User talk:Robert McClenon

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

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)

Rihanna

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.

---

Following this close, I've resumed discussion[1] on the talk page of the article in question, but I honestly realize that the discussion has stalled (that editor has already stated they "will not be leaving any further comments"[2]), and that's why I initiated dispute resolution in the first place. (Other editors and I have already listed WP:RS.) What should be done if there is a clear consensus for the proposed changes? (Which seems to already be the case.) Who should edit the article accordingly? I'll wait a few days to see if there are further comments. Israell (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

User:Israell - My first item of advice is to discuss at the bottom of the article talk page, rather than continuing a discussion in the middle of the talk page. Some editors look at the bottom of the talk page and not in the middle. My second item of advice is to edit the article boldly. In particular, edit the lede section to add "songwriter" or any other activity to the opening sentence. If that is reverted, either start an RFC or request that I start an RFC for you. I have started more than a hundred RFCs and am willing to start one for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm thinking of requesting an RfC, but it'd need to be based on Wiki policies, not simply the number of votes. Speculation (original research or hearsay) that Rihanna steals credits or only changes one word or adds a line; demands that I provide information that is not publicly available (such as what Rihanna and the other writers composed or authored exactly in so or so song—no high quality source goes into such details; that's not how collaborative songwriting is documented); dismissal of official, industry-backed credits and reliable sources because of one's personal bias that's she's not a "true" songwriter, etc. should not be the basis of the final outcome. Israell (talk) 18:56, 19 March 2026 (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.

Robert, you wrote below: "the requester has not stated what they want to change in the infobox or the article, which may be to list Rihanna as a songwriter"... I did type: "Robert, you may go ahead with the RfC. This time, it's for addition of the songwriter occupation in both the lede and infobox of the Rihanna article (so "songwriter" comes second, just after the "singer" occupation)."

Also, I filed for arbitration because I was advised to. I was then told it was not a proper venue, so I withdrew my request.

And finally, I've been discussing this topic on the talk page of the article for four months now. Several editors agree w/ the proposed changes. One editor is particularly opposed to it and has repeatedly fought me on it and edit-warred, dismissing all of my arguments. Other editors and I have provided extensive reliable sources to support the proposed changes, but that editor and another one are now asking for a level of details that is impossible to provide, and that's not reasonable.

Thank you for your response. I'll still file the RfC. Israell (talk) 19:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Israell - Who advised you to file a Request for Arbitration? I see who advised you not to file a Request for Arbitration, but not who advised you to file it. The user who gave you that advice needs advice about arbitration. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:30, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

A short note

By the way. I hope I didn't come across as too harsh in the talk page on you personally. Not solving this isn't your fault, it's a tough problem to solve because editors have fundamentally different desires for an article. IMO that just means we should have 3 separate articles or the like, but... eh. I do think an RFC might end up being the long-term solution, just this one might require the people who want a change to drive it and show wider support rather than an "outsider" like yourself. We'll see, I suppose. SnowFire (talk) 03:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think you were too harsh, User:SnowFire. I made a mistake in trying to help editors solve a problem that when they weren't helping me to solve the problem. I think that the long-term solution is either an RFC or the status quo, because any change should not be made unilaterally at this point. In many cases, an RFC developed by a third-party is the way to resolve content disputes, but that is when the third party can get the disputing parties to explain what the dispute is. I tried that, and learned that they wanted to talk at length. I often tell editors to be civil and concise. The problem usually isn't getting them to be concise. I will take another look at the RFC, and will probably pull the {{RFC}} tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Voices of Fire (disambiguation) has been accepted

Voices of Fire (disambiguation), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as Disambig-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:10, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025–2026 Iranian protests on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:30, 15 February 2026 (UTC)

template:Vermont DRN

do you think you can close it with a comment saying that the discussion has moved? Logoshimpo (talk) 06:43, 16 February 2026 (UTC)

Franco-Habsburg War

My opinion on that matter differs. Since they're inextricable parts of a single alternate history project, not distinct things, I saw (and still see) no value whatsoever in having two separate, independent discussions operating at cross-purposes with each other in two different places on what's fundamentally all the same thing. They need to be considered together, in one discussion, because they need to be considered and handled in absolute and total lockstep. The question of whether MFC is the "correct" venue for a template is very secondary, and very inconsequential, next to the overwhelming importance of discussing the template and the page it's being used on in unison, within a single discussion that considers all of it together. That's the #1 most important issue here, and nothing else matters more than that. Bearcat (talk) 00:50, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Okay, User:Bearcat. I don't think we disagree on the substance, which is that the alternate history stuff needs to be deleted. I am satisfied with leaving your nomination at MFD open. I don't plan to withdraw my nomination for the template. I also think that we need a clearer guideline about alternate history. I would be satisfied with promoting Wikipedia is not for alternate history to guideline status, but I wrote that essay and will be satisfied if someone else takes the lead. These alternate history things are becoming common enough that I think we need a guideline. Although these alternate history things do get deleted, there are a few experienced editors who think that editors should be able to play these games in their sandboxen. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 12:32, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Question regarding newly created account and cross-article content insertion during ongoing RfC

Hi Robert McClenon,

I would appreciate your advice on a situation that arose during the ongoing RfC concerning the Maire article.

A new account, User:Anthony Jackson777 (created on 19 February 2026), first added a section about the Maire-EuroChem dispute to the EuroChem page and, the following day, introduced substantially the same text to the Maire article.

The timing (during the RfC) and the cross-article replication by a newly created account made me wonder whether this might raise SPA or potential COI considerations.

More broadly, what concerns me is the apparent persistence in inserting this dispute across related articles during an active RfC, despite ongoing discussion about due weight, sourcing, and relevance. I am unsure whether this reflects normal content disagreement or whether it could raise advocacy-related concerns.

In particular, I would appreciate your view on whether the repeated reintroduction of the same material might be seen as circumventing the consensus-building process, or whether this still falls within acceptable editorial conduct.

If appropriate, would this be something to consider raising at SPI, or would you recommend keeping the focus strictly on the content discussion within the RfC at this stage?

I am not making any accusations and want to remain fully within policy. I would simply value your procedural guidance on how best to approach this. Msforzese (talk) 14:49, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Msforzese - I don't see any reason to file a report at SPI, unless you can show that this user is making the same edits as another user. What you may do is to ask the user whether they have a conflict of interest. If you want other experienced editors to look at the editing pattern and see what they think, the Teahouse would be a good place to ask for advice. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 21 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification Msforzese (talk) 00:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 20:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)

Request on 01:18:37, 22 February 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by Dstar235

• Dstar235 (talk · contribs)
  • Patrick Long (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Patrick Long (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I believe you have erred in denying my article's creation. Every single state sitting State Legislator in the United States besides the one you just denied has a wikipedia article. All 7385 of them. I just went through 99 pages of state legislative chambers. Please check this yourself. The only reason Patrick Long's article wasn't created when he first sworn in (like all of the rest of the ones with equal notability who were elected in 2024) was because of the oversight with him having the same name as another New Hampshire poltician. The editor assumed the other Patrick Long was him, and thus didn't make him an article. Given this set of facts, I strongly urge you to reconsider.

As for the title, it will just be as is "Patrick Long (New Hampshire State Representative)", because that's how specific it needs to be given that the other Patrick Long is a state senator.

Dstar235 (talk) 01:18, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Dstar235 - I only declined your draft because I need input on how to distinguish Patrick Long from Patrick Long. Identifying him as a state representative is not sufficient, because the senator was a representative before he became a senator. Can you find his year of birth? If you find his year of birth, we will use years of birth to disambiguate. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 22 February 2026 (UTC)

I can't find his exact birth year (only his age on a certain date). However, I added more information to the article to distinguish him from the other Patrick Long. Something there might be useful. His middle initial (N) also might be used (it is sometimes used in sources). Maybe the year he was first elected to state office (2024)? If nothing else is sufficient, then it might be necessary to name the specific district (Hillsborough 26th) in the disambiguation. Regardless, I don't believe the length of the title should be a reason for denying the article's creation, especially given the fact that the notability requirement is evidently met, and the highly unique circumstances surrounding its use are unlikely to be repeated. Dstar235 (talk) 02:37, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Dstar235 - We can use his middle initial. Can you find the middle initial for the other Patrick Long? Also, what are the highly unique circumstances? Do you mean two people with the same name and almost the same position in the same state, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:23, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

The other Patrick Long's middle initial is T, if that helps. But, I see that my article has been published, which I appreciate. I might have overreacted a bit before, so apologies. However, I don't know if the proposed title solution really works. If the rule is that the titles must be completely exclusive, then it fails. Both Patrick Longs are from Hillsborough county (and been/are a representative from a Hillsborough-based district in the state house). They are also both represent the city of Manchester in the state legislature. This is what I meant when I said "highly unique circumstances", having two unrelated people of the first and last name representing the same area in a state legislature. At the very least I feel it presented a pretty unique challange in this case when it came to disambiguating them.

When I suggested using the specific district (Hillsborough 26th), I meant including the actual district number in the title (as that is where they finally differ). But if the middle initial can be included, that would probably be preferable. Dstar235 (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:Dstar235 - If you have middle initials for both of them, or years of birth for both of them, that will work. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

RFC: This City Made Us

Hello,

Apologies if this is the wrong place to ask, I'd asked in the DRN for information on the 'next steps' for an RFC are but as the DRN has closed and the RFC has now closed I thought I would post a message here to request what happens now with Talk:Act_III:_This_City_Made_Us

Thank you PBugaboo (talk) 08:31, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:PBugaboo - The next step is formal closure of the RFC. I have been neutral and am willing to write the closure of the RFC, or we can post a request at Requests for Closure. I will close it unless you prefer for me to post a request for an admin to close it. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:57, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Ah, thank you I understand. I had thought that the legobot removing the expired RFC template was the ‘closure’ but I take it this was an automatic prompt to initiate an editor to manually close. I’m happy with you to close it, assuming there’s no difference with who closes it. Let me know if you need anything else and thanks again PBugaboo (talk) 20:18, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

User:PBugaboo - As you have figured, the term 'closure' is used in more than one way. When Legobot removes the RFC ID, the RFC is no longer being discussed and is ready for formal closure. I consider the use of the word in two ways to be confusing, but that is the way it currently is. I will close the RFC by stating what the consensus is. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 23 February 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on Q-Pop Girl Groups

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Q-Pop Girl Groups is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Q-Pop Girl Groups will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 24 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft: DYR (album)

Hello Robert! Thank you for changing the title of my wiki, I appreciate it. I wasn’t sure how to change it at first.

Cheers Chiperf1 (talk) 06:32, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Mount Kenya region DRN case affected by block and ban evasion

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for moderating the Mount Kenya region DRN case. I recently processed a sockpuppet investigation that resulted in one of the involved users, Anyrmson (talk · contribs), being indefinitely blocked as a sockpuppet of the previously blocked and banned account Aguahrz (talk · contribs). I'm not familiar with how DRN treats participation from block-evading and ban-evading editors, but I trust you to handle it appropriately. Thanks again. — Newslinger talk 19:01, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for the update, User:Newslinger. This case is somewhat different from the usual DRN case of blocked or banned editors. It is not uncommon for the filing editor of a DRN case to be blocked, sometimes for disruptive editing or sometimes for sockpuppetry. In such cases, I close the DRN case. As is said at DRV, socks do not have standing. (When I stand in my socks, I usually but not always have my sneakers outside of them.) In this case, the blocked editor was one of the other editors. I will review the discussion and decide whether the posts by the sock should be collapsed. (If I put a sock on the floor, it collapses without the solidity of a tibia.) In this case, the DRN case resulted in a split discussion, and I will review the split discussion to see whether any posts by the sock should be collapsed. I will take a more detailed look in a few hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:25, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

It's good to see that socks are being ironed out instead of laundered on DRN, as wrong as that would be in a different context. Cheers. — Newslinger talk 19:44, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Draft:Arsenosugar review

Are you still interested in reviewing this article, since you changed the tag yesterday but no review has been submitted? PeriodicEditor (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

User:PeriodicEditor - I am waiting for the blocking redirect to be deleted as G6. I am not entirely sure what you mean by no review has been submitted, but maybe you mean that I have not accepted or declined the draft. I can't accept the draft until either the redirect is deleted or I move the redirect to limbo. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:47, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I didn’t realise that, thanks. I meant it had not been accepted or denied. PeriodicEditor (talk) 16:45, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on Native silver

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Native silver is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Native silver will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Navina Wadekar

Hello, Robert McClenon. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Navina Wadekar".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply , and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! DreamRimmer bot II (talk) 18:26, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 16:32, 8 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 20:30, 9 March 2026 (UTC)

Viola fuscoviolacea

Did you verify any of the data in this article you accepted from draft? None of the citations have external links, and probably all should have them. - UtherSRG (talk) 18:43, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Malformed RfC

I'm interested in knowing how would you make a properly formed RfC. This is in regards to your closing statement at my last DRN request. Logoshimpo (talk) 08:42, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

About X11Libre

Thanks for checking out the article, Robert. It has, like you asked, a slightly different implementation now.

By the way, there's a lot of controversy surrounding it, mostly coming from the ""particular"" political statements plastered in many different places. I was running in circles trying to find a way to properly address them without sounding biased. Should I, even? Or should I overlook them? Pinsir342 (talk) 11:40, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on X11Libre

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on X11Libre is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, X11Libre will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Marion County Sheriff's Office Article

Per the 24 hour update request from Wikipedia, I'm requesting an update on my article for the Marion County Sheriff's Office. Looking forward to working with you on this. Yikes9272 (talk) 15:30, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Yikes9272 - I am not entirely sure what you are requesting. I see that I had the draft in a review status for more than 24 hours, because I was waiting for a blocking redirect to be deleted. Okay. I have accepted the article into article space. You may now edit the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:14, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Thanks! Yikes9272 (talk) 16:42, 18 March 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on G0.238-0.071

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on G0.238-0.071 is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, G0.238-0.071 will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Talk on G0.238-0.071

Hey @Robert McClenon, I doubt your approval of G0.238-0.071, If it's based on 2 research paper and the most luminous star in Milky Way, then i think you should re-review your approval as if that's the case then why my Draft:RSGC1-F01 didn't approved and told fail WP:SIGCOV while having more research paper and other non research paper related sources also is the current largest star in the Milky way. Hoping you will understand what i want to express bro. Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:47, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Abdullah1099 - My approval was based on the verified statement that it is the most luminous star in the Milky Way galaxy. I am aware that some editors might disagree, but I think that sometimes there should be ipso facto notability. I don't plan to re-review it. The procedure for re-review of its notability is a deletion discussion. I looked at Draft:RSGC1-F01, and I don't think that I understand what you are saying, because I don't see a decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:37, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Ok, I understood, I mean if i rewrite the RSGC1-F01 article is there any future for it. Also i added 2 more research papers to G0.238-0.071 article Abdullah1099 (talk) 03:40, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

RfC question...

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

---

Hi, Robert. I'm posting this at the bottom in case you haven't seen my reply to an older response. | I'm thinking of requesting an RfC, but it'd need to be based on Wiki policies, not simply the number of votes. Speculation (original research or hearsay) that Rihanna steals credits or only changes one word or adds a line; demands that I provide information that is not publicly available (such as what Rihanna and the other writers composed or authored exactly in so or so song—no high quality source goes into such details; that's not how collaborative songwriting is documented); dismissal of official, industry-backed credits and reliable sources because of one's personal bias that's she's not a "true" songwriter, etc. should not be the basis of the final outcome. Israell (talk) 10:55, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

User:Israell - I am not sure that I understand the question or the request. If you want to add 'songwriter' or 'singer-songwriter' to the infobox for Rihanna, I suggest that you discuss on the article talk page. If discussion is lengthy and inconclusive, you can submit an RFC or request that I submit an RFC. I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:41, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Would arbitration be a better venue? The lengthy four-month talk page discussion has now reached an impasse. I fear that certain RfC votes would be based on a biased viewpoint. Israell (talk) 13:13, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've now filed for arbitration.[3] Israell (talk) 15:03, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That will almost certainly be rejected as grossly premature and/or misplaced. ArbCom does not settle content disputes, and you have failed to show that there is any behavioural issue that can't be dealt with through normal processes. AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:12, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

I've now withdrawn it. Thx for the warning. Israell (talk) 15:21, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

That said, I did show a report of edit-warring against 750h+. That user also declined to participate in dispute resolution. The problem is that they are now demanding a level of details that is not available publicly, and they are disregarding the high quality documentation I provided and subsequent argument. Israell (talk) 15:26, 22 March 2026 (UTC)

Robert, you may go ahead with the RfC. This time, it's for addition of the songwriter occupation in both the lede and infobox of the Rihanna article (so "songwriter" comes second, just after the "singer" occupation). Israell (talk) 15:28, 22 March 2026 (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.

Request on 18:04:52, 20 March 2026 for assistance on AfC submission by Lifeguard711

• Lifeguard711 (talk · contribs)
  • User:Lifeguard711/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Lifeguard711 (talk) 18:04, 20 March 2026 (UTC) Dear sir- I do not know much about how to submit to you I accidentally created 2 pages because I did not find the original draft page and I do not know what the snadbox is. Please help me complete this submission properly.

User:Lifeguard711 - Please make your edits to Draft:Drown Zero International. If you have any other questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 20 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 04:30, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 18:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 21:31, 23 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Evidence. Evidence of misconduct by parties but outside of Maghreb-related articles is welcome. All private evidence must be directed to arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org. If you wish to add another party, please make a request on the case talk page within the first week of the case. Please add your evidence by April 7, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Maghreb/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Sennecaster (Chat) 02:24, 24 March 2026 (UTC)

Arbitration Case opened

You were recently listed as a party to 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/SchroCat. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 15, 2026 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SchroCat/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, DatGuy^Talk_Contribs 09:58, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Dispute re: Draft: Alice Duport-Portier DRN Revision 1346502099

DRN Revision 1346502099

Thanks for the help. The context on this dispute is that the article was in Main space for 2 months, previously reviewed for quality, then an editor suddenly bumped it to draft space without notice on talk page. I would like your help restoring to Mainspace as it was before. Tonymetz 💬 17:57, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Tonymetz - Articles that have been in article space for less than 90 days may be unilaterally draftified once, and Draft:Alice Duport-Percier was in article space for about 60 days. I understand that having an article draftified in that fashion is annoying, but, in my opinion, User:Boynamedsue was correct that the sources were not independent. The help that I can provide to restore the article to mainspace is to give you the advice that I am giving you, which is to find secondary sources. I think it is reasonable to infer that there are such sources; we just need to find them. You may, at any time, move the draft back into article space. If you do that, and the sources are thought not to be sufficient, it will not be moved back to draft space again, but it may be nominated for deletion. The help that you can give to yourself is to continue looking for one or two more independent secondary sources. Do you have any further questions, or do you want to continue work on the sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Hi Tonymetz, it's strange that you have received notification the article was reviewed. It came up on the new pages worklist, which is the only reason I saw it. It shouldn't have been there if someone has reviewed it. As Robert McClenon said, I totally understand how it is annoying, but draftication is part of the process that ensures our new articles pass the various notability guidelines. Boynamedsue (talk) 18:43, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Boynamedsue, User:Tonymetz - There were several edits made to the article in article space in February, and the author could easily have considered them to be 'reviews'. However, 'reviewed' has a technical meaning in Wikipedia, and occurs when the reviewer clicks on the button to give the article a status of 'reviewed'. It doesn't look as though that happened. Two of those minor edits definitely would not have marked it reviewed, because they marked it as needing work, a tag for more citations needed, and a tag for a living person with the year of birth unknown. So I think that Tonymetz meant that the article was edited, which it was, and thought that the editors had approved it, which they did not. What is needed now is better sources, as both Smowman304 and Boynamedsue said. Wikipedia has its own terminology, just as many crafts and specialties have their own terminology. Sometimes new or even intermediate editors don't realize that Wikipedia has its own terminology, and that it is necessary for Wikipedia to have its own terminology, and they sometimes become confused as a result. Continue improving the sourcing of the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I had the article reviewed for the Content Assessment scale by the Biographies of Living Persons assessment team. See: Draft talk:Alice Duport-Percier. Tonymetz 💬 19:23, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Ah right, I understand what has happened. It's a question of terminology again. These are two different processes. The content assessment gives a grade on the quality of the article. The new article review is intended to filter out articles that are not yet ready for publication.Boynamedsue (talk) 21:53, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

I agree the sources need improvement, and another editor had marked with "sources needed" template. My appeal is about the comms and the actions taken. There seem to be plenty of "sources needed" articles in Mainspace, and by achieving content assessment (see below), this article met the bar for Mainspace.

My concern is about unilateral draft-ification without communicating on the Talk page. This would have been easily resolved with notes added to talk about sources needed, which sources were bad, a timeline to draftify, so editors could work on quality . Now the article is stuck in draft queue for months. A poor experience. Tonymetz 💬 19:27, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

A content assessment, especially an assessment of "start", doesn't indicate an automatic acceptance at review.

In this case, perhaps it would have been better to leave a message on the nature of the problems with the sources, but as it stands the article (still) does not pass WP:GNG and there are 18,000 new articles in need of review, many of which are ready for mainspace. Marking an article as reviewed does make a significant difference to its visibility.

It's unfortunately not realistic to expect a personalised explanation of sourcing on every draftified article, beyond the message on your talkpage. You will also notice that I did give you further explanation within half an hour of your message on my talkpage.Boynamedsue (talk) 22:09, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Sounds like we've both heard each other out. Thank you for your service. Tonymetz 💬 22:21, 1 April 2026 (UTC)

Dutertism

Hello Robert McClenon please accept this draft as a article. Because I want to separate the article of the Political positions of Rodrigo Duterte for Dutertism. Thank you!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Dutertism

They have already article for these political ideologies in other countries.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsonarism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fujimorism Toniker0501 (talk) 08:27, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Toniker0501 - On 6 December 2025, I advised you to discuss at Talk:Political positions of Rodrigo Duterte as to whether a separate article should be accepted. I don't see any discussion. Please discuss at Talk:Political positions of Rodrigo Duterte. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

It's already done Toniker0501 (talk) 04:51, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

ACT Expo Page Deletion

Hello! I wanted to reach out to get information on the deletion of the ACT Expo page. I had submitted a request for editing via the edit request wizard and did not receive any feedback on the content or what to change to help it get published. Could you please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CleanTransporter (talk • contribs) 18:52, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Draft:ACT Expo was deleted as advertising. I see that I looked at it, but I don't remember the details, and cannot advise you about it. I would suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

User:CleanTransporter - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:38, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 19:32, 3 April 2026 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Kinney Zalesne

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Draft:Kinney Zalesne requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked. For further information, see section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. nil ^nz 05:25, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

I didn't create the draft. I copied it from DRV, which was not where it belonged, to draft space (which is where it would have belonged if it had been written by a human). User:Nil NZ - I didn't check the references, and evidently neither did the author, because at least those 3 references were hallucinated. Thank you for checking for artificial intelligence. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Oops, that would have been Twinkle! At least AFCH sent the decline to the right destination, but I'll manually post this to the TA's talk page now. Cheers! nil ^nz 06:04, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Nil NZ - No apology in order. That was not meant as a criticism of you. It was useful that I got it, because there is a Deletion Review about it, so that I could notify Deletion Review that it is the product of artificial intelligence because it has hallucinated references. Also, in my opinion, notice to the temporary account is neither harmful nor useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:28, 4 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 13:30, 5 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on WGCZ Holding

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on WGCZ Holding is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, WGCZ Holding will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 6 April 2026 (UTC)

Mentioned at an arbitration case

Hello, Robert McClenon. I just wanted to give you a heads up here that I have mentioned you in the arbitration case that you have participated in. It is the Maghreb case and I mentioned you in this section: Evidence presented by Super Goku V. Basically, you are being mentioned in relation to what happened at DRN, Talk:Shakshouka, and ANI two years ago. Personally, I don't believe there is an issue with your edits, but rather that they are tied to at least one party in the case. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:39, 7 April 2026 (UTC)

User:Super Goku V - Thank you for the notice. I will comment in the Analysis of Evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

I couldn't respond in the Evidence section for three reasons. First, it closed not long after you posted your evidence. Second, I was close to 500 words already. Third, my comments would not really have been evidence. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:41, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Sorry regarding the first part. This case has been dragging on me and I haven't been editing as much as a result. In any case, I should have mentioned some context earlier that my evidence was the comment that I was going to post to ANI last month, with some changes to condense the text in spots and some expansions for reading. (I think it is 95% or more as it was.) Hence why it feels a bit off compared to how others have been presenting their evidence. --Super Goku V (talk) 13:46, 8 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on 2028 Democratic National Convention

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on 2028 Democratic National Convention is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, 2028 Democratic National Convention will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 9 April 2026 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on God's Revelation to the Human Heart

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on God's Revelation to the Human Heart is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, God's Revelation to the Human Heart will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Yes I read the message

@Robert McClenon, I know you said that DR should go on the DRN, but my question is specifically for you.

I was wondering if you would allow me to observe/assist with any future cases to help me learn about DR. ----Skyeteam (talk) 13:51, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Any option for rejected Jackie Goodman re-review?

I have resubmitted my draft for Jackie Goodman. My question is, is there any alternative to going to the back of the line for review? Mbcoats (talk) 22:23, 15 April 2026 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 14:31, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 07:30, 17 April 2026 (UTC)

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

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 11:30, 18 April 2026 (UTC)