Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 53

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 50Archive 51Archive 52Archive 53Archive 54Archive 55Archive 56

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 1 May 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

Query regarding Dispute resolution noticeboard when other editor not wishing to participate

Hi Robert, I'm messaging you as I'm unsure how best to proceed after you closed a discussion on the dispute resolution board (this being for the dispute titled 'Daisy Bates (author)'). As the other editor does not wish to summarise their position and as they've been (imo) mildly hostile in their previous replies, I am hesitant to simply restart the discussion on the talk thread as you suggested in the closing comment. I'm unsure if a RfC would be fair and similarly closed if I'm also having to summarise their position for that. FropFrop (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

User:FropFrop - I have taken a quick look at the dispute, and am not entirely sure what you are asking. Your DRN request was closed because you failed to notify the other editor, and because you tried to summarize their case for them. You say that they do not wish to summarize their position, but you did not give them an opportunity to summarize their position. Try to discuss with them on the article talk page, in a separate section. If they are uncivil, ignore the incivility and try to discuss the content issue. If that is unsuccessful, you can make another request at DRN. If they engage in personal attacks, or otherwise make discussion impossible, you can report them to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but try to discuss content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)
You say that they do not wish to summarize their position, but you did not give them an opportunity to summarize their position. I asked that they give a summary of their position for a RfC in the article's talk page and they replied along the lines of "No, I've already explained it, this discussion is over."
Try to discuss with them on the article talk page, in a separate section. Yeah fair enough, I'll give it another go. Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated.
FropFrop (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Follow-up on Bruce Falkinburg draft

Hello Robert,

I’m following up on your previous review of my draft article about Bruce Falkinburg (declined on 19 April 2024). I’ve revised the draft to include multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of Falkinburg’s musical and artistic work—such as Blabbermouth, Glen Echo Photoworks, and Discogs—along with a clearer explanation of how it meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.

I would be grateful if you could take another look or offer further suggestions. Here's the updated draft: Draft:Bruce Falkinburg

Thanks very much for your time!

Cheapcop (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Closure of DRN Case

Hello, I noticed you closed my DRN Case recently, saying "Four days after the filing editor was advised that at least one other editor was involved, the other editor has not been listed or notified." I am not sure what this means. The other editor, TarnishedPath, was notified on his talk page shortly after I filed the case. אקעגן (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

אקעגן = You notified TarnishedPath. They were one of three editors who were involved in editing and discussing the article. You were another. The third was {{noping|IOHANNVSVERVS]]. If you didn't know that there was another editor, you could have asked, and I would have told you. Also, TarnishedPath, whom you did notify, has not replied. DRN is voluntary, and TarnishedPath has chosen not to reply. So there is no one to discuss with. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
I did not include IOHANNVSVERVS in the original list, because he was not involved with the discussion of re-adding the tag. In any case, I am not sure what is left to discuss there-TarnishedPath refuses to restore my tags, and I am impeded by WP:1RR. How do I proceed from here? אקעגן (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Can I file the case in DRN again? I see I missed your comment last time, and only arrived to see the case was closed. אקעגן (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
אקעגן - Did you read my closing statement? Has there been more lengthy and inconclusive discussion? Is there now a dispute about article content, as opposed to a tagging dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
The dispute is about whether the act of tagging itself requires consensus. If that is not appropriate for DRN, what is the proper venue for that? אקעגן (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) I'm not aware of the specifics of this dispute but I will note that dispute resolution is an entirely voluntary process. You might be well-served to see if the other parties have any interest in re-starting the DR process before going through the effort of creating a new file there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
אקעגן - First, you can always file a DRN case. Whether I will open it depends on whether there has been new lengthy and inconclusive discussion, whether at least one other editor responds, and whether you raise an article content issue. The question that you ask, about whether the act of tagging requires consensus, is not an article content question but a policy question. Do you have an article content issue? Has there been recent lengthy and inconclusive discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
Thanks to you both. There are objections to the article's content that I and others have raised, without any consensus being reached so far. If it continues as it is, perhaps I will file a DRN for it.
However, as you say, the DRN approach would not be appropriate for the tagging question, since this itself would be strictly a matter of policy. I ended up at DRN through WP:SEEKHELP, hoping I could have this matter resolved. Looking at WP:ENFORCE refers me back to arbitration enforcement. Are there places to ask for resolution about policy matters? אקעגן (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
אקעגן - First, putting a tag on an article does not require consensus. It indicates the lack of a consensus. However, if there is consensus against putting a tag on an article, or in support of removing a tag from an article, putting a tag on the article against consensus is considered disruptive. Second, do not report content disputes to Arbitration Enforcement. Arbitration Enforcement is a conduct forum. It deals on an expedited basis with disruptive editing in contentious areas. Third, have you tried discussing the content of the article with other editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)
There is no consensus to either add or remove the tag. Whenever I put the tag, it was removed, and when I asked for it to be restored, and asked why it was being removed, I was unable to get reasonable responses, in my view. אקעגן (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: Following up on this. If Arbitration Enforcement isn't appropriate, and DRN isn't appropriate, where do I go once this topic has been discussed in the talk page? אקעגן (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)
So I went back to the talk page discussion and it seems like the locus of the dispute is the reliability and due weight of Morris (and Karsh) as sources since you want to revise the lede based on their views. Their reliability has been disputed by other editors. Have you considered WP:RS/N or an RfC as avenues to resolve the dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

You've got mail

Hello, Robert McClenon. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

But it's short! Liz Read! Talk! 06:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Liz - The essay The Unblockables is misnamed, but should be allowed to keep its name for historical reasons. The essay is really about unbannablrs, editors who are frequently blocked for various reasons and never stay blocked. They are unbannable, or never stay blocked, because they have fan clubs, who are willing to excuse their violations of civility because they are seen as "productive" or "excellent content contributors". There are also editors who are not blocked at all, which is because they take the fourth pillar of Wikipedia seriously, or because they learned, even before editing Wikipedia, that there is never any advantage in expressing emotion in electronic media. The essay that I quoted is not really about editors who are not blocked, but about editors who do not stay blocked. I learned in the late twentieth century that expression emotion in electronic media is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:T. V. S. N. Prasad on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Talk:List of Tarja Turunen concert tours on "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comments. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 13:48, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Nine years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 11:31, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:30, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Sarah Campion (disambiguation)

Notice

The article Sarah Campion (disambiguation) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Disambiguation page not required (WP:ONEOTHER). Primary topic article has a hatnote to the only other use.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ivey (talk - contribs) 16:58, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

User:Ivey - I prefer disambiguation pages to hatnotes, and would prefer to have neither page be primary but the disambiguation be primary, but, with 479 annual pageviews for the squash player and 284 annual pageviews for the writer, it isn't worth having a consensus process. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Arbcom request

Shouldn't that be "Capitalization disputes"? :) SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:36, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

User:SarekOfVulcan - Yes. That is true. If that is the only thing wrong with the filing today, I am satisfied. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:46, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
For putting together the capitalization disputes case, so Black Kite or I didn't have to do so. Many thanks. asilvering (talk) 22:23, 26 June 2025 (UTC)
You're welcome, User:Asilvering. It's an interesting characterization of teamwork, since I didn't consult with anybody about who would write the RfAr, and knew it would get done in time if I wrote it, and knew that I could revise it to a statement if you or User:Black Kite filed the RfAr before I did. Now we wait to see whether ArbCom takes it, or whether they throw it back to the community, in which case the dispute takes the form of an RFC to change the MOS, and then maybe the decapitalization cadre filibusters the discussion of the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:36, 27 June 2025 (UTC)
Sometimes, teamwork doesn't require co-ordination, just support. Thanks for the effort, regardless of outcome. -- asilvering (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

You are not the main pop girl

I actually feel cringed when you say "I was about to write to Sandstein to say that maybe their warning to you had been a little harsh" like we all know you are NOT thinking like that. You just want to jump into the drama. Not to mention that you are trying to threaten me with your out of scope warning. Nice try but it's giving pick me behavior. And you call yourself system analyst. GogoLion (talk) 07:35, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

User:GogoLion - I did write that to Sandstein, and then I saw your comment before I hit the Publish button. I have known for forty years that one should not hit the Send or Post button until one has reviewed what one has written. I have been subject to occasional personal attacks in Wikipedia for twenty years, and have learned to ignore most of them. I am not ignoring the use of large language models in Wikipedia. Their use is prohibited. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Deletion review of Liz Lamere

Thanks for doing this, I was not aware of Deletion Review so put up my concerns on the incidents noticeboard. I generally let events take their course with articles I've put up at AfD, but this one was a step too far.TheLongTone (talk) 15:26, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day!

Hey, Robert McClenon. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee!
Have a great day! DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk) 02:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Happy Wikibirthday!

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, drinks or coffee ᶻ 𝗓 𐰁 ₍ᐢ. .ᐢ₎ 15:14, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Questions about dispute resolutions

Thanks for reviewing my post on the noticeboard about the Bengal monitor article! It was my first time posting, so I wasn't familiar with the process. When you rejected it for not having "listed" the other user, do you mean that I didn't put both mine and their name under "Users involved"? Also, after I notify them on their talk page, do I have to wait for a reply?

Also, I'm a little confused about which avenue I should take to ask for help. The Dispute Resolution Noticeboard says to only post there when there a lengthy discussion has occurred, but the other user frequently only makes a brief reply to any criticisms made before refusing to engage any further. They are also continuing to make a large number of content edits, most of which I disagree with but have been discouraged from disputing due to lack of engagement in previous disputes. Do you think the DRN is still the appropriate place to seek help then? Bloopityboop (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Bloopityboop - Yes, I mean that you should put the name(s) of any other user(s) under your name in "Users involved", and notify them on their talk page. You do not need to wait for a reply. The volunteer at DRN will wait for them to reply. Your responsibility is to list them and notify them. You ask what is the right forum. If there has been any discussion at all, DRN is usually a reasonable forum. There isn't always a right answer with users who don't engage, but in the specific case, DRN is all right. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Bloopityboop (talk) 19:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 15:30, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Bonnie Blue (actress) 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 (talk|botop) 22:35, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

Jel 5th statement

Do you intend to respond? Logoshimpo (talk) 22:09, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Scott Foster (engineer)

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 23:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Akan language/RFC

why would you instruct us to make comments and then revert them as premature? — kwami (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Kwamikagami - I meant to comment in the DRN. I will make that clearer in the future. I do not want editors commenting in a draft RFC before it is launched unless I request edits to finalize the RFC. I didn't mean to comment in the RFC, but I can see that it wasn't clear. You may comment in the three RFCs now. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:46, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Michael Jackson DRN case

Hi Robert McClenon, thank you for moderating the Michael Jackson DRN case. I've closed the NPOVN discussion to allow the case to continue. While reading through the case discussion, I noticed that TruthGuardians had posted an obviously LLM-generated comment and I collapsed it. If this is inconsistent with DRN protocols, of if you would like to address this in a different way, please feel free to undo my collapsing of the comment. TruthGuardians had been warned by Rosguill, and acknowledged the warning by deleting it. — Newslinger talk 23:34, 18 July 2025 (UTC)

Upon further investigation, I have indefinitely topic banned TruthGuardians from all pages related to Michael Jackson per the general sanctions procedure, as they have posted other LLM-generated comments on both the DRN case and Talk:Michael Jackson, including two LLM-generated comments (Special:Diff/1300479016 and Special:Diff/1300505788) that fabricated DRN rules. — Newslinger talk 00:42, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
In the course of that discussion, user Wallby admitted to using AI, not TruthGuardians. There is no evidence TruthGuardians used AI to type his comments. Per his Wiki bio, he has degrees in politics, history, and technology. He knows how to word and structure comments in a more academical manner. AI did not invent this! Israell (talk) 02:00, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Thank you, User:Newslinger, for closing the NPOVN discussion so that I can resume moderating the DRN discussion. I think that everyone except the two users who were using artificial intelligence agreed that we didn't want a discussion at NPOVN about an analysis of the Michael Jackson article relying in artificial intelligence. I agree with your action in collapsing their posts and labeling them as AI-written, and have changed the box around Wallby's post to the box for AI output. At some point, I will add a rule to the banner instructions for DRN saying that output from artificial intelligence may not be used, even if labeled as such. I think that what will happen at DRN is that I will compose a neutrally worded RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I think that Wallby and I have different ideas about how to deal with a discussion that is lengthy and inconclusive. They wanted to move it to a forum where there are sometimes lengthy and inconclusive discussions. I try to focus the discussions by asking (several times, if necessary) exactly what each editor wants to change in the article, which often results in an RFC, which is also a lengthy process, but it usually isn't inconclusive because it results in closure.
I will resume moderating the DRN discussion. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:12, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
Israell, TruthGuardians's comments exhibited multiple signs of AI writing, including but not limited to the use of Markdown syntax in Special:Diff/1300479016 and the use of an improperly formatted list in Special:Diff/1299454790.
There are two possible explanations for TruthGuardians's fabrication of DRN rules in Special:Diff/1300479016 and Special:Diff/1300505788: either TruthGuardians used an LLM that hallucinated a nonexistent rule, or TruthGuardians intentionally lied about the rules. The LLM explanation is the more charitable of the two, and the fact that the first comment contained Markdown syntax confirms that it was an LLM that generated the false claim. The topic ban is warranted either way. — Newslinger talk 02:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
User:Israell, User:Newslinger - My talk page is not the forum to discuss the sanction against User:TruthGuardians. WP:AN is. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:21, 19 July 2025 (UTC)
I actually acknowledged it by thanking the editor through edit history before deleting it. TruthGuardians (talk) 02:40, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Agent Carter (TV series)

Hi Robert, the RFC at Talk:Agent Carter (TV series) seems to have ended. Are you able to close it and confirm the outcome? I would be bold and do it myself, but since it came from a dispute resolution discussion I figured we should keep the closing neutral. Thanks, adamstom97 (talk) 09:13, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Era Tak (July 20)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Robert McClenon was:
This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.
 The comment the reviewer left was:
Several of the sources, including IMDB, Goodreads, and YouTube, are not reliable sources. Please remove the unreliable sources before resubmitting.
Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.
Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)
Teahouse logo
Hello, Robert McClenon! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

Hi Robert, thank you for your notice to let the users know about the notice on their talk page. Having spoken with Graham Beards about this, I think it best to withdraw from trying to seek a resolution in such a personal capacity because I don't want to reignite Saturday's discussion. I am curious as to whether there is any clear guidance as to what constitutes bias when it comes to offering a third opinion, but I think it would be for the best to keep this as an informal discussion either here (if I can previal on you to do so!) or elsewhere.

On another note: in the last couple of days, I've done a bit of research into sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry, which I hadn't previously come across when editing. I am not accusing Graham of this whatsoever, but I do notice that this has been an issue with the other mentioned editor in the past, and that some of the people involved in the discussion on The Importance of Being Earnest are often to be seen supporting one another in their talk pages and articles they've collaborated on. I'm not trying to go behind their backs here, but to raise a concern I'm having - that, as longstanding editors who have been bestowed with administrative privileges and extensively worked on FAs together, this group of editors is able to construct an artificial consensus and support one another's actions implicitly, making other editors feel unwelcome and unable to contribute. This behaviour goes along with incivility levied against junior editors, and as far as I can make out, this kind of behaviour has been going on for at least a decade. I am not sure whether this is something to follow up on via dispute resolution or if it should go WP:ANI - I am not concerned about the incivility levied against me so much as entering into the record that this has taken place; in a short space of time I managed to find a fair few reports of a very similar nature involving the same people, and I'm sure there are many more cases that were never lodged.

I just want to reiterate that I am in no way rehashing my complaints against Graham Beards, who I understand was acting in good faith. I'm more asking what you believe, as a volunteer with experience in this area, is the best way forward for lodging this complaint. Thanks for your time, Becsh (talk) 20:15, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Pavin Chachavalpongpun 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (talk|botop) 14:32, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Regarding Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Himarë

Hi,

I noticed your comment stating:

"The filing unregistered editor has made two statements on the article talk page, but the other editor has not yet answered. Those two posts were made only a few hours ago. Wait for the other editor to answer, and then discuss."

I think you have probably overseen, that the user decided to not engage in the Discussion, but rather reverted the edits for the second time, despite me inviting him to comment there on the Talk apge! Can you please take a look at the resolution again?

I don't think they are going to engage anyway! 2A02:908:1990:15E0:DC64:C5D6:4BDB:F1A8 (talk) 17:43, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Participation in DRN is voluntary. If the other editor does not engage, the other editor is also not likely to participate in discussion at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:55, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
So, how else is this going to be resolved, if not even Dispute Resolution works? Should I engage daily in edit warring with that user like children? 2A02:908:1990:15E0:DC64:C5D6:4BDB:F1A8 (talk) 17:59, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon Also I wasn't refering to DRN on my comment regarding their engagement, but rather on the Article Talk page! 2A02:908:1990:15E0:DC64:C5D6:4BDB:F1A8 (talk) 18:01, 22 July 2025 (UTC)
First, register an account. Second, read the Failure to Discuss essay. Third, do not edit-war. Do not try to game the 3RR rule, because that will probably result in the page being semi-protected. That is another reason to register an account. Fourth, try posting to their user talk page. This may be ignored, but it is unlikely to do any harm if you are not too persistent. Fifth, some editors ignore comments by unregistered editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2025 (UTC)

Possible Canvassing at RfC

Hi, Robert. I pinged you and a couple of other editors in regard to possible canvassing at an RfC on the Michael Jackson article talk page. The editor in question even mass-pinged all those editors (a total of 18), incl. uninvolved editors and dormant accounts, above your opening RfC statement. Could you please have a look? Israell (talk) 22:21, 24 July 2025 (UTC) User:Israell - I have reported this controversy about canvassing at WP:ANI so as to let other editors figure out what to do. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Use Fooian English

Template:Use Fooian English has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:35, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Transgender healthcare and people arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 11, 2025 at 23:59 UTC, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Transgender healthcare and people/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 06:52, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Next steps?

Hello, I'm just wondering what should be done now that the DRN MJ case is closed. What is the right way to proceed with other article concerns? I do want to take a break from this for a while, yet when I am willing to go forth with another issue, what is the proper thing to do in terms of procedure? Hammelsmith (talk) 17:00, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

User:Hammelsmith - If you want to take a break from this, take a break from this. I would rather not give advice about what to do in the future, because I don't know what the situation will be in the future. At this time, you may discuss any article issues on the talk pages of the articles. Either I don't understand your question, or your question is premature. If you have a specific question at this time, please ask it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:11, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

I suppose my specific question would be going forward with a similar concern on the *1993 Michael Jackson sexual abuse allegations* page. Normally the procedure is Talk, then DRN, etc. I just wondered if there would be any extra issues because I mentioned a concern with that very article on the last DRN? Perhaps that doesn't matter, though. I see that you're right about this being a premature inquiry, because I dearly want to take a break. When the time comes, I'll carry on as best I can. Thank you for your guidance & assistance to us during the last few weeks. Hammelsmith (talk) 17:26, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

George D. Ellsworth

Good evening, Robert McClenon, I am wondering why you nominated my page for deletion as I created it for a family member who is also related to another famous family member and would like you to explain why it's getting deleted. Is there anyway you can unnominate my page for deletion or help me stop it from getting deleted as I put a lot of work into it and was still going to add more. I would also like to add in just starting to do Wikipedia edits and page creations so this would be useful info. Thanks, Logan LoganPollard331 (talk) 00:50, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

User:LoganPollard331 - First, I assumed that you had created it for a late family member who is related to another late famous family member. That doesn't address Wikipedia's policy on notability. The family member whom Mr. Lincoln mourned is very likely notable. His grandfather is not. Wikipedia isn't for articles about the ancestors of its editors, unless the ancestors are notable by having been described by reliable sources. I don't intend to withdraw the nomination or to request that the article be kept. You can participate in the deletion discussion and ask that the article be kept, but the other editors taking part in the deletion discussion will almost certainly explain Wikipedia policy and say that we do not keep articles about non-notable people. You can ask at the Teahouse for an explanation of why your article is about to be deleted, but I am reasonably sure that the editors there will politely and clearly restate the policies that I have mentioned. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
So you can't unnominate the article. I put a lot of work into the article and your definition of notable might be different then mine. I don't see why you can't just keep it. Sorry for being annoying but I don't understand why you HAVE to delete and can't just keep it. I don't think there is a problem if it's kept right .LoganPollard331 (talk) 01:47, 31 July 2025 (UTC)
User:LoganPollard331 - Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, and what you call my definition of notability is my interpretation of the community's definition of notability. The purpose of the deletion discussion is to determine whether other editors agree with my interpretation of whether the article passes or does not pass notability. I think that I will let the editors at the Teahouse provide any more explanation. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:29, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on 168th Street Bus Terminal

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on 168th Street Bus Terminal is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, 168th Street Bus Terminal 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, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

"In-house CTOPs"

Yes, I considered the utility in dealing with trouble-makers. The thing is, even compared with "external CTOPs", it shouldn't be necessary for us to have this CTOPs in the first place - this is something we manage entirely, a conflict that comes from people on Wiki. We can also look at whether it being a CTOP is actually having the effect we would like. FOARP (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2025 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Albo

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

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

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz Read! Talk! 22:33, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC on settler colonialism

Hi Robert, The Talk:2025 Pahalgam attack#RFC on "Settler Colonialism" in Background Section that you had installed, got archived a couple of days ago, and I rescued it. Would you like to close it, or can you ask someone to do so? Thanks. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:05, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Okay, User:Kautilya3. It looks to me on a quick examination like No Consensus, and I don't want to make a contentious close of an RFC that I launched, so I have made the close request at Requests for Closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Amouranth 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 (talk|botop) 23:30, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Gabriel García Márquez 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 (talk|botop) 04:30, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Flag of Bangladesh 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) 01:18, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

Pinged by a paid editor

Being asked by a paid editor (who appears to have forgotten about their client(!)) for a pre-review is something I find a step too far. You have been pinged likewise. I have declined, and left them a message on their user talk page. You may take a different view. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 19:49, 14 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Timtrent - She is not only a paid editor, but a Beutler paid editor. I will never assist a Beutler paid editor after the Spintendo episode, where Beutler reported a volunteer editor to WP:ANI for declining too many of their edit requests. I will reply at some point within the next 36 hours, after I decide what an appropriate reply is. This has made me think that I will look up that case just to refresh my memory. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I didn't think that my reaction would be even harsher than yours until I saw who her employer is. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:32, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Timtrent - See [1]. I wasn't very friendly to them, either at WP:ANI or in the DRN case that was mentioned, but I had no obligation to be friendly to them, only to be civil. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:05, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
We only are required to be civil. It is not necessary to be friendly, though I practice militant friendliness when I need to. My heart was already hardened to poor paid editors. I have now gone up a notch on the Mohs scale to Corundum for this one. I have one notch further I can go.
I'll look at the ANI thread with interest 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:15, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
I have looked. I can only say "Good Grief!" 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 23:23, 14 August 2025 (UTC)
Were you able to read it in spite of it having been garbled? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:43, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
If you mean the link I 'de-garbled' it. It's amazing how quickly they have become people I have no interest in. Such entitlement! 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 13:49, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
Yes. When I found the case, I discovered that it was worse than I remembered. I replied to the Beutler editor that I will never assist a Beutler editor after they put Spintendo on report at WP:ANI for issues with the assistance that he tried to provide them. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:13, 15 August 2025 (UTC)
I think that covered it. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 16:48, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

History merge with a single author

I declined your request for a merge with a draft where there had only been a single author editing the draft that was pasted into mainspace. If you feel I am in error please revert me. I have been told when I requested similar merges that this is a special case (sole editor) where the attribution trail is intact, albeit truncated, and ths not required. YMMV 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 14:00, 15 August 2025 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Khwarizmi 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.

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 15:31, 19 August 2025 (UTC)

Request For Comments in Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction

The Request For Comments thing at Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction has been archived: [2]. What happens now? There have been no external comments at least in this page. Also we need to bring up the numbers issue I brought up about the deaths during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913). John Not Real Name (talk) 11:17, 21 August 2025 (UTC)

Notification

Notification Kabul madras (talk) 02:47, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at [[Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Editors of the Ba 'Alawi sada page are rejecting alternative views on the claims within it.
]] and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks, Kabul madras (talk) 02:48, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

The case request (permalink) has been removed as premature because the AN/I thread remains pending, it does not appear that the community will be unable to resolve the dispute, and the underlying content dispute is beyond the scope of the Arbitration Committee. ~ Jenson (SilverLocust 💬) 07:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on Definition of life

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Definition of life is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Definition of life 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, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Some help please

Good day and I hope all is well. Draft:Mariko Kurata is continually being submitted even though it has been rejected twice. Firstly, how is it even possible to submit to AfC after a rejection? Secondly, would it be acceptable eventually to send the article to WP:MfD if the author refuses to stop submitting it? Spiderone(Talk to Spider) 09:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Spiderone - I almost missed your question, and will answer within an hour. I apologize for the delay. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:32, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
User:Spiderone - As to the first question, that is a technical question about why the script permits the rejected article to be resubmitted. I will raise that question at the AFC talk page. The answer to your second question is that drafts that are resubmitted after rejection are normally sent to MFD, so I have sent the draft to MFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:47, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2025 Backlog drive

September 2025 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
  • On 1 September 2025, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled.
  • Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive.
  • Each review will earn 1 point.
  • Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:32, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

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

(trialing replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 01:30, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliable sources: News agencies vs. personal websites

Hi Robert, I hope you're doing well. I had a question about sourcing on Wikipedia: If someone's achievements and job title are confirmed by multiple news agencies, is it acceptable to also cite their personal website for basic facts? And are English-language sources strictly required, or can reliable non-English sources be used? I'd appreciate your insight. Thanks! VeritasFlow (talk) 21:11, 25 August 2025 (UTC)

User:VeritasFlow - Read the policy on verifiability, which is the basis of the requirements for sources. The second question is easier to answer than the first, which is that the policy on non-English sources allows the use of non-English sources. I am wondering about how you have worded the first question, because it seems in particular to be referring to a resume or to someone's role in a corporation. However, see the policy on self-published sources, which is that a personal web site indicates what a person says about themself. That does not mean that we know whether it is true. Is there a specific article or question that you are asking about? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:31, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation, Robert. I wasn’t referring to a resume specifically, just wondering how we handle basic biographical info like someone's job title or role, especially when it's only mentioned on their personal website. I’ll check the self published sources policy more carefully. Appreciate the guidance. VeritasFlow (talk) 18:33, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Your Articles for Creation review on Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters

Hello Robert McClenon. This is a reminder that your Articles for Creation review on Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters is still marked as ongoing for over forty-eight hours. After seventy-two hours, Nasha Jurm Aur Gangsters 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, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

RfC in Talk:Persecution of Muslims during the Ottoman contraction

Hello. This RfC has expired [3]

If you want, you can request closure as discussed in Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_260#Persecution_of_Muslims_during_the_Ottoman_contraction. Otherwise, I'll go ahead with the request myself. Bogazicili (talk) 14:46, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Bogazicili - I didn't think I should close it, so I have listed it for closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:40, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Thanks! Listing for closure was also what I had meant. Bogazicili (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I asked about this a couple days ago. What happened? John Not Real Name (talk) 18:01, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
User:John Not Real Name - I saw your message and then was distracted. So now I have responded to both of you by asking a fourth party to close the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Okay. What does this entail? Why is it happening? John Not Real Name (talk) 18:51, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
User:John Not Real Name - Why is what happening? Why has the RFC been concluded? Because it ran for thirty days. Why have I requested closure of the RFC? Because there was disagreement in the responses to the RFC, so a formal closure is needed to determine what was rough consensus of the community. Is the process working the way it is intended to work? Yes. This is how content disputes are supposed to be resolved if discussion or compromise does resolve the issue. What does this entail? Another editor, with no involvement with the issue, will read the list of Requests for Closure and will decide to close the RFC, and will read the discussion at the RFC, and the article, and any background material, and assess what the consensus of the community was. That will be a formal closure. The procedure is discussed further at Requests for Comments, and you can ask questions at the Requests for Comments talk page. Do you have any more questions? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
I just want to take this space to Thank You for being professional, courteous and generous despite my enervating amateurism. I consider it a beau geste. We still have not addressed the issue of the death figure during the Balkan Wars (1912-1913) according to Justin McCarthy. I brought up how the figure of 5,000,000 is reached by including dead and emigrated during the Balkan Wars and that 632,000 is the actual figure for him not 1,450,000. This is not based on my assuming he himself writes as much in the very book and in other books of his as does Kemal Hasim Karpat as reviewer. When can that be resolved? John Not Real Name (talk) 19:20, 26 August 2025 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon/Archive_53&oldid=1318777340"