely thank you for your good faith contributions to our project. Best wishes, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:48, 11 June 2015 (UTC)-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:57, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hearing what all of you say, your comments really have to do with comments on cases that haven't yet been opened, or with the talk page. I think that if you look over my handling of cases that I have accepted, you will see that they have gone more smoothly than this recent episode. Thank you. I still really do think that some (not all) of you have been too harsh with me. I have from time to time asked for feedback, and generally I haven't gotten it until now I get dumped on. Oh well. More later. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, In my comments I was referring to past cases that you have moderated and then closed. I'm sorry that you are feeling dumped on. If I was in your shoes I would probably feel the same way. I hope that over time these exchanges turn out to be helpful rather than hurtful. Best, -- — Keithbob • Talk • 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Not Okay

A complaint
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Robert, I find myself totally astonished that after this exchange followed by this edit on the Supercarrier talk page and my unanswered response that you would think that there was even the slightest chance that I would accept your involvement in the current case. I could expect an apology, but I have been on Wikipedia long enough to know that is highly unlikely. For the record, should I ever be drawn back to DRN, be advised that I will not accept you as moderator. - Nick Thorne talk 23:01, 11 June 2015 (UTC) In case you didn't notice, I stated that I recused myself from this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Yes, I was aware of that, but you only recused yourself after being prompted. Regardless of your intentions it did not give the appearance of acting as a neutral party. - Nick Thorne talk 02:27, 12 June 2015 (UTC) Oh and "in case you didn't notice" is indicative of part of the problem. You seem to assume that others are idiots. On the contrary, I am quite capable of reading for myself who said what, when and to whom. Please stop treating editors as stupid children that have to be told what is already plain. - Nick Thorne talk 02:37, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

For being a polite and helpful

Crazyseiko (talk) 18:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Typhoon RCS Synthesis Debate

Hi Robert, as you know I'm currently involved in a synthesis debate over on the original research noticeboard. However I've since discovered that the first source already makes the point I'm being accused of sythesising. because it already states composite percentage as a reason for the Typhoon's lower RCS, therefore any mention of composite percentage thereafter can't possibly be synthesis because the point was already made in that source. However I feel I'm being drowned out without getting a fair hearing and nobody is really using the actual policy to support their opinion and I'm having to defeat the same claims over and over again because nobody is reading (except me) but everybody is writing, is it possible for you to actually get someone who understand policy to look at this? Thanks.Z07x10 (talk) 19:07, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that your posts are too long, and very long posts are too long, didn't read. If one of the sources actually makes exactly that point, then make that statement concisely. If you have to introduce a new level 4 break, do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay thanks I will try but I put the point in bold several times already, I feel I'm just banging my head against a wall.Z07x10 (talk) 19:31, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

At this point, the issue that you need to address is not so much whether you are engaged in synthesis, but whether the source that engaged in synthesis is a reliable source. I can see that it looks to you like they are moving the goalposts, but the underlying issue is whether a reliable source has provided the information. There is a distinction without a difference between whether you engaged in synthesis or whether an unreliable source engaged in synthesis. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Given their credentials and partner network, they look a long way from an unreliable source http://www.ipcs.org/about-us/ and the statement is partially backed up by another source http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/europe/eurofighter.htm. I cannot help but feel that the complainants just dislike the edit and are scrabbling around for any reason they can find to disallow it. They tried OR synthesis, failed, and then moved on to unreliable source synthesis but there is no evidence of them being unreliable. This seems like an endless tail chase here, maybe they should just WP:DTS until they can come up with more than mere unfounded opinion.Z07x10 (talk) 09:30, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

Whatever the reliability of the source, this is no longer a synthesis issue. The policies make no mention of source reliability as a synthesis issue nor synthesis as a source reliability issue.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sourcesZ07x10 (talk) 09:34, 14 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Mediation Bot issue, my second attempt still seems to have failed too. Don't know what's up.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation/Eurofighter_Typhoon_2Z07x10 (talk) 12:32, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Additional help needed

Sorry Robert McClenon but I didn't 100% understood what should I do based on your recommendation on article talk Minority language (maybe it is because of the language or something). Does it mean I should make new RfC for the same issue/page since I done it before HERE or should I post my question on some other centralized place again? Have a nice day.--MirkoS18 (talk) 04:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Help: do you know how to report this?

I've got a puppet issue at an AfD. The user's account was created to vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jun Hong Lu. Do you know how I report it? I have no evidence it is specifically a sock, although the user they are meat/sock for has a history of blatantly ignoring Wiki rules. Ogress _smash! 05:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Sockpuppets may be reported at WP:SPI. Hope this helps! DonIago (talk) 05:58, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

DRN:Shang dynasty

Hey Robert McClenon,

I am also a participant in the conversation and yet the filing author has not included me in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Shang dynasty#Language. I'm not sure how to address this because I have definitely not agreed with the filing author. Ogress _smash! 20:27, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Just add your information to the case header. However, I will do it for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

Eurofighter

Can I ask why you keep to referring to 'language' in this dispute? It clearly is a dispute over whether content on a specific subject (namely a comparison of Eurofighter and Rafale RCS's) should be included in the article, rather than an issue of exact wording, and I suspect that people may find your references to 'language' confusing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

You have a point. I agree that the question is whether to include a particular paragraph. However, I think that we both agree that the real question is whether to include the comparison at all. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:07, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

If you wish to propose an alternate question, feel free to do so at Talk:Eurofighter Typhoon. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Can you clarify your position re the Eurofighter debate?

From your posts at Talk:Eurofighter, I get the impression that you are trying to 'moderate' the discussion. Can you clarify whether that is your intent? I ask because as far as I'm aware, DRN volunteers have no mandate beyond the noticeboard, and because Z07x10 keeps citing your opinion as if it was some kind of decision. This is clearly unhelpful. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case opening

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/Technical 13. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 30, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Technical 13/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 01:49, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations

There is an RfC that you may be interested in at Template talk:Infobox country#RfC: Religion in infoboxes of nations. Please join us and help us to determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 14:32, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:23, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Closure of RFC at tree of life

Hi Robert, I agree with you on your closure of the RFC. I had meant to remove the RFC template when it became clear the question was more complex than I initially thought. Would you object to the discussion being re-opened with the RFC tag removed? SPACKlick (talk) 16:14, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Go ahead somehow. The RFC tag has already been removed by the bot. Why don't I remove the box and strike but not delete the closure language? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:18, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Cheers SPACKlick (talk) 16:21, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Eurofighter Typhoon 2, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 15:12, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Suggestion re 3O

Robert, this is just a suggestion and not, in any sense whatsoever, a complaint or criticism, take it or leave it as you see fit. About this edit: I see a distinction between a request in which there are too many editors involved in a discussion before they come to 3O (which should cause the request to be closed because it was improperly made) and a request in which at the time of making the request there are only two and a third one comes along after the request has been made (which should cause the request to be closed because a 3O has been given), which appeared to be what happened when 3family6 edited at 17:18 UTC after the request was made at 14:08 UTC. That's true whether the later participant in the discussion, 3family6 in this case, edited it because s/he was responding to the request made at 3O or whether they just happened to wander in or showed up in response to an inquiry made at a wikiproject or whatever; a third opinion given like that both is and is not a Third Opinion (I call this the Third Opinion Paradox). If it's the former, where there are too many editors to begin with, I'll close a case with much the same edit comment that you did, but if it's the latter, I'll close it with an edit comment which says, "Closing [[Baltimora]], 3O given by 3family6; # remain on list". That makes it clearer to anyone who looks why you've done what you did. Having said all of that, let me return to the situation where there are already more than two users involved in the dispute at the time the application is made. If you'll look back through the 3O Talk Page archives, you'll find that there is a good deal of sentiment that the 2-editor requirement should not be enforced too strictly. (How do I know? When I was a newcomer to 3O I removed cases from the list for that reason and was criticized for it.) I now will not generally remove cases for having more than 2 editors unless there are at least 5, or occasionally 4 (especially if they have multiple, differing positions), editors involved in the dispute. In the Baltimora case, of course, there were only two (Rhododendrites was there acting as a peacemaker and had not become actively involved in the actual dispute, so didn't count) until 3family6 came along. That's just what I do and, as I began, you're free to take it or leave it. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 14:34, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I will review and learn. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I didn't get a chance

Hello Robert McClenon. I didn't get a chance to post my reply to the dispute resolution page. I just went to do it now and I saw that you'd already started the RFC! (I figured I would have up to 24 hours to reply.) Since Onel5969 got to reply it seems only fair that I should get to reply too. I have my reply saved in a file; is there someplace I could post it so you and Onel5969 and anyone else who is interested could at least read it?

I've read the three choices in the RFC and I really like "B." Can I vote or am I ineligible because I'm one of the original participants in the dispute? If I am allowed to vote, do I simply add a line or two to the Survey section (my choice with a very brief reason)?

Richard27182 (talk) 04:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I was wondering if, given that this is a technical issue, would it be appropriate to add the RFC to the Maths, science, and technology list also?
Richard27182 (talk) 05:14, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Well, I will add sci to the bot tag, and ANYONE can express an opinion on an RFC. That is, an RFC is open to all editors in the Wikipedia community. That is what it is. Maybe you didn't know that. Now you do. Go ahead and express an opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:45, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

RFC

Hello. Thank you for your reply, I guess your a bit miffed with my comment about Admin broad. For the record, six years without having to go thought this process, I would say is good. "content is dealt with by consensus" You can clearly see no one wants to do that, no one has yet to explain or ruff buff my two biggest points, That being does the page come under " To much detail" and worse still the lack of any Ref, IF there were at least some communication I could expect but no one want say anything. Thankful you have given a useful tip where my next step should be, and Yes I would like a Request for Comments to ask for community participation on whether to remove the identification of the killer, or if such information does cover To much details and lack of refs. I would believe I would better off waiting until tomorrow before processing.--Crazyseiko (talk) 16:18, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

hi thanks for the further reply, yes I would like to "Request for Comments" thanks --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

FYI

Hello RM. This edit, by a newbie, refactored an edit by the IP. Now they are probably the same person and it looks likely that they don't know how things work. Also I didn't want to make a big deal about it at the DR page so I thought I'd let you decide how to proceed. You might have already seen this but I thought I'd let you know just in case. Cheers to ya. MarnetteD|Talk 21:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

I am assuming that they are the same person, since I advised the IP to register an account in order to get the privilege of creating an AFD subpage. My own thought is to ignore it, and to let the DRN coordinator decide whether to close the thread. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good. Enjoy the week ahead. MarnetteD|Talk 22:13, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

You are correct, same person, and you're correct that I'm new and still getting the hang of things. Thanks! 217IP (talk) 22:37, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Protected Page

Hi Robert - the Zulu_(musician) musician page is protected now, but I think the WP:COI and WP:NMUSIC banners should still really be on the article. I plan on adding it to AFD after the protection is gone next week, but I think drawing discussion towards this for the next week is worthwhile too. 217IP (talk) 22:41, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

Question about Wasteland RFC

Hello @Robert McClenon:  We don't seem to be getting much response to the Wanderer of the Wasteland RFC.  I know it's on three lists; but is there anything else we can do to call attention to it?  I was reading the Wikipedia RFC page and it mentions that when there aren't enough editors to get sufficient input, the RFC may be publicized by posting a notice at certain locations.  Would this be appropriate?  And if so, who would be the proper person to do it?  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:19, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

First, I am not surprised that there isn't a whole lot of response yet. The RFC has only been running two days. As you may know, I posted it to two WikiProjects and to the Technicolor talk page. I don't think that we need to be in a hurry to get responses. However, one possibility would be the Village pump (miscellaneous). You ask who should post the notice. Anyone may post the notice, provided that the posting is neutrally worded. That is, don't argue the RFC at a posting location. (Argument can be in the RFC discussion itself.) Also, don't select editors based on what you think they think. That would violate the guideline against canvassing. I would try Village Pump (miscellaneous). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon.
      And thank you for your reply.  (It was probably unnecessary at best and inappropriate at worst for me to have "pinged" you when I wrote last time.  Sorry about that.  I remember someone telling me that there's no reason to ping someone when you post on their own talk page.  Anyway, I'm still learning and sometimes I forget.)
      Although I didn't mention it in my message, one of the things I was wondering about was timing; I really had no idea of how quickly these RFC things are supposed to build up responses.  But if you feel that the response rate so far is typical, then I won't worry about it for now.
      If the response rate does become unexpectedly low, then I think I will follow your advice and post to the Village pump (miscellaneous).  When the time comes, would it be OK if I show you a proposed copy of the posting before I post it, just to make sure it's done properly?  Also I'm not clear on the whole concept of selecting editors; but I won't worry about that until if and when it gets to that point.
      Well, I guess that's all for now.  I think I'll just give it some time and see what the response rate is over the next several days or week or so.  Thank you for your help and advice.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

That's more or less the way it is. Don't push an RFC at editors; it annoys them. Thank you for trying to understand how Wikipedia is. Again, thank you for trying to work within Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:54, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Removed my question from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk

Sorry.

Since I started the thread by submitting my question, and since the question had been answered, and since Wikipedia encourages initiative so as to minimize its maintenance, I took it upon myself to remove the thread. I didn't intend to ruffle anyone's feathers.

And who do you think you are? I don't appreciate your pedantic "content removal does not appear constructive" castigation. After all, isn't it true that no one "owns" Wikipedia, not you, not even Jimmy Wales. So kindly lighten up. You are not a Wikipedia-cop. --MarkFilipak (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The Help Desk is archived. The removal of a question prevents its archival, and therefore makes it harder to find a question that was asked and answered. You may not have known that questions are not supposed to be removed because they are asked and answered. I will inquire as to correctness, but for now I stand as to saying that you should not have removed a question. Other editors might have had other comments to add. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Posts should not be removed from the Help Desk because they have been answered. You meant to be helpful but were being unhelpful. My reply to you was harsh, and I regret that it was harsh. You may not have known that posts should not be removed just because they have been answered. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Economy of Argentina. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Re:GPS

Probably best to keep other admins in the loop, as my involvement was more of along the lines of drive by assistance. I'm not much for long term involvement in these matters if I can help it, although if need be I will assist. Best keep those at WP:AN or WP:AN/I appraised of the situation, the admins over there tend to dabble in this area much more so than I. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:06, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Request monitoring of page Popular Front of India

Saw the WP message, thanks Robert. Ask the WP admins to take stock of the history of NPOV and unjustified revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Huhshyeh (talk • contribs) 06:24, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

You are at the edge

Hi Robert, As I've said before I know that your intentions on WP and at DRN are good. However, your performance is lacking and this has been pointed out to you by at least three people. I have no special authority at DRN but I think the time may be nearing when one of the editors from DRN (and it could be me) begins a discussion thread suggesting that you move on to other activities on WP and not participate at DRN because your participation is disruptive more than it is helpful. In my opinion we are at the edge of that right now. You have gotten feedback on several occasions about making condescending remarks and judgements about editors and their behavior and yet you are still making posts like these that focus on editor behavior [bold added]:

1. This isn't directly relevant to this forum. However, in case anyone is interested, User:Z07x10, who wanted to add a paragraph to the Eurofighter Typhoon that other editors did not want, has now been banned, among other things for conduct toward other editors that took on the nature of vandalism. This has nothing to do with how we do dispute resolution, except to point out that some editors who come here are very difficult, and there isn't always anything that we can do about them. Robert McClenon (talk) 6:23 pm, 20 June 2015, last Saturday (6 days ago) (UTC−5)
2. There has been extended discussion at the article talk page, and some edit-warring. The editors have also included an unregistered editor. I am neither accepting nor declining this case. Robert McClenon (talk) 4:22 pm, 23 June 2015, last Tuesday (3 days ago) (UTC−5)
3. There has been discussion at the article talk page, but it has not been extensive (or civil). I am neither accepting nor declining this case, but I would suggest that there should be further civil discussion at the talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 1:15 pm, Yesterday (UTC−5)

DRN is a content only forum and we tell the participants not to bring up behavior issues and yet you bring up behavior time after time, even before the case opens. This is not good and needs to be corrected immediately. Thank you.-- — Keithbob • Talk • 16:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Okay. I will take your comments into account. Perhaps what I should do is to avoid making volunteer comments on new cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I dearly hope this doesn't come off as condescending...I don't have the amount of time I'd like to devote to DRN, but if there are times when you're considering speaking up but aren't sure whether your comments would be taken well, I've got a BA in English Writing and decent amounts of experience here and would be happy to screen your messages in advance and offer suggestions. Again, sorry if it sounds like I'm being patronizing here, just offering whatever insight I might have and trying to help. Lord knows I think DRN in general could benefit from some sort of mentoring program. FWIW I think Keith came across a little harshly, but I also see his point. Best wishes, regardless. DonIago (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

On the one hand, I agree with User:Doniago that User:Doniago is meaning well and is being condescending. The reason why I have been commenting on threads is that no one else has, and it would take longer to get him to review my posts. Thank you anyway. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

He is right that User:Keithbob came across as harsh, but that is for the same reason that my comments have come across as harsh. He just said what he wanted to say. I will use better judgment in commenting on new threads. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I will note that my comment about the unregistered editor was not meant to disparage the unregistered editor, but to point out that the filer had not identified the unregistered editor as a party. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Richard27182 checking in with some questions

Hello Robert McClenon.
       Please forgive me if this message might be just a little premature. And if I am premature, please feel free to suggest that I hold off for a certain number of days before acting on any suggestions you might make in your reply.
       The Technicolor terminology RFC (Re: Wanderer of the Wasteland) has been active for a week now and has received just three votes (not counting mine and Onel5969's).  Is this about what would be expected; or is it getting to be time to take more action to publicize it?  And if so, which route(s) would you suggest?  You've previously mentioned the Village Pump.  If I prepare a posting for that, would you be willing to take a quick look at it before I post it just to make sure it's worded appropriately?
       I've also been reading about Feedback request service.  Would that also be an appropriate way to go?  And if so, how do I do it?  Do I just send individual, brief, unbiased messages to editors chosen randomly from the appropriate list(s), or is it done some other way.
       I hope my questions are not a burden; and I very much appreciate your help and guidance. I know it's very easy for a novice like me to make a serious faux pas, and I really want to avoid that as much as possible. Thank you again for your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

wikipedia robert mclenonHi Robert McClenon. I haven't heard from you in a while; just thought I'd check in.
Richard27182 (talk) 21:19, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

My own advice is that, for an RFC about an article of relatively marginal interest, you are likely not to get much participation. My advice would be to leave it alone for a while. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon.  OK, I'll do that.  But please give me an idea of what you mean by "a while."  A few days, a week, a couple weeks?  Also, is there some point in time when the RFC will automatically close or expire or anything like that?  I really do appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

An RFC in Wikipedia runs for 30 days, and then becomes eligible for closure. I would suggest waiting until it has been running for three weeks. That is my suggestion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for your advice. I trust your judgement, and I'll get back to you toward the end of the three weeks to see what you'll recommend for the next step. I appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions

Thanks for the info, but you might want to fix the message. It seems not to say what it needs to say. Peter238 (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

What do you think that the message needs to say? I am not the originator of the template that applies the canned message. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

I think the template was vandalized. It says 'for pages regarding , a topic which you have edited' - it must mean Josip Broz Tito. A bigger problem is with the next sentence, in which 'here' links to B. Peter238 (talk) 15:12, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Typo corrected. It has to do with the Balkans in general. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! Peter238 (talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Shang Dynasty". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 8 July 2015.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 02:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Earl King Jr.

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

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Earl_King_Jr.

Since you have been involved in the past with some of this dispute, perhaps you would like to include your opinion. Grammar'sLittleHelper (talk) 17:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me. There has been disruptive editing by multiple editors, including Earl King Jr., and my own recommendation is that the case be sent to ArbCom. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

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

User:L235 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Robert McClenon to be Editor of the Week for his incredible work in mediating dispute resolution, as well as his work at the Teahouse, Help Desk, administrative noticeboards, and his valuable insight in any discussion he contributes to. Although article work makes up just 11% of his edit count, he more than makes up for it with his dedication at help venues and dispute resolution. Also, as an arbitration clerk myself, I can testify that Robert was an absolute pleasure to work with during his term as a trainee clerk. Robert McClenon is truly one of Wikipedia's unsung heroes. This nomination was supported by User:John Carter, User:Mandruss, User: Buster7, and User:GoodDay.

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

{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}

Robert McClenon

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 5, 2015

Works at mediating disputes, as well as at the Teahouse, Help Desk, administrative noticeboards, and provides valuable personal insight.

Recognized for

Nomination page

Thanks again for your efforts! . Buster Seven Talk 15:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Israel

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Israel. Legobot (talk) 00:01, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

DR style

Hi there,

Do you have some time to talk offline/on Skype chat? I'm happy to discuss here as well if you'd prefer. Steven Zhang ^{Help resolve disputes!} 22:10, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm on vacation and don't have convenient access to Skype. Am I doing something wrong again? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

I have email enabled. Why don't you email me if you want to keep this out of public view? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:06, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Shang Dynasty, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

robert mcclenon wikipediaor RFC ==

Hi Robert McClenon.
      The Technicolor terminology RFC is three weeks old.  There have been some responses (and there does seem to be some degree of consensus), but the responses have kind of petered out by now.  I have two questions/concerns:

• Could we request that it be closed by an uninvolved editor?  I've read that that is sometimes an effective way to do it.
• Could we extend the automatic 30 day delisting date just to make sure the RFC isn't automatically closed before the issue is resolved?

Or do you have any other suggestions?  For your convenience, here is a direct link to the RFC:  Talk:Wanderer of the Wasteland (1945 film)#RFC: Sentence About Earlier Version
      I really appreciate your time and help with this issue.
Richard27182 (talk) 05:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

No. No. We should let the RFC run to 30 days. When the 30 days have run, then we should request that an uninvolved editor close the RFC. Don't request early closure. Don't extend closure. Just let it run. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon
      As I've said before, I trust your judgement and I will do whatever you suggest.  But let me explain the reason for my concern.  In WP:RFC, it says:

• "The default duration of an RfC is 30 days because the RFC bot automatically delists RfCs after this time [emphasis added]. Editors may choose to end them earlier or extend them longer."

If I'm reading it correctly, it sounds like if we wait till the 30 days are up, the RFC will be automatically closed.
(CLICK HERE to see the section I'm concerned about.)  Am I misinterpreting it?
Richard27182 (talk) 07:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What is the question or problem? The RFC is closed in 30 days. That means that it is no longer open for the insertion of comments. You seem to be under an impression that after 30 days the RFC goes away. That is not what happens. After 30 days the RFC is "closed" in the sense that it is no longer open for comments. It is instead listed for formal closure, so that an uninvolved editor can determine what is the consensus. What is the question or problem? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

      Hello Robert McClenon. Thank you for your reply and also for your patience.
      The only problem was that I didn't really understand how the process works. And you're right, I had been under an impression that after 30 days the RFC goes away. But your recent message completely clarified all that and I understand it now. After a total of 30 days, the RFC is "closed" in the sense that no more "votes" or comments will be accepted. And at that time it becomes "open" for an uninvolved editor to determine consensus. Your explanation is much more clear than what I got from reading "Wikipedia:Requests for comment."
      Anyway I'm sorry I took so long to catch on. I'll get back to you around the end of the 30 days. In the meantime, thank you for your help and an extra special thanks for your patience.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

That answers that. Perhaps the term "closed" is confusing to inexperienced editors, and perhaps I or someone else should consider rewording the guidelines. The term "closure" is used in various ways. Sometimes it really means archival, or being sent off to a talk page archive. As we now understand, the RFC runs for 30 days, and then it is "closed" in that no more comments are permitted, and then someone is requested to do a "formal closure" to assess the comments that were entered in the 30 days. Maybe the guidelines are not clear, and maybe they should be clarified. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree.  The word "closed" (and its multiple meanings) was what threw me off.  (Along with the less-than-clear explanation in "Wikipedia:Requests for comment".)  Your explanation of the process is simple, clear, to the point, and complete.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:09, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Arbitration case request declined

Hi Robert McClenon, the Zeitgeist (film series) arbitration case request, which you were listed as a party to, has been declined. For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 06:06, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Question 1

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

BLP?

I can't seem to get a straight answer from anyone else, so let me put it this way: In general, if a Wikipedia user were to provide a link to an obit of an ordinary person, would it be against the rules? If it is, then all references to it should be zapped. If it isn't, then I can answer the OP's question with certainty, by providing the relevant links. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any rule against providing a link to an obituary of an "ordinary person". (I assume that by an ordinary person, we mean someone who is not notable.) Links to obituaries of notable persons are the rule and not the exception, so I don't see any BLP violation in providing a link to an obituary of a non-notable person. If it is used for an article about the non-notable person, then it would seem to me that AFD rather than BLP would be the forum. However, why don't you take this question to the Help Desk? (This is a question that should definitely go to the Help Desk and not the Teahouse.) Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Question 2

Hello, Robert McClenon. You have new messages at Joseph A. Spadaro's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon

Can you assist me with Disappearance of Joanne Ratcliffe and Kirste Gordon? putting their names into news.google.com gets a lot of results. Paul Austin (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

What sort of help do you want? I see that you just created the stub article. If you say that Google gives you a lot of results, then you should first decide which of them are reliable sources, and then both restate the information in those articles in your own words in the stub (avoiding close paraphrase, which is likely to be copyright violation), and reference the articles. In particular, newspaper articles reporting the disappearance or its investigation are generally considered reliable. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Were the two girls related? Have persons of interest been identified? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I've mailed the memorial Facebook page run by the families. Hopefully they will come to Wikipedia. Paul Austin (talk) 21:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The memorial Facebook page is probably not a reliable source. Newspaper articles are a reliable source. Please read the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:12, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Re:Battle of the Alamo

The idea behind the last good version was to revert far enough back that both parties would be at an equal disadvantage in the article because information that they feel should or should not be the article independent of their particular point of view is now absent, and when that happens usually parties become more open the idea of working together to get the lines of communication reopened so as to re-add the missing information. From the perspective of psychology, having a third party that both feel is indifferent can also be a factor in inspiring two parties to work together ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend", such as it were). Finding the good version involved going back far enough to find a version that rejected edits made by both parties in favor of a nominally neutral party, so that was the version selected as the "stable version".

As for the protection, I am all for losing it if the dispute is worked out before the protection time expires, but for that to happen I think any good mediator, admin, arbitrator, etc would need to see concrete proof that progress was being made. If it can be demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt to the community that these two have made progress in resolving their differences over the article content then the article should be unblocked and monitored carefully. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

The logic behind the revert is not applicable to this case. This revert is only injurious to my side because it reverts only my edits. There is no reason now for the other party to negotiate in good faith since the revert only reestablishes their skewed version of Battle of the Alamo. I would suggest reverting the article to an earlier point, which includes some of my edits, in order to bring the other party to the negotiating table, per the reasoning of TomStar81. MiztuhX (talk) 04:04, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

If you check the history of Battle of the Alamo page, you will find that my revert is one long, uninterrupted edit. Even when Dawnseeker2000 and Gaarmyvet added their own edits, I did not revert their edits. Per the WP:3RR, "A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert," this concludes that I am being charged unjustly with edit-warring for essentially making only one revert.MiztuhX (talk) 04:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I am not favorably impressed by this statement, but am still ready to mediate. User:MiztuhX: You refer to a revert being "injurious to [your] side". We aren't supposed to have sides, but to edit collaboratively, and the whole point to dispute resolution is to facilitate collaborative editing versus edit-warring. You also appear to be assuming bad faith, when you say that there "is no reason for the other party to negotiate in good faith since the revert only reestablishes their skewed version of Battle of the Alamo." We are all supposed to be trying to edit collaboratively, not to have to offer each other incentives to negotiate in good faith. I have opened the case for moderated discussion. Are you willing to discuss, or are you still interested in whose "side" has an advantage? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I definitely want to discuss. However, when I talked about taking sides, good faith, and advantage above, it was within the context introduced by TomStar81: "both parties would be at an equal disadvantage," which I pointed out was not true and needed to be addressed for that line of reasoning to be logical. Plus, I stated that it was unfair for me to be accused of edit-warring since my one, long edit does not constitute 3RRs. But if you are suggesting we forget about those two issues, which sprung out of the original issue (the ramifications of the Santa Anna quote) on the talk page being now discussed on dispute resolution, then let's just concentrate on the last, with the stipulation that I disagree with the former two. MiztuhX (talk) 18:46, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@MiztuhX: I hate to lay this on you, but there was a covert reason for my protection as well: It is an unwritten rule in the admin community that when a page is locked down over edit warring, content disputes, point of view issues, conflicts of interest, or other relevant problems in the article the party that complains the loudest is more often than not the party that tips their hand as to being the source of the disruption in the article because said party usually finds it unacceptable that they can not edit as they please, and then proceeds to take one of two extreme-ended actions - make accusations as to the unjust action taken against them, or abruptly become overly receptive to whatever the other party wants so as to end to the lock-down with the goal of starting up the engine of disruption again. Based on your behavior on this talk page, my talk page, and the mediation talk page, you are the odd man out such as it were, and judging from the replies I see here that is isn't sitting well with you. Just an observation, but it would be good food for thought for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:26, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Thanks for your input and that is certainly one way to look at things. I prefer to see it as being proactive and wanting to improve the article by gaining consensus. So, could you now specifically address my comments and the logic behind your revert and if the edit-warring charge was valid under WP rules? MiztuhX (talk) 02:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

3O for David M. Cote

Hi Robert, thanks for the speedy response from 3O. The question has been clarified on the talk page. Would you mind offering your opinion on the matter?--FacultiesIntact (talk) 17:56, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Deletion

Thank you for your responses at Wikipedia:Help_desk#Canchupati_Venkatrao_Venkaswami_Rao. I have been editing for most of a decade, and only recently tagged my first article for deletion. I soon learned that I should have chosen speedy deletion instead. I guess I'll have to learn to use Twinkle. Maproom (talk) 21:51, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

You're welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

So what is/are the next step(s)?

Hi Robert McClenon.
      It's 30 days since the Technicolor RFC started running, so I thought I'd get back to you.  I understand the RFC will be "closed" for anymore posting of votes or discussion, and becomes "open" for formal closure by an uninvolved editor.  What I'm not familiar with is how that procedure is initiated; do we have to make some kind of request for that to happen, or will an uninvolved editor automatically take the "case"?  And if we do have to make an official request, is it a general request, or would we be inviting a particular uninvolved and unbiased editor to do it?
      I realize these are a lot of questions, but I'm still quite new at this.  As always, I'm very grateful to you for your help, and especially for your patience with me.  Many many thanks.
Richard27182 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

UPDATE: The Technicolor RFC has had its RFC expired template removed by the Legobot.

• Latest revision as of 07:00, 21 July 2015 (edit) (undo)
• Legobot (talk | contribs)
• (Removing expired RFC template.)

I'm waiting to find out how we move on the next step.
Richard27182 (talk) 07:50, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Dispute resolution.

Just a note to make clear, after seeing your comments at Wikipedia talk:Dispute resolution noticeboard, that should I have decided that dispute resolution was appropriate regarding the Electronic harassment article, I would have requested that you not participate as a volunteer. If you want a more detailed explanation as to why, I will of course be prepared to give it, but for now I'll merely draw your attention to the notes at the top of the noticeboard: " Volunteers who have had past dealings with... the editors involved in a dispute which would bias their response must not act as a volunteer on that dispute". AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:47, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't planning to moderate that dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies - I should have read more closely. I would however suggest that it might be wiser not to use the DRN talk page to discuss cases where 'past dealings' rule out your participation - and in particular, not to use the talk page as a platform for speculation about how dispute resolution in such cases might go. Such commentary does little to engender confidence in the system as a means of neutral resolution, and thus constitutes a disincentive to participate. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Standard GGC notice

This message contains important information about an administrative situation on Wikipedia. It does not imply any misconduct regarding your own contributions to date.

Please carefully read this information:

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to, (a) GamerGate, (b) any gender-related dispute or controversy, (c) people associated with (a) or (b), all broadly construed, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33 ForbiddenRocky (talk) 17:29, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Haven't heard from you.

Hi Robert McClenon.
      I haven't heard from you lately, and I was wondering if you're still acting as my unofficial advisor in the Technicolor RFC.  (Please see my recent postings to this page.)  Thank you.
Richard27182 (talk) 10:29, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I had not been aware that I was acting as an unofficial advisor on Technicolor. I mediated a discussion about Technicolor, and closed that discussion. Do you have a question? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:11, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

      Hello Robert McClenon. I may have misspoken when I referred to you as my "unofficial advisor" in the Technicolor RFC. I just meant that, since you had presided over the Dispute Resolution and had started the RFC and had answered all my questions that I had concerning the RFC, I thought of you as the logical person to ask about the next step.
      Anyway I do have a question: The RFC is over 30 days old and has been closed for comments, and is eligible to have an uninvolved editor assess the comments that were entered in the 30 days and determine consensus. This is my question:

• What step(s) should I take to invite an uninvolved and unbiased editor to do that; to evaluate the "votes" and comments, determine consensus, and formally close the RFC?

      I hope I haven't been too much of a nuisance these past few weeks. In any case as I've said before, I'm very grateful for your help and patience.
Richard27182 (talk) 23:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

I will post a request for closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. As always, I really appreciate your help.
Richard27182 (talk) 04:31, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

RFC closed already!

Hi Robert McClenon.
      I'm very surprised (pleasantly) that the Technicolor terminology RFC has already been formally closed.  To tell you the truth, I was afraid that no uninvolved editor would want to formally close it, let alone so soon.
      I do have one question for you: Does this constitute the final conclusive end to this dispute?  OR  If Onel5969 is dissatisfied with the result, are there options available to Onel to try to get the RFC result reversed?  (I just want to know if it's really finally over, or if there could be more to come.)
      As always, you have my sincere gratitude for your advice and assistance.
Richard27182 (talk) 01:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Kosovo is in the Balkans

Hello. Can you tell me why did you send me Kosovo is in the Balkans notice? Of course that it is in the Balkans, i dont get it? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:34, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Ooo, that. Thanks. Shouldn't that be sent to all users on that page? --Ąnαșταη (ταlκ) 13:50, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Doppler Studios

You are invited to join the discussion at Doppler Studios. See the history and previous opinion. Discussion is on my page. Thanks. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48

I updated the original user and the timeline of article creation. I'll be honest I'm torn here between asking for a promotion only account block, afd or attempt a WP:TNT myself or a combination. The user account for one year has only contributed to linking that article to the encyclopedia, it has zero interest in any other activity based on the editing history. My main complaints is unreliable sourcing a lot reads like press releases or was discogs which is user generated and therefore unreliable. I asked 78.26 because they are familiar a little more with record labels and they agreed in general. What would you think is the best option? Hell in a Bucket (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to nominate it for deletion. Blow it up and start over is a valid conclusion of AFD. I haven't reviewed the editor's history with regard to a block. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

What is your opinion on this "source" [[2]] it reads like a press release. Hell in a Bucket (talk) 10:52, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

It is a press release. Why shouldn't it read like a press release? That is a basis for an AFD saying that nearly all of the sources are either unreliable or promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Park Yeon-mi. Legobot (talk) 00:00, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Third opinion#How to successfully cirumvent 3O

"undo deletion - if thought to be completely out-of-scope, it should hatted instead" [3]

I'm not refactoring or removing text, it's part of my comment that has been duplicated. It appears twice, once on either side of your comment. —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 20:18, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Restored the deletion, in that case. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I noticed, thanks! —Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 21:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your close at VPP regarding OS policy

Hi Robert, hope you're doing well. You indicated in your close of this discussion that there was consensus to support suppression of IP addresses used by editors who accidentally failed to log in. However my reading of the discussion was that is was about expanding policy to include IP editors who didn't realise that their IP address would be publicly recordedcreate an account after they edit as an IP and then request suppression of their 'before account creation' edit(s). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 00:33, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Corrected. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 01:28, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Do I need to do anything at this point? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Given that there is consensus (in my view) for the proposal you probably need to change the wording in your close to reflect the proposal. Something like "...permit the suppression of IP addresses (in your close strike from here, and insert:) used by editors who did not realise that their IP address would be published in place of a username. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 05:44, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thanks so much, that was a great idea! valereee (talk) 16:45, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Talk:Vithoba

Hello user, I have came here from Wikipedia:Feedback request service‎ from Religion and Philosophy section. You are requested to give your views on proposed move of featured article Vithoba to Vitthal. Thank you. --Human3015^{Send WikiLove}  17:47, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks you 😼

--50.141.35.49 (talk) 02:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

you are good friend. 😸🐈 (meow) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.141.35.49 (talk) 03:16, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

21:17:05, 2 August 2015 review of submission by Jasecbruce

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

Dear Robert, Thank you for your review of Ewen Cameron bruce. I have made the changes that you requested. I hope that this meets your satisfaction. I was not sure about the bold face of lede sentence so applied it to opening sentence. Info box formatting - as far as I can see I have done this correct. If not, please let me know. Best.

Jasecbruce (talk) 21:17, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Robert McClenon (and also Jasecbruce I suppose), I have undone the decline because poor formatting is not a valid criteria for declining an AfC submission. If anything, when you see malformed templates you should attempt to fix them and then review the page. Formatting is simple to fix, and drafts should be reviewed on content. I've since moved the page to Draft:Ewen Cameron Bruce. Primefac (talk) 21:25, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I did try to fix the infobox. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:45, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Request on 03:36:27, 3 August 2015 for assistance on AfC submission by Bobtinin

• Bobtinin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:PULSAR: Lost Colony (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear, Robert McClenon. My article was denied for lack of notability and reliable sources, yet most of the references in the article, are to articles from reliable sources. These reliable sources were from secondary sources which are deemed reliable under Wikipedia's definition, especially the fact that most of the said articles are from big-name gaming reviewers and magazines. Maybe I'm just confused and don't know what I'm talking about, but hopefully you can help me see the light haha. Thank you for your time and help. Bobtinin (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Which of the footnotes are reviews that independently assess or describe the game? Please put some language in that says that the game has been favorably reviewed. Just having footnotes to the game isn't necessarily enough if the reader isn't old what they say. If you can address that, then resubmit the game and it may be approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:55, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The game is in Pre-Beta right now, so it hasn't been released. This happens on a regular basis with games in development. If you take a look at sites like Metacritic who would usually calculate critic reception, they don't have any available for games in development (in essence there are no proper "reviews" per se), but that doesn't detract from the game's notability. But what I found interesting is that this article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarMade was sourced less than mine. StarMade is one of my favorite games, and it's still in development. Not sure how that article was approved (I did not model mine after that luckily :D), although mine does seem similar in the sense that I use reliable sources to reference things other than critic reception. From what I getting, you want me to talk about what big name gaming magazines like Rock, Paper, Shotgun are saying about the game? I think I have two articles from them in there, but what I did was reference those articles to features in the game, gameplay and whatnot so I could reliably source those bits of the article. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:12, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I tried posting a query at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk, but it is poorly watched, so I suggest that you ask for another set of eyes at WP:Teahouse/Questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks mate, I'll see if someone can help me there. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! Comment

Thanks for your help with Roy John article PeterLFlomPhD (talk) 21:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I had help. Other editors also did work on the new page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

03:36:08, 4 August 2015 review of submission by Mobcy

• Mobcy (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Miniminter (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert,

I'm submitting a comment regarding declining of my article about the youtuber Simon Minter.I don't argue with the fact that wikipedia does actually need reliable and trusted resources , but all the information about my article were collected from the videos uploaded by the youtuber himself on his channel.Plus, this Youtube personality has all his work on Youtube and that its very rare to interview a Youtube personality on a famous magazine or newspaper just like in my case of the article review.I have added several reference links to the article mostly focusing on the youtuber's stats and subscription based info.Whilst the rest of the info can only be found on the videos which he uploads, please notify me if certain info will have to be changed in my article or anymore specific reference links that have to be changed or added , keeping in mind that the person reviewed in my article has never been interviewed in a magazine or a paper.

Thanks for your cooperation , have a great day.

Mobcy (talk) 03:36, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Has a newspaper or magazine ever summarized his work as a youtuber? If he has not been interviewed and his work has not been summarized, then he doesn't appear to me to be notable. If you disagree, I suggest that you ask for the opinions of other experienced editors at the Teahouse or some other noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Email

Robert, sorry I wasn't able to respond to your email sooner, but it looks like you worked that one out just fine. Regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 17:14, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

RfC at Kosovo

I actually closed the RfC at Kosovo with a long reasoning, but then I saw your recommendation at WP:ANRFC that this be closed by an admin. In my judgment, an admin close was not necessary, since the sock's comments were struck out, but I will defer to your judgment about this matter. I have right now reverted my close. Kingsindian ♝♚ 18:30, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

If the sock has been blocked, and I see that the sock has been blocked, then I agree that an admin close is not necessary, because the necessary admin action turns out to have blocking a disruptive sock. I will leave it up to you. You may either reinstate the close, which looks well-reasoned (but hard to find as is), or may leave the request for closure in place for an admin, or you may ask at WP:AN whether to close again. Now that the disruption has been ended by blocking the sock, it seems reasonable to re-close. The necessary admin action turns out to have blocking the disruptive sock. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

My own thinking is, with rare exceptions, to stay away from anything having to do with the Balkans other than to give an alert about WP:ARBMAC, so that if those editors try to restart World War One, which seems to be what too many of them are trying to do, I won't be in the crossfire. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:00, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Since I already spent a lot of time reading through the discussion, it seems a waste to not close this and force another person to do it all over again, so I made the judgment call to re-close. Kingsindian ♝♚ 21:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Administrators Intervention Against vandalism

Could you please check out Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. It is very overloaded. 2602:306:3357:BA0:454B:F02:1D85:F7DF (talk) 20:16, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. Please try WP:AN. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

VisualEditor News #4—2015

Read this in another language • Local subscription list • Subscribe to the multilingual edition

Did you know?

You can add quotations marks before and after a title or phrase with a single click.

Select the relevant text. Find the correct quotations marks in the special character inserter tool (marked as Ω in the toolbar).

Click the button. VisualEditor will add the quotation marks on either side of the text you selected.

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

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team have been working on mobile phone support. They have fixed many bugs and improved language support. They post weekly status reports on mediawiki.org. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving language support and functionality on mobile devices.

Wikimania

The team attended Wikimania 2015 in Mexico City. There they participated in the Hackathon and met with individuals and groups of users. They also made several presentations about VisualEditor and the future of editing.

Following Wikimania, we announced winners for the VisualEditor 2015 Translathon. Our thanks and congratulations to users Halan-tul, Renessaince, जनक राज भट्ट (Janak Bhatta), Vahe Gharakhanyan, Warrakkk, and Eduardogobi.

For interface messages (translated at translatewiki.net), we saw the initiative affecting 42 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 56.5% before the translathon, and 78.2% after (+21.7%). In particular, Sakha improved from 12.2% to 94.2%; Brazilian Portuguese went from 50.6% to 100%; Taraškievica went from 44.9% to 85.3%; Doteli went from 1.3% to 41.2%. Also, while 1.7% of the messages were outdated across all languages before the translathon, the percentage dropped to 0.8% afterwards (-0.9%).

For documentation messages (on mediawiki.org), we saw the initiative affecting 24 languages. The average progress in translations across all languages was 26.6% before translathon, and 46.9% after (+20.3%).  There were particularly notable achievements for three languages. Armenian improved from 1% to 99%; Swedish, from 21% to 99%, and Brazilian Portuguese, from 34% to 83%. Outdated translations across all languages were reduced from 8.4% before translathon to 4.8% afterwards (-3.6%).

We published some graphs showing the effect of the event on the Translathon page. Thank you to the translators for participating and the translatewiki.net staff for facilitating this initiative.

Recent improvements

Auto-fill features for citations can be enabled on each Wikipedia. The tool uses the citoid service to convert a URL or DOI into a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. You can see an animated GIF of the quick, simple process at mediawiki.org. So far, about a dozen Wikipedias have enabled the auto-citation tool. To enable it for your wiki, follow the instructions at mediawiki.org.

Your wiki can customize the first section of the special character inserter in VisualEditor. Please follow the instructions at mediawiki.org to put the characters you want at the top. 

In other changes, if you need to fill in a CAPTCHA and get it wrong, then you can click to get a new one to complete. VisualEditor can now display and edit Vega-based graphs. If you use the Monobook skin, VisualEditor's appearance is now more consistent with other software.  

Future changes

The team will be changing the appearance of selected links inside VisualEditor. The purpose is to make it easy to see whether your cursor is inside or outside the link. When you select a link, the link label (the words shown on the page) will be enclosed in a faint box. If you place your cursor inside the box, then your changes to the link label will be part of the link. If you place your cursor outside the box, then it will not. This will make it easy to know when new characters will be added to the link and when they will not.

On the English Wikipedia, 10% of newly created accounts are now offered both the visual and the wikitext editors. A recent controlled trial showed no significant difference in survival or productivity for new users in the short term. New users with access to VisualEditor were very slightly less likely to produce results that needed reverting. You can learn more about this by watching a video of the July 2015 Wikimedia Research Showcase. The proportion of new accounts with access to both editing environments will be gradually increased over time. Eventually all new users have the choice between the two editing environments.

Let's work together

• Share your ideas and ask questions at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.
• Can you read and type in Korean or Japanese? Language engineer David Chan needs people who know which tools people use to type in some languages. If you speak Japanese or Korean, you can help him test support for these languages. Please see the instructions at mw:VisualEditor/IME Testing#What to test if you can help.
• If your wiki would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace, you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.
• Please file requests for language-appropriate "Bold" and "Italic" icons for the styling menu in Phabricator.
• The design research team wants to see how real editors work. Please sign up for their research program.
• The weekly task triage meetings continue to be open to volunteers, usually on Tuesdays at 12:00 (noon) PDT (19:00 UTC). Learn how to join the meetings and how to nominate bugs at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. You do not need to attend the meeting to nominate a bug for consideration as a Q1 blocker, though. Instead, go to Phabricator and "associate" the main VisualEditor project with the bug.

If you aren't reading this in your favorite language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact Elitre directly, so that she can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 00:01, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Thank you for your contribution to a successful mediation. Sunray (talk) 06:36, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

3O edits

Robert, when you make an edit at 3O please remember to always say in your edit summary how many listings remain on the pending cases list. It's part of the instructions, see the last bullet point under "Providing third opinion." Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:51, 9 August 2015 (UTC) This is an informational posting only and I am not watching this page

Okay. Lesson learned. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

ANI Notice

That text was removed on the talk page of AC de la Rive. However, I was stating fact, that someone could take offense to the Article on Luciferian Doctrine, in the way it was written before I edited it. I would be glad to see the article removed. Go back and see what it said, it claimed that Freemasons worshiped Lucifer. I noticed you said it would be acted on, and that is not the case, I said it could be.--Craxd1 (talk) 01:17, 10 August 2015 (UTC)