User talk:Robert McClenon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Other archives
*Personal Attacks and Other Deleted Nonsense
*Famekeeper Archive
*FuelWagon Archive
*Jack User Archive
*John Carter Archive
*PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
*78 Archive

Thank you for your responses. I'm afraid I am not a regular contributor and do not have a registered account. As an English translator, I was asked by my colleagues at the French finance ministry to help find out what the problem was with the English draft. I am not trying to get anyone to take sides, I simply resubmitted the draft after being told it would be accepted and was then trying to find out why it had been declined again. The reason I didn't respond for several weeks is that I have been on holiday from work and I was waiting for a response to the new submission. I will ask my colleagues at the French finance ministry to try and amend the draft and will not bother you again with any more questions. Kind regards, Ruth Brown193.188.156.131 (talk) 11:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Draft for Draft: RL Leaders[edit]

Ok. Thank you for the input. Not sure then how to talk about the company history without mentioning the founders and their backgrounds, which led to the pairing and formation of the company. But I can take some of that out and re-submit again. Thanks again. Evaki1972 (talk) 02:10, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

You reviewed my page on July 2. I followed your advice and took out any market-speak or "buzz words." My sole desire is to give the company a page as I think it's a valid topic/company, so I appreciate your advice! I have submitted it for your review! Thanks again. Evaki1972 (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)Evaki1972 (talk) 22:45, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft for sawtoothing[edit]

Hello Robert,

I added the appropriate link for "sawtooth wave" as requested. Just let me know if any other changes are needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickr79 (talkcontribs) 22:24, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Park City Mining District[edit]

Hi Robert,

I was wondering if you had a chance to look over the Teahouse to see what other editors thought? I look forward to hearing back from you! DanielVGarcia (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Park City Mining[edit]

Hello Robert,

I saw that you had turned down our draft for Park City Mining and was wondering how I could put that in the Park City page? It is quite a lot of information and would absolutely ruin the flow of the page, however most of it is quite important, what would you suggest? DanielVGarcia (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I will be asking at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Ok thanks so much, please let me know what everyone else thinks! DanielVGarcia (talk) 04:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Re-reviewing of Diffuse field acoustic testing article[edit]

Hi Robert!

You first reviewed my article in 4th of May. I have made the changes you asked but there is now 24 days since nobody reviewed this article. Thanks a lot for your help ! Félix HIE Félix Hie (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Felixhie (talkcontribs) 06:39, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I've finally understood what you expected about links. Is it good now ? Felixhie (talk) 11:10, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

19:35, 10 July 2016 review of submission by tisya teezy[edit]

Hi Robert. thank you for reviewing my article of TISYA TEEZY who is originally known as DAVID MUTUKU MUTISYA.I have removed the unreliable citations and the last statement that brings contradictions. Nearly all of my sources consist of local based platforms may not be considered as reliable sources. Please review the changes and advise me.

16:09:24, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Kylesalsa[edit]

First off, thank you for taking the time to do what you do, I can see you spend countless hours keeping wikipedia the reliable and trustful source that it is. I can see you contested the publishing of a page I submitted for Robert Harding Picture Library, there was something mentioned about advertisement and external links, although I was unsure as to what exactly was being asked? Please let me know what in particular is needed to get this page published? It is not for advertisement or the sale of any items. Thank you so much for your help with this.

continued...all external links have been removed from the body, citations/references added that are more "notable" as requested. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kylesalsa (talkcontribs) 16:21, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon- to answer your question...NO, I do not have any affiliation with the agency. Also, what would be an example of another reference to use? I know not every published wiki submission has been written about extensively, I am happy to add better references if you could just clarify what some of those may be? Thanks again! Kylesalsa (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

As I said in my last comment, I will let another reviewer deal with the draft. I would decline it, but will let another reviewer deal with it. If you want to expedite the review, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

20:57:26, 1 July 2016 review of submission by Electrocdwiki[edit]

Hello. To better establish notoriety I have added a couple of sentences in the "bio" with a few external references. The list of works has also been improved. Whuld this updated version now be publishable? Thanks for your time, Jean-François Denis

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)


Hello, "This article is an orphan, as no other articles link to it. Please introduce links to this page from related articles; try the Find link tool for suggestions. " Being an 'orphan' article does this imply that there are no other links or connections to any other articles relating to Z.A. Wnek? If that is the assertion please refer toęk which is the result of untold man-hours in research and effort to achieve its current status. Mr. McClenon, if indeed the assertion that Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk is still an 'orphan' article please advise how best to introduce the link/connections you cite. As stated previously, I am a complete novice and am finding it difficult in negotiating the 'Find Link tool' which is not that helpful. Thanks for your time! (Bronka2016 (talk) 07:28, 2 July 2016 (UTC))

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

20:00:22, 2 July 2016 review of submission by Aroger0821[edit]

I put four very viable references. Please re review. If you have any other questions please ask me. I intentionally wrote a short article because I have never written an article before so feel free to give me pointers. The references I gave were from his place of work, the Smithsonian, and different boards he has been on.

Unfortunately, none of the references were in the form of In-line citations. I have declined it again. If you need help putting the references in footnote form, ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:56:16, 2 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Tobiabj[edit]

Dear Robert McClendon, I rewrote the CCF Artists Project entry the next day following your suggestions and submitted it for reconsideration. There has as yet been no response. Thank you. -- Blaise Tobia

Tobiabj (talk) 20:56, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the resubmitted draft still didn't have a proper lede sentence. Instead, the header had the words "new article content", which is a space-filler, and suggests that the article wasn't edited effectively. I declined it again. If you need more help, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

03:58:05, 4 July 2016 review of submission by Aroger0821[edit]

Hi, Mr. McClenon, I relieze that you have high standards for Wikipedia and I am trying really hard to add the footnotes but i have no idea how and i have gone to every resource you sent me and youtube as well. This article is a tribute to my grandfather John Furth who helped me pay for schooling so i could improve on some personal things. I would really appreciate it if you could post it so that at the Forth Of July celebration I can surprise him. I am totaly fine if you edit it on your own but I have no idea how to do it on my own. Thank you so much for reviewing my past two submissions.

Alexander R

Hey, Robert - I am inspired to help create this BLP. I found several RS, such as this one and wanted to touch base with you first since you correctly declined the submission twice and I respect your judgment. Atsme📞📧 14:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
I will be glad to review if you revise the draft and resubmit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:22, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert. I think it would be best if I start from scratch and simply create the article. I can get a stub published in a few hours, and then expand on it over time. I've spent the last half-hour researching RS and the man is clearly notable. Atsme📞📧 15:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to do it that way? My concerns are COI plus the draft is unacceptable for a BLP of this quality. Atsme📞📧 15:36, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:59:31, 4 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sushi rider[edit]

Ciao Robert

thank you for swiftly reviewing my recent draft submission. Though the company is trying to create innovative software solutions - they are a young company and therefore have not received many citations to indicate their notability. How would you, please, recommend to improve the article?

Sushi rider (talk) 15:59, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:57, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:48:43, 4 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Moose139[edit]

Hello Robert, you kindly reviewed my draft article Remote Ischemic Conditioning and made a good suggestion with which I agreed. I edited and reposted but you have not responded. I don't know if your intent was for me to post it to the Teahouse? I am very new to this so please help me navigate the process. I don't even know if this the proper spot to respond to you. Thank you Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)Moose139Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Moose139 (talk) 19:48, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:58, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

12:19:41, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Mizee.singer[edit]

Dear Robert,

The reference I have taken, is from a news paper and a magazine website. And the rest are media websites. I think I have fulfilled Wikipedia's notability criteria. Please let me know if you are looking for anything specific. I have a few certificates and a few paper cuttings which might help.

I will reply at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Charles Cunningham Oke[edit]

Thank you for taking the time to review my first ever "Wikipage"! I will keep learning and trying. Klossoke (talk) 13:20, 5 July 2016 (UTC)Klossoke

14:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC) Review of High Performance Computing Software Development Tools[edit]

I submitted my draft last week, but the review thread appears to have been deleted from this page. I corrected the redlinks and while there, also tidied up the table a bit. I believe it ready. Please consider for publication. Thanks, Smk-slab (talk) 14:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Because this article is highly technical in in nature, I suggest that you ask for comments at WikiProject Computing. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

22:53:43, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n[edit]

22:54:20, 5 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n[edit]

Hi, what exactly about this page reads like an advertisement? Is it the facebook mention?

I am asking for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

03:47:00, 6 July 2016 review of submission by[edit]

The NBC News stories are published on their YouTube channel but only retained on the NBC website for a limited time. May we reference the Youtube NBC news channel as a source? There are several publications we have in PDF format including CES, WIRED Magazine and the NAHB that are not online since many of the classes and articles date back to 1999. How do we provide references to the older training classes and publications?

Request to re-review Louis Danziger[edit]

Can you please re-review Louis Danziger. The sources were cleaned up per your direction. Thank you... KamelTebaast 03:56, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I have made one more comment. Please address it and wait for re-review (or ask for re-review at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

13:37:52, 6 July 2016 review of submission by AlexPash[edit]

I have made some changes and hopefully it should be fine now. If not, could you please give me some advice. Thank you very much.

It looks somewhat better, which isn't to say that it is ready for mainspace; it isn't. It still reads more as though it is looking for customers than describing a company. If you want further advice, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

14:45:04, 6 July 2016 re-review of Once (app)[edit]

I checked the sources again and hope that i excluded invalid ones. If not could you please let me know which are valid and which are not. Thank you very much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa wac22 (talkcontribs) 13:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

I am declining the submission because too much of it looks like a description of how to use the app rather than of why the app is notable. If you disagree, then please ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:01, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Southern Levant for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Southern Levant is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southern Levant until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Oncenawhile (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

17:09:02, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Jenhefer[edit]

Hi, thank you for your feedback of my first article. I was unaware that using trademark signs was a violation. I'm a bit surprised that the article was rejected, as I followed almost EXACTLY other Wikipedia pages for ERP solutions like SAP ERP, Oracle Corporation and Deltek to name a few. I actually read almost every ERP Wikipedia page before writing this article.

In any case, I've removed the trademark symbol and would request that the reviewer take a look at other ERP pages for comparison against this article. My article is no different, follows the same format and sections and history of each of the other ERP pages.

I do understand the rejection though and would suggest that someone (if not me) write an article about Momentum as it manages almost the entire financial process of the United States federal government. (billions of transactions)

Jenhefer Jenhefer (talk) 17:09, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

21:31:19, 6 July 2016 review of submission by Alishaj98[edit]

Hi Robert, following up on your responses to my question regarding the VeryApt Wikipedia page from a couple weeks ago. I am not affiliated with the company, however, I am a student at the Wharton School of Business and a part of the Entrepreneurship and Innovation department. As a student fellow, one of our tasks is to follow Wharton startups and create Wikipedia pages to learn more about them. Next, I know you stated that my article sounded less like an advertisement like some, but you still declined it. I would love to hear any specific feedback you have to improve the article so that I can get it approved. Thanks in advance.

I would suggest that you ask for advice and help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Madonna (entertainer). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 7 July 2016 (UTC)


You may want to look an an ANI notice I placed here Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:37, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft Isotype explained better[edit]

Hi Robert_McClenon, thanks for reviewing my draft page. It was not so clear where the data came from. I hope I made that clearer: I added an explanation that this is a visualization based on 3 existing Wikipedia lists. No new data have been added to Wikipedia. Instead the purpose of the page is to make these metrics, an overwhelming collection of numbers, more accessible using a commonly used visualization tool: Isotype. [1] Cheers, Erik Zachte (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

User:Eric Zachte - If the table is to be its own article, it will requires the same references as are used in the parent article. If the table or tables are to be included in other articles, they do not need their own references. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

A comment of mine[edit]

User talk:Daniel kenneth#On further thought Cheers! Muffled Pocketed 14:25, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

00:43:38, 11 July 2016 review of submission by Chrissymackmack[edit]

I tried asking about getting the draft page deleted at the Teahouse but I have yet to get a response. Then I tried asking through IRC that the other draft be deleted but they said that there was no need to and that it would just make more sense more me to copy the information that I have about John Basedow and paste it onto the draft that keeps making my post be declined. I just wanted to check and see if that would be the right move or should I just keep trying to get the draft deleted so that I can submit my version with no problem

Either will do. I have tagged the existing draft for speedy deletion. If you copy the added material to the existing draft, you can remove the speedy deletion tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

MfD nomination of User talk:Robert Kei Koga[edit]

Ambox warning orange.svg User talk:Robert Kei Koga, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:Robert Kei Koga and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of User talk:Robert Kei Koga during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Conference of Translation Services of European States[edit]

Dear Robert, This is Ruth Brown from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs. We were in touch on 31 May/1 June about this draft entry ( atitle=Draft:Conference_of_Translation_Services_of_European_States&redirect=no) and you commented that if I resubmitted then you would accept it ( I did that but it has now been rejected again. I wonder whether you could help me to resolve this. Thanks! Ruth (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

User: - I have moved your post to the bottom of my talk page where it belongs anywhere except in the Teahouse. First, it isn't easy to talk to an editor who edits only every few weeks and who edits from a changing IP address. It appears that you do have a registered account. You should have a unified login if you regularly edit on other languages. If so, please use it. If not, please create one. Second, please discuss the decline with the most currently declining reviewer, User:LaMona. but her memory might not be fresh because she declined several weeks ago. If you really want to get your article approved, it really would help if you would pay attention to its status more regularly, rather than just showing up every few weeks. You may, again, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:37, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
I will comment that the previous reviewer (a month ago) said that the draft consisted of too many long lists. That wasn't a matter of enough sources, but of style. Please discuss that with the other reviewer, or at the Teahouse. By coming back here months after our last discussion, it appears (and I may be being too quick to take offense) that you are trying to get one reviewer to take your side against another reviewer, after leaving the review process alone for a long time. Can we either discuss this at the Teahouse or discuss this on the draft talk page, rather than discussing with one reviewer against another? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:45, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Robert. I am very willing to discuss, but would like to say that it would be preferable for "Ruth" to create a username since replying to an IP address is inaccurate at times. LaMona (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Some of the edits to the draft have been from a registered account. Please either create a registered account (and coordinate with any existing registered accounts), or use your registered account. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:14, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Resubmission/Edit of Draft:Once (app)[edit]

Hello Robert, I edited my article again and hope that now it will align with the wikipedia guidelines and is worth being published. Thank you for your feedback! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa wac22 (talkcontribs) 17:21, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

"comment on content"[edit]

I would like to do that, but why is it you see fit to allow the attempt by two editors with a well-know POV to censor this article and Two editors with a well-known POV to stand but my complaint about being called a pov editor to stand? Im no longer willing to deal with DR/N if thats how being even-handed works, allowing one person to insult and a complaint about being insulted is removed as a comment on a contributor. nableezy - 22:26, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

That comment was made in the case request before I had taken the case as the moderator. I am willing to close the case as failed or as a general close if you wish. The rule to comment only on content hadn't been made when the POV comment was made. Do you want me to close the case, or to continue with moderation? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The first time that comment was made before you took on the case as moderator, and I didnt respond then. The second time was however after, in the comment at 23:21, 12 July 2016. Most objectionable I find the attempt by two editors with a well-know POV to censor this article and remove from it what is easily seen as less favorable information about this politician. I dont have a problem focusing on the content, I brushed that foolish little bit aside in an opening sentence, but I do have a problem being admonished for merely objecting to a repeated attack whereas the attack is allowed to stand. If youd like to enforce things evenly Im fine continuing, otherwise no Ill pass. nableezy - 07:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

Mentorship definition[edit]

What are the guidelines for mentorship, is it co-editing Alexis Ivanov (talk) 00:37, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't know. Ask the mentor or ask the closing administrator at WP:ANI. However, be aware that any failure to cooperate in full with the mentor will probably result in a site ban. So find out what the rules are, and comply in absolute full with them. Don't try to figure out how to push the limits. Ask what the guidelines are. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't "figuring out how pushing" for any limits, I don't believe I was assigned a mentor yet in an official capacity. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:18, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I simply assumed you were the admin here Alexis Ivanov (talk) 03:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)


Robert, could you do me a favour and take a look at this draft for a second opinion. I would be tempted to accept the article. I'm beginning to have having mild concerns about the reviewer's experience, but I don't want to be seen as discouraging anyone. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:08, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

My own opinion is that the article should be accepted after one change. That is that the lede sentence needs to be revised to be of the form "A VR Coaster is a ...". Other than that, it meets notability and neutrality standards, in my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
It was accepted, so then I fixed the lede. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

07:50:27, 13 July 2016 review of submission by George Aniruddha[edit]

This is an article written in Bengali. The font used is Avro Bangla.

We cannot accept articles in Bengali, or in any other language than English. Translate it into English or submit it to the Bengali Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

18:20:34, 13 July 2016 review of submission by Jones22n[edit]

Nevermind, I will consult the teahouse.


In this edit you commented out a "meta-discussion", however you didn't notice that I had replied to that comment, so you should comment out my comment as well. Debresser (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where you responded. It wasn't directly below the meta-discussion. Anyway, I think that I am about to close the thread and start it over. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That is correct. It was below my own comment. Debresser (talk) 21:12, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
In reverting some of the comments, you accidentally reverted other changes to other discussions. I am sure that you didn't intend to do that, but at this point the dispute resolution has gotten completely out of hand, and I had to fail it. You may go back to the article talk page and discuss again. If discussion is inconclusive, the closure of the case was without prejudice, and dispute resolution can be restarted again (if discussion resumes and is inconclusive). In the future, please don't revert talk page discussion in general. You might cause collateral damage (and you did). Robert McClenon (talk) 21:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
That was not my intention, and I am surprised this happened to me. After all, I have been around some 8 years. Thanks for your efforts, in any case. Debresser (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
By the way, in posting the DS alert, I am not suggesting that you did anything wrong. I posted it on the other editor also. I'm finished with that case. If it comes back, someone else can moderate it. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes, i understood. I really appreciate your efforts and courtesy. Debresser (talk) 05:10, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Other section[edit]

Hi Robert,

I really don't understand how to prove notability any better than I already have. Everything is linked and sourced to reliable sources. IMDb is a very credible site that will only credit a person if it is proven and known. Everything that is posted is cited corrected by the site. What more do I have to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chad Berk (talkcontribs) 01:19, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

I will ask at the Teahouse, but I think that they will say that IMDB is not a reliable source. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:36, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

07:39:09, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Adrisfrety[edit]

We improved and corrected the article and need to be review.More information and links were added. Regards, Adris Frety

You are probably wasting your time if you are trying to get your autobiography approved. Wikipedia isn't a social medium and isn't here to accept a page about you unless you pass its peculiar standards of notability. Please read the various policies that are listed in your welcome, and they will explain what Wikipedia is and isn't. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:16, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Who is "we" anyway? Are you one person, or multiple people? Group accounts are not permitted. Also, read WP:Notability (people). You are probably wasting your time trying to get your autobiography approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:12, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

08:05:25, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Breyer Group[edit]

The submitted article sounds like an advert rather than an encyclopedia entry. Could you suggest changes please?

Don't use Wikipedia to advertise your company. Don't create a user account that is a corporate name. Change the user name to be a pseudonym for one individual who uses the account. If multiple people use the account, don't do that. Also, read the conflict of interest policy and the paid editing policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)


You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 13:11, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

16:44:06, 14 July 2016 review of submission by Soccerlad604[edit]

Hello, I'm waiting for a page to be reviewed. Are there any updates? I can resubmit the article but Wikipedia has notified me that there's already a submission being considered for review since June 26.

A kitten for you![edit]

Iris cat.jpg

You seem like you need a kitty

Alakazam Kalazam (talk) 21:02, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

alcatel-lucent enterprise[edit]

per your request I updated the alcatel-lucent enterprise sources to cite notable sources such as bloomberg, wsj an zdnet. All company website sources have been removed. If you click on each source number it links you to the correct source. I have resubmitted the document for approval. 19oink (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors[edit]

Hi! I was asked to look at Draft:The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors and I was able to add two independently-published book sources. Is it possible to get this draft into the mainspace now, or should I try to find some more sources (South China Morning Post) first?

I met some people at a Hong Kong Wikimedia meetup and they wanted me to help fix the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:23, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

After reading the advice I went ahead and chopped the timeline up. I'll add some South China Morning Post sources and perhaps remove some of the primary source info that I deem to be too unimportant
WhisperToMe (talk) 21:19, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
I went ahead and removed some overciting in the division list. I would like to get this article out of the door so please let me know what else needs to be done. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:39, 16 July 2016 (UTC)


Re: Help_desk#Request_on_01:51:59.2C_15_July_2016_for_assistance_on_AfC_submission_by_AxelRR. If a reviewer is too tired to review all references, shouldn't they take a break from reviewing? ~Kvng (talk) 14:32, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

You meant

I was trying to offer advice to the author, which is that if they overwhelm the reviewer with unreliable references, the reviewer may not check the reliable ones. While I agree with you in the abstract, I also would advise authors to take advice that recognizes that the reviewers are human beings. If an author was told that they have too many unreliable sources, and they add new reliable ones after the long list of unreliable sources, they are only half heeding the advice. I didn't mean that the reviewer was fatigued, anyway, just overwhelmed. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing with me in the abstract and for trying to help the author. I'm not sure the draft would be improved by removing the lesser references or reordering things to get the reliable sources to show up earlier in the list of references. ~Kvng (talk) 14:50, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Gavin Ross - Personal and Business[edit]

Hello reviewed my draft page and asked is is about the person or the business.

I understand the guidelines and in no way am i trying to promote Gavin as a business. However, i find it difficult not to include what he does as a professional seeing as it is what he is known best for.

How can i correct this?


peter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fongool (talkcontribs) 02:34, 19 July 2016 (UTC) --Fongool (talk) 02:41, 19 July 2016 (UTC) User talk:Fongool

Well, are you trying to write about him, or about his company? I have neither approved nor declined your draft because I find it difficult to assess, and I can't approve it as is, but I don't want to decline it. My suggestion is to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I am not in any great hurry to expedite the review of a draft at the request of a paid editor. Wait for another review. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:49, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Gavin Ross[edit]

Hey, Robert McClenon, I noticed you recently reviewed Draft:Gavin Ross. The author of the draft recently revealed in a Teahouse discussion that they have a COI. They have yet to make it clear if they are being paid or not, though. I thought you would like to know before reviewing the article further. You can go directly to the discussion by clicking on the Teahouse wikilink I provided. -- Gestrid (talk) 04:57, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

I just made some civil but blunt comments at the Teahouse and am finished. Someone else can review it. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:08, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thank you, Robert, for alerting me to the corrections I need to make. Not sure I understand it all yet, but I will fix it as soon as I get the hang of how things work. Just starting out on Wikipedia. Your diligence is much appreciated. --Robert Gates Innerdesert (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

15:06:23, 21 July 2016 review of submission by TNSteam[edit]

Hi Robert, Thank you for reviewing the Wiki page I am creating. I have removed the references to the companies own page and added a few more independent references. Would you be able to let me know if you think this might be more acceptable? Thanks Emma — Preceding unsigned comment added by TNSteam (talkcontribs) 15:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I have very little interest in re-reviewing submissions by paid editors who don't make the disclosure, and even less interest in reviewing submissions by corporate accounts, since corporate accounts are never permitted, and this poster ignored the advice to change their user ID a week ago. Change your user ID to one that is legal, make the paid editing disclosure, and wait for a reviewer who is more willing to work with paid editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:33, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Note: The user has been blocked for advertising. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

18:58:59, 21 July 2016 review of submission by Jgd2828[edit]

Hello, would you please mind explaining me how to get the references in line? Thanks

See Referencing for beginners and Referencing. If you have any further questions, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Philippines v. China[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Philippines v. China. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Evoqua Water Technology article[edit]

Thanks Robert for the feedback. I will work on finding other reliable sources to credit my work. Do you have any advice on how to include the brands and products without making it read like catalogs. I really appreciate your help. I have spent a long time trying to get this send thru approval. Any advice is very helpful!

I also have a few questions about edits that have been made to my page by Jim.... I see that he removed the Trademarks and Registration marks from some of the brands I mentioned. Is a wiki page not allowed to include trademarks and registration symbols? Also, I am editing the page to find additional out side sources other than the Evoqua News site. It is okay to have a few sources that are from the evoqua newsroom page? This source includes several news releases about the product/services. If you could get back to me with some feed back that would be great! Thank you,

Whitney Norris —Preceding undated comment added 13:07, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Are you working directly or indirectly for Evoqua Water? If so, please make the conflict of interest disclosure, and, if required, the paid editing disclosure. If not, you may ask for advice at the Teahouse, but find magazine and newspaper articles that have discussed the company. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Robert McClenon , I am a current communications intern for the company. I have read the COI and fully understand and have included my paid editing disclosure at the top of both my main user page and talk page. I have included several magazine and new articles from outside sources to the newest draft version I sent in for approval. I also have made sure the content is very non-bias, and very informational about the water industry. I don't know if you received my other note on my talk page, but here it is: Robert, I truly appreciate your time contributed on Wikipedia. I am learning a lot with Wiki as I have been drafting this page. I think Wiki is a great platform where others can learn just about everything. Hence, why I have drafted a page about the water industry. I am an intern for my current role in the company, so I am just here to learn as much as I can. This Wiki page is just a step in my learning process. I don't expect you to "help a paid editor" get their page approved, I understand that is not your responsibility on Wiki. Just thought, you could assist in my learning process.

Thank you Robert, Whitney Norris — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whit.marie (talkcontribs) 12:43, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

06:52:49, 23 July 2016 review of submission by Rajendrarajun[edit]

As suggested by Robert McClenon, the 2009 wikipedia background to the article was deleted. An attempt has been made to locate published references to the subject and they have been quoted and cited with links to the original sources. The main references relate to the subject's life period 1895 to 1975 with career period 1918 to 1955, it took a lot of effort to collect these and there would be more but at this point of time - these are the references available. Please take a look at the article again and let me know your thoughts. Perhaps you may find it improved from the previous version.Rajendrarajun (talk) 06:52, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

What I can see is that the References are listed twice, in two different formats. This is very distracting. I can also see that the draft needs copy-editing for English. Neither of those is reason to decline it, but neither of those is reason to accept it. I will wait for others to do the second review. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

=Draft:Syed Najmul Hassan Kararvi[edit]

I don't see that "Please provide a proper lede sentence of a form such as "Syed Najmul Hassan Karavi was a Pakistani Islamic scholar and author" or something like that." is a sufficient reason to decline an AfC draft--especially since the article aleady contained an adequate lede "Syed Najmul Hassan Kararvi, caste Shia, sect syed was a scholar of Shia Islam. " No one style is mandatory. (I'mm not sure of accepting it, because demonstrating notability if challenged remains a problem). DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, and I am thinking that I may have entered that as a comment, and there may have been a mouse error in which I tried to select a more specific cause for the decline. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:47, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
yes, I too have made a number of similar errors. The AFC interface is remarkable for the ease at which it can go wrong. DGG ( talk ) 05:55, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

WTFPL third opinion[edit]

Hi, I thought you were giving a third opinion at Talk:WTFPL after getting clarification? What happened with that? Thanks. — (talk) 02:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

You didn’t seem to be monitoring that page until after I posted here to ask you about it, so I’m posting here again since I’ve just responded. — (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Also, I’m sorry to say it, but your reply there, after your comments on User talk:GoodDay, makes me seriously question your reading comprehension. You say you aren’t clear about something that was explicitly stated five days ago. I’m not trying to be mean here, but WP:Competence is required, and you’ll just confuse the situation if all you do is get confused about situations. Granted, I’m going off a sample size of two, so you may take this complaint with a grain of salt. But please, make an effort to understand the words you find on the page, or else don’t bother involving yourself. — (talk) 03:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Often it is the editor who has asked the question who hasn't done a satisfactory job of explaining what the question is, and no amount of reading by a third opinion volunteer can parse it. In this case, you have stated your position, but until I understand both positions, I am not qualified to answer. If you just want someone to agree with you, why don't you agree with yourself? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I stated both positions. In my recent reply to you on WTFPL, I even quoted the part where I stated both positions. Did you miss that? — (talk) 03:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DRN question[edit]

I've filed a case and I want to know how I'll find out if my case has been "opened"? --HamedH94 (talk) 17:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

I am waiting for responses from the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
no i meant "how will i be notified?" --HamedH94 (talk) 17:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Just watchlist the dispute resolution noticeboard. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Also be sure you have email notifications turned on for your watchlist. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:54, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

and what is meant by "back-and-forth discussion"? --HamedH94 (talk) 17:19, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) HamedH94, that's something you should ask him on the DRN page so that everyone will see it. It's possible others don't know what exactly Robert meant, but they didn't want to ask. -- Gestrid (talk) 17:53, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I answered that at DRN, but will restate here. In normal talk page discussion, it is proper to reply to a previous post, indented. However, if a discussion gets to DRN, discussion between editors has already been inconclusive, and is likely to just go on and on further. So, at DRN, at least if I am the moderator, don't address comments to another editor, only to the moderator at the base level. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Coat of arms of Enkhuizen[edit]

Last March you refused approval upon Draft:Coat of arms of Enkhuizen. I have been working on the poor language, as did somebody else. Unfortunately, the rest of your criticism about this article was not very clear. Can you take another look at the article and explain if there are more problems? The Banner talk 10:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

It is a major improvement. I had some concerns about notability, but I will agree that notability for historical articles can be established by two references, so I think it passes notability. It needs a link to the name of the city. Other than that, I think it is ready to resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:20, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Southern Levant[edit]

Hi Robert, thanks again for your help at the DRN on Southern Levant. Unfortunately we remain stuck in an interminable argument at Talk:Southern Levant. Would you be able to find a couple of minutes to see if you could help us get some perspective? Oncenawhile (talk) 22:11, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Request on 00:26:28, 26 July 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Adamkhandr[edit]

Adamkhandr (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC) Dear Mr. McCleono: I have incorporated all the changes that you have suggested in the draft of my article. Your recommendations were very useful in improving the article. I was wondering if you would review the final draft and give me your opinion. Thanks. Sincerely, Dr. Adam Khah Adamkhandr (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2016 (UTC)