User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 11
Page contents not supported in other languages.
Hi Robert,
Could you have a look at my draft https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Romeo_Mancini and tell me if there are enough notes now and if I have taken out the terms that looked not neutral enough?Thank you for your help. Anna Lisa --Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I added a lot of citations, especially book citations which I hope help keep the page alive. I was hoping that you would take a look and see how it's shaping up and if you think that I should resubmit it. Thanks https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:J_Luke_Wood Normanbockwell (talk) 19:36, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I'm glad I asked before submitting. So, should I keep the books and citations but add the independent sources, or should i delete the books altogether? I'll also jump on teahouse.Normanbockwell (talk) 00:08, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
I have added the "Citation needed" indicated by Cullen.My difficulty is that there is only catalogue written by the artist, so I got almost all the info from there.I have gone to the teahouse, but the advice was only to tide the notes up avoiding to repeat the same source all the time and putting a code. But I am using the visual form, easier for me and really I do not understand what kind of damage, repeating the source, can do.I understand your complain about adding the bibliography, which I hope is now fine.About the language....here I have problems to solve it to be sincere. I hope as for the notes that Cullen indicated me where were needed,can be indicated where the problem is still present. There is a bit of explanation of paintings, but I never said this is fantastic, just described it.Anyway thank you very very much for saying that the artist is notable, I am really happy about it, because the only reason I want to put wikipedia in English, is that I want him to be known abroad as well.Kind regards,Anna Lisa Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I wanted to say a catalogue written about the artist!Anna Lisa33 (talk) 12:31, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I applied to th AIAA for consideration for an advisory committee position, and without approval or disapproval I did get the comment that my bio was not visible in the Wikipedia, Exact ontemproaries, Edward Weiler, Chris Scolese, James Green, - all of the same department andserving the same agency are listed with basic bactual information. Using these examples I have tried to create a parallel bio free from value adjetives contining only verifiable information concerning period of intense and notable developmdnt for the NASA scientifc research program.I was completely unaware of the policy concerning autobiography - so I stuck to the facts only. I would like to be identifable and factually documented, but do not participate, out of preference, in various forrms of social media. If I have made an error of procedure thatdisqualifies the addition of my bio, perhaps you could help me make appropriate changes to th ms to make it more acceptable.
Thank you for your attention in this matter,Uchu RRFisher (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The reference errors have been fixed. (Snowyplayer (talk) 05:55, 1 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Hi User:Robert McClenon,Please resolve the dispute regarding Ooty article on DRN at the earliest. Being a challenger of un-sourced, biased content, I can not keep debating continuously and endlessly. Regards,--NitinBhargava2016 (talk) 07:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dar Robert, thanks for reviewing my post. Your comments are great to help me improve my post. Could you kindly elaborate on what to do. How to format the references? Why footnotes, which header? This is my first wikipedia entry and I am clearly struggling but eager to learn and approve. So I'd really appreciate you taking the time to eplain in more detail what needs to be changes in order to get approved. thanks and have a good sunday
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:23, 4 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, you recently commented on my BAAITS article that I need to add more reliable sources. I have two on there, so I understand that's a low number. I'm wondering what your opinion on the two that I already have is thought? What I mean is: do you think that the ones I do have are reliable? I think they are good, but I just want to make sure that going out and getting similar sources is a good way to proceed from here?Thank you!Stayhomegal (talk) 01:28, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This statement should be made to the ArbCom, not to me. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Hi Robert, Thanks for your comments at ANI and ArbCom. Despite the tone, I still found your comments useful and helpful. However, I have come to explain to you how I got it all this wrong. Firstly, the problem with me about contents creation is that I'm always too impatient to read through the contents and sources before inclusion. Meanwhile I often create a lots of articles. I think I'm just too overzealous! I sometimes mistakenly add the correct source to a different statement. This is what I mean, sometimes, I unintentionally add a source for "statement A" to that of "statement B" and the source for "Statement B" to that of "statement A" due to impatience, making the sources and the contents to appear fake or OR. Secondly, the sockpuppetry is another concerning issue. Honestly, the very first time I joined Wikipedia, I thought it's a social media of some sort where I can put my shameless biography. My first account was blocked and I reopened another account and that was also blocked. I thought the best way to address the reason why the article was deleted is to create another accounts with some unrealistic claim of significance. That was also blocked. I'm not aware of block invasion otherwise I would have follow due process. So, I went to declare my new account to User:RHaworth who permit me to continue editing but not to write about myself. I started writing about notable Nigeria-related topics and at the same time reading the basic policies and guidelines which seemed difficult to understand at that time. This difficulty to understand policy led to the first ANI in 2014. The allegation includes incivility and copyvio. I pleaded and I was not blocked. Since then, I never repeat any of these behavior. Also, I never thought a claim of ACADEMIC will give an impression of dishonesty. I only felt its an informal claim and that is what I take it to be. In fact, I'm not even aware of WP:HONESTY and WP:EXPERT. All of these with the recent recreation of my shameless autobiography amount to a gross misconduct which is enough for an indef block or ban. This I know! The mobbing by the community is simply because they are unhappy with the entire issues. This caused many of them to lose confidence in me as a result. I know the community has brought out my worst contributions and I'm 100% ready to fix the rest under the mentorship of User:Cullen328 and user:Irondome and anyone willing to help. Above all, I need to be rehabilitated. Please I need help, in any capacity you can help. Wikic¤l¤gyt@lk to M£ 20:06, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello Mclenom. How do you request for the deletion of the other page?. Thank you
Hello Robert. The style of this article is promotional, though the person seems notable. If you are familiar with AfC, why not do whatever fixup you think is appropriate and then approve it in the AfC way? I am unsure if RMTR is supposed to bypass AfC, though I know little about the mechanics. I declined the move just so the status is clear, but will restore it if you are sure this is an OK procedure. The product article at Proactiv looks legit and some experienced editors have worked on it. Maybe one of them would be willing to help. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert!This is with reference to my article The Label Life, that was rejected (https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User:Sarovaram11/sandbox). I'm attempting to edit it and I wanted to clarify the reasons for rejection so I know I'm on the right track while making the changes. 1) The language - needs to be more neutral and objective (does this mean not using phrases like 'celebrity stylists' and so on)2) Sources - I've tried to restrict them to articles from magazines and newspapers (Indiatoday, vogue and open, the magazine - among others) could you guide me on what other sources I should be looking for?
Apologies if these questions sound silly, it's my first time and I thought it was ready as I put it on the New Contributor's Help chat before submitting for review. But I clearly missed a lot, anyway, it's all a process right?
Thanks very much
Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sarovaram11 (talk) 04:32, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert!Hope you are well, would you be able to take a look at my submission again and see if there are any notes you can give me? https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/User:Sarovaram11/sandboxCould you also please guide me as to where to put the title? It will be TheLabelLife.com as thats what they are called.
Thanks so much — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarovaram11 (talk • contribs) 04:33, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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/Wikicology. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 22, 2016, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Wikicology/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:57, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | The Original Barnstar |
Hello Mccleone. I am confident with people like you Wikipedia would be more reliable. This is your 2nd rejection of my page. i have tried again. Please check Dantunkuran (talk) 13:27, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hello Robert. Another editor informed that the other black draft with the name Abdulbaqi Jari has been deleted. You may take a look at the page i am creating now.
Thank you
Dantunkuran (talk) 15:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Cryonics". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 16 April 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 20:05, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First, thank you for you amazingly quick response to my submission of UNC13A as an article for creation. I am a WP Teaching Fellow/University Professor and have a student that would like to expand this article, but I don't want her to be held up by the AfC process. I can have her work further on this stub, but my understanding is that the Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cell Biology has a project to create a stub for every human gene/protein with the expectation that the stubs will be fleshed out as our knowledge improves. The style guide for these articles is found here. The content of the article I submitted was automatically generated by the GeneWikiGenerator following WP style guidelines. I thought I should be able to automatically send it to WP from the Biogps site, but since I could not, I submitted it as an AfC. Many similar stub articles with just one or two references have been created, some generated by a bot. (For example: ALDH16A1). My response to your specific comments:
One additional comment: if you still think this article should not be approved, would you consider asking someone from the WP:MCB for a second opinion.Thank you for your consideration. Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Biolprof (talk) 22:14, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recent feedback.
I have modified the first line so that it is not self referencing. I also removed the reference to the Ottawa Citizen circulation size.
Regarding the performance analysis section, what do I do to put it in paragraph format?
Regarding your rejection, what other writing recommendations would you make for it to be acceptable? Perhaps I simply cannot write this kind of article myself?I would have thought the published research would have stood on its own since it was independently reviewed and went through a peer reviewed process.
Interested in your advice.
thanks,
David
![]() | The Writer's Barnstar |
Hello Robert. Please guide me so that i can finish creating the article i am currently creating. Please point the errors so that i can know where to specifically correct. The Wiki Nigeria project has only 53 people, which mostly have not been around for some time. I intend to create many articles to help enrich searches from Nigeria. This is my first one, i will definitely improve after succeeding on this one. Thank you Dantunkuran (talk) 12:19, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi,
I thought you ought to know that the barnstar you received was left by an impostor, not by me. Adam9007 (talk) 15:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail. — TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,Can you please explain what you mean by "the filing party has not listed any of the other parties"? Thanks 24.197.253.43 (talk) 04:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | The Citation Barnstar |
Thanks for your help. I think that you know that I am beginner in Wikipedia and I didn't read those policies that you explained. I will draw attention to them in the future. Good luck! Temuujina (talk) 06:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
![]() | The Original Barnstar |
Hello Robert No body responds to you call for advice in Tea House, guess they too are dormant like Wiki Nigeria project.Anyway, i thank you for your help. Is here i leave it. I want to write in Hausa also.Lets see if i will improve my English in the next 5 year.I want to delete the article for now. Dantunkuran (talk) 11:07, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
The editing interface will be changed soon. When that happens, editors who currently see two editing tabs – "Edit" and "Edit source" – will start seeing one edit tab instead. The single edit tab has been popular at other Wikipedias. When this is deployed here, you may be offered the opportunity to choose your preferred appearance and behavior the next time you click the Edit button. You will also be able to change your settings in the Editing section of Special:Preferences.
You can choose one or two edit tabs. If you chose one edit tab, then you can switch between the two editing environments by clicking the buttons in the toolbar (shown in the screenshots). See Help:VisualEditor/User guide#Switching between the visual and wikitext editors for more information and screenshots.
There is more information about this interface change at mw:VisualEditor/Single edit tab. If you have questions, suggestions, or problems to report, then please leave a note at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback.
Whatamidoing (WMF) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The request for formal mediation concerning Cryonics, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 20:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
I filed a Edit warring thing a day ago or so and it looks like they are going to skip me. I am going to make it simple, I am not a regular user on Wikipedia, I don't get the whole fight system thing here. But I asked for help many times now about the same issue and I am getting the shaft from the whole lot. This leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Look at my edit history, do I look like I would know the whole system? Please just get someone to address this matter on the Laura Branigan article. 07:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Devilmanozzy (talk • contribs)
You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself on the list of volunteers at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteering#List of the DRN volunteers.
First, assistance is needed at DRN. We have recently closed a number of cases without any services being provided for lack of a volunteer willing to take the case. There are at least three cases awaiting a volunteer at this moment. Please consider taking one.
Second, this is a volunteer roll call. If you remain interested in helping at DRN and are willing to actively do so by taking at least one case (and seeing it through) or helping with administrative matters at least once per calendar month, please add your name to this roll call list. Individuals currently on the principal volunteer list who do not add their name on the roll call list will be removed from the principal volunteer list after June 30, 2016 unless the DRN Coordinator chooses to retain their name for the best interest of DRN or the encyclopedia. Individuals whose names are removed after June 30, 2016, should feel free to re-add their names to the principal volunteer list, but are respectfully requested not to do so unless they are willing to take part at DRN at least one time per month as noted above. No one is going to be monitoring to see if you live up to that commitment, but we respectfully ask that you either live up to it or remove your name from the principal volunteer list.
Best regards, TransporterMan (talk · contribs) (Current DRN coordinator) (Not watching this page) Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thank you for your indication about youtube video. Today I added other references. Ciao Icedevis (talk) 10:27, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | The Original Barnstar |
Thanks for reviewing the article I submitted so quickly. Really impressive turnaround. Sethgodin (talk) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
As suggested, I updated the first paragraph of the article (peacock language) and feel like the whole thing reads okay. Submitted via articles for creation, but thought I'd come back to you.
To save time, the notability thing: NY Times writes, "The controversy over Natrecor follows two recently published studies by Dr. Jonathan Sackner-Bernstein, a heart failure specialist at North Shore University Hospital in Manhasset, N.Y. The analyses, based on patient studies submitted to the F.D.A., linked the drug to worsened kidney function and hastened death."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/17/business/the-marketing-and-success-of-natrecor.html?_r=0
Bio in question is here: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Jonathan_Sackner_Bernstein
Apologies for being so so bad about formatting the talk page stuff in the wikipedia style. It's definitely an acquired skill.
Thanks Robert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talk • contribs) 16:58, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Robert. I appreciate the response. PS It sure seems as though the computer ought to be smart enough to resolve external links into internal ones... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sethgodin (talk • contribs) 17:47, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fix name in search box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lawrence Theo (talk • contribs) 19:01, 13 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sir,Can you help me clean up the article https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Arvind_Iyer and also look at the dead link references.In my opinion,the personal does not meet notability guidelines and request you to nominate the article for deletion.Thank You (Intelbot22 (talk) 04:52, 14 April 2016 (UTC))[reply]
![]() | Article Help |
Thank you for your kind words on my user page! If you are not doing anything very significant right now, can you help me improve my article? Elsa Enchanted (talk) 13:15, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
{{Hi Robert. Thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some of the updates (wikilinks/see also comments), however, I would like to change the article name to Andres Saavedra (producer). I'm having a difficult time figuring out how to do that before I resubmit the article for review. Could you guide me in the right direction? Thank you very much.}}:It appears that your draft, if not ready for acceptance, is almost ready for acceptance. However, when it is accepted, it should be accepted at Andres Saavedra, because he is the only person with that name. The article won't need disambiguation, either in the article title or in the infobox. (The current draft is only a draft and can be ignored if your sandbox copy meets acceptance standards, and it appears that it does. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:52, 16 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. First, thank you for reviewing my article. I have made some change in the references, but I am still unsure how to interpret your comment : Some of the references do not appear to be applicable to this person at all, while some of them are applicable. Please review the references and see which of them are applicable.
Is it because I have linked the website pages of his former doctoral students? I can remove them if you wish. Thanks.
https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Jules_Desharnais
It's removed, can you review my article again? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IceTestifier (talk • contribs) 14:02, 17 April 2016 (UTC) IceTestifier (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert McClenon, thank for reviewing the submitted article on Design for All. I perfectly understand your point of view. There are three existing articles which treat DfA on the English Wikipedia. Please let me explain you, why I decided to submit a further one and suggest a solution. The most relevant and scientifically updated article on Design for All is actually incorporated in the article about Universal Design. This gives the idea, that DfA is a subcategory of Universal Design, which is not the case. DfA and UD are two distinct approaches treating a common argument, but born in different parts of the world. The DfA-approach has it's roots in the European culture, UD is more known in the US and Japan. My suggestion would be to create two distinct articles: one on Universal Design and one on DfA. The latter updated by my information. The other two articles treating DfA (ICT and product line) could be incorporated and/or cut. Product line is quite promotional and ICT is not updated.What do you think about it?Grateful for your assistance I thank you in advance
![]() | The Original Barnstar |
You're Awesome! ShantoShahriar (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
You added archivetop/archivebottom tags around a discussion on the help desk. Later the archivebottom was removed, leaving everything from the April 17 section header onwards archived.
I have now removed the archivetop, to make the Desk usable again. Maybe I should instead have tried to restore the archivebottom to where it was meant to be - but I am reluctant to tinker with things that I don't fully understand. Maproom (talk) 07:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
. Right after I saved it, I saw the problem, and tried to fix, but you had already fixed. At least, it looked fine to me after your fix. Oops. Thank youj. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:17, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relating to "Great Western Main Line Electrification Progress" new page submission.
McClenon said (to paraphrase) "expand the page to include an introduction and some references", so I did so. the Joseph2302 said "this should not be a separate page, add it to the main one", which means the introduction and references I have added at the suggestion of the McClenon would be redundant, since the main page already has them.
I'm quite confused, and feel like I have wasted my time, so I am becoming reluctant to commit any more effort to this. I can't see how I can take both of your comments into account, so should I just assume that the latest comment is the correct one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.Bristol (talk • contribs) 19:41, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
I notice I am unable to edit entries and AfC submissions using the Edit tab. This seems to have happened just four days ago --- before that, there appeared an "edit" tab at the top right side of my screen, to make edits easy. Now it is gone! Instead, I only see an "Edit source" tab, which I can use to make edits but is much more cumbersome and difficult than using the easy editor "Edit" tab feature. [ver encountered this problem when editing? If so, any advice/suggestions on what to do?
Cheers,ChopSticksChan (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:11, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, thank-you for taking the time to review my wikipedia article. I have used your advice as the basis for re-writing the article. I hope it will now meet community standards.After further research I have expanded the number of independent, reliable sources as you suggested. I am still to provide the ISBN number and page references for reference #3 because the book is currently on loan from my college library. However I have reserved it on Thursday when it is due back. Best wishes from London, Ali
195.195.81.208 (talk) 09:28, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert,Thank for for reviewing the article and also for your suggestions about how to substantiate the information regarding the awards. George is currently on tour with Dylan in Japan. I am in contact with him and he will be sending me links from reliable sources, which I will add as external links. We appreciate your helping us comply with community standards. WikiWhip (talk) 04:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]
Robert, George is an old friend and neighbor. I am not his employee, nor have I ever received any money from him. I am simply collaborating with him in an effort to get his Wikipedia page on line. WikiWhip (talk) 23:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip (talk) 23:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]
Robert, I now understand the conflict of interest issue. Can you please help us overcome this obstacle? WikiWhip (talk) 18:08, 22 April 2016 (UTC)WikiWhip[reply]
Hello Robert,I'm new to wikipedia so please excuse me if I'm going about this incorrectly. You reviewed my recent submission, a page on artist Gianni Piacentino, and declined my submission because of an existing pending review. The existing page, Draft:Gianni Piacentino, was declined on 23 May 2015. As this previous page was declined, I'm not sure if I should/can make edits to it. Would it be best to resubmit my page or make edits to this existing declined draft and resubmit that?Hribbens (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:David Jolly. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Jeff Cavins
Robert, thank you so much for your looking into the questions about my article for Jeff Cavins, which I found out through you had overwritten a seemingly stagnant draft. As I mentioned on the draft page, this was due to my error. However, on the original merits of my question, would you be able to review my draft at https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Jeff_Cavins or submit it to be reviewed?
Hi Robert, just a heads up that I tweaked and then created Rangeland Management in mainspace. The article still needs some work, but there is actually a huge need for this article, as nothing else there covers precisely the same thing. Western land management and arid land management is a unique field and a topic of tremendous importance to livestock producers in many arid ecosystems with fragile land. Anyway, as you were reviewing the draft, I figured that I should give you a heads up that I was bold and moved it. I dn't get over to AfC very much, but if you run across another agriculture article that needs a review, feel free to ping me any time. Montanabw(talk) 04:53, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I edited the page to include the links you suggested. I don't really know what you mean by pointing to the red links on the DC Library page so I can't really address that. For what it's worth, the two other D.C. Carnegie libraries Mt. Pleasant and Takoma have articles. Also, my understanding from reading federal and local regs is that a property located in a historic district, does in fact have historic status. Locally, property, even private property, within a historic district cannot be altered without a permit, and alterations must adhere to design and construction standards approved by a preservation board. On the federal level, owners of property in a historic district listed in the national register like Capitol Hill are eligible for special tax breaks and grants unavailable to property not in a historic district. This is all indicative of buildings within a district being considered historic. Specifically in the case here where the building is 94, designed by a notable architect, and part of a larger movement that itself is notable, adds to the weight of it's historic nature. But you are correct. The building in and of itself is not a legally a "Landmark." I've changed the heading to "Location." Littletpot (talk) 13:55, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Appreciate your help in creation of "Spacetime Topology". You have made me a great confidence in wikipedia. I will contribute more of my knowledge for wikipedia.org. If there is anything I can offer as a volunteer, please don't hesitate to let me know. Best regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Virtumanity (talk • contribs) 01:50, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, I notice you accepted the creation of Spacetime Topology by user Virtumanity (talk · contribs). Please note that we already have an article Spacetime topology, that this user tried to replace with his content, full of original research, errors (the opening line of the lead is just nonsense already), unreliable sources (e.g. self-published [1]) and primary sources, all for which I warned the user [2]. After that warning, they simply upcased the article title. Can you please undo your approval and/or delete the article? Thanks - DVdm (talk) 06:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: article db-ed and user notified. Cheers. - DVdm (talk) 06:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DVdml, the research was published for more than a year and has been recorganized in the scientific community, for it was invited as the keynote speech at London quantum physics conference in March, and is further invited for the coming speech at American astronomy meeting, and the physics 2016 in June, and much more. Hope you can understand the significance of the contents, although the post is just a very small part of the contents. Please note, the original contents "Spacetime topology" is old and misleading to our generations, should you google on the Internet. Our goal is not for anything personal but helping the community for scientific advancement. You might review my credentials by Google "Wei Xu IPSec". In fact, the post is purely to help our scociety, unlerated to my career at all, because I have a busy position daily at an IT organization. respectfully, Virtumanity (talk) 11:51, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, The article was originally titled as "Spacetime Manifold". After reviewed by wiae, he suggested to update the contents on "Spacetime topology". Following his instruction, I updated the title to "Spacetime Topology" AND included all of the original contents of "Spacetime topology" in the section 1.2. What I didn't know was the difference between small and capital "T". I apologize for this confusion. I suggest to redirect "Spacetime topology" to "Spacetime Topology", or please advise. respectively. Virtumanity (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert and DVdm, First of all, I appreciate your time on this. All what your comments as original research are removed completely, though it is trying to help our civilization. The section 1.1 is now enhanced to address "pseudo-science". As you can see, the father of our quantum physics, Niels Bohr, is a YinYang philosopher. From the updated references of [8]-[16], you might see the well-known journals are publishing numerous of the yin yang papers. FYI: by debating with Bohr, Einstein spent rest of his 40 years of Unified Field Theory for nothing, only because of his ignorance of yin yang philosophy. After a century, our challenge is even greater than that of the trial of Galileo Galilei. Not only do we ignore both a profound philosophy of science and the existence of Unified Theory for All Physics, but we have also failed at a time when “Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge” stated by Stephen Hawking. Our challenge is to soften our metaphysical prejudices, for the assumption that there is no metaphysical reality is also a metaphysics itself. Our challenge is to open up our minds to facts hidden in the fabric of daily life. Everywhere our world shines with a beautiful nature of yin yang duality.Finally, I sincerely thank you for spending time on this, although my thoughts to become a WiKi volunteer is hopeless. Hope you can maintain WiKi healthier if not better. Sincerely and respectfully.Virtumanity (talk) 05:01, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Virtumanity (talk) 12:51, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. I understand why you rejected the article. I will not be revising it. Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kildowgut (talk) 00:14, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, I submitted an article with the title Prime Lands Group. Can you please give me some pointers to clean it up. Like remove some links or a specific paragraph that violates the G11, Thanks in advance.
Hello! Robert McClenon, thank you for your feedback about this article. I understand the reasons you declined its creation. I have removed the company's website from the references and added a few more. Now they are all from independent sources - newspapers, industry media, official studies etc. There are no directory listings among the references, only the certified partner lists of notable third-party providers. Some of the references are in Bulgarian language as they come from Bulgarian newspapers that do not offer English versions - I added a note to each of them. Will this be a sufficient improvement to resubmit the article? I kindly ask for your opinion and advice if there is something more to be done.
Thanks a lot in advance! Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Faithmarks (talk) 13:31, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback on my submission for CORGI HomePlan. I would like to understand a bit more about what was meant by my references being inconsistent. Does this refer to anything in particular? What could improve the consistency of the references?Also, the references were referred to as duplicated. Again, are you able to provide specific examples of what you mean to help me refine this entry to the standard required?
Graememcg (talk) 12:08, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 May 2016.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:03, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
check on edits for resubmitRobert McCleon,Thank you for your prompt consideration of the submission Draft:Russell L. De Valois.I believe I understood the issues you raised and hope that I have adequately addressed them in the resubmission. I will be alert to further processing of the submission.128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
128.114.234.139 (talk) 19:52, 28 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Non-useful statement. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Personal attacks?I made no personal attacks to any editor, so please do not make false accusations toward me. Thank you. - Knight of BAAWA (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page?
Kind regards, Dimitri
Hi Robert, could you Be More specific about what I Have done wrong in creating my Page?https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/?lang=en&title=User:Dimigaza/sandbox&action=edit
Kind regards, Dimitri
The request for formal mediation concerning Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 05:18, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
![]() | The Articles for Creation barnstar | |
Thank you for reviewing the articles I created! Jaldous1 (talk) 14:02, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Mr. McClenon,
I appreciate the quick review time. You declined my RONALD J. ROSS article today 5/1/16. You found an old submission of mine (via my subject's sandbox and we were led to believe that it had been deleted due to our inaction. Should we just go back to that article and re-edit it? Thank you. smacgregor123
Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 00:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
Hope you're well. You declined my article on ScholarshipOwl saying there was a draft under review here https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:ScholarshipOwl. I looked at it and saw it was actually declined for not having been written according to the guidelines. So I rewrote the article of THAT user. Does it make sense? What do I do now? It's been over a week and the other article didn't get any comments. I feel like the reviewers won't review it because it wasn't the original editor who edited that item? Please help shed some light on this issue. Thanks for your help! - YaelUsseryroad (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Hi Robert. Could you take a look at Talk:Four Noble Truths? Robert Walker is running around again... Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: - I'm only asking about wikipedia protocol here. In the case of this article there are multiple issues certainly. But considering the discussions so far on that page, I just don't see how all those issues could be resolved in one go. Hence the idea to tackle just one small issue at a time. And starting with a very small but significant issue, only one word in the article. I've seen that often RfCs do focus down to a single word so it seems like something that could be done. If this worked then it would mean it's possible to do something about the rest of the issues, slowly and patiently, one issue at a time, to reach some resolution. So that's the idea, hope this makes more sense. Of course I wouldn't for a moment expect you to play any role in the discussion of the actual issues on the page :). Joshua Jonathan could present his arguments for using the term in the article, and particularly in the statement of the four noble truths, in his section of the RfC and we could see what the larger community of editors in the Buddhism project here think about his arguments. Robert Walker (talk) 15:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am fairly new to Wikipedia, and don't do edits very often, so maybe I'm missing something, but I'm confused as to why my submitted article for Iowa Lakes Community College was rejected. The explanation was that the article was rejected because a stub article was previously submitted. However, as far as I can tell, the previous article was submitted in 2014. Furthermore, the reviewer stated in his comments that he thinks the article I submitted is better than the previously submitted article and should be reviewed in its place. However, as far as I can tell the editor who rejected my submission is the same one who made that comment. I understand that editors might have inflexible guidelines to work under, but if a previous submission has priority over mine, shouldn't you just go ahead and approve or disapprove it since it has been, like, a year and a half already?
All of the information I have in the article has been taken from reliable sources and as far as I can tell, I have cited the information appropriately. If something is not right, can you please give me the specifics instead of a general comment like "This article contains copyrighted material" which is not very helprul. I would appreciate it if I knew what line or paragraph contained "copyrighted material" so I can edit that section. Thanks.
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.
Hi Robert. Would you mind taking another pass at Draft: Ecoscraps. I think perhaps you should take another look at the sourcing. I've rewritten the lead to summarize why this company has received so much attention in the press: nine feature stories in reliable independent publications, including four from A++ publications, and a magazine cover story. The articles are spread out over five years. And I didn't even includes the many dozens of product reviews in trade publications. I've written many articles for Wikipedia and the notability threshold here seems clearly established to me under WP: Notability: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." I'd be pleased to discuss why you might see it differently. Just let me know. I've written about 12 articles over the past couple of years. None have ever been rejected because I'm very careful to only choose topics with significant independent reliable sourcing. I consider and reject topics all the time, after research doesn't show enough coverage. Ecoscraps seemed obvious, to me at least - you don't get too many subjects that are on the covers of national magazines. If there's anything else about the article you don't like I'd be pleased to discuss any of it and take your suggestions.BC1278 (talk) 20:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)BC1278[reply]
Hello,
The gut flora page I was referred to doesn't accept non-human research on the subject, which is significant for the understanding and application of the gut microbiome on humans. "gut flora" is also an outdated title. Thank you.
Mike B1010 (talk) 02:32, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,Thank you for your quick reply. I've tried to add my sections to the "gut flora" page, but It was reverted back, claiming:1. Mice research2. That I have primary sources in some of my citations (although they are synthesized across)
That's mainly why I tried to create a new page.Thanks. Mike B1010 (talk) 03:38, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Robert McClenon (talk) 03:04, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]I am sorry what edits are you referring to, as far as I know the case is closed, and it was placed in the dispute resolution board.If anything at all I was trying to copy and paste from one forum to another
MrX2077 (talk) 03:09, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Followup: I do not understand your role in this matter. My dispute is with Matt Lunker, the mediation committee chairman is TransporterMan, those are the only people involved in this matter. Please explain yourself? Furthermore, TransporterMan is an attorney be training, he has not explain the process to me, so I am struggling to figure out the next steps are.
MrX2077 (talk) 03:16, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, You should have lead with the fact that you were part of the Administrators' notice board, you kind of buried the lede.
Second if you took a second look at my page you should take note of the fact that I did not cut off the other party, my claim was rejected before he had a chance to respond. It happened three times because I was concerned that the committee did not have all the information to make a decision & the head of the committee told me to come to the notice board to develop the matter. Mr. Lunker & I did have a discussion on the matter, I just copied it from his user page to the article talk page. In all fairness, it seems like you made a rush to judgment. As far as Mr. Lunker is concerned the matter is closed (check logs for the article), if somebody want to learn what a groat is, one should go to the groat link, I believe any good article would take the time to explain a term which is used in the passage. Once again check his user page. That being said can you please re-open the matter.
Finally, did you have to leave such a threatening notice on my message wall; namely that I was disruptive & you would revoke my editing privileges. I reviewed your user page, and it states that you are a Roman Catholic. As a member of this faith, are you not taught about compassion and charity for those who are less fortunate than you. Please show a bit more empathy in the future.
Thank YouMrX2077 (talk) 04:46, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, what is the timeframe, especially, when the other party considers the matter is closed, where do I go from there if he does not respond. For now, I will take your advice and go to the "teahouse" MrX2077 (talk) 04:33, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I was reflecting on you quote "...editing of Wikipedia is a privilege and not a right", be sure to tell the other party that when he produces his reply. If he did not treat the article like it was his own private property, I would not be here now. MrX2077 (talk) 09:00, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | The Editor's Barnstar |
I thank you for the advice given by you in the matter and shall not proceed further until all such formalities have been carried out.Thank you for your patience in answering my queries. SrastogiIJ (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
HI Robert,I am trying to publish this article on Ralph Garafola. I have first hand knowledge that all information is 100% accurate.Now, in this last time submitting with changes, I am not sure i understand your response on Awards & Press section. This section was included in this article from the onset.Although these awards may not help make Garafola notable, they were awarded to him for his work.If I deleted this section, would this article be approved?
Please, can you be very specific in your comments. It seems that people reviewing article decline without giving detailed advice on how to get it approved.I see many other unknown artist pages that appear on Wikipedia that have little and in some cases no content. Do they get published because they are not alive?
I appreciate whatever help you can provide.Thank youPaintbrushArtPaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
PaintbrushArt (talk) 14:34, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. McClenon, I meant no disrespect. I was told the original article was deleted due to inactivity and that's why we created a new article. After your last message to me I returned to the original space and entered the newly revised article. This morning I received a message from the reviewer LaMona instructing me to make some suggested changes and resubmit-which I did. And now you are admonishing me--so yes I'm confused. Should I just let the original article in the original space run its course?
Scottmacgregor123 (talk) 20:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback on Draft:Jillian Keenan. I've removed her personal website from the list of sources. Howkafkaesque (talk) 21:11, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. McClenon, I'm messaging you because you seem to have some experience in smoothing out disputes between editors. If this message comes at an inopportune time, then please disregard.
An editor and I fell into a dispute on an article; I'll avoid naming names unless you ask me to do so. Specifically, the person deleted information sourced by a document from the International Crisis Group and justified the deletion by saying that the criticism wasn't relevant. I reverted and explained my disagreement and assumed that the issue would disappear, but the person reverted again and rather than explaining why, merely expressed incredulity that I would possibly disagree.
I left an edit war template on the person's talk page because they seemed relatively new, and I made the choice to revert again. I made that choice because, to me, the issue seemed clear: the person was deleting reliably sourced criticism because the person felt that the criticism is invalid. Well, they reverted again and told me that I must "not be a fan of wiki policies," and then left a talk page comment so outlandish that a third editor initially deleted it; I'm assuming that they thought it was vandalism because the person said, verbatim: "Can we not add stupid minority opinions?" The third editor (whose involvement was unsolicited) then tried to calm things down on the person's talk page, only to again be told that the opinion is stupid (to be fair, they made it clear that they don't think I'm stupid as a person).
Decontextualized, without names, what do you make of this? What would the solution be? If you're able to help, then thank you in advance. MezzoMezzo (talk) 03:44, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have now changed the article in response to the comments made by the reviewer
Does the explanation I gave provides a sufficiently clear picture of the situation to form an informed opinion? Or is there something else you'd like to know? Banedon (talk) 08:57, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert McClenon.
Don't know if you noticed, but the page ITDM was created before your rejection of it at AfC. They now have Draft:Integrated Talent Development Mission after it was rejected again at AfC, this time by Wiae. Just FYI. 220 of Borg 11:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I created the DRN request for Talk:Dallon Weekes#Pretty. Odd. and I notice the note from you that if no editors participate in an certain amount of time, the discussion will be closed. I apologize for my lack of knowledge on a situation like this. But, what happens if no other editors participate and it's closed? Will the dispute still be resolved despite no participation or will it just be left alone unsolved? Thanks. Sekyaw (talk) 22:23, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A user publicly accused me of being a Christian (I am not, but irrelevant), then he asserted "As an atheist, I have no bias on the subject." (Really, only an atheist can't have bias on religious issues? Then he threatened to notify admin as this could "use attention." Then he writes on my Talk page: "Keep your opinion to yourself, and be WP:HERE. Please stop this disruptive behavior. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 23:33, 2 May 2016 (UTC)" While his tone has been more threatening than helpful, he has certainly not kept his opinions to himself. Can you please give me your opinion. I would like to place a complaint about his behavior.Thank you. Wikiwillkane (talk) 04:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The debate was whether Spencer or any of the other persons whose astrological opinions were summarized counted as neutral third-party sources, per WP:FRINGE, WP:RS, and especially WP:NOR. I would like to see some sort of Astrology Encyclopedia referenced (if such exists), or any sort of newspaper article discussing the subject. I consider there to be zero reason to summarize multiple primary sources. Quotation would be one thing, and still a bad idea, but as is I do not think it remotely meets WP:NOR. Thank you for your time. 2601:1C0:5003:541:91EF:A688:29B3:7290 (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
The list has been rejected as is correct because the focus of the list is not yet making sense to any editors. I will attempt to explain why I would like this type of separate 'List of River'.
Their is a list of rivers already with a language interest - https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/List_of_Latin_words_with_English_derivatives.
I would like a similar list but a focus solely on the 'name' of the river for its own sake.
The end user of the list is the main focus as I look up the geographically arranged lists and find it selective to educated people and not geared to the normal every day user.
You have a incorrectly spelt river and the normal Google search does not help.
You then go to Wikipedia and things are made worse.
I think Wikipedia should be a better place to find river names.
In time and many enthusiastic editors this list could be the popular choice of lists.
Also the editors should post rivers they know personally, this way the list would be robust, similar to a dictionary with authority.
Developing this sense of ownership of the list is my main aim.
Hope we can understand this list better now.
many thanks for your good judgements and time.
Regards James Emans
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Jean Lapierre. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
AldezD (talk) 17:02, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me some time to learn your system. Tim Beck of Torrance. Oil Spill Freeze Salvage should be entered in Oil Spill under Clean-up and recovery in under solidifying. EarthGuard technologies of GA demonstrated oil spill freeze salvage at the B.P. Deep Horizon Oil Spill and has two videos posted on YouTube. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy Beck of Torrance (talk • contribs) 03:51, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. McClenon-you asked if I had a COI with the subject. I know the subject as the result of a professional association but that was 17 years ago.I don't work for him (or anyone, I'm retired)and I am not related to him. I have admired his career and am writing this article at no cost to the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Raffyross (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Richard Nevell (WMUK) (talk) 10:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the feedback on our draft: Page365 article page.
In that article you commented about "What is meant by a "sales engine built on the ground up for social commerce"? (Also, provide a reference for that claim."
Instead of explaining those is it possible for us to re-write them with different wording thus it will be easier to understand for anyone who is unfamiliar with the subject? or should I use the other term that wikipedia already has?
I would like to know if this would fit under Biographies of living persons? I also had banres and noble as a source. It's difficult to find music industry credits other than the album itself our sites like allmusic. Are there suggestions?
Hi Robert, I'm a bit concerned about your telling multiple posters at the AFC HD that "this page isn't well watched". Yes questions may not get a response within 20 minutes, but that is no reason to denigrate the process - see WP:DEADLINE. More significantly though, many of the "helpers" at the Teahouse are not intimately familiar with how AFC works, so as far as questions that are specifically about AFC processes the Teahouse is not a better place to ask. There is no harm at all in taking even a day or two to answer questions, particularly when that reply is far more likely to actually be correct than if the question were asked elsewhere. In my experience advice given at the Teahouse is far more often wrong than at any other help venues. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 11:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert McClenon. I am wondering if it my be best to move Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alpha Kappa Omicron#SPA Clarification to the AfD's talk page. It can be replaced by a link to the talk page. I am suggesting this because some more !votes, etc. have been added since then and they are being added below that particular subsection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 23:38, 13 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. To respond to your question, I want to establish whether the term "Civil Rights Movement" is a descriptive term or proper name for a single event in the United States during the 20th century, or perhaps both. The reason I asked if reliable sources will be required during the discussion on the DRN board is because virtually everyone, except one editor, never supports their claims regarding this issue (and other issues) with ANY sources, not simply reliable sources. I have asked for sources during my discussions. They either say they don't have any sources or they refuse to show sources. Either way, no sources are presented. I have repeatedly presented sources, but it hasn't mattered. Mitchumch (talk) 17:03, 14 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've done new edited as your note:
Contains too much peacock language: done.
Please re-review and inform me if there are anything I should made for another editing to this article's completion.
AD 16:17, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
Robert, can you educate as to the reason for declining my suggestions. I am new to this and apologize if I am breaking rules, but my suggestions, I believe are well positioned and would stand scrutiny of knowlidgeable experts. Jamala's last name is easily recognizable by most Russian speakers as Tatar. This is easily established. Can you educate me as to what steps are required to get this acknowledged. Secondly, Nagorno Karabakh is a part of Azerbaijan as recognized by nations in the world and numerous UN resolutions. It is disputed, but is legally part of Azerbaijan. What is your basis for declining this edit? Thank you, Araz Mamedli.
Hi, I have changed the tone on this, and added links, I am this person Father and can attest to the facts as submitted
The trouble with the Wikipedia guidelines in regards to music is that some genres of music are automatically left out. Folk music gets little notice. Most folk performers will never meet the Wikipedia guidelines because nobody writes about it anymore. So the Wikipedia guidelines essentially caters to the music that sells the most ad space. Wikipedia has a page for Renaissance Faires, and it refers to the music performed at them. But it will never give any information on the performers because they’re not on Billboard’s top 50 and the local papers merely mention that the Faire happened. There are fewer than 2,500 black rhinoceroses left in the wild. There are 1,241 people living in New Laguna, NM. There are only 2 people in the world speaking the Chamicuro language. But all three deserve a Wikipedia page. There are 10,000 views of The Whiskey Bards’ YouTube performance of Pirate Lullaby.More than 32,000 people heard them perform at the 2011 Las Vegas Renaissance Faire. Their music is available from iTunes, Amazon (disc or streaming), Google, and Spotify. Well-known and popular does not meet the Wikipedia qualitifications. Only the blessings of journalism can render a style of music "notable."Wikipedia has a page for jongleur, but makes no mention of modern jongleurs, many of whom now sing the original songs of The Whiskey Bards in various pubs and taverns across the U.S. The ancient bardic traditions are continued with small circuit performers like Whiskey Bards, Pyrates Royale, Rubber Biscuit, and Briefcase Blues, but this kind of performer rarely gets noticed by Rolling Stone magazine, so an entire segment of American music and the continuing life of traditional music is ignored by Wikipedia as well until someone wins a Grammy
Hi Robert,I have a message about my draft article Taimane Gardner, in which you've queried the independence and reliability of the sources.I have no connection with this musician, and the sources range from IMDb to Guitar World magazine, so I would have thought they were reliable and independent. The "virtuoso" was a quote from several reviews and interviews. I can certainly place the citations in th body, or edit the word. But I'm confused as to what is independant if those aren't?Thx Misterdequincey (talk) 15:51, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! First of all, I am connected to a few non-profits that Miron Construction supports (in particular Big Brothers Big Sisters, the Boys and Girls Club - which they just finished building a new one in our community, and some Fun Runs that they sponsor). I know there is an original article out there that was declined. I'd like to understand why (new to this side of Wikipedia - to date, I've only read their posts, not submitted) and then I'd like to work on the Miron Construction Co., Inc. article and clean it up for re-submission. Can you make some recommendations on what sections need editing and maybe some ideas of what I can improve on the original post?
I'm new to this, so any insight would be appreciated! Thanks.
Ckiekhaefer (talk) 02:43, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, You declined my article's submission about Marie-Florence Gros because of unadequate documentation about the subject's notability. I understand the reasons but this article is only the translation into English version of an article in French already published on Wikipedia and providing the same references (https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/fr/Marie-Florence_Gros#La_paroli.C3.A8re). If the subject has been already approved, how can I make my translation published? Thank you for your help! Wwsheng
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talk • contribs) 09:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert, I'm still tryingto get my article published. I added relevent sources from reliable newspapers (the South China Morning Post, Le Figaro, InvestHK...). I also added categories and the article will be mentioned in other english wikipedia articles (Patrick Bruel..). Then I deleted useless titles. I hope my article will fulfill the requirements, if not could you give me some more advices?Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wwsheng (talk • contribs) 03:49, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Onel5969 TT me 13:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
A RfC on an article in which you've been involved in has been opened here. This notice has been provided to the five most recent participants on the article Talk page as an WP:APPNOTE. LavaBaron (talk) 21:42, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Asking for clarification - you wrote "Also, improve the format of the references so that on-line references can be displayed." Can you explain what this means, please?
...the difference between arbitration and arb enforcement. There is not table of forums where it says:
Instead, it says:
Or at least that is the way it seemed. Got the instructions on one, which linked me to the process page for the other. It would be helpful to have a directory that listed all the WP bodies and what they do. Right now, I couldn't tell a hair of difference between ANI and Arbitration. Why have two doing the same thing? I will try again tomorrow. Grammar's Li'l Helper Talk 04:52, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your review and comments. I think since submitting the article I have discovered something unique and significant about the University of Rochester libraries. In 2012 they hired an Anthropologist Dr Nancy Fried Foster to study their library system. I'm actually very excited about what I found and I am working on adding a new section to the article. I also believe Dr Foster is notable enough for a Wikipedia article of her own, though I haven't the time to work on that just yet. Here is some more about her:
seven-questions-with-library-anthropologist-nancy-fried-foster/#_
And:Techniques to Understand the Changing Needs of Library Users
Hello, Robert. I filed a dispute resolution [9], that you agreed to mediate. Unfortunately, because of my lack of experience, I didn't see your request to make a statement in 24h and it is now closed. Would it be possible to reopen it? Regards. --Fjsalguero (talk) 14:53, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done - Next time, keep the issues in which you are participating on your watchlist. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:59, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I have tried to add my statement in the dispute page. However, I am not sure whether I did it in the right place. Please, move my comment if I did it in the wrong place.--Fjsalguero (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Thanks for everything.--Fjsalguero (talk) 20:08, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Thank you i am now ready to make good pages on Wikipedia Dionbanda123 (talk) 21:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
![]() | Food and Drink |
I wanna thank you and wanted to ask you to help me with my page K3 en het Ijsprinsesje. Thank you Dionbanda123 (talk) 21:32, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Robert. I think this is troubling for a couple of reasons. It creates the impression that the DR moderator is taking sides on an issue, which could lead participants to reject any forthcoming decision or result. Also the moderator/tagger has not specified exactly which parts of the article are giving too much weight to fringe views. I was one of the editors that reworked the article to clean out fringe sources and copyedit the text in order to adequately explain the fringe views while not giving them undue weight. It could use some better organization and polish, but the weight/sourcing/compliance with WP:FRINGE looks pretty good to me. Which leads me to doubt this particular moderator fully understands how WP:FRINGE works other than as an ostensible bludgeon. That said, I am pleased that a young person has volunteered to help Wikipedia and appears to have boundless energy and commitment. I just think there needs to be more guidance from experienced hands. Best regards - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert. I tried the new automatic translation feature on the Dutch Wikipedia, but I must have done something wrong. I'll read the guidelines better and try again later. Regards, Filiep (talk) 07:06, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, saw your comment on the Henry Alan Green draft I submitted. Since he's a bit older, and a lot of his fellowships and professorships were pre-internet, it's a bit difficult to hunt down sources that aren't his curriculum vitae. I've put a few more sources that I was able to find—does it look better now? Thank you! https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Henry_Alan_Green Gc717 (talk) 15:43, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, could you look over my draft again, I have fixed as directed, could you let me know if that's ok? Thank you! https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Laura_Glitsos Nyxnissia (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there,
Basicdesign (talk) 20:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator.Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I think I have fixed the referencing errors in my article for review. Are you able to have a look for me before I re-submit? Thanks so much for your help. https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Laura_GlitsosNyx. Nyxnissia (talk) 01:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rob,
May I have some help with my submission draft for Callum Reynolds of Boreham Wood FC. He is the only player in our squad now not to have a full wiki page, especially with him being the club captain. Hopefully once I've got the hang of it, I be able to help out with football at this level in the wiki community. Apologies if this is not the done thing, still trying to get used to the wiki communication effort. It's hard a medium and I've been working on this draft in my spare time since the beginning of May.
Should I reference BBC Sport/National & Local Newspapers web sites as a reference for Callum playing professional football under Boreham Wood (Conference Premier) as an internet source as I only have physical football programmes I collect otherwise.
Here is the match report from BBC Sport website (http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/36118755) of the last game of the season we played against Welling United in the National League Conference Premier (Step 5 of English Football Pyramid), 'Reynolds' is under the starting line ups. He has been ever present all season. He has a full time squad number of 6 because at semi professional football, you don't have assigned squad numbers and just have numbers 1-11 on the day and players have different shirt numbers per game.
His profile is now on Sky Sports too.http://www.skysports.com/football/player/18498/callum-reynolds
I have added this BBC match report to his profile of the game against Welling United.
Robert McClenon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasko26 (talk • contribs) 12:58, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lasko26 (talk • contribs) 12:51, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I followed your comments and made the required modifications and resubmitted my draft for your kind review. An error message is displaying:1-Submission declined on Error: Invalid time2-, Error : first parameter cannot be parsed as a date or time..3- Redirect: target page name
What does this mean? How to fix these?I am new to wiki and html so please bare with me... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nadinelama (talk • contribs) 13:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
BroVic (talk) 14:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hi. What do i have to to do create my user name page? I don;t see to understand it. Do i have to include contact details or something. I just want a beginning page with some personal info that i add to with time. Please advise and thanks for your help
Thank you for your help regarding Daiana R. Bazzano...I will get to work on this next week. I appreciate your help.
THanks again.
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Anuja Kapur is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anuja Kapur until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. CNMall41 (talk) 23:55, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, I've just closed the ANI. Would it be possible to relist the DRN thread? If it's something I need to do, I'm happy to do it. Thanks! Drsmoo (talk) 00:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. You seem to have declined my article based on my not being notable. But if you would take time to Google my name "comedian OB" you would find me very notablein Ghana. That not withstanding, may I ask if I could reference with YouTube videos in order to prove I'm veritable? And could you please state at which point I seemed to be promoting myself so I scrape that portion off? Thank you.
We are requesting a re-review because we feel the press release sources we provided are reliable, as the company is publicly traded and the press releases have been thoroughly vetted.
Hi Robert,I followed the advice offered on the Wikipedia welcome page - "Don't be afraid to edit – anyone can edit almost every page, and we are encouraged to be bold! Find something that can be improved and make it better". After two attempted contributions I am no longer bold, and I am afraid. Diggerlady (talk) 14:08, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert! As noted above, I'd like to request clarification on protocols for dispute resolution cases. I was involved in the initial editing dispute for Jimmy John's as well as the followup discussion on the article's talk page that pre-dated the request for moderation (though my IP frequently changes for unknown reasons). I just noticed that this case was elevated in a desire to attain consensus among the involved editors and that you are the moderator. I still strongly disagree with this reference being added to the article for a variety of reasons which I don't believe have been sufficiently discussed in the dispute resolution case, and I'd like to join the discussion if it isn't too late. Please advise on if this is possible, and if so what the next steps are. Thank you! 185.54.163.157 (talk) 07:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Hillary Clinton. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Robert,I am surya and i am trying to create an article about Dale Armin Johnson and it got rejected because another writer is also working on it and could you please suggest me on how to improve my article and get it listed on Wikipedia.Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Surya57497 (talk • contribs) 17:32, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you move this page which has the backing of the SME and the their Additive Manufacturing working committee? The OFFICIAL title, Additive Manufacturing, NOT 3D Printing which is favored by marketing and Wall Street types, NOT technologists. Content is intended to reflect consistency with global standards orgs and will be continued to be updated by this organization's representatives consisting of machine makers, materials industry, users, and service providers. This group was in the final edit process and was ready to launch without worthwhile help from Wiki representatives over the course of the last 3 years. We welcome your welcome your help not your hindrance.(NCMSRAREParts (talk) 18:05, 30 May 2016 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Robert, I'm writing to you from the Swedish Ministry for Foreign Affairs on behalf of the Conference of Translation Services of European States (COTSOES), a network of government translation departments throughout Europe. We have previously submitted Wikipedia entries about our network in French, German and Portuguese and these have been accepted. Unfortunately, the English version has been rejected and yet it is a direct translation of the other language entries. This is a little bit bemusing and we would appreciate an explanation as to why this is the case and what exactly needs to be changed to have the English version approved. This is very important for us as English, French and German are the three official languages of the Conference. Many thanks for your help! Kind regards, Ruth Brown193.188.156.131 (talk) 07:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT ISLAM".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 21:04, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
Thanks so much for your feedback on the article I submitted on Apriva. Can you help me better understand what I can improve by answering the following questions?
Basically, I'm trying to figure out if I can make little edits to get the article be approved or if the overall subject is not deemed worthy of inclusion at this time. Thanks!
Shainar (talk) 18:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Amadoriartists (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)Hello Robert,I have made changes to the Walshy Fire page as of yesterday after your review, I am not sure why the other changes did not update from the last time. I have been in the Teahouse on this as you have seen and in touch with Cullen through his talk page. I am going to add a reference from Forbes in a feature that was shown to me by Cullen that was published yesterday. I really would like to get this finalized, so if you have feedback that you could give based on what I have done as of yesterday after your post, that would be great. I am not sure what else to do other than remove the references that are not as notable. I have removed some of the marketing language that was there. Thanks[reply]
Amadoriartists (talk) 21:27, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.
Thank you,The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Robert McClenon,
I submitted Mr. Daryabeigi's biography mentioning Mr. Daruabeigi's art being part of Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, and the reference is the book Iranian Modern Art Movement, The Iranian Collection of the Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art, Dryabeigi, pg.112 &113, published in 1385 (2006) by TMoCA(Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art) The book is in Farsi & English. short biography. there are 2 full page images of his work.
Below is the link showing Mr. Daryabeigi's painting that is part of Tehran Museum of Contemporary Art (TMOCA) permenant collection
http://iranian.com/Arts/2000/April/desert.html
I also included all of Mr. Daryabeigi achievements
but SwisterTwister rejected the submission saying The article is not clear; if his works were permanently collected by major museums, then I can accept this....if not, then the Draft is not yet notable. If you respond, please give a simple and concise answer. SwisterTwister talk 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)".
What should I do? Mr. Daryabeigi biography darft link https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Mir_Abdolrez_Daryabeigi Mirrezd (talk) 02:09, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Mirrezd (talk) 02:01, 3 June 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrezd (talk • contribs) 21:28, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For All Editors, There is a biography of Mr. Mir abdolreza Daryabeigi in the book Iranian Modern Art Movement published by Tehran Museum of Contemporary of Art but nobody wants to check the book — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrezd (talk • contribs) 02:29, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
i believe i have been able to amend the wording as per your comments - my apologies, i have tried to replicate the style of submission from the stories from well known enties such as Samsung.
i re read after your comments and, i hope made all of the relevant changes necessary.
Kind Regards
Lisa
Shyamw1 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert, the article I submitted is not about Gopalapuram Parthasarathy that currently exists in Wikipedia. It is about Gopalaswami Parthasarathi who was also a diplomat and who was India's permanent representative to the United Nations. Gopapalswami Parthasarathi is no more. I have a photo of him which the Hindu newspaper generously sent me from their photo archives but I am having difficulty uploading it. If you had the photo you would know that they are two different people. Is there any way I can mail you the photo so you can see for yourself. I can also mail you the PDF format of the newspaper articles that The Hindu sent me. I have permission from The Hindu to use the photograph. They graciously sent me articles from their archives as soon as I requested them since you said I need more sources when you reviewed my submission the last time. I thought I submitted just one article on G.Parthasarathy. If I submitted more than one, I'm not sure where the other one exists. If you know where it is, could you please discard the first and review this instead? This is the one that I expanded and edited after your comments the last time. Please help me with this as I would really like to get it published.Shyamw1 (talk) 19:12, 3 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]
Hi. Please be aware that Wikipedia:Third opinion is an important and valuable step in the dispute resolution process. I participated in this process for a number of years, and I took it seriously. When you give a "drive by" opinion, without any followup, and without any reference to policies or guidelines, all you're doing is choosing sides for no apparent reason. This isn't helpful in resolving a dispute that is based at its core on Wikipedia's editorial policies and guidelines.
I encourage you to support or retract your opinion at Talk:Landmark Media Enterprises#Third Opinion after carefully reading the arguments. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:49, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon and Amatulic: I guess you both know that you're both among the top 10 contributors at 3O of all time? I don't know that there's an absolute right or wrong here, but I'll tell you what I do and what I think. In terms of looking for discussion in other places to satisfy the thorough discussion requirement, whether I'm working at 3O, DRN, or at MEDCOM, I check the article talk page and, if the discussion's not there, the disputant's user talk pages; but I don't go looking for it at other article talk pages unless something at one of those pages or at the case listing says that it's there. What's more, I don't think that a volunteer is required to do that much since the rules all say it's supposed to be at the article talk page. (Which is not to say that I think a case should be closed for insufficient discussion if the case listing or something at the article talk page says where the discussion has been held.) As for the drive-by part. I do not provide ongoing mediation after offering a 3O. One particularly wise Third Opinion Wikipedian, RegentsPark, once succinctly put the purpose of Third Opinions like this, "It's sort of like if you're having an argument on the street in front of City Hall and turn to a passer-by to ask 'hey, is it true that the Brooklyn Bridge is for sale?'." So, I do think that it's intended to be a largely off-the-cuff, state your piece, and ride off into the sunset kind of thing (with a hardy "Hi-ho, Silver!" if you're so inclined), but on the other hand I also feel that the most persuasive 3O's are both well-explained and well-cited to policy (preferably including quotations of the pertinent parts of the policy), whenever that's possible. But some disputes are over things which aren't clearly governed by policy and that's not possible. I've not read the dispute in question here, so I don't know if that might be the case. If either of you think that any of the 3 of us are doing it wrong, perhaps it ought to be discussed at the 3O talk page. But, frankly, I think that 3O properly gives a great deal of flexibility in giving 3O's. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 19:24, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi RobertI have now added several independent references as requested and also an image showing the society crest on the presidential badge. Together I believe these establish the notability of the BSHMCan you please let me know when this will be re-reviewed?Papamac (talk) 09:47, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review comment, I've added wikilinks to MRI, spin-lattice relaxation, spin-spin relaxation, and relaxation. Do you consider that sufficient? Dioid (talk) 19:11, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Added wikilink to spin echo and a See Also section with reference to MRI and relaxation.Dioid (talk) 19:52, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Still waiting for the other editor to reply. If he doesn't within the normal period, please consider extending the time limit before closing as perhaps he was unaware of the time limit and this is a good mechanism for working through disputes. Thank you. Drsmoo (talk) 17:58, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi sir, I have edited my new article "Bagnan High School". I have changed the article language to neutral manner. When will you re-view this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impurnendu (talk • contribs) 18:40, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert
Many thanks for your advice - I am really hoping to create a great article and need to learn the citation process to complete the article. Any guidance would be most appreciated.
Regards
Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)Tracy Symonds-Keogh (talk) 02:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | Reply |
Hey I was instructed to re-send it without altering anything! Nkwe (talk) 13:07, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Robert, I saw you recently declined the page I was trying to get up https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Ren%C3%A9_Dekker. I have worked with the nice folks over at the IRC and made the changes they recommended. Would you mind reviewing it for me to see what, if anything, is missing.
Thank you so much Robert!
Lmarotz (talk) 17:24, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply. I will redraft it and submit it again. There will be a lot of changes to the sentence structure so it may be a bit.
Thank you for the help!
Lmarotz (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The IRC I am referencing is that one with the editors (Internet Relay Chat). I am submitting a new draft mostly rewritten. Please let me know what you think.70.36.65.50 (talk) 20:00, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That was me, sorry I wasn't logged in. Lmarotz (talk) 20:07, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I could use some advice on how to remove to promotional tone of the page I submitted for review on PK Floats. I had 4 references to various news articles added to give more information on some of the events that happened. Any advice so I can make a good article is greatly appreciated.
Hi, I appreciate the concerns about "coat-racking" however this book is all about gay conversion therapy and those who have practiced this "therapy". The book includes a timeline of the practice. To omit this content is to not actually cover the book which would be worse. The news articles talk about the book and the practice - they are inseparable.
Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Computationsaysno (talk • contribs) 02:26, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! I was just wondering, if decisions are going to be made on the article? Hammad.511234 (talk) 22:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shyamw1 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,Thanks for your comments. I hope this is the right place to ask for assistance. I am still trying figure out how and where to submit my explanations to the reviewer so I apologize for any inconvenience. Can you please specify what you mean by "unconstructive" edits? I did much research to find additional sources based on a previous comment that indicated I need to find more sources. Will be glad to remove anything you deem "unconstructive" if I understand and know the edits that fit the description. Also, can you please let me know how I can delete the first draft I submitted? I thought I had deleted the first submission but apparently not. Would like to delete that and keep the second one for your review but not sure how to do it. Thank you.Shyamw1 (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)Shyamw1[reply]
Dear Robert,
My page- https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Parthiv_Shah was rejected on NOTABILITY clause due to lack of REFERENCES.
I have added external links and reliable references wherever possible besides adding more background on work for NOTABILITY qualification.
Kindly consider the same.
Warm Regards,KshitijK15 (talk) 12:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)KshitijK.[reply]
I just received the following notice from a BOT: Removing "Jal_Bk_cover.jpg", it has been deleted from Commons by Jcb because: Missing license as of 31 May 2016. Does this mean my proposed new Article 'Jalaleddin' cannot go forward with the cover image I used? Thank you. Diranakir (talk) 19:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
{{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk}
21:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).[reply]Hello, I have made revisions, Can you review my draft in sandbox and help me?
Hello Robert,
Could you please give me some tips on how to make my article less like an "advertisement"? This is the second time I have revised it and it still hasn't passed. Any advice would be appreciated.
Thanks,Can
Hello Mr. McClenon! I've made some major revisions to my draft thanks to the IRC help channel and wanted your feedback. I've tried editing the style to sound more encyclopedic, but then again I thought I had done so as well last time I resubmitted the draft. If it isn't too much trouble, are there any suggestions you have for me as a new editor? Here is the link Draft:Elope (business) Omnitaus (talk) 19:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I am requesting a re-review because I have attempted to change what you pointed out I had neglected to do. I appreciate the attention to detail that goes into editing. I look forward to changing all that you point out that is wrong. There are so many more people who know that Custer was most likely killed by his own men, than know about the little girl who was adopted as a 'living souvenir' by the general of the Nebraska National Guard. I have professors of Native American literature and anthropology who don't know who she is, or what her story is. I hope you reconsider. If I've made more style errors, I will be very glad to fix them. Thank you, ZintkalaNuni (talk) 20:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed more in accordance with the suggestions from various people (thank you to them for clarity) and hope you re-review my article. Please advise as to next step, or if additional revisions need to be made.ZintkalaNuni (talk) 22:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
![]() | :) Ps19950987 (talk) 03:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi Robert, you turned down this page I created before because a lack of citations. I added the citations a number of weeks ago, but I haven't heard anything in response. Can you let me know what is happening to this article. Thanks Matthew
I think the article shouldn't have been rejected on notabilty. Patta is a really big thing in Europe and is available worldwide. Patta is also still growing and probably gonna conquer the rest of the world really soon, so wikipedia if you don't want a page about that I don't know about what you do want a page. I'd also really love to get some tips on how to improve my page instead of just saying it's not notable enough, because it is.
Myrthe van der Staay
Hi,
Ill get straight to it, if you dont mind: I wrote a page about Perge, bee bread. I checked it grammatically and it all seemed fine, until it got rejected from publishing, because of the already “existing" page Bee bread (which you cant find if you just type bee bread). If you type bee bread, you get a page on Wikipedia about bee pollen and on that Wikipedia is only one sentence about bee bread. If you go on the link that says bee bread, you just get a page that is a link to bee pollen (nothing wrote on it, except the link). In my opinion there is a lot to write about bee bread and so I would like to make a whole page about it.
this is a link to my page: https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:Perge
Hi Robert. Thank you for your hard work at WP:ANRFC in reviewing and closing complex discussions like Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters/Archive 20#RfC: Should an "a-prefixing" guideline be added to MOS:CT?, Talk:Johann Sebastian Bach/Archive 13#RfC:Recent rewrites at Bach dropping large portions of biography and legacy should be restored into the article, and Talk:Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds#Request for comments.
WP:ANRFC is getting a bit backlogged again. Would you consider reviewing some of the discussions listed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure? Thank you, Cunard (talk) 05:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies -- In undoing the blanking of my comments here I ended up removing the comment you added. I can add it back... but then it wouldn't make sense considering the restored discussion that had already taken place. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:24, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't criticise your closure on the CZJ article, as I think the consensus could be judged as that there should be a box, but that's more about vote counting than anything else, but your statement that "It is at this time standard practice in Wikipedia to use infoboxes when there is an appropriate infobox, and there is an appropriate infobox for actors and actresses"
is, I'm afraid, deeply, deeply flawed. The MoS - upon which decisions should be based - states "The use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article."
Absolutely nothing about "standard practice" at all, which just suggests that an IB should be shoved into all articles without any thought as to the sense or benefit of doing so.
There are plenty of examples of GAs, FAs and others that run utterly counter to your "standard practice" line of thought. You may wish to rethink that point (or even strike it from the comment, as it is fundamentally misleading and rather contentious), but there is no such practice and no basis for such practice in either Wiki guidelines or policies. - SchroCat (talk) 08:47, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(watching) @Robert: I noticed that you changed, but it looks a bit strange now, please check if it is what you meant. Please also note that we don't have a specific infobox for actors and actresses (such as {{infobox actor}}); it redirects to the neutral {{infobox person}}. English is not my first language, perhaps help me to understand: I thought so far that "standard practice" only means "it is used in many cases", not "it has to be used in all cases". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:51, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should take the next slot. You're ready. Best regards, TransporterMan (TALK) 18:56, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Just a reminder that in just over a week at Wikimania there's going to be a cross-Wiki discussion about the systems of control of new pages. This is a round-table rather than a presentation or a lecture. On the agenda are reforms to the new article reviewing systems and ways to help new users better understand our content policies. If you are going to Italy and would like to take part, please check out the conference schedule, and I look forward to seeing you there. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 17:10, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
belief in logic
Thank you for quality articles such as Wallace L. Hall, Jr., for mediation and dispute resolution, for sifting articles for creation and answering Teahouse questions, for your thoughts on crisis and for "comments ... that are excessively long will be archived or ridiculed", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:30, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Robert,
Please refer to my response there.207.102.255.36 (talk) 18:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've put in a little more work to that article that was declined. I would like to have your views before I re-submit. Regards.
Hi there, Thanks for reviewing my submission (on May 23 this year). Since it was declined I have made further edits and it was resubmitted on May 24. I was wondering if you have had a chance to take a look since trhen as I have not had any further feedback?
I see that the other editor in the DRN voted on his own Lead draft in the survey section here. Is that permissible? It appears to be replying to other statements as well. Drsmoo (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
there could be a historical science mistake in spinning top physics. please take look what this mistake is about in below links. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ecu9DFWd7_0https://sites.google.com/site/spacespinningtop/My discovery needs to find experts for further investigation. Wikipedia is good place for the job, but my article was always unacceptable. Anyone has a better idea? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gyrotop (talk • contribs) 00:52, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon: Hi. You recently commented on the the talk page of The Game (rapper) where a third opinion had been requested. Could you please provide some guidance as to what my next steps should be? I have been unable to get the other editor involved to answer me, and I am trying to avoid reverting the edits again. Is request for comments necessary here? I really just want a third poster to opine on the situation before I take further action. Thanks for your guidance; I'm not too familiar with the resources available in this kind of situation. I'd let it go but I feel like this should be addressed since it is serious information regarding a living person. Thanks. -KaJunl (talk) 21:08, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert. I've added more reference links to other sites (Pedlars and DPReview). I hope this improves things. May I also get some direction on what the tone/notability issues are so I may correct? Thanks. Nathan
Hi Robert,
I updated my submission here (https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Draft:NextGenGolf) according to your comments. It has 4 weeks since the submission and the article is still pending review. Thanks, Andrew Xcf1456 (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have updated the external links and addressed the changes. Does everything look correct now?Xcf1456 (talk)Xcf1456 (talk) 20:47, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. McClenon, thank you kindly for your assistance with regards to Wiki entry Zygmunt Aleksander Wnęk. However there are still a number of points with which you could help me. Furthermore I still need to finalise the Infobox for Military Person - perhaps you could advise me?83.9.118.165 (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for reviewing my page submission. Several references have been added since the AfC Helpdesk comments were made that I believe help to establish notability. In particular, Embedded is an important publication for the embedded systems market from UBM Electronics.
Also, I did add a paid editing disclosure shortly after you requested one last month. Another editor moved it to the talk page last week. Should I move it back to the page itself?
The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Isaac Barrow. Legobot (talk) 04:23, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
I created the article about the company VeryApt. I closely reviewed all the wikipedia guidelines on NPOV and only wrote facts about the company in timeline format. I'm wondering why it is still considered to be an advertisement and how to fix it.
![]() | The Special Barnstar | |
Thank you so so much for the help! You're awesome! MediaKill13 (talk) 18:52, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply] |
Hi, Robert,My article about poet Bruce Isaacson has been rejected at least twice, including by you, for lack of third-party affirmation of his value. I added a few important poetry anthologies in which his work is included, which I should have included before, but there are many other citations I could include. I would like to send you or whoever is reviewing the latest submission a list of Bruce's publications and reviews as well as praise of his work by Allen Ginsberg, current U.S. Poet Laureate Juan Felipe Herrera, and others. Can I do that?Thanks,Argotmerchant (talk) 02:47, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert, it was not my intention to break the rules, this is my first go at editing with Wikipedia and am still trying to learn all of them. As far at the teahouse goes, what do you think? Can the article stand on its own?
DanielVGarcia (talk) 03:13, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "sandbox/Tooraj Enayati".
In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}
or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Puffin Let's talk! 14:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Robert McClenon, LaMona, and Puffin: Hi all. This article was up for WP:G13 deletion. I have boldly moved it into article-space. I think the obituary in The Scotsman indicates that Wright may meet notability guidelines other than WP:ACADEMIC. What do you think about this? Pete AU aka --Shirt58 (talk) 10:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert McClenon - Seeks your assistance to review the page. Raju Dubai (talk) 15:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your feedback. According to the International Air Transport Registry only 4 Aggregators had been accredited including TPConnects. http://www.thebeat.travel/post/2016/06/03/No-GDSs-Or-TMCs-Are-NDC-Capable-Yet-Based-On-IATA-Certification.aspx. The system informations are available at their website which is also given as the reference.Raju Dubai (talk) 18:44, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Robert,
Thank you for your comments on the duplicated issue of "CityU MFA" drafts. I was wondering why I needed to create two identical messages. In your comment on June 22, while one CityU MFA message is declined, the other is still under review. Has there been any update on the one that is being reviewed? Also, if I would like to expand the "CityU MFA" page, should I continue from the current CityU MFA draft, or should I create a new CityU MFA draft with new content? I am new at Wikipedia, any advice from you would be appreciated and thank you for your patience. Regards, Knoxtennessee (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Robert,
I added the references that you requested. I have never submitted anything to Wikipedia before and I am a bit confused about the process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Micuklein (talk • contribs) 15:09, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for closing the discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard. It was entirely the wrong forum for resolution of the problem. The problem, as can be seen by any detailed look at the article talk page, was not the content, but the grinding insistence of one editor who thought he/she knew better than the range of available scholarship on the subject. This editor is hugely enthusiastic, only partly informed and unswervingly confident in his/her rectitude. By repeatedly insisting that his/her simplistic syntheses, interpretations and own research should be incorporated into an article on a complex subject, he/she has created a problem that Wikipedia seems unable to address in a meaningful way. How this should be dealt with I do not know. Certainly, Wikipedia should have some ability to redirect such a person's misplaced zeal. Urselius (talk) 08:30, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I submitted an article entitle Sophie Doin. I understand the comments and can make the suggested changed. But before I work on it I want to know the following. My scholarly work on her is in respected venues. But I'm the main scholar who has discovered and written about her. There are 2 other respected scholars who have written on her, also in respected venues. But she is a minor author. Is that enough?
Doris Kadish (talk) 15:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am requesting a re-review of the Paul Lukas (sports uniform reporter) article because I added a lot more information and backed it up with plenty of independent references. I submitted the article for re-review 28 days ago so I was just wondering when it will be reviewed again. Is it typical to wait almost a month or longer for an article to be re-reviewed? The strange thing is my article was first reviewed the day after I submitted it, so it is really strange that it was first reviewed so quickly and yet now it has taken almost a month for the re-review. I am very new to contributing to Wikipedia so if I did anything wrong by posting this message here I am sorry and please accept my apologies and I'd appreciate you telling me what the proper procedure for asking when my article will be re-reviewed is. Thank you and have a good day.
Please remove draft https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:Causal_Neural_Paradox_(Thought_Curvature), as there is a copy in main space. I hadnt known it was possible to initialize work in both draft and non draft space. By author User:JordanMicahBennett
By any chance, are there senior editors that study machine learning in fine detail?
—Preceding undated comment added 02:02, 29 June 2016 (UTC) Hi, my article on Organizational Anatomy was declined for a reason "This draft does not contain references that establish that Organizational Anatomy is considered notable by scholars in management and organizational studies." However, all appropriate links are included on the bottom of the page, a book "Organisational Anatomy" is published by a scientific publisher, the book is already in universities libraries from the USA to Australia, and this concept and book is endorsed by leading academic and practical experts. I can't understand the reason for decline. Anticipating your feedback, Best regards, olkonol
Olkonol (talk) 00:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert,
Just wanted to clarify - Is the reason why it is rejected because of the tone of writing or the insufficient use of sources? Could you kindly advise on a way to make the page less "promotional"?
Thank you.
Cargobase (talk) 02:08, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Robert. Could you clarify which sources do not appear to be independent of the subject? Thanks Jessbailey33 (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a first time article maker on Wikipedia. Is there such a thing as an editing course in writing and substantiating info on the site? I would be interested.
Also, I'm trying to understand what kind of evidence is needed to make a verifiable claim about Steven R Tannenbaum: if he is a member of the Academy of Science, for example, should I do more than just say it and provide a link to that organization?
Finally, are publication records encouraged in an article about a person? Or shall we supply more in the way of references?
Thank you.MarciaMarciadross (talk) 20:34, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I am looking for guidance on how to continue. I started this work by addressing the issue that the port types in the Fibre Channel article (https://www.search.com.vn/wiki/en/Fibre_Channel) had no citations which required finding a reliable source (the Fibre Channel standards) and then updating the definitions to that reliable source. I then thought that it might be better to put that list in a separate article and referencing it in the Fibre Channel article.
If this is not realistic or proper, then I will update update the list in the Fibre Channel article with this updated information. Thoughts?
For what it is worth, I am also planning to update the Fibre Channel Zoning article to use information from the IETF MIB for Zoning and the Fibre Channel standards (addressing the issue to cite to reliable sources and filling in gaps of missing information).
Thanks!
Editing News #2—2016Read this in another language • Subscription list for this multilingual newsletter
It's quick and easy to insert a references list.
Place the cursor where you want to display the references list (usually at the bottom of the page). Open the "Insert" menu and click the "References list" icon (three books).
If you are using several groups of references, which is relatively rare, you will have the opportunity to specify the group. If you do that, then only the references that belong to the specified group will be displayed in this list of references.
Finally, click "Insert" in the dialog to insert the References list. This list will change as you add more footnotes to the page.
You can read and help translate the user guide, which has more information about how to use the visual editor.
Since the last newsletter, the VisualEditor team has fixed many bugs. Their workboard is available in Phabricator. Their current priorities are improving support for Arabic and Indic scripts, and adapting the visual editor to the needs of the Wikivoyages and Wikisources.
The visual editor is now available to all users at most Wikivoyages. It was also enabled for all contributors at the French Wikinews.
The single edit tab feature combines the "Edit" and "Edit source" tabs into a single "Edit" tab. It has been deployed to several Wikipedias, including Hungarian, Polish, English and Japanese Wikipedias, as well as to all Wikivoyages. At these wikis, you can change your settings for this feature in the "Editing" tab of Special:Preferences. The team is now reviewing the feedback and considering ways to improve the design before rolling it out to more people.
The "Save page" button will say "Publish page". This will affect both the visual and wikitext editing systems. More information is available on Meta.
The visual editor will be offered to all editors at the remaining "Phase 6" Wikipedias during the next few months. The developers want to know whether typing in your language feels natural in the visual editor. Please post your comments and the language(s) that you tested at the feedback thread on mediawiki.org. This will affect several languages, including: Arabic, Hindi, Thai, Tamil, Marathi, Malayalam, Urdu, Persian, Bengali, Assamese, Aramaic and others.
The team is working with the volunteer developers who power Wikisource to provide the visual editor there, for opt-in testing right now and eventually for all users. (T138966)
The team is working on a modern wikitext editor. It will look like the visual editor, and be able to use the citoid service and other modern tools. This new editing system may become available as a Beta Feature on desktop devices around September 2016. You can read about this project in a general status update on the Wikimedia mailing list.
If you aren't reading this in your preferred language, then please help us with translations! Subscribe to the Translators mailing list or contact us directly, so that we can notify you when the next issue is ready. Thank you!
Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk), 21:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]