Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Moonbouncer54 (talk | contribs) at 09:40, 30 October 2016 (IEE changed to IoP in John Robert Mills response). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Thx for your help with this Robert - I haev made the changes and confirm that only draft 2 is needed (I cant work out how to delete the other one - sorry!)

This is the keep draft - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Si — Preceding unsigned comment added by Si467 (talk • contribs) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Other archives


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

.

DRN

Why are you taking cases others have already volunteered for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WebCite (talk • contribs) 20:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your suggestion on Draft:MiniTool & Some question about the software company

Hi Robert, Thanks for your kind suggestion, to create a software company wikipage, I just created it as other software company, like Paragon Software Group, they also listed what the software they sell, they are the same format. Please give me more informations about how to fix this page. Thank you for your assistance!

User:Keybord-Man - Please sign your posts with four tildes after them. Please use the New Section feature to post to the bottom of the page, not the top. I will be commenting on your draft at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments request for edit to Draft:Mexican_Telecommunications_Reform_2015-16_(RED_COMPARTIDA)

HI Robert,

I have, I hope, made the requested changes and added several new links to wikipedia articles along with tidying up the references list and I have also added external links. ::The draft in question is Draft:Mexican_Telecommunications_Reform_2015-16_(RED_COMPARTIDA)

Thank you for your assistance!


Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Expulsion of Cham Albanians". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 4 October 2016.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:26, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Stone Tower

Hi Robert, I have made the changes you suggested on this draft topic. Please read and sign-off when you have a moment. Riaz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riaz Dean (talk • contribs) 18:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:Stone Tower. When you ask about an article, please provide a link to the article. I will ask for comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:00, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - Draft ATMIA

Robert you requested 

Remove words "new article content".

Its now done.

Is it possible for you to accept the contribution?

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 11:18, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The previous reviewer was not optimistic about establishing notability. Neither am I, but I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse to comment. Do you have a connection with the subject organization?

This year I am working with this organisation as part of the preparations to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the ATM in 2017. But I am full time academic employee of Bangor University (Wales)

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft in question is Draft:ATMIA. When you ask about a draft, it is helpful to provide a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the prompt reply and apologies for missing the link. KGirlTrucker81 has looked at Draft:ATMIA and thinks there are problems as it "includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations"

I will have a look and come back to you (as there doesn't seem to be a KGirlTrucker81 talk).

Again thanks Bernardo —Preceding undated comment added 15:27, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:CIM2014 - There is a User talk:KGirlTrucker81. Also, if you are working with the ATMIA, have you provided the conflict of interest disclosure? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have not received payment from them. It is part of my job as we are asked for "public engagement". But can and will add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CIM2014 (talk • contribs) 15:57, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We have a paid editing policy and a a conflict of interest policy. If you are not being paid, you still have what is known in Wikipedia as a conflict of interest. I become cynical about at least conflict of interest when I see a new editor whose edits focus entirely on getting one or two or three articles into article space. I invite you to participate in improving Wikipedia more generally, but I know that many single-purpose accounts come only to get "their" article or articles approved. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:47, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

decline of Angie Craig article

Thanks for the offer. I thought a strong candidate in a competitive congressional election would be notable but I guess I'll have to wait and see if she gets elected. --BoogaLouie (talk) 14:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The article is Draft:Angie Craig. I have two problems with the draft. First, it is non-neutral, and reads like an endorsement of Craig. Second, we have a political notability guideline, by which national and state legislators are ipso facto notable. Most other politicians have to satisfy general notability guidelines. In general, because there is a notability guideline, many reviewers use a strict standard with regard to general notability of candidates who do not satisfy political notability. However, I will be taking a discussion to the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

  1. Michael Hardy is reminded that:
    1. Administrators are expected to set an example with their behavior, including refraining from incivility and responding patiently to good-faith concerns about their conduct, even when those concerns are expressed suboptimally.
    2. All administrators are expected to keep their knowledge of core policies reasonably up to date.
    3. Further misconduct using the administrative tools will result in sanctions.
  2. MjolnirPants is reminded to use tactics that are consistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines, and the 4th Pillar when dealing with other users they are in dispute with.
  3. The Arbitration Committee is reminded to carefully consider the appropriate scope of future case requests. The committee should limit "scope creep" and focus on specific items that are within the scope of the duties and responsibilities outlined in Arbitration Policy.

For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Michael Hardy closed

The Rambling Man arbitration proposed decision posted

A proposed decision has been posted in the open The Rambling Man arbitration page. Please review this 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. If you are not a party, you may opt out of further notifications regarding this case at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/The Rambling Man/Mass Message List. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:36, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:46:30, 2 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Si467


Hi Robert Thanks for your feedback on the draft submission for James Calder. It may ahve been duplicated as I have now taken over from the previous guy. I hope the latest edit conforms to Wiki. Any advice much appreciated. We will try to get more articles submitted as we become more experienced with using Wiki (we are a group of academics and used to publishing in peer reviewed journals not Wiki!!) Best wishes, Si

Si467 (talk) 09:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The future of NPP and AfC - progress

Thank you for joining the The future of NPP and AfC Work Group

There have been been recent discussions and some special task pages have been created. for your attention and input. Please visit the following pages to get up to speed and add your comments, particularly the straw polls and priority lists. Please also add these pages to your watchlist.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clipperz review

Mr. McClenon -- I'm recently copied a version of the proposed article about Clipperz Password Manager which I considered to be the best onto my personal Wikipedia page. Unfortunately I did not realize that it would be automatically resubmitted -- not my intent. Just to bring you up-to-date, I revised the Clipperz entry based on your good feedback that additional references were needed. However the next reviewer complained that the article read like an advertisement. I didn't agree with that assessment but modified the article again. However the next editor felt that the pared down article didn't rise to the level of notability needed (of course I had to remove many of the references to make the article less "promotional"). Long story and 45 hours of effort later I have given up on creating a Wikipedia article about Clipperz and no review is pending. However, I plan to retain a copy of the proposed entry on my personal page. Regards,

Toddkatz (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whisperback

You have new message/s Hello. You have a new message at Kudpung's talk page. 03:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligize To You

Robert McClenon I'm going to say I'm sorry but I won't do that again in the meantime may the good lord bless and keep you. 2600:8803:7A00:19:657C:3396:A35F:8786 (talk) 20:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RFC Section

Shouldn't there be a 3rd option, "Neutral" (in addition to "Keep" and "Remove") or something to that affect? Bubbecraft (talk) 21:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

They can say that themselves, or they can say nothing. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:41:07, 4 October 2016 review of submission by Embby

I have asked editors at the Teahouse for their comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Robert, Thank you for your guidance on my AFC submission (Gerhard Medicus). I would like to get this reviewed...if you think there is a chance for eventual acceptance. Medicus has embedded himself many times with indigenous tribes in Indonesia to further his studies over the years...maybe I need to bolster that experience? On additional draft...I am a rookie..still trying to hunt down the old copy to delete. Thanks again for looking this over! Behal509 (talk) 05:38, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You have two currently existing drafts, at User:Behal509/sandbox and Draft:Gerhard Medicus. Which draft do you want reviewed? Yes, if you have reliable reports of his field work in Indonesia, they should be included. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:57, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Behal509, what is your connection to Gerhard Medicus? Are you working for him, or do you merely happen to know about him (e.g., because he was one of your professors)? If you have a connection other than knowledge, you need to declare a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert. I was one of the translators(German to English) and helped with proofreading for his book: Being Human - Bridging the Gap between the Sciences of Body and Mind Behal509 (talk) 21:09, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I deleted the draft. The other sits in sandbox. Thanks Behal509 (talk) 20:02, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:03:42, 4 October 2016 review of submission by Cofeebk23


Good Morning Robert, When you have a moment can you please assist with a re-review the Wiki article on ZendyHealth. I have made it less advertorial and decided to reach out instead of re-submitting for review through wiki. I am not yet certain of the appropriate etiquette and if this was incorrect please advise. Also, if you have further suggestions I would love to hear them to help get my 1st article submitted. I hope to be a long standing creator/editor in the future, but as you can tell my feet are pretty wet.

User:Cofeebk23 - My first advice, if you want to become an experienced editor, is to focus less on creating one article and more on various less difficult but useful ways that you can help the encyclopedia, such as copy-editing. I will look at your submission soon, but that is my advice for now. Many editors seem to think that the best way that they can help is by creating one article. At this point, in the English Wikipedia, with more than five million articles, we really need more help with the articles that we have than with the articles that we don't have. If you want advice on how to contribute behind the scenes, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:08, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Cofeebk23 - Although it is an improvement, I am not ready to accept it. Listing its leadership isn't necessary, and still reads as part of an advertisement. I don't see the reason to list its competitors either. In an article on the industry sector, listing the competing companies might be reasonable. I don't yet have an opinion on whether to accept. Do you have a connection with ZendyHealth, or did you just decide, in order to become a more experienced editor, to select one article, this one, and get it through to completion? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:McClenon - Thank you for the advice and I will make your recommended suggestions to the article! For future articles to edit do you suggest picking at random or just monitor the teahouse? In the past (2009-2012) I created 1/2 a dozen articles; however, they were all posted from my IP and never as an established a user. I currently have another 3 drafts on additional health/med tech companies that have helped me with certain issues, but it seems like new submissions are frowned upon since the editing is backlogged? Thank you for the open line of communication and please let me know your thoughts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cofeebk23 (talk • contribs) 15:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Little Silas

Sorry to bug you, but did you actually click through any of the links before you judged that the Winsor McCay dispute was a "content dispute"? I've seen many a serious issue at ANI derailed by such offhand remarks. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 22:44, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Curly Turkey - A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute. As I said, it is a content dispute complicated by conduct issues. If a "serious issue at ANI" gets "derailed" by resolution of the content issue, maybe it need derailing, or maybe a reasonable effort needed to be made to resolve it by content dispute means before concluding that topic-bans or blocks or bans were necessary. I've seen many a content dispute derailed by premature reports to ANI. What efforts were made to resolve the date of birth issue as a content issue? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"A question about what to list as someone's date of birth is a content dispute."—*eyeroll*—In other words, you didn't click through any of the links and commented without having any idea what the dispute was about. From your comment here, you don't appear even to have read what has been posted at ANI. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:CurlyTurkey - I did read the discussion. I saw that the discussion was uncivil on both sides, and that it would benefit from content resolution. I just happen to know that most conduct issues at ANI are inconclusive, and do not always result in administrative action, and often just result in more heat than light. If ugly behavior on the part of both editors (and you were uncivil) is going to be archived, it is better to take a chance on getting the underlying content dispute resolved than on just allowing a further airing of the conduct issues to no final result. If the artist had been of Polish or Serbian or Pakistani origin, that would be different, because there is a quicker conduct forum then. ANI is a lousy forum for resolving anything that isn't blatant, and it is better to try to resolve mixed content and conduct disputes as content and make the conduct issues fade into the background. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "underlying content dispute". Thank you for having derailed the discussion. We'll inevitably be back. Curly "the jerk" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert - Thank you for your guidance on the Raging Fire (band) article. I'm responding to your latest comment. The answer is yes, the version in draft space now is complete and is the updated one. It includes new citations (19 total, I believe), which I hope will make a better case for this band's notability. Thanks again for your help. ScrivenerBartleby (talk) 01:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Declined my article Krxnic

Hi,

My article keeps being declined. 3 different people have now told me 10 different things to do with my article. I have added reliable references such as my BBC Artist Profile, my musicbrainz profile and links to songs that i am featured on in iTunes, Spotify & Tidal. How are these links not reliable. Clearly they are as I am looking at other artist Wikipedia pages with YouTube links added but your telling me I can't add them type of links. 3 different people have declined my page now telling me 20 different things. What's the problem ???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krxnic (talk • contribs) 14:20, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 14:34:46, 5 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by SciFiColdstreamer


Hi! My latest edit was refused because it lacks a reliable reference. Wasn't sure about that when I wrote it, but the article is about myself. I can try to find references (I have been in the public eye), but these are going to be in German! Would that be OK? I'm a total newbie and still reading up on the how's of Wikipedia. Well at least I'm a regular sponsor too ;-) Best regards

Andrew (Ranson)


SciFiColdstreamer (talk) 14:34, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SciFiColdstreamer - Read the autobiography guideline. The use of Wikipedia for autobiographies is discouraged. References in foreign languages are permitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Hi Robert -- in response to your suggestion re: COI declaration for Draft:CouponSherpa, I added a COI statement to the Kinoli15 talk page. Kinoli15 (talk) 16:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Expulsion of Cham Albanians, in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Expulsion of Cham Albanians, so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:09, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

18:31:46, 5 October 2016 review of submission by Csupord


Dear Robert, I edited the page according to your suggestions External links were eliminated, 3 additional independent references were added. I hope that the page in its present form meets the requirements. Best regards, Dezső

Juice Beauty

Hello Robert, Thanks for the advice on the lede paragraph of my article. I have made edits that eliminated the peacock language and added factual language. Are you able to review the article yourself and move it to the live space? If so, do I need to press the blue "Resubmit" button beforehand? Thanks again. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 19:27, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Downtheroad35 - First, you do need to press the blue Resubmit button. Second, while the article has been improved, I am not ready to accept it and move it into article space without thought and discussion. I have notability concerns and tone concerns about the draft. I also have a question. Do you have a connection with the vendor of Juice Beauty? It is the only article that you have edited. If so, please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have made edits to the History and Endorsements section on Draft:Juice Beauty to reduce material that may seem promotional and make the tone sound more neutral. I am involved with Juice Beauty. I have added note of that to my user page. I have made edits to another page today and will continue to do so today and moving forward. I have read the Conflict of Interest policy. I am open to discussing notability and tone concerns about the draft. Thank you for advising me. Downtheroad35 —Preceding undated comment added 21:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

01:01:24, 6 October 2016 review of submission by Edhigue


The information provided about the company is factual and can be verified on the link provided. May I ask how it sounds like advertising?....edhigue

In the most current version of the draft, which was resubmitted, the references were all deleted, and I had to decline it again as having no references. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have a connection with Bioneer Corporation? It is the only article that you have edited. Please read the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:54:28, 6 October 2016 review of submission by Tomstuartsanderson


Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments. I've added some additional source material, but I'm not sure the best way to organise it - see citations at the bottom the page. Can you help me tidy it up? Many thanks. Tom.

RfC for page patroller qualifications

Following up from the consensus reached here, the community will now establish the user right criteria. You may wish to participate in this discussion. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kudpung - Thank you. I have cast my !vote. It looks reasonable to me. (I know that I would be grandfathered. When we observed the teenager's birthday, I have been grandfathered for 14 years, which is longer than there has been Wikipedia.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long

I thought my opinion at the Survey was a long post, but I see that other editors post even a lot more. Is that what you had in mind with the survey? Debresser (talk) 13:16, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Debresser - The editors who support removal of the connection are short and to the point. The editors who support retention of the Middle Eastern connection are filibustering, but their arguments are not persuasive, or actually go the other way. It seems to be going all right at this point. If there is disruption of the Survey, report it to WP:ANI. (Since we are in agreement that not all Jews are Israelis, disruption doesn't go to Arbitration Enforcement.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:43, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody is breaking any rules, and I am always for any process that establishes consensus. I just wanted to alert you and see if you didn't want to add a note to keep posts short. Debresser (talk) 17:11, 6 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

02:18:20, 7 October 2016 review of submission by Darreg


Hello Mr Robert. Thanks for reviewing my articles in less than 30 minutes from the time I submitted it. One of the reasons why I don't like submitting articles to AFC is because the last time I did, it took more than two weeks yet it wasn't reviewed, and I am not really a patient type, I guess all that is in the past now with you on board. People think AFC are for new editors (or COI constraint ones), I beg to differ, I am not new on Wikipedia, but I think I will learn some things by submitting controversial articles to AFC occasionally. It is an utility that can make older editors become more experienced editors. It also exposes your article to different perspectives. I should have replied earlier but was working on another article.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by I should show that she is notable..., I thought that was already clarified by the references in the article. Well, to buttress more on that I strongly believe that they both pass the general notability guideline. There is significant independent reliable coverage evident in the article that discusses the entertainers in sufficient detail. Believe me it isn't easy to be that covered by so many references, radio stations, etc. as a third world entertainer with very little internet penetration. Maheeda and Cossy has a huge cult following in Nigeria. They are seen as cultural icons for pioneering anti-conservatism in Nigerian entertainment industry, however they are not notable (wikipedia definition) for their artistry.

Concerning the tune of my sentences, can you pick out some sentences that you aren't comfortable with so I can work on them? I know you already provided useful hyperlinks in your previous reply but am sorry I never click on links in automated replies especially when I have read them before. Darreg (talk) 02:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 11:37:54, 8 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Saphil


Do you think the goal of an encyclopedia entry for a living author is a fools errand, particularly if the author is one's self?

The article is intended to aid people looking for a particular sort of technical knowledge by presenting my expertise and publications. I was nowhere near that mark when I requested editing help. I appreciate the quick and direct feedback, and now understand that the article should be a little more toward the first draft before requesting anyone's time for editing. There is much more content by this author than about him, so I started with the only third-person article I could think of that fit that description. If only I had a obituary entry, or even a wheelbarrow to draw from! Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saphil (talk) 11:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saphil - I wouldn't use the term 'fool's errand' for the goal of an encyclopedia entry for oneself, but I wouldn't disagree. (I wouldn't use the term because it could be seen as violating the civility policy as insulting, but you used it, I didn't.) See the autobiography guideline. In your case, in particular, your article not only was about yourself, if you are Wolf Halton, but was an effort to advertise your business, and that is not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia is not the place to use to publicize yourself or to write about yourself. If you have any further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Democracy camp

I have instead requested that they be merged. What is requested in the Chinese Wikipedia is not important. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Reference error

Hey just wanted to let you know, I have fixed the reference error as you have suggested. Vagbhata2 (talk) 18:34, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

19:42:08, 8 October 2016 review of submission by Jgcab


The contested lines about Campus Culture were removed. The article can not be merged with the page University of Calgary because the content is separate from the broader University. Most of the University of Calgary Faculties and Schools have their own independent pages (e.g. Faculty of Law, Cummings School of Medicine, Haskayne School of Business, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine), yet most of them are not as long as the draft that was submitted. I have seen other pages such as University of Alberta Faculty of Arts and McGill University Faculty of Arts, both of which contain less information and content than the page that the University of Calgary Faculty of Arts that was previously rejected. Yet somehow they were deemed worthy to be included in the encyclopaedia. Please explain why University of Calgary Faculty of Arts was deemed to not have sufficient content, yet the aforementioned articles of University faculties were approved.


Goal Based Scenario

Thank you Robert McClenon for the review. I will edit and resubmit. For clarification, do I need to use more varied sources that are not by authors of the concept? G.M.George (talk) 20:46, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:G.M.George - Yes. That is what you need. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

08:57:33, 9 October 2016 review of submission by Si467


Hi Robert - thanks for your patience! I am sure that we have removed all external links. This latest draft from me (Si467) is the one for publication and any others may be deleted - sorry if there is still a duplicate out there but I cannot find it! Si

14:30:21, 9 October 2016 review of submission by W&WXRayLib


Dear Robert

Thank you again for reviewing the article on John Garvey last month.

This is the first time I have written an article for Wikipedia and I don't know if I am supposed to notify you when I have corrected the errors you cited. If this is pestering rather than procedure, please forgive me.

Thanks,

W&WXRayLib

Your draft article, User:BeatrixZ/sandbox

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. 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. Ⓩⓟⓟⓘⓧ (talk) 20:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:2014 Oso mudslide. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

C104 article draft review

Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article, however you rejected it citing: "Do not use Wikipedia as a reference." I was very careful to provide detailed external references throughout the text and I linked to other Wikipedia articles where there is a related subject. Can you please be more specific as to where I have used Wikipedia as a reference.

JamieHanlon (talk) 07:48, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On a third review, I see that you did not use Wikipedia as a reference, but the way that you composed the references causes them to display Wikipedia and they look like references to Wikipedia, when they are actually references to references. Please read referencing for beginners and referencing again, and format the references so that they display in the list of references. If you need help, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Robert. You are right that I have presented my citations as references to references. This is because I use sources multiple times with different sections and chapters etc. This approach is documented Wikipedia style: see Section 6 in referencing for beginners and Section 3.1.8 in Citing sources and the article Franz Kafka as an example. If you still believe this to be the wrong approach, perhaps you could suggest an alternative. Thanks - JamieHanlon (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For my own information, the draft in question is Draft:C104. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Christian Combaz

Hi Robert, I have cleaned the "category" lines and put them in English. Hope everything seems good. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 08:19, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have cleaned up the categories. My other comment was that the draft needed copy-editing after translation from French. The English reads like it was translated from another language. In particular, the tenses of the verbs are awkward, and there are other issues. Also, many of the references do not appear to be independent, such as Amazon links (which sell his books) and Google links on his books. If you want more advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I corrected the english, and about the "non independent" references as Amazon I am about to suppress them, there is no need to see the covers after all. Tell me please if collecting photocopies of the numeros reviews about the author would be of some help, or if I should drastically simplify and give a basic description of his works. Tks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hectorz (talk • contribs) 04:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Saraiki language

Saraiki is language. so the page Saraiki dialect be moved to Saraiki language.39.37.36.15 (talk) 08:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have entered a move review of the decline of the previous move request. However, you don't make any arguments. Are you saying that the closer made an error, or that there are new arguments? I don't expect the decision against the move to be overturned without arguments. I also see that you have filed two Requests for Comments. I personally think that an RFC is a reasonable way to appear a Move Request, because it runs longer and may get a better consensus, but you filed two Requests for Comments without presenting solid arguments. I think that other editors will consider that to be disruptive. I suggest that you go to the Help Desk or the Teahouse and ask for advice on how to advance your cause constructively, rather than just making scattered arguments. That is my advice for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Can you identify any linguistic scholars who specifically categorize Saraiki as a language rather than a dialect? Remember that Wikipedia presents a neutral point of view summarizing what reliable sources say. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 09:08:50, 10 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Design Archivist


Removal of copyvio tag Hello, The submission for Paul Clark (designer) has been declined as it says copyvio tag not removed. I am unaware of how to remove this and would appreciate assistance. It may appear that text has been cut and pasted from the archives hub page still, however, groups of words that are still there are names of institutions and the like such as royal college of art.

Design Archivist (talk) 09:08, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was put on by User:Woodstop45. (Often the tag is put on by a bot, but in this case it was tagged by a human editor.) I have requested User:Woodstop45 on their talk page to take another look at the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert, thank you for your help with this. I understand that that Woodstop45 has reported that the copyvio is now gone and the tag can be removed. Design Archivist

Draft:Architectural decision updated (this message: Oct 10, 2016)

Hi Robert, thanks for your comments on Draft:Architectural decision. All external links have been moved from the article body to references, as requested. Looking forwward to your re-review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.199.42.97 (talk) 14:43, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Changes for Draft:V.M._(Raj)_Shetty

Hi, Robert I am Daniela and I've created a page on Wikipedia about a business person named Raj Shetty [1]. Thank you for reviewing it. Since your last review, I've made lots of changes. It would be great if you could have a look at them these days and leave me some feedback. I would like to make sure that everything is right according to Wikipedia rules. Thank you! Miha dani (talk) 08:00, 11 October 2016 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Miha dani (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Apoligze to You

I'm Sorry Robert That I Said the same thing But I Will quit Wikipedia and say goodbye. 68.102.57.28 (talk) 13:46, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

11:59:34, 12 October 2016 review of submission by 83.185.95.160

Someone wrote: "I'm still not quite sure why I'm doing this or how this has to do with editing content, but here it is." That was not an encyclopedic draft, but a test edit. Then it was submitted to AFC for review, and I declined it. That wastes the time of the reviewers. If you have a question, ask at the Teahouse. If you wrote it, and are now asking me, log in before asking question. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A quick question

Are we permitted to list all of our sources in the Survey?The Human Trumpet Solo (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2016 (UTC)ons[reply]

Which Survey for what RFC? In general listing sources is not what a Survey is for, because it is for stating opinions with brief persuasive statements as to reason. It would probably be better to list the sources in the discussion. Which Survey for what RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey

Hi. I see that you approved a draft of Eleanor Silliman Belknap Humphrey through AfC. I don't see how the subject is notable. Please advise. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chris troutman - First, that was more than six months ago. However, second, I think that the article will survive an AFD, and that is the basic question. If you think that it won't survive an AFD, you know how to do one. I don't mean to be abrupt, but I don't always remember exactly what I was thinking about a particular article six months ago, other than that I still think it will survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WMF waiting for our NPP short list

Hi, It's now been three weeks since we created the NPP Work Group and we are hoping for a dynamic push forward for the urgent updates and required improvements to the quality control of new pages.

We now have the attention of the WMF and their development team has made page patrolling a top priority. They are already working hard to address some of the major issues.

The success of this depends on our team being able to keep the developers supplied with the feedback they need - if we relax on this they will move on.

If you have not already done so, please complete your list of 10 preferences here as soon as possible from the list at To do - the WMF is waiting for our shortlist. Please note that No.8 (NOINDEX) has already been addressed.

Thanks for all your help. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People of Jewish descent survey

I made two edits today to Category talk:People of Jewish descent which I know as an experienced editor are necessary improvements, but are also refractions of another editor's comment. Please review my edits.[2][3] Also, it seems to me everybody posted their opinion, and they are just fine-tuning it a bit here and there. Perhaps an uninvolved editor could start reviewing the Rfc. Debresser (talk) 08:14, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just now saw that this was the same editor who posted here on your talkpage in User_talk:Robert_McClenon#A_quick_question, and did not as you recommended. Debresser (talk) 08:16, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Island Prosperity Foundation

Don't know if this note is going through properly. RE: Page on ISLAND PROSPERITY FOUNDATION. Robert, I am aware of the tremendous backlog and thank you for your prompt attention to our page development. Further editing requires Board approval. Since our members are at the highest levels of international organizations their time is at a premium, and hence resolving this will require some time. As much of what the Foundation presents is ineffable, it is difficult to state in terms other than as already presented exactly what it is the Foundation does. It presents a new paradigm and new frontiers in knowledge development. It is noteworthy because no other Foundation or NGO operates in this manner. Thank you again for your attention and assistance. Best regards, Jeff. JEFFLOYNES (talk) 06:04, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:JEFFLOYNES - I have just read your note, since it was on the wrong part of my talk page. However, your statement that "Further editing requires Board approval" is deeply troubling. If the draft article is meant to be an official statement by your Board, I cannot even consider reviewing it further. Corporate editing is contrary to the philosophy of Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:59:56, 14 October 2016 review of submission by Jarnek73


Hi Robert,

I made a few changes to the article and hope it can pass a review now. If you have any tips, please let me know.

Thanks!

Jarnek73 (talk) 15:59, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be asking other editors to comment at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:54, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:09:08, 14 October 2016 review of submission by Reneeesq


Hi, can you please let me know why the references for my article were considered not to be in-depth, independent coverage? I would like to know what kind of references would be acceptable for a Wikipedia article. I have referred to your definition of notable sources, but if you could please kindly explain why my two references are not considered qualifying references, I would appreciate it. Is it that I only have two of them or is there something wrong with the two that I have? If so, what is wrong with them? Thank you. User:Reneeesq - I don't really intend to give you a lot of advice about how to improve your autobiography. Read the conflict of interest guideline. However, if you want comments, you can request them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing News #3—2016

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter • Subscribe or unsubscribe on the English Wikipedia

Did you know?

Did you know that you can easily re-arrange columns and rows in the visual editor?

Screenshot showing a dropdown menu with options for editing the table structure

Select a cell in the column or row that you want to move. Click the arrow at the start of that row or column to open the dropdown menu (shown). Choose either "Move before" or "Move after" to move the column, or "Move above" or "Move below" to move the row.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has mainly worked on a new wikitext editor. They have also released some small features and the new map editing tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the list of work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, releasing the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving language support.

Recent changes

  • You can now set text as small or big.[4]
  • Invisible templates have been shown as a puzzle icon. Now, the name of the invisible template is displayed next to the puzzle icon.[5] A similar feature will display the first part of hidden HTML comments.[6]
  • Categories are displayed at the bottom of each page. If you click on the categories, the dialog for editing categories will open.[7]
  • At many wikis, you can now add maps to pages. Go to the Insert menu and choose the "Maps" item. The Discovery department are adding more features to this area, like geoshapes. You can read more on MediaWiki.org.[8]
  • The "Save" button now says "Save page" when you create a page, and "Save changes" when you change an existing page.[9] In the future, the "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
  • Image galleries now use a visual mode for editing. You can see thumbnails of the images, add new files, remove unwanted images, rearrange the images by dragging and dropping, and add captions for each image. Use the "Options" tab to set the gallery's display mode, image sizes, and add a title for the gallery.[10]

Future changes

The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining 10 "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next month. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including Thai, Burmese and Aramaic.

The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. The 2017 wikitext editor will look like the visual editor and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices in October 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.

Let's work together

Do you teach new editors how to use the visual editor? Did you help set up the Citoid automatic reference feature for your wiki? Have you written or imported TemplateData for your most important citation templates? Would you be willing to help new editors and small communities with the visual editor? Please sign up for the new VisualEditor Community Taskforce.

If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for guidance... Yavarai (talk) 20:28, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Transaviabaltika draft

Hello

You reviewed my Transaviabaltika draft article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Transaviabaltika) , which was the first article I'd tried to submit. Could I hassle you with what I'm sure is a noob question? You've suggested the article isn't notable, and to add sources of references. However although there are lots of sources of references for the airline that could be added, none of them would add anything to the essential facts of the article (Airline. Exists. Has planes. Flies them between certain places. Is under contract.)

Adding references to an article to show it's notable wouldn't improve the article in itself (other than in order to persuade an editor it's notable so it could appear). It could just make it less readable and more fussy, and the article itself would tidy a lot of orphan links in all the related articles. Could you point me in the direction of guidance on how to resolve this conflict?

Thanks! Barrybounce (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I will be asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:33, 15 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

10:26:30, 16 October 2016 review of submission by Evolvingscience


Dear Robert - Thankyou very much for your review. I have removed the external links from the article body and included them in an "External Links" section. If you think this is not necessary, I can remove this. I have kept the "Media coverage" with external links as these show video clips explaining the research conducted by the scientist profiled. The Wikipedia page for the Australian Research Council (ARC) has external links within the article (I was not the author!). Thankyou again. Regards Evolvingscience (talk) 10:26, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DRN

Hi,

I'm a bit confused about the WP:DRN process. You said "Do not engage in back-and-forth discussion or respond to the other editor here." Does this mean I should not respond to Kautilya3's first statement in my first statement? But in his first statement he makes specific allegations against my edits that either misleading or untrue. So should I just ignore what he has written at DRN? VR talk 03:04, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Do not respond to his statements. Just state what you think the issue is. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you mentioned that both editors should refrain from editing the article. Does that refer to any edits to the article or only the edits regarding the disputed content?VR talk 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I meant to avoid editing the article, because any part of the article could be some of the disputed content. Truly minor edits are okay, but see the minor edit guideline. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:23:33, 17 October 2016 review of submission by Geoffkershner


Hi Robert - I submitted the article for re-review, hopefully removing all the "peacock" language as per your recommendation and tried to make sure everything was factual and referenced. I want to make sure the article is completely unbiased, if you have any more suggestions I would really appreciate it.

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process (and usually won't). If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Toll The Hounds

Hi. Ref. fixed. Thanks in advance.
Aizen V Anomander | talk 18:23, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. As my edit notice says, I will not normally follow your draft through the approval process. If you have any questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse or (since you are not a first-time editor) the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:28, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. It's published. Now I can work on improving it, I guess. I do have a question though. I uploaded an image (cover art for toll the hounds) back when I first started working on the article and it was deleted. Could you provide me with a link to an existing cover for the book (or at least where I can find it in the gallery)? Or should I upload it again?
Aizen V Anomander|talk 19:17, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it was deleted, it most likely was deleted because of copyright issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:N Gasieta - I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. It was deleted because of a complex copyright matter known as non-free content, and I don't think that I can give you proper advice about that. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I re-read why the file was deleted -- Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days -- and since the article has been created I re-uploaded it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by N Gasieta (talk • contribs) 21:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but having read the reasons for non-free images, I am still not sure whether the copyrighted cover has a valid non-free content usage. I don't claim to have any particular knowledge in that area. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:56, 17 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:N Gasieta - I see that you had the cover image uploaded. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. If there's a problem with it, I guess we'll get a notification or something, but seeing as it's under fair use, and only being used for one article, I don't think there will be any. Do you?
N. GASIETA|talk 00:14, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

22:41:37, 17 October 2016 review of submission by Dicksamson


Robert, on 29 September 2016, you reviewed this article in my sandbox and rejected it for reading "more like an advertisement" and needing more references to independent, reliable published sources. I have made several fixes to address these issues, and followed the "Be Bold" process to publish the article in Wikipedia.... Is the article OK as modified? If not, I'll be glad to make more changes. If it is OK, how soon could the WARNING notice be removed? I hope this message gets to you OK... Many thanks! Dick Samson

User:Dicksamson - I am not entirely sure why you are asking me anything or what you are asking me. After choosing to use the Articles for Creation process, you then decided instead to publish the article directly in article space in Wikipedia, which is your privilege. If you had wanted my opinion, you could have waited, but you were not required to wait for me to review it. So now, after publishing it anyway, why are you asking me for my opinion on whether you should have published it? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Dicksamson - I see that, after you published the article directly in article space, it was tagged for speedy deletion as unambiguous advertising and then deleted. It appears that maybe you should realize that you are not an impartial judge of whether an article is unambiguous advertising, and should continue to rely on the Articles for Creation process for review after all. As my edit notice says, I do not normally follow a draft all the way through the review process. If you want another review, you may request one at the Teahouse, although there is no guarantee that you will get one there. What is your connection to Agent Review and LTC Financial Partners? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:43, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Robert. Chalk it up to inexperience. I did not, until now, realize there were two formal processes; just read online that W. invited "going bold." Seems that was a mistake. Sorry! Articles for Creation process seems to be what I need. I've made extensive changes to the document in my sandbox. I'll click to resubmit after finishing this message.... I supply free-lance PR services to Agent Review and ACSIA Partners (formerly LTC Financial Partners). Do I need to spell that out somewhere? I believe I can supply factual, non-biased information despite my connection (in fact, I know the facts better than other contributors might). The copy is not intended to be advertising, and I'd be glad to cut or revise as necessary. Many thanks for your guidance. Dick Dicksamson (talk) 20:29, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dicksamson - Read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing disclosure and make the proper disclosures. I don't plan to advise paid editors as to what to trim out to make a draft neutral. Maybe someone else may be more cooperative. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

16:58:13, 18 October 2016 review of submission by Mr RD

Hi, I created this draft from an entirely new point and it is different from the old page which was deleted through AFD. Judy is a notable YouTube personality like others (Jenna Marbles, Michelle Phan and Philip DeFranco). She has been covered by many news websites which I have already mentioned in the draft. Please let me know how I can improve upon this article and any specific issues that you think are with this draft? I'll be highly thankful to you. Mr RD 16:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mr RD - I see that you took part in the deletion debate. Since you now say that the draft that you have written is substantially different from the deleted version, I will leave you with the responsibility of temporarily having the deleted version undeleted to permit a comparison by a reviewer of the two versions. Go to Requests for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

15:13:38, 19 October 2016 review of submission by Jbrunoii


The relevance of the article seems to be questioned. D-Metal Stars This band has released METAL DISNEY on Walt Disney Records This project is a Top seller on Amazon Japan Children's chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/578074/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_1_3_last

as well as a Top seller in the Amazon Japan Hard Rock & Metal chart shown here - https://www.amazon.co.jp/gp/bestsellers/music/569298/ref=pd_zg_hrsr_m_2_2_last

It also includes Rudy Sarzo (legendary bassist who's credits include Ozzy Osbourne, Whitesnake, Quiet Riot, just to name a few) Please review, and look at references

User:Jbrunoii - I am replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

14:58:55, 20 October 2016 review of submission by PaulTapper


Dear Robert

Thank you for your quick review of the draft article "NUGEN Audio".

I do have a COI for that article (which I have declared on my User page), but I have tried my very best to write it in a neutral way, and have added numerous independent, reliable, published sources.

Please could you suggest what I could do to improve the article sufficiently to have it approved?

Thanks

PaulTapper (talk) 14:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks Robert PaulTapper

3O

Hi Robert. You should remove the request from 3O before giving a third opinion. That way we won't be duplicating our efforts. --regentspark (comment) 15:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:RegentsPark - I respectfully disagree. I only remove the request after I have given an opinion. First, often all that is clear is a long back-and-forth, and I can't give an opinion. Second, if two third opinions are given, no harm is done. Although there are occasional edit conflicts, they are rare. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big deal. But note that the instructions explicitly state When providing a third opinion, please remove the listing from this page before you provide your third opinion. Doing so prevents other volunteers from duplicating your effort. Mention in the summary which dispute you have removed and how many remain. --regentspark (comment) 17:54, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Okay. In that case, maybe I should restore half of them after saying I need clarification of the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:38, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Jasmin Singer

Robert, sorry for not getting back to you right away. I corrected and resubmitted the Jasmin Singer post as soon as I saw your message. Thanks again, and have a great day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by TucsonVegan (talk • contribs) 19:29, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:TucsonVegan - I will not necessarily follow your submission through the approval process. You may want to ask for help at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. I look forward to hearing from you about the new submission. Best regards, Patrice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.140.21.155 (talk) 14:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Closure of Dispute Resolution

Dear Robert, I noticed you closed a dispute resolution request on Ivo Andric, asking us to reach a consensus on the talk page first. Honestly, I do not see the point of reaching a consensus as long as there is no content dispute. The opposing editor believes that adding a well-sourced content about the ultra-nationalistic views of Ivo Andric could potentially "defame" the biography, which is (apologize for my french) nonsense. The aim of a biography is not to "fame" a person by hiding well-sourced facts on his nationalistic acts. I understand Wikipedia might emphasize consensus, but there are situations where putting sources to consensus (a.k.a. arbitrary voting) is actually hurting the very-same purpose why an encyclopedia exists (meaning every minority can impose its voice through sources, not through majority consensuses (a.k.a. arbitrary voting)). As such, I find your system unproductive and time-consuming for outsiders with scarce time budgets.31.18.254.94 (talk) 18:21, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what you expect me to do. If you aren't willing to discuss on an article talk page, then there is nothing to be gained by moderated discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard. If you believe that discussion in general is unproductive, then Wikipedia may not be for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since the position of the opposing side was rigid, further discussion on the talk page would be counterproductive. I expected a dispute resolution would engage someone to have a brief look at the core of the dispute. Going to the talk page would lead to an infinite loop of repetitive positions with the very same editor(s), only to hope some external editor will jump onto the "dog-fight". But if your resolution duties are to always impose a discussion at the talk page, then I respect your decision and I am giving up. Thanks for your time. 31.18.254.94 (talk) 19:11, 21 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

04:35:07, 22 October 2016 review of submission by Rangleme


I've removed several sections and put many more citations on the remaining sections.

User:Rangleme - Read the autobiography guideline, which discourages writing about yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:52, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts to settle this somewhere else first

Hello dear Robert McClenon, I wanted to thank you for your advises and efforts to settle the notorious OR/SYNTH dispute in ways other than Arbitration Enforcement. I admit I was unsure what to do myself on this. After finding out more about what exactly the AE is, and how it should be used only as a last resort, I was reluctant to post the formatted AE report. But even after cancelling the AE report, new disruptions on Expulsion of Cham Albanians resumed by them and this is the reason I needed your advises once more and asked for your help. I appreciated your proposal for a new Mediation, even when I myself was not enthusiast to dive myself from one mediation straight to another. However, it seems that even the new Mediation under Anthony Appleyard failed, due to DevilWearsBrioni's fault and I doubt any further mediations can make the difference anymore. The dispute has been dragging its feet onto 5 different platforms which is way too much for most sane editors here. I believe now that there is only one thing that can be done now - impose topic sanctions (perma-block or perma-ban or how it is called?)

However the reason I am leaving you a message here in your talk, is because I forgot to thank you properly for all the interest and patience you have showed to the case, and to let you know that I am very grateful. Also I want to apologize for any implications in the past about you being not-so-neutral party to the dispute. Please, will you accept my apology? I had no ill intentions against you when I questioned your neutrality and was more about my stress and exhaustion generated by this prolonged dispute finding their way out. I am very grateful for your help. When this is over, I will secede temporarily from Wikipedia, to rest a bit. If there is anything I can do and help, please do not hesitate to ask. And have a good day. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident - No apology required, but offered apology accepted anyway, and thanks accepted. We will see what the next steps are, but I think that you and I have both said a topic-ban appears to be in order. Although the thread is now at ANI rather than at AE, any administrator at ANI can impose AE sanctions at this time, because DWB was properly notified. Also, having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:51, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The "having to be called out by a mediator is unusual; most editors will heed the caution of a mediator to stay on topic" can be rephrased and compressed into a mere single word: stubborness, I think. :-) Just a unusual case of stubborness.
May I ask something? I am realizing (thanks to reading now your latest ANI comment), that a block and a ban are two different things with two different meanings? So, they are not one and the same thing? I am worried now, because in the ANI, when I proposed "to be blocked", I meant a permanent sanction, not something temporary, if this is the case... -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:03, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In all case and to avoid causing confusion to others, I have edited and re-worded my comment on ANI to clarify things out. In meantime I found what the differences between ban and block are. -- SILENTRESIDENT 20:16, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

07:59:07, 23 October 2016 review of submission by Badol1234



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:SABNAM_PERVIN(ACTRESS)

UserBadol1234 - What is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 12:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your sandbox contains a hidden title of your daft on Sabnam Pervin. It doesn't display the draft on Sabnam Pervin. I will review the draft in a few minutes. However, your sandbox is not the draft, only an incorrectly formatted pointer to the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:42, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your draft has not been submitted for review. If it is submitted, it isn't ready for acceptance. First, the title should be put in title case rather than in UPPER CASE. That is a minor matter. Second, it is inadequately sourced. It has no footnotes, and only has two references, one of which is YouTube, which is not a reliable source, and one of which is not in English. While foreign sources are permitted, English sources are better. Third, nearly all of the names of other people are in redlinks. This is distracting. Most of the redlinks should either be removed, or made into blue links by supplying articles on the people, or made into blue links by correcting the spelling of the names, or whatever. In any case, it has too many redlinks. Do you want the sandbox made into a redirect? Do you want the draft submitted? You need to work on the draft as I have mentioned. If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Que Peller Immediate Deletion Removed

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

HellonRobert , I have made the suggested reference and orphan link updates, could you please remove the article Que Peller from the speedy deletion request. Thank you.Ibrahim skillz (talk) 06:30, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Ibrahim skillz - I didn't request speedy deletion of the article. I nominated the article for Articles for Deletion. Also, the orphan status of the article was not why I nominated it for deletion. I will let the 7-day deletion discussion run its course. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:40:12, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Robynbrody



I have made the two changes requested. 1) the list of citations has been trimmed and 2) the two reference sections have been combined into one.

I will not necessarily follow your draft through to acceptance. If you want advice, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

18:57:39, 24 October 2016 review of submission by Gopengsgement



Hi Sir. You wrote in reason to reject: "Blogs are not reliable sources. Some of the sources are not independent. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:13, 17 October 2016 (UTC)." Since there are quite a few citations of news articles and other media are you suggesting that blog citations be deleted entirely? Is a blog at a major newspaper by a professional journalist treated the same as a standalone blog by a hobbyist? I'd just like to know how to improve for my project now and in future classes or submissions. My professor thought this one was very good. Please help. I will add more non-blog citations.

User:Gopensgement - If you have any questions about the use of blogs as sources or other questions about sources, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saraiki dialect. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Robert William Alexander

Hi Robert I think the draft (Robert William Alexander: 1905 - 1979. Irish Novelist) you refer to is an old one. My understanding is that the current one (19 September) is awaiting review. Please can you confirm this is so? Many thanks Mary Maryromaine (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Maryromaine - First, please post to the bottom of my talk page, using the New Section feature, not to the top. Second, I will look at all of the drafts. Please try to avoid creating multiple copies of drafts, which confuses the reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:49, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Maryromaine - The draft with the dates of 1905 and 1979 is the current one that you created on 19 September. What I was also referring to was a very old draft that I had tagged for deletion as abandoned. It has since been deleted because it was abandoned. I am moving your draft to Draft:Robert William Alexander. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Tfc in need of closing

The Rfc template at Category talk:People of Jewish descent has been removed, and the discussion is in need of closing by an independent editor. Debresser (talk) 19:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section

Hi Robert, thanks for your comment on References and quotations in Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (1971 film)!

I considered adding it to the main page for the Willy Wonka film, but because it became so long and has so many citations I thought it worked better as a stand alone page. I would prefer to keep it that way, but if it means having it approved or not, I'm okay to move it. I'm unclear as to whether your suggestion was just a suggestion or an instruction. Look forward to hearing back from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WonkaNerd (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Heart

Dear Robert, Thanks for your help on the Zack Heart page. I made the corrections you mentioned some time back but the page hasn't been published yet. Could you please advise? Kind regards, Sophie (Sophiechristianson (talk) 22:54, 25 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - The article is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart. I will not necessarily follow your draft through the approval process. Please wait for it to be reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:01, 26 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Sophiechristianson, please use the New Section tab to post to the bottom of my talk page. Please do not post to the top. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)′[reply]

Hi Robert,

Sorry for posting at the incorrect spot. Thanks for the update. We will wait for it to be reviewed. (Sophiechristianson (talk) 03:35, 26 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

04:16:45, 27 October 2016 review of submission by Beauty111

Why was this declined when I have a long list of 'reliable sources' (ie, news publications)? Which are not reliable? These are all major entertainment publications. If you look at Wiki's own The Zookeeper's Wife (film) page, you'll see me there.  I've been writing professionally for over 20 years and have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do. Beauty111 (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Beauty111 - The draft has a mixture of reliable and unreliable sources and is inconsistently formatted. IMDB is not considered a reliable source. Blogspot is not considered a reliable source. The draft is ready for acceptance if the formatting of the references is made consistent and the unreliable sources are eliminated. Also, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Because an article was accepted does not mean that another article should be accepted; maybe the article should be deleted. (I haven't checked the other article yet.) You say, "I ... have documented it in exactly the way I was requested to do so." By whom? Who requested that you write the draft? Please read the conflict of interest guideline. If you are being paid, you must make the conflict of interest disclosure and possibly the paid editing disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:46, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 06:31:58, 27 October 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by TvishA


HI, My Article about Tvisha Technologies Pvt Ltd was declined mentioning that the content looks more like an advertisement. can you help me finding which Paragraph i need to edit, so that i can re-edit the content and submit for review. Thank you

TvishA (talk) 06:31, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

NPP - Last call for work group comments on stage 1

Hi Robert McClenon,

The future of NPP and AfC:

To take full advantage of the WMF developer time that has been allocated to this project, we must now quickly submit the short list of our priorities before the end of October, otherwise we may lose the attention of the WMF.
If you have not already done so, please visit the page at Suggested Improvements and select your personal choice of 10 features (excluding the ones the devs are already doing) and list them in your order of priority at Priorities.

Thanks. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:50, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

12:58:31, 27 October 2016 review of submission by 231Pacific



My reference 3 lacks detail. To supply that detail I would need to spend a day travelling and researching. I'd be happy to do that if my article had been accepted (or accepted with the condition of supplying that one detail). Can an article be accepted where a final 'tweak' is still required?

User:231Pacific - I don't understand the significance of the question. Your submission, Draft:Tony D Triggs, was declined not because of any issue with the sources, but as being written in a non-neutral tone and having peacock language. You don't need to do research that involves traveling in order to revise the tone of a draft. Also, your statement that you are willing to spend a day travelling and researching if the article is accepted is interesting. Does that mean that you are being paid to get the article accepted? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:26, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, both now and earlier. I've made two adjustments to my draft to try and get rid of the sort of language you've disapproved. To answer your question, no one is paying or in any way rewarding me for working on this article. I simply feared that the incompleteness of one citation might perhaps be an impediment. As you say, you didn't raise objection on that particular score. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 231Pacific (talk • contribs) 17:48, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing and suspicions about possible sockpuppetry.

Dear Robert, my apologies for bothering you again for a second time in such a short period, but may I ask if is there more than what I know, in this DWB case? In fact, I have been only dealing with disruption caused by a registered editor, DevilWearsBrioni, which is manageable for me as I am able to tackle the disruption without any distractions or misdirections. But now I see some editors such as Athenean and others revealed that there too might have also been a case of canvassing [11]and possibly a case of sock-puppeting [12] as well? Now what does this means for the current AE report? I am unsure on whenever this is related to the current disruption, or if it means that the case extends beyond the current known (at least for me) records and dates? If can someone verify whenever there is more to this case, I could really appreciate anyone telling me about it, if possible, so I can know what exactly we are dealing there with. Because if there is indeed canvassing and the suspicions about the IP account belonging to him are proven, then this means he has already been banned for disruption in Balkan-related articles, which should not be ignored. -- SILENTRESIDENT 21:04, 27 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:SilentResident - I respectfully disagree. On the one hand, it is a near-certainty that DevilWearsBrioni is the IP. However, the IP was not banned. The IP was blocked for 72 hours. A block is not a ban. I believe that this has been explained to you. I think that, unfortunately, Arbitration Enforcement, which is quicker and more effective than WP:ANI but is limited as to availability, is not applicable. I think that the AE case will have to be closed with a very strong warning, possibly that the next incident of disruption will not only result in a topic-ban, but in a long block also. Action is still available at WP:ANI, because the community can impose a topic-ban. That is my advice. I do not see sockpuppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oups, writing "banned", I meant "blocked", apologies for the confusion again. I guess the confusion isnt easy to go and may partly be caused by the difference between English and Greek languages. While in the English language there are two distinct terms, "Ban" and "Block", in the Greek there is only one term for both. It is "Apocleismos", and unfortunately it means both "Ban" and "Block". Yes, the thing here is, if the IP is really him, then, this means his disruptions on Balkan articles has started much earlier than January 2016, earlier than we originally thought, and it shows that this editor, already from the very beginning, had a very negative editorial presence (disruptions outweight contributions). Furthermore, the IP's record of sanctions, shows that even if his current registered account shows that he has a clean record of sanctions, this is not exactly true anymore and we are dealing with an editor who has been blocked in the past, again for disruption on Balkan related articles. But I understand what you are saying. OK I will wait and see. -- SILENTRESIDENT 12:54, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert, I checked the history log and I am afraid you are right. What you said about the formal ARBMAC warning being given a bit too late, is very true. It could have been given to him sooner. However, really do you believe a mere warning instead of sanctions going to work this time? To be honest, I am rather pessimistic. DevilWearsBrioni has made a new statement on AE right now, in which he has argued that if someone should be sanctioned, is not him for his disruptions, because, according to him always, the disruptions are just a fake narrative created by me, and that if someone should be banned/blocked in this case, is me and not him! His new arrogant statement on AE, combined with the lateness of the Alexikoua's formal ARBMAC warning to him just confirmed my worst expectations now: no sanctions and more disruptions are coming ahead on Balkan articles. And this right when I had my hopes that this whole nightmare could have been over soon. Terrible, Robert. Terrible. -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:08, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Waa-Mu Show

Hi Robert, I am a student at Northwestern University and just added a page for the Waa-Mu Show. I noticed that you had declined a submission for a previous draft of the page because the references did not adequately show the subject's notability. My group added some more notable sources and would be so appreciative of your feedback and would like to collaborate with you on it. Thanks so much! Jgraifman (talk) 02:37, 28 October 2016 (UTC)jgraifman[reply]

The draft in question appears to be Draft: The Waa-Mu Show. It also appears that The Waa-Mu Show has been moved to mainspace. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Streetlight Cadence/Revision Question

Hello Robert!

Thank you very much for the critique on my first article Draft: Streetlight Cadence. I revised my citations as per your advice and deleted all YouTube, Instagram, as well as other dubious sources and was wondering if I have to submit my draft again or just wait for a second review for approval or further suggestions? Thanks in advance! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Noedrokka - I did not decline your draft. It is still waiting for review. The review process is very backlogged, so please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Thanks and have a great weekend! - Noedrokka —Preceding undated comment added 03:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

68.49.4.6

Hello Robert. You recently reviewed my case. My issue is not with the designation of whether something is allowed on Wikipedia or not - I am learning what is and what is not. The "undo" in question was due to the fact that I did not realize there was a talk page at first - so I did undo 2x until I realized there was a talk page. The editor in question keeps insulting me and telling me that my statements are "nationalistic nonsense" or that I should "kiss his shiny metal ass". Please let me know if this is acceptable behavior from your editors. And instead of taking the time to educate someone on the fact that certain kinds of things need to be published elsewhere first (the why is not relevant here), he is just removing things and turning a civil discussion into personal insults. If the editor is indeed allowed to swear at me - which I never did once - and that is expected behavior, I stand corrected. Thank you.

If you want him to remove it because it is not published elsewhere first, that's fine. If you want him to keep being offensive and telling people to "kiss his ass" with no one saying similar things to him in response to requesting an apology for the affront (not the deletion), that's your choice too.

The link is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Kleuske Edit to Bangladeshi Names

68.49.4.6 (talk) 05:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)Quazi S Islam[reply]

User:Kleuske is not insulting you, but is telling you that Wikipedia is not the place to right great wrongs. It is not your questions that are nationalistic nonsense. It is the way you are wording them aggressively that are nationalistic nonsense. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:35, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:68.49.4.6 - The place to get an editor to apologize to you, regardless of whether there is a wrong, is WP:ANI. First read the boomerang essay. You are being rude and demanding to User:Kleuske and they are being rude back to you, but you started it. If you push any demand, when you started the personalizing, you are likely to find pages semi-protected. I have two suggestions. First, create an account. Second, calm down. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining it to me in a different light. Guess the only way to preserve the unwritten history of Bangladesh or any other country is to create a site just for that. This is not the source encyclopedia that I thought it was - it is the online indexed copy of the existing encyclopedia of knowledge. A very useful distinction to understand. Thank you for the clarity. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:25, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam.[reply]

One other question that I need to understand. My name is Quazi S Islam. I am from the Quazi family. My family has a history of writing it both with a Q and a K. How do I document this disambiguation? I did find Kazi listed in the list of family names in page in question but I need to know how to include the disambiguation because I want to make sure it does not get removed for lack of documentation. I did ask the editor for that information but I was not given any direction. Do I need to include a picture of my Bangladesh passport or something? Thanks. 68.49.4.6 (talk) 23:30, 29 October 2016 (UTC) Quazi S Islam[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova

Dear Robert, I thank you for your comments about the article Draft: Yana Zhdanova. The initial article was submitted on the first of September and read by you on 7 October. I made the changes you suggested, in a more formal tone, although the article was already written without any peacock, promoting terms at all. Moreover, the sources are published, reliable, and independent (The New York Times, The Telegraph, Le Monde, Euronews, Newsweek, The Guardian, Time Magazine etc) quoting Femen group opinions even if these magazines, newspapers, the author or the reader of this article do not agree with these opinions. The new submission was made on 7 October, and on 21 October I sent you a message on this Talk page, which remained without reply. If I am not mistaken, it's the only unanswered message here, apparently because of so many messages and articles you have to go through. I am aware of the fact that you will not necessarily be the person who will read the new submission, however, just in case you will, I want to point out that the tone of the new submission is more neutral, formal, encyclopedic, archival than many existing Wikipedia articles about Art, History and Politics.I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.212.113.188 (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have re-read the draft. I still do not think that it is written in a neutral formal tone. It is true that some other articles also are not, but WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to accept articles; it may be a reason to delete other articles. I agree that the sources are neutral and independent, but the language still is written from the standpoint of the movement. I will ask for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. By the way, creating an account has several advantages and no disadvantages. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Robert, I appreciate! Two editors made some changes already, and I changed some more sentences myself. Thanks again, Patrice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FRANC85 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

James Calder

Re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:James_Calder_(2) Hi Robert - many thanks and really sorry for any confusion. The original draft was set up by Matt and I have taken this over and removed the external links etc and hope it is now suitable for publication. I have asked Matt to delete the other draft from his folder so hopefully this one is now the only version (and also should now be in the correct format). I have also been through all the independent references to ensure that they are correct and up to date. Let me know if there is anything else I can do - apologies for the slow prgress but this is the first of a few which I hope to submit to Wiki for consideration and many thanks for your patience. Si Si467 (talk) 16:50, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:James Calder (surgeon) is waiting for review. I do not normally follow an article all the way through to its approval, and will let someone else review it next. I have disambiguated it because there is already a James Calder. Unfortunately, the review process is very backlogged. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Djang San

Hello Robert,

Thanks a lot for your comments on my draft page Djang San. I have edited the content as suggested. Do i need to re-submit my page for publication?

Thanks! 

Xiaohei2016 (talk) 02:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Xiaohei2016 - Is that Draft:Djang San? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I neither accepted nor declined the draft. It is still in review. Please be patient. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

03:49:57, 29 October 2016 review of submission by Smritimiddha


Hi Can you help me with the entry on SHEROES you declined. It would be great if you could let me know which parts come across as promotional and not genuine, it would help me edit and make it better.

User:Smritimiddha - First, I am not the only editor who thought that the draft had problems. Second, I assume that you were only trying to inform other editors that the service exists. However, Wikipedia isn't here to inform other editors that something exists, only to inform other editors that something is notable and has been written about by third parties. You didn't provide any independent reliable sources. Third, the draft consisted mostly of external links to other articles. A Wikipedia article may contain links to other articles, but it shouldn't consist mostly of links to them. If you really don't understand why your draft was not suitable for Wikipedia, I think that you should ask other experienced editors for advice at the Teahouse. I may not be the best editor to explain what are and are not good additions to Wikipedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:38, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fourth, are you working for SHEROES? If so, you must make a conflict of interest declaration. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:41, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

13:29:04, 29 October 2016 review of submission by Carrieruggieri



Dear Robert, You reviewed by submission for Draft: Diana Fosha. I wanted to respond to the comments on the talk page and also to explain each reference so that you can check that they are in fact independent sources. However, the entire conversation on the talk page is gone. I believe it was all on the talk page? Could you please direct me to where the conversation is? Thank you. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 13:29, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

User:Carrieruggieri - The conversation was at the Teahouse. Most conversations at active talk pages (including help pages) are archived by bots. The conversation is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_536#on_declining_Draft:_Diana_Fosha_due_to_references.

Robert McClenon (talk) 13:47, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you affiliated with either Fosha or her organization? If so, please make the conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I address the issues here? Or, do I need to address the conflict of interest and references issues at the teahouse? Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

sorry but I can't edit from the teahouse archive and I can't find it 'live' where I can edit. Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning Conflict of Interest: I am a student of AEDP. I was not asked to write the AEDP wikipedia article, or the diana fosha biography. I am not paid by AEDP in any capacity. I wanted to write the article for wikipedia because it had not been written, and I wanted to challenge myself to write this in order to deepen my understanding of this model. I did not anticipate how difficult it would be and how long it would take (that explains the 400 edits and 3 or 4 submission declines). I wrote the diana fosha biography because once the aedp article was published, her name appeared with a red link, which notes that a biography can be written to complete the task. If you go to www.aedpinstitute.org and click on find a therapist, you will see that I am a 3rd level trained aedp therapist (not certified, not a supervisor, and not faculty, so I receive no renumeration from any involvement with my aedp training. carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 14:46, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding References: 1. is from page xvii: List of theories. this reference supports the statement that Diana Fosha is founder of AEDP. 3. is a published transcript of an interview with diana Fosha, with an introduction by the author David Van Nuys that supports the statements about her professional background. David Van Nuys is not affiliated with AEDP in any capacity. 4. is from the aedp institute website, but the reference is there to document the statements about the institute itself. 5. Is a published transcript of an interview with Diana fosha by Polly Ely. It supplies information about Diana fossa's education and training.Polly Ely has attended aedp workshops etc... but is not a member of AEDP institute. 6.Grotstein is a very important independent reference- He is a major figure in the field of psychoanalysis which is not in anyway associated with AEDP. Grotstein's review provides information about the impact AEDP has had on the entire field of psychotherapy. This is published in APA newsletter . I will attach the to the reference. 7. same as 6 - David Malan is entirely different modality of therapy and is very highly regarded. 9. is a review of book by an author, bessel van der kolk also unaffiliated with AEDP. 10. is link to APA website which published the DVD's of sessions in the APA's master therapist series.

If this should be in the teahouse, I will copy/paste it. But I need help to find where I can edit the teahouse 'live' page, not the archive. Carrieruggieri Carrieruggieri (talk) 15:28, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Long Comments on References

You have made long comments concerning the references to the draft. If the purpose of your comments is to get the draft accepted more or less in its current state, then the comments should be either on the draft talk page, Draft talk:Diana Fosha, or in the form of AFC comments in the article draft. If you want to discuss the draft at the Teahouse, you can click on any of the links in my talk page comments and they will take you to the live Teahouse. However, discussing the references at length really is only for the attention of a reviewer, and not as part of a general discussion, so put the long comments about the references either on the draft talk page or in AFC comments in the article draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Longer Reply to User:Carrieruggieri

User:Carrieruggieri – There is no one answer as to where and how you should address the comments. If you do not have a conflict of interest, you do not need to address it. Unfortunately, perhaps the majority of new Wikipedia editors do not come to Wikipedia in order to improve it, but for self-serving reasons, to get their own article approved, so I sometimes ask. You have answered. Most new editors either do not answer, or eventually admit to the conflict of interest.

Also unfortunately, many new editors, perhaps a majority of them who do want to improve Wikipedia, think that the best way to improve it is to write one new article. Writing a new article, complete with its references, is the most difficult task that there is in Wikipedia. New editors might do better to try to help us with the five million articles that we do have rather than with one of the articles that we do not have. However, there seems to be a widespread belief that the best way to help Wikipedia is to write one new article (or a few new articles). If you want to help Wikipedia, there are many ways that you can help, such as by editing the articles that we do have.

I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. The article on AEDP has been approved and is in article space, although it has tags for improvement. As to the draft on Fosha, you can discuss the draft either at WP:THQ or at the WikiProject Psychology talk page, or you can simply edit the draft and resubmit it. If you have any more questions, you can ask me here, or you can ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Draft: Yana Zhdanova (again)

Dear Robert, I made all the changes mentioned in your comments, as well in the hidden comments within the text concerning the article tone and the quote. Furthermore, I added a source (n°5) to justify Lukashenko's negative image, and deleted the word "corrupted" from the sentence "the corrupted policy of Yulia Tymoshenko". Thanks again. FRANC85 (talk) 22:16, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The draft is Draft: Yana Zhdanova. I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:20, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zack Heart (again)

Hi Robert, the page on Zack Heart was not accepted and it says it has been nominated for deletion... We are not clear why. You mentioned there are external links which are not allowed. I thought we were doing it correctly so I don't understand what needs to to be removed and what needs to be added? We will continue to work on it until it is correct so how do we stop it from being deleted? (Sophiechristianson (talk) 23:26, 29 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

User:Sophiechristianson - First, who is "we"? If you are representing Zack Heart, or working for him, please read the conflict of interest guideline and the paid editing policy, and make any required disclosures. (I infer that you are sufficiently proficient in English to be familiar with the distinction between the first person singular and the first person plural.) Second, I did not nominate Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart for deletion. I declined it for having external links. It does appear that its subject is notable and does qualify to be the subject of an article. I nominated User:Sophiechristianson for deletion as a article in user space. If you think that I nominated Draft:Zack Heart, which is Draft:Nicholas Zackary Heart, for deletion, maybe you have confused yourself by creating multiple copies of drafts. Just work on the one that is a valid draft, after answering who you are and who you are working for. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Hi Robert, thanks for the prompt reply. It's just my sister and I, we aren't affiliated with Zack Heart or being paid by anyone. This is the first of hopefully many celebrity pages we are contributing to Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying the deletion location as the user space. I will continue with the draft, remove the external links and resubmit. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:02, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]
User:Sophiechristianson - You shouldn't be sharing your account with your sister, because we have a rule of one person, one account, and she should create her own account, but that isn't worth making an issue about. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert McClenon Understood, will have her create her own page. Thanks Robert (Sophiechristianson (talk) 00:29, 30 October 2016 (UTC))[reply]

Donavon Stinson

Maybe try waiting a whopping half hour before jumping the gun. My edit to improve the article was blocked by your impatience. - BalthCat (talk) 04:09, 30 October 2016 (UTC) :In fact, I made the mistake of hitting back, which was an expired session, and forward again, LOSING MY EDIT. So now I have to do it all over again. THANKS. - BalthCat (talk) 04:11, 30 October 2016 (UTC) Whoops, mine's at the bottom. - BalthCat (talk) 04:13, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

John Robert Mills - Declined

Hi Robert. You have declined to accept the page on John Robert Mills on the grounds of copyright infringement. I don't think there is any copyright infringement for the following reasons:

  • John Robert Mills died in 1998. Shortly after his death an article was put together as the basis of an obituary and for publication in the Institute of Physics (IoP) magazine. The article was a combined effort between John Mills's two sons and a work colleague, Ken Slater. Ken Was a member of the IoP and as such, the article in the IoP was attributed to him. Ken slater has since died.
  • John Mills's two sons are directors of CCC Trading Ltd (http://cayley.co.uk) and as such have re-published the article on their website
  • The almost identical text has been used on all published material (Obituary, IoP article, Website and Wikipedia draft) because all have been written by the same team, albeit one has since died.
  • There is, on the website (http://cayley.co.uk/john-robert-mills/), a permission statement at the bottom of the page that reads: "The text of this page is available for modification and reuse under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 3.0 Unported License and the GNU Free Documentation License (unversioned, with no invariant sections, front-cover texts, or back-cover texts). In particular, CCC Trading Ltd gives permission for the use of text contained on this page to be used by Moonbouncer54 on the Wikipedia page relating to John Robert Mills. For verification please contact the site owner of CCC Trading Ltd (T/a Cayley Chemicals), Philip Mills by email: cayley@btinternet.com" This over-rides the footer copyright.
  • So far as pictures are concerned, these are reproduced under the Open Govenment Licence V3 (http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/doc/open-government-licence/version/3/)

We are of course willing to make any changes necessary to satisfy your requirements to approve the Wikipedia article but would appreciate any advice as to what we should do. Or, in light of the above, may we re-submit for consideration without further modification. Thanks. Moonbouncer54 (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&oldid=746915864"