User talk:Robert McClenon

Other archives
Problem Archive
Famekeeper Archive
FuelWagon Archive
Jack User Archive
John Carter Archive Why was my notcieboard post closed? I desperately need your mediation help?
PhiladelphiaInjustice Archive
78 Archive
DIRECTIVEA113 Archive

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Rupert Sheldrake 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 02:30, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 23:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Unexplained notability tagging

Hi, I'd like to know your rationale for tagging Skyblivion as lacking notability. It has a lot of references, probably too many for the info the article actually has. If you think it should be merged that is not actually a notability issue, although I believe it has sufficient sources to be standalone. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 20:45, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Zxcvbnm - I made a very quick (and maybe hasty) decision to tag it, primarily because it is an upcoming game and so may be too soon for a stand-alone article. I will take another look and comment further shortly. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:48, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the close paraphrasing tag, which was a click error on my part. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:50, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay. I will have to ask for you to please be more judicial in tagging articles in the future, as it can be highly confusing to both new and experienced editors if an article is randomly tagged. There is nothing wrong with an article for an upcoming game if it has gotten a lot of pre-release coverage. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 05:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Zxcvbnm - I wasn't tagging it randomly, but I have untagged it. I would prefer to see a guideline that upcoming games, like upcoming films, are seldom notable until release, but I will accept the choices of the community. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:GNG only requires prolonged significant coverage, not for something to actually exist as a product. Previews and critical opinions still count, even pre-release. That's why numerous vaporware games still have articles. The development process in and of itself was notable. I'd keep that in mind. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 06:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Al-Bayan (radio station) 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 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you

Metro2fsb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Metro2fsb Metro2fsb (talk) 05:53, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Metro2fsb has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

because a man can never have to many cookies. Metro2fsb (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Page moves

Since page moves advice is off-topic for the article page, I'll provide a couple of hints here:

• First off, on the technical side, I'd recommend that you install the following pageswap script to your common.js (I presume you have WP:PAGEMOVER permission), which will propose and execute a pageswap in a single click if the target page is blocked:

importScript( 'User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap.js'); // Backlink: [[User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap]] }}

• Generally, I try to keep all the relevant page histories in the mainspace, preferably at some kind of sensible redirects. Alternatively, one can move a redirect with history to the article's subpage. For the case at hand, where both Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović and Nedeljko Čabrinović had substantial history, I would first look for a redirect with trivial history, e.g. Nedeljko Cabrinovic. Then, swap Nedeljko Čabrinović‹›Nedeljko Cabrinovic (moving the old history to the latter) and then Draft:Nedeljko Čabrinović‹›Nedeljko Čabrinović (moving the draft history to mainspace). Sometimes one has to be creative with such solutions. Of course, getting an admin to do a proper HISTMERGE, like Czar did here, would be best. No such user (talk) 17:49, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

User:No such user - You say that alternatively, Alternatively, one can move a redirect with history to the article's subpage. What does that mean? I thought that subpages were not permitted and were disabled in article space. Do you mean something else? If so, what? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Take that with a grain of salt – I think I encountered this technique somewhere, but I do not use it myself (I prefer the "invent a redirect" one). Now that you say that about subpages, you are right – it was probably not in mainspace. No such user (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 14:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Arbitration case Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 opened

Hello Robert McClenon,

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/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 10, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee, ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 21:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I was wondering about DRN?

Hi! I was directed to you to discuss DRN. I was wondering if you could provide some general guidance on how it works precisely? The page discusses building consensus but it doesn't really elaborate on how? Also what distinguishes a DRN from other consensus procedures? For example why did you distinguish the recent breitbart DRN dispute as a 3O? Is 3O also about building consensus but...with less people involved than a DRN? Is there the conception that new users cannot help with DRN also? Thanks in advance for your help Chefs-kiss (talk) 22:47, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Chefs-kiss - I am not entirely sure why you were directed to ask me about DRN. I thank you for working the Breitbart case. You ask about DRN and other dispute resolution procedures. Third Opinion is the most lightweight of dispute resolution procedures, and can be used if there are only two editors in disagreement. If there are three or more editors, Third Opinion is not used, and the request comes to DRN. Some two-editor disputes should also go to DRN, in particular if there may need to be a compromise worked out. That is, if it is just a choice between saying X and saying not-X, by two editors, that can be Third Opinion. If the disagreement is more complex than that, it may need to come to DRN. How DRN works is usually that a volunteer, such as you or me, acts as a mediator or moderator. You might look back through the archives to see how a few cases have been worked, although you will mostly find disputes that were not resolved.

Some alternatives to DRN include 3O, NPOVN, BLPN, and RSN. We do not open a case at DRN if the dispute is being discussed anywhere else. That means that we should check WP:ANI at the least. If a dispute is already at 3O, or a specialized noticeboard (NPOVN, BLPN, RSN), or at a conduct forum such as WP:ANI, we don't take it.

The one consensus-forming procedure for content disputes that is binding on all parties is RFC. We do not take a case if there is a current RFC or if there has recently been an RFC. On the other hand, if moderated discussion here does not result in agreement or compromise, we can start an RFC, and then close the DRN dispute to let the RFC prevail.

I am not aware of a rule imposing a specific minimum or limit of experience for DRN volunteers, but you have to be familiar with policies and guidelines. I wouldn't want to have a specific rule.

Maybe that either will answer your questions or give you enough information to ask other more specific questions. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your help! It really cleared things up as well. I think I will work a bit on 3O just to get some experience! I wish you the best with DRN! Chefs-kiss (talk) 09:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:32, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Ani Notice about 70.164.212.36

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#70.164.212.36 at Burning of Smyrna, DRN and others in which I mentioned you. Heiro 07:16, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Evidence request

Hi Robert McClenon,

The sections "ZaniGiovanni", "Abrvagi" and "Dallavid" at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop currently lack evidence. Please add clear evidence directly supporting these statements, or if not possible, remove them.

Thank you very much in advance. For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:08, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

User:ToBeFree - I was about to strike the findings of fact. I will review the evidence in the remaining time that evidence and the workshop are open to see if I can provide a linkage, but it is likely that I will not spend the time to make the connection, and will let others do that. I was about to strike them, and I see that you deleted them, so I concur. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:08, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

No worries! ~ ToBeFree (talk) 09:58, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 update: Parties added, evidence phase extended

Hello Robert McClenon,

Three parties have been added to the Armenia-Azerbaijan 3 arbitration case. The evidence phase has been extended and will close on February 21, 2023.

Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 21, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Armenia-Azerbaijan 3/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:42, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Tools

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:20, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 09:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

Editing news 2023 #1

Read this in another language • Subscription list for this newsletter

This newsletter includes two key updates about the Editing team's work:

1. The Editing team will finish adding new features to the Talk pages project and deploy it.
2. They are beginning a new project, Edit check.

Talk pages project

Some of the upcoming changes

The Editing team is nearly finished with this first phase of the Talk pages project. Nearly all new features are available now in the Beta Feature for Discussion tools.

It will show information about how active a discussion is, such as the date of the most recent comment. There will soon be a new "Add topic" button. You will be able to turn them off at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing-discussion. Please tell them what you think.

Daily edit completion rate by test group: DiscussionTools (test group) and MobileFrontend overlay (control group)

An A/B test for Discussion tools on the mobile site has finished. Editors were more successful with Discussion tools. The Editing team is enabling these features for all editors on the mobile site.

New Project: Edit Check

The Editing team is beginning a project to help new editors of Wikipedia. It will help people identify some problems before they click "Publish changes". The first tool will encourage people to add references when they add new content. Please watch that page for more information. You can join a conference call on 3 March 2023 to learn more.

–Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:19, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

Recent Chivalry of a Failed Knight RFC

Unsure if I should make a subsection on the talk page, so I'll throw it here first and possibly move it after, but the RFC results aren't consensus as you stated in the closing edit. Per the dispute resolution where I mentioned an RFC would be okay only in the instance it doesn't dismiss the author, you mentioned any closer would consider all options, sources, votes, and discussions to reach a middle ground. Looking at the edit it looks like you only considered votes and dismissed the author outright. Can't just go with large majority for a decision as you leave out what's most important in the author, and what discussion was actually happening in the replies.

Going from the previous discussion above the RFC you said would be considered you have this:

Editors acknowledging male language is okay: Me, Lullabying, Knowledgekid87, Jonchache, Morgan695

Editors acknowledging female language is okay: Cyberweasel89, ThunderPX, SmallJarsWithGreenLabels

Editors acknowledging a mix of male and neutral: Me, Lullabying, Knowledgekid87, Morgan695, AngusWOOF

That outpaces leaving it as female like option A in the RFC.

Looking at the RFC in question we get these:

9/10 in favor for A

4/10 in favor for B

3/10 in favor for C

8/10 in favor for D

Given that discussions for this were also supposed to be given weight I'm going to just not count those who didn't previously discuss or didn't make a comment for the RFC, since they give no reasoning or address any arguments. With that, it leaves it to this:

8/10 in favor for A, though it's more like 7 since previously one of the editors said this was unacceptable above

3/10 in favor for B

2/10 in favor for C

7/10 in favor for D

Key notes are that in A/D editor AngusWOOF goes against those votes in the replies, agreeing to a hybrid of C/D with Arisuin as the name. Editor ThunderPX also puts forth the idea of a compromise (hybrid) layout. Link20XX notes you shouldn't assumed a gender, and wants to defer to official translations (this assumes gender), but that ignores another official translation in the Mandarin release, and goes against the source. SmallJarsWithGreenLabels only wants to acknowledge the translation, ignoring other releases. The narrator discussion ends at the result that regardless of the narrator being all knowing or limited, each character's internal thoughts are using male and neutral language combined for Nagi Arisuin.

Given all the facets together that are supposed to be considered, a hybrid version using only Arisuin in the paragraph, minus the Nagi "Alice" Arisuin for the section beginning, that sticks to neutral language and limits female language to the last bit including a citation link, as laid out by editor AngusWOOF in the replies, would have to be the result. It has the most support between votes, discussion, and the pre-RFC talk page discussions. Using any kind of female language is doing the authoritative statement of a character that was nixed in both the pre-RFC and RFC replies.

Not exactly sure of how you'd want to proceed, but the end result is both not what the actual general agreements reached were, and is the one thing you said would not happen when an RFC was agreed to. Draco Safarius (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

User:Draco Safarius - I have considered your comment and concern, and am not exactly sure what you are asking me to do. Are you asking me to change my close? I am not going to change my close. The consensus was strongly in favor of language that focuses on the gender ambiguity of the character. Are you asking me to set aside my close and return the RFC to awaiting closure? I will do that if one other editor also requests that I set aside the close. I don't plan to revert a close on the request of 1 editor out of 10. You have three choices. The first is of course to leave my close alone and accept that you were in a minority. The second is to request, in a new section on the article talk page, that I reopen the RFC. As I said, I will do that if two editors request it. That would however be likely to result in the reclosing admin also finding a consensus for Option A, with either similar rationale or different rationale. The third is to request a close review at AN. Your call. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Yes I was requesting a close change as per the above descriptions laid out where when you factor in the previous comments and the RFC replies, like you said was the case for agreeing to this, it does not leave it as the majority nor anywhere close to strongly in favor. If any of the other voters were opposed to the discussions previously, or the ones in the replies, then they'd have commented/replied had they anything to add. Given that none of them did so you're left with just their votes, previous discussions, and what others were replying with to the RFC which leaves it as a result of two sections. Only leaving me with the impression you went at it biased since you didn't follow through on saying what an RFC closer does. Draco Safarius (talk) 23:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Closure Review Request notif: ==Notice of noticeboard discussion==

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.Draco Safarius (talk) 00:33, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject 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 12:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Change the route

Hi, can you redirect this wikipedia, thanks https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Draft:D%C5%BEav%C3%A1d_Ramezani 83.122.40.228 (talk) 13:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Talk:People's Mojahedin Organization of Iran 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 19:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Manipulation (psychology)/Characteristics

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

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been 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.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

Hi, can I ask what is the purpose of repeating the same thing ninth time? Are you able to propose any compromise? Marcelus (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if I sounded impertinent, but this simply stems from fatigue with the constant discussions on these topics, which always look the same. That's what the other side's tactics are all about - creating long statements, repeating the same thing over and over again, ignoring responses, unwillingness to find a compromise, etc., simply counting on the opponent's fatigue. Marcelus (talk) 10:41, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

Applied behavior analysis dispute resolution

Hi Robert, I've only just seen that you requested comment on this dispute resolution request, and then closed it down.

I never received any notification that you wanted further comments, which would have been helpful, and for some reason none of the comments on my own dispute resolution request showed up on my watchlist, until your one closing it. Puzzling, because I had previously been alerted there to a lot of discussion about Lithuania!

I did respond to your earlier question, saying I thought moderated discussion might be helpful.

@Sideswipe9th commented on the 27th, specifically asking for a couple of days to catch up and respond.

I appreciate your input, and I will try WikiProject Psychology, but I have to say I'm not sure closing the dispute was the right move here. Oolong (talk) 08:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Oolong - I have looked over the record of the Applied behavior analysis case again, and I am not sure what you think I should have done differently. Are you saying that I should have been aggressive in demanding that you and the other editors say that you needed to sleep on it a few more nights? When you first made a case request, I asked, on 24 February, whether you wanted moderated discussion, or whether you wanted additional editors involved. From your initial statement, it appeared that you didn't have a content dispute, so much as wanting additional editors. You said that you weren't sure, but thought that you wanted outside input. So on 25 February, I asked you and the other editors to read the rules, and the rules state that every editor should check the noticeboard at least every 48 hours and provide some minimal input. I also asked you to state what you thought needed to be changed in the article. On 27 February, after 48 hours had elapsed, I again asked you to state what the article content issue was. I still didn't get an answer after three days. You say that you never received any notification that I wanted further comments. Did you read the rules that said that it was your job to check the noticeboard every 48 hours? It seems that you are saying that you would have liked to have me do a whole lot more work for you. Many of us would like other editors to do a whole lot more work for them.

I wasn't sure that your concern about the article was an article content dispute, so I asked what your issues were with article content. You didn't answer. It seems that you expected me to figure out for you what sort of help you wanted, and to do the work to help you, and to remind you. If I had done that, what would you have said? What would you have said needed changing in the article?

So: Do you have an article content dispute, or do you want other editors to look at the article for possible new ideas or brainstorming? DRN is intended to help resolve article content disputes, usually by mediation or moderated discussion. You haven't really said what you want changed in the article.

Okay. You complained at me, for not taking an article and fixing it when you aren't sure what you want. I have complained at you for giving me a useless complaint. I think that you should decide what sort of assistance you want. If, after more discussion, you have an article content dispute, you can come back to DRN. If you want general advice on the editorial process, maybe you can ask at the Teahouse.

You say that maybe I shouldn't have closed the dispute, but there didn't seem to be a dispute, because the disputes that we work with have to do with the content of the article. You say that maybe I shouldn't have closed the dispute, but you didn't say what you wanted. I am ready to reopen a dispute if it appears to be something other than "We want help, but we aren't sure what sort of help we want."

Let me know what you want. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

I created Beatriz García first

I created Draft:Beatriz García on November 2022 before Beatriz García as the editors literally copied my work so I feel the draft should at least be merged into Beatriz García. I have started this discussion on Talk:Beatriz García Dwanyewest (talk) 07:15, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Dwanyewest - I have tagged the article to have history merged from the draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 16:31, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (conflicts and protests) 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 18:30, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Re: Surfskating versus Carveboarding

Hi Robert, you left a comment on my Surfskating draft: Draft:Surfskating

You asked me to differentiate between surfskating and carveboarding, which I have done. The Carveboarding article shouldn't even be on here, because that only refers to a specific product that is no longer in production.

Thank you! Beehiel (talk) 14:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

A reply to your comment on Draft:Typhoon Jelawat (2018)

A consensus has not been made because no one had replied to my previous topic in the parent article's talk page. There hasn't been a comment in the talk page since October 2019 because of the WikiProject members moving onto the next season, which is why no one had replied yet. The guidelines in notability of tropical cyclones are listed here. I created another topic about the draft as a second attempt. luis 💬 16:14, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

World War II and the history of Jews in Poland: Arbitration case opened

Hello Robert McClenon,

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/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 04, 2023, which is when the first evidence phase closes. Submitted evidence will be summarized by Arbitrators and Clerks at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II and the history of Jews in Poland/Evidence/Summary. Owing to the summary style, editors are encouraged to submit evidence in small chunks sooner rather than more complete evidence later.

Details about the summary page, the two phases of evidence, a timeline and other answers to frequently asked questions can be found at the case's FAQ page.

For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

For the Arbitration Committee,
~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:13, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

A sockpuppet posting about sockpuppets
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
SM City Sorsogon history now Socks the time is 2024 @Robert McClenon ok and rename to (mall) 119.95.127.183 (talk) 09:50, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Userbox

Your preposition userbox gave me a good laugh. Born25121642 (talk) 10:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Request on 05:20:34, 17 March 2023 for assistance on AfC submission by Ghdfghmp

• Ghdfghmp (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:National Beach Soccer Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Thank you for deleting the draft. I could not do it but now it looks like it has been fixed!

User:Ghdfghmp - I didn't delete the draft. This was a case of blank and redirect. I only cut down the draft to a redirect to the article. That is a preferred procedure for drafts when an article also exists. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Ghdfghmp (talk) 05:20, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Declined draft

Hello @Robert McClenon,

Thank you for the feedback! (Draft:Internet of Everything)

I would like to ask a question... I was actually trying to make a stub (not an article) because IoE is not the same as IoT.

The information I used is not useful to start a stub?

How could I create an IoE stub?

Thank you once again! best regards. Idividual1967 (talk) 12:15, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:User:Idividual1967 - Try discussing at the talk page, Talk:Internet of Things, to ask whether they think the topics are separate and whether a stub for IoE is in order. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply! Best regards. Idividual1967 (talk) 11:34, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Your close of Roald Dahl

Hi, you wrote in your close[1] that No one has objected to changing the heading. Well, in fact I did[2], and not sure why you decided to overlook it. The issue is not whether the quoted remark was anti-Semitic; it perhaps was. The issue is whether a person can be accused, in Wikipedia voice, of anti-Semitism, additionally based on a single remark they made in their lifetime. While sources are free to write whatever they wish, us, we must always source such serious accusations instead of presenting them in Wikipedia voice. Hence my objection to the wording in the heading.

So, no, there was no consensus on this.

Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 20:31, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri - I have reread the discussion, and I see that I sort of overlooked what you had written, and that I partly agree and partly disagree. I don't think that having a subsection in the Controversies section about anti-Semitic remarks is stating, in the voice of Wikipedia, that Dahl was anti-Semitic. It is stating that there is controversy about remarks that he made that some consider anti-Semitic. I can understand why you think that the heading makes that statement in the voice of Wikipedia, but I disagree. I also note that you didn't dispute my comment that no one had objected to the change until after I had closed the dispute. So I see three options that you can take, going forward:

1. Discuss on the article talk page, Talk:Roald Dahl.
2. Submit a Request for Comments.
3. Do nothing.

Your call.

Robert McClenon (talk) 20:50, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

OK thanks. No. 3 I suppose. While it annoys me that slightest criticism of Israel's policy is instantly labelled anti-Semitism by some,[3][4] it's not a hill I want to die on, if I may put it that way. — kashmīrī ^TALK 21:27, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Kashmiri - He isn't being labeled as anti-Semitic by his detractors because of what he said about the State of Israel. His remarks about the Jewish people are labeled as anti-Semitic by his detractors. At least, that is the way I read between the lines. That doesn't mean that he was anti-Semitic, but it is why some of his remarks are considered by his detractors to be anti-Semitic rather than merely anti-Israeli. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

That's semantics. "X's speech supported Communism" and "X supported Communism" mean essentially the same for the average reader, next being "X was a Communist". Same with Dahl's remarks: they have already been used to turn Dahl into an "abhorrent" anti-Semite.[5]. I think Wikipedia should try not to play a role in that.

Anyhow, leaving now for other commitments. Regards, — kashmīrī ^TALK 12:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Regarding the declining of my draft

Hello and I’m sorry if I haven’t worked on Draft:Giorno Giovanna for many days, quite busy with my personal life. So, when tou explained the reasoning of why my draft is declined, should I discussed with fellow users if Giorno Giovanna is deserving of his own article, especially that when I looked in the history of his article, it was suddenly cut to a redirect with no discussion. Is that what I’m supposed to do? Lovelyquirks1 (talk) 13:33, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Draft:Tyler Toney

Hi this is Cdelapp. Sorry to bother you but could you please help me make my draft ready for submission in any way? I just need to know exactly what I am doing wrong. Preferably I would like to know how many references I need, what ones I have that I can't use, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdelapp (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

User:Cdelapp - As the talk page banner says, if I declined a draft submission, I will probably advise you to seek the advice of other editors at the Teahouse. I am not planning to go through your references in detail. I will repeat that this draft does not explain what reliable sources say about the subject. It says what he or his group say about him, which does not establish notability. If you want a more detailed review, you may ask at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:05, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, thank you. I did ask at the Teahouse. Cdelapp (talk) 15:10, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Cullen's trolls

Probably best to just ignore. -- Deepfriedokra (talk) 01:06, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Of interest?

Indeed. Please see User:Piotrus/Response#1._Lack_of_neutrality - if you haven't, you may find other parts of my rebuttal essay of interest. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:33, 23 March 2023 (UTC)