User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 39

Archive 35

←

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Archive 41

→

Archive 45

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

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

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

RFC on Target of Ukrainian crisis

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

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

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

Request for help in Knowledge article dispute

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

Draft: Please Hold (2020 film)

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

WP:AFC Helper News

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wrong Interpretation of Rules?

First, thanks for taking your time with the resolution board and the time to read this. I am confused after reading the rule provided[1] in the Pit bulls dispute resolution page and would like clarification of your opinion if possible. Per guidelines:

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

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

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

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

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

Per guidelines[2] "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Threats, including, but not limited to:

Threats of legal action

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Circling the wagons

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

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

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

Dispute

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

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

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

Re-creation of deleted articles by OE1995

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

Skepticism and coordinated editing proposed decision posted

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

Removed sourced content in Lachin

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

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

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

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

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

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

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

Question

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

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

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

Thank you for comment

Hello Robert,

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

I don't understand your review

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

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

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

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

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

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

Diambiguated title

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

Lockwood south issue

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

Draft:Eric Omondi

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

Draft:Palatine Lodge No. 97

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

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

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Draft:Pathaan (film)

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

AfC request, with thanks for your work on it already

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

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

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

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

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

Hello Robert

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

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

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

Please review the draft Draft:Akash DTH

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

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

Bloody Brothers - An article is live before the release date

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

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

Draft:Boris Zimin

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

User:Mlarisa - The article was moved from article space to draft space by User:Singularity42. They can probably provide a better explanation of why they draftified it and whether your edits have addressed their concerns than I could. I didn't review the article; I only put a notation on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw I was pinged here, so I'll but a (brief) note). I don't normally review drafts (the tasks I focus on are elsewhere in Wikipedia) but I believe the current version addresses the reasons why I moved it to a draft. I'm sure a draft reviewer will get to it shortly (I'll be offline for the rest of the day myself...) Singularity42 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft: Robert Rennaker

Hi, Robert McClenon,

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

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

User:Jonknox12 - What do you mean when you say that you were "somewhat desperate to get this into article space"? What will happen if he doesn't have an article? Do you see where I say, above, that you should not waste your time and mine telling me that you spent a lot of work on the page or that your employer needs it? Who needs the page in article space? What will happen if the article is deleted? Why is it important to you to prevent its deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I was "desperate" because I've been waiting a month to get a stub article reviewed. I understand now that circumvention was not a viable solution, but, regardless of the amount of time I've spent working on it, I believe Robert Rennaker to be notable enough to get a page in the article space of Wikipedia. I have the sources needed to back that up, as well. All I ask is another chance from you to have it reviewed before I have to wait another month or longer. I apologize if you saw any of my original comment as a personal attack, but I simply want to get this article approved. I could use some help, if you could spare the time. Jonknox12 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jonknox12 - You haven't answered my question. Why are you desperate to get the article reviewed? What unpleasant result will occur if you do wait another month or two months for a review? Drafts do eventually get reviewed, but they do take time, sometimes one to two months in the queue. What will happen if the version that is in article space is deleted? If you want advice from other experienced editors either about getting a draft reviewed, or about the deletion processes, or about a particular draft or article, the Teahouse is a good place to ask. There will probably be someone there who won't just ask you what the hurry is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

db-afc and page mover

Heya, if you plan on using your pagemover/swap abilities to move articles so that you can accept drafts, please do not also tag them with {{db-afc-move}}, as it ends up putting pages in the draft space with a pointless speedy request on them. I do my best to check the G6 cat at least twice a day, but sometimes I can only get to it once, and cleaning up db-moves after they've already been moved is just more work. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Okay. Do you mean that when I move the redirect, I should change the G6 to another category of G6 rather than adding a tag? Is this a matter of how speedy the request is? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean that you should do one or the other. If you ask for a db-move (of any variety) then you don't need to move the page yourself. If you are going to move the page yourself, then you don't need to request a db-move. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - In this case, I had been waiting for the delete to allow me to do the move, and got tired of waiting for the delete. Of course, if I move the page (the redirect) myself, I will then have to ask for the delete afterward, because the moved redirect is now a redirect from nowhere. So are you saying that after I have moved the redirect, I should remove the db-afc-move and change it to a {{db-moved}}? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for reviewing that article.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

About the Notability tag

Can you explain how you found the Da Vinci (magazine) article not notable? I thought i've put different sources for each one especially the section after the overview. Thanks WillsEdtior777 (talk) WillsEdtior777 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Peter Pan has nothing on me

Hours later, I am still chuckling at your phrase "bot pull the thingy" here. Thank you for reminding me that I (still) need to grow up. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:JoJo Anthrax - Bots never grow up. Some of them are unintentionally mischievous, like either Peter Pan or J. M. Barrie. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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

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

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 20:31, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Who Cares? (Rex Orange County album)

Hi - AfC help desk stalker here. Just a heads up that I added some recent coverage to the Rex Orange County draft Draft:Who Cares? (Rex Orange County album). The album just came out, so more reviews are popping up. I don't think this is a clean rejection anymore, and it probably just cleared WP:TOOSOON. Want to take another look? TechnoTalk (talk) 18:04, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TechnoTalk - Thank you for your post. I rejected the draft because it said nothing except that the album existed, and was resubmitted in the same state as it had been declined. That is insulting to the reviewers. What you have done to the draft is a significant improvement. I will think about it for a while and will probably remove the rejection to allow you to resubmit the draft in its revised state. I will reply again within 24 hours (unless I forget). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TechnoTalk - There are two drafts with different forms of the title. They can be merged into one draft with Personnel information, Reception information, and a track listing. The result will probably be acceptable then. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Thulo Pokhari

Hello, I request you to move this article I draft space. Thulo Pokhari Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I will push article space, after the complete this article. Do not delete Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Endrabcwizart - I cannot move it to draft space. There is already another even more incomplete draft. You can move the article to your user space and work on it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ohh. Thanks for help me. you are great. Endrabcwizart (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	This Barnstar for Suggestion me right way. Endrabcwizart (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Azov Battalion

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[3]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

WikiProject Tropical Storms 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/WikiProject Tropical Storms. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 13, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/WikiProject Tropical Storms/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, firefly ( t · c ) 08:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Vladimir Putin MfD

Hey, Robert! In regard to this diff, were you intending to comment on the "joke" AfD itself or the MfD about the AfD? I ask because I think it wound up in the wrong place. (I mean, it's not like I got confused three times when filing the thing! No sir...) ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Matthewrb - I was commenting at the MFD, and so was commenting about the joke AFD. I was saying that the joke AFD is a bad joke and should be deleted as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. The comment is showing up on the AFD, which is why I asked. Thank you! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Matthewrb - I've moved it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Doubles history merge

Messages copied in good faith error to reviewer talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Doubles a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Doubles. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. VAkarsh20 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC) 2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Singles history merge Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Draft:2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Singles a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into 2022 U.S. Men's Clay Court Championships – Singles. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history. In most cases for registered users, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. VAkarsh20 (talk) 17:26, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Virtual Threads

The issue is that Wikipedia editors do not have subject matter expertise

Those Green Threads are some obsolete construct discarded from Java 20 years ago

Virtual threads offers scalable parallelism

Oracle has spent five years on Virtual Threads because they really want them. And they are still not ready to launch them in 2022

The Chrome browser introduced tabbed browsing with each tab its own process. A novelty in terms of stability and performance, Chrome also featured virtual threads internally in its i/o processing. Google developed both Chrome and Go

The Virtual Threads page is required

Haraldrudell (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Yu-Gi-Oh! Go Rush!!

I can't find a reception because the series just started. Plus, you said wait for the first episode to air so it can be moved. SpectresWrath (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi

Hi! Please look at my draft. I am ready to listen to comments and correct the article. Thanks!31.40.143.16 (talk) 07:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Request on 03:34:39, 16 March 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Davidindia

• Davidindia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:KP aravind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have created a page Aravind KP but it was not published but later much worse page without any references was published. I request you to check it and guide us so that we can make it to the standards of Wiki

the page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravind_KP

Davidindia (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Davidindia - What exactly are you requesting? Do you want your draft restored? You can ask for that at Requests for Undeletion, but there is already an article. Do you want to change the article? Discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Aravind KP. If you have other questions, maybe the Teahouse can help answer them. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

i think we just need to clean up and make the new article news worthy instead of the current fan-style Davidindia (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Davidindia - What exactly are you requesting? If you want to improve the article, you may edit it, or you may discuss it at the article talk page, Talk:Aravind KP. If you have any further questions, please ask them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Davidindia (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Logically disambiguation

Hi Robert. I am an AfC reviewer and I just accepted the article Logically. I read your note and will create a disambiguation page but is it meant to disambiguate all of the articles that being with the word "Logically"? (Logically consistent, Logically valid, Logically equal, Logically contingent, Logically independent, Logically impossible?) Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 23:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

User:JSFarnam - Hmmm. Now that the company name has been disambiguated, what is important is that if someone types "Logically", which is the company name, they will go to Logic and will want the company. So what is needed is not a new disambiguation page, but a link to Logically (company) from Logic (disambiguation). At the time that I put the note in, it was just Draft:Logically, but was then renamed. So that is now what I think. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Added more to Draft:Sindhi Bhil language

I added more to the Draft:Sindhi Bhil language page. Can you please review it now? SavageBWiki (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 18:32, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Review Article

Hello Robert McClenon, Archana Jois This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Now this article improve and add source please check it and if you think now this article Wikipedia notable remove this top deletion policy. Thanks Tanvirnahid565 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Kingdom of Kanani

[4] A little overkill with all the templates lol; you nearly quadrupled the size of the draft! Curbon7 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Curbon7 - Yes. In retrospect, two of them would have sufficed. Once I develop the templates, they are easy to use. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Keep Article

Hello Robert McClenon, Archana Jois this article are improve now and add news source he is notable person now on Wikipedia he acted notable flim WP:NACTOR. Now remove this tag deletion policy from the top. Tanvirnahid565 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tanvirnahid565: That isn't how this works. You can't remove an AfD tag from an article that still has an active AfD debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano - I don't blame them for not knowing how AFD works. AFD is a complicated process. I do sort of blame them for posting the demand to remove the AFD tag twice. If I ignored them once, then yelling louder will just annoy me. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And I did acknowledge that the article had been improved by changing my !vote to Neutral. The article probably will be kept, so they don't need to keep bothering me. But that is how it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)