User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 38
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Robert McClenon. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 35 | Archive 36 | Archive 37 | Archive 38 | Archive 39 | Archive 40 | → | Archive 45 |
MKuCR&DRN
Hi Robert, Admins panel advised us to continue DRN, and I would love you to see you as a mediator. However, I am not sure a current format of the discussion (a standard DRN format) is suitable for that. My rationale is as follows. The panel correctly outlined core article's problems. There problems are: the sources do not necessarily express majority view, and the sources may be used incorrectly. Not only I agree with that, I myself was maintaining that for many years ago. Therefore, the goal of this DRN should be (i) to identify core sources and (i) to come to an agreement on how they should be represented in the article. That discussion must include identification of a representative sample of sources, their detailed analysis, and finding a reasonable approach to their balanced representation. That process inevitably requires posting some quotes, references, etc., which does not fit a standard format of the discussion. In connection to that, I would like to know your opinion on how that non-standard discussion should be organised. Regards, Paul Siebert (talk) 23:46, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Paul Siebert - My answer at the article talk page may have answered your question, but if you have a plan for discussion that will lead to RFCs, you may present it either at the article talk page or at DRNMKUCR. I don't intend to conduct discussion there unless the objective is the development of an RFC. I am personally not convinced that an analysis of sources is likely to lead to an effective RFC, but you are welcome to present your plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Hi Robert,
- Are you still interested in moderating the dispute? It seems almost all users made their statements, and the discussion is spontaneously drifting to a "noisy" place. We need your help. Paul Siebert (talk) 22:02, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Paul Siebert - See my answers at the article talk page and at DRNMKUCR. I am working on statement 17. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- Good. I am going to take a pause, and I will not post anything neither at DNMKUCR nor at MKuCR talk page until your 17th statement is posted. I would be grateful if you take into account the arguments presented in the "Bask and Forth section". I apologize in advance if this my reminder is redundant. Paul Siebert (talk) 17:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Paul Siebert - See my answers at the article talk page and at DRNMKUCR. I am working on statement 17. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Paul Siebert - My answer at the article talk page may have answered your question, but if you have a plan for discussion that will lead to RFCs, you may present it either at the article talk page or at DRNMKUCR. I don't intend to conduct discussion there unless the objective is the development of an RFC. I am personally not convinced that an analysis of sources is likely to lead to an effective RFC, but you are welcome to present your plan. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
- Ribert, I have a question: what exactly that rule means:
- "Do not report any issue about the article at any conduct forum, such as WP:ANI or Arbitration Enforcement."
- Does it mean the article's issues or some issues related to behaviour of some third user (who is not a party of the dispute?? Paul Siebert (talk) 22:44, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Paul Siebert - Disruptive editing by an editor who is not a party to this dispute, such as vandalism, may be reported to a conduct forum. I have also tried to provide that clarification at DRNMKUCR. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I find myself in a ridiculous situation: from one hand, the DR participants agreed not to report each other at AE, on another hand, the participants agreed not to make personal attacks. The claim that I ostensibly use a right of veto is an obvious PA, for Veto is an unconditional prohibition of something, which implies no explanations. Clearly these accusations are absolutely false, but since I promised not to report anybody, and I cannot react, it looks like I implicitly concede that the accusations are valid, thereby encouraging the attacker. I think you as a Moderator are expected to take a situation under your control. Best--Paul Siebert (talk) 01:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
WRT: Note that this RFC, and the article, are subject to Eastern Europe discretionary sanctions for disruptive editing of this RFC or this talk page or article. (You don't need to worry about discretionary sanctions if you observe Wikipedia policies and guidelines.)
Actually, no. A user cannot be subjected to sanctions unless they have been duly warned (for example, by getting (or placing) a DS template on a talk page). Therefore, it seems you brought unneeded drama by adding this statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:01, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- And I forgot to congratulate you (and all of us) with successfully finishing the first step of our work.
- That you for that, without you we would never be able to do that.--Paul Siebert (talk) 18:08, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
And one more point. During the DRN, we discussed the RfC about the article's topic, but the RfC title says "Structure". That is not what we were discussing, and that is misleading.--Paul Siebert (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 08:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Ahh you are encountering Sleeper accounts too?
Coming from the AFD I noted you have had your share of engaging with Sleeper accounts, I though it was just me observing the trend. Infact take a look at this. I just notified reviewers about this new trend. Celestina007 (talk) 23:49, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Well, yes, User:Celestina007, I have encountered sleeper accounts from time to time. However, the most recent one that I mentioned, to which you are probably referring, is a legitimate account in its own strange way. It is Aslah K, and is one of the owners of Maktoob Media. He shouldn't have moved the draft on his company into article space, but he had a right to create an account and then a right not to edit until he saw anything to edit. Maybe he is a bear. We know that some bears hibernate. Negar10 is a different matter. They are not a sleeper, but they don't seem to be a separate account for a separate person. They may really be Samansadeghy, and I will let the CheckUsers check that. Yes, we have sleepers, including Middle Eastern sleepers. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|
The Barnstar of Diplomacy |
| For your outstanding work at the MKUCR dispute. It may not be over yet, but you continue to amaze with your diplomatic skills. Thanks Rob, for all that you do to keep Wikipedia faithful to its pillars. Sennecaster (Chat) 17:55, 19 December 2021 (UTC) |
Your view on Mount Ararat.
I applied for a third opinion. First of all, Ararat Mountain is a mountain belonging to Turkey. but in the article on Mount Ararat, an attempt was made to show the mountain as if it belonged to Armenia. 1. A photo taken from Armenia is placed at the beginning of the article. 2. Under the title of the article, the name is written in armenian font. 3. Although the mountain belongs to Turkey, the Turkish local name is written at the end. In this version of the article, at first glance, it has the impression that the mountain belongs to Armenia. it's like russians taking photos of alaska from their own land and editing wikipedia. This situation may seem strange to you, but Armenians want the mountain of Ararat in themselves. so the article is corrupted like this. I want a third opinion from you for the correction of the contributions that seem to belong to Armenia on Mount Ararat. Thanks youEnverpasatr (talk) 04:39, 20 December 2021 (UTC) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Ararat
No RfC close for NFF
(lamenting) Thirty days and we couldn't get a close on our NFF RfC that took us like a month to draft. Platonk (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Platonk - I think that you misunderstand what just happened. It appears that Legobot removed the RFC tag from the RFC after 30 days. That always happens; it is supposed to do that. A close would not have been in order while the 30 days were still running (except for a snow close). Now that the RFC is no longer open, one of us, or anyone, can request a formal close at Requests for Closure. I will do that within 48 hours if no one else has done it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you for setting me straight. Platonk (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have requested closure at Requests for Closure. It may be listed for several days before an admin (or a non-admin closer) decides to look at it and close it, but listing it was the next step, and closing it is the step after that, by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Close got done. Well that was a complete waste of our time. Platonk (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Platonk - Well, I intend to continue to interpret the guideline exactly as it is written, which is that films that are in production or have completed production, but have not been released, are only notable if production itself has been notable. That is what it has said since 2008. We tried to improve the wording to make it clearer, but a literal reading is that Option 0 and Option 1 say the same thing, so I intend to continue to decline unreleased films, and am ready to take them to AFD. If they had wanted to change the wording, they would have changed the wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with you that 0 and 1 have the same meaning. The voters for 1 & 2 both believed that rewording was necessary and neither side won that fight. Those that voted 0 clearly have had no experience with these toss-a-coin AfDs. You can get away with rejecting these at AfC because you're an experienced long-term editor. I'm newly at AfC and all I see are things I want to decline. Since I'm 'on probation' as all new AfC reviewers are, I've been trying to find something, anything, I can accept. (buzzer sound) Haven't yet. Maybe I'm just not cut out for that post. Oh, and apparently some editors are judged by how many times their !votes match AfD closing outcomes, so I'll probably skip voting on upcoming-film AfDs, too.
- User:Platonk - Well, I intend to continue to interpret the guideline exactly as it is written, which is that films that are in production or have completed production, but have not been released, are only notable if production itself has been notable. That is what it has said since 2008. We tried to improve the wording to make it clearer, but a literal reading is that Option 0 and Option 1 say the same thing, so I intend to continue to decline unreleased films, and am ready to take them to AFD. If they had wanted to change the wording, they would have changed the wording. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- Close got done. Well that was a complete waste of our time. Platonk (talk) 22:01, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I have requested closure at Requests for Closure. It may be listed for several days before an admin (or a non-admin closer) decides to look at it and close it, but listing it was the next step, and closing it is the step after that, by the closer. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:58, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
- Excellent. Thank you for setting me straight. Platonk (talk) 05:29, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Platonk - I think that you misunderstand what just happened. It appears that Legobot removed the RFC tag from the RFC after 30 days. That always happens; it is supposed to do that. A close would not have been in order while the 30 days were still running (except for a snow close). Now that the RFC is no longer open, one of us, or anyone, can request a formal close at Requests for Closure. I will do that within 48 hours if no one else has done it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:19, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
- As a suggestion, after the dust settles, some time in the future, maybe try to submit your own RfC to change a small portion of NFF to clarify it. No discussions with "the other side" (all that did was divide the "please change it" voters so we lost to the "no-creep" voters). Just a one-sided "Hey people, whatdya think about this change?" If you've waited 13 years to get it clarified, and an overhaul isn't in the works, then maybe baby steps over time will get it where it needs to go. And you'll know when you get there because the AfDs will settle down. (Or instead of straight to RfC, change the text, if necessary then BRD-discuss, then RfC.) Platonk (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Platonk - I think that changing the text at this point would be considered disruptive, against consensus, because there has already been an RFC. I agree that those who favored Option 1 as No Creep had not been familiar with the contentious AFCs and AFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- I don't mean now. Like wait for another dozen or two contentious AfDs to show that "no change" isn't a viable option for the long term. Platonk (talk) 23:55, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Platonk - I think that changing the text at this point would be considered disruptive, against consensus, because there has already been an RFC. I agree that those who favored Option 1 as No Creep had not been familiar with the contentious AFCs and AFDs. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
- As a suggestion, after the dust settles, some time in the future, maybe try to submit your own RfC to change a small portion of NFF to clarify it. No discussions with "the other side" (all that did was divide the "please change it" voters so we lost to the "no-creep" voters). Just a one-sided "Hey people, whatdya think about this change?" If you've waited 13 years to get it clarified, and an overhaul isn't in the works, then maybe baby steps over time will get it where it needs to go. And you'll know when you get there because the AfDs will settle down. (Or instead of straight to RfC, change the text, if necessary then BRD-discuss, then RfC.) Platonk (talk) 22:51, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Question regarding the status of the Bruce Whalen Page
Greetings - thank you for your help. I am very new working with Wikipedia, but am learning. Is there something pending that I should address with the page to help increase the odds it gets approved? Sincerely, John — Preceding unsigned comment added by SpearfishCityLimits (talk • contribs) 23:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Draft:Krishn Charan
Hi Robert. Since you do lots of reviewing of drafts, you might have come across something like this before. What's the best way to deal with Draft:Krishn Charan? It looks like the creator started working on it and then stopped a week later, only to re-create the same content directly in the mainspace about two months later instead of moving the draft; so, there's now a draft that's not really needed, unless perhaps the result of the AfD turns out to be draftify. -- Marchjuly (talk) 06:58, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Marchjuly - Creating the same article both in draft space and in article space is normally not an oversight, but done on purpose. Its objective is to game the system by preventing New Page Reviewers from moving the article into draft space. The draft should be left alone. A draft should not be deleted simply because an article exists. In that case, the draft should be redirected (if the article is valid). In this case, just leave the draft alone. If the article is deleted, the draft can be left standing. If the article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article (not deleted). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Robert. Do you think the existence of the draft should be mentioned in the AfD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Marchjuly - Yes, mention it. By the way, it happens often enough that I have a template for the purpose, {{twocopies}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- I thought there was a template, but I couldn't remember what it was. Thanks again.-- Marchjuly (talk) 07:51, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Marchjuly - Yes, mention it. By the way, it happens often enough that I have a template for the purpose, {{twocopies}}. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the clarification Robert. Do you think the existence of the draft should be mentioned in the AfD? -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:Marchjuly - Creating the same article both in draft space and in article space is normally not an oversight, but done on purpose. Its objective is to game the system by preventing New Page Reviewers from moving the article into draft space. The draft should be left alone. A draft should not be deleted simply because an article exists. In that case, the draft should be redirected (if the article is valid). In this case, just leave the draft alone. If the article is deleted, the draft can be left standing. If the article is kept, the draft should be redirected to the article (not deleted). Robert McClenon (talk) 07:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Winsome Sears on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:J. K. Rowling on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rob Schneider on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:31, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Eritrea 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 13:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:30, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Russia–Ukraine relations 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 09:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Merry Christmas
Adapted from {{Xmas6}}. Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:User:Altamel/Christmas}} to their talk page.
I think it's time to move Draft:The Ice Age Adventures of Buck Wild to article space. It's almost January ZX2006XZ (talk) 19:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:ZX2006XZ - Has it been released? Does the pre-release coverage satisfy general notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- You are an autoconfirmed editor. You can unilaterally move it to article space and see whether it survives the inevitable AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
- User:ZX2006XZ - Find some other experienced editor to bug about this unreleased film. You are not likely to accomplish anything by continuing to bug me about it. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Question
Hi, you had offered to mediate the content dispute at United States Army Special Forces, and so I'm just enquiring if you still intend to do so? Obviously there is no sense of urgency as it's been two weeks since the disputed content was last reverted. If you are going to, I'll wait until I see your next comment or action at the article, as I'm also aware you are currently mediating another issue. Thanks - wolf 14:04, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
HI ROBERT I AM --L'artediesserefragili (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC) I WANT TO TELL YOU THAT WE IMPROVE THE MICROBIOME PAGE ON WIKIPEDIA AND ADDED OUR PAPER, CAN U PLEASE HELP US? --L'artediesserefragili (talk) 18:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:31, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
What are you doing?
Donough O'Brien is not the Earl of Thomond. Why did you move the draft page to this erroneous title you have made up? Please change it back to the original page name. SKIBLY101 2:07 GMT 30/12/2021
- User:SKIBLY101 - Please specify how to disambiguate the draft page. There were multiple Donough O'Briens, including the 2d and 4th earls. Also, please check his dates of birth and death. The dates in the article are not the dates in the notation of the portrait. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The death date being different you mean? The birth is the same. The death date is of 1634 is stated in two different pages of "History of the O'Briens from Brian Boroimhe, AD. 1000 to AD. 1945" which are linked. I may have made an error in naming the file, as errors are always made (you might know), but unfortunately I can't edit that one. Since your going around using your powers of changing names of articles for bad, use it for good on this article and change it to 1265. I don't know what you mean by specify how to disambiguate the draft page. "Sir Donough O'Brien" is in itself a unique article name which functioned normally, if you want to make it more specific you could say Sir Donough O'Brien (died 1634) or Sir Donough O'Brien (born 1595). By the way can you move the article back from this very specific aristocratic title with a very specific meaning which you have sloppily moved it to? Don't try to take the high-ground and blame me for that, it's your own sloppiness alone to blame for that action. The fact that you are aware of this and have still not changed it only shows the disdain and disrespect you have for the topic you are exercising such powers on. Seeing a bunch of similar names doesn't justify what you did, you didn't even check the genealogy or the succession. I know this might not mean much to you, but to people who actually have any knowledge in these topics it does. And I see you added another box to the page saying it has "multiple issues", and then stating one single non-issue. You have completely ignored the new sources I have added, the page has been clearly improved. SKIBLY101 3:06 GMT 30/12/2021
- Dear Robert_McClenon. I see you are an eminent Wikipedian with almost 200,000 edits, autopatrol and other rights, doing important work that allows us all to go on with Wikipedia. Be assured that I deeply respect you as such and are thankful for your hard work. I am just a newby dabbling around in Irish history articles. However, the user User:SKIBLY101 essentialy is right and you might have just once gone a bit too fast. The article for the 5th Earl of Thomond exists and can be found at Henry O'Brien, 5th Earl of Thomond. This Sir Donough is somebody else. I am sure you will know how to handle this correctly. Respectfully yours, with many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 04:25, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Review Request
Hi Mr.McClenon,
Thank you for your prompt review and feedback for the Draft:HoYoLAB! After reading the miHoYo page, I tend to consider that the HoYoLAB should become a separate page from miHoYo. It is true that miHoYo is the company that developed this website, but the HoYoLAB itself is more likely to be a free online community independent from the company. We talked about games, animations, comics, and all other off-topic content in LAB so I feel like this place should be noted on Wikipedia.
The other products by miHoYo all have their independent pages, such as Honkai Impact 3rd and Genshin Impact, and therefore I consider submitting a new page instead of merging the HoYoLAB related content into the existing article of miHoYo as a better solution.
Thank you for your perusal. Please kindly review it again and let us know about your feedback or if there is still any problem.
Looking forward to hearing from you soon and wish you and your team a nice day!
-- 19Cleo (talk) 12:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Robert McClenon!
Robert McClenon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 14:48, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
Happy New Year!
Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia, and a Happy New Year to you and yours! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
_(14573454469).jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
_(14752756965).jpg)
- – Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year}} to user talk pages.
ANI
Your name came up at ANI with respect to the discussion with SKIBLY101 a couple of sections above. I've closed the discussion already and advised them to dial it back. Acroterion (talk) 22:16, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you User:Acroterion. Some users dont know about the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. McClenon mobile (talk) 01:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
RFA?
When editors begin to mistake you for a system operator then you know it’s about time! 😊 Celestina007 (talk) 22:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Linking on a "Wikipedia policies and guidelines" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 05:30, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lakhimpur Kheri violence 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 08:30, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Black studies 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 23:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:José Antonio Kast on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Feedback request: Draft:Pandu_Sastrowardoyo
Hi, I got notice that my article was moved to draft and then deleted. I'm trying to improve the references as I'm certain this person is notable enough and has a lot of profile and news about her in media. I would like to improve the quality of the article. Could you please help me with this issue? Hariadhi (talk) 10:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Adeliia Petrosian
Hello Robert, I think Draft:Adeliia Petrosian can be deleted because of the article Adeliia Petrosian (I think the merger is complete). I am not sure how to start this process. What is the correct way to do this in your opinion (Wikipedia:Proposed deletion?)? --Kallichore (talk) 16:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Kallichore - Drafts are not deleted on account of articles but are redirected to the article. I have done this for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you, can the "Merge from" template be deleted now at Adeliia Petrosian? --Kallichore (talk) 16:58, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
Dragons
Okay, sure Alice's Wonderland Bakery is not out but what about Dragons: The Nine Realms, huh? BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 02:05, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been deleting huge unsourced chunks of Shubh Laabh - Aapkey Ghar Mein for a few days. Today, an editor moved text from Draft:Shubh Laabh - Aapkey Ghar Mein into the mainspace article. I didn't know there was a draft too. I see you recently rejected the draft. Should the draft be deleted, or should the poorly-sourced mainspace article be sent back to draft? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 11:45, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Magnolia677 - Well, first, drafts should not be deleted on account of the existence of articles, but redirected to the article. The idea that a draft should be deleted because of an article is a persistent myth. Second, at this point, I think that moving the article back into draft space would be move-warring. Third, I am inclined to think that the article should be nominated for deletion, noting that the draft exists and needs improvement. I will take a look at it in the next 12 hours. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Pathan film Article
Hi Sir I am AK965 I want to talk to you about pathan film article. I have included information in it as per the comments. If you find this to be a mistake, you can delete it AK965 (talk) 02:03, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
seeking followup on 2018 Talk page of "Robert's Rules of Order" article
I also posted the following on talk - I started a discussion in "Robert's Rules of Order" talk. Being new to Wikipedia editing, I did not know to look at prior year's talks. When I did notice the 2018 talk of that article, I saw that the discussion I had initiated was pretty much a repeat of the 2018 discussion you were heavily involved with. ... Why did the move towards correcting the ROR article lede stop abruptly mid June 2018 ??? I would like your [ Sakuranohi's ] suggested ROR lede (or something like that) to be adopted. ... Natefin (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Natefin - There was a dispute about Robert's Rules of Order at DRN in March 2018. The moderated discussion took place at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_162#Talk:Robert%2527s_Rules_of_Order, and the moderated discussion concluded with the posting of a Request for Comments. The Request for Comments is at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Robert%27s_Rules_of_Order/Archives/2018#RFC_on_Lede and was indecisive, with too little participation in the RFC and no formal closure. I was asked why the discussion ended in June 2018. The answer appears to be that it ended because it ended. Editors stopped discussing it. I think that I have no further knowledge of the matter. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:27, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Natefin I felt that it was obvious that the page was being abused for the interests of RONR, but I received little support and the moderation drew little interest. There was a minor and grudging concession to me (an offer to make a peripheral page for ROR variants) but not the rollback of the coopting of the Robert's Rules of Order page for the promotional purposes of RONR and robertsrules.com. I ran out of steam and moved on to other things, disappointed in the Wikipedia process. It seems I have a couple of allies now, and may be willing to reengage. Sakuranohi (talk) 19:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello, an article from the Arabic Wikipedia has been added to the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Natasha m jad (talk • contribs) 12:24, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:XFDcloser 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 15:31, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard on a "Wikipedia proposals" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 00:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Is Memories (upcoming film) satisfies WP:NFF ?
Hi there, Could you please check the article about an upcoming film which has no production details and release date information? So before doing an AfD/Draftify, just ask your suggestion as you are much experienced. Hope for the reply. Thank you Onmyway22 talk 14:29, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Onmyway22 - I have nominated the film for deletion. One possible result will be draftification. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback Request: Draft Julia Bentley (singer)
Hi, you commented on my first submission by suggesting to link to a primary page, but that primary page you list is a different person. Currently there are no articles on Julia Bentley (singer). Please let me know how to proceed. Thx Andreaantico (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Andreaantico - Yes. Julia Bentley is a different person, a diplomat. Exactly. That is why I disambiguated Draft:Julia Bentley (singer). So if the draft on the singer is accepted, a hatnote should be put at the top of the page about the diplomat. I did not review the draft on the singer in detail, which is still waiting for review. If you have questions about why I made this comment, you may look up Hatnotes, or may ask for advice about hatnotes, or about the review process, at the Teahouse. Otherwise, wait for another reviewer to review the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft duplicate
Hello Robert,
I posted an iqos draft back in December (I am a PMI employee and you can see my declaration on the talk page). A few days later someone else posted another (upper-cased) IQOS draft which you reviewed and declined. Since you had put up a link on my draft I went to investigate. I asked the user if they were from the company and they have not responded. Since the declined draft seems to be a Google translation of the Russian IQOS entry I enquired internally and there was no COI editing. To the best of my knowledge, this draft was submitted by a member of the public.
Most of the relevant sources that are presented in this (upper-cased) IQOS draft were used in mine as well so I wonder if there is still an actual need to merge? Happy to take your advice on this.
On a related note, you added a paid contributions tag even though I thought I had properly declared my COI on the Talk page. Did I miss anything on that side?
Thank you for your input and hope you have a lovely day.
--Aphis Marta (talk) 09:11, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Aphis Marta - I added a {{paid}} tag to your draft so that other reviewers will not have to look at your talk page. Other than that, I haven't reviewed either draft in the past week. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:08, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks for your quick reply. I'll leave a similar note on the article's talk page indicating why the merge is not needed. Hope it's ok with you. Have a lovely day Aphis Marta (talk) 09:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Bring back the Nine Relams
Excuse me, DreamWorks Dragons: The Nine Relams page was deleted cause of a copyright problem. I worked so hard to fix it and they deleted it for no reason besides of a thing they did. I need it back since it's already out. There's no problem to delete it. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 21:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:BMA-Nation2020 - The article doesn't read as if it is out. The article says it will come out in December 2021, which was last month. It needs updating. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration case opened
You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Evidence. Please note: per Arbitration Policy, ArbCom is accepting private evidence by email. If in doubt, please email and ArbCom can advise you whether evidence should be public or private. Please add your evidence by January 31, 2022, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. You may unsubscribe from further updates by removing your name from the case notification list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:33, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine)
Hi, I read your comment of Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine). Your question is that "if this draft is accepted, an entry will need to be added to the disambiguation page for the primary name. / The disambiguation page for the primary name is Flash (disambiguation)", right? I feel this question is very complexed. I named this article as "FLASH, a Japanese weekly magazine". But Dan arndt (talk · contribs) renamed the article.[1] So the article name did ambiguated. I once added a internal link to the disambiguation page. But Swpb (talk · contribs) removed the link.[2] So I suppose that the article had better to named as "FLASH, a Japanese weekly magazine", and it had better to add a internal link to the disambiguation page. If you could help me to add the link, please undo the edition of User:Swpb, thank you. UikiHedeo (talk) 00:32, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:UikiHedeo - I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry for my poor English expression ability. Now I want to ask you that am I still not allowed to move the draft back to its original place and to add an internal link to the Flash (disambiguation) article? UikiHedeo (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:UikiHedeo - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse or at WikiProject Japan. However, I think that the title should be either Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine) or Flash (Japanese magazine). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion about the article title. I understand that. In other points, you don't matter me move the article to the original place? I don't like spent times in the Teahouse. The "anonymous" not always have interested in or know much about what I want to write in wikipedia, Dont't they? If YOU don't matter to I move the article any more, I want to do that. Because I already worked hard and added much sentences. that is sufficient to persist the article get enough credibility, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UikiHedeo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please allow me ask you again about that you still request me to add any other sentences to the article? Or have you satisfied by my addition which had already done? Or you don't matter how the sentences except the article title? UikiHedeo (talk) 11:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you for your opinion about the article title. I understand that. In other points, you don't matter me move the article to the original place? I don't like spent times in the Teahouse. The "anonymous" not always have interested in or know much about what I want to write in wikipedia, Dont't they? If YOU don't matter to I move the article any more, I want to do that. Because I already worked hard and added much sentences. that is sufficient to persist the article get enough credibility, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by UikiHedeo (talk • contribs) 06:10, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:UikiHedeo - Please ask for advice at the Teahouse or at WikiProject Japan. However, I think that the title should be either Draft:Flash (Japanese magazine) or Flash (Japanese magazine). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- I am sorry for my poor English expression ability. Now I want to ask you that am I still not allowed to move the draft back to its original place and to add an internal link to the Flash (disambiguation) article? UikiHedeo (talk) 13:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:UikiHedeo - I am not sure that I understand the question. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 17:32, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Language and linguistics request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gringo on a "Language and linguistics" 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 07:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:College and university rankings on a "Society, sports, and culture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.
Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 01:30, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
Vikram 1
Hello, I have corrected Vikram 1 article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 09:23, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
RfC question
Did you mean that option "C" means keeping status quo on the page here? I am not sure. Thank you, My very best wishes (talk) 15:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - I think so. At least, keeping the status quo is consistent with C. I think that if Option C is the consensus, then the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement, but I think that the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement anyway because I don't see any real effort to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you! I corrected my vote accordingly. I saw your DRNB comment [3]. WP:AE? Well, I do not know, but the endless discussions on talk are indeed concerning [4]. Is that a productive collaboration to improve the page? Definitely not. My very best wishes (talk) 16:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, I now agree that it needs a fix, possibly by admins at WP:AE. I tried to talk with participants but now will leave this page to them. This is a ridiculous waste of time. Even protecting this page forever (as was done in the past) would probably be a positive solution. My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - I think so. At least, keeping the status quo is consistent with C. I think that if Option C is the consensus, then the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement, but I think that the article will end up at Arbitration Enforcement anyway because I don't see any real effort to collaborate. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
- Please accept my apology for modifying your edit. I had to post a separate comment, you are right. I did just that when someone reverted my edit soon after. Thanks, My very best wishes (talk) 15:53, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - Read the talk page guidelines at least one more time, to understand what you are not supposed to do. I am not sure from your apology whether you understand the nature of your mistake. You may change the content of an article, draft, or project page to reflect changes, but this was a signed comment. Even if my count had been wrong, you would not have been justified in changing it, but in noting the correction. Maybe you were doing article-page thinking, but you weren't on an article. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sure, I know this rule. But I thought you would never object to such trivial edit (11-1=10). I would not object if anyone modified my edit in such way. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - It wasn't a trivial edit. My tabulation was signed and timestamped. It would have been trivial in project space, in draft space, or in article space, if the edit summary gave an indication of why the change was made. It isn't trivial to change a number in a signed check, and it isn't trivial to change a number in a signed votecount. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. This is probably because I do not take my involvement in WP very seriously. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - Apology accepted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:08, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, my bad. This is probably because I do not take my involvement in WP very seriously. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:My very best wishes - It wasn't a trivial edit. My tabulation was signed and timestamped. It would have been trivial in project space, in draft space, or in article space, if the edit summary gave an indication of why the change was made. It isn't trivial to change a number in a signed check, and it isn't trivial to change a number in a signed votecount. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. Sure, I know this rule. But I thought you would never object to such trivial edit (11-1=10). I would not object if anyone modified my edit in such way. Happy editing, My very best wishes (talk) 00:27, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Proposed merge of Draft:Agnibaan into Agnibaan
Please merge Draft:Agnibaan into Agnibaan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Harshdeep2021 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft:Kozlovsky Evgeny Alexandrovich
Look please one more time. I added the necessary sources and redesigned the page, I'm sorry that it came to you in the form in which you saw it. it was really unfinished and I continue to work on it. Ilyadante (talk) 17:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)ilyadante
Feedback Requested: Whale Research Group
Hi Robert,
I left a message for you on the Whale Research Group talk page. I tried to tag you but am not sure if I did it properly, so I figured I'd just let you know here. If you could have a look when you get a chance, that would be great.
Thank you very much,
Tyroneslothrop00000 (talk) 01:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Re: Political Game Theory
Thanks for your message regarding Political Game Theory. I was unaware of this page's continued existence. I briefly considered writing something on this subject a few years ago and then changed my mind. Apparently some stub or blank page still existed because I hadn't deleted it properly. My bad. I apologise. It appears to have been deleted now so problem solved. wayland (talk) 03:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
- Senkaku islands
- Waldorf education
- Ancient Egyptian race controversy
- Scientology
- Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
- India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
- Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 16:59, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions topic area changes
In a process that began last year with WP:DS2021, the Arbitration Committee is evaluating Discretionary Sanctions (DS) in order to improve it. A larger package of reforms is slated for sometime this year. From the work done so far, it became clear a number of areas may no longer need DS or that some DS areas may be overly broad.
The topics proposed for revocation are:
- Senkaku islands
- Waldorf education
- Ancient Egyptian race controversy
- Scientology
- Landmark worldwide
The topics proposed for a rewording of what is covered under DS are:
- India, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
- Armenia/Azerbaijan
Additionally any Article probation topics not already revoked are proposed for revocation.
Community feedback is invited and welcome at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Motions. --Barkeep49 (talk) 04:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Draft
Could you please review a draft that I worked on with a few other users? It's been waiting for review for two months already. It is Draft:RFA One. StarshipSLS (Talk), (My Contributions) 01:08, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Robert, Draft Information has been retrofitted in the this article (36 Farmhouse) now. This article is worth staying now. Please review and CONFIRM. Thanks,Vikram Maingi (talk) 03:59, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
User accusing others of being an academic in incognito or their students without any evidence
This was very good, but I did not want to take any more space, so I am posting it here, if you do not mind. The same user who opened a deprecated RFC/U to essentially exclude Siebert and I (of course, they also included themselves but they had no choice) is now positing conspiracy theories that some users involved there are or must be Engel-Di Mauro or one of his students or admirers (?!).12 In fact, I had no idea of them until I found one of their articles through Google Scholar. That is why I wish you or someone should moderate the discussion on the talk page because I do not really want to take anyone for conduct issues but what am I supposed to do? Davide King (talk) 23:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - I think that I don't understand. You have provided diffs, but I am still not sure what the issue is. I see a comment about Engel-Di Mauro, and I don't know who they are. It appears that you may be saying that Nug has implied that someone here is a student of theirs. That comment is so indirect that I would suggest disregarding it. Who is Engel-Di Mauro?
- You are again asking me to act as a moderator. A moderator of what? Of the article talk page Talk:Mass killings under communist regimes??? That is not possible. That is an article talk page and is open to all editors, and is not subject to moderation. If you are suggesting that a moderated discussion with a specific editor would be useful, first you will need to get them to agree to moderated discussion. Both you are User:Paul Siebert seemed to think that I had some ability to get some other editor to engage in some sort of discussion. I don't either have the de jure power or that de facto power. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- I haven't even been trying to follow the discussion at the MKUCR talk page, because it is too busy, and I don't plan to try to follow the discussion, let alone to manage or moderate it.
- If you think that Nug, or someone else, has engaged in questionable conduct, such as casting aspersions, you may report them at Arbitration Enforcement, after reading the boomerang essay again. I don't see a personal attack or other conduct issue, but maybe I have missed something. Remember that if you file a report at Arbitration Enforcement, you will also be discussed. Do you think that there has been a conduct issue? What I see is very long and unproductive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- I think that there are too many editors involved for moderated discussion to be useful. I don't see how moderated discussion with one or two or three editors will be useful either. What do you want to achieve by moderated discussion of what? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Yes, it basically was an accusation that editors on the talk page must have been not only his current or former students, but perhaps even Engel-Di Mauro himself. I just wanted to know what you thought about it, if you thought it was a personal attack or a conduct issue, precisely because I do not want to take it to AE for the reasons you outlined but I am also really tired of some behavior, though perhaps it is not as disruptive as it appears to me, and I may be at fault for replying still. I just think you have been really good and you have done more than enough, I just wish there was a way to keep us focused and get things done to fix the article (agree on source types, outline, and its name), and I know what you wrote at the DRN and is why I did not write you further here, so do not take that seriously — it was more of a wish because you have been very good for making some progress. So sorry if I wasted your time, all this is stressing me out. Davide King (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - First, who is Engel-Di Mauro, and why is there a problem with them? On the one hand, the allegation that one of the editors here is Engel or Di Mauro or whoever would be harassment. I had difficulty finding it because that exchange is halfway up the talk page, and the talk page is at 64K bytes now. (It was larger, but the bot has been archiving the oldest threads.)
- At some point I think that the article is going to wind up at Arbitration Enforcement anyway.
- I think that I am more likely to get something accomplished with regard to the list of Italian political parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs:
"Maybe the reason Engel-Di Mauro keeps getting brought up is that he may an editor here, so I guess there could be a COIN issue as well, I don't know. [first diff] ... Or even an admiring current/former student of his, who can really know as there are dozens of editors, but stranger things have happened in the past. [second diff]"
- From the link to their name:
"Salvatore Engel-Di Mauro is Professor of Geography at SUNY New Paltz, and Chief Editor of Capitalism Nature Socialism. His research areas include socialist histories, soil contamination processes, and urban food production. His latest books are on socialist states and environment and on urban agriculture and ecosocialism."
See also the RSN discussion. - Anyway, that was what I thought too, and that is why I wanted to hear thoughts from someone like you if it was indeed problematic, and if there was starting to be a pattern of disruptive behavior (e.g. attempting to extend the RfC, which may have been in line with the rules, but with the article's history it may have been a way to game the system). I also agree with your comments on AE and List of Italian political parties. Davide King (talk) 15:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - I will reply to a few points. First, I agree that the attempt to extend the RFC to run for another 30 days was disruptive. I don't think that the objective was to get clearer consensus, but to delay a close by 30 days, because the extension was done about one hour after I had tabulated the !votes, so that it could be seen that the closest thing to a consensus was for B. Second, I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and am not familiar with Engel-Di Mauro, and so don't know why that particular professor is seen as such a threatening source. I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and I don't want to familiarize myself with the sources, which would involve more work than I plan to do. But I really don't understand why there are conspiracy theories about that scholar. Third, I think that sooner or later someone is going to file a report at Arbitration Enforcement; but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, they also questioned your neutrality and your tabulation as not "appropriate" because they falsely accused you, or at the very least greatly misrepresented you, as 'threatening' to take it to AE rather than simply stating the obvious prediction, as you reiterated here. I do not understand it either, but it is interesting you used conspiracy theories because that was my first reaction too. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - I saw that, and chose to ignore it. Some things are best ignored. However, if someone spends too much of their time focusing on real conspiracies, and a dictatorship, including a communist dictatorship, really is a conspiracy, one may start to see conspiracies that are not real also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- I agree. The problem is that we still have totally different views of what the topic entails. As also noted by other users (Levivich), here TFD nailed it. If one looks at the talk, it is as if it is still C or now even genocide, when the topic should be mass killings and what TFD summarized.123 I do not feel I can get anything good out of it when we have such a different understanding of the topic and the recent scholarly literature, and I already know we are going to be around in circles and I have had enough of it. Should we have another RfC on what the topic entails? A multi-option requested move? Take it directly to AE? I really do not know anymore. Davide King (talk) 08:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - I saw that, and chose to ignore it. Some things are best ignored. However, if someone spends too much of their time focusing on real conspiracies, and a dictatorship, including a communist dictatorship, really is a conspiracy, one may start to see conspiracies that are not real also. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
- In case you missed it, they also questioned your neutrality and your tabulation as not "appropriate" because they falsely accused you, or at the very least greatly misrepresented you, as 'threatening' to take it to AE rather than simply stating the obvious prediction, as you reiterated here. I do not understand it either, but it is interesting you used conspiracy theories because that was my first reaction too. Davide King (talk) 01:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
- User:Davide King - I will reply to a few points. First, I agree that the attempt to extend the RFC to run for another 30 days was disruptive. I don't think that the objective was to get clearer consensus, but to delay a close by 30 days, because the extension was done about one hour after I had tabulated the !votes, so that it could be seen that the closest thing to a consensus was for B. Second, I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and am not familiar with Engel-Di Mauro, and so don't know why that particular professor is seen as such a threatening source. I have not tried to familiarize myself with the sources, and I don't want to familiarize myself with the sources, which would involve more work than I plan to do. But I really don't understand why there are conspiracy theories about that scholar. Third, I think that sooner or later someone is going to file a report at Arbitration Enforcement; but I already said that. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
- Diffs:
- Yes, it basically was an accusation that editors on the talk page must have been not only his current or former students, but perhaps even Engel-Di Mauro himself. I just wanted to know what you thought about it, if you thought it was a personal attack or a conduct issue, precisely because I do not want to take it to AE for the reasons you outlined but I am also really tired of some behavior, though perhaps it is not as disruptive as it appears to me, and I may be at fault for replying still. I just think you have been really good and you have done more than enough, I just wish there was a way to keep us focused and get things done to fix the article (agree on source types, outline, and its name), and I know what you wrote at the DRN and is why I did not write you further here, so do not take that seriously — it was more of a wish because you have been very good for making some progress. So sorry if I wasted your time, all this is stressing me out. Davide King (talk) 02:44, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Hangor-class submarine (Draft)
Sir, I'm Kishore Editing. I've removed the "redirect link" of the Type 039A submarine from the Hangor-class submarine draft. Could you review the draft again, please; you would find it highly appealing for approval. -Kishore Editing 17:09, 01 February 2022(IST)
Avataro Sentai Donbrothers page
Look, I really try to do what's supposedly done. I tried to even pin the original page for deletion so as for the draft page to be improved over time until it gets approved. But now, the original page has become a den of vandalism and even the deletion mark has been removed by the anons. What am I supposed to do now? Zero stylinx (talk) 01:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Zero stylinx - I have nominated the stub for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but what will happen if the draft got accepted after the original page's deletion? Will it interfere with the creation? Zero stylinx (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Zero stylinx - I don't understand the question. The draft can be updated and resubmitted for review after 6 March 2022 when the series is broadcast. It should not be submitted before then. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Okay let me rectify this. Let's say that the marked-for-deletion article gets deleted and redlinked. If the corresponding draft is approved, will there be any issues or whatsoever during the redirect? Zero stylinx (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Zero stylinx - I don't understand the question. The draft can be updated and resubmitted for review after 6 March 2022 when the series is broadcast. It should not be submitted before then. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:20, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- Thanks, but what will happen if the draft got accepted after the original page's deletion? Will it interfere with the creation? Zero stylinx (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
- User:Zero stylinx - I have nominated the stub for deletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Also unrelated (forgive me for this), but how exactly do we use the Wikipedia Library? (I got invited like a few days ago) Zero stylinx (talk) 15:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)