User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 17

• Niclas.hedhman (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Apache Polygene (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have tried to follow similar level of content as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spring_Framework, and an uninitiated reviewer would possibly also call that "reads like a spec sheet for the system". But isn't that unavoidable explaining complex functionality? At some point, one needs to move from "why does it matter?" (the 'notable' part) to "what is it?" (the 'spec sheet' part). I have done some revisions, but I am grateful for any further guidance that you might be willing to give. Thanks.

User:Niclas.hedhman - First, I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. Second, the article as written focuses on what it is and not why it matters, in my opinion, and goes into too much technical detail. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:02, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Dodger,

              Greetings, I have made updates to my wiki draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis

I will be thankful if you could given me a feedback / review...

Kind regards, Joseph. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 19:04, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph - I am not Dodger. Were you requesting that I review it, or that Dodger review it? Did you request a review at WP:WikiProject Biology? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello McClenon,

                         I am sorry for my mistake... I had mistyped...

BTW: Just as you recomended, I Did request for Reviews at WP:WikiProject Biology...

I will be also thankful if you could offer some feedbacks on my now improved draft page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Species_Branding_Hypothesis

Thanking you, Joseph. Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph - In looking over the draft, I think that more discussion of what other biologists have said about their acceptance of or skepticism toward the hypothesis is in order. The hypothesis, if true, changes the nature of the species problem from being essentially an arbitrary choice on a continuum to a discrete distinction. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Can you take a look at Rhodesia and weapons of mass destruction? It says it was created via AfC, but I don't see any evidence of that. I was about to move it back there, but you do far more work on that project than I do, so I thought I'd ask for your thoughts first. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TonyBallioni - Yes. It appears from its history that it was created in article space using a previous AFC article as a template, and so had the AFC template but never went through AFC. It's a marginal case for whether it should be in article space or moved back to draft space. That is, it isn't obviously incomplete or obviously unready for article space. However, since the author put the AFC template in it, I would say that it is fair to move it to draft space and let it be reviewed. It's a marginal case. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

My thoughts as well, just wanted to confirm. I've went ahead and sent back to draft. Thanks for the second pair of eyes. TonyBallioni (talk) 02:00, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

…from working on Articles for creation, or not? There was no final reply from discussion participants after I called for a decision, after which I became busy with work and other concerns. What is the bottom line, please? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:22, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Leprof 7272 - The bottom line is that there was no final decision. However, my recollection, and I can look it up within a few days, is that the sentiment was that you had a different view of AFC than the AFC reviewers did, and that it would be better to help Wikipedia in some other way than at AFC. Can you take the responsibility in yourself to find what archive the discussion was archived to? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:36, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

You may have to forgive me if I choose to take a "tie goes to the runner" approach and and ignore what I otherwise recall/perceive to be an overstepping of authority. If the sky falls, then we can revisit. But that discussion was here. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Leprof 7272 - I have looked over the previous discussion, and at the time I found your persistent demands for a quick resolution and your persistent reminders of the obligation to assume good faith, which had never been in doubt, to be troubling. I still find your comment about an overstepping of authority to be troubling. You still seem to think that reviewing articles is a right that can only be restricted for cause. If that isn't what you are saying, please read your own statements as if they were written by X and you were reading them for the first time. You seem to be determined to hound us or shame us into giving you reviewer privileges based on justice, rather than looking at it from the standpoint of the good of the encyclopedia. Sometimes, both in Wikipedia and elsewhere, someone is their own worst enemy in pushing too aggressively for something. Now: What do you think is the function of the AFC reviewer? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

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

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

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 13:28, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Boomer Vial - Twinkle is very useful, but sometimes it gives notice to the wrong person. That obviously was User:Kateryken's draft. I must have declined it at AFC. After six months, I don't remember that one, because over six months, I have declined hundreds (probably thousands) of drafts. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, well that's weird. My mistake, at any rate. Boomer Vial^{Holla! We gonna ball!} 04:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

• WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust (talk · contribs)
  • Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looking for some guidance on notability guidelines

Hi Robert,

I appreciate you taking the time to look at my article on the Weidenfeld-Hoffmann Trust. I'm looking to build up the case for its notability, but I'm not sure what kind of coverage would be most helpful. I based the original article on the one for another Oxford scholarship, the Clarendon Fund, where the only references are the organisation's own website. Is notability for a scholarship more a function of size (i.e. Clarendon fund approximately 350 scholars per year versus our 30) or because their article is more substantial and better developed (i.e. I need to write more)?

Many thanks,

WHT

WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust (talk) 11:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:WeidenfeldHoffmannTrust - First, please change your user name. One account should represent one human, and one human should have one account. A charitable trust normally has more than one trustee. Second, notability is based on independent coverage by reliable sources, such as newspapers. Notability of a scholarship fund depends on how much has been written by others (not by the trustees or administrators) about the scholarship program. That often does depend on the number of scholarships. (If another scholarship fund has no references other than its own site, it should have other references. That doesn't mean that you should be listed, but maybe something should be deleted. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because the other stuff exists in Wikipedia doesn't mean that it should exist, or that something else should exist.) Notability certainly isn't a matter of which article is more substantial, because notability is a pre-requisite for having an article in the first place. If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi! I'm trying to get my new submission reviewed! I am a noteable individual but my new submission may need some tweaking! I don't see an option to send it for submission though. Thanks!

Hi! I'm trying to get my new submission reviewed! I am a noteable individual but my new submission may need some tweaking! I don't see an option to send it for submission though. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osothecrew (talk • contribs) 14:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Osothecrew - Read the autobiography policy first. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

This isn't an autobiography. My name is Joanne Garcia...

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Osothecrew (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Osothecrew - I am confused. Why do you say that you are a notable individual if you aren't trying to justify getting your autobiography published? Is the subject notable? It doesn't matter whether the author is notable unless the author is the subject. Have I missed something? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:05, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am confused as well. This is very new to me. My apologies. Thanks! Osothecrew (talk) 00:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon,

         Thanks for your feed back. As you would probably know any concept is actively reviewed at the stage of a hypothesis... And not many people come forward to openly support an innovative solution, as against little creative ones... Especially with this hypothesis which tries solving a age old problem in Biology (The Species Problem).

         So not many scientists openly voice support to it, but we discuss the hypothesis over the Research Gate Network..., and more over books relating to it (on Amazon books) have already crossed over 5000 downloads.

The molecular evidence found in the IZUMO1 & JUNO proteins (images in the wiki draft) provides concrete support to the hypothesis. And forms the urgent necessity to get it across to the wider scientific community...

>>The hypothesis, if true, is very significant in that it changes the concept of a species from a continuum to a discrete distinction.

In Nature species are distinct they certainly manage to preserve their identity...! It is just the inability of we humans to recognise their distinction... It is my personal belief that the species problem is more of a Cognitive problem as against a Real life problem... Thought it is cognitively demanding to solve problems like these, but certainly not an impossibility...

Kind regards, Joseph J

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 02:43, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ernest Hemingway. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Mr. McClenon, a few weeks back, I asked you to provide me with advice and guidelines how to improve the article Draft:eMoflon. As I am a novice article author, I would really appreciate your help. In your opinion, which passages should be extended, removed or modified to increase the quality of the article? Thank you for your help! RolandKluge (talk) 18:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

User:RolandKluge - What is your connection with the developer of eMoflon? It appears that you have a history of editing this one draft article only. If you have a connection with the developer, please provide the conflict of interest declaration. If not, you might be able to help us as much in Wikipedia with some of the five million articles that we already have as by trying to add one article that we do not yet have. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your response. I filled out the COI template for the article. Is there anything else that I can do? RolandKluge (talk) 09:54, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:RolandKluge - Did you read the banner at the top of this page? I do not normally follow an article through the approval process, and do not plan to follow yours, since you are an editor with a history of editing one article. Wait for another reviewer to review the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:04, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I thought that you deserved something a bit extra for all of the amazing work you've done for the project. I've nominated you for a gift from the Wikimedia Foundation!

. Yashovardhan (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I am trying to create a page for someone else. Osothecrew (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

I just saw your request over at Wikipedia:Requests for permissions#Page_mover and wanted to wish you luck in getting it (I am confident that you will). It would make sense for a New Page Patroller to have. --TheSandDoctor (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello, Robert McClenon. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! NeilN ^{talk to me} 03:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:NeilN - Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Nagsail (talk · contribs)
  • Manju Latha Kalanidhi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Manju Latha Kalanidhi (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi, I have resubmitted the draft Manju_Latha_Kalanidhi, with adequate reliable sources published in different newspapers. This draft is a new article about the creator of Rice Bucket Challenge. Can you please help me in creating it. Thank youNagsail (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Nagsail (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Nagsail - Did you read the banner at the top of my talk page? Your only edits have been to or about Draft:Manju Latha Kalanidhi. Do you have an affiliation with her? If so, please provide the conflict of interest disclosure. If not, I am willing to let another reviewer review the article, and will suggest also that you might be able to contribute to Wikipedia by working on any of the five million articles that we already have rather than on one that we do not have. Do you have a connection to the subject of the article? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:29, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

• Roncaglia (talk · contribs)
  • ORAZI (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:ORAZI (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have reviewed and slightly simplified the article, adding a few cross-references; the article can surely be further simplified and improved, but I think it should be published; notability is granted by the presence of the painter in the Oxford Art Online Archives and in the Benezit dictionary of Artists (the main international reference work for French painting); furthermore, his paintings were regularly published on the Les Lettres Françaises (among the most influential French reviews of the XXth Century) and the artist was a regular participant in the Salon de Mai (his name was already among the ones mentioned in the Wikipedia article Salon de Mai). Please let me know if you think that the article is now suitable for re-submission.

User:Roncaglia - You may resubmit the draft. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process, and will let another reviewer review it. If you have questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - Thank you, I have resubmitted the draft — Preceding unsigned comment added by Roncaglia (talk • contribs) 15:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Oleander Sladojevich, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fetish and Croatian. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• AnRoCa (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Save Cambodia‘s Wildlife (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hey, are there any sections which are ok / which ones do i have to work on, please give me a bit more guidance, what to work on. i don't know, sorry. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Save_Cambodia%E2%80%98s_Wildlife THANKS :-)

User:AnRoCa - If you want my opinion, it reads much like a fund-raising brochure that is sent out by a 501(c)(3) organization. Focus on what others have written about the organization rather than what it has written about itself. (If others have not written much about the organization, it may not be notable.) If you want advice from other experienced editors, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2017 (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 remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

eurodyne (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

• Naskgetty (talk · contribs)
  • Lakota Nation Invitational (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Lakota Nation Invitational (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! you reviewed my draft for the Lakota Nation Invitational. There are numerous sites and articles linking to the event. What exactly are you looking for?

User:Naskgetty - I need indications that the event is notable in that independent sources, not associated with it, have reported on it. We don't need to know the names of the organizers of the event, for instance. What is needed is information on what others have written about the event. If you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi there Robert, I was just wondering if you had seen the comment left by the main editor of the page nominated that they left here? I am asking as neither yourself or I were tagged in it (we are the other two posts). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 14:40, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor - Yes, I saw it. I will leave it to the closer to take into account. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, just wanted to let you know in case you hadn't. Thanks for the response --TheSandDoctor (talk) 19:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

I find that you are deleting a page that is being created. This was just started and not even a single line was added. The work was going to start only. I am not sure why this was deleted even before it started? I went through the relevant rules and could not find a solid reason for this. Appreciate if you could enlighten me on this. Sorry for any trouble. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomyworld (talk • contribs) 06:23, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Tomyworld - You say that you read the applicable rules. Did they include the biographical notability policy and the autobiography policy? Did you start the page in article space without providing real content? If so, please do not put incomplete pages in article space that will not be valid articles. You may develop articles piecemeal in draft space or in user space, and most experienced editors do that. If you need advice on draft space or user space, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:30, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, could you move it back please? --TimeWaitsForNobody (talk) 07:26, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:TimeWaitsForNobody - Either you or I can move back Draft:Ivan Parnikoza to Ivan Parnikoza. At present I think it is marginal as to whether it meets academic notability guidelines. Can you describe his career in more detail and find any more references? As it is, there is some risk that it could be nominated for Articles for Deletion. However, if you think that it will survive a deletion discussion (and I don't have a strong opinion), I can move it back, or you can move it back. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Dear Robert McClenon,

            Greetings and thanks a lot for all your help. I recently updated my wiki Draft that offers solution to a long running problem in biology "the species problem". The draft titled "Species branding hypothesis" is almost complete.

I will be happy if you would take a look at the draft. I will be also thankful if you could offer me your valuble feedbacks.

Thanking you, With kind regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 09:25, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph - See my comments in Draft:Species Branding Hypothesis. The Summary section needs to be reworked to be a neutral summary rather than simply a recapitulation that presents the hypothesis as fact. Also, focus more on what biologists who did not originate the hypothesis have written both about its plausibility and its impact. (The impact is non-trivial because it changes speciation from a process to an event.) Robert McClenon (talk) 22:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:2017 National League Championship Series. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:2017 National League Championship Series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:46, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Draft:2017 National League Division Series. Since you had some involvement with the Draft:2017 National League Division Series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Robert McClenon for your valuble comments and suggestions. I had made changes to the Summary just as you had suggested.

>> Focus both on what other biologists, not the originator of the theory, have commented on the plausibility of the theory, and on what other biologists have said about the impact of the theory, if true.

So far I have heard No negative comments or opposition to the hypothesis from others. I would be very happy to hear from other biologist about their views and comments on the hypothesis.

It's my feeling that since this hypothesis deals with a bit complex soultion as against an easy solution; other scientists may not so openly voice comments. Surprisingly I have received just few feed backs, as against the thousands of copies of my books that were downloaded. I also see (on amazon kdp) that many readers finish reading my books till the end. But it could be that the problem (species problem) and its solution (Species Branding hypothesis); are too complex (cognitively demanding) for most readers to arrive with a their personal opinions.

I hope I would recieve more feed backs if the wiki-draft gets published.

Thank you again, Joseph

PS: The articles below could give you some sense of the cognitive Complexity of the Species Problem: http://cogprints.org/9956/1/Bartlett_The%20Species%20Problem%20and%20Its%20Logic.pdf http://www.reed.edu/biology/professors/srenn/pages/teaching/2007_syllabus/2007_readings/a4_Hey_2001.pdf

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Jayabalan.joseph - On further reading of your comments, I noticed what I should have noticed earlier. I just noticed that this appears to be your own paper and hypothesis, and you appear, first, to be trying to use Wikipedia to publicize your own work, and, second, you don't seem to be paying attention to my comments. As to the first comment, are you one of the authors of the hypothesis? If so, please read original research. We can only publish your work to the extent that others have already commented on it. Second, but less importantly, I have provided my own comments, which are that, far from providing a complex answer, you are providing a simple answer to a complex problem. However, the real question is whether you are one of the authors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon,

                  Greetings, I am new to wiki editing and am just getting used to the system. Just to make it clear, I am the proponent of the Species Branding Hypothesis. I just now made a little edit to the draft such that, I took away my name and replaced it by saying 'a researcher'. I hope this helps a bit.

Awaiting your feedback,

Regards, Joseph.

Dear Robert,

             Just as you told me to, I read the webpage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research ... To my opinion my draft  seems not a presentation of an original research. It had been already published. Many times as books and other online resources. The links to them have also been referenced in the draft.

Regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 16:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Jayabalan.joseph - Since the hypothesis has already been published, I agree that it is not original research. However, it does appear that you are trying to use Wikipedia to provide greater attention to what appears to be a fringe hypothesis. I am not prepared to accept your draft as it is, because it doesn't present the views of other researchers, or doesn't say that other researchers have not paid much attention to the hypothesis (in which case it is fringe until it is more widely accepted). Do you want to discuss at the Teahouse, where experienced editors give advice to new editors? The alternative, which might be a little less friendly, would be to discuss at the fringe theory noticeboard. I think that the discussion needs to go somewhere that has more experienced editors, rather than just my user talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon,

                 As you are aware, the draft has the title saying that it is just a Hypothesis and not a theory... Also the title certainly doesnot claim the draft to be any alternative to the conventional Specieation theory but just a new Hypothesis...

The hypothesis forms the core of my book, which has received comments... https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00PKGEYHO I know for sure that Ed M.T. who wrote the third comment is a Scientist by profession... https://zfin.org/ZDB-PERS-980624-6

I agree that there could be N number of wiki rules (which I am not aware of) that which could prevent the draft from getting published... But there also should be rules which could favour this draft...

My optimism gets in way just because this hypothesis tries to solve a core problem in Biology (Species Problem), that had been running for more than 150 years... This period in history (today) is remarkable that now we have the Genomic data and the computational power to solve the problem.

Especially the role of the gene Juno was identified just by 2014 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v508/n7497/abs/nature13203.html

Crystal structure of IZUMO1 binding JUNO was solved just last year 2016 http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7608/full/nature18596.html

Darwin tried solving the species problem, but lack of data prevented him from doing so...

Species Problem has the huge capacity to bridge the gap between Religion & Science, which are unfortunately a dicotomy today...

I will be happy to discuss the hypothesis with the subject matter experts associated with wiki...

If they see that it is worth to be published then, they as scientists could offer the support needed to publish this draft...

I will be thankful if you could guide me to get in contact with wiki subject matter experts related to this draft...

Regards, Joseph J.

PS: Since I am not a native English speaker, pl be bit explicit in expressing things... I feel that I am not really getting some of your polite ways of expression...

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I am sorry Robert I did not get you earlier...

I added a list of Scientists who have read my book on Research Gate and who wrote to me back in support of it...

I added the following text to my draft: 'This hypothesis has been favoured by Evolution researchers such as Edward Malaga Trillo, Sriram Kannan, Keith Oliver and Arvind Ramanathan. It does not face any oppositions as of today.'

I have also writtern on Teahouse and also on Fringe theories Notice board...

Regards, Joseph.

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 21:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

I have edited my draft just now to fulfill the comments that you had posted on my Draft page...

Then why would Mr. Orange mike jump to nominate MfD...!

Jayabalan.joseph (talk) 23:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

             Just an update. I did edit my draft to add the opinion from other Researchers. And just as you told me I posted questions on Teahouse & fringe theory noticeboard. But as you said I dont see any experienced editors give advice to me 

Hi Robert McClenon. You prodded Shadilay back on March 23, 2017, but the article was de-prodded about a week later by Morgan Ginsberg. No reason was given for the deprod and it does not seem you were notified of it as well. The song still seems like it does not meet WP:NSONG right now, but maybe WP:NEXIST is possible. Anyway, if not then the next step would be AfD. Perhaps ask at WT:SONG first? -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Was it really necessary to slap the above article with CSD A1 and template the new user within ten minutes of its creation? It was technically correct, but please keep in mind that WP:CSD says "Contributors sometimes create pages over several edits, so administrators should avoid deleting a page that appears incomplete too soon after its creation.". Sometimes frightening or offending a new user by quickly judging their work can mean those several edits never happen. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 03:53, 16 April 2017 (UTC).

Hi Robert McClenon. Since you check lots of AfC submissions, I have two questions about William H. Bell (fl. 1860s) that perhaps you may be able to answer.

1. You left an AFC comment back in January 2016 (See Talk:William H. Bell (fl. 1860s)#Draft comments) that the draft would need to be diambuguated. I think the creator attempted to do this, but i'm not sure if they did it correctly. To be honest, I have no idea what "fl. 1860s" is supposed to mean. Do you think the tilte should be tweaked to something else per WP:NCDAB?
2. The article seems to have been sumbitted via AFC multiple times and was declined the last time on March 20, 2017. My guess is that it was at that point the creator decided (perhaps out of frustration?) to move the article to the mainspace. I'm sure this happens quite a bit, and the changes made since the last draft was declined and when it was moved to the article namespace were pretty much stylistic although one source was added. If there's no possiblilty of WP:NEXIST, then an AfD may be the only option (or at the very least {{Notability}}). Do think this article meets WP:BIO?

-- Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly (talk) 7:02 am, Today (UTC+9)

User:Marchjuly - Okay. As you saw, I was the first of several reviewers to decline the submission. It wasn't the originator who moved the article to article space, but another editor who evidently took over being the principal author, but that isn't important. I agree that the title should be tweaked to something like William H. Bell (servant). What (fl. 1860s) means is "flourished, 1860s", which is a notation made about people whose dates of birth are not known. In his case, there is no record of his birth because he was born as a slave. (There is apparently also no record of his christening. Church records in the past were often more complete than non-church records.) In my opinion, there is no doubt whatever that he meets notability criteria. He was a witness in an important historical legal proceeding, in which his role is well documented. I don't see an AFD as being in order. I don't see a notability concern as being in order. I will have to take another look at the references to see if a concern about the references is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look and clarifying things. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:14, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

On the dispute page you volunteered on, LakeKayek is already making changes to the North American Regional Phonology page to fit his views, despite the still ongoing dispute. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:North_American_English_regional_phonology.23Midland_as_part_of_Southern_discussion How is this not disrespectful? What's the point of editing the North American Regional Phonolgy page if there's this dispute going on? I've even in my more recent comments have tried to reach out and find agreement, yet he make changes to the pages to align with his views anyways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Klaxonfan (talk • contribs) 06:13, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Klaxonfan - I will take another look. However, the dispute resolution noticeboard is intended to resolve content disputes amicably, and there is nothing that we can do about edit-warring, which must be dealt with administratively. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

• Cecilith (talk · contribs)
  • Riccardo Marchesini (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Riccardo Marchesini (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi! I am trying to add a page for an Italian director called Riccardo Marchesini; first issue: there is a homonym, a canoer with the same name! Second issue: I believe I managed to create a page but it was rejected because "i did not have reliable sources", but I DID quote all possible links: IMDB, magazines articles, web pages with the mentions of the director ad his works! Where did it go wrong? Please Help!!! TA! Cecilith (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC) Cecilith

Cecilith (talk) 07:34, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Cecilith - I can disambiguate the title for you if you wish. However, the draft is nowhere near being ready for article space. It does not currently have any references. The version that I declined did not have any valid properly formatted references. If you need advice on completing the draft, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

When giving your review on my draft for the Newton Mayoral Election, 2017, you changed the title to Newton, Massachusetts, Mayoral Election, 2017. This title would not be consistent with other mayoral articles, such as the Burlington mayoral election, 2009, and the Boston mayoral election, 2013. I will find another way to include Massachusetts in the article but in the meantime please change the title back. LoganZombieOfTime (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

User:LoganZombieOfTime - I couldn't "change the title back" because you had never given it a title, but had submitted it from your sandbox. I have renamed (moved) it as requested, but I can't "change the title back" if you merely submit it in a sandbox. If you knew what the naming conventions were, why didn't you name it? Anyway, I have moved it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:17, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, You flagged an article created by me called Envision BI. I request you to review that again, because it was not meant to be advertised or promoted. I work in the BI field and Use many tools, all the tools has their own Wikipedia page, for an example, Power BI, but Envision doesn't have one. As a wikipedia editor I thought it is my responsibility to create an article for it and as the time proceeds, it will get expanded with the help of other wikipedia editors related to the BI field. So i request for your consideration and let the article remain on the wikipedia. Thanks. rakeshnandi 23:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rakeshnandi1990 (talk • contribs)

User:Rakeshnandi1990 - The article is Envision BI. It consists of only one sentence, which says that the application exists. That isn't enough information for it to provide any encyclopedic value. Maybe I have missed something, but I don't see that the fact that a tool exists is a reason why it should have its own Wikipedia page. If you have any more questions, you may ask them at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:15, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Casablanca99 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Duol (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello,

I am the editor of Duol wiki page which has been rejected at the submission. To avoid repeating mistakes in the future, please let me know exactly what is not in accordance with wiki requirements (which line).

Regards,

casablanca99

User:Casablanca99 - Did you also ask User:Gbawden exactly what was wrong? In my view, first, your draft did not improve much on the previously declined draft, and, second, didn't say anything about the company other than that it exists and has made airdomes. It didn't say anything about what independent sources have said about the company. Third, do you have a connection with Duol? If so, please declare it. (If not, you might consider helping Wikipedia with the five million articles that we already have, as well as with one that we don't have.) If you want the opinions of other experienced editors, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

• Jameslukere (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Saving South Sudan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I want to know the problem if it is the writing style, grammar and sources and I wanted this to be an article. thanks

User:Jameslukere - The problem is both the style and the subject matter. What you wrote is a statement of opinion, and Wikipedia articles do not present the opinions of the authors, but summarize what is a neutral point of view on a subject. If you have further questions, you may ask at the Teahouse. As it is, you aren't likely to be able to compose a draft that will be accepted if you want to state an opinion, even an opinion that most right-minded people will agree with. That isn't what Wikipedia is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon

Thanks for your swift review of the draft page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Bubble. I've added two more 3rd party references today (one of which i'm awaiting full citation information for). I'm aware of the notability guidelines, so I'll keep working to ensure the page is as neutral as it possibly can be. I've also considered how other companies in this sector are presented on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planisware https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planview

Before I look to re-submit, were there any specific areas where you believe changes to the draft are required. Thanks in advance. Markillman (talk) 11:31, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Markillman - First, I wouldn't suggest looking at other company articles as guides to what should be in a company article. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, which explains that the existence of other articles does not imply that the other articles should be there either. Maybe your article needs accepting, or maybe the other articles need deleting. Second, I thank you for declaring your conflict of interest, but I am not enthusiastic about helping paid editors. You might do better to ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Robert McClenon. I appreciate the feedback. I'll look into that link and perhaps go back to the tearoom again. We are of sufficient note to be included in the Wikipedia list (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_project_management_software) but you'll see that all of the 100+ providers listed there have a page to refer back to. I can appreciate your position though and value your straightforward response. As inferred in several of the Wikipedia help pages 'Rome wasn't built in a day', so I will take this chicken-and-egg conundrum one step at a time. It's not critical to achieve a listing, but it gets harder to respond to the question we sometimes get as to why our software is not on the aforementioned list. Thanks again. Markillman (talk) 07:15, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

Robert, you were kind enough to look at the Talk:Nigel Farage#Reversion of WP:RS edits re his alleged racism whilst at school. which User talk:EditsEditsEditsEdits raised and I supported. Unfortunately EditsEditsEditsEdits failed to notify other users so you closed it. I haven't been able to contact him but regard this edit as crucial to readers trying to understand Farage and how he came to his current views. It isn't contentious as I've used a WP:Suggested sources and Farage's right of reply -a requirement in the UK code of conduct for quality newspapers -was included and he hasn't denied it. I accept Ukip supporters may find his admission a shock but the edit shouldn't be censored because of the opinions of editors. It should not have been removed. Could you please advise me on how to proceed? I have no previous dispute experience. Regards JRPG (talk) 15:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

• Pozzo53 (talk · contribs)
  • David Morgan (psychoanalyst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:David Morgan (psychoanalyst) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi there,

I thought that the volume of work done, in the public sphere, would garner a wikipedia page for this psychoanalyst? If I bolster the source material (use main stream media outlets) will that change the editors decision to deem David Morgan unworthy of a Wikipedia page? See this person's page: Anna Motz. Why is she more noteworthy? Secondly, I agree with the list concern and will adjust the conferences for example. But why is this acceptable? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Morgan_(art_historian), and my page is not?

Thanks in advance and in hindsight for all the hard work you guys do.

User:Pozzo53 - I am willing to ask other experienced editors at the Teahouse for their opinions. My own thought is that the subject probably is notable but the draft needs work to establish his notability. As we agree, the list is too long. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

• Pozzo53 (talk · contribs)
  • David Morgan (psychoanalyst) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:David Morgan (psychoanalyst) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I fixed up the references, and whittled down the list to avoid turning Wiki into a data collation site.

I think the notability of David Morgan is summarised by his extensive involvement in important psycho-political debates in the public realm.

Thanks in advance for the edit and the advice. If you can ask for a second opinion, if you feel that the article is still not up to scratch, please do so.

Much appreciated.

This is a volunteer roll call sent to you on behalf of the current Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Coordinator, Robert McClenon, and is being sent to you because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at DRN. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to the roll call list. Those who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after May 31, 2017 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after May 31, 2017, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.

Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 21:54, 27 April 2017 (UTC) (Not watching this page)

Hey, you recently closed the RfC at the U.S. 2020 presidential election page but I have some concerns with your closing. You said "The number of No statements, which mean not to remove the speculative candidates, slightly exceed the number of Yes statement." This is not true, someone bolded "no" twice (and I even called them out in the RfC) so that part needs to be edited at the very least. Another concern I have is that it seems like you tallied votes rather than measured the strength of arguments. I'm not necessarily saying you have to change your "no consensus" decision but it would be great if you could explain how the strength of the arguments weren't strong enough on either side to be deemed a consensus. This is important considering that many users hardly put forward a strong argument and seemed to have "voted" instead of actually engaging in the discussion. Thanks, Prcc27 (talk) 02:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

User:Prcc27 - I have noted the double !vote, which still doesn't change the lack of consensus. In the absence of a consensus, I have not cast a supervote, which would be to decide that the Yes votes are more strongly argued or that the No votes are more strongly argued. I don't really want to argue the merits or lack thereof of the closure at my talk page. As I noted, I welcome a review of my closure at WP:AN, and would prefer not to go into discussion elsewhere. I will be glad to answer questions briefly, but I don't see the error of a double vote as changing the consensus. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:25, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Finally someone catches on. This is a tough crowd. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 16:46, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Shock Brigade Harvester Boris - You mean that someone caught on about a typo that changes the meaning from one having to do with either Wikipedia or litigation to one that is sometimes associated with religion? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:07, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

• Joytotheworld (talk · contribs)
  • User:Joytotheworld/sandbox/Peninsula Hot Springs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, Thank you for your review of my Peninsula Hot Springs page. I am not sure what to do, there was a deleted page when I started but the draft said if I was creating a new page that would be fine. I am not the author of the original deleted page. Could you please help me?? joytotheworld.

• Joytotheworld (talk · contribs)
  • User:Joytotheworld/sandbox/Peninsula Hot Springs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, Thank you for your review. I am not sure how to edit a previous request where I was not the author. It states Peninsula Hot Springs exists, but I can only find declined ones. Could you please help me???

User:Joytotheworld - There was a version of Peninsula Hot Springs in article space. It was deleted as unambiguous advertising. There is also a version at Draft:Peninsula Hot Springs, which is too promotional for article space, and will be declined if resubmitted, and the version in your subpage of your sandbox, which will also be declined if it is submitted. If reliable sources that are independent of the management of the resort, such as travel guidebooks, have reported on it, a neutral article might be accepted. (I am not saying that it will, and I am not saying that it won't.) Do you have any connection with the resort? (The author of the other two pages clearly does.) If so, you must declare it in accordance with the conflict of interest policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert, can you suggest what parts of the wikipedia content for Sanjay Poonen need to be cleaned up, so that it is not in your opinion, an article for deletion? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BombayGin (talk • contribs) 04:44, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

User:BombayGin - No, and, in my experience, when the author of an article asks what parts of the article can be cleaned up, that usually indicates that they have a special interest in getting the article published, which is typically a conflict of interest. There are two problems with the article. The person does not appear to be notable, and the article is promotional. The promotional text can be deleted, but, since the purpose of the article is to be promotional, that would leave not much, and the person is not notable. Please post your conflict of interest disclosure. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, just letting you know that I missed seeing the SPI you had opened re Whisperwire, so then added one myself. Hopefully all good, and there are now 4 likely socks, but just thought I'd give you a heads up - the duplication was my oversight. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 11:00, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

• Greg Hullender (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Rocket Stack Rank (2) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I saw your decline here. I can see the issues you highlight and I'm hoping to give the editor some one to one support. The concept does seem to be notable and I added one ref quickly to show what is required. This is just a good manners note as I will encourage the new editor to maybe add it to the micro-business article or establish a new one. The new model seems to be more a nano-marketing concept as it may be smaller that the definition we have for micro. Keep up the good work. Victuallers (talk) 12:47, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

but I like your style. Dlohcierekim 18:57, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim - Maybe you haven't been to Articles for Creation, New Page Patrol, or the dispute resolution noticeboard. I came onto this article for deletion, as with nearly all the articles that I nominate for deletion, from New Page Patrol. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:09, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

am watching for developments. Dlohcierekim 20:47, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Dlohcierekim - There are also two other single-purpose accounts who have edited the article, and an IP address who has edited the article, as well as the one surviving account that has edited the AFD. My thinking at this point is that we should just ignore the surviving accounts and their edits for now. The AFD will close at approximately 0343 GMT, 8 Monday. There have been three Delete !votes including mine as nominator, and only one surviving Keep !vote, that of another SPA. As I noted in the AFD, if that !vote is not a sockpuppet, then it was probably either a sleeper or was canvassed. If the AFD closes as Delete, then that is that, and it should be salted. If the closer chooses to relist it, or closes it as No Consensus, then it is appropriate to ask for Checkuser for the surviving accounts. There is no point in asking for SPI resources at this time if we expect the AFD to be closed. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:44, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Concur. Watchful waiting. Unfortunately, I don't see any improvement in sourcing. So much wheel-spinning.☹ The heroic efforts seem like more than the usual "Oh, no! there trying to delete my baby!" It is interesting that after one was contacted w/ uw-agf-sock, the next appeared. Dlohcierekim 03:11, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

• Mary OMalley (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Alter Wiener, Holocaust Survivor (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I submitted my second radically altered Draft: Alter Wiener article based on input received for the original submission. My resubmission was rejected because "it appeared to be a duplicate". I did not intend to have 2 pending articles. The second submission was supposed to replace the first. I confess I am not technical and this process is very confusing to me. Would you please clarify what needs to be done to improve this article and hopefully get it posted? Is there someone I could actually talk with about this process? Thanks for your help.Mary OMalley (talk) 22:38, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Mary OMalley - When a draft is in neutral and properly sourced form, it should be accepted as Alter Wiener without qualification. For that reason, please make your edits to Draft:Alter Wiener, not to any other draft. If you need advice about making the tone neutral, please ask for advice at the Teahouse. I understand that you were not trying to create multiple drafts (which some editors do, thinking that they will increase the likelihood of acceptance). Since you were not trying to create two or more drafts, just edit the one named Draft:Alter Wiener, and not the other draft. If you have more questions, please ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:30, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello, My article has been in draft for a long time even though I improved it. Could you have a look at it and tell me what shall I improve to eventually undraft it? Artur Kubacki (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Artur Kubacki - First, please consider asking for advice and a review at the Teahouse. Second, please consider submitting it for formal review via Articles for Creation. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter

Did you know?

Did you know that you can review your changes visually?

When you are finished editing the page, type your edit summary and then choose "Review your changes".

In visual mode, you will see additions, removals, new links, and formatting highlighted. Other changes, such as changing the size of an image, are described in notes on the side.

Click the toggle button to switch between visual and wikitext diffs.

The wikitext diff is the same diff tool that is used in the wikitext editors and in the page history.

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

Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor Team has spent most of their time supporting the 2017 wikitext editor mode which is available inside the visual editor as a Beta Feature, and adding the new visual diff tool. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. You can find links to the work finished each week at mw:VisualEditor/Weekly triage meetings. Their current priorities are fixing bugs, supporting the 2017 wikitext editor as a beta feature, and improving the visual diff tool.

• DarinColucci (talk · contribs)
  • User:DarinColucci/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Question about duplicate review rejection of page Darin Colucci Hi Robert, I saw you reviewed an article I submitted on Darin Colucci (thank you!) and was rejected because it appears to be a duplicate under review. However, when I click on the other article, (there is a link) it says "draft article currently not under review". So I'm just confused and wondering where the link to article under review is. I believe that may have been an article I was writing, but when I logged in one day, it was blank, so I recreated the new one that was submitted. I'm new to Wikipedia and trying to follow all the rules and learn as I go, so any help would be greatly appreciated! Best, Amanda

DarinColucci (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

User:DarinColucci - First, you seem to have confused a username with an article name. You should not use the username of Darin Colucci because it is that of a real person and you do not appear to be Darin Colucci if your name is Amanda. You should change your user name. Second, there are two draft articles. If you are confused about this, ask for advice at the Teahouse. Neither draft is ready for acceptance. Both contain non-neutral language and are written to praise the subject rather than describe him. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Just a suggestion but it would be a good idea to consult the chemistry project before approving chemistry articles written as homework by students. You could always ignore the advice we offer, but at least you'd get some high level comments. Cheers, --Smokefoot (talk) 08:56, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Smokefoot - The article in question is Mukaiyama hydration. It was not labeled as a class project. It would be helpful if class projects were labeled as class projects. It would also help if students were given useful information about Wikipedia when given class projects, although this one was not one of the common bad examples. Who was the instructor? Was it coordinated through the educational coordination process? Robert McClenon (talk) 10:18, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

The fact that the article is a class project is secondary. One needs a contemporary PhD in an area related organic and organometallic chemistry to evaluate such articles. Such expertise is found in the projects, which is where you should have gone. Student and their negligent teachers exploit Wikipedia for their homework because of lax practices like yours, although I realize that you were acting with good intentions. --Smokefoot (talk) 16:07, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Smokefoot - I am not sure, but I think that I respectfully disagree with your scolding of me. In particular, I have not seen a guideline that requires that drafts or new articles be reviewed by editors with Ph.D.'s, only that Wikipedia welcomes editors with Ph.D.'s. If you think that I shouldn't have accepted the article, I am willing to discuss at Articles for Creation. The alternate route in to Wikipedia is the front door, where the quality control check is only New Page Patrol, in which case articles stay unless they are taken to proposed deletion or Articles for Deletion (since inadequate chemistry isn't a reason to speedy an article). Do you have some specific issue with that article? (By the way, I have found that, in the past, when I have referred draft articles to WikiProjects, they seldom get feedback, but that isn't your problem or mine.) As I said, I think that I respectfully disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

When you criticize me for "lax practices", do you mean that I should not have accepted the article? The usual guideline for acceptance is that the article has to be able to pass Articles for Deletion, not that it be free of technical issues, but perhaps you would like to see a stricter standard. Also, are you saying that students and negligent teachers are exploiting Wikipedia by using it as a reference for their homework, or by assigning homework involving contributing to Wikipedia? If the former, I don't see how that is relevant to acceptance of an article. If the latter, then I would say that the issue is not the students at all but only the teachers (and I would criticize the teachers far more severely than merely to call them negligent). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:19, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Have never heard of any PhD requirement. We require significant coverage in reliable sources. Disagreement over sources by PhD's can be discussed on article talk pages and consensus sought thereon.Dlohcierekim (talk) 17:04, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the note. No reason to belabor this. Here's the deal: If I am asked to review an fully formed, new, large article on specialized aspect, and if that article comes from an editor who has never contributed previously, and the references are to primary sources vs WP:SECONDARY, .... etc, Then it is a good time to defer to experts, not necessarily PhD's. Very few editors are able to judge organotantalum chemistry, so why fake it? In any case, happy editing. Not the end of the world.--Smokefoot (talk) 05:45, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

• Ethereum (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I noticed your volunteer note on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Are you in a position to help on this issue? In particular, would it be possible for you to review the current state of discussion on the page and make an assessment of the present situation? The issue I've raised touches on several content policy guidelines and requires a level of specialized knowledge of the subject. I think this is one reason I have failed to engage the other editors with my concerns. They do not understand the nature and severity of the disagreement. There is one editor (at most 2-3 depending on your interpretation) that I'm in actual contention with, but he (they) have not exerted any effort to provide a reasonable explanation for his (their) opposition. Neither does the dispute resolution process appear to be moving forward. Can you advise me further about what I should do in this instance? Aliensyntax (talk) 13:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aliensyntax - Have you notified the other editors of your filing at the dispute resolution noticeboard? Do you need help giving notice? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - I linked to the noticeboard on the talk page. I assume the other editors were also notified automatically when I filled the dispute. Could you explain to me what benefit the noticeboard should provide above and beyond the talk page? Is it possible to get a neutral arbiter involved? I'll make another remark on the talk page shortly to express my concerns and attempt to bring this dispute to a close, but I'm doubtful this will succeed. I feel a critical eye should take a look at the issue. As I see it, the other editors either do not understand my contention or are being willfully ignorant about the very bias which is causing my contention. Someone with no stake in the discussion would probably be able to discern which side of the dispute is being most reasonable in this case. Is it possible to get this kind of intervention, providing the discussion remains at a standstill? Aliensyntax (talk) 22:00, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aliensyntax - First, you are supposed to provide notice on the talk pages of the other editors. Please do that. If you don't know how, please ask for advice. Second, yes, if the conditions are met, a moderator will take the case and will try to facilitate discussion and compromise. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Robert McClenon Thank you. I wasn't aware of the talk page notification. I've informed David Gerard of my request for dispute resolution as of the 11th. This user has participated to a very limited extent on the talk page and not at all as of yet on the noticeboard. At present, the only editor to engage in this process is ClarerTheSharer: an admitted bystander in the dispute. I've exchanged a couple of remarks with them on the noticeboard. There was also a user by the name of Warzuckerberg22, who made a single short comment on the talk page, but they don't have a profile. I don't see how I can notify them. As I said earlier, I left a link to the DS noticeboard to inform all relevant parties on the talk page.

I'll be monitoring this development over the next few days, but it's seeming increasingly likely that this will draw to a stalemate with little participation or active opposition to my view. What can be done to further facilitate a fair and reasonable resolution? Aliensyntax (talk) 01:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Aliensyntax - I have opened moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:05, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I have just posted the wiki this is a competition I won and I am trying to link it to the correct page could you help, and is this ok to do this? Treyalexander (talk) 03:18, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Treyalexander - No. Read the autobiography guideline. The use of Wikipedia for self-promotion is strongly discouraged. What are you trying to do, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I am the the guitarist that won this competition and I am trying to link the page correctly. Could you guide me a bit, please? Treyalexander (talk) 03:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't know how to fix this problem but I don't want it deleted Treyalexander (talk) 03:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ned Kelly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Gee, thanks. Next time, you might consider giving me more than two minutes to put together a basic article.

MJustice (talk) 15:37, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

When you apply a speedy delete tag to a transcluded page you must always bracket the speedy tag with <noinclude></noinclude>. Your failure to do so in the case of {{Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Joelam265/sandbox}} caused Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion to be put into CAT:CSD. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:28, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

User:RHaworth - Oops. Point made. I didn't realize it was transcluded, but perhaps what I tried to do was too complicated and dangerous. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:19, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi there, I know that I just reverted your review of User:MSENDER007/sandbox so just wanted to explain a bit further here. I reverted it as you reviewed a redirect to Draft:Ed McBain's 87th Precinct franchise, which I had moved, then you reviewed, and then I declined the draft without us having any knowledge of each other's actions. Hopefully that expands slightly on the edit reason and hopefully you are okay with that. How I found this out was because the sandbox just got reviewed (NPP) a short time ago so it appeared back in my notifications (since I moved page before having page mover right so it created redirect in my name) --TheSandDoctor (talk) 21:59, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

User:TheSandDoctor - This seems to have happened a month ago, and I don't remember the details, but I don't see a problem. I know that occasionally there are move conflicts on the moving of drafts from sandboxes into draft space. As I said, I don't see a problem. The draft still needs references and will still sit in draft space until it has references. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Yup, I know it was some time ago. I was just letting you know in case you wondered why your edit was reverted (as a courtesy etc). --TheSandDoctor (talk) 02:45, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Can I suggest that this section be closed/shelved until the user that filed the report returns? I agree with MelanieN that we can't really have a moderated discussion without the OP. VQuakr (talk) 01:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

I see she's returned; please disregard. VQuakr (talk) 22:02, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

• DoABarrelRoll.dev (talk · contribs)
  • User:DoABarrelRoll.dev/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry about the AfC, must have hit it by accident.

DoABarrelRoll.dev(Constable of the WikiPolice) 13:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:DoABarrelRoll.dev - Just as I said. It may have been an accident. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:00, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Lifewider (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Higher Education Quality Council (HEQC) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi  Robert - thanks for reviewing my HEQC article so quickly. I am at a loss as to how to make this publishable.. That the organisation existed and carried out the work as described is a fact.. also that the work fed into its successor QAA's work is a fact.. I worked in both organisations..and moved from research to policy in the wake of the Dearing Review so I know it happened.. Sadly there is little in the way of a digital trace of its work. Finding references that are not of the subject's own is going to be difficult. Any guidance would be much appreciated

Norman Lifewider (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Lifewider - Well, first, if there are no references other than the organization's own, then the organization isn't notable in the peculiar Wikipedia sense. But was the organization an official or semi-official governmental organization in the United Kingdom? If so, wouldn't there be at least obscure articles in British newspapers about it? Second, if you want more advice on how to improve the article, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:26, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

• Josephgalasso (talk · contribs)
  • User:Josephgalasso/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

hi robert. i am still waiting on pending approval for use of photo (andrew radford) who has given me his complete unconditional allowance to use photo. i have sent msg to permission_en site. here is his page (photo seems to appear only when i am logged on, and gets removed one i log off). please direct. i am waiting for a reply from permission_en. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

andrew radford grants permission to use family photo of himself for proposed wiki page.

thanks, joseph galasso

Andrew Radford <ndrrdf@gmail.com> Today, 3:14 AMGalasso, Joseph A Dear Joseph,

Here is the answer I got from CUP. It's a family photo, taken by Khadija.

Is this enough?

Best,

Andrew

thanks so much, joseph Josephgalasso (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Josephgalasso (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Josephgalasso - I am not entirely sure what the question is. Is there a question about permission to use an image, or what is the question? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

thanks robert. i have permission from copyright holder (andrew radford) and have sent email to wiki <permission_en> (still waiting on approval from them). i believe i might have used the wrong tag last time. i mentioned photo ok for internet use/wiki, and after some time they removed the photo, stating that only approval for internet use was not sufficient. but andrew radford has granted completely free use of photo for all purposes. so, what tag should i use? at the moment, the photo link on page displays < File:Radford Photo.png> but no photo. must i upload it again, or wait for approval from permission_en? which tag grants complete unconditional access to photo? thanks so much robert https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

best, joseph 130.166.130.139 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

hi robert, just moments later, it appears the photo is indeed now up for Andrew Radford (but is it secure--or will it be removed again?) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Radford_(linguist)

thanks, j 130.166.130.139 (talk) 13:41, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

• EricPfromTustin (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Shot Tower Capital (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thanks for feedback, I have added more news and citations, as well as tried to remove wording that made sound like an advertisement. Could use copy editing help in that respect. Thanks!EricPfromTustin (talk) 20:52, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

User:EricPfromTustin - I suggest asking for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I do not agree fully agree with your summary of NPOV as it applies to the lead paragraph, and as a result my draft paragraph does not match well with your advice. Discussing the NPOV interpretation further within the DRN space seems gauche; is that something I can raise here or does the proposed paragraph adequately speak for itself? Thanks in advance for your thoughts! VQuakr (talk) 00:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any reason why you unreviewed the article and didn't re-review it? -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 01:45, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:I dream of horses - I didn't mean to have unreviewed your review. What happened is that I tagged it, and then promptly unreviewed it. That is because normally tagging the article leaves it reviewed, and sometimes I want to tag an article but leave it for another reviewer. If you had already reviewed it, oops. Is that a complicated explanation? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope! Perhaps use twinkle for now on if the article is reviewed already. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 03:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your review on my page. (if you need the URL https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Intermed_Hospita ) I want to create a page about Intermed Hospital. I understand that information I uploaded was not sufficient, therefore I will add more information such as history etc. But there are few questions I would like to ask. 1. I work at this hospital and there are no other published online material that I could use for reference on History" section. Is it okay if I just write the section without using strong references? 2. Secondly, as you can see, it is a page about a hospital. Therefore, I am afraid that it is hard to insert scientific information. Probably, it will look like information brochure when I finish editing it.(but this time I will add more detailed information.) 3. Also, the title of the draft page was Draft:Intermed Hospita. (missing letter A) Is it because of the character limit? Because I didnt give title to it(because it was made in sandbox) and I wonder when I finish the page, will it be like this? (coz then I will have to fix it again) 4. What information do you suggest that I should insert on the page? more detailed History? Achievement? Technical features? Please consider my questions :D Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joobii247 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Joobii247 - The title was a copy-and-paste error on my part. Don't worry about that? However, your draft was deleted due to copyright violation. Please do not resubmit it in a form that contains copied material. What have independent third parties, such as newspapers or magazines, written about the hospital? The article should be about what third parties have written, and should be in your own words, not those of the hospital. If you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Andrew.h.chen (talk · contribs)
  • User:Andrew.h.chen/sandbox (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello, I am sorry to hear that my submission has been rejected again...For this reason, you mentioned that "I create multiple copies of drafts about the same person". I made some changes every time I submitted the drafts. So could you please tell me how can I avoid creating multiple copies of drafts again? Thank you!

User:Andrew.h.chen - First, you are trying to use Wikipedia to create your own autobiography, and that is strongly discouraged. Second, you were already told that the subject (yourself) is not notable, and that your draft is promotional. Third, the multiple copies are Draft:Andrew Hang Chen and User:Andrew.h.chen/sandbox. Stop creating multiple copies of the draft. Fourth, stop using multiple accounts, including User:Amelia yu, to submit the draft. Fifth, if you have more questions, ask at the Teahouse, and you will probably get the same answer. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

• Es279 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Opportunity Network (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear Robert, the submitted page is very similar in structure and content to other approved Wikipedia pages, for instance, TransferWise's Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise). TransferWise is also a very similar company in terms of history like Opportunity Network. Moreover, all the references used are definitely established sources (the Financial Times, Forbes, IESE), therefore it is debatable to say it was put just an advertisement. Most of the information shared are facts. Could you please specify which parts do you think are an advertisement? I look forward to hearing from you and I thank you very much for your kind help. All best, Es279

User:Es279 - Did you read the notes at the top of my talk page when you posted? I have not compared your draft to other existing articles. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Some of them also read like advertisements, and should be deleted. Just because your draft consists of facts does not keep it from reading like an advertisement, and does not establish [[WP:NCORP|corporate notability[[, which is also required. I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process, and I will not follow a draft through the approval process for a paid editor. It is difficult to write neutrally when you are a paid editor, and just because you think that you have written neutrally does not mean that you have written neutrally. If you want other opinions, you may ask at the Teahouse. If you were a new neutral editor, I would post there asking for you, but, as a paid editor, I expect you to do your own asking. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you Robert, I perfectly got your feedback, it was very useful. I spoke with another very helpful editor via live chat and I modified the submission to make it hopefully neutral. Thank you so much again! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es279 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Es279 - No. You added another copy of your draft that is slightly different, maybe more nearly neutral, but now your draft is duplicated. You are apparently in too much of a hurry to get your draft approved, and are working on it hastily, and it will never be approved in its current state containing two copies of the draft, and control information from a misformatted or misused template. I know that you are in a hurry, maybe because you get paid as soon as the draft is accepted, but you aren't helping yourself. You have duplicated your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Thank you so much for your kind feedback. All my mistakes are simply given by the fact that I've never done a Wikipedia submission so all possible mistakes are really in good faith. I cancelled the first part, which I didn't realise at first was left in the post. The second version should be much more fact-based as per feedbacks received via live chat and I also modified the references that now should be in the right format with related metadata. I'm really not in a hurry, I'm very keen on doing this in the best possible way and according to Wikipedia's rules. Thank you so much again for your kind help and I look forward to further feedbacks. All best, Es279 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Es279 (talk • contribs) 16:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Es279 - You do appear to be in a hurry. Paid editors often are. New editors often find Wikipedia confusing and complicated. New paid editors find Wikipedia a very unfriendly place, and they should not be surprised to find Wikipedia to be both complicated and unfriendly. Wikipedia isn't meant for promotion or advocacy. I will not necessarily respond to any further questions or comments, but would suggest that, if you want more advice, go to the Teahouse, although they may not be any friendlier than I am. Of course, you can't do this "in the best possible way and according to Wikipedia's rules", because the best possible way in accordance with the rules is truly neutral editing by volunteer editors. I understand that you have been given an impossible job to do. I can't help you much, and no one can. That is the way it is. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

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

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

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. 1989 17:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Damnit Robert. What did we say about making articles in other people's sandboxes and then abandoning them?^{[sarcasm][Or is it?]}TimothyJosephWood 17:40, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Timothyjosephwood - On the Internet, no one knows that you are being sarcastic. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Twinkle can't always figure out who was the real originator, or whose sand it is. The geological answer is that sand is of geological origin, and is older than we are. It just recycles through beaches, deserts, sandboxes, etc. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Alienbraon - It was your draft once. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If you see a stub, try to sort it instead of using {{stub}}. The operative word being "try". I do realize there are legitimate uses for {{stub}}. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:I dream of horses Can I do that using the Page Curation toolbar, or do I have to search for the stub type manually and edit the stub manually? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there isn't a tool available that allows you to stub sort semi-automatically. However, one should avoid "autoitis" or "speeditis"; lack of automated tools or being slowed down shouldn't be the only reason you don't stub sort.

I have avoided continuing to bug people who told me they were simply overwhelmed by the prospect of searching for a stub type (there's thousands of types, so understandable), or told me they reserved {{stub}} only for when they encountered an article they weren't sure how to stub sort, which is what Category:Stubs is for.

You seemed to be a good editor, by the way. -- I dream of horses  If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|I dream of horses}} to your message  (talk to me) (My edits) @ 22:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm wondering if a changing The Epiphany School of Global Studies to a redirect to Nicholas Sparks would be appropriate? There's lots of sources out there for it, but they are all more about Sparks than the school...--Fabrictramp | talk to me 23:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Fabrictramp - I don't have any objection to changing the article to a redirect rather than either expanding or deleting. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:53, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

We would like to reply to some of the comments that have been listed regarding the ECW model Wikipedia draft.

It has been suggested that the title be called electrostatic and covalent equation. This is misleading and points readers in the wrong direction. That title may make people think that the equation is used for quantum mechanical calculations. However, the ECW model, among other things, is an equation that correlates and predicts the enthalpies of adduct formation between Lewis acid and Lewis basis. In addition to these calculations, in some cases it is able to get quantitative information on properties that cannot be obtained by other means. A few of these properties are the magnitude of steric hindrance, the magnitude of pi- back bonding, the enthalpy of dissociation of a dimer, etc. Since the ECW model deals with Lewis acids and bases it seems to us that an appropriate title would be Lewis Acids & Bases and The ECW model.

One of the comments mentioned that a large number of the references was of Russell Drago's work. The authors of this draft were of the impression that the references were to back up the assertions made in the article (and not an indication of a popularity contest.) The ECW model is mentioned in many inorganic textbooks as can be seen by consulting reference 1 in the reference 4 listed in reference section in the draft article. ECW is also mentioned in the Wikipedia article on HSAB Theory. And several recently published books on acids and bases also discuss the E&C parameters. Would you like all the inorganic textbooks and the recently published acid base book to be listed in the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeaglePower (talk • contribs) 00:03, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The draft is currently called Draft:Electrostatic and Covalent Equation. What should it be called? When you suggest that it be called Lewis Acids and Bases and The ECW Model, is it necessary indicate that Lewis acids and bases, the most general definition of acids and bases? Is it applicable to Bronsted acids and bases (which are of course also Lewis acids and bases), and Arrhenius acids and bases, or only to non-Bronsted Lewis acids and bases? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:42, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for trying. --MelanieN (talk) 03:00, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - I don't entirely know why the case was filed, since apparently everyone wanted to engage in free-for-all discussion, and at least they were all being civil, but no one apparently wanted to let a moderator lead the discussion. It can be very hard for editors who have an established position to let another editor lead. They didn't need to participate; participation is voluntary. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

At some point it is likely to get ugly. If this happens, I would suggest Arbitration Enforcement under the American politics case rather than WP:ANI, but I would hope that it just continues to be an unproductive discussion rather than a vindictive unproductive discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the filer didn't even know what she was asking for or what that board is. She is brand new and apparently thought this would be just another place where she could argue for her viewpoint, maybe get a few more people to agree with her. I actually don't think it will get ugly or personal; I edit in some areas where it does get ugly and personal, all the time, and I don't see that kind of dynamic here. She is persistent but polite, and has not participated there lately; I think she may have given up. I've been away for a week and now that I look I do see a bit of a personal dynamic developing between two of the editors; I will say something to them. But I really don't see the talk page degenerating into a war zone. As for AE, actually nobody has tagged that page as being under AE restrictions, although it clearly could qualify if somebody thought it needed it. I will keep an eye on things there, but I am not terribly concerned that it will blow up. And I see there is another admin participating there, Neutrality, who is level headed and good at keeping a discussion on track. I don't think you need to give that page another thought. I just wanted to thank you for trying, and apologize for wasting your time. --MelanieN (talk) 18:54, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MelanieN - First, you didn't waste my time. Second, the whole area is under AE restrictions. Targeting a page only imposes further restrictions, such as 0RR or 1RR, or may put all editors under the notice that is otherwise given with a template. Yes, I am probably finished with that page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:12, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I redirected it to Hoarding, its antonym. Bearian (talk) 15:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

This is my account, and Wikipedia has indicated I can continue editing a work in progress. NOT disruptive editing.06:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Let us eat lettuce (talk • contribs)

User:Let us eat lettuce - Who in Wikipedia has advised you that you should continue editing your sandbox? Your submissions of it for acceptance into Wikipedia have not been encouraged nor approved. It is true that you have not yet had it deleted or been blocked, but that hardly means that Wikipedia has indicated that you may continue to do what you have been cautioned against. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

May be a misunderstanding on my part.. Within the initial notice, it was stated okay to continue edits and there is the resubmit button. anyway the resistance to this seems to be bigger that me. I certainly do not want to be blocked Let us eat lettuce (talk) 22:07, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

@Robert, this is the pretty much the only thing Lettuce has said that I agree with. The templated rejection notices following each AFC submsission all say "editing is encouraged" and the mfd template says "You may edit this page...."; On the other hand, the edits themselves continue to be in the same OR / POV / POLEMIC / RANTING vein despite a lot of effort by many to point to WP:Neutral point of view, [[WP:Original research] and similar rules. If Lettuce were editing article space instead of user space he would have been blocked a few days ago and the only hard part would be deciding which of the applicable rules was MOST applicable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 22:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Let us eat lettuce - Yes, the boilerplate notices say that you may try to improve the draft. However, if editors specifically advise you that you not to resubmit, then it is true that you may edit the sandbox, but continuing to resubmit it is tendentious. This is a case where Wikipedia's use of wording that is meant to be encouraging just encourages more of the same, and where statements by humans are more important than canned language. You are wasting the time of the reviewers by continuing to resubmit it. User:NewsAndEventsGuy - Sometimes the language is too encouraging. I, for one, think that the ancient Wikipedia guideline of do not bite the newcomers, while a noble principle, has come to do more harm than good. There is nothing that can be done to prevent that, because WP:BITE, while technically still only a guideline, has become a dogma, something outranking a policy. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, the MfD will conclude in a few days and then it will all be over. In the meantime maybe the best thing is to just let it run. The downside is the volunteer time that is wasted on re-evaluating this thing every day. Lettuce, if you continue to re-submit the article every day without addressing the core issues that have repeatedly been noted to you, it's even odds that an admin will see fit to block you. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:52, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes to both NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:53, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Let us eat lettuce - See my comments on your talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:34, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I thought I could contribute some content that I personally do feel is vital. oh well. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 05:47, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with your thoughts about BITE RM. Can someone please explain why WP:SNOW has not been applied to the MFD. Of those that have posted at it there is only one appose (sic). I have seen deletion discussions for pages that aren't such a WP:POLEMIC closed in 24 hours or less. MarnetteD|Talk 18:09, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

MarnetteD, just FYI, in case you didn't notice the "appose" is the opinion of the polemic's author NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:15, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - Have you seen a WP:SNOW close of an MFD as Delete? Most of the SNOW closes that I have seen were of AFD's, and also were where there was an applicable speedy deletion criterion, usually A7 or WP:G11. I don't see an applicable speedy criterion for MFD's for user space. I don't see a speedy criterion for polemic. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

As I was implying, I think that WP:BITE actually does more harm than good, in two entirely different ways. First, it causes experienced editors and admins to be too tolerant of new but non-good-faith editors, who may be paid editors or single-purpose accounts. Second, it is used as a cudgel by aggressive new editors against those who try to caution them, but the aggressive new editors claim that they are being bitten. In my opinion, if you know enough of Wikipedia to be able to quote WP:BITE, you are no longer a newbie and should not quote BITE in your own defense, but only to third parties. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Yep I had noticed NewsAndEventsGuy. I also note that there are still items being added to the sandbox which is another reason (IMO) that a snow close should have taken place. MarnetteD|Talk 18:21, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:MarnetteD - I don't see what is wrong with expanding or editing a draft. I don't see any urgency for deleting it. Just because it is being expanded shouldn't be a reason to hasten its deletion, in my view. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:37, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	This is for your closing summary here. I'd bet football is a nice way to resolve disputes! Yashovardhan (talk) 18:08, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Yashovardhan Dhanania - The dispute had to do with what Americans call soccer, which is why that is what I flippantly suggested. I wasn't suggesting American football, a rougher game (and a harder game to improvise with very small teams). Robert McClenon (talk) 18:50, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I understood it clearly, as being from India, we call soccer 'football'. Of course, American football would've been a hard way to resolve that dispute! Jokes aside, I'll just remind you that It's almost time to change the coordinator at the DRN. Although I've added myself to the list, I'll like your comments on that. You can also continue as the coordinator if you want. In any case, I'll always hope to have your guidance in especially tricky cases at the noticeboard (and your occasional humorous closures like this one). Yashovardhan (talk) 07:39, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Gwanggaeto the Great. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Impeachment just part of the truth... imo wiki could have a Coordinated efforts to dishonorably discharge the President of the United States - Donald J. Trump, peace Let us eat lettuce (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

User:Let us eat lettuce - That comment is incomprehensible. Dishonorable discharge has a specific meaning in the United States, which is the expulsion of a member of the Armed Forces from the service by a court-martial. It is roughly equivalent to a felony conviction. The President of the United States can be removed from office following trial of impeachment, but this is not referred to as dishonorable discharge. I have no idea what you are trying to say. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:40, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

okay, sure... NO argument here. QUESTION, are the items in my sandbox, listed under Trump resistance and the subheading Initial Resistance Efforts worthy of incorporation into the Trump resistance wiki? Others have stated "that article is hugely incomplete at this time." Maybe the itemized examples are appropriate??? Maybe this could be my way to contribute. Let us eat lettuce (talk) 17:29, 27 May 2017 (UTC)