Cannabis Indica

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



Hi Robert,

Could you have a look at my draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Romeo_Mancini and tell me if there are enough notes now and if I have taken out the terms that looked not neutral enough? Thank you for your help. Anna Lisa --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)



Contents

JL WOOD[edit]

Hi, I added a lot of citations, especially book citations which I hope help keep the page alive. I was hoping that you would take a look and see how it's shaping up and if you think that I should resubmit it. Thanks https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:J_Luke_Wood Normanbockwell (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

With rare exceptions, notability should be established by so-called independent reliable sources, which means reliable sources not associated with the subject. Nearly all of the references are to books or papers by Wood. Only two of them are independent of him, and only one addresses his work in detail. Please read our policies on notability and reliable sources. Also, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. If you resubmit the draft as it is, I will decline it as showing no material improvement, and will explain to you again that your sources need to be independent of the subject. That is, tell what others have written about him, not what he has written. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I'm glad I asked before submitting. So, should I keep the books and citations but add the independent sources, or should i delete the books altogether? I'll also jump on teahouse.Normanbockwell (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I suggest adding the independent sources, and moving the books to a Books section of the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:35, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I have added the "Citation needed" indicated by Cullen. My difficulty is that there is only catalogue written by the artist, so I got almost all the info from there. I have gone to the teahouse, but the advice was only to tide the notes up avoiding to repeat the same source all the time and putting a code. But I am using the visual form, easier for me and really I do not understand what kind of damage, repeating the source, can do. I understand your complain about adding the bibliography, which I hope is now fine. About the language....here I have problems to solve it to be sincere. I hope as for the notes that Cullen indicated me where were needed,can be indicated where the problem is still present. There is a bit of explanation of paintings, but I never said this is fantastic, just described it. Anyway thank you very very much for saying that the artist is notable, I am really happy about it, because the only reason I want to put wikipedia in English, is that I want him to be known abroad as well. Kind regards, Anna Lisa Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I wanted to say a catalogue written about the artist!Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

22:50:15, 31 March 2016 review of submission by Uchu RRFisher[edit]


I applied to th AIAA for consideration for an advisory committee position, and without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia, Exact ontemproaries, Edward Weiler, Chris Scolese, James Green, - all of the same department and serving the same agency are listed with basic bactual information. Using these examples I have tried to create a parallel bio free from value adjetives contining only verifiable information concerning period of intense and notable developmdnt for the NASA scientifc research program. I was completely unaware of the policy concerning autobiography - so I stuck to the facts only. I would like to be identifable and factually documented, but do not participate, out of preference, in various forrms of social media. If I have made an error of procedure that disqualifies the addition of my bio, perhaps you could help me make appropriate changes to th ms to make it more acceptable.

Thank you for your attention in this matter, Uchu RRFisher (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. If your draft biography is an autobiography, some of them may be able to help neutralize it. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

05:55:51, 1 April 2016 review of submission by Snowyplayer[edit]


The reference errors have been fixed. (Snowyplayer (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC))

Ooty article-request your early mediation and dispute resolution[edit]

Hi User:Robert McClenon, Please resolve the dispute regarding Ooty article on DRN at the earliest. Being a challenger of un-sourced, biased content, I can not keep debating continuously and endlessly. Regards,--NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

14:33:32, 3 April 2016 review of submission by Pk1416[edit]


Dar Robert, thanks for reviewing my post. Your comments are great to help me improve my post. Could you kindly elaborate on what to do. How to format the references? Why footnotes, which header? This is my first wikipedia entry and I am clearly struggling but eager to learn and approve. So I'd really appreciate you taking the time to eplain in more detail what needs to be changes in order to get approved. thanks and have a good sunday

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

BAAITS[edit]

Hi Robert, you recently commented on my BAAITS article that I need to add more reliable sources. I have two on there, so I understand that's a low number. I'm wondering what your opinion on the two that I already have is thought? What I mean is: do you think that the ones I do have are reliable? I think they are good, but I just want to make sure that going out and getting similar sources is a good way to proceed from here? Thank you! Stayhomegal (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

I will ask for the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How I got it all wrong[edit]

This statement should be made to the ArbCom, not to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Thanks for your comments at ANI and ArbCom. Despite the tone, I still found your comments useful and helpful. However, I have come to explain to you how I got it all this wrong. Firstly, the problem with me about contents creation is that I'm always too impatient to read through the contents and sources before inclusion. Meanwhile I often create a lots of articles. I think I'm just too overzealous! I sometimes mistakenly add the correct source to a different statement. This is what I mean, sometimes, I unintentionally add a source for "statement A" to that of "statement B" and the source for "Statement B" to that of "statement A" due to impatience, making the sources and the contents to appear fake or OR. Secondly, the sockpuppetry is another concerning issue. Honestly, the very first time I joined Wikipedia, I thought it's a social media of some sort where I can put my shameless biography. My first account was blocked and I reopened another account and that was also blocked. I thought the best way to address the reason why the article was deleted is to create another accounts with some unrealistic claim of significance. That was also blocked. I'm not aware of block invasion otherwise I would have follow due process. So, I went to declare my new account to User:RHaworth who permit me to continue editing but not to write about myself. I started writing about notable Nigeria-related topics and at the same time reading the basic policies and guidelines which seemed difficult to understand at that time. This difficulty to understand policy led to the first ANI in 2014. The allegation includes incivility and copyvio. I pleaded and I was not blocked. Since then, I never repeat any of these behavior. Also, I never thought a claim of ACADEMIC will give an impression of dishonesty. I only felt its an informal claim and that is what I take it to be. In fact, I'm not even aware of WP:HONESTY and WP:EXPERT. All of these with the recent recreation of my shameless autobiography amount to a gross misconduct which is enough for an indef block or ban. This I know! The mobbing by the community is simply because they are unhappy with the entire issues. This caused many of them to lose confidence in me as a result. I know the community has brought out my worst contributions and I'm 100% ready to fix the rest under the mentorship of User:Cullen328 and user:Irondome and anyone willing to help. Above all, I need to be rehabilitated. Please I need help, in any capacity you can help. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

15:25:48, 7 April 2016 review of submission by Dantunkuran[edit]



Hello Mclenom. How do you request for the deletion of the other page?. Thank you

Katie Rodan at WP:RMTR[edit]

Hello Robert. The style of this article is promotional, though the person seems notable. If you are familiar with AfC, why not do whatever fixup you think is appropriate and then approve it in the AfC way? I am unsure if RMTR is supposed to bypass AfC, though I know little about the mechanics. I declined the move just so the status is clear, but will restore it if you are sure this is an OK procedure. The product article at Proactiv looks legit and some experienced editors have worked on it. Maybe one of them would be willing to help. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I am familiar with AFC. I reviewed the draft via AFC. It appears that you and I had different opinions. I was not trying to bypass AFC, but I cannot accept an article via AFC without a technical move if its title already exists as a redirect. I will review the article again as to tone and will provide feedback to the author. (Notability is established.) Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
I deleted the redirect and moved the article to Katie Rodan. It still has some AfC headers on it. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
It no longer has AFC headers. If any editor editor has issues with it such as a promotional tone, they can either tag it or revise it. (There shouldn't be any notability issues. We can agree that the subject is notable.) Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 04:32:40, 8 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Sarovaram11[edit]


Hi Robert! This is with reference to my article The Label Life, that was rejected (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox). I'm attempting to edit it and I wanted to clarify the reasons for rejection so I know I'm on the right track while making the changes. 1) The language - needs to be more neutral and objective (does this mean not using phrases like 'celebrity stylists' and so on) 2) Sources - I've tried to restrict them to articles from magazines and newspapers (Indiatoday, vogue and open, the magazine - among others) could you guide me on what other sources I should be looking for?

Apologies if these questions sound silly, it's my first time and I thought it was ready as I put it on the New Contributor's Help chat before submitting for review. But I clearly missed a lot, anyway, it's all a process right?

Thanks very much

Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I will try to answer and to get help from other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Robert! Hope you are well, would you be able to take a look at my submission again and see if there are any notes you can give me? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox Could you also please guide me as to where to put the title? It will be TheLabelLife.com as thats what they are called.

Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarovaram11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikicology arbitration case opened[edit]

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The message was sent using the case's MassMessage list. Unless you are a party, you may remove your name from the list to stop receiving notifications regarding the case.

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hello Mccleone. I am confident with people like you Wikipedia would be more reliable. This is your 2nd rejection of my page. i have tried again. Please check Dantunkuran (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 15:06:08, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Dantunkuran[edit]


Hello Robert. Another editor informed that the other black draft with the name Abdulbaqi Jari has been deleted. You may take a look at the page i am creating now.

Thank you

Dantunkuran (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". 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 16 April 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. 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 22:14:56, 9 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Biolprof[edit]


First, thank you for you amazingly quick response to my submission of UNC13A as an article for creation. I am a WP Teaching Fellow/University Professor and have a student that would like to expand this article, but I don't want her to be held up by the AfC process. I can have her work further on this stub, but my understanding is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology has a project to create a stub for every human gene/protein with the expectation that the stubs will be fleshed out as our knowledge improves. The style guide for these articles is found here. The content of the article I submitted was automatically generated by the GeneWikiGenerator following WP style guidelines. I thought I should be able to automatically send it to WP from the Biogps site, but since I could not, I submitted it as an AfC. Many similar stub articles with just one or two references have been created, some generated by a bot. (For example: ALDH16A1). My response to your specific comments:

  • my understanding is that WP:MCB has determined that every human gene is notable. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but the related genes UNC13B and UNC13D each have a page and neither was created with much more information.
  • The broken link to the reference has now been repaired. Apologies that I missed this.
  • Entrez Gene is a definitive reference for all human genes and is cited following the first sentence of all gene/protein articles that I am familiar with.
  • "(C. elegans)" is included as part of the name for the human protein in Entrez Gene/NCBI web site and was included in the WikiGeneGenerator text, but it is not included in the WP pages for the UNC13B and UNC13D homologs, so I have deleted that.

One additional comment: if you still think this article should not be approved, would you consider asking someone from the WP:MCB for a second opinion. Thank you for your consideration. Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

10:18:41, 10 April 2016 review of submission by Longfamily417[edit]



Thank you for your recent feedback.

I have modified the first line so that it is not self referencing. I also removed the reference to the Ottawa Citizen circulation size.

Regarding the performance analysis section, what do I do to put it in paragraph format?

Regarding your rejection, what other writing recommendations would you make for it to be acceptable? Perhaps I simply cannot write this kind of article myself? I would have thought the published research would have stood on its own since it was independently reviewed and went through a peer reviewed process.

Interested in your advice.

thanks,

David

A barnstar for you![edit]

Writers Barnstar Hires.png The Writer's Barnstar
Hello Robert.

Please guide me so that i can finish creating the article i am currently creating. Please point the errors so that i can know where to specifically correct. The Wiki Nigeria project has only 53 people, which mostly have not been around for some time.

  I intend to create many articles to help enrich searches from Nigeria. This is my first one, i will definitely improve after succeeding on this one.

Thank you Dantunkuran (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Impostor[edit]

Hi,

I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I am aware that the impersonator spelled their user ID differently than you do, and was blocked as an impersonator, and is probably a sock-puppet for a banned user, and was probably trying to fool me into supporting them in some controversy. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm just hoping that people don't mistake me for him, or think he's a sockpuppet of me or vice versa. He forged my signature and copied my user and talk pages. Adam9007 (talk) 17:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
The admins know which of you is which. Don't worry. They blocked him, not you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Mail[edit]

You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Closed dispute[edit]

Hello, Can you please explain what you mean by "the filing party has not listed any of the other parties"? Thanks 24.197.253.43 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Citation Barnstar Hires.png The Citation Barnstar
Thanks for your help. I think that you know that I am beginner in Wikipedia and I didn't read those policies that you explained. I will draw attention to them in the future. Good luck! Temuujina (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Hello Robert

No body responds to you call for advice in Tea House, guess they too are dormant like Wiki Nigeria project. Anyway, i thank you for your help. Is here i leave it. I want to write in Hausa also. Lets see if i will improve my English in the next 5 year. I want to delete the article for now. Dantunkuran (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Dantunkuran - Please don't delete the article without keeping its information somewhere. The Hausa Wikipedia would be a place to keep it. If you expect to improve it in the English draft within six months, please keep it in English. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Do you want one Edit tab, or two? It's your choice[edit]

How to switch between editing environments
Part of the toolbar in the visual editor
Click the [[ ]] to switch to the wikitext editor.
Part of the toolbar in the wikitext editor
Click the pencil icon to switch to the visual editor.

The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.

You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.

There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.

Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

I Don't know what I'm doing[edit]

I filed a Edit warring thing a day ago or so and it looks like they are going to skip me. I am going to make it simple, I am not a regular user on Wikipedia, I don't get the whole fight system thing here. But I asked for help many times now about the same issue and I am getting the shaft from the whole lot. This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Look at my edit history, do I look like I would know the whole system? Please just get someone to address this matter on the Laura Branigan article. 07:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilmanozzy (talk • contribs)

Since you are an inexperienced user who is trying to edit a contentious article, I will be asking for help at the Teahouse, which provides advice primarily to new editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Devilmanozzy: I saw a link to this on AN3 so I thought I'd comment: the reason they're going to ignore your report is that I did not violate WP:3RR, as you claimed. So the report is totally frivolous, just like your previous report against me at ANI. Cheers Thomas.W talk 16:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: It's not an inexperienced user, but someone I've had run-ins with multiple times over several years, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Thomas.W_reported_by_User:Devilmanozzy. Thomas.W talk 16:49, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Devilmanozzy - This is beyond taking this to the Teahouse. Cancelling the plan to go there. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
User:Thomas.W - First, as to the RFC, either request closure review or agree that there is consensus that her birth date was 1952. Second, either file the sockpuppet investigation or stop claiming sock-puppetry. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Both of you - Stop edit-warring, even in slow motion, about her place of birth. Stop the edit-warring about removal of sections. Stop it. Stop it. Stop it. The best approach at this point would be formal mediation if you are willing to try that. In any case, stop editing her date of birth. Either accept 1952, or request that the RFC be re-opened.l Robert McClenon (talk) 17:12, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

DRN help needed and volunteer roll call[edit]

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.

First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.

Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Cristian Carrara[edit]

Hi, thank you for your indication about youtube video. Today I added other references. Ciao Icedevis (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
Thanks for reviewing the article I submitted so quickly. Really impressive turnaround. Sethgodin (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Jonathan Sackner Bernstein bio updated[edit]

As suggested, I updated the first paragraph of the article (peacock language) and feel like the whole thing reads okay. Submitted via articles for creation, but thought I'd come back to you.

To save time, the notability thing: NY Times writes, "The controversy over Natrecor follows two recently published studies by Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, a heart failure specialist at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. The analyses, based on patient studies submitted to the F.D.A., linked the drug to worsened kidney function and hastened death."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/business/the-marketing-and-success-of-natrecor.html?_r=0

Bio in question is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jonathan_Sackner_Bernstein

Apologies for being so so bad about formatting the talk page stuff in the wikipedia style. It's definitely an acquired skill.

Thanks Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

If you have resubmitted it, I will let another reviewer review it this time. By the way, within Wikipedia, we prefer that editors use internal wikilinks to articles rather than external URLs. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I appreciate the response. PS It sure seems as though the computer ought to be smart enough to resolve external links into internal ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

When you refer to the computer, do you mean the web browser, or Wikipedia itself? The web browser knows nothing of Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editor receives a lot of URLs and doesn't try to parse them. You might make that suggestion at the Village Pump (idea lab). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:12, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

18:14:07, 13 April 2016 review of submission by Avery.brister[edit]


name[edit]

Fix name in search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Theo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

Deletion of Article[edit]

Sir,Can you help me clean up the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arvind_Iyer and also look at the dead link references.In my opinion,the personal does not meet notability guidelines and request you to nominate the article for deletion.Thank You (Intelbot22 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC))

Thanks![edit]

Cyanocitta-cristata-004.jpg Article Help
Thank you for your kind words on my user page! If you are not doing anything very significant right now, can you help me improve my article? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

01:25:15, 16 April 2016 review of submission by Martamagriet[edit]



{{Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some of the updates (wikilinks/see also comments), however, I would like to change the article name to Andres Saavedra (producer). I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to do that before I resubmit the article for review. Could you guide me in the right direction? Thank you very much. }} :It appears that your draft, if not ready for acceptance, is almost ready for acceptance. However, when it is accepted, it should be accepted at Andres Saavedra, because he is the only person with that name. The article won't need disambiguation, either in the article title or in the infobox. (The current draft is only a draft and can be ignored if your sandbox copy meets acceptance standards, and it appears that it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

It is true that, in the short run, he does need disambiguating. I will ask for advice at the Teahouse about the intermediate run. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:54, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello. First, thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some change in the references, but I am still unsure how to interpret your comment : Some of the references do not appear to be applicable to this person at all, while some of them are applicable. Please review the references and see which of them are applicable.

Is it because I have linked the website pages of his former doctoral students? I can remove them if you wish. Thanks.

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

If so, why did you link the pages of his former doctoral students? They didn't relate to anything said in the text. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


It's removed, can you review my article again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceTestifier (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) IceTestifier (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

13:46:36, 17 April 2016 review of submission by Angieduma[edit]


Dear Robert McClenon, thank for reviewing the submitted article on Design for All. I perfectly understand your point of view. There are three existing articles which treat DfA on the English Wikipedia. Please let me explain you, why I decided to submit a further one and suggest a solution. The most relevant and scientifically updated article on Design for All is actually incorporated in the article about Universal Design. This gives the idea, that DfA is a subcategory of Universal Design, which is not the case. DfA and UD are two distinct approaches treating a common argument, but born in different parts of the world. The DfA-approach has it's roots in the European culture, UD is more known in the US and Japan. My suggestion would be to create two distinct articles: one on Universal Design and one on DfA. The latter updated by my information. The other two articles treating DfA (ICT and product line) could be incorporated and/or cut. Product line is quite promotional and ICT is not updated. What do you think about it? Grateful for your assistance I thank you in advance

A barnstar for you![edit]

Original Barnstar Hires.png The Original Barnstar
You're Awesome! ShantoShahriar (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Help Desk[edit]

You added archivetop/archivebottom tags around a discussion on the help desk. Later the archivebottom was removed, leaving everything from the April 17 section header onwards archived.

I have now removed the archivetop, to make the Desk usable again. Maybe I should instead have tried to restore the archivebottom to where it was meant to be - but I am reluctant to tinker with things that I don't fully understand. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

I know

. Right after I saved it, I saw the problem, and tried to fix, but you had already fixed. At least, it looked fine to me after your fix. Oops. Thank youj. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Great Western Mainline Electrification Progress[edit]

Relating to "Great Western Main Line Electrification Progress" new page submission.

McClenon said (to paraphrase) "expand the page to include an introduction and some references", so I did so. the Joseph2302 said "this should not be a separate page, add it to the main one", which means the introduction and references I have added at the suggestion of the McClenon would be redundant, since the main page already has them.

I'm quite confused, and feel like I have wasted my time, so I am becoming reluctant to commit any more effort to this. I can't see how I can take both of your comments into account, so should I just assume that the latest comment is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.Bristol (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

One of the Teahouse, your talk page (don't scatter it between ours), or the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the other article. My comment was largely in response to yours being mostly just a table. I had been thinking that a main article was needed. I see the main article, and I agree that your contribution appears to be meant to be a table in the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:36, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding "edit" tab/feature to edit articles[edit]

Hi Robert,

I notice I am unable to edit entries and AfC submissions using the Edit tab. This seems to have happened just four days ago --- before that, there appeared an "edit" tab at the top right side of my screen, to make edits easy. Now it is gone! Instead, I only see an "Edit source" tab, which I can use to make edits but is much more cumbersome and difficult than using the easy editor "Edit" tab feature. [ver encountered this problem when editing? If so, any advice/suggestions on what to do?

Cheers, ChopSticksChan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

It appears that you want to use a feature known as the Visual Editor, as opposed to using the wiki markup editor. Please ask at the Teahouse how to turn the Visual Editor back on. I can't answer you because I don't use the Visual Editor; I use the wiki markup editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:52, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

09:28:57, 19 April 2016 review of submission by 195.195.81.208[edit]


Hello Robert, thank-you for taking the time to review my wikipedia article. I have used your advice as the basis for re-writing the article. I hope it will now meet community standards. After further research I have expanded the number of independent, reliable sources as you suggested. I am still to provide the ISBN number and page references for reference #3 because the book is currently on loan from my college library. However I have reserved it on Thursday when it is due back. Best wishes from London, Ali

195.195.81.208 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

George G. Receli article[edit]

Dear Robert, Thank for for reviewing the article and also for your suggestions about how to substantiate the information regarding the awards. George is currently on tour with Dylan in Japan. I am in contact with him and he will be sending me links from reliable sources, which I will add as external links. We appreciate your helping us comply with community standards. WikiWhip (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip


Robert, George is an old friend and neighbor. I am not his employee, nor have I ever received any money from him. I am simply collaborating with him in an effort to get his Wikipedia page on line. WikiWhip (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip

He may not be paying you, but please read the conflict of interest policy anyway. Trying to help a neighbor and friend to get his page on-line is not an obvious violation of the policy, but that doesn't change the fact that many Wikipedians, including me, will think that it is a less obvious violation. If you don't want his draft flagged as having a conflict of interest, you can ask at the conflict of interest noticeboard, or I can ask, but I think that you do have a conflict of interest, and he definitely does, and you admit to be working with him, even if not for him. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Robert, I now understand the conflict of interest issue. Can you please help us overcome this obstacle? WikiWhip (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip

My advice at this point is to go to the Teahouse and ask for neutral advice for a COI editor. You can't change the fact that the draft is now tagged as written partly by a COI editor. What you can request is their help in reworking a draft about someone who is almost certainly notable (that is, he will be notable when the Grammies are probably documented) to make it neutral. Some editors at the Teahouse are very friendly to new editors who came here not being aware of our strict COI policy who are trying to get an article on someone who probably is entitled to an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Gianni Piacentino page[edit]

Hello Robert, I'm new to wikipedia so please excuse me if I'm going about this incorrectly. You reviewed my recent submission, a page on artist Gianni Piacentino, and declined my submission because of an existing pending review. The existing page, Draft:Gianni Piacentino, was declined on 23 May 2015. As this previous page was declined, I'm not sure if I should/can make edits to it. Would it be best to resubmit my page or make edits to this existing declined draft and resubmit that? Hribbens (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Make your changes to the existing draft. If you resubmit your sandbox page, it will be declined again because there is already a draft in progress. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:David Jolly[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Jolly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Comment[edit]

Jeff Cavins

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Robert, thank you so much for your looking into the questions about my article for Jeff Cavins, which I found out through you had overwritten a seemingly stagnant draft. As I mentioned on the draft page, this was due to my error. However, on the original merits of my question, would you be able to review my draft at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Jeff_Cavins or submit it to be reviewed?

Submitted. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:42, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I put it through[edit]

Hi Robert, just a heads up that I tweaked and then created Rangeland Management in mainspace. The article still needs some work, but there is actually a huge need for this article, as nothing else there covers precisely the same thing. Western land management and arid land management is a unique field and a topic of tremendous importance to livestock producers in many arid ecosystems with fragile land. Anyway, as you were reviewing the draft, I figured that I should give you a heads up that I was bold and moved it. I dn't get over to AfC very much, but if you run across another agriculture article that needs a review, feel free to ping me any time. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

13:55:34, 24 April 2016 review of submission by Littletpot[edit]


Hi. I edited the page to include the links you suggested. I don't really know what you mean by pointing to the red links on the DC Library page so I can't really address that. For what it's worth, the two other D.C. Carnegie libraries Mt. Pleasant and Takoma have articles. Also, my understanding from reading federal and local regs is that a property located in a historic district, does in fact have historic status. Locally, property, even private property, within a historic district cannot be altered without a permit, and alterations must adhere to design and construction standards approved by a preservation board. On the federal level, owners of property in a historic district listed in the national register like Capitol Hill are eligible for special tax breaks and grants unavailable to property not in a historic district. This is all indicative of buildings within a district being considered historic. Specifically in the case here where the building is 94, designed by a notable architect, and part of a larger movement that itself is notable, adds to the weight of it's historic nature. But you are correct. The building in and of itself is not a legally a "Landmark." I've changed the heading to "Location." Littletpot (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

NAC: Please discuss the article at User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold , Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Appreciate your help in creation of "Spacetime Topology". You have made me a great confidence in wikipedia. I will contribute more of my knowledge for wikipedia.org. If there is anything I can offer as a volunteer, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtumanity (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Spacetime Topology[edit]

Hi Robert, I notice you accepted the creation of Spacetime Topology by user Virtumanity (talk · contribs). Please note that we already have an article Spacetime topology, that this user tried to replace with his content, full of original research, errors (the opening line of the lead is just nonsense already), unreliable sources (e.g. self-published [1]) and primary sources, all for which I warned the user [2]. After that warning, they simply upcased the article title. Can you please undo your approval and/or delete the article? Thanks - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: article db-ed and user notified. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

response[edit]

Hi DVdml, the research was published for more than a year and has been recorganized in the scientific community, for it was invited as the keynote speech at London quantum physics conference in March, and is further invited for the coming speech at American astronomy meeting, and the physics 2016 in June, and much more. Hope you can understand the significance of the contents, although the post is just a very small part of the contents. Please note, the original contents "Spacetime topology" is old and misleading to our generations, should you google on the Internet. Our goal is not for anything personal but helping the community for scientific advancement. You might review my credentials by Google "Wei Xu IPSec". In fact, the post is purely to help our scociety, unlerated to my career at all, because I have a busy position daily at an IT organization. respectfully, Virtumanity (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Astrology? Please have a very careful look at wp:FRINGE. - DVdm (talk) 12:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Astronomy. Thank you for advise. Respectively — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtumanity (talk • contribs) 12:21, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a place to promote our own research. The part that you added is entirely based on your self-published work ([3]). - DVdm (talk) 12:34, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Spacetime Topology - Solution[edit]

Hi Robert, The article was originally titled as "Spacetime Manifold". After reviewed by wiae, he suggested to update the contents on "Spacetime topology". Following his instruction, I updated the title to "Spacetime Topology" AND included all of the original contents of "Spacetime topology" in the section 1.2. What I didn't know was the difference between small and capital "T". I apologize for this confusion. I suggest to redirect "Spacetime topology" to "Spacetime Topology", or please advise. respectively. Virtumanity (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Note: As can be tracked in your edit history, first you updated the article Spacetime topology with your content, which I undid, and warned about on your talk page. Then, you created the new article Spacetime Topology with exactly the same content that was removed. I don't think that this is a matter of not knowing the difference between small and capital "T". It looks like ignoring a warning about original research, and finding yet another way of promoting your work. - DVdm (talk) 12:46, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I also redirected Spacetime Manifold to spacetime topology. I'm by no means an expert in this area but the discussion of yin and yan fields struck me as possible original research or fringe material. Perhaps I should have been more clear about those Wikipedia policies in my decline of User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold, rather than giving the boilerplate "this subject is already discussed at article x" decline. /wiae /tlk 15:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@Wiae: (also pinging Favonian who moved it to user space now) not only is it OR, the description (abstract) of his self-published source https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/id1082259284 (which he uses in the opening statement of the lead) reveals that this is, forgive my French, complete nonsense. And more of similar Yin Yang in his other cited private source https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/theory-of-physical-cosmology/id999166352?mt=11 Checking some of the other sources is telling (e.g. [4]). - DVdm (talk) 15:49, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Note, Favonian's userfied User:Virtumanity/Spacetime Topology now moved back to User:Virtumanity/sandbox/Spacetime Manifold by user RHaworth. - DVdm (talk) 18:00, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Robert and DVdm: First, in case there is any lack of clarity, I will point out that I did not write or contribute to the articles in question. I was an AFC reviewer, and evidently made the mistake of not verifying that there was already an article that differed only by capitalization. The article was well-sourced, and I didn't read it in the detail to see that it apparently contained original research and a mixture of science and pseudo-science. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Dear Robert and DVdm, First of all, I appreciate your time on this. All what your comments as original research are removed completely, though it is trying to help our civilization. The section 1.1 is now enhanced to address "pseudo-science". As you can see, the father of our quantum physics, Niels Bohr, is a YinYang philosopher. From the updated references of [8]-[16], you might see the well-known journals are publishing numerous of the yin yang papers. FYI: by debating with Bohr, Einstein spent rest of his 40 years of Unified Field Theory for nothing, only because of his ignorance of yin yang philosophy. After a century, our challenge is even greater than that of the trial of Galileo Galilei. Not only do we ignore both a profound philosophy of science and the existence of Unified Theory for All Physics, but we have also failed at a time when “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” stated by Stephen Hawking. Our challenge is to soften our metaphysical prejudices, for the assumption that there is no metaphysical reality is also a metaphysics itself. Our challenge is to open up our minds to facts hidden in the fabric of daily life. Everywhere our world shines with a beautiful nature of yin yang duality. Finally, I sincerely thank you for spending time on this, although my thoughts to become a WiKi volunteer is hopeless. Hope you can maintain WiKi healthier if not better. Sincerely and respectfully. Virtumanity (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Starting at the bottom, I see the following unreliable sources: [5], [6], [7]. I'll stop here. - DVdm (talk) 07:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Good suggestion. Removed, since the original reference to Wikipedia is more than enough. I am happy to follow your instruction for revision before the posting. Honestly speaking, the current "Spacetime topology" is really mis-leading. It is better not be there, or replaced by this post at least for some benefits. I like Robert statement "I had originally intended to contribute a few articles on subjects of which I have knowledge. However, it seems that much of my time is being spent in responding to disputes and problematical editors. We have problematical editors on Wikipedia because editors are human and humans are problematical." except this time I am a problematical contributor. Thank you again for educating me with my first post. I have learned lots from you all. Forgive me if I have done anything improperly. Best wishes.

Virtumanity (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

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

Request on 00:14:21, 26 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Kildowgut[edit]


Thank you for your feedback. I understand why you rejected the article. I will not be revising it. Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

01:39:54, 26 April 2016 review of submission by Lithiumsrilanka[edit]



Hi Robert, I submitted an article with the title Prime Lands Group. Can you please give me some pointers to clean it up. Like remove some links or a specific paragraph that violates the G11, Thanks in advance.

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 13:31:56, 27 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Faithmarks[edit]


Hello! Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback about this article. I understand the reasons you declined its creation. I have removed the company's website from the references and added a few more. Now they are all from independent sources - newspapers, industry media, official studies etc. There are no directory listings among the references, only the certified partner lists of notable third-party providers. Some of the references are in Bulgarian language as they come from Bulgarian newspapers that do not offer English versions - I added a note to each of them. Will this be a sufficient improvement to resubmit the article? I kindly ask for your opinion and advice if there is something more to be done.

Thanks a lot in advance! Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 12:08:34, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Graememcg[edit]


Thank you for the feedback on my submission for CORGI HomePlan. I would like to understand a bit more about what was meant by my references being inconsistent. Does this refer to anything in particular? What could improve the consistency of the references? Also, the references were referred to as duplicated. Again, are you able to provide specific examples of what you mean to help me refine this entry to the standard required?

Graememcg (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". 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 5 May 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. 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Request on 19:52:02, 28 April 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by 128.114.234.139[edit]


check on edits for resubmit Robert McCleon, Thank you for your prompt consideration of the submission Draft:Russell L. De Valois. I believe I understood the issues you raised and hope that I have adequately addressed them in the resubmission. I will be alert to further processing of the submission. 128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Non-useful statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Personal attacks?[edit]

I made no personal attacks to any editor, so please do not make false accusations toward me. Thank you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

04:54:21, 30 April 2016 review of submission by Dimigaza[edit]


Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page?

Kind regards, Dimitri

04:56:36, 30 April 2016 review of submission by Dimigaza[edit]


Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Dimigaza/sandbox&action=edit

Kind regards, Dimitri

Maybe I don't understand what you were trying to do. Were you trying to create a Wikipedia article? What would the subject of the article have been? Were you trying to use Wikipedia as the web host for a memorial for the Dutch Resistance? If so, what policy did you read that said that this was an appropriate use? Did you read WP:NOTWEBHOST? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:41, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

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

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Articles for Creation Barnstar Hires.png The Articles for Creation barnstar
Thank you for reviewing the articles I created! Jaldous1 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 00:21:11, 2 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Scottmacgregor123[edit]


Hi Mr. McClenon,

I appreciate the quick review time. You declined my RONALD J. ROSS article today 5/1/16. You found an old submission of mine (via my subject's sandbox and we were led to believe that it had been deleted due to our inaction. Should we just go back to that article and re-edit it? Thank you. smacgregor123


Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Scholarship Owl[edit]

Hi Robert,

Hope you're well. You declined my article on ScholarshipOwl saying there was a draft under review here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:ScholarshipOwl. I looked at it and saw it was actually declined for not having been written according to the guidelines. So I rewrote the article of THAT user. Does it make sense? What do I do now? It's been over a week and the other article didn't get any comments. I feel like the reviewers won't review it because it wasn't the original editor who edited that item? Please help shed some light on this issue. Thanks for your help! - Yael Usseryroad (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

You haven't submitted it for review. Do you want me to submit it as per your request? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert! Yes, please, submit. I looked and I couldn't see how I submit it. Could you also let me know where to look for next time? Really appreciate it! Usseryroad (talk) 18:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)


It's Robert again...[edit]

NAC:Please take this discussion to an article talk page, a noticeboard, or your own talk pages. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:19, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi Robert. Could you take a look at Talk:Four Noble Truths? Robert Walker is running around again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

I've posted my comments at Talk:Four Noble Truths. Either the draft RFC should be formalized, or it should be closed. I can't help about any question about truth, because Christianity has an entirely different concept of truth than Buddhism does, although similar teachings on ethics. We can walk together toward differing hoped-for destinations, but as long as we are at peace about the journey, let us not talk about where the journey is going. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
At this point, the only advice I have on the walls of text is to ignore them, and to focus on either formalizing the RFC or closing the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:16, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks. I really love your abstention on "different truths." And I agree about ignoring the walls of texts; I'd reached that point this morning. Thanks, and all the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 13:49, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi Robert - as a matter of information on wikipedia procedure since I'm not as familiar with this as the other editors - is @Joshua Jonathan: right to say that I can't open an RfC on "redeath" for as long as the RfC on WP:RS is open? Note that we were in the middle of discussing the possibility of a future RfC on "redeath" when they opened the RfC on WP:RS in case that makes any difference, and had not discussed the idea of an RfC on WP:RS. It seems that potentially if he is right that it is impossible to open the new RfC for up to 30 days depending on when they close the current RfC. He also seems to be saying that because it is a more broadly stated RfC then any conclusion overrides any RfC on particulars in the debate - that can't be right can it? His comment is here: [8] Robert Walker (talk) 14:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
First, you are confusing me by referring to an RFC on WP:RS. That refers to the Wikipedia policy on reliable sources, which is a binding policy. I don't see anyone who wants to change that policy. I do see an RFC about the lede to Four Noble Truths, and it does involve reliable sources. Second, if anyone is saying that one RFC locks out further RFCs, that isn't the way RFCs work. You can open another RFC. They run concurrently. It would be a good idea to write your RFC very carefully so that it is consistent with the existing RFC and doesn't conflict with it. I do take strong issue with your comment that the current RFC is invalid or isn't closeable, but maybe you think, or were told, that only one RFC can run at a time, so that filing an RFC is a race. There can be multiple RFCs. It is just that it is important to be careful with them. Please explain. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, that was shorthand. I meant the RfC on Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#RfC:_Scholarly_sources_or_Introductory_texts.3F where the RfC is about whether it is okay to use material in WP:RS beyond introductory texts in the article. I don't know why it is even a question, it seems like a tautology, but that is how the RfC is stated. I did not word the RfC. I don't think the RfC would conflict with the existing one except that the existing one adds "– such as about rebirth, redeath" as examples of material that can be found in WP:RS. It is Joshua Jonathan who says it conflicts. I don't understand your next comment as I didn't mean to say that the existing one is invalid or uncloseable. Sorry for the clumsy phrasing if it somehow conveyed that. Glad to hear it is possible to have multiple RfCs at once. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Of course you can open a next RfC, but personally I consider it to be bad practice to ignore an ongoing RfC and open a next one. It looks like saying, "I don't care about your opinions, I want it my way." Regarding "more broadly stated RfC": you misunderstood. It's not about the way the current RfC is stated; it's baout local RfC's versus core Wiki-policies. What I said is that you can open a RfC on the use of the word "redeath," but such an RfC can't override the policies on WP:RS. That is, the use of the word "redeath" is based on reliable sources; a local RfC can't just decide to ignore those reliable sources. That goes against core Wiki-policies. So, you'll have to come up with convincing arguments to skip the word "redeath," when it's being used by both Paul Williams and Buswell & Lopez to characterize "samsara." Read that again: it's being used by both Paul Williams and Buswell & Lopez. That makes it based on pretty good reliable sources. (My apologies Robert M. for using yopur talkpage). Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 15:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Things seem to have gotten to the point where there are multiple issues and multiple views of what the issues are. In this particular case, formal mediation might be a good idea, but that would require first that the poster of the RFC agree to withdraw it in favor of mediation, because an RFC outranks mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The only reason why I am agreeing to give advice on this talk page (and I am not a Buddhist and do not want to get into Buddhist theological issues) is that one of the parties makes it difficult to use article talk pages by walls of text. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:13, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ @Robert McClenon: - I'm only asking about wikipedia protocol here. In the case of this article there are multiple issues certainly. But considering the discussions so far on that page, I just don't see how all those issues could be resolved in one go. Hence the idea to tackle just one small issue at a time. And starting with a very small but significant issue, only one word in the article. I've seen that often RfCs do focus down to a single word so it seems like something that could be done. If this worked then it would mean it's possible to do something about the rest of the issues, slowly and patiently, one issue at a time, to reach some resolution. So that's the idea, hope this makes more sense. Of course I wouldn't for a moment expect you to play any role in the discussion of the actual issues on the page :). Joshua Jonathan could present his arguments for using the term in the article, and particularly in the statement of the four noble truths, in his section of the RfC and we could see what the larger community of editors in the Buddhism project here think about his arguments. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't read a question about Wikipedia protocol here. Maybe I have missed something, but I think that we are in agreement as to reliable source policy and Requests for Comments policy. If there really is a question about the policies, please ask it concisely (and, if you aren't capable of asking concisely, don't ask it at all). However, there has been an RFC, and the editor who is asking the question objects to the RFC, saying it is too general, or something like that. If so, it doesn't preclude concurrently running RFCs. So, if you think that another well-formed RFC can be published, publish it and let it run for 30 days. Don't use walls of text in the RFC, or (unlike Sarah's RFC), it really will be uncloseable, and therefore not worth opening. Either that, or get agreement to use formal mediation rather than RFCs. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Okay, will do. It will be a short concise RfC. Robert Walker (talk) 16:38, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
Here it is, as short as I can make it: Talk:Four_Noble_Truths#RfC_on_use_of_the_word_.22redeath.22_in_the_article_and_lede_for_Four_Noble_Truths
The RfC was going well, interesting civilized discussion, votes both ways, but soon after I got the second Oppose vote, @Joshua Jonathan: took me to ANI proposing a topic ban of me from the article. Without warning me that he had this in mind.
I am reconsidering this plan to try to do one small RfC at a time. In principle it seems a good approach, but perhaps I am not the one to do it.
And I don't want to try mediation. I don't have a lot of time for wikipedia at present, less than before and need to focus on other things, and from last time I know how much time this sort of thing can take up.
Thanks for your help on wikipedia protocol. If I am not topic banned I might try another similar very small RfC a month or two from now. I am interested in how the current RfC goes. But perhaps there's not much point in attempting an RfC if it just ends up with other editors wanting to ban me from the page. Robert Walker (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@Robertinventor: I didn't propose a topic-ban because John Carter argued against the use of the word "redeath"; he's a solid editor, and he got valid arguments, and if we decide to leave that word out, fine. I proposed a topic-ban because you're driving me nuts with your walls of text, your lack of basic knowledge of Buddhism, and your non-comprehension of a long list of sources I've provided. It simply doesn't work. Except for one point: your complaints made it very clear that the importance of the four truths in the Theravada-tradition is a later development; they are seen as constituting the "liberating insight" that the developing Buddhist tradition needed to match up with other Indian traditions, which is at odds with the message of the four truths themselves - exactly the point you want to keep out of the article. The link you're seeing between one editor arguing against the use of the word "redeath" and me proposing a topic-ban for you, illustrates how you misunderstand basic realities, which makes your ways of thinking so distracting in this whole process. I don't doubt your sincere intentions, but it doesn't contribute to Wikipedia; it distracts. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 04:29, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't want to keep any viewpoint out of the article. It's you who are doing that, excluding the views of Gombrich, Wynne, Payutto, Harvey etc who all say that most of the Pali Canon derives from a single author, with Harvey summarizing it as "While parts of the Pali Canon clearly originated after the time of the Buddha, much must derive from his teaching.". Your reasons for leaving out the views of these prominent Buddhist scholars at the opposite end of the spectrum from Anderson (who is a minor scholar in Buddhist circles, only three cites for her book) seem WP:OR to me and would be the subject of another RfC if I get the chance.
The idea of the RfC on redeath was to focus down to a single tiny issue, so we could do this one at a time, and it is you who keep bringing in other issues into the debate. If you can help me to focus the discussion on each single point at a time, it would be a great help.
If you think I have nothing to say, it's easy, just ignore me after making your point briefly. If everyone did that, that would be the end of it. And you don't seem to have any problem at all reading and understanding my posts, replying with long posts yourself. I encourage you to write long posts so I can understand your views better. The idea of this very focused RfC was to focus on just one issue at a time, so I don't want to be distracted into discussing all the other particular issues in the list of suggested future RfCs right now.
Except just to say they are matters that surely can't just be dismissed by saying that it's a controversy over WP:RS. It's not, from my side. The only matter to do with WP:RS mentioned in the topic ban discussion is that I used the statement of the four noble truths on the buddhanet website, website of the boddhitree Therevadhan monastery, as one example of many to illustrate how the four noble truths are traditionally stated. The other examples I used in that list were WP:RS. And WP:RS is not cut and dried. In some contexts use of the materials on a website created by a large therevadhan monastery might be WP:RS depending on the use of it. In this case it was to show how the four noble truths are typically expressed for practitioners and it was just in a talk page discussion. I didn't say we have to use this cite in the article, just gave it as one example of many to show how the four truths are usually expressed. I don't see that as reason to be topic banned.
And I haven't ignored your cites on redeath. They seem to confirm that it is a very rare word. Only one occurrence in Harvey and 161 occurrences of death, in a 552 page book. Most sources don't use it. As for the other cites, again I didn't ignore them, I just said they didn't backup what you claimed they did, that the 4NT in the lede should be rewritten in a form different from the way Buddha originally taught them in the wheel turning stura. This is the topic for the third in my list of proposed very focused RfCs. list of suggested future RfCs Robert Walker (talk) 08:30, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

03:48:13, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Kurtisokc[edit]


I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and don't do edits very often, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused as to why my submitted article for Iowa Lakes Community College was rejected. The explanation was that the article was rejected because a stub article was previously submitted. However, as far as I can tell, the previous article was submitted in 2014. Furthermore, the reviewer stated in his comments that he thinks the article I submitted is better than the previously submitted article and should be reviewed in its place. However, as far as I can tell the editor who rejected my submission is the same one who made that comment. I understand that editors might have inflexible guidelines to work under, but if a previous submission has priority over mine, shouldn't you just go ahead and approve or disapprove it since it has been, like, a year and a half already?

See Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Iowa Lakes Community College in which I am requesting to delete the abandoned draft. Please express your opinion, which presumably is to get rid of it to make way for your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

15:23:09, 3 May 2016 review of submission by Shyamw1[edit]




All of the information I have in the article has been taken from reliable sources and as far as I can tell, I have cited the information appropriately. If something is not right, can you please give me the specifics instead of a general comment like "This article contains copyrighted material" which is not very helprul. I would appreciate it if I knew what line or paragraph contained "copyrighted material" so I can edit that section. Thanks.

See the discussion at the Teahouse. Please address the comments that were made there. It appears that you have a canned reply to inquire about declined articles. That results in a great deal of wariness and cynicism among experienced editors, especially since I made no mention of copyrighted material. Do you have a conflict of interest? What is the relationship between you and User:Wshyam? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:09, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft: Ecoscraps[edit]

NAC:Some other reviewer who is more patient than I am with paid editors will review the revised draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

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

Hi Robert. Would you mind taking another pass at Draft: Ecoscraps. I think perhaps you should take another look at the sourcing. I've rewritten the lead to summarize why this company has received so much attention in the press: nine feature stories in reliable independent publications, including four from A++ publications, and a magazine cover story. The articles are spread out over five years. And I didn't even includes the many dozens of product reviews in trade publications. I've written many articles for Wikipedia and the notability threshold here seems clearly established to me under WP: Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd be pleased to discuss why you might see it differently. Just let me know. I've written about 12 articles over the past couple of years. None have ever been rejected because I'm very careful to only choose topics with significant independent reliable sourcing. I consider and reject topics all the time, after research doesn't show enough coverage. Ecoscraps seemed obvious, to me at least - you don't get too many subjects that are on the covers of national magazines. If there's anything else about the article you don't like I'd be pleased to discuss any of it and take your suggestions.BC1278 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278

See my comments at the Teahouse. I, for one, won't tell a paid editor exactly how much they to tone a draft down in order to get it accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
I responded to all the requests in Teahouse. In order to address the requests for more context from one of the editors, I had to make the article longer than I'd like and added second-tier sources, both of which I usually avoid. But the facts are interesting and directly respond to what the editor asked for. I believe I fairly summarized all the sources in an objective and unbiased way, but I am always open to making changes for anyone who sees it differently. Cullen328 agreed there is no "overtly promotional language" and no other editor raised a WP:NPOV issue. A bunch have now looked at it. In general, I respect anyone who doesn't want to spend their time as a volunteer working with paid editors. You can volunteer your time however you want. However, WP: AFC is meant as a place to review and hash out problems with drafts, many of which come from COI editors (only a few of whom bother to declare, like me.) I've had many constructive engagements with editors on AFC, who have helped make articles much better. I spend several days writing each of my articles and I source them very carefully. I've been successful getting some of my articles to B class and I'd like to do even better. I think it's reasonable to expect that someone who takes on the role of an AfC reviewer will provide concrete advice, whether there's a declared COI or not. The alternative is the undisclosed direct COI editing affecting many hundreds of thousands of articles. Very few editors bother to disclose COI and those who do are usually quite cautious. BC1278 (talk) 20:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Request on 02:32:42, 5 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Mike B1010[edit]


Hello,

The gut flora page I was referred to doesn't accept non-human research on the subject, which is significant for the understanding and application of the gut microbiome on humans. "gut flora" is also an outdated title. Thank you.

Mike B1010 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The article in question is Gut flora, for which Gut microbiome is one of several redirects. First, I agree that the term "gut flora" is outdated, especially because in the more common phrase "flora and fauna", "flora" refers to Plantae, a kingdom of organisms that are not found in a gut except as food. If you think that a different title would be better, you can discuss on the talk page or propose a move. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I read the article, and I don't see a limitation about non-human research. The article says that it is about the guts of animals. It does appear that the content is mostly about humans, but research on non-human gut microbiomes should be included. I will add that an understanding of the gut microbiomes of animals is not only relevant to humans, but is also important agriculturally. I don't see any reason why research on non-human microbiomes, relevant both to humans and to agriculture, can't be included in the article. I suggest that you discuss additions and improvements to the article on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 5 May 2016 (UTC)


Hi Robert, Thank you for your quick reply. I've tried to add my sections to the "gut flora" page, but It was reverted back, claiming: 1. Mice research 2. That I have primary sources in some of my citations (although they are synthesized across)

That's mainly why I tried to create a new page. Thanks. Mike B1010 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Read forks to see that a content dispute is seldom the reason to create a new article. Did the other editor state that the article does not cover mice? Primary sources are sometimes an issue. Discuss on the article talk page, and, if necessary, follow dispute resolution, rather than creating a separate article that is really a fork. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:10, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
By the way, you haven't yet tried discussing on the talk page. That's what the talk page is for. And I don't see a comment about non-human research being invalid. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:13, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Iowa Lakes Community College has been accepted[edit]

AFC-Logo.svg
Iowa Lakes Community College, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Steel-cut oats.[edit]

I am sorry what edits are you referring to, as far as I know the case is closed, and it was placed in the dispute resolution board. If anything at all I was trying to copy and paste from one forum to another


MrX2077 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Followup: I do not understand your role in this matter. My dispute is with Matt Lunker, the mediation committee chairman is TransporterMan, those are the only people involved in this matter. Please explain yourself? Furthermore, TransporterMan is an attorney be training, he has not explain the process to me, so I am struggling to figure out the next steps are.

MrX2077 (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution Notice- Steel Cut Oats[edit]

First of all, You should have lead with the fact that you were part of the Administrators' notice board, you kind of buried the lede.

Second if you took a second look at my page you should take note of the fact that I did not cut off the other party, my claim was rejected before he had a chance to respond. It happened three times because I was concerned that the committee did not have all the information to make a decision & the head of the committee told me to come to the notice board to develop the matter. Mr. Lunker & I did have a discussion on the matter, I just copied it from his user page to the article talk page. In all fairness, it seems like you made a rush to judgment. As far as Mr. Lunker is concerned the matter is closed (check logs for the article), if somebody want to learn what a groat is, one should go to the groat link, I believe any good article would take the time to explain a term which is used in the passage. Once again check his user page. That being said can you please re-open the matter.

Finally, did you have to leave such a threatening notice on my message wall; namely that I was disruptive & you would revoke my editing privileges. I reviewed your user page, and it states that you are a Roman Catholic. As a member of this faith, are you not taught about compassion and charity for those who are less fortunate than you. Please show a bit more empathy in the future.

Thank You MrX2077 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not an administrator. I will reply to you in more detail later today. (I will comment that the editing of Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right.) Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
I will not discuss the merits of the case at this time, but you need to wait for the other party to discuss the merits also. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:56, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
As to charity, you didn't come across as a clueless user, only as a stubborn one. Now that I see that you need advice, I will suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Hello, what is the timeframe, especially, when the other party considers the matter is closed, where do I go from there if he does not respond. For now, I will take your advice and go to the "teahouse" MrX2077 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

By the way, I was reflecting on you quote "...editing of Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right", be sure to tell the other party that when he produces his reply. If he did not treat the article like it was his own private property, I would not be here now. MrX2077 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

A barnstar for you![edit]

Editors Barnstar Hires.png The Editor's Barnstar
I thank you for the advice given by you in the matter and shall not proceed further until all such formalities have been carried out.Thank you for your patience in answering my queries. SrastogiIJ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 14:34:36, 6 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by PaintbrushArt[edit]


HI Robert, I am trying to publish this article on Ralph Garafola. I have first hand knowledge that all information is 100% accurate. Now, in this last time submitting with changes, I am not sure i understand your response on Awards & Press section. This section was included in this article from the onset. Although these awards may not help make Garafola notable, they were awarded to him for his work. If I deleted this section, would this article be approved?

Please, can you be very specific in your comments. It seems that people reviewing article decline without giving detailed advice on how to get it approved. I see many other unknown artist pages that appear on Wikipedia that have little and in some cases no content. Do they get published because they are not alive?

I appreciate whatever help you can provide. Thank you PaintbrushArtPaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

PaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

I will be replying at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Request on 20:49:44, 7 May 2016 for assistance on AfC submission by Scottmacgregor123[edit]


Mr. McClenon, I meant no disrespect. I was told the original article was deleted due to inactivity and that's why we created a new article. After your last message to me I returned to the original space and entered the newly revised article. This morning I received a message from the reviewer LaMona instructing me to make some suggested changes and resubmit-which I did. And now you are admonishing me--so yes I'm confused. Should I just let the original article in the original space run its course?

Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

The primary reason now that you are confused is that you are making changes to two copies of the biography. That is enough of a problem. If someone told you that one of the articles was deleted, you received an incorrect answer. It may have been abandoned, but it was not deleted. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
You need to choose which of the two articles to work on improving and submitting. Bring it up to date with all of the improvements that you made to the other one. Abandon (or abandon and request deletion of) the other draft. My advice is to bring the version in draft space up to completeness and abandon the one in your sandbox, but that is your decision. In any case, work on one article, not two copies. Select which one you want to be up-to-date, and make it up-to-date, and abandon the other one. You are confused because you are, with good intentions, confusing us and yourself by having two versions of the same article. Don't do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:39, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Jillian Keenan[edit]

Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Jillian Keenan. I've removed her personal website from the list of sources. Howkafkaesque (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Request for an uninvolved eye[edit]

Mr. McClenon, I'm messaging you because you seem to have some experience in smoothing out disputes between editors. If this message comes at an inopportune time, then please disregard.
An editor and I fell into a dispute on an article; I'll avoid naming names unless you ask me to do so. Specifically, the person deleted information sourced by a document from the International Crisis Group and justified the deletion by saying that the criticism wasn't relevant. I reverted and explained my disagreement and assumed that the issue would disappear, but the person reverted again and rather than explaining why, merely expressed incredulity that I would possibly disagree.
I left an edit war template on the person's talk page because they seemed relatively new, and I made the choice to revert again. I made that choice because, to me, the issue seemed clear: the person was deleting reliably sourced criticism because the person felt that the criticism is invalid. Well, they reverted again and told me that I must "not be a fan of wiki policies," and then left a talk page comment so outlandish that a third editor initially deleted it; I'm assuming that they thought it was vandalism because the person said, verbatim: "Can we not add stupid minority opinions?" The third editor (whose involvement was unsolicited) then tried to calm things down on the person's talk page, only to again be told that the opinion is stupid (to be fair, they made it clear that they don't think I'm stupid as a person).
Decontextualized, without names, what do you make of this? What would the solution be? If you're able to help, then thank you in advance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

My first thought is, decontextualized, without names, to avoid expressing an opinion. My experience at forums such as the Help Desk is that it is common for an editor to come and to present an abstract or hypothetical description of a problem. It is almost always easy to figure out from the hypothetical what answer they want. The usual reason for presenting such a hypothetical case is that the presenter has a particular position, and they may have slanted their description a little, but what they want is a statement from authority so that they can wikilawyer an argument that will help them "win". However, since I don't think that you are trying to get help in wikilawyering a case, in a few minutes I will provide a few comments. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:00, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
In general, it is unreasonable to assume that an issue will disappear after a second revert. As to what to do next, the next steps may be the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard for informal mediation, or a Request for Comments to obtain formal consensus by the community. I will note that mediation does not usually work well when editors are uncivil, and that RFC may be better. However, extensive discussion on an article talk page is a precondition to other content dispute resolution mechanisms. Since I do know what dispute this is, I will say that the discussion is by means of edit summaries, not on the talk page, and that is not enough. Go back to the article talk page and try to engage. If the other editor does not discuss, or if discussion is inconclusive, the next step is probably a Request for Comments. More generally, do not think that the use of edit summaries constitutes discussion. A Request for Comments may be the next step. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:19, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Mr. McClenon, thank you so much for your reply. I can see that many people would try to bring such disputes up decontextualized to condition the answer, though I can assure you that in this case, I'm doing so because I was trying to be polite to the other party. Wikilawyering based on one person's comment would be sneaky and unfair, so I understand your sentiment.
I'll give talk page discussion some time, then, though most recently a few of the replies the other party left there were all in caps lock. I'll continue assuming good faith until doing so seems futile, at which point I suppose an RfC could work since at the root of it, this is a very minor content dispute that doesn't warrant a huge debate. In an ideal world, at least. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

17:31:04, 8 May 2016 review of submission by Rebecka fleetwood smith[edit]


I have now changed the article in response to the comments made by the reviewer

07:43:35, 9 May 2016 review of submission by 192.54.144.229[edit]

See my comments at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 12:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

3O request in University of St Andrews[edit]

Does the explanation I gave provides a sufficiently clear picture of the situation to form an informed opinion? Or is there something else you'd like to know? Banedon (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

ITDM[edit]

Hi Robert McClenon.
Don't know if you noticed, but the page ITDM was created before your rejection of it at AfC. They now have Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission after it was rejected again at AfC, this time by Wiae. Just FYI. 220 of Borg 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

DRN discussion[edit]

Hi there! I created the DRN request for Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. and I notice the note from you that if no editors participate in an certain amount of time, the discussion will be closed. I apologize for my lack of knowledge on a situation like this. But, what happens if no other editors participate and it's closed? Will the dispute still be resolved despite no participation or will it just be left alone unsolved? Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

I understand that you are new to Wikipedia. So let me sort of explain. You ask whether, if no one responds, the dispute is resolved or left unresolved. The short answer is that it is left unresolved. The longer answer is that a content dispute at DRN is only resolved to the extent that the parties to it agree. The only binding method of resolving content disputes is a Request for Comments. If I close the dispute resolution request due to lack of response, I will recommend that the next step is a Request for Comments. If you have not yet read the dispute resolution policy, please read it. (If you have already read it, and I guess that you have, a re-read can't hurt.) If you have any more questions about dispute resolution, I can try to answer them, but you can get input from multiple experienced editors if you ask at the Teahouse or the Help Desk. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

In response to your answer[edit]

A user publicly accused me of being a Christian (I am not, but irrelevant), then he asserted "As an atheist, I have no bias on the subject." (Really, only an atheist can't have bias on religious issues? Then he threatened to notify admin as this could "use attention." Then he writes on my Talk page: "Keep your opinion to yourself, and be WP:HERE. Please stop this disruptive behavior. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)" While his tone has been more threatening than helpful, he has certainly not kept his opinions to himself. Can you please give me your opinion. I would like to place a complaint about his behavior. Thank you. Wikiwillkane (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

I am still confused. I have looked at your talk page. I see that the user in question did post to your talk page. Here are my comments. First, you haven't helped by blanking your talk page. It is permitted to blank your talk page, but archiving is preferred. Blanking is often seen as insulting to previous posters. Second, I don't see what you quote, in the history. His comment, to use restraint in posting on topics where you have strong opinions, is harshly worded but on the mark. Third, I advised reading the boomerang essay before posting to WP:ANI, and I still recommend that. Both his talk page conduct and yours are marginal. Fourth, if the comment that you quote was made, it was on another page, and I can't comment on it without knowing where it was. Fifth, don't become the sort of editor who has a reputation for reporting everyone to WP:ANI; it is a way to get your reports ignored, even when an editor is persistently engaging in blatant personal attacks (which isn't the case here). Robert McClenon (talk) 14:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Great feedback and education. Is there a way to unblank my Talk page and then archive it? My intent was not to circumvent.Wikiwillkane (talk) 17:25, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
To unblank a talk page, go to the last version before you blanked it and copy the contents to a scratch pad. Then go back to your talk page as it now is and add the blanked material at the beginning. That is how you do that. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
However, you still haven't shown me the gross civility violation of which you speak. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:28, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again. How do I archive once the page is back? Here is the violation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Muslim_destruction_of_Christian_historyWikiwillkane (talk) 17:48, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
I still don't see "Keep your opinions to yourself". Where is that? I do see considerable incivility on both your part and The Platypus of Doom. I would still advise against reporting. As to Platypus and bias, I will observe that the context was Christian v. Muslim. An atheist or a Buddhist doesn't have a likely bias in that context. As to archival, look up archiving. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

Age of Aquarius 3rd Opinion[edit]

The debate was whether Spencer or any of the other persons whose astrological opinions were summarized counted as neutral third-party sources, per WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and especially WP:NOR. I would like to see some sort of Astrology Encyclopedia referenced (if such exists), or any sort of newspaper article discussing the subject. I consider there to be zero reason to summarize multiple primary sources. Quotation would be one thing, and still a bad idea, but as is I do not think it remotely meets WP:NOR. Thank you for your time. 2601:1C0:5003:541:91EF:A688:29B3:7290 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

19:16:01, 10 May 2016 review of submission by Jemmans[edit]




Hi Robert,

The list has been rejected as is correct because the focus of the list is not yet making sense to any editors. I will attempt to explain why I would like this type of separate 'List of River'.

Their is a list of rivers already with a language interest - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_words_with_English_derivatives.

I would like a similar list but a focus solely on the 'name' of the river for its own sake.

The end user of the list is the main focus as I look up the geographically arranged lists and find it selective to educated people and not geared to the normal every day user.

You have a incorrectly spelt river and the normal Google search does not help.

You then go to Wikipedia and things are made worse.

I think Wikipedia should be a better place to find river names.

In time and many enthusiastic editors this list could be the popular choice of lists.

Also the editors should post rivers they know personally, this way the list would be robust, similar to a dictionary with authority.

Developing this sense of ownership of the list is my main aim.

Hope we can understand this list better now.

many thanks for your good judgements and time.

Regards James Emans

Please comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

source: https://web.archive.org/web/20160311084727/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Robert_McClenon

Leave a Reply