User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 50

Archive 45

←

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

Please reply at the MfD

You're not making sense there. Nothing unusual is happening, except for the MfD for a draft article that is not finished or perfect. No rules have been broken. I am within the rules for article creation. I'm doing what many experienced editors do when they create articles in their userspace. Please explain yourself there. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:37, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Valjean - I had already seen your questions at the MFD, but had other priorities besides answering your questions. Bludgeoning an AFD, MFD, or DRV is usually not the most effective approach. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Ngāti Tukorehe

Hi. You added a comment to Draft:Ngāti Tukorehe a few months ago that said it was a "draft on a subtopic of an existing article, Ngāti Tukorehe". But Ngāti Tukorehe is just a redirect, not an article. Did you mean to say something different? Thanks. Nurg (talk) 08:38, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

User:Nurg - Yes. I meant to discuss at Talk:Ngāti Raukawa, since there seem to be differences of opinion as to whether Ngāti Tukorehe is a subtribe of Ngāti Raukawa or a separate tribe. Yes, I made a mistake. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Ok. I see you have fixed your comment. Thanks very much. Nurg (talk) 03:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Camarines

Hi Robert,

You marked Draft:Camarines as "under review", and haven't accepted nor declined. Are you still reviewing this? A friendly reminder. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 09:43, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

User:SafariScribe - I forgot about it. I have dropped it from review so that you can look at it. I will take another look at it, but it's your turn now if you wish. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 20, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Historical elections/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk · he/they) 00:50, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

editing article at DRN

Hey, Robert, I edited that Nabongo article yesterday after the DRN request was posted. Should I revert or leave it? Valereee (talk) 11:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Valereee - You didn't agree not to edit the article. Leave it as you last edited it. We haven't started moderated discussion yet. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:15, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

dispute resolve wikipedia

Hello, I have informed the other party on their talk page and we are both ready for dispute resolution Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard on the Neith topic. Potymkin (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

August music

story · music · places

Thank you for explaining to a new editor! - I have three "musicians" on the Main page, one the topic of my story today, like 22 July but with interview and today's music at the Proms -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

On 13 August, Bach's cantata was 300 years old, and the image one. The cantata is an extrordinary piece, using the chorale's text and famous melody more than others in the cycle. It's nice to have not only a recent death, but also this "birthday" on the Main page. And a rainbow in my places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

On Draft:The Doctor of Alcantara

Hello !!! Robert McClenon

You wrote that Draft:The Doctor of Alcantara does not meet the notability guidelines. However, you did not provide any specific guideline. I looked at Wikipedia:Notability (music). But I could not find any rule about opera. So please show me the notability guideline.

Thank you ブラン＝アルジャン (talk) 06:30, 10 August 2024 (UTC)

Existential risk studies

Hello, Robert, how are you? I have just seem your commentary in the closure of my DRN notification. I really think that there is a content dispute in the article, the question about returning the article to the draft is secondary in relation to the dispute. The editors that contest the current version havent specified, in my understanding, any specific section or problem in the article, stating only general NPOV issues. I will try to refill the notification, as I am really really exhausted by this discussion, which seems unfair and unrelated to the principles of the Wikipedia. This is my last call, because if no one can help me with this kind of hindering pressure against the encyclopedia development, then i can no longer dedicate so much of my time to english wikipedia, JoaquimCebuano (talk) 16:11, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

User:JoaquimCebuano - I see that you found the neutral point of view noticeboard, which is a better forum for the general concerns that you want addressed. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Galician Wikipedia

Please histmerge Draft:Galician Wikipedia into Galician Wikipedia. It seems obvious that the current version is based on e.g. this, and even if it was written independently, the older history shouldn't have been erased like this. Fram (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Fram - I assume that you mean to tag it for histmerge. I don't have the toolbox to do a histmerge. The older history hasn't been erased. That is why I did the round-robin swap and moved the older history into the draft position, rather than tagging the older redirect for G6. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Okay, User:Fram. I see that PK2 copied the former version from the redirect in creating the draft that I accepted. I have tagged it. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Hurricane Ernesto

Just a reminder that it has been over twelve hours since your edit beginning to review Draft:Hurricane Ernesto (2024). If there is anything I could do to expedite the process, please let me know. ✶Quxyz✶ 15:52, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Tropical Storm Sonca (2022)

G6'ed. Please proceed with draft acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 03:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Page moves

Hello, Robert,

Please, if you want to move an article or draft to a page that has a redirect, use Twinkle, go to the page with a redirect and tag it CSD>G6 Move and in the field, put the name of the draft or article you want moved and an admin can handle the deletion and page move. Do not move a main space redirect to your own User space and then tag the page for deletion. Then we lose the page history of the original redirect which ends up on a deleted page in your User space which is kind of ridiculous. Let's try to keep a page's history together, whether it is the current page history or a deleted page history. There is no need to move pages to your User space when there is a simple way to keep all of the history together using Twinkle. Please do this in the future. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 05:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Liz - I hear you, and won't do it in the meantime until I get this resolved, but I only partly understand. First, and this is a minor point, AFC reviewers always use G6-AFC-Move for a blocking redirect rather than G6-Move, because we are asking the deleting admin not to handle the page move, unless they use the AFC script. The AFC accept script performs a considerable amount of useful cleanup work. If an admin does a regular page move of the draft into article space, a lot of manual cleanup work is required afterward. But, second, G6, either Move or AFC-Move, says it should be used if there is only a minor page history. So are you saying that the minor page history should be preserved also, or sort of preserved also? Third, what I am looking for is a way that I can immediately accept a draft when there is a blocking redirect, without needing to wait for the admin to delete the redirect. Are you aware of a way that I can do that (free up the article title immediately, without waiting for the G6 queue)? Robert McClenon (talk) 06:11, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Note

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calicut_FC#

Please can it be protected, if not constant ip vandal blocked, you spoke him recently Cenderabird (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:3O-notice

Hi, Robert. I created template {{3O-notice}} five months ago, then forgot about it, until I got a bot message just now that it was up for deletion as a stale draft. So I patched it up a little, and released it. If you are willing, could you have a look at it, critique the message text and parameter usage, and let me know what you think? Also, it would be great if you could try it out live a couple of times and lmk how it goes, and if there's anything you would change about it. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 08:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

You're welcome, User:Mathglot. I have tried it right below this message, and that looks right. I have two comments at this time. First, I think that a few spaces and line feeds in the template code would make it a little easier to read for any third party. Second, I would have made this change myself, except that you are using safesubst, which I do not have experience with. Can you tweak the template so that Anomiebot substitutes the template? I think that is all for now. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

First, apologies for the length of this. Both of these issues (structured code, subst'ing) are things I am concerned with too, as template code can look abstruse, and make it very hard to modify. There is a solution, or workaround, but before I get into the weeds about that, my first priority is to template *users* (proper messaging, useful params, good doc, etc.) and only secondarily to *template writers* (ease of maintainability), although the latter is definitely a goal as well, and something I always do if/when it is possible, through various methods, including indenting/newlines, but also use of subtemplates. Most of your questions or issues appear to be in the second category. I will address them, but it requires some detailed, and I'm sorry—lengthy, explanation.

(Warning: weeds ahead!) Here's an example of a subtemplate: can you make sense out of this? I see plenty of templates whose code looks like this, and it's very frustrating trying to read or understand it:

Sample of fairly typical, unstructured and abstruse template code

{{#if: {{hasTemplate|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config}} | {{#switch: {{{1|}}} |bot = Lowercase sigmabot III |age = {{#if: {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config|1|algo}} | {{#invoke:String|match| {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config|1|algo}} |^%s*old%s*%((%d+)d%)%s*$|nomatch=}} }} |units = {{#if: {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config|1|algo}} | {{#switch: {{#invoke:String|match| {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config|1|algo}} |^%s*old%s*%(%d+(%a)%)%s*$|nomatch=}} | d = days | h = hours | #DEFAULT = seconds }} }} |minkeepthreads |minthreadsleft |min = {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:MiszaBot/config|1|minthreadsleft}} |#DEFAULT = }} | {{#if: {{hasTemplate|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis}} | {{#switch: {{{1|}}} |bot = ClueBot III |age = {{#if: {{{round|{{{r|}}}}}} | {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|age}} > 24 | {{#expr: ((2 * {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|age}}/24) round 0) / 2}} | {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|age}} }} | {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|age}} }} |units = {{#if: {{{round|{{{r|}}}}}} | {{#ifexpr: {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|age}} > 24 | days | hours }} | hours }} |minkeepthreads |minthreadsleft | min = {{tmpv|{{{2|{{FULLPAGENAME}}}}}|User:ClueBot III/ArchiveThis|1|minkeepthreads}} |#DEFAULT = }} end #switch ClueBot III }} }}<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude>

Got it all figured out now? I'm sure not, and I hate code like that. But it doesn't have to be that way. If you go to Template:Talk header/archivebotparse and have a look at the code there, you will see how I prefer to write template code. And now for the big reveal: the two are identical; the rubbish code in the collapse box is the exact same template, only without the newlines and spacing. So, believe me when I say I know what you are talking about, as far as writing accessible code, and I think we are totally on the same page about that. (It's on my to-do list to write a template-writing essay about that, but sadly. my to-do list is too long to envision it happening any time soon.)

That said, there are some places you can add newlines and blanks (before and after the pipe character in #if: and #switch: statements, for example) but not all templates are subject to that, so you have to add comment delimiters to protect the white space, and often that works, but there are still a fraction of templates for where it doesn't (or, more precisely, it would, but the comments would get emitted in the output, so the comment delimiters have to be <noinclude>d, and that may make the code line too long to be able to align the if's and else's, and just make things worse instead of better. And that is compounded in templates that must be subst'ed, making what was a short line very long, and alignment impossible.

I still have a solution for that, though, and that segues us into the subst'ing issue now (and more weeds). Subst protection for templates that may, or must be subst'ed is annoying, but necessary. The thing you mentioned about AnomieBot, is only about subst'ing a template placed by a user who used {{Foo}} when {{subst:Foo}} was required. But that requires Template:Foo to have internal subst-protection (safesubst); there is no such thing as a bot that fixes placement of a template that lacks subst protection in the code itself. So, unfortunately, the tweak you refer to is impossible—I cannot remove subst protection from the template. It would be great if we could, then we wouldn't have to have subst-protection in Template:Uw-vandalism1, and all the many other user warning templates that have it, but unfortunately there is no way to do what you wish by bot. (If it's possible at all, imho it would have to be via a mediawiki software change that alters how the template language works, and I wouldn't hold my breath about that.)

All of which by way of long explanation that, unfortunately, your tweak of removing subst protection from the template is not possible. But, I do have a workaround that may work for you, in this, and every template that uses subst protection. I find subst protection just as annoying as you do, and sometimes it makes it impossible to see the logic flow of the code. So the first thing I do, on any template I am updating (after moving it to the sandbox) is to strip out all the subst protection. Voilà, readable code! (Or at least, more readable than before.) Next, I add newlines, whitespace, and comments. I make my code changes, and the last thing I do is to reverse the process, stripping the white space and reinserting the subst protection. The good news is that stripping it out and reinserting it are completely mechanical, and you don't have to understand anything about subst protection. If you are familiar with PCRE, you can just use these two regexes.

Alternative method without PCRE

If you're not familiar with PCRE, to unsubstify, basically look for the string {{{|safesubst:}}} and remove every occurrence of it. Lately, an alternative method has become popular, which is <includeonly>safesubst:</includeonly>, so remove all of those. To re-substify, find all occurrences of two left curly brackets not preceded by another curly bracket (so exactly two, no more, no less) and replace them with two left curly brackets plus the subst phrase you removed before.

Still with me? This is probably way more than you bargained for, and maybe the core of this explanation could be bootstrapped into that essay I mean to write at some point. But the bottom line is that there isn't a way to easily modify the template wikicode appearance the way you might wish, but the template update method of:

1. simplifying the code via subst protection removal and adding white space to highlight the logic,
2. make code changes and test, and
3. undo white space (if necessary), and re-add subst protection (required)

will work here (and will work everywhere and simplify the changes you want to make to any template). If you look at the history and changes to Template:3O-notice/sandbox (which I just created for you), you will see step #1 in action. If you want to play around changing the code in the sandbox, be my guest. If your changes work in step 2 (note one missing item: I have not yet written the test cases page) then you can proceed to step 3, and if it still looks good in all the test cases, you can move the sandbox back to live. Nobody is using this template yet, so you are not going to break anything. That said, if you'd rather I make specific functional changes to how the template works, I'm happy to do it; just let me know. Mathglot (talk) 21:16, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Mathglot - You said that this is long, and it is long, and I will read it within 36 hours. Thank you, sort of. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

Only if you wish to. In my OP, I was proposing a functional critique, i.e., how well would it suit a potential user of it, such as the message text, layout, linkage, parameter names and usage, even the image, and the doc page and that's easy to discuss (and no weeds). When the topic becomes what the wikicode looks like and why, and how to improve the code for maintainability by other template writers, that is very much a different question essentially unrelated to the functionality question that is more about template language, which opens up a huge can of worms and takes a lot longer to discuss. If it interests you, I'm game, and it sounds like it does because you asked about it, hence the long explanation. Otoh feel free to ignore it if it doesn't. Mathglot (talk) 09:52, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Notice of content dispute listed at WP:3O for assistance

This message is to let you know of a request for a third opinion (3O) regarding a content dispute you have been involved in. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to do so, to help this issue come to a resolution. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

About the Request for Comments.

Hi,Robert. You told me I can solve my issue by a Request for Comments just now, would you mind telling me how to do it? It's a little bit complicated，am I right to create a new a new section here？Kof2102966 (talk) 16:40, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

RFC vs. DR

When to do which?

I've attempted to engage an editor on a philosophy article, but no response yet, just revert -- may or may not continue in this way; if it does, I'm not sure which is the more appropriate "Wikidiomatic" way to proceed.

Cheers & thanks,

Himaldrmann (talk) 22:55, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

User:Himaldrmann - If there isn't a response yet, then I would suggest continuing to try to discuss on the article talk page, and possibly editing the article boldly. If there is discussion, I would suggest continuing with it for at least a few days. If it comes down to two different viewpoints as to the wording for the article, I would then suggest either Third Opinion or Request for Comments. When you say DR, do you mean Dispute Resolution or Dispute Resolution Noticeboard? The first, DR, is a policy, and should always be followed, but gives you various options. DRN is best if you think that compromise may be possible, or if you want assistance in formulating the issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Feedback requests from the Feedback Request Service

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Silla on a "Language and linguistics" request for comment, and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea on a "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comment, and at Talk:Kosovo on a "History and geography" request for comment, and at Talk:Twisters (film) on a "Maths, science, and technology" request for comment, and at Talk:Existential risk studies on a "Religion and philosophy" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 12:45, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Draft:Urban Community School

I hope I'm doing this in the right place. First, thank you for reviewing Draft:Urban Community School so quickly. I was told that process could take several months.

Second, I could use some help complying with your critique. I did - as you suggested - go to the Teahouse and post a request for assistance there. I hope that works.

Your post said "This submission does not appear to be written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article. Entries should be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources." This is certainly a valid criticism and I'd like to rewrite the article in the formal tone required but ask if you could be more specific? And perhaps point me in a way that would help me reach this goal? Thanks in advance.

Also, you asked if I had any financial or other connection with the subject. I do not. I did go to a different school in the UCS neighborhood, so I have some experience with the makeup of the school's environment and community. I also admire what they do for the kids in the neighborhood - that's why I wrote the article.

Again, thanks for the quick response to my submission; thanks for any help you can give me that will make me a more proficient Wikipedia editor. Benetsee (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

Proposed decision in the Historical elections case posted

Hi Robert McClenon, in the open Historical elections arbitration case, in which you offered a statement, a proposed decision has been posted. If you have comments on the proposed decision, they may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. SilverLocust 💬 14:38, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

DRN On Neith

Hi,

I wasn't aware at the time that a Dispute Resolution had been posted regarding Neith when I edited the article. Should I revert my edit? Also, I wanted to let you know that there might be a delay in the reponses of the editors involved in the dispute as it appears one of the editors had been temporarily blocked for edit warring, and I do not know if that will effect their ability to respond in a timely manner on the dispute.

All the best, Brocade River Poems 01:25, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

User:BrocadeRiverPoems - The rule against editing the article only applies to participating editors who have agreed to it. Do you want to become a participant in the case? In the meantime, since you were not involved, there is no need to revert your edit. Shall I add you to the list of editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 02:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I suppose you can add me to the list of participants since I seem to have stumbled myself into participation by way of editing the article and engaging on the talk page. Brocade River Poems 02:50, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Casting aspersions

I am sure you know it is uncivil to cast aspersions, and I feel it is even less civil when doing so as a reason in a formal discussion. Remember, comment on content. Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Interleaving

Hello. You interleaved here, destroying the identity of the preceding comment. I'm not going to try to fix it—it's unclear to me where your comment should placed—but it certainly should not be placed there. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:17, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Closure for Request for Comments for RRR

Hi,Robert. You had kindly raised a RFC on 3 Aug in RRR talk page. It has been more than a month now and all the comments so far have been unanimous and positive. Can you kindly close the RFC and guide about the next steps? Can I now include the section which people have voted positively about?SaibaK (talk) 12:43, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, Robert.

Here is the link for quick reference. Talk:RRR#Survey

The RFC has now been open for more than a month. Request you to kindly guide about the next steps.

Thanks. SaibaK (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Alright, you must be busy or maybe this is not a part of dispute resolution.

The RFC got closed by legobot on 2 september. Till then there were 3 comments in the survey (also the case now) and all 3 of them are in favor of including the edit. Will go ahead and do so tomorrow.

Thanks for your kind help. SaibaK (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 02:30, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

September music

story · music · places

Today is Schoenberg's 150th birthday! On display his portrait by Egon Schiele, music from Moses und Aron, and two DYK hooks, one from 2010 and another from 2014; the latter, about his 40th birthday, appeared on his 140th birthday ;) - See places for a stunning sunrise, on the day Bruckner's 200th birthday was celebrated (just a few days late). -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:54, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Asking your opinion

Hello Robert McClenon, When you have a moment would you please review the Draft:Jennifer Kumiyama article I recently re-submitted for review? I'm interested in how the tone of the article sounds, and what you think of my use of citations. Thank you in advance. Best, Jack Tarre. Jack Tarre (talk) 15:30, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ideology and Utopia

Just a reminder about Draft:Ideology and Utopia: I G6'd Ideology and Utopia for you a few days ago, so you can accept the draft whenever you're ready. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, I haven't been able to respond quickly, but I would just like to express my gratitude for your assistance on the Dispute resolution noticeboard. I will follow through with your advice. Thank you very much for taking the time to assist me and other Wikipedia editors. Adachi1939 (talk) 03:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 03:30, 19 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Boston Common (magazine)

Hi! I was confused a bit by your comment--I responded to you on my article. Govwikis (talk) 03:25, 21 September 2024 (UTC)

Draft: Film Afrika

Thank you for your comment. It is difficult in the Film Industry to find sources that do not sound peacock like.

Should I leave out the Emmy Awards cite? Is this considered reliable? How else would I mention that their films have received Emmys but by referencing the site?

I fear I am still confused as to what to include and what not to include. I am getting rather tired of snide comments. All the articles I am referred to in order to correct the draft article are ambiguous. No-one has direct access to the truth. The article is constantly being declined on the views of two or three editors / administrators. I am getting worn down and feel pretty insulted by the tone of their comments. Some have implied that with a Drama and English degree, I should be able to read, and can't. I have been very civil to Tim Trent and now receive a snide comment about how he has been banging a drum and I only hear every seventh bang.

I am not sure how to take this further.

Frankly what I am getting paid to do this job for Film Afrika is not worth the abuse that I have received from the editors.

I don't find any of it collegial. It is patronising, patriarchical and humiliating.

When I mention my views, I get blocked and told to stop as if I am some kind of perpretator. It seems that snide little in-jokes and fired off comments are only reserved for a select few editors / administrators who seem to take the elitist stance that because they are not getting paid they are in some way superior.

I resent all these tones. This process has been extremely damaging to me.

In the process, out of some kind of spite, my own page was removed during an exchange between me and the editors. The timing was too coincidental for me not to view it as a slap from them for me fighting back at their insulting comments.

Frankly, I feel like leaving the page to be edited by someone else.

When I suggested this, I was blocked and severely reprimanded for soliciting work from them. I was also told that it would be "positively fraudulent" for me to still get paid for the David Wicht page.

It seems this cite is filled with landmines and that the editors and administrators enjoy watching a new writer walk into them and giggle into their sleeves. Except they don't giggle into their sleeves, they are outright abusive at worst, belittling at best.

None of this behaviour would be tolerated in any other context. But it seems to be tolerated here on Wikipedia of all sites. One of the most respected sites in the world.

The editors say that they are trying to help me and then slam me with "naughty child" comments as if I just don't know how to listen, instead of giving me clear instrucitions.

I have edited other pages FOR FREE on this site.

I consider myself intelligent and well read.

I do not deserve these ongoing attacks.

I would like to tag both @FiddleFaddle and @Theroadislong,Double Grazing to view this, but I don't know how to tag them. One of many things it seems that i don't know how to do.

I am told there is a process to report editors, but frankly I am so worn out by finding which specific code to put where, I don't think I will.

I am a well respected award-winning celebrity actress, Casting Director and Script Supervisor in South Africa.

I do not deserve the level of disrespect levelled at me, but when one says this, one is accused of making threats.

The only people who win here are the Editors.

I hope it is highly entertaining for all of them to keep belittling and humiliating people trying to learn a new skill and publish a page. I did publish the page for David Wicht EVENTUALLY although all the credit was taken away from me, as they said they had needed to change it so much. This is not collegial. It is nasty. And unnecessary.

I will continue to work on the Film Afrika Draft, and attempt to implement the changes. I however am appalled and shocked by the treatment I have received.

Wishing you a great day

Karin van der Laag Karinvanderlaag (talk) 12:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Reply to User:Karinvanderlaag

Okay, User:Karinvanderlaag. I will try to reply to your comments, and I will copy User:Timtrent and User:DoubleGrazing. I don't know how much effect my comments will have. You have said some extremely unkind things about the reviewer community, and I don't think that we deserve it. I don't think that it is fair or kind to the reviewers to say that they giggle at your difficulties or that they are abusive.

Wikipedia is a volunteer effort, developed by volunteers who work on it as a labor of love. Our readers trust that the encyclopedia that they read will have been developed without commercial influence. You are entering Wikipedia as a type of editor who has an inherently awkward role, the paid editor. Perhaps we should be more discouraging up front about paid editors than we are, because most paid editors do not work out. It is true that we do not offer paid editors the level of advice and support that we offer to new unpaid editors, and that we expect paid editors to be able to learn from system documentation.

If you believe the extremely unkind things that you said about us, that we were giggling at your failure to understand the rules, and that we were abusive, when we were trying to advise you clearly and neutrally about what we expected, then maybe you do not have the temperament to work in an anonymous electronic office.

We do not deserve the level of disrespect that you provided us.

You were repeatedly warned that you could be blocked for introducing unsourced statements into articles. You were not blocked for that. You were blocked for making legal threats, because you said that what we had said libelous and a legal attack, and that you had screen-captured our statements to you as evidence. You were then blocked because this appeared to be a legal threat. You were unblocked when you specifically said that you are not making legal threats.

Maybe User:Timtrent or User:DoubleGrazing will have other comments, but I think that you have explained that your emotional makeup is easily upset by working in an anonymous electronic office, and that your own mental health might benefit from not exposing yourself to the stresses of Wikipedia. Not everyone has the temperament for Wikipedia. If you think that we are laughing at your difficulties in listening to us, this site may be too stressful for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:31, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

As you will have noticed paid editing is barely tolerated here, especially poor quality editing such as yours. Reference your comment “I am told there is a process to report editors” you can find the venue here Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents be aware of WP:BOOMERANG though. Theroadislong (talk) 12:17, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I think if you look clearly back through editors comments to me you may (or may not) agree, that they were disrespectful to me. "We do not deserve the level of disrespect that you provided us" is exactly how I felt.

However, I am putting all of this behind me and will never be a paid editor again. I think that is where all the problems started.

Please re-look at certain editors comments. I wonder whether comments like "taking the piss" and insulting my ability to read are considered to be collegial? Not in my book. But either way, we agree to differ.

The fear from my side is that any retort will result in some sort of process that will result in another block.

So I would like to leave this here, now and move on.

I was told not to thank one of the editors for his help, as he asked me not to.

To all editors, I express my thanks for your guidance.

I continue learning as a volunteer unpaid editor.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Again, sir, a comment about my mental health and emotional makeup is off-side. How is it fine for you to make these assumptions and call this collegial, and when I express distaste I am told I will be blocked? These are personal comments in anyone's book. You have no knowledge of me, my mind or my emotional / mental state. These comments have no place on a site like this.

Would you be happy with a comment where I say: "your degree did not help you to read and write properly" (as one of the editors - not the entire "editor community" said to me? Of course you wouldn't. I am sure you would call for an immediate block of my profile.

I had no idea that Wikipedia allowed such personal comments. When there is a response from the new editor a kind of patriarchal attitude insinuates itself, as if the new editor is somehow hysterical. How is this allowed? I have been brought up to help train those who need training. In South Africa we have been taught that there is no such thing as incompetence, it is all lack of training. I think for some editors it would be useful to employ this strategy.

We need to be able to take it as well as give it. My comments to the editors (individually), not the entire "editor community" were in response to their sometimes highly sarcastic remarks. The fact that you even speak of an "editor community" is an "us" and "them" kind of othering. Surely the more experienced "us" should be extra collegial to the less experienced "them"?

I am an actress by profession and very used to taking notes. I am able to admit when I am wrong. I have not seen evidence of this from the specific editors I have dealt with - except for a quick "my bad" after another comment on whether I had declared myself to be a paid editor. The editor was wrong, but did not apologise to me. Just a quick "my bad" when he was put right by another editor.

The subtlety here is that "helping" the new editor and making snide comments do not go hand in hand, but yet seem to be deemed collegial.

Any teacher (I also teach) knows this. No-one learns through being ticked-off and effectively having their intelligence questioned. I am sure you would agree.

I had expected reasonable men and women on the other side of these keyboards. Luckily I did find some.

Surely it is about making the site better and helping those who read it to learn as much as possible.

The fact that there is even a label for Editor War, should be evidence enough that collegiality is sometimes not adhered to.

Freedom of speech is an international human right in most civilised countries.

I really hope not have any of these kinds of discussions or "feedback" again.

I will continue editing and learning. I am sure I will need guidance and ask for it. I really hope that comments about myself as a person will no longer happen.

I do not seek a response to this letter, but if you are compelled to respond, I will read it and leave it at that.

I hope you day is wonderful.

Kind Regards

Karin Karinvanderlaag (talk) 10:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Your NAC at ANI

The filing party was NOT imdeffed by boomerang. HistoryofIran was the filing party. Please amend your NAC before it is archived. Thank you. 173.22.12.194 (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Requesting input

see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anita Wood Strangerthings7112 (talk) 03:15, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Strangerthings7112 - Is there any specific reason that you are asking for my comments on this AFD? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Closure for RRR RFC

*Re-posting the earlier message at the bottom of the talk page*

Hi,Robert.

You had kindly raised a RFC on 3 Aug in RRR talk page. Talk:RRR#Survey. It has been more than a month now and all the comments so far have been unanimous and positive. Legobot has now closed the RFC. Can you kindly guide about the next steps? Can I now include the section which people have voted positively about? And what should I do if any individual continues to do stonewalling and deleting that section even after consensus in the RFC? SaibaK (talk) 14:46, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

User:SaibaK - Since my only involvement in the RFC was to start it, I was uninvolved and have closed the RFC as approving the addition of the section. Add the section. I see that no one opposed the inclusion of the section, so maybe the editor to whom you refer has accepted that they are in the minority. However, to answer your question in two parts, first, no one can stonewall because discussion is finished. You may edit the article. If an editor deletes the section, my advice is to restore it once, with an edit summary saying that you are restoring it as per the RFC. If it is deleted a second time, make a report at WP:ANI. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:45, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Robert McClenon SaibaK (talk) 20:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind suggestion earlier. As predictable, the disruptive user in question continues to ignore RFC and remove the section.

As per your advice, I reverted the removal once while citing the RFC, and since that didn't stop the user from deleting it again, have now followed the next step of your advice and made a report at WP: ANI. (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruptive editing by user @Jayanthkumar123 despite consensus achieved through RFC )

I now await the outcome of the result. If there's any other procedure I must follow then please let me know.

Thanks for your kind guidance. SaibaK (talk) 14:46, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 22:30, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

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

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 19:30, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Can I ask your opinion on incivility?

Hi Robert, I was looking at the admin elections call for candidates, and I thought I recognized your name. I couldn't quite remember from where, so I looked at our talk page histories to see if either of us had ever left each other any messages, and I saw this brief and very old interaction. I'm writing because in that interaction, when I had reached out to you because you were listed at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Volunteers, my main concern was incivility, and that concern went completely ignored. It was over four years ago, so I'm not trying to ask exactly what happened. We are all busy, and I completely understand. I guess my question is, in general, what is your opinion on incivility on Wikipedia? Thank you, and good luck in your upcoming admin election. GrammarDamner how are things? 19:04, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Reply About Incivility

User:GrammarDamner - Civility is the fourth pillar of Wikipedia. It is not easy to define civility, which is not primarily a matter of the avoidance of certain offensive words, although the avoidance of those words is a very good idea. Civility includes treating other editors with respect. One known issue with electronic media is that some people don't automatically recognize that another source of words on the other side of the screen is also a human being with feelings, and so they don't use the same courtesy as they would in face-to-face conversation.

In re-looking at the 2020 issue, I think that the reason I ignored the concern about incivility is that you had come to me through DRN, the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard, and DRN is a content noticeboard, and civility is a conduct issue. Content issues and conduct issues are dealt with in Wikipedia by different procedures and different dispute resolution procedures. DRN is not a forum to discuss civility issues. Civility can be discussed at WP:ANI, preferably after the reporting party has read the boomerang essay.

On the English Wikipedia, I think that incivility problems fall into three main classes:

• 1. Clearly inappropriate posts, typically having the nature of personal attacks. These usually result in a block.
• 2. Editors who are not only rude, but appear to be not here to contribute to the encyclopedia, who don't seem to be here to work on the encyclopedia. They are almost always indeffed.
• 3. Experienced editors who are clearly working to contribute to the encyclopedia but who treat other editors disrespectfully. These editors are problematic because the community cannot agree on whether they are net negatives or net positives. They often have lengthy block logs consisting either of short blocks for incivility, or of long or indefinite blocks that are then lifted after discussion. There is no right answer about these editors.

Your dispute was with one of the third class of editors. This editor is something of a paradox, just as is the editor's user name.

My own opinion is that ArbCom, who have agreed to handle cases that the community cannot decide because it is divided, should accept cases about a few of the most troublesome of these editors and decide whether they are net negatives, and should be either banned or greatly restricted, or net positives when restricted. That is my opinion, and I don't think that it is generally agreed that ArbCom needs to handle such cases. Otherwise these editors will bother the community from time to time.

I think that sort of sums up my views on incivility in Wikipedia. There is a continuing problem with a few editors who are contributors, but who treat other editors with disrespect.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:02, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Closure of Wudu Dispute

if you can kindly reopen the dispute on Wudu and give me the opportunity to respond. I have not abandoned it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasserb786 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:Nasserb786 - On the one hand, Rule A.11 says that you are required to respond to questions by the moderator within 48 hours. You had not responded within 72 hours after my previous post, and had not edited in that 72 hours. I do not keep cases open indefinitely for an editor who is taking a break from editing. So I acted within the rules in closing the dispute. On the other hand, I am willing to open a new dispute about Wudu if you give the other editor proper notice, and if they reply to the notice. So that is almost the same as reopening the case. If you open a new case and the other editor responds, we can start knowing what has already been said. So you are welcome to refile. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Bigg Boss 18 draft article moved to main page

i am requested you to please move the draft to the main page because I have all suitable references and the draft is fully ready so please check it and please move it to the main page 2000editor (talk) 15:39, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

User:2000editor - No! The title in article space is create-protected, also known as salted. I couldn't move the draft to mainspace even if I tried to move it. You may:

• Consult with other editors. Some of them have already advised you, on your talk page, to slow down.
• Make a request at Requests for protection to unprotect the title. It will probably be denied. They may advise you to consult with the protecting administrator.
• Consult with the protecting administrator, User:Liz. She may explain to you why your persistent requests to move the draft into article space have made it necessary for her to salt the title.

Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia policies and guidelines request for comment

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

Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:30, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Inappropriate edit summaries - To warn or not to warn?

Hey Robert McClenon. I wanted a third opinion on this issue and didn't feel comfortable going to the Teahouse about it. There is a editor on Opinion polling for the 45th Canadian federal election who will frequently insert their opinions into edit summaries, often going (strangely) with "it's so Joever" or "Comeback" when adding new polls to the article. It certainly doesn't seem like the right use of edit summaries, and truthfully this user does not do it every time, but it seems like the user is relishing that the results of the polls indicate poor news for the incumbent government. I wonder if I'm just getting my knickers in a twist about this particular annoyance, as the user is for the most part an constructive member of the project. If I should address this issue, do I take it to the user's talk page or to the talk page of the Opinion polling article? Any thoughts would be appreciated. Bkissin (talk) 21:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

User:Bkissin - I would suggest that any discussion of the edit summaries be on the user's talk page, so as not to get any third parties involved. I don't know exactly what the connotation of Joever is meant to be, and I would suggest both asking what they mean by Joever and asking them why they think that this use of the edit summary is appropriate. I also was thinking that asking about questions about edit summaries might be an appropriate question at Village pump - Policy, but not if you have also expressed your concerns to the user, because then someone at the project page will check to see what page you are talking about. So I think that a question on the user's talk page would be reasonable. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Robert. I let it slide for a while until it came up again and then I finally tried to address it civilly at the User's talk and we'll see how it goes. Bkissin (talk) 19:04, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

DRN

Hi,

I just wanted to let you know regarding the 15.ai dispute resolution case that you're mediating that the initiating editor User:Ltbdl was recently indefinitely blocked so will be unable to participate going forward. I do not how that factors into the issue of abandonment by filing party.

Cheers, Brocade River Poems (She/They) 00:21, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Hello,

I am unsure if this is the right place to put this, but I am part of the party that is invested in the dispute. Based off of the rules that the moderator showed me, I believe that as long as activity occurs every 48 hours, discussion regarding the dispute can still continue, only without the user. Please correct me if I am wrong. I would also like to encourage that you place a statement in the dispute, as you have made some talk topics on the talk page that could help with a dispute consensus.

On a less formal note, I am unsure of how disputes like this end, especially ones that take long times like this. If you have any advice for this dispute, that would be great. Thank you. Thought 1915 (talk) 01:37, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I would also like to encourage that you place a statement in the dispute, as you have made some talk topics on the talk page that could help with a dispute consensus.

I do not think the topics I have created factor into the current dispute. None of the topics I have created deal with the dispute about whether the website is under maintenance or abandoned. The issues I have brought up are deeper issues involving the history of the article and how it reached the state that it is currently in. Brocade River Poems (She/They) 01:43, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Candidate instructions

Administrator Elections | Instructions for candidates

Thank you for choosing to run in the October 2024 administrator elections. This bulletin contains some important information about the next stages of the election process.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

• October 15–21: SecurePoll setup phase
• October 22–24: Discussion phase
• October 25–31: SecurePoll voting phase
• November 1–?: Scrutineering phase

We are currently in the SecurePoll setup phase. Your candidate subpage will remain closed to questions and discussion. However, this is an excellent opportunity for you to recruit nominators (if you want them) and have them place their nomination statements, and a good time for you to answer the standard three questions, if you have not done so already. We recommend you spend the SecurePoll setup phase from October 15–21 getting your candidate page polished and ready for the next phase.

The discussion phase will take place from October 22–24. Your candidate subpage will open to the public and they will be permitted to discuss you and ask you formal questions, in the same style as a request for adminship (RfA). Please make sure you are around on those dates to answer the formal questions in a timely manner.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. Anyone can see who has voted, but not who they voted for. You are permitted and encouraged to vote in the election, including voting for yourself. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see your tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RfA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, you must have received at least 70% support, calculated as support ÷ (support + oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("'crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation as a candidate, and best of luck.

You're receiving this message because you are a candidate in the October 2024 administrator elections.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that at the Queen of Sheba DRN Afrodiplomacy was a sock

Now blocked. Doug Weller talk 10:07, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, User:Doug Weller. So the other editor was right about the filing editor. I didn't think it was useful to spend DRN time when there were conduct issues. Robert McClenon (talk) 10:14, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sensible. Doug Weller talk 12:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)