User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 37

Archive 30

←

Archive 35

Archive 36

Archive 37

Archive 38

Archive 39

Archive 40

Draft: Muddy (film)

Thanks for reviewing the article draft. I understand your comment and you mentioned it's not comply with notability of films guideline. Could you help me that which part I sould improve. In my view, it's like met the notability film. Thank you for the support!!Onmyway22 (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of Lightyear (2022 film) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Lightyear (2022 film) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lightyear (2022 film) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

ZX2006XZ (talk) 15:50, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Ben Cook (strategist)

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Ben Cook".

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:21, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Hello, Robert,

This page was a leftover redirect from a move you did in January 2021 that a subsequent editor turned into a draft article. Twinkle notifies the first editor of a page which technically was you, rather than the article creator. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:23, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Liz - Yes. It does that. I am not sure what the value of G13 user talk page notification is, anyway. They get deleted so quickly after nomination that maybe it should be: "The draft article that might have been yours has already been deleted. You should have responded when you got the five-month notice." But thank you, sort of. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Kevin Nicholson Businessman Page

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback on the Kevin Nicholson Businessman Page. I've made several edits and adjustments to it. I have also submitted it to be published. I have not yet, though, seen the actual page. I can only find the draft. When you have some time, can you let me know if this page is approved to be published? And if not, what else could be done to make it so?

Thank you very much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kashubro (talk • contribs) 11:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

User:Kashubro: You are asking some relatively simple new-editor questions, and the Teahouse is a good place to ask such questions, including about submitting drafts. However, I will answer some of your questions. There are two reasons why it has not been reviewed. The less important one is that the review of drafts is backlogged. They are reviewed in no particular order, because different reviewers have different ways of deciding what to review when. A draft may wait anywhere between a day and two months. The more important reason is that you have not submitted it for review. You removed the decline comments that I had made and the record that I had declined it, but that does not resubmit it for review. Also, you should not have removed the decline comments, because they say not to remove them. I will restore the comments and resubmit it with the comments for you in a few minutes. What did need to be done was to resubmit it. You are likely to get good advice in the future at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you very much. I appreciate the feedback. I did remove the decline comments. Sorry about that. I thought the "do not remove" instruction was referring to a different part of the page.

Thank you for taking the time to coach me through this. I appreciate it!

American Music Awards of 2021

I noted your PROD of the article, and was wondering if it would be better to return that to a redirect (which it was, to American Music Awards, prior to yesterday), with the existence of the draft article, and to urge editors to update the draft instead of changing the mainspace one, until the draft is reviewed and approved for mainspace. Speaking of that, I attempted to add a few sources, independent of the AMA web site, to the draft. I hope I'm heading in the right direction in trying to establish event notability, though at this point, only the award nominations have come out (plus a comment about one of the nominees being banned from the show - not mentioned in the draft yet), and the sources will essentially say the same thing. MPFitz1968 (talk) 17:17, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

User:MPFitz1968 - What would be the value of changing the article to a redirect? At present, I am ready to accept the draft as soon as the article is deleted, with or without any improvements. If the article is redirected, that will complicate acceptance. Are you in a hurry to get the draft accepted? I am not. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:22, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

As long as the draft in its present state (or with further updates) is acceptable to be moved into mainspace, I can wait out the PROD. MPFitz1968 (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone has removed your PROD from the article [1]. What's next? MPFitz1968 (talk) 23:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:MPFitz1968 - They also improved the article, so that is good. I have tagged the draft to be merged into the article if it has any information that is not in the article. I am not sure what to do about the copying without attribution. Other than that, the article is now as good as the draft. At least that is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:42, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Forgot to officially review

It seems you have already reviewed Draft:Diary of a Wimpy Kid (2021 film), but it stills says it's waiting for review. I think you forgot to officiate it or something. Iamnoahflores (talk) 01:28, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Shusha

Hi. I was wondering, if it is possible to have another RFC on a related topic in parallel with those that we have now? Grandmaster 19:02, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Grandmaster - Multiple RFCs can run on a given talk page as long as they do not conflict or overlap. You can already see that we have two of them, so there is no reason that there cannot be three. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. Grandmaster 23:42, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

Your outside input

By any chance would you be willing to give a third-party opinion on this RfC as well? There still hasn't really been any outside input yet. --Steverci (talk) 02:30, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Steverci - I originated an RFC on the infobox for the participants in that war, in January 2021. I do not provide a third-party opinion on a conflict where I have taken a neutral role. Turkey was listed as a participant at the time, and it appears that there was not a consensus as to what extent. I do not intend to take any further role unless I am asked to formulate another RFC. In this case, I will leave the existing RFC alone. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Review suggestion

Hi Robert, an article which I reupdated with some changes needs your guidance, I last updated the page last month 5th.[[2]]--Static Hash (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:32, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:31, 11 September 2021 (UTC)

Draft: Lost on You Music

Dear Mr. McClenon,

Would you be so kind as to check if changes on Lost on You Draft are correct?

Kind regards.

Andrzej Rybkiewicz (talk) 13:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2021 Southend West by-election on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

My Article in Review

Hello, you recently commented on my article draft saying I didn't make notable improvements, however I updated my references and added a whole "More Reading" section full of independent and reliable sources, which addressed the issue the previous reviewer had with it. I will not accept that it still doesn't have enough independent quality sources as I added around 8 in the new section. Please review and give actual helpful feedback if it still doesn't meet requirements, rather than the same recycled script talk that leaves me with no idea how to improve. This article has more reliable resources linked than the vast majority of other Denver high schools. I created this page as it was a red link on another page, just trying to help improve the Wikipedia, I don't understand why you all are being so unhelpful. I am beginning to feel like the Wikipedia community is not friendly at all. Porterland 22:19, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Porterland - I didn't say that you didn't make improvements to your draft. I said that if you resubmitted your draft without improving it, it would be rejected. I didn't say that you didn't improve it. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - The sentence left on the article draft was: "If this draft is resubmitted without any improvement or with very little improvement again..." which implies that I have done it already. I did not submit without making the suggested revisions at any point. Porterland 23:07, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Article Square du Vert Galant contention

Hi, so I've been waiting for a few weeks now since I last submitted the article Square du Vert Galant for review after originally submitting it in early October (it was declined because I didn't have enough sources), and I'm told it's now being rejected because someone wrote the same article 2 days ago and had it published instead? I also find it especially interesting that such an obscure place just happened to get another article written about it in under 30 days, especially when the one I wrote was visible in the review queue.

I'm not claiming ownership or anything like that, that's not the point of Wikipedia, but I'm extremely frustrated because it feels like I was completely passed over by someone with user priority. This took almost 10 hours of work because I had to learn how to adapt and transfer the Java Script rules from the equivocal article written in the French Wikipedia, so I really don't feel the motivation to do this again if it ends up being for nothing.

I do appreciate you at least recommending that the articles be merged, but I am feeling as though I got completely screwed over by whoever decided to approve the other article.

Thank you very much for listening to me ramble,

Mines of Moriya (talk) 00:19, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Ichon (Rapper)

Am interested to know what you think and if it meets the musical notability standards! Many thanks,

Jayintheusa (talk) 02:12, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

ps: I have no conflict of interest (I'm just a fan of his music) but I don't know if I need to fill out a conflicit of interest form or something because I've only edited a couple of articles in the past few years. If I do noeed to fill sometihng out, can you help me find it?

Draft:Moses Martin

Greetings Robert McClennon. I think you included an under review note atop this one but I think you didn't mean to or intended to remove it? I almost removed it myself but given the current stressful situation I am in, I didn't want to step on any toes. Thanks for your assistance and efforts to properly disambig these entries. Much appreciated. FloridaArmy (talk) 22:24, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy I had marked it under review and forgotten about it. It has been accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Great. Thanks very much. I appreciate your help. I hope all is well in Maine. FloridaArmy (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:FloridaArmy - I am in Maryland, not in Maine. We had a freeze overnight, but it is not nearly as cold as in New England. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:12, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Siege of Borovsk

Greetings Robert. I'm chinese russian, I want to introduce my country history to ENWiki. Time of Troubleswas one of the most turbulent and violent periods in Russia history. that why i try to edit it in ENwiki. Prince Mikhailo Volkonsky was a epic hero of russia history. I try to explain it but it seem I fail. so how can i improve it？ I have no idea. I hope you can understand my english.--折毛 (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Arbitration request declined

An arbitration request that you are party to, Conduct in Articles for Deletion, has been declined by the Arbitration Committee. The arbitrators felt that the community had made progress toward resolving the dispute in the recently-closed ANI thread, and so did not feel that arbitration was necessary at this time. GeneralNotability (talk) 00:58, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I was unaware that you moderated in dispute resolution.

I have no idea how you have the time or the persistence to do this. I looked at the care you are taking with a highly complex and lengthy (potentially) dispute, and the clarity you are bringing to it. I acknowledge that these may be standard paragraphs, but they are issued with gravitas.

Back in 2006 I had some success in taming(!) heated discussions at Talk:World Trade Center controlled demolition conspiracy theories, and in helping proponents of various trains of thought reach sufficient agreement to create a decent article from a chaotic POV ridden disaster. That makes me appreciate what you are doing all the more.

		The Dispute Resolution Barnstar
		For ridiculously hard and diligent work to seek to bring major content disputes to resolution. This means a greater commitment than is even reasonable to ask. FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:45, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Which dispute are you referring to? The one about a town in a no-man's-land, or the one about a UFO that turned off missiles, or the one about communism? The one about the town that was destroyed had to be failed because the editors fought just like the Armenians and the Azerbaijanis, and each of them reported the other one to Arbitration Enforcement, so that it was no longer a content dispute. The one about communism may take a few months, if the editors don't flame out. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:27, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

The one about Communism caught my eye. It's laudable work, often unthanked. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 23:29, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Then the standard paragraphs were almost standard, because I normally provide a link to the essay that serves as the rules. In this case, I copied it directly into DRN because I made minor changes to it first. Those are standard much-used rules, as you said issued with gravitas, such as that overly long statements do nothing except make the poster feel better. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Draft talk:Galactic Spirals

Robert,

Hoping you can pop in and help me unravel what is several policy issues including copyright, own work and accessibility. It's possible it fails on notability alone but if it is notable then I'm not familiar enough with math tools or releasing copyright to guide the editor properly. Slywriter (talk) 22:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:30, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Moderation

If you believe my last post disrupted the moderation page format, feel free to move/reformat it as you find it convenient.

Regards, --Paul Siebert (talk) 16:33, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert No problem. It's fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Although we agreed not to edit during mediation, I reverted this odd removal of a pretty well sourced material. I believe that doesn't count as editing during the mediation process.--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:44, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert - I will add an exception about reverting questionable edits by an editor who is not participating in mediation. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

I have a procedural question: do I answer to Cloud200 in the "Back and forth section", or I am waiting for your summary/comments on our first statements, or I can make a second statement?--Paul Siebert (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert - Do not make a second statement in the box for statements. You may either reply in back-and-forth, or may wait for my second statement, which will respond to the first statements by the editors. If you choose to respond in the back-and-forth section, Cloud200 may respond to you. If this results in a lengthy back-and-forth, I will collapse it, in which case it is finished except as I summarize it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. It will not be lengthy. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:07, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

A lengthy back-and-forth is the work of two or more editors. A lengthy reply to a short comment can be a lengthy back-and-forth. The moderator decides what is too long.l Robert McClenon (talk) 17:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok. I just provided a link to a source the filer seems to be unfamiliar with. IMO, that will save our time and make the discussion shorter. I am not going to initiate a long discussion of it. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:33, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

What should we do in light of this? I am not sure I can simultaneously participate in DR and AFD. I have my opinion on the latter subject, but I am not sure I can voice it while I am a party of DR. Maybe, it makes sense to postpone DR until the AFD is closed? --Paul Siebert (talk) 17:23, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Paul Siebert - First, User:Levivich hasn't yet started a deletion discussion. However, I will answer your question both here and at DRN. An AFD, like an RFC, takes priority over other content discussions. If Levivich or anyone else initiates an AFD, I will put the moderated discussion on hold while the AFD is running. I would suggest that you just wait, and do not reply to me at DRN, and do not reply to Levivich, and do not comment at WP:AN, for maybe 24 hours, and see what happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

The problem is that Levivich initiated a discussion about a possibility to start the AFD, and I have some thought on that subject that I would like to discuss. I have arguments both for and against deletion, and I am interested to discuss them with Levivich and others. Actually, I am more interested in a discussion with those editors than in this DR. With due respect, the filer is not a main contributor to the article (in contrast to AmateurEditor, who seems to ignore this DR). In the absence of AmateurEditor, the value of this DR is highly questionable, especially taking into account very superficial filer's posts.

I am going to join the AfD discussion, and I propose to suspend this DR until that discussion come to some logical end. If it will not result in a new AfD, or if the AfD discussion will be "keep", I'll return to this DR, especially if AmateurEditor will join it. Paul Siebert (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Canvassing in Mass killings under communist regimes

I just saw the notification about WP:CANVAS and I wanted to explain that the notifications were sent at the same time as DRN application was filed[3]. I wasn't aware of the WP:CANVAS policy but my notifications were based on goodwill attempt to bring back editors to the discussion who were previously raising relevant arguments. I did not, as WP:VOTESTACK describes, look around for random editors with similar views on the topics, all people notified were involved in the dispute previously but later disengaged for the same reasons as I did. Cloud200 (talk) 18:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Cloud200 - I suggest waiting for about 24 hours to see whether the article is nominated for deletion. If so, the AFD will take priority over all other content discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

DRN appropriate?

The Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard has you listed as a volunteer. I was wondering if you think this would be the correct place to try and establish some consensus to move forward. Another user and I have a dispute, and have had quite a lengthy back and forth on the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history project page over potential edits to a series of articles. No edits have taken place. Just trying to keep this short and sweet!EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 11:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Is this the First Division dispute between you and User:Buckshot06? How many articles are involved? DRN is normally for disputes involving one, or sometimes two or three, articles. Also, DRN is normally for disputes where the objective is a compromise. If there is no possible middle ground, then it may be better to try to work out the best wording for an RFC. Now that I think about it, I will pop up on the Military History talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Correct, and thank you for heading over to facilitate a way forward. I was trying to be vague and limited as possible here, to avoid any suggestion of untoward behavior.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 16:19, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Good afternoon. I know you are an extremely busy editor, with your various moderating tasks, but do you have chance to pop back over to MILHIST to provide next steps?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:07, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

User:EnigmaMcmxc - Done. The next step for the two of you is to review the draft RFC, put a brief statement in it, et cetera. When it is ready, we move it to the military history talk page, and it comes to life robotically. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for setting up the draft. Hopefully, I have entered information on it correctly.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:18, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hello again. I take that as my fellow editor did not post on the draft RFC, instead only on the MILHIST talkpage, that is the reason for it being now marked as historical. The banner that you added suggests seeking further input from the likes of the village pump. I don't wish to be seen as shopping for answers or support, so I wanted to bug you with one last question about the best way forward to try and address the issue (one way or another). Would posting on the village pump about the draft RFC and the back and forth discussion on the MILHIST talkpage, be the best place to start?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

User:EnigmaMcmxc - The draft RFC is marked as historical because it was only ever meant to be a draft. The real RFC is now running on the MILHIST talk page, which is seen by many of the editors who would be likely to participate in the RFC. The RFC is also listed in two lists of RFCs, and there is a bot that will randomly ask editors to participate in the RFC. I would suggest waiting a few more days, to let readers of MILHIST decide whether they want to participate, since the MILHIST talk page seems to have viewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for that clarification. I am not sure how I did not see the RFC go live, and somehow was left assuming it had just closed. But, you are quite correct, there are a lot of editors there and hopefully there shall be some sort of discussion over the coming days to finally come to a resolution.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I would value your opinion

Please refer to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Normanism and the article itself, together with the discussion on the article's talk page. Your unbiased opinion would be valuable. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 17:17, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I have commented at the AFD, but not yet !voted. However, I think that the nomination is flawed. I will probably comment more in the next ten hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm heartened that I was not in error suggesting the nomination to be flawed. Whatever you comment/!vote will enhance the discussion. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 19:48, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thank you for the guidance. I will definitely resubmit the draft after I gather more resources GMJeff (talk) 18:08, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

NumFOCUS

I would like to discuss the NumFOCUS AfC draft:

1. NumFOCUS projects have been involved in the discovery of gravity waves which won a Nobel peace prize, the first images of a black hole ever, and in the development of vaccinations for the coronavirus. NumFOCUS is supported by the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation, the Gordon & Betty Moore Foundation, Microsoft, Moderna, Bloomberg, Google, IBM, Amazon, NVidia, and Facebook. Several projects have been sponsored by the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative.
2. Many notable projects are sponsored and managed by NumFOCUS. Most importantly NumPy, SciPy, Pandas and Matplotlib are all software used by NASA, medical companies, and researchers. NumPy and SciPy have both been published in Nature documenting their critical positions in science (see references below). These projects are run by volunteers, and NumFOCUS plays the important role of keeping them funded, providing legal assistance, organizing publicity, and generally providing umbrella support.

I agree that the article reads like a stub, but I think it can be improved. Please let me know your thoughts. Thanks!

Nature References

1. Virtanen, P., Gommers, R., Oliphant, T.E. et al. SciPy 1.0: fundamental algorithms for scientific computing in Python. Nat Methods 17, 261–272 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41592-019-0686-2
2. Harris, C.R., Millman, K.J., van der Walt, S.J. et al. Array programming with NumPy. Nature 585, 357–362 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2649-2

Mikofski (talk) 04:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

resubmitted, would love to get your feedback. thanks! Mikofski (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

FYI list of wikipedia pages that link to NumFOCUS: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=numfocus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikofski (talk • contribs) 04:42, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

List of political parties in Italy

Hi! Unfortunately, I was afraid that even the attempt to resort to Wikipedia:Drn would have failed, the problem is that it is difficult to dialogue with a user who does not want a page to be modified without his consensus but at the same time very rarely intervenes in discussions. I am writing to thank you for for proposing yourself as a moderator and for your advice, but since June I have already tried everything, throug attempts at dialogue, requests for opinions in other projects, drawing the attention of some users involved in that topic, Requests for comments, bold edits, requests for Third opinions: all failed attempts... For this reason I will wait another two days to see if the user intends to reopen and engage in the discussion in Wikipedia:Drn, otherwise I think the last solution left is Wikipedia:Arbitration ...--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 20:47, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Scia Della Cometa - I was about to advise you that requesting Arbitration would be a waste of your time and that of the arbitrators, and I will still state that. In reviewing the history, part of the problem, and maybe the whole problem, is that you are in a minority, and that other editors have disagreed with your proposed changes. The issue isn't just one editor who edits sporadically, but other editors who also disagree with you. I know what will happen if you request arbitration, and that is that you will be told that ArbCom does not settle content disputes, and this is a content dispute. You haven't identified a conduct issue, and I don't think that there is a conduct issue. You have described the fact that you and other editors disagree. If you request arbitration, you will annoy the arbitrators. More seriously, you will annoy the editors who watch and comment on the requests for arbitration and will get a reputation as a troublemaker. So don't do that. Either use another RFC, or don't use another RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Uhm, it's not so. No user other than the one mentioned in WP:Drn has expressed opposition to those proposals. So I'm not in the minority, it's my opinion against that of the one who wrote the rules (alone), the thing is quite different. I would be in the minority if there had been a participation by other users, a participation that I have solicited several times and there never was. If no one is interested in joining the discussion and creating a consensus / compromise on these issues, another RFC is useless. Or not? --Scia Della Cometa (talk) 22:49, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Moving from draft to article

Hello. I just saw that someone has blatantly plagiarised my draft article where you had left a comment ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Anthony_W._B._Hayward ) and made a page at some website called Wikitia, which claims to be an "encyclopaedia by verified editors". I cannot paste the URL as Wikipedia gives a warning message.

Should I now move it to an article space, since Wikitia has made it public? I feel the subject is certainly notable as Haywards 5000 is a very popular band of beer and the subject was knighted too.

Anderson1970 (talk) 15:35, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

More plagiarism

Further to my last comment, now this site has plagiarised another of my other drafts too!!! Example below. Please advise. I feel the subjects of all my drafts are notable and I just submitted a draft to Wikipedia as a courtesy. I am quite sure Wikipedia will find the subjects notable and agree to create a new article. Can I this shift this (and my other drafts) to the article space? Thank you.

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

Anderson1970 (talk) 15:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

RE: Draft:Plaisance High School

You've had this draft marked as under-review for over a month. Curbon7 (talk) 09:37, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Ragpicking

In passing, thanks for this essay. Well said. -- Euryalus (talk) 07:49, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Review Draft:Billlie (group) please.

Hi Sir. I remember that I saw you review my previous drafts. Could you please review Draft:Billlie (group)? It was recently moved to drafts. The group already has an EP charting in the country's charts at #9 so I was pretty confused why it was moved to drafts. Also, sorry for my bad English since I do not know how to explain this properly.BaaBaaTheSheep^{(talk • ctb)} 04:38, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

User:BaaBaaTheSheep - The page was moved from article space to draft space by User:Btspurplegalaxy as not ready for article space. Please ask User:Btspurplegalaxy to explain the issue. User:Btspurplegalaxy - Is the issue one of musical notability of the group, or an issue with the sources? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Alright Sir. Thank you for the answer!BaaBaaTheSheep^{(talk • ctb)} 05:15, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Submission declined

Hi, thanks for reviewing my Draft:Think Like a Winner!. However, I am unable to understand how the given sources don't establish the notability of the book. The first 4 references talk about the book as a primary subject of their discussion, not just as passing by mention. Is that not sufficient? Of course, we do not take the subjective opinions given in the reviews, but shouldn't we assume that the book is notable enough to be reviewed? Insight 3 (talk) 15:09, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a mop reserved in your name

You are a remarkable editor in many ways. You would be a good administrator, in my opinion, and appear to be well qualified. You personify an administrator without tools and have gained my support already!

Having seen you around, in various places and ways, I have always been impressed by your competency and general manner. For quite awhile, I had thought that you were already an admin and was surprised in finding you are not. A cursory review of your contributions indicate (to me) that you are well qualified, and no red flags are glaringly apparent. If it's not something that you are interested in at this time, it is with great respect that I've messaged you and I do wish you the best.--John Cline (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Saw this pop up on my user talk, again someone who I thought was already an admin... ~TheresNoTime ^{(to explain!)} 00:06, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Your content creation leaves quite a bit to be desired; that said, while your AfD match rate is low, it's still >70%, and many people think that a too high match rate is gaming the system anyway. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I'd have loved to endorse an RfA, but... I doubt Robert is going to even look that way, not after this painful RfA. Robert is a fantastic editor, but I doubt he's going to consider an RfA given that experience. JavaHurricane 00:27, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

@John Cline, TheresNoTime, John M Wolfson, and JavaHurricane: - You aren't the only editors who thought I was already an administrator. So did User:HighInBC some months ago. I have said that I am willing to try again if someone else will take the lead in pushing my candidacy. Otherwise I will just leave alone. I was given silly standard advice from a few well-wishers to get credit for a featured article and a few other items to punch on my content-creator ticket, and I see no need to work on that when other editors do a good job on the good articles and featured articles. A little earlier I had an admin who was about to sponsor me, but then she seems to have retired. So I will continue trying to mediate this communist genocide documentation dispute until anyone else is willing to take the lead in putting my name forward. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to get an FA or even GA, but just have more than 35 edits on a single article and you'll be in a better place. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 02:24, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I will do that when I am not mediating any earth-shattering content disputes. The one I am currently mediating really is about an attempt to take over the world. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I'm a little busy with my own candidacy for something else at the moment, but would you mind me dropping you an email on topic? Worm^TT(talk) 08:31, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Worm That Turned - Of course you can send me an email on that topic or anything related, and I have sort of a two-week break from the communism dispute. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:23, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

User WPP

I think they are more concerned that their embryo career as a paid editor has probably hit the rocks. Unfortunately lashing out has never yet resulted in an unblock. Weird, really., They only needed to wait a week in silence. Instead they are heading diligently towards loss of use of talk pages. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 13:33, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

help for Anahita film

Hello, thank you for your announcement, please tell me the problem of Anahita movie so that I can solve it, just give a small explanation about this movie that this movie was among the ten best-selling movies of 2010 in Iran. The actors of this movie are Oscar winners The film is valuable, but because the links are Iranian, English-speaking Wikipedians may not notice this film. I feel this is the problem with this article, but if there is another problem, please tell me. i am an art journalist in iran and i made this article with complete confidence because i know the importance of films, but again, if you see a problem in this article, please guide me to fix it.thank you--Iranianbio (talk) 01:31, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Iranianbio - Discuss with the reviewers who moved it from article space to draft space. I did not review it in detail, but could see that you made the mistake of move-warring. Discuss with User:Bonadea or User:Bearcat. Discussion is usually better than just reverting, and almost always better than edit-warring. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Note: This user is probably sock of Hoseinkandovan, and is currently under investigation. Sockmaster has interest of expanding and creating non-notable iranian biographies, iranian film and persistent edits at List of Iranian actresses, if you happen to stumble upon his socks next time. 180.0.123.50 (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Dispute resolution help

Hello Robert! I found your name on the volunteers' list of dispute resolutions. I'd need a bit of assistance from you. It's been for quite some days that me and a couple of other editors have been involved into a technical discussion about the update process of a template. Most of us (if not all) were able to agree on the details of the update process until 1 user started suddenly vetoing it. Normally I believe I'd need to create a RfC for that, which would be a good thing not only for solving the dispute but also for hopefully getting more opinions on the update because currently we don't have a lot of users taking part in the discussion, but I've never had a chance to open one before so I'm unsure of my next steps. Can you please take a look at the current discussion and overall situation and guide me on my actions?

The discussions are happening here. Check Lua rewrite and Convert Chembox into Lua module. I'd really appreciate your help in this discussion because currently we're on a deadlock. Both parties agree that the update is needed but given that they disagree on a specific detail, each party is determined to stop everything just so the other party won't have the final word. This is a problem that has started since 2018 (if you read the discussions I mentioned above, you'll be able to see even the archived past discussions) and that needs a definitive answer as soon as possible because it's starting to have a rather global effect, affecting some small wikis which rely on EnWiki for technical support. (That's how I got involved. I'm a crat at SqWiki.) - Klein Muçi (talk) 00:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Maddy Dychtwald

I don't think you have been involved with this article or discussions surrounding it. I would appreciate your opinion on the articles talk page (ideally). It has recently been kept at AfD, though the keep rationale suggested that many contributors to the discussion believed the article and/or the sourcing was somewhat inadequate. The talk page has a section on clean up. I think I'm standing too close to the article to be able to make a meaningful (further) contribution , which is why I am asking for your unbiased eye to study the article, and to make recommendations. I trust your opinions. Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 16:19, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I will take another look at it within the next 36 hours and will provide an assessment. One of the questions that I am thinking about is whether the close should go to Deletion Review to request a Relist, because the article was swirling so much during the AFD that there wasn't one article being reviewed. My other comment is that it is mostly about her writings rather than about her, and much of the discussion of her writings either should be taken out or moved into articles about the books. Another possibility that I am thinking about is to identify portions of the article that are puffery, and submit an RFC to get rid of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

During the AFD, I see that large portions were taken out, and then restored by two types of editors, those who might have been more of her flacks, and those who are just inclusionists. That is, we can't easily tell the good-faith editors from the bad-faith editors. The guideline to assume good faith does not apply. We can neither assume good faith nor assume bad faith, because we know that there were both good-faith and bad-faith editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

More later.

Mass killings under communist regimes's AfD (how to improve readability and summary style)

I appreciate and agree with what you wrote here. Again, I personally apologize for writing not just many comments but long ones too — I just really sucks at summarizing and I was being pretty frustrated by 'Keep' side's "per sources/notability" arguments, without addressing any NPOV, OR/SYNTH, and related issues (why the article does not suffer from them, and if it does, what is the solution for deletion as not a good solution?), which must be addressed in an AfD (as shown here), but I will try to avoid such long-term comments.

Is this sandbox structured well-enough (maybe I should change 2. to 1.4) to be readable? What is important to me is that this part, which is not too long (?), is read; everything else is simply a verification for my claims, and hopefully the closer will not need to read it full, as the first, relevant part will be enough for them.

Plus, do you suggest me to change my comment to simply Delete as a content (POV) fork and coatrack article, and insuperable and unworkable NPOV, mixed with OR/SYNTH and VERIFY issues. To read my full rationale, see sandbox? Is that a good way at summary style for an AfD 'vote' and clear enough? Or is this better as more clear?

Thank you again. Davide King (talk) 23:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on 'Keep' voter reverting over two months stable lead to their favourite version in the middle of an AfD? From edit history, they should have been aware another 'Keep' voter reverted to their same favourite version and know it is not good practice to edit an article while the AfD is ongoing. Davide King (talk) 03:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

User:Davide King - I think that some form of Delete with a concise statement that links to an essay is good. I will not give advice on exactly how to word the Delete. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for this. "At this time it is clear that the article will be kept." I agree — the only way for a deletion is a super vote by admins because most users simply do not understand the issues (speaking of which, I think you did a good job in summary), though is it because you think they gave the better arguments or because the numbers are so overwhelmingly?

Wikipedia is not supposed to be a democracy, and I think arguments based on rationality and policies and guidelines hold more weight than the mere numbers (consensus is also based on policy and guidelines, not mere numbers), albeit it is silly to think admins do not consider this, even though in my 'elitist' view it is wrong because consensus is not based on 'voting' either, and our policies and guidelines are paramount — so if our arguments are stronger and policy violations are indeed proved by the admins, it should be deleted anyway even though we are clearly in minority by mere numbers. As long as it is not a clear 'Keep' and we return to 'No consensus', I will take that as a win, for our arguments and concerns would be legitimized, and hopefully there would be more respect and less insults at DRN to find a solution among us.

Thank you again for your time dedicated to this mess. I really hope in the end it will be worth it. Davide King (talk) 04:14, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

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 at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Commies & Rowling, which way are they going.

Howdy. Actually there's potentially two RFCs heading towards a train wreck. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Light-on-dark colour scheme dispute

You seem to have reopened this case. Was there a reason for it or was it inadvertent? Seemplez 17:53, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Seemplez - Sort of in between. The close is correct. However, there is something wrong with the way that the closed cases are being displayed, which is that the closer's summary of why they closed the case should be displayed, and nothing else. Some of the cases were not being displayed at all, which means that a template that is supposed to be a collapsetop was eating everything after it. I was in particular trying to ensure that the case summaries were all displayed, and that involved temporarily taking all of the close templates out, and then putting them back to see where the problem is. I then took a break from that because it was time to work out. I apologize for any confusion. You were right in closing it as not ready for DRN, but DRN became unready for a new case. Yuck. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:00, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Ah I see, what a hassle. If you want any help I'm free. Seemplez 21:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Seemplez - Yes. If you can figure out how to get the closed cases to display properly without eating each other, please do. Thank you. At this point we have one monster case followed by 3 or 4 closed cases, and I would like them to display as closed cases. Of course, the monster case is about communism and about communists behaving monstrously. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:34, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

So I think I fixed it, see the template testing page and the two edited templates. I replaced however it was collapsing before with {{cot}} and {{cob}} and it seems to work fine now.

I'm not sure what exactly broke it though. There was an edit to {{DRN archive top}} a few hours ago but I don't think it broke the collapsing. Seemplez 22:42, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've got it! The table in {{DRN archive top}} isn't being closed with |}, so it's just swallowing everything that comes after it.

I guess the fix would be reverting {{DRN archive bottom}}'s merge to {{Archive top}}. Seemplez 22:55, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I've reverted {{DRN archive bottom}} and will add archive notices back to DRN. Seemplez 23:06, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries

Hi Robert. Thank you for your comments on my 2024 Democratic Party presidential primary draft. I really appreciate it. I wanted to ask you a question about one of the comments you left for me: When you say to add "more additional information", what exactly do you mean by that? Is it a matter of waiting to see what President Biden says first before offically publishing it? Thanks! Bigboyanimations (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Makoto Soejima

Hi. Actually I was the one who moved my own article back to draftspace. I was supposed to make a draft but I made a mistake of creating the article in mainspace first when it wasn't finished. Therefore I moved it back to draftspace since it wasn't ready. I feel since this is BLP this should go through AFC? Or can I just move it back to mainspace myself? Anyway, the article is ready for review now so would be grateful if you or someone else can look at it. -Imcdc (talk) 03:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 04:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Artice

Hello Robert,

You deleted my article on Galaxy Heroes Coin. I'd love to recover it so I can make recommended adjustments.

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterchib (talk • contribs) 04:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Masterchib - I did not delete your article. I nominated it for deletion, because it was promotional and not encyclopedic. You can request a copy of a deleted article at Requests for Undeletion. However, an article that was deleted as advertising or promotion is unlikely to be refunded or restored. Don't you have a copy of the article on your computer? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and is written in the formal third person. The use of the first person or second person is usually a flag that the rest of an article is also promotional. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:20, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Need advice as a new AfCer (re films, NFF)

Robert McClenon, since you're an AfC reviewer, could you please weigh in on this issue I posted? Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Question re upcoming films, AfC, NFF, films selected for film festivals. Thanks. Platonk (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

The film Draft:Muddy (film) was released yesterday.

Hi there, could you please check Draft:Muddy (film), as you declined the AFC last time with a note that the film is unreleased and resubmit after its release. The film was released yesterday. Could you review it again?. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 06:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

User:Onmyway22 - Please include Reception information, such as reviews. Also please change verb tenses from future to present or past. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:49, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Will do, Thanks :) Onmyway22 talk 07:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I have done it. Did you check it? Onmyway22 talk 07:20, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The Union (comics)

I have create a new draft Draft:The Union (comics), as there is already an article with this name I am unable to move it through the normal process but there is an article that can fill that can replace the redirect page as long as it is seen as notable. I think it does qualify as there are currently 10 citations pointing to this with further citations available and possible expansions that could be made to the article. ChefBear01 (talk) 22:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Help needed on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Ashutosh_Sharma_(biotechnologist)

To disambiguate Ashutosh_Sharma_(biotechnologist) from other people with the same name, I have added this person's name on the disambiguation page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashutosh_Sharma. Hope it works. Guide me if any changes needed.Wisdomwiki 40 (talk) 06:22, 14 December 2021 (UTC)