User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 54

I only responded to your comment at my deletion review because of your uncalled-for condescension. My actions, clumsy though they were, reflected a concern for the betterment of this encyclopaedia, and were entirely in good faith.

It was a needless slight to suggest that it was wasting time to hence pursue the deletion review process and to outline my case in the full detail I thought warranted.

You may have 200,000 contributions to your name but I have a decent amount too, enough for it to be clear that I am not a malicious editor and ought not to be treated like one.

I hope that you have sufficient humility to realise that the tone of your response did no good, and was not necessary. I was not personally asking for a second of your time, but what I wrote was intended for your benefit in case you decided to adjudicate on the matter.

As one editor noted following your assertion that I 'filibustered' the process, one is 'allowed to (civilly) reply to comments you disagree with - even if you are in a small minority or objectively wrong.'

Will Thorpe (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2025 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Draft:PUFFYFIED requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it exhibits one or more of the following signs which indicate that the page could only plausibly have been generated by large language models (an "AI chatbot" or other application using such technology) and would have been removed by any reasonable human review:

• Communication intended for the user: This may include collaborative communication (e.g., "Here is your Wikipedia article on..."), knowledge-cutoff disclaimers (e.g., "Up to my last training update ..."), self-insertion (e.g., "as a large language model"), and phrasal templates (e.g., "Smith was born on [Birth Date].")
• Implausible non-existent references: This may include external links that are dead on arrival, ISBNs with invalid checksums, and unresolvable DOIs. Since humans can make typos and links may suffer from link rot, a single example should not be considered definitive. Editors should use additional methods to verify whether a reference truly does not exist.
• Nonsensical citations: This may include citations of incorrect temporality (e.g a source from 2020 being cited for a 2022 event), DOIs that resolve to completely unrelated content (e.g., a paper on a beetle species being cited for a computer science article), and citations that attribute the wrong author or publication.

Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia, and output must be carefully checked. Pages created using them that did not undergo human review may be deleted at any time.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, 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. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find creating new encyclopedia content yourself difficult, please share this with other editors at the Teahouse, and they may be able to help. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your legitimate contributions. qcne (talk) 22:11, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Qcne - I am baffled. I have no record of having touched this page. Did the originator reuse a sandbox page that I had edited, and so it thought was mine? So did Twinkle fail to notify the actual author that their draft was tagged for being LLM-generated spam? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:39, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

Hi, Robert, how are you? I'm afraid the record often disappears when the page is deleted. You created this particular one when you moved a previous version of this to here, which was later moved to the title where I deleted it; you didn't edit the content. Regards, Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:58, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Justlettersandnumbers. Okay, this is just one more example of something being weirdly attributed to me. I did move a sandbox to Draft:Sunday Emili, and I had a record of that. I had no record of PUFFYFIED. That isn't one of the 7415 names that I have a record of having reviewed. So it appears that a draft that I had "touched" was then renamed/moved. It seemed like a weird occurrence because it was a weird occurrence. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:51, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Bizarre. Sorry, @Robert McClenon. qcne (talk) 12:50, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing my draft. I understand that there is currently a redirect at the article title. I am fine with the redirect being deleted so that the draft can be moved to mainspace. I appreciate your help with the review and publication process. Cielbleu01 (talk) 09:00, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi. I don't understand why you did what you did: it was clearly someone using Wikipedia as LinkedIn; they weren't trying to write an encyclopedic article on themselves. You moved it to draft space, then removed the speedy template (saying "not web hosting because this is submitted for AFC"--but you submitted it), then rejected it--so now it's going to sit there for what, six months, until some bot picks it up. I don't get the point. Drmies (talk) 15:02, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Drmies - You and I evidently have different interpretations of U5 or of how draft space works. U5 is: Pages in userspace consisting of writings, information, discussions, or activities not closely related to Wikipedia's goals, where the owner has made few or no edits outside of user pages, except for plausible drafts and pages. The question is whether a spammy draft, tagged for AFC review, is a plausible draft. I think that it is, plausible but not acceptable. You may reasonably interpret that as implausible. I see no harm in having spam linger in draft space until the bot cleans it up, because that is what the bot is for. I acknowledge that either speedy deletion or six-month deletion would achieve the desired objective of deleting it in the course of time, and I acknowledge that I was changing the procedure for getting rid of it. I just didn't and don't think it was a U5, and that speedy deletion should not be used when there is doubt about whether the particular speedy category applies. We reasonably disagree as to how to get rid of it, and agree that it is crud. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:16, 31 August 2025 (UTC)

We do disagree, but I'm kind of struck by what looks to me like a passive construction that made it sound as if you weren't the agent of this procedure. Drmies (talk) 14:18, 2 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon. Ordinarily, TenshiBot would be letting you know about your review still being marked as ongoing for over 48 hours on Draft:Celatoblatta vulgaris, but it ran into an error, so it couldn't. (It should be back to normal soon once I figure out whats going on with it) — Tenshi! (Talk page) 15:00, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

Greetings Robert,

A request from my side ->

About this

1. "Closing without prejudice as off to a bad start, and having the appearance of proxying for unqualified editors. Editors who are not extended-confirmed are not permitted to engage in discussion of South Asian contentious topics at project space noticeboards, and this is a project space noticeboard. "

2. "This filing began with a lengthy back-and-forth exchange, and back-and-forth exchanges are normally not permitted in DRN, and in particular are not permitted in DRN when the topic is contentious. A new case can be filed here, listing only extended-confirmed editors."

Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard

I did make it very clear that I was speaking on behalf of myself and myself alone in a polite manner.

Me asking to add another user and edit another user ID in the same post is not indicative of anything except overlooking these 2 things while making my Dispute request.

I am sure what else you want me to say in my defense.

I understand the 2nd part about back and forth (this is the first time I have logged a request on the DRN so I'm not sure of the full process)

But I request you to remove the first part from the message.

Regards

Computeracct (talk) 18:07, 9 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:32, 17 August 2025 (UTC)

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

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

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

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 13:30, 29 August 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: Hi as the title says, what am I supposed to do, the name of the article was Draft talk:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136), I hope I can get a answer regarding the situation. Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

User:TeenX800 - The motto that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is incorrect. There are restrictions on its editing, and one of the restrictions is that new editors may not edit articles about Indian military history. You may either submit a properly formatted edit request on the talk page, or you may leave the article alone and edit something else. You may not edit that article, and you may not use noticeboards to discuss the editing of that article. This is an unfortunate but necessary restriction. You may ask about restrictions on editing at the Teahouse, and they will restate what I have just stated. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:16, 15 September 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: This specific draft was supposed to be published but this specific user WP:Stalking my account and privately messaged the draft reviewing admin to decline my article even though it has pretty much good support from strong sources, yes I understand what you are saying but this isn’t a edit but to publish a new article even when admin was about to accept it, I really hope you can solve this situation as in this a different situation from making edit request, of course I will stay away until I’m a extended user.ThanksTeenX808 (talk) 05:50, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

No, User:TeenX800, your draft should not have been published, because it is in the area of Indian military history, which is limited to extended-confirmed editors. I am not sure that I understand what your complaint is against the other editor, and I know that I do not understand what situation you are asking me to resolve. If you have questions about editing procedures, I will again advise you to ask at the Teahouse, but they will restate what I have said about the contentious topic of Indian military history. I have given you notice of the contentious topic. Please leave the area alone and edit in some other area. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:29, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: understood, after I get extended user confirmation will I be able to edit.Thanks and I will make sure to keep close contactsTeenX808 (talk) 04:45, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've been considering helping out at there for some time due to the backlogs - I don't want you to be the only one that's handling it. Do you happen to have any advice? Thanks. ~delta ^{(talk • cont)} 15:35, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:~delta. Please go ahead and take the next case that is available, meaning that two editors have made statements. It is not important whether you handle the dispute in the same way as I normally handle a dispute. Maybe the Parasnath dispute might open up, or something else. Welcome. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2025 (UTC)

This draft hopefully if ready should be an article now so when ready. Hypercyclone 2 (talk) 13:15, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

May I ask is the DRN request still valid? Or do I have to resubmit before I notify the another two editors? Thank you. - MainBody (talk) 19:52, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

User:MainBody - The case has not been closed. If you provide a human-written summary of the dispute and notify the other editors, we can conduct moderated discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:45, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I don't know who else to ask! Is it possible for an editor who has declared a COI on an article to take part in a discussion at the dispute resolution noticeboard? My motivation in asking is that I've got tangled up in a bust-up between two editors over the Burlakov case article. I think they'd benefit enormously from a firmly-mediated dispute resolution since they're starting poles apart and with some ill-will. But one has a declared COI. Elemimele (talk) 21:30, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

User:Elemimele - I will answer your question as two questions, one general and one specific. The general question is whether an editor who has a declared COI can take part in a case at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The specific question is whether disputes over the Burlakov case can be discussed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard. The answer to the first question is yes. An editor with a declared COI should not be directly editing the article, but I see no reason why they should not take part in discussion at DRN, where the moderator is neutral and the discussion is transparent and in the open. The answer to the second question is no. DRN does not handle any dispute that is also being considered in another content forum or a conduct forum, and the Burlakov case is being discussed at WP:ANI (because you reported it there). I will also be posting at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that's really helpful, and useful general knowledge for me for the future. My dream outcome for the ANI is that the two editors can sort out their behavioural dispute so they can move forward and concentrate on content. At that future stage, I do think DR might be a good tool for them, but I see your additional point that they need to decide what to do about the merger first. It's not an easy situation. Elemimele (talk) 10:04, 21 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 02:31, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2025 Nepalese Gen Z protests on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 16:32, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at User talk:Alexandraaaacs1989 on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:31, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Transgender healthcare and people. The proposed decision has been posted. Your comments are welcome on the talk page in your own section. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Please give your consensus result and take action on Splitting discussion on Disney Star talk page. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 05:56, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Ajitsinghbhagat - In Wikipedia, there is no deadline. Why are you in a hurry to close this discussion after 48 hours? Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 20 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, no problem Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 01:43, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Now,Disney Star's page should move to JioStar It is notable now, I added few articles with refrences you can check out post merger articles. Ajitsinghbhagat (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on 472235 Zhulong is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, 472235 Zhulong will be returned to the review queue so that other reviewers may review the draft.

If you wish to continue reviewing the draft but need more time before the bot returns it to the review queue, you can place {{bots|deny=TenshiBot}} on the draft so you can continue your review. Also, if you do not want to receive these notifications, you can place the same template on your talk page. TenshiBot (talk) 09:39, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: What's the point of (positively) reviewing this article? Several users (including me) have pointed out that the article has no chance to survive, yet it seems you just ignored those comments. Renerpho (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon: I finally became a extended user can I now file about the issue regarding the - Draft talk:Anuradhapura invasion of Chola Kingdom (114-136).Thanks TeenX808 (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2025 (UTC)

I don’t know if you still consider yourself an administrator hopeful but your expressed attitude of “if you can use a scalpel or a hammer, use a hammer because it’s easier” at ANI is not the sort of thing I want to hear coming from an admin. I hope you take this on board if another RFA comes up and maybe reconsider your proposed sanction against me. Dronebogus (talk) 17:40, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 09:31, 4 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 05:31, 18 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello, I have submitted this Draft:Zauq E Naat for review. Could you please review it? It would be a great favor. Thank you. BrownCanary61 (talk) 15:12, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

May I ask the details of the result about the page AFC Ajax in international football? The case seems to be closed in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard but the user still keeps playing with the content of the page and I cannot reach him/her.

Regards...

Magawla61 (talk) Magawla61 (talk) 09:03, 29 October 2025 (UTC)

Well composted they will do the roses a lot of good!

We need more goats. Most days I feel it is just me. It's quite a challenge! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 18:16, 31 October 2025 (UTC)

User:Polygnotus/Scripts/SourceTable3.js then go to an AfD, click edit. An "Assess Sources" button should appear next to the page title. If you close the popup by generating the code you can re-open it and continue where you were. Work in progress. Polygnotus (talk) 13:26, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Polygnotus. There are a variety of tools to prepare a source assessment table. I put the assessment notes in an Excel spreadsheet and then use the Excel-to-wikitable tool. I plan to continue to use it, and I know that other editors will use other techniques. I think that the ruminant can eat overly lengthy discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:02, 2 November 2025 (UTC)

I accidentally mixed up the two from the three letter acronyms and it was completely my fault, thank you for helping!! ConeKota (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

User:ConeKota - These things (slightly wrong forum) sometimes happen. I thought you would want it moved to the right place. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 5 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello — I revised this draft to use a neutral tone and added independent references from AVIT and other third-party mentions. I would appreciate any suggestions on improving verifiability or neutrality before resubmitting. Thank you. Anishalx (talk) 12:53, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

I hope now you understand what I was trying to get at... No matter how hard we tried at DRN this editor was just going to end up sabotaging it if it wasn't going their way (which it wasn't, they didn't want a RfC they wanted DRN to say that they were 100% right and nothing else). I have general confidence in you and DRN, but neither your or DRN can pickle this particular cucumber. I apologize that I came across as a particularly prickly cucumber vine myself, you do good work at DRN and I was too short with you as a result of my frustration with this endless cycle of bludgeoning and escalation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 23:01, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Horse Eye's Back - Thank you. I am not sure whether to say that I accept your apology or that an apology is not necessary. After several decades of involvement in complex discussions, I know that occasionally it takes a while to see where or who the problem is. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi there,

I wanted to appeal your rejection of my draft submission the other day. It appears there may have been some misunderstandings that I need to clear up:

1. While Yakuza Kiwami 3 and Dark Ties are referred to as separate games, they are only sold as one combined game, thus I made this article intending for both games to share. The separate links to each game will be edited later to redirect to this page specifically, as I do not intend to make separate articles for each game.

2. Regarding the reasoning of the page being "too soon", I also don't see how it is too early to make the article for the games, seeing as they release in 3 months from now. Another game, Resident Evil Requiem, also releases in the same month, and has already had an article published, so I fail to see how this reasoning applies to Kiwami 3/DT. If there is something I'm missing here, please clarify. The boss 1904 (talk) 09:41, 9 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 08:33, 17 September 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 13 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 19:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) on a "Biographies" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 00:31, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:30, 28 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 22:30, 4 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon Greetings! I'm not allowed to file a case at WP:DRN? You reverted my case but without explanation how my case was insufficient?. I have discussed matter on article talk page also on user's talk page before coming to DRN. Please elaborate how my case was not suitable or what was missing. Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 10:10, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon I don't understand how this was improperly filed? I missed the diff link I need to attach diff links of talk page discussions? Where I discussed the matter but was not solved? Email Khan hazzarvi (talk) 10:12, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Email Khan hazzarv - I will explain this here, since you are blanking your user talk page, which is not helpful. There was one main problem with your filing, and lesser problems. As to the main problem, look at the DRN page. Do you see a heading Do you need assistance? and a large blue button Request dispute resolution? Many (not all) noticeboards have such a button. If there is such a button, it is the proper way to file a case. As to the secondary issues, because you tried to reuse an old case as the new case, you gave the case a state date in October 2025. That immediately alerted me that something was wrong. Also, you didn't notify the other editors of the filing. So, if you want to file a DRN case, press the blue button and enter the information. Then notify the other editors that you have filed the case. Be ready for me to ask you exactly what words you want to change in the article. If a noticeboard has a button to file a case, use the button. That's what it's for. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:14, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 12:30, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:31, 13 November 2025 (UTC)

I received the blanket "Introduction to contentious topics", but I don't understand it. It says that I must refrain from "gaming the system", but that I don't need to refrain for topics that are more than 33 years old. Why is there a cutoff at 33 years? Other pages, like California Genocide, are nominally about a historical event, but are based on racist theories published in the 21st century. Is this noncontentious? Julian in LA (talk) 18:35, 18 November 2025 (UTC)

User:Julian in LA - I have written an essay, WP:American Politics Contentious Topic Thoughts to try to answer your question. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

I have pinged you to the talk of article thiyya . Please accept the discussion invite College station A&M aggies (talk) 06:54, 19 November 2025 (UTC)

i have recently opened a discussion that you may be interested in

you may see the details here if you so wish Oreocooke (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive in December!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than half a month of outstanding reviews from the current 2+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 December 2025 through 31 December 2025.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 3000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help!

// hekatlys [talk] 17:01, 23 November 2025 (UTC)

Because you participated at the recent RfC on the same topic or the recent ARCA request on the same topic, you are invited to participate in the RfC at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § RfC: Allowing use of AE for community topicwide restrictions. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:05, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 11:30, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi there. At the end of November, I posted extensive comments on the merge proposal you posted in September. Along with my comments, I also posted a draft of what the suggested merge would look like, here: Talk:Oleg Burlakov#Proposed merge of Burlakov case into Oleg Burlakov. I am bringing the edit request to your attention in case you overlooked my ping to you. Would you kindly have a look at the proposal and help implement the merge? All the best, MarcusEllington90 (talk) 10:12, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:32, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:31, 10 October 2025 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:2024 United States presidential election in Hawaii on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

Please cast a pedantic eye over this newly created mainspace article, one which I had previously draftified. I am too close to this to make a valid judgement on AfD vs leave to take its chance. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 12:55, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - Okay. I will review its notability in detail. I might take 24 to 48 hours, not meaning that I will spend a day reviewing it, but that I might do other things (including dealing with Lopez de Prado drafts) for a day before I review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:10, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

It isn't urgent. Feel free to AfD if necessary, or to let it ride. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:19, 2 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - I have checked 8 of the 16 sources. It appears that 3 of them satisfy notability. I will check the other 8 sources within a few days, because I want to finish the source assessment, but I know what the answer is. I have marked it as reviewed. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:31, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

I am grateful. I was concerned that, as a private school, it failed to satisfy our more rigorous current school criteria 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 08:36, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I missed the parallel AN discussion; I just forgot to look. I'll try to do a better job of remembering to check there when looking at new case filings. Is there an easy way to check every relevant forum at once? ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 05:03, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp - For various reasons that I don't want to explain on-wiki, that dispute was a case that should not be touched without first verifying from a distance what sort of protective equipment is needed (against - electric shock? radioactivity? biological hazard?). If you enable email, I will describe some of the beans. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

Okay, it should work now I think. Sorry, I realize my email was stale. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 05:24, 3 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Mesocarp - I see that we had what Wikipedia calls a edit conflict between your effort to mediate it and my closure of the case. Since I am a retired computer systems analyst, I call them race conditions. So you inserted your message to the parties at the same time as I closed the thread. For reasons that I have explained to you, I thought that moderated discussion was hopeless. Thank you for trying. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, that's okay, and sure thing. ^^ As it happens I'm a programmer and write parallel code regularly so I'm quite familiar with race conditions. :P They do crop up in the "real world" at times like this. ^('"_'⁾ (Mesocarp) (talk) _(@) 01:30, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert, I noticed you began reviewing the Draft:Carmela Conroy about two days ago. The review-in-progress template suggests seeking help if it's been unchanged for more than twelve hours, so I wanted to check in. If you're still working on it, no rush—I just wanted to make sure it hadn't slipped through the cracks. If there's anything I can clarify or improve in the draft, I'm happy to help. Thank you for your time volunteering as a reviewer. RiverHouseWriter (talk) 18:41, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:RiverHouseWriter - It had slipped through the cracks. I had been waiting for a blocking redirect to be deleted, and it had been deleted. I have accepted it now. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

hello, I had a draft that is currently under review under your name. I was hoping to get the result. I attempted to get help from the liberal chat, they told me to ask you directly. Thanks! Red Aviation (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Red Aviation - Who is the liberal chat? I have accepted the draft. Who were you asking? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I didn't check. I'm so sorry, thank you so much for the time and consideration. Apologies. Have a good day! And, sorry, liberal chat is a help chat for Wikipedia editors. Red Aviation (talk) 23:20, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Red Aviation - No. If you had checked, it would have said I was reviewing it. You reminded me. I know very little about chats. I know that some of them are helpful and some of them have resulted in ArbCom cases. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 4 December 2025 (UTC)

I believe they are referring to the #wikipedia-en-help IRC channel, which is hosted on Libera Chat. Tenshi! (Talk page) 11:13, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon!

Please be careful when submitting blanket questions to AELECT candidates. I have removed your question as a monitor action, as it was essentially a repeat of Q1. If you wish to ask for more clarification regarding a particular candidate's answer, please be more specific, as asking (nearly) all candidates to re-answer a standard question isn't conducive to beneficial discussion. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 01:52, 5 December 2025 (UTC)

User:Chaotic Enby - Well, I disagree that it is a repeat of Q1, but I know that sometimes I am in the minority, and I won't try to argue. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:33, 5 December 2025 (UTC)