User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 21

Dear Editor,This message is regarding your note on my article Kopparapu Duo Poets declining your kind approval. In general terms you are right that one article is posted on one person or an entity. But, in Telugu poetic traditions in India for over a century, a kind of poetic tradition has come to stay where two poets together offer extempore poetic renditions on a given problem in Avadhana program. Only a few such duo poets existed for some decades in the last century and passed away. Most popular among them are Tirupati Venkata Kavulu ^[1] whose link is given here for your reference in Wikipedia. Parallel to the times of these duo poets, Kopparapu Duo Poets also performed the Avadhana extempore poetry and often both groups challenged each other leading to the excitement of Telugu literary lovers. Hence I request you to kindly go through the article again and do let me know if you have any questions

MUMACHA2203 (talk) 12:45, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

User:MUMACHA2203 - I will be moving this discussion to the Teahouse. I will mention that one of my concerns was that I didn't know what the title of the article was supposed to be. It wasn't obvious, and it doesn't have a lede sentence. Should it be Kopparapu Duo? (Do you know how hard it is to look up an article in Wikipedia that doesn't have a name?) Robert McClenon (talk) 03:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

Thank you for the information. I made this page as a requirement for an art history class where I am currently enrolled at Montana State University. I was informed by my professor that notability for an artist is if there have been five or more publications (online or in print) about their work. I will pass this on to my professor. Thank you for your help. Jennanenah (talk) 02:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jennanenah - I will be continuing this discussion at the Teahouse. I am not familiar with a rule about five or more publications. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

This conversation is looking productive, but not suited to Robert's kitchen, so I built a new building and moved it there. Wikipedia_talk:Quarantine_promotional_Undeclared_Paid_Editor_product --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:06, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Journal of Information and Communication Technology for deletion, because it seems to be copied from another source, probably infringing copyright.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions.

Caorongjin (talk) 21:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Caorongjin - It isn't my article. All that I did was to move it from a sandbox to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:12, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for making laugh with your vote rationale on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Papaya Boy.

—Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 20:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

😀

Robert, this page is so long that viewing it causes me trouble. I suggest setting up auto archiving. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:27, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I considered the suggesting the same. :) —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 21:41, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have not been impressed with auto-archiving. It occasionally is flaky. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robert, I am a very new editor here, I have only been editing for a single day, and I was wondering if you would be willing to sort of mentor me and help me learn the ropes. I would really apreciate it if you did so. Thank you. you can contact me at (. -. -.. . .-. --. ..- -.-- ..--- --... ...-- -.... ----- .--.-. --. -- .- .. .-.. -.-. --- --)privacy reasons). If you agree to do so you will need to post on my talk page so I can give you the language it needs to be translated to before it can be decoded to english. Thanks again. —Radittarius (talk) 02:20, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Radittarius - Communication in Wikipedia is normally done by talk pages, unless there is a reason for wanting privacy. If you are willing to receive email, please enable the feature to Email This User. Otherwise do not enable the feature. There isn't a need to use encrypted email addresses. Either use talk pages, or let Wikipedia remember your email address. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:30, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

I have now enabled this feature. Radittarius (talk) 03:42, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of English monarchs. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, i went ahead and closed the COIN case. I reviewed that person's history here and I see no sign of paid editing. There are all the signs that they came to WP dragging a very sharp ax and have been grinding it on every topic they touch... and those topics have generally been limited to contentious social issues. This person is probably community ban-able now if someone wanted to bring that case. I think we should give them a chance to reflect, and if they don't, they will have provided yet more diffs that will demonstrate the problem.

Do you think there are other accounts that may be paid, involved with that deletion discussion? (it is a topic perhaps more advocacy-prone than paid-editing prone due to the whole evolution thing, but as it is a bio there may be paid editing...)

But in any case I will self revert the close if you object. Jytdog (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Jytdog - Okay. No objection. Maybe I was right in initially filing the case at WP:AN due to my concerns about sockpuppetry. The original AFD was very heavily loaded by sockpuppetry, and the closer properly ignored the IP !votes. The editor who is complaining about the AFD and DRV didn't take part in the initial AFD, because they were hibernating. Hibernating users tend to be throw-away socks for paid editing, but maybe this was a hibernating social-issue warrior. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:18, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

OK, I will have a look at the deletion discuss and DRVs and see if anything looks like socking....thanks for bringing the person's behavior up - it definitely needed/needs looking at. Jytdog (talk) 22:43, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Jytdog. For your information, I don't think that there was socking at the DRV, only at the AFD. Most of the socking was by IPs. There was one account, SAT85, which has since been banned as a sock of Apollo the Logician, a well-known sockmaster. Other than that, there appears to have been off-wiki canvassing, a different problem. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for saving me the time! Jytdog (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert! I have got a comment from you on my article. Should I respond to it here? Bkhh (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2018 (UTC) bkhh

I have got new comments from you saying the article is not significantly improved. This is not correct. The first submission had about 3 references, while the re-submission has 26 references showing where each pat of the text comes from. The sources are well-known Persian websites.

I have been through the guidelines for writing articles about musicians: The person the article is about (Mohsen Keramati) is known in his country and has works published by authorized publishers. Some of the album covers of his works are given as reference. In addition to that, you can see that releasing some of his works were published on well-known Persian language news websites. In the article it is explained that he was a student of grand-master Shajarian and pursues his teaching career per Mr Shajarian's suggestion. Again it is explained that he has published CDs focusing on teaching Iranian traditional music. So I think all these show that he is a known person in the field of traditional Iranian music; and I believe it shows well that it is musically notable.

The article has no intention of advertising for the subject person. I have even seen a short Wikipedia article about him (not in English, but in Persian language). Some of the sources used in my article are used there, too: https://fa.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D9%85%D8%AD%D8%B3%D9%86_%DA%A9%D8%B1%D8%A7%D9%85%D8%AA%DB%8C

So I would like to ask you to consider these before making a new decision. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 17:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Bkhh - I will ask for the comments of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:03, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I am still looking at the article and about to make a minor change. There is a source that even I decided to remove. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 18:15, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

I am wondering if you have heard from other editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 09:08, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bkhh - See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Teahouse#Draft:_Mohsen_Keramati . In general, if an editor asks for comments at another public forum, it would be a good idea to take part in the discussion, rather than expecting the reviewer to report back to you. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:50, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon - I tried to follow your and the other reviewer's comments. I have even looked at how other people authored articles in the same field. An example of it is Kayhan Kalhor. One comment I received is "reference bombing". Another one was I have written names of other artists Keramati has worked with. To resolve these two, I removed some parts of text. Although this way of writing (mentioning names of colleagues some has worked with) is evident in the examples I looked at, plus it helps showing the working level of the artist, I still got comments regarding this. Anyhow, as I mentioned earlier, I removed such parts. Consequently what remained is his list of albums. Even the list of albums shows he is a known person in his field (both as a singer and singing teacher), which makes the topic of the article musically notable. But again you have marked my article as non-suitable. In the current version of the article draft, I have even more than 2 independent references. It was even more prior t this, but I had to reduce it. So even now the number of references (4) seems to be sufficient (Kayhan Kalhor has 6 references).
According to all above, I am confused now. If I present explanations (supported by references), it raises doubts for you. If I don't, you still find it not-suitable. comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 14:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Bkhh - You asked me a week ago for another look at your draft. I said that I would ask other editors at the Teahouse. I had assumed that you would take part in the discussion there. Instead, you simply asked me a few days later whether I had heard anything. Maybe you want a volunteer to follow your draft through the approval process. If so, go to the Teahouse and ask for one. You might get one, although you might not. In any case, I would advise you to go back to the Teahouse, and ask the editors there for advice and comments, rather than expecting another editor to be your errand boy for the purpose. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon -

• I took part in that discussion on May 3rd. You can check that entry.
• I can seen that you have added another entry to the the Teahouse on this topic. I keep an eye on it and take part in that discussion, too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bkhh (talk • contribs) 19:47, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

You made quite the mess at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion. Don't worry, I've cleaned it up now, and it didn't take an hour, which is my standard for a long time. And I can see why you did it; it's just that mixing the replies with the questions wasn't your most brilliant idea. Anyway, I've resolved the problem per Legacypac's recommendation. Don't fret too much about it, I just wanted to make sure this mistake was memorable for you. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 10:49, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:Compassionate727 - I concede that the way I addressed the questions was sub-optimal, and that resulting outcome was a little worse than sub-optimal. I will say that the way you formatted the list of questions neatly did not make for easy answering, but I agree that I in turn made it worse. There are standard instructions for how to put together a Request for Comments, but you were doing something strange, which is using a Request for Comments as a Request for Comments. It is usually really used as a Request for Consensus. Next time, if you figure out to format your questions so that answers won't break them, someone else will do something even sillier and break them differently. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not actually saying that it was your fault. I, for one, could have done something to indicate that I expected the questions to be answered in paragraph form below. And I generally don't bother assigning blame for things anyway, because it accomplishes nothing, and said time could be better used actually fixing the aforesaid problems. If I'm being completely honest, I just like trouting people, and had a good excuse right here. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:24, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, User:Compassionate727 - The first time that I trouted anyone it was for putting a part of his statement in 36-point text, a form of SHOUTING that is even more disruptive than block capitals. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:33, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

• Compassionate, hash (#) auto-numbering is a fragile wikiformat that I recommend avoiding unless the explicit intention is to count, like at RfA. Instead, manually number explicitly your points. This is not fragile, and isolated questions can be easily copied. For example:

(1) This is question 1.

(a) This is question 1a.

(2) This is question 2.

(3) This is question 3.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

As SmokeyJoe says, I broke the numbering, but it was an easily breakable numbering system. To break manual numbering requires either malice or stupidity, as opposed to sloppiness. Anything that you think can't be broken is likely to be broken by stupidity, but anything that can easily be broken will break by itself. Now, if we were to immerse the trout in liquid nitrogen, we could break a trout. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Or, you know, we could just gut it, roast it over coals, and serve it with tartar sauce.

In all seriousness, though, your proposed alternative makes more sense than what I did, and I will keep it in mind in the future. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:05, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The WP:TROUT is notionally intended as humourous, but in all my experience, it is rarely received in humour, but instead it more often engenders resentment. If you've ever seen someone collide with a fish, you will appreciate that it rarely induces laughs for the recipient. Maybe it would be more appropriate to hit the recipient with a feathersword. See image1 image2. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:19, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, I hope I did not cause offense, and I sincerely apologize if I did. I will note your observation and consider its implications more diligently in the future. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 00:48, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

• David.gutierrez12 (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Empow Studios (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert,

Thank you for your message. This is my first submission, so I apologize for the requirements I may have missed.

This is not meant to be advertising in nature, and instead informational.

This draft is about Empow Studios, not Leonid Tunik, although Leonid Tunik is the Founder of Empow Studio, and plays a large role in the history of Empow Studios. I have edited this to make it more clear.

After reading your corporate notability page, it looks like Empow Studios would be a valid subject for a separate article dedicated to Empow, however, I had included some citations & external links that didn't hit on all 5 of the qualifying sources. I have edited the article to now show only articles that were written on the 5 qualifying source requirements. Please let me know if you see any different.

I am affiliated with Empow Studios, but I'd like to make sure I am not perceived as doing this for promotional reasons, so if there is anything you recommend to keep this purely informational, please let me know. I'd very much appreciate any advice here so I'm following policies and your criteria accordingly.

Let me know if I am missing anything?

David.gutierrez12 (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

User:David.gutierrez12 - Read the conflict of interest policy and make the required declaration. You are doing it for promotional reasons, whether or not you want to be perceived that way. You may ask for further advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Robert McClenon - Hi Robert, thank you again for the advice; it's very helpful. I've read the COI policies, and have now declared COI on the article, outlining how I am connected to Empow Studios. I really appreciate your willingness (and patience) to help me learn. If there is anything else you think I may have missed, I'd greatly appreciate any further information. User:David.gutierrez12 (talk) 14:00, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

(Shaeleestn (talk) 23:12, 1 May 2018 (UTC)) Hi Robert, I recently viewed your comments on my submitted article of Grey Wolf Communication. As a brand new Wikipedia user/contributor, I thank you for your comments. You mentioned that the article reads as if I have copied and pasted from other sources, however, I can assure you that I did no such thing, and attempted to cite and reference any information that was found through research. I went through the paper and made edits in an attempt to have the paper read more concise and hopefully remove any statements that may have sounded copied from other sources. Thank you again, and I will continue to make revisions on the article.

@Shaeleestn: (talk page stalker) I have no comment on the draft itself (Robert may or may not, that's outside of my purview); however, when leaving messages on talk pages, please place your signature after your comment, like I've done. It makes things easier for the rest of us to comprehend. Thanks! —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 23:18, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

I have been editing the /Rubber Elasticity/Integrated Network Models page for several months, attempting to make it more accessible to the non-scientific reader. Although it is scientific subject matter that is of interest to many scientists, more non-scientists are likely to visit the page and my revisions are intended to accommodate them. My initial edit was designed to be as unobtrusive as possible so I appended the text under an existing section call ‘Models’. To provide the non-scientist with an introduction to the field, it was necessary to include some background information at the beginning of the section. However, I believe that this text would be more useful if placed at the beginning of the Rubber Elasticity page. And this brings up the problem of the original organization of the page (everything except the ‘Integrated network models’ section). As it stands, I think that the first 3 sections are confusing to the non-scientist interested in the phenomena of rubber elasticity and I would like to make some changes. The first two entries in the Modeling section (‘Freely-jointed chain model’ and ‘Worm-like chain model’) appear to be redundant because they are both discussed in other Wikipedia articles. They should therefore be deleted or perhaps simply referenced in a Theory History section. The ‘Thermodynamics’ section should also be relegated to a History discussion. The page should also include stubs to ‘Elasticity Experiments’ and ‘Other Elastomers’ (besides natural rubber). However, before doing such violence to the page, I would like to have the Wikipedia Editors review what I have done so far. The ‘Polymer Physics Project’ page seems to have gone dark- no discussions since 2014, so I’m not sure that I can get any guidance from that community.

Davidhanson471 (talk) 15:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidhanson471 - I am not entirely sure what you are requesting. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:55, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

When I initially posted my article, several editors read it over and said that it was too difficult to understand. I have made significant progress in correcting that deficiency (I think) and would like to have a non-scientific editor read the new version over to see if it is a) acceptable or, b) showing progress. The original content and organization of the page was not coherent and I would like to modify it to provide a clearer discussion of rubber elasticity. Before I make changes on the previous page content, I would like to have approval from an editor. Thank you.

Davidhanson471 (talk) 15:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Davidhanson471 - I see that you submitted a draft on Integrated Rubber Models in December 2016, which is nearly one-and-one-half years ago. I said that your draft appeared to be too technical, and that it needed a better lede paragraph. I also see that you were notified that your draft was about to be flagged for deletion as an abandoned draft, and it appears that your draft was then deleted as an abandoned draft. Exactly what if anything are you asking me to do? You can request to have the draft undeleted via Requests for Undeletion, probably into your user space rather than draft space. However, are you actually planning to work on your draft now, more often than every few months? Are you planning to request other editors to help you? You say that you would like other editors to review your work. You could have done this at any time before your draft was deleted, and you still can do this if you have your draft undeleted. If you want general advice about editing Wikipedia, you may ask at the Teahouse. They might also be able to tell you what WikiProject might be the most likely to help you. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

• JeanBast (talk · contribs)
  • Rollin Motors (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Rollin Motors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Did you received my changes?

Dear Mr. McClenon, Robert, on the 9th of March 2018 I received a e-mail from you about declining the draft "Rollin Motors". On 18th March 2018 I made ceveral changes in the draft "Rollin Motors". Did you received these changes or did I mist your answer?

JeanBast (talk) 09:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JeanBast - I do not normally follow a draft through the review process. I see that you have made a few changes to the draft. You have not resubmitted it for review. I would suggest that you ask for the advice of other experienced editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your review. I have now renamed the article to be Tai O Yeung Hau Temple to avoid confusion with other articles with similar name and different locations. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 03:34, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Sleepy Beauty - I am not entirely sure what you are saying. You submitted a draft that mentioned a temple, and I said that the temple was already mentioned in an existing article. What did you rename? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:06, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, there are many Yeung Hau Temples in Hong Kong. The article I submitted is the one located in Tai O so I renamed it. Sleepy Beauty (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Sleepy Beauty - Did you rename an article, or rename a draft? Also, what if anything are you asking me to do? I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. If you want me to take another look, it would help to provide me with a link to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm going to drop this matter but I don't think the article is very clear, still, as to what happened. I did not see any moderation on happening at all on my request. It looked more like it was more a matter of getting it over with as quickly as possible. By the way, somebody posted a comment on the talk page pertaining to this discussion in favor of "unexpectedly" so there goes the "many to one" consensus procedure. I feel like I am addressing a group of procedure-o-philes who loves the procedures and rules but have lost sight of the goal -- to present a clear encyclopedia. If you read the explanation of why she died, I mean, some kind of clue as to the background, it is still unclear. But like I said, I am dropping this to end the distraction. Jazzbox (talk) 06:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Jazzbox - You say that you don't think that the article is very clear as to her death. That may be because the cause of her death isn't clear. You say that you do not see any moderation happening on your request. First, you started off by asking for a particular format of discussion, to be followed by adjudication by the volunteer, but we don't adjudicate content disputes. You also colored outside the lines. You also went on at length about the apparent rigidity and complexity of dispute resolution, but I wasn't interested. Then when I asked whether to close the thread as rough consensus one way or to use a Request for Comments, you made a complicated statement that didn't seem conclusive but that suggested that there was groupthink. I didn't understand whether you wanted an RFC. If you want an RFC, you can still either file one yourself or ask me to file one. I will admit that I get annoyed by editors who imply that because they are the one editor against several, that means that they are right and the others are wrong. That annoys me. However, I think it would have annoyed another volunteer. I also get annoyed by editors coloring outside the lines. I also get annoyed by editors who give long answers to short questions when short answers will do. (There are times when long answers are necessary.) So: Do you want an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:03, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

No, no request for RFC. I'm just going to stop wasting time on this. Most of the comments have been about side issues, but the real issue is that the cause of her death is not clear, so that is exactly what it should say! But, I give up. Jazzbox (talk) 19:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC) Jazzbox (talk) 19:41, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

• Morobison (talk · contribs)
  • Triple Pop (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Triple Pop (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I revised the text per your suggestions for the proposed page for Triple Pop, and independent record label. I hope this text is now compliant, would appreciate a review for the page for Triple Pop. If not, please let me know, happy to revise again. Thank you for your time. Morobison (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Morobison - First, I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. If you want a volunteer who will do that, you may ask at the Teahouse, but you might or might not get what you want. Second, you did not answer my question about whether you have a connection or affiliation with Triple Pop. Nearly all of your edits have been about Triple Pop, including at least one draft about Triple Pop (maybe more) that was deleted because it was left alone for six months. If you have a connection, you must declare it; this is not a nice-to-do but a requirement. Third, if you want more advice, you may ask at the Teahouse. They may ask you whether you have a conflict of interest. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Someone else's problem Robert McClenon (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article. You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles. A tag has been placed on User:Mervat Abou Oaf, requesting that it be deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under two or more of the criteria for speedy deletion, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are: It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Business for more information. It appears to be a clear copyright infringement of http://www.aucegypt.edu/fac/mervatabou-oaf. (See section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Wikipedia, it still needs to comply with the other policies and guidelines to be eligible for inclusion. If you would like any assistance with this, you can ask a question at the help desk.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 20:18, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Chrissymad - Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my draft. She kept re-creating it in user space, and I moved it to draft space and declined it. Oh well. I think it has now been salted, which is fine. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

• AESblazingstar (talk · contribs)
  • Super Smash Bros. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Super Smash Bros. (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Request : unaccepted article.

Hello, I submitted an article called "Super Smash Bros. (Video game, 2018)" but you said me that it already exist and linked me the Super Smash Bros. series article but my article was about the last game coming to the Nintendo Switch and not about the series. Also, besides the series article, there's an article for each of the games of the series but not for the last, so it was for that I submitted this article.

Regards

AESblazingstar (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

User:AESblazingstar - Okay. I have reverted your version and declined it. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:35, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

Just wanted to offer a comment, if I may, on what's germane to a Talk page discussion (spoiler: anything that tends to promote the improvement of the article, but not forum-like opinions about the subject itself) by using Draft talk:Fringe theories about the Shroud of Turin as an example.

At the Talk page you recently opened section #Question where you wrote about possible radiation theories and whether they should be in the article. Whether the answer to that question turns out to be yes or no is irrelevant for the point I'm trying to convey; what counts, is that that is a perfectly appropriate question to pose on the talk page of an article, because it's aimed at how best to improve the article, in that area.

Likewise, the two responses by Wdford and Guy are also appropriate for an article talk page, because agree or disagree with what they have to say, the remarks both deal with how to improve the article in some way (e.g., in Wdford's case, by discussing reliability of sourcing; and in Guy's case, by discussing what constitutes fringe); thus they are also pertinent to the Talk page discussion you opened.

On the other hand, your second entry, in my opinion, is not pertinent, and is a digression that doesn't belong there. In that edit, as I see it, you are talking about your preferences, speculating about the reasons that the shroud turned up as late as it did, positing "avenues to pursue" and so on. None of this is relevant to a Talk page discussion, in my opinion, as it's too much like a forum discussion about our personal thoughts or feelings about a subject, (see the last bullet item at WP:TALKNO) and had little concrete to say about how to improve the article. That sort of thing is acceptable (to a point) at your user talk page, or on a subpage of your user page.

I don't mean this is as a criticism, nor do I think you need to remove or edit your comments at the Draft article in any way. I'm just trying to make a point about article Talk pages that I found a bit subtle myself and that took me a while to cotton on to. It can be a fine distinction, and I'm sure I still fall prey to it myself from time to time (and you're welcome to call me out on it when I do). I just thought you might like someone mentioning it, because it can be hard to have the perspective to see it oneself, and another pair of eyeballs can help. I hope you'll receive this in the friendly way in which it was intended. Happy editing! Mathglot (talk) 04:10, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

• Saurabhdhar (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Neha Chowdhury (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert, The first draft was submitted by some random fan of Neha Chowdhury, who didn't fill any information or work links of her, just copied one liner and submitted for review. Strict action should be taken by such Wiki Editors who are spoiling the platform. Now we have asked a professional Wiki Editor to write a proper page with all required & mandatory details, and you can find all links, video, articles , social handles and everything about her. I kindly request you to have a look and re-consider for the Wikipedia Page. Its been 2.5 months since I'm waiting for the approval so I decided to write you now.

I personally apologise on behalf of that fan guy who submitted first draft. Regards Saurabhdhar (talk) 08:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Saurabhdhar - Strict action should also be taken against paid editors. Have you read the conflict of interest policy? I do not usually follow a draft through the approval process, but will take a second look at your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:37, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

Primefac archived the section before I could reply, so this is what I wanted to reply:

That there is no mechanism yet does not mean the problem can't be solved that way. With Tony successfully arguing for ACPERM, a lot of the traffic that went to main space before will now be redirected to draft space. As such, the number of people active in that area will likely increase at well. As those numbers increase, so will potential conflicts. Sooner or later, we probably need to create a WP:AFCN and then there would be a venue (just spitballing here). In the end, my point is that we need to handle conduct problems at AFC like we handle them everywhere else. I am one of the most ardent defenders of AGF but even I understand that someone who resubmits the same draft three times without changing anything is WP:NOTHERE and should be handled accordingly.

Regards SoWhy 19:04, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SoWhy - I will inquire. Are you proposing that there be a WP:AFCN (Articles for Creation Noticeboard)? If so, what would be reported at it? If its purpose is for reports of tendentious resubmission and other conduct issues at AFC, that is fine, but I am concerned that it would be used then by POV-pushers to report AFC reviewers for being unfair. (Yes, obviously, the boomerang should be plainly visible.) Not long ago, we had a thread at WP:ANI where paid editors reported a volunteer editor for, well, not doing as requested by the paid editors. (I was one of several volunteer editors who shouted down the complaint, but it left a sour note.) I would find it useful to have a way to report abusers of AFC (especially if the Twinkle arv menu was supported), but some editors will try to turn the abuse around, so we need to think the rules out in advance. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:49, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not proposing it, I'm assuming that sooner or later it will be necessary given the shift of new creations from Main- to Draftspace following ACREQ's implementation. Kudpung echoed a similar sentiment at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Drafts_RfC_Survey when he proposed that a "DFD" system be created to handle draft deletions. Any noticeboard carries the risk of being abused but if more people become involved in AFC following ACREQ, then there should be enough neutral editors to handle complaints. This might be something TonyBallioni is interested in considering as well considering his aforementioned proposal. Regards SoWhy 09:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping, SoWhy. I'd agree that there are behavioral issues here, but I also think they overlap with the content issues. I'm actually not that invested in the draft space despite the proposal: I was just tired of hearing complaints about it and getting pinged at MfD to try to find a policy reason to delete something that no one wanted .

I think AfC does need changes, and that you lay out one of the big reasons here: I'm all for AGF as well, but at some point we need to look reality in the face, and I feel AfC in general does a bad job at that. I'm not really sure how to incorporate what you are saying with the culture there, but I agree with your thoughts in general. TonyBallioni (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SoWhy, User:TonyBallioni - First, I am not sure what would be gained from having a Drafts for Deletion process. Is there a reason that we need an additional process besides Miscellany for Deletion (given that there is very little non-draft traffic at MFD anyway)? Second, I am not sure that I understand the point about AGF and reality and cultural changes at AFC. Are we saying that the reviewers need to assume more good faith on the part of the submitters, or that less good faith needs to be assumed on the part of the submitters, or what? My own observation is that I don't see a problem with the reviewers and their thinking, other than being overburdened, but I do see a cultural problem with the bystanders, who constantly dump on the reviewers for not leaving notes for the submitters, for not welcoming the submitters, and for being bitey. That isn't a cultural problem with the AFC reviewers, but a cultural problem with Wikipedia in general, that too many editors carry AGF and BITE too far, but that is just my opinion (and is politically incorrect, since I see an orthodoxy at work). (The saccharine wording of the AFC decline template is part of the problem, because it encourages submitters to improve and resubmit their drafts, and there is no good way to decline drafts without using the stupid template.) So what really is AFC itself doing a bad job of? Is there a problem with the reviewers, or with attitudes toward the reviewers, or what? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

My experience with AfC has typically been that reviewers go above and beyond to AGF, which I think it in part a vestige from the early days of the project when it was created to help IPs create new articles (fun fact for those watching at home, my 'first article' created was an AfC request in the old days ). While I think that we should certainly be more understanding of users in the draft space, to SoWhy's point, I also have no problem blocking them, and I think that we could likely block a bit faster than we currently do for behavioral problems there. TonyBallioni (talk) 14:47, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if I agree with User:TonyBallioni that we should be more understanding of users in the draft space. We should try to identify which of them need more understanding (because they are trying to help) and which of them need to be dealt with quickly and harshly.

As to blocking, I see a problem in that we don't do an effective job of blocking undisclosed paid editors unless they engage in sockpuppetry. We do a good job of blocking socks, but not of individual flacks. In general, at AFC, I don't have a way to report submitters who need blocking. If I could get them blocked, I wouldn't have to MFD their drafts as often. How do I get the fools and flacks blocked? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

What opinions and thoughts do you have on the subject of "undisclosed paid ADMINISTRATORS" and "sockpuppetting" by those with "sysop" status and tools sufficient to allow them to "secretly" create and use "alternate accounts" and entire "identities" as other "editors" with user accounts so they can use those sockpuppet accounts to create "consensus" for their "official" acts which are nothing more than the result of their own biased, opinionated and completely subjected personal beliefs on what is and what isn't "right" on Wikipedia?

The reviewers are not the problem at AfC - the problem is busybody outsiders with no AfC or MfD experience who run interference on AfC reviewer efforts to stop promo/coi/non-notable nonsense etc pages from sticking around. Yes I'm being direct. Legacypac (talk) 14:40, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

I will restate that User:Legacypac and I are saying the same thing, about well-meaning but misdirected bystanders ("busybody outsiders") who carry AGF and Do Not Bite to silly lengths (in cases where either the lack of good faith or the lack of clue has already been proved). Just criticizing the reviewers, or offering to "help" the reviewers without understanding the situation, won't help. It isn't purely an AFC problem. It is a cultural problem in Wikipedia that is obvious at AFC (and in some other places). Robert McClenon (talk) 15:39, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Is Legacypac aware that you're "quoting" him/her on your talk page or is your mention of their username some kind of "canvassing" tactic or even a "meatpuppetting" tactic where you "invoke" their name and wait for them to "show up" and back up your personal opinions against creating more notice boards and more public notices in general that "articles" and "drafts" may be "deleted" with no notification of editors who have interest in them IF they actually make it to "draftspace" or "mainspace" to begin with? You said something phrased like incredulous disbelief about creating an "Articles For Creation Noticeboard" like there ISN'T a "notice board" where apparent "observers" of Wikipedia can "request" that editors (no doubt "unpaid" and clearly just "helping build an encyclopedia" on their own copious amounts of "free time" away from their "day jobs" on a voluntary basis) "create" an article FOR THEM. Presumably just because those "observers" would like to have on included on a "free online encyclopedia anyone can edit" that they don't know enough about to actually USE to do anything but stumble blindly around until they stumble across the "Request For Creation" link/page where they can finally ask that what they haven't "stumbled across" in the way of "articles" on Wikipedia be created especially for THEM. And are you suggesting that you don't know about the "article creation" pages and that a "notice board" a little more "visible" to people stumbling around Wikipedia blindly looking for something that "isn't there" would be a BAD thing? At least for anybody but "unpaid editors" who seem to take an inordinate interest in "helping" observers by responding to their requests for article creation and who might look a little "suspicious" if they're the same editors and administrators who also seem to take an inordinate interest in DESTROYING contributed content from others and who seem to be sort of "bi-polar" when it comes to their reactions to "requests"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.234.100.169 (talk) 22:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Matthew M. Rizai, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Hasteur - Why does it think I created it? I didn't even move it to its current location. And why does it notify me twice? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: It notifies you because you're listed as the first revision's Author. As to why you recieved 2 notices, the bot works by distributing the list of Category:AfC_submissions_by_date pages in draft space to multiple execute nodes on the WMF Tool Labs compute cluster. In this case the page has the potential to show up under multiple subcategories: AfC submissions by date/01 August 2017, AfC submissions by date/23 February 2017, etc. Normally when the bot evaluates a page for being eligible it checks to see if it's notified on the page in the last month preventing duplicate notifications. In this case we hit on the exceptionally rare Race condition where 2 execution lines saw that the page wasn't notified on, and then proceeded to notify in both cases. Hope this explains why you got the notification and why you got two of the notifications. I suspect if you made that first revision be not visible, the notifications would go to the right user. Hasteur (talk) 20:47, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Hasteur - Thank you. I just wondered. I hadn't noticed that I was indeed a "first mover". In any case, if it hasn't been touched for five months, I will leave it alone and let it go G13 bye-bye. I get plenty of notifications about drafts of which I was only the first mover, and I just ignore them. Thank you. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Matthew M. Rizai, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jacques Goulet. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• Amaninspired (talk · contribs)
  • Zdravko Karadachki (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Zdravko Karadachki (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Regarding the article which I wrote on Zdravko Karadachki and which you declined, you state that this was on the basis that he has not played in a fully professional football league. Yet, setting aside his experiences in Bulgaria and Canada, he currently plays for Edinburgh City FC in League 2 of the Scottish Professional Football League. The SPFL is, as the name suggests, a fully professional football league comprising the top 42 football clubs in Scotland. Any level of football below that in Scotland is not considered to be fully professional. If you have a basis for suggesting that the SPFL is not a fully professional league, please clarify that for me. Thanks.

Amaninspired (talk) 00:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Amaninspired - Please ask for a check at WT:WikiProject Football as to whether he qualifies, and resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I would like to ask for your assistance in writing a neutral phrasing of the problem that I posted on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can you please let me know how you might word this better so that it might be submitted for an RFC? Thank you.

Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same sources. This edit was made on the trans woman page without any preceding discussion. 08:43, 19 October 2016‎ Picture of a Sunny Day (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY) Previous definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman. Current definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth. Userwoman (talk) 12:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Userwoman - I tried to look for a straightforward statement of the dispute on the article talk page, and I don't see it. Can you or someone please show me what the two or three alternative versions of the definition are? If so, we can put the question based on that. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

This is the best that I can do. Current Wikipedia definition: A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. Previous Wikipedia definition: A trans man is a transgender person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is that of a man. Here are some definitions of trans man from the cited sources, CDC: People who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men, APA: People who were assigned female but identify and live as male, Cornell: Individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male. Userwoman (talk) 01:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Userwoman - Is there a definition that you are proposing? It appears that you just want to complain about the definition and use either DRN or RFC to continue the dispute. What definition do you want? I don't plan to submit an RFC with 5 proposed definitions. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:23, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I am perfectly happy with any of the definitions from the cited sources. Most concisely, People who were born female, but identify as men. Userwoman (talk) 16:46, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's see, User:Userwoman - If you don't care which definitions are used, why is it so important to have an RFC on the definition at all? Robert McClenon (talk) 22:02, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's try again, User:Userwoman - It seems that you want an RFC on the definition, but you don't know or care what the choices should be. Why? I can help you if I know what the two, or at most three, choices are. Please specify, and I can compose the RFC. If you don't tell me what the options are, then I don't know why you want the RFC at all, and will close this discussion and step out of the dispute in 24 hours. I really don't mean to be difficult, but I can't help you if you won't say what you want help with. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Robert McClenon, I've already filed an RfC. Please close the dispute resolution Thank you for your help. Userwoman (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

You were recently listed as a party to or recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 30, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/German war effort/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:About Company, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:32, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Clan MacAlpin, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

• SnowbirdTS (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Tim Curnow (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello I want to ask if this Declaration of Conflict of Interest (BELOW) is what is required and where do I place it? I have cut and rewritten the declined submission for the Draft: Tim Curnow in more neutral language but I will not re-submit it until I have the okay that the declaration of conflict of interest in Wikipedia terms is satisfactory,

Declaration of Conflict of Interest Terry Snow and Tim Curnow were students at Auckland University in the 1960s. They had independent careers in different countries, one a journalist in New Zealand, the other a literary agent in Australia. After 40 years, they renewed acquaintance. Because of the notability of Tim Curnow’s career suitable for Wikipedia and because noone else had described this for Wikipedia, Terry Snow edited a potential Wikipedia page titled Tim Curnow, Literary agent. For this page, reliable, independent and reputable sources were used for information. No compensation was paid for this editing.

Many thanks Terry Snow SnowbirdTS (talk) 08:32, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

User:SnowbirdTS - Unfortunately, your post is difficult to read, and is not helping. It reads as if English is your second language, although I infer that your first language is New Zealand English. Maybe you are trying too hard. Please ask for advice at the Teahouse about how to complete the declaration and how to resubmit. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:18, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

• Popoki (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:RTX (ray tracing technology) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert, I'm just now starting the RTX Ray Tracing Technology page and was hoping that the community would help me to build it out. I'll dive back in tomorrow with a few other writers and flesh it out a bit more. First time I've created a page! Thanks,

Popoki 🐱🐱 chat 00:46, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Popoki -

I don't entirely understand. What do you mean? Perhaps the problem is that you submitted a draft for consideration as an article when it wasn't ready for review. If so, so. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC) Yes, that's the case. Sorry. WIll flesh out more tomorrow Robert. Newb pains here.

Popoki 🐱🐱 chat 01:34, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Pandoraperez04 (talk · contribs)
  • Abel Sierra Madero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Abel Sierra Madero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hi Robert,

  I have made changes following your suggestions. Can you please review it again. 

Best Pandora

Pandoraperez04 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Pandoraperez04 - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will take a look at your draft within 24 hours. Please ask for a review at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

In keeping with your suggestion I have taken the help of another English author for editing and rewritiing the draft. You can clearly find substantial cuts and revisions in the text. As suggested by Legacypac, another reviewer like you, I moved it to article space. The article is already in Telugu wikipedia,^[1] and this is my effort to put the same authors in English. Text is not same, however. Please review and help edit. Kindly pardon if any thing hurts you in this process.MUMACHA2203 (talk) 17:37, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

• Pandoraperez04 (talk · contribs)
  • Abel Sierra Madero (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Draft:Abel Sierra Madero (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Dear reviewer,

I made the changes you suggested. Please, let me know if I need to do anything else. Best, P

Pandoraperez04 (talk) 17:41, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Pandoraperez04 - I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will look at the draft, but cannot promise a thorough review. I would suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

So I seem to have had a similar arc in terms of finding movies through WP:NPP, reading WP:NFILM as saying that a RS announcing principal photography alone doesn't constitute notability and getting lots of editor pushback. What is your current practice in this regard? I had been going the DRAFTIFY route but after pushback had just sort of skipped over films. Since another one popped onto my radar I decided to dig deeper, found your thread, and am wondering how you're handling it yourself these days. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Barkeep49 - What I have observed is that there is a fundamental discrepancy between the policy as stated in the film notability guideline and what is applied at AFD. The stated guideline is that a film that is in principal photography is only notable if the principal photography has been itself notable, the subject of coverage. That is taken as meaning that a film is notable once it is in principal photography. If you think that the two do not match, I agree. What is written and what is done are not the same. I happen to think that this either has the side effect or has the intended effect (intended by COI editors) that Wikipedia can be used promotionally. I think that I will raise the subject at Village pump (policy). Robert McClenon (talk) 00:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the response - I found it informative. I look forward to participating in a discussion around this topic, and seems at minimum that a section on WP:OUTCOMES is called for. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Could you review again? I wish to add substantially more material relating to the founding of mass casualty radiation management. Boundarylayer (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Boundarylayer - I am asking for the comments of other editors at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:10, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Terufumi Sasaki is accepted into article space. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

...if you're crazy enough to want to wade into this. In roughly chronological order:

• Wikipedia talk:User pages/Archive 15#Moving userspace drafts to mainspace to test notability
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive917#MfD end run GAME
• Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2016 April 4
• Wikipedia:User pages/RfC for stale drafts policy restructuring
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive957#Godsy back to Wikihounding - how to stop it? (this was later rescinded, but I can't find the discussion)

If you get through all of that and still want to wade in, you're a better man than I. —Cryptic 01:15, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Cryptic. I have probably been a man longer than you have. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:34, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. On first reading, it is just as I perceived and feared. We have one editor, Legacypac, who has been on a crusade for two years to clean up draft space even if it means moving crud into mainspace where there are rules against having crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:45, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

You might want to back off the accusations against me all over Wikipedia Robert. I like you but I'm not liking you trying to paint me in a bad light. Legacypac (talk) 03:48, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Legacypac - You might want to stop accusing me of being out to get you, which I am not, and try instead explaining your position. I have been asking about your position because you don't explain it because you are so defensive. I have said for some time that I think that your view that drafts may be moved from draft space to article space in order to delete them is terrible, but I am continuing to wait for you to explain it. I am not out to get you, but only to understand you. I mostly find the work that you do in cleaning up draft space extremely useful, except for one persistent idea about moving crud into article space, and you aren't helping me to understand you on that, and are just making things worse. I can understand that you are in a bad mood after the temporary loss of your review privileges. Don't make things worse for yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

If Cryptic wants to drag up old threads and actions we can do that. He abused his Admin tools to block me once and remains a critic

As I've said, there are some cases where a move to mainspace is the best solution for a page that may or may not survive a deletion discussion. Notability and promo guidelines are not clear cut and the only way to really know where a page stands is to test it. Even then, the results of an AfD on some pages will vary greatly depending on who shows up and what arguments are made. There are circumstances where the mover should consider AfDing the page right away. I have never advocated widespread use of this tactic to delete things that are better handled at MfD, a CSD or via ignoring them but I strenuously object to any proabition against moving a page and testing its notability at AfD. Remember Draftspace is a somewhat new invention designed as a place to work on pages for mainspace, not a permanent location for articles of unclear notability. Legacypac (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:List of company registers. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

First off, thank you for your feedback. I found an additional source which may help with the general notability issue you raised. Please go back to the page and let me know your thoughts!

[[Draft: Cesar Newashish]]

Sincerely, Morinjam (talk) 21:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hello, Thanks for reviewing my submission titled "Chapter Eight: The Upside Down" of Stranger Things (TV Show), even though it was rejected. The reason I tried to submit the article was that the summary was missing key details and yet, it was considered "too long or excessively detailed". Thus, I tried to create the page with the details after researching thoroughly from different sources and websites, (like the episode pages of other TV shows for instance, Game of Thrones, Westworld etc) because with the lack of essential details, it just wouldn't make any sense to the reader.

I think, it would be best if the summaries are omitted and replaced with episode pages, taking help from other sources like the Fandom and IMDb, with which many other key points alongside Plot like- Production details, Visual aspects, Reception can be added. This is just my opinion and I hope you consider it, because unlike other shows, Stranger Things has gained a fabulous popularity and reception from both audiences and critics(even the former President Barack Obama met to congratulate the casts) and does deserve to have episode pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imrancat (talk • contribs) 13:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Imrancat - I don't entirely understand. I declined the draft because it didn't appear that this one episode needed its own article, and it doesn't appear that the other episodes have their own articles. I don't understand about the "missing key details". I will be asking other editors at the Teahouse for their comments and advice about articles for specific episodes of TV shows and about this episode. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi there i would like to know why my submission https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Siege_of_Ragnarok_25 was declined? I was just telling the story about a real player battle that took place in ARK: Survival Evolved, it's just a battle report i have no idea how that would be a game guide. Looks like double standarts are prevalent here because this virtual battle https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bloodbath_of_B-R5RB was approved but my page about Ragnarok 25 not.

Huursa (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Huursa: Please read Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Your article does not have sufficient sourcing to reliable sources to prove that it is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. Indeed, you should look at the sourcing of Bloodbath of B-R5RB for a good example of what the sourcing for your article should look like. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 15:54, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Huursa - I don't really know why I am being asked about this draft. I didn't review this draft. I personally am not persuaded that we need articles on electronic simulated battles. We have articles on real battles (regardless of what century and what continent they were fought), and occasionally articles on battles in fiction, if the fiction has a sufficient audience (see Battle of the Pelennor Fields, for instance). Normally I would ask for discussion at the Teahouse, but I think that, since the draft has been nominated for deletion, the proper forum for discussion is the deletion discussion. Is there a reason why I was asked about this draft? (I haven't even yet !voted on the deletion.) Robert McClenon (talk) 16:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

You have started to semi-regularly bring up cases of AfC review at the Teahouse. Are you sure that is a good idea?

When it comes to policy advice, I would guess the help desk is probably better. Since the TH is the newbie version of the HD, it makes sense (1) to avoid cluttering it with more advanced questions and (2) to reach a "sharper" audience (Teahouse responders are those with the patience to repeat a hundred times what notability means, help desk responders are those with the patience to dig through obscure pages to find out if Italian comic books from 1929 are copyrighted).

OTOH, when it comes to discussion about the page itself, the talk page or the AfD is probably a better place.

Just to be perfectly clear: that's my opinion and mine only, and even if it was the majority opinion of Teahouse responders you are plainly within the "rules". Your questions are far from disruptive and their volume is relatively low after all. I am just wondering whether there is a particular reason you decided to settle on the TH as your port of call. Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

User:Tigraan - Yes. The reason that I don't ask on the draft page or the talk page is that I want the opinions of other editors, not just to create a record. What Help Desk are you asking about, anyway? There are: the Wikipedia Help Desk, which appears to be what you mean; the AFC Help Desk; or the AFC Talk Page. The WP Help Desk seems to me more to be focused on how-to questions and, as you said, on detail. When I am asked by a submitter why I declined their submission, I generally want a patient explanation of what notability means, which might agree with me or disagree with me. I don't need notability explained, but the submitter may really benefit from another viewpoint. In my opinion, the answers at the Teahouse are more appropriate for a typical submitter than the answers at the WP HD or the questions at AFC HD. The questions at AFC HD often indicate that the submitter didn't read the guidelines (or even that the submitter is clueless). If I want a discussion that isn't just with the submitter, I need a forum that has other editors, which isn't the draft talk page, and the quality of the answers at TH is better than the quality of the questions at AFCHD. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:13, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I did not understand your aim to bring a newbie-friendly opinion to the submitter (rather than asking for input for yourself). (FTR I did mean, and link, to the general Wikipedia Help Desk (WP:HD)) Tigraan^{Click here to contact me} 08:19, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The creator of the draft came to the IRC help channel to better understand why the article was declined. Could you offer more specific feedback to them as to why you declined the article? Thanks, JustBerry (talk) 07:29, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I am talking with them right now about how the article needs more coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources and inline citations so that the information in the article is verifiable. --JustBerry (talk) 07:32, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Also, I had to remove a good amount of plagiarism. --JustBerry (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

User:JustBerry - Do you want to know why I declined the draft, or my opinion on the current state of the draft? Neither version of the draft (the one that I declined or the current one) appears to satisfy the musical notability criteria. The draft is an autobiography, and the submission of autobiographies, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged. (In years of AFC reviewing, I have once seen an autobiography that satisfied Wikipedia policies and guidelines.) Robert McClenon (talk) 10:25, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

The author, User:Imakiraa, removed the AFC comments from the draft after discussion with you. The instructions say to leave them in the draft for a record by reviewers. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

If the author wants to discuss further, I would suggest that they come to the Teahouse and ask the opinion of other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:28, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

My reason for seeking further details regarding your feedback is that the user had requested that rather than generally improving the article, they wanted to know exactly why the reviewer declined the article; this emphasis was made more clear on IRC. I had let them know that they could reach out to you on your talk page. Again, they insisted on their request. Instead of ignoring their request, I offered to reach out to you on your talk page in hopes of seeding a discussion. I hope this provides some insight into the situation.

Yes, they certainly have removed the comments, despite being asked not to. Perhaps a more explicit explanation on their talk page may be more effective in this case (in addition to referring them to WP:Teahouse). --JustBerry (talk) 11:40, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: I wanted to make you aware of the following three talk page sections: User talk:Doug Weller#One more thing... (permalink if archived or removed), User talk:Imakiraa#Draft:Akira (permalink if archived or removed), and User talk:Imakiraa#Wikipedia and copyright (permalink if archived or removed). --JustBerry (talk) 14:05, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Okay, User:JustBerry, User:DougWeller, User:Huon - This was an editor trying to use Wikipedia for self-promotion who was stubborn and wouldn't heed advice to stop. I am guessing that the matter is now wrapped up. If there is a next step, it will be that the stubborn editor decides to resume trying, and the result will presumably be a block (with the pages all gone, the only sanction left is a block). Okay. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:41, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

(already informed Doug & convo participants on Doug's talk page) @Robert & @Huon: In case you see that Draft:Akira gets re-created: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Imakiraa. --JustBerry (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Even more stubborn and more willing to violate the rules than usual, but ineffective. Oh well. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

And now the title has been salted, which will check any future attempts to re-create it by more sockpuppetry. She dug her own hole. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:36, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

• WP:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilastav
• Lilastav (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• ChessQueen1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Draft:Behavioral Signals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Hello Robert. On May 13 you opened Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lilastav, which I've been asked to look at to see if I wanted to take an admin action. The only recently active person who might be a sock (or a meat) is User:ChessQueen1. That person has not edited any more since you gave them a COI warning at: User talk:Legacypac/Archive 8#On the fence if Behavioral Signals meets WP:CORPDEPTH on 24 May. My inclination would be to take no further action and propose closing the SPI, though I don't participate at SPI very often so I don't know the drill. My only complaint about ChessQueen1 is that they gave a dodgy answer when you asked them if they were part of the group, but their actual edits of Draft:Behavioral Signals look fine. Based on behavior I suspect that Lilastav and ChessQueen1 are different people, though they are both enthusiasts for the project. Lilastav may live in Turkey, not California if we take them at their word. Let me know if you would object to closing the SPI at this point with no blocks. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 02:34, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert I was wondering if you could guide me with some of my subpages? You seem to know a lot and I need some help! Thanks Recordyear 06:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Recordyear - Please do not top-post. Use the tool to add a section at the bottom of my talk page. Top-posts are hard for me to find and I may ignore them. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:34, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Recordyear - What questions do you have about user pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:27, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I’m not sure if they are referred to as user pages. I’m trying to sort sub pages for about I am working on. I know it will take awhile to get them done, and I also want to add more articles for base starting points. I’m not sure I’m doing it correctly. Any input I would appreciate it and I apologize for not realizing I wasn’t posting at the bottom of your page for my question! Recordyear 04:01, 4 June 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recordyear (talk • contribs)

My draft DJ Amith has been deleted on your speedy deletion request. Can you please help me over it and get it undeleted. All the references linked to the page are not just mere mentions, They are article from a reliable source from renowned tabloid in India. The information is clearly verifiable. Also the article submission was declined without even reading the reference sources. Can you please please check the reference sources mention in the draft. any form of help will be greatly appreciated. PrakashAnand360 (talk) 07:34, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

User:PrakashAnand360 - When posting to my user page, please use the Add New Section feature, which will create a proper heading. Your draft did not differ materially from the deleted version. If you think it was different, you have three options. You may request deletion review, and may appeal either the speedy deletion or the deletion discussion. In particular, if you say that it had more references than the deleted version, you can appeal the speedy deletion. Or you can discuss with the deleting administrator. Or you can make a Request for Undeletion. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Evidence. Please add your evidence by June 22, 2018, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I messed up by duplicating the draft for Gray Foy. Etantdonnes (talk) 20:35, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Etantdonnes - Since you didn't mean to duplicate the draft, I converted one of the copies into a redirect to the other. I suggest that you tweak the current copy of the draft to address artistic notability guidelines, such as inclusion of his works in permanent collections, more clearly. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:25, 10 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for head's up. I have updated draft to try and address the issues you mention. Etantdonnes (talk) 00:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

{{AFC submission|d|corp|u=Wik wp|ns=118|decliner=Robert McClenon|declinets=20180611101944|ts=20180611101428}}

• Comment: This draft has no references and does not establish corporate notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:19, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert

Thank you for your review. I actually created two news pages. One was for Mature Times and one for Investor Times.

Both had red links on wikipedia page UK Newspapers so I did some research and created pages for those links. Both were created as Stubs so they could be expanded over time. Both pages have similar amount of content. The Mature Times page created seems to have been accepted, yet the Investor Times page does not.

I agree that both pages do need improvements such as references. I just wanted to help get the pages created as stubs and improved over time.

Let me know your thoughts.

Thanks again for your time. Wik wp (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Wik wp - Your comments, in my opinion, show a misunderstanding of what stubs are and how they are used in Wikipedia. Apparently you thought that stubs are not required to have references or to satisfy notability (which is based on references), at the time that they are created. As to your comment that Mature Times seems to have been accepted, you moved it into article space. One attempt was made to delete it. It is still likely to be deleted. The proper procedure for a page that doesn't have references yet, or otherwise isn't ready for article space, is to create it in user space or draft space. Do you want Mature Times moved from article space to draft space to prevent it from being nominated for deletion? If you have more questions about creating stubs, you may ask at the Teahouse. I may comment more later, but I might not. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for putting the article on Sydney Trains B Set up for deletion at Wikipedia: Articles for deletion. I share your view that a redirect to Sydney trains might be in order. I saw this article begins with a notice about a sandbox, which sounds rather strange. The spelling mistake in the article is "meant" spelt as "ment". Vorbee (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:InfoWars. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

Thanks for posting at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation#On_the_Ideas_for_Improvement. I was hoping for more positivity. Issue 1, "There is no solution, and not even any mitigation"? That is very very negative, do you mean to assert that is is to accepted, don't even think of trying anything?

User:SmokeyJoe - Much of your post really has a negative quality of scolding me for being negative. However, as to issue 1, I really mean that it has to be accepted and worked around, and that any attempt to mitigate it is just a waste of time. Issue 1 is: "Newcomers write and submit inept drafts on unsuitable topics". They come because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit (?!), and they write and submit inept drafts on unsuitable topics because they are clueless or self-serving or both. We had a hard enough time with ACTRIAL and ACPERM without stopping them from submitting stupid drafts. The focus should be on what to do about the stupid drafts. We aren't about to get the newcomers to stop being clueless and/or self-serving. I think that you would be negative if I started cheerleading some half-brained idea about making the newcomers be smart and useful. Maybe not. Maybe you would cheer also, but we really need to focus on the second and third issues. Maybe I misunderstood your statement of the issue. However, dumping on me for being negative is a good way to get me to stay negative. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I find your three classes of draft submitted to be interesting, correct, and probably useful. I think we can and should try to think of ways to filter class 1 from classes 2 and 3. In fact, I thought changing the big blue submit button to to a big blue request_feedback button, might be a practical mechanism for this. The self serving I would expect to ask a different style of question, and cluelessness is usually most clearly revealed by the quality of the question asked.

"I don't agree with having two Submit buttons. I don't see the point to that."? So negative, dismissive, and completely unaware of the theories of how to brainstorm. I was hoping we could brainstorm, perhaps you didn't read it that way? When brainstorming, the basic theory is to come up nwith new ideas, build on good ideas, and challenge for detail on things that are unclear. Bad ideas should be ignored in favour proposing new unrelated ideas. I think you should have either ignored the two buttons idea if you see nothing in it, or asked "what is the point of the two buttons" to encourage more detail, or to have suggested somehting entirely different.

User:SmokeyJoe - You didn't say that we were brainstorming, and now you are being at least as negative as I was. If you want to brainstorm ideas, I suggest proposing that we brainstorm. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I propose treating all AfC ideas as brainstorming. There are a myriad of big and little problems, with no obvious solutions. Although I think the reject template is a good idea, but of course not a complete solution. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

On issues 1 and 2 you wrote: "I can offer some, but they will be terrible, and won't be worth it, and I won't describe them." I would love to hear your bad ideas. Bad ideas can assist in coming up with better ideas. Bringing up any idea can be encouraging to others to try too.

User:SmokeyJoe - I don't know. You just established above that you can be negative, and I don't see the point to proposing bad ideas that will be dumped on. Since you do have a history of dumping on the AFC reviewers, I have no reason to think that you won't dump on ideas. If you want to brainstorm, you need to propose brainstorming. Robert McClenon (talk) 03

04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

"a soft decline and a hard decline". It seems everyone has agreed with this for a long time. I seem to have lost track of User:Primefac's drafting page for new templates. Given that everyone agrees, I think we should get it done pronto. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:52, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:SmokeyJoe - Yes, get it done. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.  » Shadowowl | talk 09:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

User:ShadowOwl - Bye Bye to it. It wasn't my draft. Once again, I assume that I merely moved it from a sandbox to draft space. Nirvana = blowing out. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:19, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello robert, is there a way to let y'all know to ping me for drafts that are in Chinese and created by a chinese user name 0r random alphanmeric? I've seen a rash of these and feel they need special attention.-- Dlohcierekim (talk) 20:57, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:AFC talk would be the best place to reach most reviewers. Legacypac (talk) 22:08, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I haven't seen this problem, but I can either notify you at your talk page or notify the reviewers in general at WT:AFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:27, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Hey there Robert -- I wanted to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the dispute resolution noticeboard. While I'm more than ready to be done with the issue, I wanted to reference the boomerang essay that was cited on the dispute closure. The issue is the back to back warnings on my talk page that are accusing me of COI issues where there are none, sockpuppet issues that are not there, and edit warring/vandalism accusations that are unfounded, after reverting a single edit from a user who was editing in bad faith. I am brand new to Wikipedia -- as in, these are my first few interactions with editing the page, and I'm overwhelmed with over-the-top warnings from other users, accusations, and in hostility in general. I've read the boomerang essay, and honestly, I'm afraid to move forward with conduct complaints for fear of being blocked from editing pages in the future. Is there any way you could help me with how to proceed with this issue? Or maybe weigh in with your honest opinion as to how this whole issue was handled? Thanks in advance Godrestsinreason (talk) 10:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Godrestsinreason - It isn't clear if you are asking a question or making a statement or what. I will comment briefly. You say that this started when you reverted a single edit from a user who was editing in bad faith. Why do you say that the user was editing in bad faith? For a brand-new user to come into Wikipedia and immediately start off, on the one hand, by editing contentious articles, and, on the other hand, by accusing a long-time editor of bad faith, is troubling. User:Jytdog does not edit in bad faith. They are stubborn and sometimes combative (as, it appears, you are), but they are always editing with a focus on the integrity and quality of Wikipedia. I see that you accused Jytdog of "Possible Vandalism". Read Yelling Vandalism. Yelling "Vandalism" is not an appropriate way to "win" a content dispute, and accusing an editor with whom you disagree is a personal attack. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Godrestsinreason - I see that the sock-puppet investigation has found that your account is not related to the blocked Bernie44 accounts. That doesn't resolve the matter of conflict of interest. I also see that you decided to file at WP:ANI without waiting for my advice. I will offer any further comments at the noticeboards. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:45, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I apologize, I was following what I thought was the advice that was posted in the closed dispute resolution noticeboard when the matter was closed. At this time, I'm pretty much done, and have only prolonged this due to new discoveries on how to even handle these issues, as opposed to my emotions being fresh about them. At this point, I'm ready to back off completely, and hold off on editing all together, until further notice, until I get a better grasp on how to approach. I feel I was dragged into another user's dispute, and did not at all take kindly to accusations, and believed based on what I read, that I was in the right. Godrestsinreason (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Robert, I'm so sorry, I seem to be having trouble with the structure of the Human Rights in Israel case on WP:DRN. I'm agreeing to take it on, I think I botched the heading or something. I apologize, I'm very bad with the tech aspect of this. Thanks muchEnglishEfternamn_*t/c* 19:24, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

User:EnglishEfternamn - The only problem was that you used a second-level heading rather than a fourth-level heading. A second-level heading in DRN is for a case. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:01, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a freindly note, you made a link error on this edit as [[WP:G11|G11]. I can't fix it or Ill get blocked again. Thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 23:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

How's that again? Have you been blocked or restricted from editing the comments of others in talk pages? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:05, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

That was for using a tool to clean up talk pages in a semi-automated fashion. You now know that that isn't appreciated. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:10, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I was sort of referring to that but also to many other things: for example, when I fixed a factual error on GreenMeansGo's user page, I was reverted without as much as an explanation by Chrissymad and then got warned by Primefac to stop. Later, I added a link to Tony's reply and again was reverted (at least this time with an edit summary). So now I try to stay away from editing other's comments. L293D (☎ • ✎) 01:50, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you need more references or do you need more information about her 17:26, 16 June 2018 (UTC)Besteditor (talk) 17:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Lingalanga - It isn't a plausible draft as written. It certainly doesn't satisfy acting notability. Just adding more references wouldn't help. I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:47, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.  » Shadowowl | talk 16:58, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I didn't start it. I moved it to draft space. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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}}, {{db-draft}}, 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.  » Shadowowl | talk 17:03, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Shadowowl - I didn't start it. I moved it to draft space. It might be useful if the notice could go to the real originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The script notified 2 users, the original creator and you. -- » Shadowowl | talk 17:23, 18 June 20at 18 (UTC)

Good. There is a discussion at the Articles for Creation talk page about the idea that the script should advise the editor how to request undeletion of the draft, because it is very likely that the creator will not see it for the hours that the tag is in place before the speedy deletion, which is, after all, speedy. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:38, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I want to say thanks for being the first to review my submission for Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn. I made sure to bring straight to the top (first two sentences) that Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn has (twice) been the Chief Economist of France's Central bank, Banque de France), in addition to his roles in a variety of global organizations. The second review/note, I'm glad to see, is that the tone issues improved. I have continued to edit, rewrite, and add more public references. Many thanks, and I hope it is in shape now to move to being an article. At the end of the process, I'll get a good photo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lettucecup (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

After RHaworth moved page Draft:Unnamed fireboat, North Kingstown, RI to User:Geo Swan/Unnamed fireboat, North Kingstown, RI, at my request, you moved it back to draft space.

I think this was a good faith mistake.

Yes, I could move it back to userspace myself, but, as I explained to RHaworth, I am being wikistalked by a pair of pretty vicious wikistalkers. One of them is an expert at misusing references to the acronyms to our wikidocuments to make non-disputes have the surface appearance of genuine serious policy issues. That is why I asked RHaworth to move it to userspace, where it belonged. And I am going to ask you to move it back, for the same reason.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 17:35, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

without leaving a redirect) (undo | thank)

(cur | prev) 10:16, 2018 June 17‎ 2607:fea8:

User:Geo Swan, User:RHaworth - Is the draft meant to be AFC-submitted? It is currently in an AFC-submitted state. Do you want it reviewed? If so, the usual AFC procedure is to move it into draft space. If you do not want it reviewed at this time, please remove the AFC submission template. If you want it reviewed but want to request a special exception to have it reviewed from user space rather than from draft space, please put a statement to that effect as an AFC comment. Unless you tell me something else, I will remove the AFC template and move it back to user space without a redirect. However, if there is a conduct issue, it really should be reported to WP:AN or WP:ANI, unless User:RHaworth is planning to deal with it themselves. Waiting for just a little while. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:57, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I've moved it back to user space and pulled the AFC tag. However, I don't understand what is going on. User:RHaworth - Maybe you can explain, or, if it is not supposed to be explained, maybe you can take appropriate action. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:32, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

• A wikistalker, who has to resort to using anonymous IP addresses placed an A7 on the material, when it was in article space. My wikistalker did not leave the courtesy heads-up on User talk:Geo Swan. By long tradition articles on million dollar vessels are almost always kept, when they are brought before Afd.

I requested userification, so I could see whether this particular article fell short, and would have been an exception, that would not survive Afd.

RHaworth agreed to restore it, but chose to restore it to draft space, not userspace, as I requested. RHaworth added the Afc tag, not me. The article wasn't moved to draft space, and the Afc tag was not added, as the result of a discussion.

Thanks for moving it back to userspace. Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

I still don't understand. Perhaps it isn't capable of being understood by human beings. If the problem was an improper A7 tagging on an article, then the A7 tag could have been removed and the article semi-protected. Unless I either get a clear explanation that can be understood, or I am told that I am not supposed to understand and just am supposed to obey orders (and the orders are merely weird and not obviously wrong), I will have to request a discussion at WP:AN. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me. If you want it in article space, move it to article space. If you want it to be reviewed for AFC, it belongs in draft space. I don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User:Serbianboy/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ―Gregorius II 11:20, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on User:Serbianboy/sandbox, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ―Gregorius II 11:23, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Serbianboy - Do not remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that you have created. You may contest a speedy deletion request by pressing the button and entering the reason to keep the article, but you may not simply remove the tag. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Susmuffin - It wasn't my page or my draft. I haven't considered the merits of the G11 request and am not an administrator. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't think this is ready for userspace. It is still written at too basic a reading level, with misused terms in the lede. I didn't get too far into it as it was so full of mistakes, it's just not ready. I think it's best if you move it back and do more cleanup, if you're committed to this article, then move it to mainspace when it's in better shape. Thanks. - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. OK, I see you've moved on to other work without continuing the cleanup, so I'm going to move it back to draft. I'd prefer you to do it, but if you've moved on to other stuff already... - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 20:08, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

(tps) That is a well developed page. Any typos and wording issues are bestbaddressed in mainspace. Legacypac (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:Ed Brown (boxer), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. ―Gregorius II 03:57, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply! The page for Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn has been thoroughly scrubbed, as well as completely referenced/cited throughout. That should take care of the issues that were raised. If you are interested in re-reviewing it, I'm hopeful it's now in shape to move to article space. Many thanks, Richard Lettucecup (talk) 18:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)lettucecup

User:Lettucecup - I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. I do not know what you mean when you say that the page has been "scrubbed". It had tone issues when I reviewed it, and I will leave it to another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:43, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Robert. I mean cleaned up, making many cuts, as well trying to ensure that the notability issue has been addressed, with many new accurate citations, as well as fact-based evidence, etc. Did my best to address the issues and make it a piece for Wikipedia. Mr. Strauss-Kahn is notable. Much appreciated. Lettucecup (talk) 19:49, 25 June 2018 (UTC)lettucecup

Hi Robert, I noticed you entered a comment on this dispute regarding additional editors to be added. I am not completely aware of the process involving the addition of new users to a content dispute. Could you indicate which users should be added and who this responsibility falls upon? Thank you. Barbarossa139 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Barbarossa139 - I am a little puzzled by your statement that you are "not completely aware of the process". Users are added to a case by adding them to the case. You are the filing party and it is your responsibility to identify the editors who commented on the content dispute about the article. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure if we were required to fill out another form similar to the form used to create the actual dispute or if we could simply edit the page itself. Barbarossa139 (talk) 01:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Barbarossa139 - I have added two users, but you will have to notify them. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok I saw, I have notified them. I also added another user who expressed similar points as part of an earlier discussion. Barbarossa139 (talk) 02:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Placebo. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

This article was moved by Shadowowl (talk · contribs) from my private sandbox without my input or consent before it was ready for public draft namespace. I vigorously protested his move on his |talk page because of the potential COPYVIO issue It was still under development. Please restore it to my private sandbox. Thanks. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 18:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

User:btphelps - No, no, no. Maybe User:Shadowowl made a mistake in moving that page and another page into draft space, but you made a bigger mistake in keeping those pages, consisting of copyrighted material, in user space in Wikipedia for a period of years. You say that they were still under development, but you had them for years consisting of copyrighted material, and copyrighted material is never permitted in Wikipedia, What you call your private sandbox is hosted on the WMF's servers, and so is subject to US law. Even if the WMF were to allow limited storage of copyrighted material for a short period of time to paraphrase it, and I didn't say that they did, you had kept the material hosted on the WMF's servers for years without reworking it. No, no, no. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:34, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Btphelps: in addition to what Robert McClenon said: your sandbox isn't private. The whole world can see it. I can read this. Alexis Jazz (talk) 05:07, 29 June 2018 (UTC)