User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 43
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 40 | Archive 41 | Archive 42 | Archive 43 | Archive 44 | Archive 45 | → | Archive 48 |
A barnstar for you!
|
The Civility Barnstar |
| For your work at dispute resolution. Andre🚐 23:50, 7 October 2022 (UTC) |
- User:Andrevan - Thank you. The latest two disputes, about people in different parts of Eurasia, are frustrating because I don't seem to be able to get the editors to state what they disagree about. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- When I used to work mediations and I had situations like that, in the toughest content disputes, I would go one sentence and even one word at a time until we could figure out where the problem would lie. Andre🚐 00:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- User:Andrewvan - Yes. I know. Or I think I know. And what did you do when they replied to your question about the word by saying, "The article is not NPOV"? Robert McClenon (talk) 00:30, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
- When I used to work mediations and I had situations like that, in the toughest content disputes, I would go one sentence and even one word at a time until we could figure out where the problem would lie. Andre🚐 00:08, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia proposals request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard 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 21:30, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
Mary, quite contrary
Howdy. Did you mean for that RFC of Scotland's Queen Mary I to go into action? or was it just a draft. Because, I believe I may have kicked it into gear. GoodDay (talk) 05:12, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
By all means, delete the RFC from Mary's talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - I moved it to Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots because that is where it belongs. Now that you started it by trying to fix what was not broken, the best solution is just to let it run for 30 days. In the future, if you are only 99% sure that something is broken, maybe you should ask. If you are 100% sure that something you don't understand is broken, maybe you don't understand well enough. I had the nowiki in there for a reason. Now that you took it out, it is best to let it run. Consider this a warning not to try to fix things that only you thing are broken. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I deleted it from there, just now. Since I messed up, it only fair that I'm the one to un-mess it. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - Doubly wrong. Obviously, if you don't know what you are doing, don't try to fix the damage. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- Nevermind. Seeing as you've decided to keep it running (per my original mistake)? I've restored it to Mary's talkpage. I'm never going around it again. GoodDay (talk) 07:26, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - Again, it should have occurred to you that, if you had broken something by trying to fix it, and then knew that you had broken it, maybe you were not the person with the best judgment to decide how to fix it. Removing the warning from your talk page indicates that you have seen it. It gives me no confidence that you have learned a lesson about not messing with things when you don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I messed up what you were putting together. I'll try to remember to never go around anything you're doing, again. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - Thank you for the apology. I don't think that you have quite gotten the message. It isn't just not to go around anything that I am doing. It is not to mess with things that are being worked by other editors who might know what they are doing. You didn't know why I had put the nowiki in, so you assumed, based on your edit summary, that it was a mistake. There were two possible explanations, at least. Either I knew what I was doing, or I didn't know what I was doing. The lesson should have to do with other editors who are doing something that you don't understand that looks strange. Maybe it looks strange because you don't understand. But, seriously, why would an experienced editor put nowiki in the middle of something that was out of the way? Was it more likely that I put it there by mistake, or that I put it there on purpose? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- And, while you are permitted to erase warnings on your talk page, it appears that you are trying to avoid either admitting that you made a mistake or learning from your mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:42, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I messed up what you were putting together. I'll try to remember to never go around anything you're doing, again. GoodDay (talk) 07:38, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:GoodDay - Again, it should have occurred to you that, if you had broken something by trying to fix it, and then knew that you had broken it, maybe you were not the person with the best judgment to decide how to fix it. Removing the warning from your talk page indicates that you have seen it. It gives me no confidence that you have learned a lesson about not messing with things when you don't understand. Robert McClenon (talk) 07:34, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
- I deleted it from there, just now. Since I messed up, it only fair that I'm the one to un-mess it. GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Draft: Underage smoking in Australia
I wrote this article. All information was taken from official reports of the Australian government, I put all references in my article.
If you have any suggestions, please, share them with me so I can improve my article.
Thank you in advance Jalapeno guacamole (talk) 18:02, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Foreskin 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 23:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Discretionary sanctions review: proposed decision and community review
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process. The Proposed Decision phase of the discretionary sanctions review process has now opened. A five-day public review period for the proposed decision, before arbitrators cast votes on the proposed decision, is open through November 18. Any interested editors are invited to comment on the proposed decision talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:56, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Nike
Hey, uh, about the nike film? The production on it was finished by September 2022. That doesn’t mean you would denied the request even if it goes by the rules. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 01:37, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Tropical Storm Colin
The article you approved maybe a month ago is under an AFD. I have already replied to the discussion, but I was just letting you know the discussion exists. Sorry if this is annoying to you.
P.S. Not sure why it is under an AFD, because if you approved it, it would be pretty notable.
Hurricane Su (talk) 02:55, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Hurricane Su - I haven't looked at it yet, but there are two conflicting viewpoints about tropical storm coverage, and part of the problem is that the editors with each viewpoint think that the guidelines are clear, when they obviously are not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Part of the problem is that some of our younger users think that any named tropical storm in the Atlantic are kool, notable for an article as it existed, without stopping and thinking about the bigger picture or looking at the notability guidelines that WPWX and WPTC have written down over the years. We also have to remember that we have to keep the notability criteria for tropical cyclones rather broad as minimum deaths or damages does not work, as there have been names retired for not killing anyone or causing any damage.Jason Rees (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- T
- Part of the problem is that some of our younger users think that any named tropical storm in the Atlantic are kool, notable for an article as it existed, without stopping and thinking about the bigger picture or looking at the notability guidelines that WPWX and WPTC have written down over the years. We also have to remember that we have to keep the notability criteria for tropical cyclones rather broad as minimum deaths or damages does not work, as there have been names retired for not killing anyone or causing any damage.Jason Rees (talk) 16:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Hurricane Su - I haven't looked at it yet, but there are two conflicting viewpoints about tropical storm coverage, and part of the problem is that the editors with each viewpoint think that the guidelines are clear, when they obviously are not. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- @Hurricane Su (talk page watcher) It is at AfD because the nominator chose to nominate it for deletion. The fact that ity was accepted by an AFC reviewer is interesting, but irrelevant to its subsequent fate. The reviewers are guided to accept those drafts which in their view have a better than 50% chance of surviving an immediate deletion process. The discussion will show whether it does. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:23, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- Ok Hurricane Su (talk) 23:31, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
eBPF draft
Hello @Robert McClenon, not sure if the right place is to discuss here or in the Draft:EBPF page under your review comment. Either way, given Berkeley Packet Filter and Draft:EBPF are very different from each other in terms of capabilities, use cases and runtimes, a separate page is very much preferred. One of the long-time editors of Berkeley Packet Filter replied under your comment in the draft. Jasonbar3121 (talk) 10:56, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
Request on 02:01:16, 23 November 2022 for assistance on AfC submission by Xanman2112
- Xanman2112 (talk · contribs)
|
Robert, get a clue... the Mt. Pegiewasset page was created BECAUSE somebody saw my post and decided it was best served under that name. Do you get off on telling people they are "rejected" because you didn't do you research? Get a life my friend! Hope you discover pussy soon as you need it! Xanman2112 (talk) 02:01, 23 November 2022 (UTC) |
Recent dispute resolution close
I don't know why you said I didn't notify everyone, because I did. CT55555 (talk) 17:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:CT55555 - It appears that we had a race condition. Your notifications to the other editors were between six and eight minutes before I closed the dispute. However, by the time that you began notifying the editors, I had already begun writing the close message. The notification did not address the main problem with the case, which is that DRN does not handle a dispute over the name of an article or whether the article should exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see. This was my first time to use dispute resolution, so I was carefully trying to do the notifications, and I did do them within minutes. I wasn't sure if I did something wrong, or if you just missed it. It's at WP:AFD now. Thanks for your explanation. If you could edit the statement to mention that I did do the notifications, I'd like that, as I've been accused of doing things improperly about that page already and I'm trying to do everything properly, but this request is not critical, so no big deal either way. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:CT55555 = I have crossed out the statement that you did not provide the notifications, and have explained in the edit summary. 21:03, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see. This was my first time to use dispute resolution, so I was carefully trying to do the notifications, and I did do them within minutes. I wasn't sure if I did something wrong, or if you just missed it. It's at WP:AFD now. Thanks for your explanation. If you could edit the statement to mention that I did do the notifications, I'd like that, as I've been accused of doing things improperly about that page already and I'm trying to do everything properly, but this request is not critical, so no big deal either way. All the best. CT55555 (talk) 20:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:CT55555 - It appears that we had a race condition. Your notifications to the other editors were between six and eight minutes before I closed the dispute. However, by the time that you began notifying the editors, I had already begun writing the close message. The notification did not address the main problem with the case, which is that DRN does not handle a dispute over the name of an article or whether the article should exist. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:45, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
Pleased to see your candidacy at AC
Some years ago I put myself forward, though a sudden change in personal circumstances meant I had to withdraw during the Q&A phase. I also was not (am not) an admin. I do not see being an admin as being necessary, nor did those who encouraged me to stand and whom I had to disappoint 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 17:09, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
- As a reminder, the questions phase is open and there are questions awaiting your answers at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Robert McClenon/Questions. Izno (talk) 01:25, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Izno - Yes, I was in the process of writing my answers to the questions. Some of the questions required archival research. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:48, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Helping out at the dispute resolution noticeboard
Hello!
I have recently become interested in the dispute resolution process, and would like to start helping out at the dispute resolution noticeboard. As an experienced user in the area, I was hoping you may be able to give me a bit of advice regarding the process and moderating my first case. If you're busy and don't have time to help me out at the moment, I don't mind!
Thanks, and good luck with your candidacy at the upcoming ArbCom election! echidnaLives - talk - edits 08:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:EchidnaLives - The best way to learn how to moderate disputes is to watch the moderation of disputes, provided that the process isn't disrupted. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Robert, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee Elections December 2022/Candidates/Robert McClenon/Questions. starship.paint (exalt) 12:29, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Starship.paint - I was in the process of answering the questions. Some of them required archival research. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see, Robert. It is my opinion that a note about that would have helped at the time, lest editors wonder why you were editing on other areas of Wikipedia without a response. starship.paint (exalt) 03:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Starship.paint - I thought about that, but didn't think there was an obvious place to put the note. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:32, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- I see, Robert. It is my opinion that a note about that would have helped at the time, lest editors wonder why you were editing on other areas of Wikipedia without a response. starship.paint (exalt) 03:54, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Starship.paint - I was in the process of answering the questions. Some of them required archival research. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Pramod Kumar Yadav
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
A tag has been placed on Draft:Pramod Kumar Yadav, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and Wikipedia:FAQ/Organizations for more information.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Liz Read! Talk! 19:22, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
- This is a different situation where Twinkle couldn't figure out who the originator was. I had created a redirect. The redirect had the same name as a new user, who hijacked it for an autobiography, which Liz has properly tagged for G11. I have notified the real originator. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:40, 25 November 2022 (UTC)
Reviews
In general, two reviews are needed. For Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Savings Account (2022 film), you wouldn't have changed your vote based on this The Times of India review, right? Couldn't find much Bengali sources (only one found was based on a poster). DareshMohan (talk) 03:55, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:DareshMohan - I might have changed my vote based on that one review. That article has been deleted; it appears that you found the review just about at the time that the seven days were finished. I suggest that you write a draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- It's ok - that takes a lot of effort. Out of curiosity, can past AFDs be reopened? DareshMohan (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:DareshMohan - I have restored this message so that I can reply to it. The answer is yes, sometimes. You can ask for review of the AFD at Deletion Review. There are a list of reasons that you can request review of a deletion, including an error by the closer, and
if significant new information has come to light since a deletion that would justify recreating the deleted page
. I think that the review falls under the heading of significant new information. I think that the most likely result would be that you would be told to prepare a draft for review. It might be useful to read the introductory material at Deletion Review. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 27 November 2022 (UTC)- Thank you so much for the clarity, opened a deletion review. DareshMohan (talk) 20:14, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:DareshMohan - I have restored this message so that I can reply to it. The answer is yes, sometimes. You can ask for review of the AFD at Deletion Review. There are a list of reasons that you can request review of a deletion, including an error by the closer, and
- It's ok - that takes a lot of effort. Out of curiosity, can past AFDs be reopened? DareshMohan (talk) 04:25, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:DareshMohan - I might have changed my vote based on that one review. That article has been deleted; it appears that you found the review just about at the time that the seven days were finished. I suggest that you write a draft and submit it for review. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:23, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
ACE Eligibility
Hello, I'm just here to inform you that your eligibility to stand as an Arbitration Committee Candidate is in question. Please sign, or announce you intend to sign the NDA. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 19:04, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cyberpower - I will sign the non-disclosure agreement. What is the most straightforward way to do this? May I add a statement to that effect to my candidate statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, you can add that to your candidate statement. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cyberpower - Do I need to revise my statement? I said that I was ready to sign the agreement for access to sensitive data. Do I need to reword that? Robert McClenon (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- Robert and Cyber, I hope you'll indulge me commenting. Robert can I suggest you think about just signing the Access to Non-public Data Policy now? If you run and are elected you can then be immediately be added to the arbcom mailing list rather than waiting for things to be updated. If you aren't elected you're not really bound to anything and you have that checked should you ever do any work which might require it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 28 November 2022 (UTC)
- Sure, you can add that to your candidate statement. —CYBERPOWER (Around) 21:18, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cyberpower - I will sign the non-disclosure agreement. What is the most straightforward way to do this? May I add a statement to that effect to my candidate statement? Robert McClenon (talk) 20:21, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. Discussions appear to have run their course, therefore I’ve requested closure at Wikipedia:Closure requests#Requests for closure. Regards. 2A00:23C6:B808:7701:3D1F:7DFD:C2E2:FBAA (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2022 (UTC)
ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)
Ronnie Lahiri
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have added about 15 or so high quality references to show he is notable producer of hit Bollywood films which have won national awards and were also shortlisted to represent India's official entry to the Oscars .
Please approve the draft which I have submitted for review. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 04:17, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lord Alan B'stard. What you call "high quality references" are actually bare URLs leading to very low quality references. None of them are reliable fully independent sources that devote significant coverage to this person. They are passing mentions. The similarity in the wording among the various sources indicate that this coverage is the product of press releases and marketing efforts. In other words, churnalism. Not anywhere near good enough. Cullen328 (talk) 04:42, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- So you suggest I should only keep 1 of the several references ? I really can't understand what is expected in the form of citations because this production house is a very low profile non-mainstream production house, responsible for some of the best received Indian movies in the last decade, and which is known for not marketing their movies because they are so much in demand. I believe this person fully satisfies WP:AUTHOR .. played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work (all of which have proper Wikipedia articles) which have won prestigious awards including the National award for best picture. He is the nearest Bollywood equivalent to Albert Ruddy. The only other such Bollywood producer is Sunil Lulla who is a corporate employee and whose Wikipedia article has only a single reference to his corporate website to back it up ? Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Lord Alan B'stard - First, I advised you to ask for advice at the Teahouse, and I will repeat that advice. Second, I did not say to remove the other references, but to identify which of the references support general notability of the subject. Third, it is not always useful to look at an existing article, which might or might not be properly in article space, so I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon - Thanks for your response. Actually I was responding to User:Cullen328. In your message on my talk page you indicated you are not required to read any of the references I provided. Had you even seen only the first reference I provided an half hour feature with a notable Indian film critic broadcast on the CNN-News18 TV channel, it would have established the notability of this person based on his body of work. This reference I gave describes them as Bollywood's most successful content-driven producer-director duo Ronnie Lahiri and Shoojit Sircar and it is not a passing mention. This other reference I gave shows that the person is a star maker in Indian cinema, and it is not a passing mention. Here is another on the person exclusively and his work. BTW, your remark on existing articles which might not properly be in article space, conveys why it's very difficult for editors to cope with Wikipedia's shifting (double ?) standards for new articles. There is also an implicit bias in the WP:BIO criteria as it assumes that film producers are not creative people who contribute to films, unlike the writers and directors. Cheers. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lord Alan B'stard, those are interviews with Lahiri and therefore are not independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cullen328 Thanks for your input. On the WP:IS essay I don't find any explicit bar to using interviews by otherwise reliable news channels and newspapers which are unconnected to or have have no conflict of interest with the person. The requirement is for the sources to be independent of the subject and also third party sources, which in these cases they are. All the sources I cited have editorial review processes and are subject to governmental regulatory oversight under India's stringent media laws. Indian television news channels are especially subject to stringent and speedy regulation for broadcasting false statements. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lord Alan B'stard, if you want to read essays, then I recommend Wikipedia:Interviews. Lahiri's own words cannot possibly be independent of Lahiri. Calling what he says in an interview "independent" defies logic and accepted practice on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- As for the ethics and credibility of Indian media outlets, please read Paid news in India. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, but are you stating that the citations I provided are paid news or non-RS ones ? Lord Alan B'stard (talk) Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 20:59, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- No, I was just responding to your claims about the high quality of the Indian press. Cullen328 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cullen328 would you kindly point me to the Wikipedia policy for BLPs which explicitly says that interviews of the LP on independent reliable third party news media cannot be used in his article. I am not citing Lahiri's own words on Lahiri in my draft. I am citing those sources as secondary sources for Lahiri's notability as one of the well known film producers of India and for the body of work he has co-created with Shoojit Sircar and Juhi Chaturvedi both of whom have Wikipedia articles. If you need a scholarly work on why film producers don't get the recognition they deserve and are the unsung heroes see this Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 20:53, 4 December 2022 (UTC).
- As for the ethics and credibility of Indian media outlets, please read Paid news in India. Cullen328 (talk) 20:35, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lord Alan B'stard, if you want to read essays, then I recommend Wikipedia:Interviews. Lahiri's own words cannot possibly be independent of Lahiri. Calling what he says in an interview "independent" defies logic and accepted practice on Wikipedia. Cullen328 (talk) 20:32, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cullen328 Thanks for your input. On the WP:IS essay I don't find any explicit bar to using interviews by otherwise reliable news channels and newspapers which are unconnected to or have have no conflict of interest with the person. The requirement is for the sources to be independent of the subject and also third party sources, which in these cases they are. All the sources I cited have editorial review processes and are subject to governmental regulatory oversight under India's stringent media laws. Indian television news channels are especially subject to stringent and speedy regulation for broadcasting false statements. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 19:57, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Lord Alan B'stard, those are interviews with Lahiri and therefore are not independent sources. Cullen328 (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Robert McClenon - Thanks for your response. Actually I was responding to User:Cullen328. In your message on my talk page you indicated you are not required to read any of the references I provided. Had you even seen only the first reference I provided an half hour feature with a notable Indian film critic broadcast on the CNN-News18 TV channel, it would have established the notability of this person based on his body of work. This reference I gave describes them as Bollywood's most successful content-driven producer-director duo Ronnie Lahiri and Shoojit Sircar and it is not a passing mention. This other reference I gave shows that the person is a star maker in Indian cinema, and it is not a passing mention. Here is another on the person exclusively and his work. BTW, your remark on existing articles which might not properly be in article space, conveys why it's very difficult for editors to cope with Wikipedia's shifting (double ?) standards for new articles. There is also an implicit bias in the WP:BIO criteria as it assumes that film producers are not creative people who contribute to films, unlike the writers and directors. Cheers. Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 15:22, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Lord Alan B'stard - First, I advised you to ask for advice at the Teahouse, and I will repeat that advice. Second, I did not say to remove the other references, but to identify which of the references support general notability of the subject. Third, it is not always useful to look at an existing article, which might or might not be properly in article space, so I suggest that you ask for advice at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:01, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- So you suggest I should only keep 1 of the several references ? I really can't understand what is expected in the form of citations because this production house is a very low profile non-mainstream production house, responsible for some of the best received Indian movies in the last decade, and which is known for not marketing their movies because they are so much in demand. I believe this person fully satisfies WP:AUTHOR .. played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work (all of which have proper Wikipedia articles) which have won prestigious awards including the National award for best picture. He is the nearest Bollywood equivalent to Albert Ruddy. The only other such Bollywood producer is Sunil Lulla who is a corporate employee and whose Wikipedia article has only a single reference to his corporate website to back it up ? Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 06:45, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Moved to Draft talk:Ronnie Lahiri- User:Lord Alan B'stard, User:Cullen328 - Please discuss on the draft talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Sorry, Robert. I did not notice that you had closed the thread. Cullen328 (talk) 21:51, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- Last word here: Lahiri, strangely, is not one of the unsung heroes, movie producers of India. There is quite a bit of unpaid for reportage about him. I was on the larger point that Wikipedia chooses not to regard film producers equally as creative professionals like directors and writers. A producer always has the final cut ! Can we take this discussion to the draft:talk page please ? Lord Alan B'stard (talk) 22:10, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Cullen328, User:Lord Alan B'stard - I didn't close the discussion, except here. I told the two of you to discuss this in the coffee shop rather than my kitchen. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:46, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Economy, trade, and companies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Cloudflare 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 21:30, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Maths, science, and technology request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:ISO 2848 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 19:31, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
Barnstar
|
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
| For this remark both serious and funny at the same time, but incapable of being just one of those things until it's actually read. Daniel Case (talk) 03:56, 12 December 2022 (UTC) |
Katanda, DRC
Hi, did you check Katanda, DRC for copyvios? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 17:47, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:DoubleGrazing - No, and I should have. I was focused on the disambiguation issue, but the copyvio issue would have made that unnecessary. I have tagged the page for copyvio review. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:20, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Podcasting 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 16:30, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
Contentious topics procedure adopted
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to updates on the Arbitration Committee's discretionary sanctions review process.
The Arbitration Committee has concluded the 2021-22 review of the contentious topics system (formerly known as discretionary sanctions), and its final decision is viewable at the revision process page. As part of the review process, the Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:
The above proposals that are supported by an absolute majority of unrecused active arbitrators are hereby enacted. The drafting arbitrators (CaptainEek, L235, and Wugapodes) are directed to take the actions necessary to bring the proposals enacted by this motion into effect, including by amending the procedures at WP:AC/P and WP:AC/DS. The authority granted to the drafting arbitrators by this motion expires one month after enactment.
The Arbitration Committee thanks all those who have participated in the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process and all who have helped bring it to a successful conclusion. This motion concludes the 2021-22 discretionary sanctions review process.
This motion initiates a one-month implementation period for the updates to the contentious topics system. The Arbitration Committee will announce when the initial implementation of the Committee's decision has concluded and the amendments made by the drafting arbitrators in accordance with the Committee's decision take effect. Any editors interested in the implementation process are invited to assist at the implementation talk page, and editors interested in updates may subscribe to the update list.
For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
- Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Contentious topics procedure adopted
Merry Christmas!
|
Merry Christmas, Robert McClenon |
|
Or Season's Greetings or Happy Winter Solstice! |
- User:Onel5969 - Thank you. For me and my family, it is about to be Christmas, which is when the Christmas music moves from the stores into the churches. I also recognize that the days are no longer shortening in the northern hemisphere, and there is also a celebration of a great ancient military victory in support of religious freedom. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Liberalism 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 16:30, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mary, Queen of Scots 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 15:30, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Mary, mother of Jesus 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 16:31, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: History and geography request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:2022 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 01:31, 17 December 2022 (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 09:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
Review Draft:&Team
You declined the draft, but it has since come to meet WP:BAND as the group has charted on their country's local music chart. I was hoping you could review it a second time. Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 08:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Btspurplegalaxy - First, I rejected the draft a second time because it was resubmitted without discussion after a previous rejection. Discuss with the first rejecting reviewer, User:Johannes Maximilian, or discuss with the community at the Teahouse. Second, I have reread the draft, and I do not see mention of the group having charted. Please explain, in the draft, how the group satisfies musical notability. The draft should speak for itself so that a reader will know why the group is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The group's album sales are listed here: [1] Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Btspurplegalaxy - I have removed my rejection, which leaves the draft waiting for review. Please put an AFC comment in the draft noting the group's album sales. Please discuss at the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:36, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- The group's album sales are listed here: [1] Btspurplegalaxy 💬 🖊️ 16:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:Btspurplegalaxy - First, I rejected the draft a second time because it was resubmitted without discussion after a previous rejection. Discuss with the first rejecting reviewer, User:Johannes Maximilian, or discuss with the community at the Teahouse. Second, I have reread the draft, and I do not see mention of the group having charted. Please explain, in the draft, how the group satisfies musical notability. The draft should speak for itself so that a reader will know why the group is notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:05, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
Happy Holidays
|
Happy Holidays | |
| Hello, I wish you the very best during the holidays. And I hope you have a very happy 2023! Bruxton (talk) 21:55, 25 December 2022 (UTC) |
Seasons Greetings
|
Whatever you celebrate at this time of year, whether it's Christmas or some other festival, I hope you and those close to you have a happy, restful time! Have fun, Donner60 (talk) 00:16, 23 December 2022 (UTC)}} | 
|
Donner60 (talk) 23:24, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Template talk:Italian political parties 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 14:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment about a redirect
Hi @Robert McClenon.
I read the comment you wrote in the article Draft:Dylan O'Donnell.
I also asked for further information in the Teahouse, as you suggested, and some editors replied to me.
I'm not sure I fully understood and for this reason I wanted to ask you how to correct this "mistake" about the redirect (if possible).
Thanks. LIUC.Camilla03 (talk) 22:31, 26 December 2022 (UTC)
- User:LIUC.Camilla03 - There is no mistake, and there is nothing for you to correct. There is a redirect from Dylan O'Donnell to Dylan Switters. If a reviewer decides that the astrophotographer is biographically notable and that the draft should be accepted, then they will request that the redirect be deleted. The redirect allows a reader to find the footballer using his former name. If the redirect is deleted, then the draft can be accepted, and a reader who is looking for the footballer using his former name will find that the article on the astrophotographer has the hatnote on it. There is no mistake, simply a case of two people with the same name, which is common in Wikipedia. What you can do is to wait for a reviewer to review your draft. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:58, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Diane Kruger 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 16:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
Feedback request: Biographies request for comment
Your feedback is requested at Talk:Roderic O'Gorman 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 13:30, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
Copyvio images in AfC
Hi Robert. The image at Sangeeta Chauhan was a copyvio. Could you also check the licenses when you accept the AfCs? I've also made the same mistake! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 17:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Sheikh Hasina
Hi Robert McClenon,
Thank you for agreeing to moderate the Dispute Resolution for Sheikh Hasina. Can we agree that wile DR is ongoing we restore the article to its state prior to any contentious edits? I have reverted the article to its state on 28 October when there was no contentious material. However, a user has reverted the to article to its state with contentious material. Please can you assist by ensuring that the article is restored to its state prior to any contentious additions Kind regards--AMomen88 (talk) 18:50, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:AMomen88 - Communication with me as DRN moderator should be at DRN. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC)
Happy New Year, Robert McClenon!
Robert McClenon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.
— Moops ⋠T⋡ 00:34, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
New Pages Patrol newsletter January 2023
Hello Robert McClenon,
- Backlog
The October drive reduced the backlog from 9,700 to an amazing 0! Congratulations to WaddlesJP13 who led with 2084 points. See this page for further details. The queue is steadily rising again and is approaching 2,000. It would be great if <2,000 were the “new normal”. Please continue to help out even if it's only for a few or even one patrol a day.
- 2022 Awards
Onel5969 won the 2022 cup for 28,302 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 80/day. There was one Gold Award (5000+ reviews), 11 Silver (2000+), 28 Iron (360+) and 39 more for the 100+ barnstar. Rosguill led again for the 4th year by clearing 49,294 redirects. For the full details see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone!
Minimum deletion time: The previous WP:NPP guideline was to wait 15 minutes before tagging for deletion (including draftification and WP:BLAR). Due to complaints, a consensus decided to raise the time to 1 hour. To illustrate this, very new pages in the feed are now highlighted in red. (As always, this is not applicable to attack pages, copyvios, vandalism, etc.)
New draftify script: In response to feedback from AFC, the The Move to Draft script now provides a choice of set messages that also link the creator to a new, friendly explanation page. The script also warns reviewers if the creator is probably still developing the article. The former script is no longer maintained. Please edit your edit your common.js or vector.js file from User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js to User:MPGuy2824/MoveToDraft.js
Redirects: Some of our redirect reviewers have reduced their activity and the backlog is up to 9,000+ (two months deep). If you are interested in this distinctly different task and need any help, see this guide, this checklist, and spend some time at WP:RFD.
Discussions with the WMF The PageTriage open letter signed by 444 users is bearing fruit. The Growth Team has assigned some software engineers to work on PageTriage, the software that powers the NewPagesFeed and the Page Curation toolbar. WMF has submitted dozens of patches in the last few weeks to modernize PageTriage's code, which will make it easier to write patches in the future. This work is helpful but is not very visible to the end user. For patches visible to the end user, volunteers such as Novem Linguae and MPGuy2824 have been writing patches for bug reports and feature requests. The Growth Team also had a video conference with the NPP coordinators to discuss revamping the landing pages that new users see.
- Reminders
- Newsletter feedback - please take this short poll about the newsletter.
- There is live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
- Please add the project discussion page to your watchlist.
- If you no longer wish to be a reviewer, please ask any admin to remove you from the group. If you want the tools back again, just ask at PERM.
- To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
Zinc white
Thank you for reviewing Draft:Zinc white. I have added two more sections to address your comments. Note that I am hoping to assign this article to one of the students in my History of Color course, so I am deliberately waiting to add some content. See also the discussion of the split from zinc oxide in the talk page. The split seemed to be generally favored. Owunsch (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)
AfC notification: Draft:Brinja people has a new comment
Thanks
For your efforts - the lack of presence of a patient and careful reader of the higher parts of the foochain (perhaps it could be thought of as foodchain...)
to see the blinding obvious, is sad and has left it all dangling. My comment is out of frustration of what Australians might call the visual acuity of Blind Freddy [2] - it is there and plain to see, and no one is doing anything about it.
So it goes (Apologies to Vonnegut_[3] ) JarrahTree 04:50, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:JarrahTree - Yes. It appears that a conduct problem is there and plain to see, and no one is doing anything about it. Is that what you mean? Robert McClenon (talk) 05:48, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
- You have it correctly sir, one only hopes against the general indifference to the turpitude JarrahTree 08:20, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
Helpful
It will be particularly helpful if you can ascertain the veracity of allegations raised at the subpage (here) in my boomerang proposal. A tough ask since AN/ANI is ill-suited to tackle persistent content issues like misrep. of sources etc. but I request nonetheless. TrangaBellam (talk) 06:50, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Task
Not at all sure what you are saying. One, you used a lot of "ifs". Two or more of the "wannabe" task force editors are not using correct procedures. They could be autistic, one of them is autistic.
To use your terminology, if dispute resolution won't work I'll have to seek other measures. Talk pages won't work with them.Highwatermark1 (talk) 06:58, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - In the future, when you put a message on a user talk page, it is helpful to provide a link to the original subject. I have inferred that you are asking about a request at DRN that I closed.
- It is not constructive to say that an editor is autistic. We have autistic editors who consistently make positive contributions to the encyclopedia and comply with its procedures, and autistic editors who don't know how to follow the procedures. We also have neurotypical editors who don't know how to follow the procedures. If an editor is unable to use talk pages, the problem is that they don't know how to use talk pages. It is not constructive to say that an editor is autistic.
- Exactly how are the editors not using correct procedures? What are they doing wrong?
- Did you try using their user talk page?
- Did you try using an article talk page?
- What is the disagreement about, anyway? Robert McClenon (talk) 19:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
- They do not properly edit. It's very much inaccurate and irrelevant to say "we don't call them autistic." Also incorrect. Results are what matters. One editor improperly began an ad hoc "pseudo" task force. Both of those editors and others are error prone.Highwatermark1 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - Read the boomerang essay. Then either make a report of the improper editing at WP:ANI, or don't make a report at WP:ANI, but if you do not explain what is wrong with their editing, you will be either ignored or warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- Robert, seeing this conversation I felt it important to warn the editor against what is perceived as a personal attack by claiming that one or more unnamed editors has ASD. You may or may not know that I volunteer with a couple of charities whose focus is helping those with a disability, any disability, to enjoy sailing and powerboating. I found the comments expressed and doubted down on by Highwatermark1 to be wholly unacceptable.
- Thank you for your clear explanation to them here. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 22:57, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Timtrent - Well, I thought that my explanation ought to have been clear. The editor about whose competence I am concerned is the one whom you and I warned. They still haven't explained in a way that I understand what is wrong with the editing of the other editor. "They do not properly edit" says nothing. Thank you for following up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Let's start over, Timtrent, please stay out since you aren't understanding what is being said. Robert, one, you can easily review the two main editors' errors. In addition there are other wrong edits, both with the so-called task force and in articles unrelated to the small group. I don't have to explain anything. You will find mistakes in their spelling, grammar, syntax, and phrasing certain thoughts with not enough coherence or readability.Highwatermark1 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Highwatermark1 No. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - You do not have the right to ban User:Timtrent from my talk page. User:Highwatermark1 - While on my talk page, do not comment on the neurological status of any editor, or on whether any editor has a disability. You criticized a group of maybe two editors that you said was acting as a task force. I am inferring that you also have an issue with their editing, but I am not sure what the complaint is about their editing. It is always best if editors are correct in their spelling, grammar, and usage, but errors in spelling, grammar, and usage can be corrected, and are less important than article content. You, User:Highwatermark1, have not explained clearly what the issue is about the editing by the task force. Either explain clearly and concisely what the issue is, or don't complain about the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you asking me to show you the grammar and spelling errors? One by one? I can post them here.Highwatermark1 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Two editors can not possibly be a "task force" nor effectively "work" or perform as one.Highwatermark1 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - So fix it. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- I think it is important to draw @Highwatermark1's attention to Wikipedia:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors. I will also place it on their talk page, but they have a habit of deleting items they disagree with. I feel there should be no chance for them to suggest that they have missed it. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 14:40, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - So fix it. Robert McClenon (talk) 08:53, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Two editors can not possibly be a "task force" nor effectively "work" or perform as one.Highwatermark1 (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- Are you asking me to show you the grammar and spelling errors? One by one? I can post them here.Highwatermark1 (talk) 06:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - You do not have the right to ban User:Timtrent from my talk page. User:Highwatermark1 - While on my talk page, do not comment on the neurological status of any editor, or on whether any editor has a disability. You criticized a group of maybe two editors that you said was acting as a task force. I am inferring that you also have an issue with their editing, but I am not sure what the complaint is about their editing. It is always best if editors are correct in their spelling, grammar, and usage, but errors in spelling, grammar, and usage can be corrected, and are less important than article content. You, User:Highwatermark1, have not explained clearly what the issue is about the editing by the task force. Either explain clearly and concisely what the issue is, or don't complain about the issue. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- @Highwatermark1 No. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 09:01, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- Let's start over, Timtrent, please stay out since you aren't understanding what is being said. Robert, one, you can easily review the two main editors' errors. In addition there are other wrong edits, both with the so-called task force and in articles unrelated to the small group. I don't have to explain anything. You will find mistakes in their spelling, grammar, syntax, and phrasing certain thoughts with not enough coherence or readability.Highwatermark1 (talk) 04:42, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Timtrent - Well, I thought that my explanation ought to have been clear. The editor about whose competence I am concerned is the one whom you and I warned. They still haven't explained in a way that I understand what is wrong with the editing of the other editor. "They do not properly edit" says nothing. Thank you for following up. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:52, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 - Read the boomerang essay. Then either make a report of the improper editing at WP:ANI, or don't make a report at WP:ANI, but if you do not explain what is wrong with their editing, you will be either ignored or warned. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:36, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
- They do not properly edit. It's very much inaccurate and irrelevant to say "we don't call them autistic." Also incorrect. Results are what matters. One editor improperly began an ad hoc "pseudo" task force. Both of those editors and others are error prone.Highwatermark1 (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
Additional
Robert, you used these words, "so fix it." I know you work in the Articles for Creation area. Do you work in other things? It seems so far that you are inclined or disposed to do so.Highwatermark1 (talk) 22:08, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 So fix it especially applies to grammar and spelling errors. You say that two editors who call themselves a task force are editing incorrectly by making grammar, spelling, and usage errors, and you offered to provide me with a list. In the time that it takes you to make a list, you can instead correct the errors yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
- It should be apparent that were I to make changes they'd be reverted.Highwatermark1 (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
- User:Highwatermark1 So fix it especially applies to grammar and spelling errors. You say that two editors who call themselves a task force are editing incorrectly by making grammar, spelling, and usage errors, and you offered to provide me with a list. In the time that it takes you to make a list, you can instead correct the errors yourself. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
| Untruth. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:52, 15 January 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
2014 Indonesia Super League Final moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, 2014 Indonesia Super League Final, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " |
| Falsehood. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:54, 15 January 2023 (UTC) |
|---|
| The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
2010 Indonesian Inter Island Cup Final moved to draftspaceAn article you recently created, 2010 Indonesian Inter Island Cup Final, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of " |