Jump to content

User talk:Robert McClenon

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Youtubelover116 (talk | contribs) at 19:04, 18 March 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Happy New Year Robert McClenon!

Happy New Year!

Robert McClenon,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Iryna Harpy (talk) 00:17, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

My response re: profanity

NAC: No arguing about profanity on my talk page, damn it! Robert McClenon (talk) 22:26, 3 January 2015 (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.

It may be a non-issue, but I still don't feel that profanity belongs here. I don't care if a 6 month old knows what F means, it's still not right. Why do they bleep out words on TV? Would I like to hear those words? Yes, but that's the way it is. We should do some self policing here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rricci428 (talk • contribs) 18:15, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but if I may: I don't quite understand this argument. You say that you'd like to hear the bleeped words on TV, but defend the practice of censorship based on it being the way things are; and then you say we should do similar thing here even though you apparently don't agree with this policy as all that much. I'm not seeing the logic here. Not trying to be mean, mind you, I dislike gratuitous swearing by morons who can't express themselves well (which can include myself at times), but it might be good to do some self-reflection. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie | Say Shalom! 12 Tevet 5775 22:03, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Vienna Conservatory

Hello. I noticed that you left a message on my talk page with a little warning. Well, I already told the Wikipedians on the Help desk that I did not vandalize any articles. I just blanked this article about Vienna Conservatory because the Vienna Conservatory is not the same as Konservatorium Wien. So please do not think that I vandalize articles and please do not post any warnings on my talk page. Thanks! Opo Chano (talk) 13:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm

You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Euclidean algorithm. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated. For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Civility Barnstar
You're a Good Man. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sultan Bahu

Respected thanks your relay, ok but you can check the view history of articles their action and results, accruing after the attack of mention users, are the have Right to attack on Sultan Bahu according to there point of view "Y" Lockmaster1 (talk) 14:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker

I've made a concrete proposal for talkpage-restrictions for Robert Walker: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Proposal: max 1,500 bytes a day for Robert Walker. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN needs assistance

You are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as a volunteer at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard.

We have a backlog of cases there which need volunteer attention. If you have time available, please take one or more of these cases.

If you do not intend to take cases or help with the administration of DRN on a regular basis, or if you do not wish to receive further notices of this nature, please remove your username from the volunteer list. If you later decide to resume activities at DRN you may relist your name at that time.

Best regards, TransporterMan 15:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC) (current DRN coordinator)


Consistency in the Categorization of 'White Latin Americans'

This is a relevant point to the request. To be honest, there is a bit of inconsistency here, for instance, why some countries in the americas such as Brazil, the US and Colombia use terms like White Colombian[1], while other pages such as for peruvians, venezuelans, mexicans etc. use terms such as peruvians of european descent[2]. Alon12 (talk) 17:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]


'Mexicans of European Descent'

On second thought, I would like to say that it's possible for the introductory statement to say 'mexicans of european descent', however, the following sentence could be something like, 'The historical requirement to fulfill this criteria was to be of predominant (officially 7/8ths) european ancestry', and then linking to the source. Alon12 (talk) 16:09, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Then we would have to explain inconsistencies and categorization differences in the opening paragraph aswell, and would mean to address the same things twice: once in the opening paragraph and then in the "In today's society" section. Is better if we leave the technisims and it's explanations to a section in the body of the article. That way it can be explained with proper detail. Aergas (talk) 17:18, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The opening paragraph also mentions 'blurring', which is then repeated at various points in the article later on as well. So, if that should not be included, then why should the parts about 'blurring' also be included, seeing as how the proportions are equally relevant to the 'blurring'. Otherwise, neither should be included. Alon12 (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Really? where? Aergas (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It is mentioned 'in today's society', about the blurred lines in ethnicity in Mexico and in, addition, the opening part of the page, firstly in the first paragraph, and then in the fourth paragraph. If anything, those parts from the first paragraph and the fourth paragraph should be moved to 'in today's society', if that is where all the details are to be mentioned, in order to provide a more consistent structure. Alon12 (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing, this line does not even make the claim you suggest 'Another group in Mexico, the "mestizos", also include people with varying amounts of European ancestry, with some having a European admixture higher than 90%.[16] ', it describes mestizo, by region, not ethnicity, it already includes anyone regardless of ethnicity, so you cannot use it to describe it as a another group, being mestizos.
Literally, from the study, this was removed before with no contest:
"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
Not, only is WP:Syth applied in the introductory statements of the article for what you've done, but also in the parts such as this:
'While in the United States the criteria has become less strict: there is self-identified white people that has an amount of non-European admixture that would be equivalent to around 1/4.' From this source [3], when it specifically shows 90% european admixture in the actual source, [4]. So, still higher than the admixture of Spaniards, as not even europeans are 100% european. Alon12 (talk) 01:03, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture case request closed by motion

The Arbitration Committee has closed a case request by motion with the following remedy being enacted:

In lieu of a full case, the Arbitration Committee authorises standard discretionary sanctions for any edit about, and for all pages relating to Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Any sanctions that may be imposed should be logged at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Acupuncture. The Committee urges interested editors to pursue alternative means of dispute resolution such as RFC's or requests for mediation on the underlying issues. If necessary, further requests concerning this matter should be filed at the requests for clarification and amendment page.

For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:18, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mole and molar mass

Hi Robert! I'd like to ask you, as a chemist, how do you see the status of mole (unit) as a dimension(less) unit? Have you encountered sources which confuse the mole with molar mass due to various reasons?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the answer! Is seems that the mentioned inconsistency is due to abuse of language through which the mole is sometimes considered a unit of mass.
There is another aspect that seems to be inconsistent. Given that mole is another expression for Avogadro number and thus a dimensionless unit, how is this status of a dimensionless unit consistent with that of fundamental unit in SI? Can a dimensionless ratio of mass/molar such as the amount of substance mass be a fundamental quantity and unit?--94.53.199.249 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation/United States

I've accepted this case and we are ready to begin. Please join on the case talk page Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/United States. Sunray (talk) 23:10, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Caron

I'm afraid your comment at WP:HD is one sentence too long. Mrs B.C. did not edit the article. She didn't even try. She did not even suggest she would like to. She just kindly asks whoever would like to update the article to contact her. You didn't need to say what you said.
See, it's possibly extremely hard and uncomfortable for her to talk in public about her relations to her husband, less than three years after he died... --CiaPan (talk) 15:33, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to reply, do it here – I'll watch. CiaPan (talk)

And I see I was right.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Odd impersonation thing?

I thought you might want to know about this: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&diff=642509131&oldid=642495546 CombatWombat42 (talk) 21:23, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Teahouse comment to PotatoNinja123

Robert - thank you for your fuller explanation. I'm sorry I jumped in feet first there, and appreciate the corrections. LouiseS1979 (pigeonhole) 22:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your Help Desk response

It took me long enough to find out who responded using the history, but figuring out how part of your response got deleted was too much. I put back your signature but didn't know whether you wanted the rest to be restored also.— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 23:10, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please see...

A recent edit by you at the Help Desk helped inspire this post at the talk page. I am in no way trying to discourage you from helping at the HD but am just trying to educate. I hope you take this in the helpful spirit that it was intended. Dismas|(talk) 20:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

Editors talking past each other on a third editor's talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:54, 16 January 2015 (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.

I did discuss this issue on the talk page, and I did not remove any other sourced data but the opposing party is not, and is unilaterally removing sourced data, thus he is engaged in an edit war:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mexicans_of_European_descent

Alon12 (talk) 20:57, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Alon12 is adding information that is inconsistent and is greatly misinterpreting sources, he have been going on circular arguments for days, what can be done to make this person understand? if you read the talk page his last arguments are close to non-sense. Aergas (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Here I explain what he did and why it's wrong [5]. Can you help me out here? I think he is not going understand. Aergas (talk) 21:09, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And yet again, the opposing party starts with ad hominems, yet nothing is done, and then has the nerve to complain if I say something? Do you, robert, understand the situation now? How am I supposed to respond, if I am constantly attacked personally, repeatedly, and nothing is done? I am going to take the higher ground now and not resort to his level anymore, yet you can clearly see the element of hypocrisy. He posts sourced material, it is agreed upon that it must be debated in the article first, before the sourced data can be removed, and likewise, then logically, I should be able to edit the article and add sourced data, and then we can debate the material in the talk section after the effect, but logically, to be consistent, the data I provide, which is well-sourced has no basis for being removed in accordance with the same logic, as it provides the necessary sourcing. Alon12 (talk) 21:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Alon12, in the last days you were arguing about how not all whites were passed as mestizos, despite that nowhere in the article such a thing is said, you have also been arguing that a study about mestizos, that uses the word mestizo to refer to the studied population more than 60 times, is not a study that was about mestizos, and as I explained on my diff above, you are greatly misinterpreting sources that aren't ambiguous at all. It's like you were arguing out of boredoom. Aergas (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yet again, more ad hominems, do you see this? How is there supposed to be a resolution to a dispute, when the opposing party offers venomous personal attacks and ad hominems? Furthermore, the study refers to mestizo by region, not ethnicity or culture, so the definition of mestizo you are trying to employ is explicitly not relevant to this context, also, stop jumping around, and simply debate this on the specific thread on the talk page. This expands over other latin american nations, whereby 'whites' are in fact identified on the census, despite the individual sources saying that SOME whites and indigenous assimilated into the mestizo identity. [6] a pan-latin american article, and the other source

"The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."

http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037
What does that have to do with the ethnic or cultural definition of mestizo? Absolutely nothing, it's used as a geographical descriptor, nothing more. Alon12 (talk) 21:55, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I can't really believe that you don't understand the problem with what you are doing and saying, we have a genetic study about mestizos, then we claim that the definition of mestizos might vary from study-to-study, then we point that in Mexico a number of whites has been historically classified as mestizo and that mestizo in Mexico is not about biological traits and mestizos can vary a lot, just like the study states on it's own way, where's the problem here? Aergas (talk) 22:10, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a study on ethnic or cultural mestizos. It is a study on simply the geographic region of mexico. So, again it has nothing to do with 'mestizos' in either an ethnic or cultural sense. You are applying WP:Synth. "The individuals studied were not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic identification was attempted at collection."
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1000037 And in any case, stop posting here, post on the talk page. Alon12 (talk) 22:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In Mexico mestizos are not selected based on any specific phenotype and no ethnic real identification exists anymore. Aergas (talk) 23:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
As has been said, the burden of proof is on you to prove that. You have no citations for that claim. Alon12 (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But I do and are in the talk page already. Aergas (talk) 23:35, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
They do not, and yes, let us go back to the talk page. Like I said, I did not ask for your input on this, comment on relevant sub-threads on topic in the talk page. Stop going off-topic on unrelated threads, in an attempt to get the 'last word'. Alon12 (talk) 23:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But they do, you think that because it says something you don't like it doesn't count but that's not how it works. Aergas (talk) 00:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But that is exactly what you are doing, and it doesn't work like that. So, like I said, keep the relevant sub-thread, to the relevant sub-thread. Alon12 (talk) 00:13, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Dispute Resolution Noticeboard Part 2

Robert, I'm going to open up another case in the DRN, if you cannot address the hypocrisy I pointed out here. My point is that, as it was resolved on the board, that sourced links must be posted first, and then debated after the fact. How come my sourced data was removed? It should be re-inserted into the article. That is hypocritical, and indeed I disagree with edit warring, which is why my previous edit should be restored. my edits, were extremely well-sourced and included many links, how come they were removed, and on what basis? If it is understood that sourced edits are made to an article first, and that discussion regarding them are conducted after the fact on the talk page, why was my well-sourced data removed by an opposing party who had engaged in an edit war against me, by removing sourced data. On the other hand, I removed no such data. That is hypocritical.

To user 'aergas', this comment is not directed towards you, so do not comment here. Alon12 (talk) 22:47, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your information was removed for the reasons that were already and exhaustively discussed in the talk page. Your argument was completely dismantled [7], and please continue discussing in the talk page, not here. Aergas (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, I did not address you, and you haven't done any such thing. Indeed, keep this discussion to the talk page, instead of jumping around to unrelated sections in a transparent attempt to simply 'get the last word in'. Alon12 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the statement that you were not addressing aergas. Were you addressing me, or were you referring to a third party? I am not an administrator, and have no authority with regard to alleged conduct issues, such as alleged personal attacks. If you open another case at the dispute resolution noticeboard, it will have to present the content (not conduct) issues more clearly than the previous case did, in which I had to ask seven times for exact drafts before I got exact drafts. Unfortunately, I don't see the good faith assumptions that are needed for moderated dispute resolution to work. If both parties will make one more effort to state specific issues about text of the article, I will try one more time, but I will not go through nine rounds of moderation this time. I think that the original research noticeboard is the next forum. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see what rise to the status of blockable personal attacks. I see editors staying barely within the bounds of civility. Any complaints about personal attacks can be taken to WP:ANI, but will likely be closed with a warning to both parties. Start discussing content face-to-face rather than talking past each other to try to get intervention from a moderator. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:07, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is all well and good in theory, but the issue is that you specifically got involved in this issue when you first, warned me for my personal attacks (which were in response to his similar attacks), yet after I stopped, he has continued. So, I would genuinely like to ask, should I have stopped? What advantages have I gained by stopping, since the other party is allowed to attack with impunity? With Regards to the DRN, if this issue is beyond your scope, then why did you specifically warn me on 'edit warring', yet you allowed the opposing party to remove perfectly well-sourced material from the article? This is especially hypocritical, when last time in the DRN, you agreed to keep it in the article, and then shift discussion to the talk page, and then allow consensus to be built around the relevance of said statements, BEFORE it was to be officially removed. Yet, here, it is the opposite, you are blocking perfectly reasonable well-sourced material, why? Technically, under 3rr, the opposing party would be in violation here for removing sourced material multiple times. What is of my concern here in relevance to you, is that you should not have allowed the other party to violate 3rr here by removing perfectly well-sourced material.[8] So, again, I ask you, how do you reconcile this latent hypocrisy? If there is to be another DRN, it will exclusively be on this hypocritical action, the others are not of consequence in this context, and as you have suggested the original research noticeboard option has been pursued. However, this is a completely separate issue. Alon12 (talk) 01:22, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Non-Stop Personal Attacks from Aergas

Even though I warned him [9], 'aergas', has still continued to make personal attacks and ad hominems against me. For instance, even in the 'no original research' research board that you suggested: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Mexicans_of_European_Descent

"He tends to extensively discuss the same things and even things that aren't related to the article and aren't written there at all and goes on for hours, then starts discussions in the talk pages of other editors or in noticeboards and tends to make too many assumptions that he can't prove. "

I agree that content should be discussed rather than personal insults against various editors. You claimed once that I made personal attacks as a new user, yet aergas, who has been here longer is the one who CONTINUES to make personal attacks. This is acceptable? Alon12 (talk) 00:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Central log

I haven't of course touched your edit at WP:AN but could you please move it to WT:ACN to keep the discussion centralised?  Roger Davies talk 15:08, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hope this was OK

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&diff=prev&oldid=642777429. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:44, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Medeis#Personal_Attack_Complaint

Hi, Robert.

I am going to remove your comment without reply on my page, and I wanted to explain.

First, consider the effect of your section title, "Personal Attack Complaint". This alone makes it seem like someone has complained about my personal attack. That's entirely off base, since I am the one complaining of being attacked. But there's no way to tell what's going on from your title or post, because;

Second, you've provided no diff to the discussion, where the response to my objective statement, mentioning no specific user, is a personal comment on the "fact" that everyone "knows" I am guilty of something, with no diff provided to support the claim. That unsupported allegation is bad enough. But then the editor goes on to respond to my civil and objective comment with the words "Eek!...Really?...Bullshit!". That is uncivil no matter how you look at it. It's also ironically ignorant, since I "quoted" that author not as a factual source, but as a source that elicits hysterical opposition for her minority status, the invalidity of minority views at the ref desk being a matter of contention.

Editors involved in that thread have a long history of attacking me for my politics, and other Americans for reasons which I know not. But I can provide diffs in public or private. In either case, I'd rather not publicly name them. I won't watch this comment. If you want to email me, do so, with my reluctant approval. Please don't raise this on my talk page again.

Note that I am not personally offended by your actions, and I will not hold this issue as a reason to be hostile to you from now on, as other editors here sometimes do.

Thanks for trying in good faith to defuse a situation you came upon. μηδείς (talk) 22:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a DRN discussion as volunteer

Just a quick note, at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Talk:Battle of_the_Somme#Anglophone_monoglots you need to change {{DR case status}} to {{DR case status|open}}, so that it will show you as the volunteer for that discussion and read "open" in the top summay. It also helps out the bot that maintains the page if you add your name to the volunteer list first. Good luck. --Bejnar (talk) 07:19, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

warning

Irrelevant discussion on my talk page. WP:DRN thread closed. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 20 January 2015 (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.

Just passed here to say that the user arianewiki1 is being somewhat immature and insistent; he is pretty much alone in his "fight". I just do normal changes based on what the community agrees with, as you probably saw on the astronomy wikiproject talk page. I make mistakes sometimes like any other human being, but they don't invalid all the majority of right changes I've been making, so don't take him too seriously. Tetra quark (don't be shy) 07:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Whether desired article changes were right or wrong is not the point. It was the process on how this was done. Again. The issue is not about the capitalisation of these proper names. it was about avoiding rules of WP:CON, which Tetra quark should perhaps read. I.e. 16 hours was unacceptable, especially when you had been advised to show caution in multiple times with AWB.
The adopted sanction was about your ignoring WP:CON, especially with the AWB. Nothing else.
Furthermore, you had made these changes BEFORE I even had my chance to discuss it, not AFTER, and the moment you were questioned about the possibility of an unforeseen result, then boldly just attempted to quell any further discussion by covering your tracks.
Tetra quark, in saying "...so don't take him too seriously" and "Just passed here to say that the user arianewiki1 is being somewhat immature and insistent" could be seen to violate WP:NPA, where repeated personal attacks could lead to sanctions including blocks. Please desist doing this, especially as a guest on someone else's User Page.
I do understand you might be unhappy Tetra quark, and that is why I have already offered some realistic conciliation remarks. [10]
Furthermore, if you want discuss things like this another User on page like this, it is worthwhile advising or notifying that person. I.e. Arianewiki1 (I found it by accident.)
My own apologies to have to state all this on Robert McClenon User page. Arianewiki1 (talk) 08:34, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality 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/Christianity and Sexuality. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Evidence. Please add your evidence by February 2, 2015, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Christianity and Sexuality/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Courcelles 09:16, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you close?

Discussion dead and resolved at article talk anyway... can you close? {https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard#Extrapolation_of_information_in_source]?

It isn't obvious why you are suggesting that I close a particular discussion at the original research noticeboard. I had nothing to do with it and am not one of the regulars at that board. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:05, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently anyone who is not "involved" can close a discussion. This discussion is closed and dead and needs to be closed so it can be archived. I posted at that discussion a plea for someone to close it 11 days ago and nothing has happened. Saw that you had closed another discussion there, so figured you were neutral, uninvolved and could maybe asses if it could be closed and close it if appropriate. Montanabw(talk) 23:35, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Speedy keep. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:07, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Somme dispute

Hey Robert, you're moderating the Somme dispute in which I'm participating. I noticed a question of yours on the DRN Talk page and I wanted to clarify something. (I assume it was better I do this here than add comments below your actual question). The request for resolution was requested by only one of the editors (Keith-264), not two as you seemed to think. That requesting editor had cast the dispute as being "joint", whereas in my opinion it involved more than just the two of us and so I felt that we should give the discussion more time before asking for DR. (That was interpreted by the original editor as me refusing DR, but that's not correct.) I felt that way because there were actually a total of three editors actively involved in the edit war, with a fourth having very recently been involved with the contested material. That was why I asked the question about adding others. They were already involved and I felt it would have been wrong to exclude them by omission. Thanks for moderating. Thomask0 (talk) 01:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

... for your reversion of what must have been my misclick - my system suddenly slowed and my click ended in the wrong target. Deep apologies. Richard Keatinge (talk) 12:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Need help with a neutrality dispute

Hello Robert, I'm writing in response to your generous offer to answer any questions I may have as a new writer on Wikipedia. I am author of the article on a living person, G. Flint Taylor. In October, there was a neutrailty dispute placed at the top of the article, for a reason not clear to me. Is there a process that must simply play out on Wikipedia or do I need to request an experienced editor such as yourself to weigh in? I would like to get the flag removed but unsure at this point what to do, as it as been more than 3 months. Thanks so much, Carolfowler1 (talk) 21:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Carolfowler1[reply]

Urgently asking for your help

Hello Robert,

I'm leaving this message to seek your help because from our previous interactions I know you are an administrator. I'm not really sure this is the right procedure, but I'm kind of stressed out right now. In a dispute that's currently on ANI I have been bending over backwards to follow the rules and to avoid User:Renejs from being banned, although I believe he has been very disruptive. Despite my intense good faith efforts I'm now being told I myself deserve a ban for my efforts. For details, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Concerns_about_tendentious_editing.

I am dismayed at this development. The alleged offense is that I reverted to the status quo text instead of to my preferred version because Renejs objected to my preferred version. As a result I'm now being accused of deliberately restoring a version that is known to be faulty, as everybody agrees the status quo text is missing a relevant piece of text that could be considered important. As I said, I am dismayed, because my efforts to be super careful are now being held against me. This seems completely unjust to me. If I was in fact mistaken, then I'll be happy to be told about it. Did I make a mistake in restoring to the status quo text? If so, what should I have done instead? Is it true that my good faith efforts to be extra scrupulous about following the rules can now backfire on me? What if anything can / do I need to do to prevent this? Thank you for any help or advice you may be able to offer.

Regards,

Martijn

Adding a few bits a while later:

Thank you for your well though-out response on the ANI page. You are absolutely right about how emotionally charged this whole process is. I'm sitting here with tears in my eyes, because my intense good faith efforts are met with severe disapproval. I've been considering dropping out of Wikipedia editing altogether. Thanks again, and I hope your suggestions will be heeded. Martijn Meijering (talk) 23:06, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your request at Jimmy's talk page

Hello, Robert. :) I'm afraid Jimmy's page archives pretty quickly, but I wanted to let you know that your question was seen. The best list to consult there is the list of Community Advocates. You can also reach out to our team in aggregate at ca@wikimedia.org. However, while the Wikimedia Foundation is interested in supporting communities in governance, the communities are largely autonomously self-governing. This is by design. Where possible, the Foundation does not usurp roles that can and should be played by volunteers, who are generally far better positioned to understand and govern their individual communities. WMF intervention in English Wikipedia governance is sufficiently rare that there isn't much to see, but Wikipedia:Office actions logs major office intervention on English Wikipedia. Lesser interventions would include DMCA takedown notices, which are tracked via category at the WMF Wiki: wmf:Category:DMCA. Most frequently, those involve English Wikipedia or Commons. Not specifically related to English Wikipedia, but globally, there is meta:WMF Global Ban Policy. A number of issues are not publicly logged; we do not reveal details on emergencies or other "Trust and Safety" issues, for instance. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 00:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Too hasty, IMO

I think you were much too hasty in closing the DRN discussion on Trainor. Please see my DRN talk page comments. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 04:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

BSG 2004 Dispute Resolution

Robert Thank you so much for agreeing to help resolve the issue, I have made my submission [1] (my first so please be gentle) if you require any additional information don't hesitate in asking. Best wishes. Twobells (talk) 16:52, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#First_statement_by_User:Twobells

Battle of Chawinda

Your survey is somewhat correct about the behavior. In fact I had brought one of the editor to ARE, and other 2 to ANI.

Now I have just counted the votes, there were 8 opposed to the statement that it was a Pakistani victory, and 5 were made in support and I have updated my query. Thanks. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 03:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In regard to the following

In regard to the following: "he wanted a volunteer mediator to make his case or work for him. As you can see, I tried to offer an RFC, and when he said that he wasn't sure, he was then annoyed by my closing the thread, as if he thought that I should keep it open until he could make up his mind whether he trusted the community." I have to say that you truly misunderstood me at DRN. (1) I didn't want anyone to make my case for me or to work for me. I have no idea how you got that impression, but it's completely wrong. (2) I wasn't annoyed by you closing the thread, I was confused and wondering how it could happen so fast and with so few commenting. (3) I didn't think you should keep it open because of me, I thought maybe you should keep it open until others commented. And I certainly didn't think you would close it because of what I said about having doubts regarding an RfC. I'm still confused by how the whole thing ended. Just so you know, I've had others look at it and they were just as confused as I. It seemed weirdly abrupt, and frankly, quite judgmental and prejudicial. In other words, it looked like you were ticked off at me and had an impression of me because of things you read elsewhere. I'm working to repair my Wikipedia reputation and move above the 48-hour block and everything that surrounded it. It's my opinion that your judgement of what I said at DRN is based on all of that. And that seems very unfair to me. I'm not a bad person and I'm not a bad editor. I wish you would stop insisting I'm both. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:39, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have never said that you were a bad person or a bad editor. Another editor did say that you are a bad editor. No one has ever said that you are a bad person. We don't know who you are as a person. However, your attributing words to me that I never implied makes me wonder. Stop looking for condemnation to refute. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sanction alert

Indoscope was already reminded, some hours ago, see his talk history. Bladesmulti (talk) 16:50, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Photographer

Our Venezuelan friend DID include the English version of his comments, most of them. Please don't be so rough on someone doing their best in a language that's not their own when they are already having a rough time over having a couple buddies SanFranBanned... (The Spanish version did have bonus content which is probably worth your time running through Google Translate.) best, —Tim /// Carrite (talk) 05:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Imperial system

Holy cow! I'm an American and I had no idea I should be insulted by "Imperial system"! Thanks! ―Mandruss ☎ 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Somme 2015

Er, have hostilities ended? Keith-264 (talk) 17:20, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! Trust the Yanks to turn up and nick the credit. ;O) Thanks for your help. Keith-264 (talk) 22:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help desk: White people

Is Help desk the place to discuss article content? Is it wise to encourage that by discussing it? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration clarification request closed

Hi Robert, just letting you know that I've closed and archived the clarification request you filed. For the Arbitration Committee, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:13, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

RfC - Helper Script access

An RfC has been opened at RfC to physically restrict access to the Helper Script. You are invited to comment. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Aergas CIR Issue

You stated before that this user could potentially be subjected to an inquiry regarding WP:CIR. How do I move forward on this issue? Is this DRN-related? I posted this before on the 3rr page.

The main issues with the article are the WP:CIR violations presented by the other editor. If a temp ban is implemented, what happens? Then the whole issue returns in 2 weeks and the same thing happens again. There are core issues that need to be addressed here, as 'kicking the can down the road', doesn't seem to be helpful here, considering how obsessive these comments and replies have gotten over the past few days, should show the gravity of the situation. Heavy situations like this do not change. On the other hand, I was warned about edit warrring, and so I did not engage it anymore, while the other party continued to do so, so why should I be punished? I would file a motion to have Aergas checked for competency under Wikipedia:CIR. He makes a big fuss over genetic studies, yet if you look at my talk page, he could not even understand basic abbreviations in a genetic study and later admitted he was wrong. He seems to have an inability to understand even simple citations. If you look at the mandates for Wikipedia:CIR, he fits, not just one, but all of the requirements to meet the violation,

Factual lack of understanding of basic facts, including the inability to even understand mere abbreviations from genetic studies. I am not exaggerating on this, I had to hold his hand through describing what specific abbreviations in a genetic study implied. See my talk page. He even admitted he was wrong on this through the long process.

Social Inability to work with consensus on a talk page, overwrites multiple users in edit wars without first consulting talk page See the talk page on mexicans of european descent[11]. Other users also commented on, for instance, the relevance of having americans included on the page, he took the opposite position, but he never addressed him. Supposedly this is because the other editor never formally edited the page, so in the world-view of aergas, he was never 'a threat' to his intentions for the page, which are not based on desires to reach a formal and fair consensus.

Bias-based He seems to hold a very strong view of proving mexico is some sort of genetically european country, despite the findings of the aggregate consensus of leading mexican geneticists showing the exact opposite. This is currently being discussed as presented by a third party in another issue. [12]

Language difficulty He seems to have issues in understanding subtleties found in the english language, and takes every comment personally. The funny thing is that my original statements on this subject, which were relevant to this topic, were chastized as being 'unfriendly' by Robert, yet later Robert claimed that both parties were civil. I was not trying to be 'unfriendly', I was simply providing an honest opinion. And sure enough, apparently, this is a legitimate critique and not a harmful one, that can be made under a WP:CIR claim. Again, I am a relatively new user, so I was not aware of all these wikipedia classifications until recently. I just saw WP:CIR being referenced by another editor on this 3rr page, and discovered that it is most apt to describe this situation.

Editing beyond your means Very easily gets frustrated when his edits are reverted to the extent he chooses to engage in an edit war and ignores talk page consensus

Lack of technical expertise He has claimed original research, providing contrarian un-sourced views to that of the findings made by leading mexican geneticists. Original Research is also something other editors have accused him of [13].

Grudges He seems to associate me as his 'enemy', and calls anyone who opposes him as a sockpuppet of myself. He has done this on multiple unrelated subthreads.

Inability to talk about incremental changes On literally every single sub-thread, including those not related to the topic at hand, he continually brings in the same content disputes, again and again. Even on the DRN we had, he refused to drop the heading 'full-european descent' and refused to including my sourced data on the historical data demonstrating the minimum requirements to be considered criollo or 'white mexican' was of 7/8ths ancestry, until Robert basically, said, that he would allow it. [14]

Is there a specific way to determine WP:CIR or report this, because I would say that he meets all the qualifications.

How do you suggest this is approached? Robert McClenon Alon12 (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IA

FTN section was about Indo-Aryan migration theory, not Indigenous Aryans. You can also count the length of replies, mine was not as big like others. I am not a proponent, I was just talking about the amount of weight we provide to these theories/hypothesis. I am not getting that why Taivo mentioned me, when I haven't even inserted like 3 sentences to this page(Indigenous Aryans).[15] I have asked him too. I also think that we are near to resolution. Bladesmulti (talk) 04:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

VisualEditor News 2015—#1

Since the last newsletter, the Editing Team has fixed many bugs and worked on VisualEditor's appearance, the coming Citoid reference service, and support for languages with complex input requirements. Status reports are posted on Mediawiki.org. Upcoming plans are posted at the VisualEditor roadmap.

The Wikimedia Foundation has named its top priorities for this quarter (January to March). The first priority is making VisualEditor ready for deployment by default to all new users and logged-out users at the remaining large Wikipedias. You can help identify these requirements. There will be weekly triage meetings which will be open to volunteers beginning Wednesday, 11 February 2015 at 12:00 (noon) PST (20:00 UTC). Tell Vice President of Engineering Damon Sicore, Product Manager James Forrester and other team members which bugs and features are most important to you. The decisions made at these meetings will determine what work is necessary for this quarter's goal of making VisualEditor ready for deployment to new users. The presence of volunteers who enjoy contributing MediaWiki code is particularly appreciated. Information about how to join the meeting will be posted at mw:Talk:VisualEditor/Portal shortly before the meeting begins. 

Due to some breaking changes in MobileFrontend and VisualEditor, VisualEditor was not working correctly on the mobile site for a couple of days in early January. The teams apologize for the problem.

Recent improvements

The new design for VisualEditor aligns with MediaWiki's Front-End Standards as led by the Design team. Several new versions of the OOjs UI library have also been released, and these also affect the appearance of VisualEditor and other MediaWiki software extensions. Most changes were minor, like changing the text size and the amount of white space in some windows. Buttons are consistently color-coded to indicate whether the action:

  • starts a new task, like opening the ⧼visualeditor-toolbar-savedialog⧽ dialog:  blue ,
  • takes a constructive action, like inserting a citation:  green ,
  • might remove or lose your work, like removing a link:  red , or
  • is neutral, like opening a link in a new browser window:  gray.

The TemplateData editor has been completely re-written to use a different design (T67815) based on the same OOjs UI system as VisualEditor (T73746). This change fixed a couple of existing bugs (T73077 and T73078) and improved usability.

Search and replace in long documents is now faster. It does not highlight every occurrence if there are more than 100 on-screen at once (T78234).

Editors at the Hebrew and Russian Wikipedias requested the ability to use VisualEditor in the "Article Incubator" or drafts namespace (T86688, T87027). If your community would like VisualEditor enabled on another namespace on your wiki, then you can file a request in Phabricator. Please include a link to a community discussion about the requested change.

Looking ahead

The Editing team will soon add auto-fill features for citations. The Citoid service takes a URL or DOI for a reliable source, and returns a pre-filled, pre-formatted bibliographic citation. After creating it, you will be able to change or add information to the citation, in the same way that you edit any other pre-existing citation in VisualEditor. Support for ISBNs, PMIDs, and other identifiers is planned. Later, editors will be able to contribute to the Citoid service's definitions for each website, to improve precision and reduce the need for manual corrections.

We will need editors to help test the new design of the special character inserter, especially if you speak Welsh, Breton, or another language that uses diacritics or special characters extensively. The new version should be available for testing next week. Please contact User:Whatamidoing (WMF) if you would like to be notified when the new version is available. After the special character tool is completed, VisualEditor will be deployed to all users at Phase 5 Wikipedias. This will affect about 50 mid-size and smaller Wikipedias, including Afrikaans, Azerbaijani, Breton, Kyrgyz, Macedonian, Mongolian, Tatar, and Welsh. The date for this change has not been determined.

Let's work together

Subscribe or unsubscribe at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Newsletter. Translations are available through Meta. Thank you! Whatamidoing (WMF) 20:23, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Robert, thanks so much for your help with the Battlestar Galactica mess. I'm not sure just what's up with Twobells, but this seems to be a pattern with him: stir up an article by demanding some sort of US/UK equity, then after all manner of agro, suddenly walk away. It's really disruptive, and begins to feel like trolling. I appreciate your calm, even-handed approach, something I've often noticed on ANI. You're a consensus-builder, something badly needed around here. --Drmargi (talk) 00:44, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have one question

Why did you add the 1/7 sentence to the article but at the same time wrote in the edit warring noticeboard about not existing a consensus about it? I ask you here because you haven't commented in the talk page. Aergas (talk) 05:51, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DRN- Battlestar Galactica International Co-Production

Robert, sorry I was away on business, got back and found the discussion closed, I'd would like to add my thoughts, we are near consensus but stuck on the fact that two users won't accept the show is a international co-production irrespective of the citations. Best wishes Twobellst@lk 14:52, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ban appeals reform 2015. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at WP:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Large edits

Nice to see that you found time to discuss, do you see any problem with expanding the existing data? It's material that appears in other articles. Aergas (talk) 05:43, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ref Desk proposal

Hi Robert, reading through the discussions on the talk page again, I have a simple proposal that I'd like your feedback on before I shop it to the whole group. It's very simple: For a trial period (1 month?), we agree to not remove or hat any questions for reasons of seeking medical/legal advice (and perhaps extend to include requests for opinion). Rather than a free-for-all, we first respond with boilerplate or a template, something along the lines of this:

At that point, we can remove any responses that diagnose, proscribe, treat any illness or legal situation, but allow links to RS. Perhaps even demand that any responses include references, or risk removal. Would that seem ok to you? The thing is, we really don't get that many medical legal questions, and I like how this puts us in the position to police ourselves as respondents, rather than posters. As I see it, this proposal is consistent with our guidelines, and it might forestall some debates, because hopefully the use of a template will warn all our regulars (and irregulars) to be on their best behavior. On the upside, we can then provide useful information, such as links to other people's opinion pieces, links to WP pages that are about medical topics, peer-reviewed literature, etc. So, any thoughts? Would you support such an experiment? Thanks, SemanticMantis (talk) 14:55, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

I am sorry you felt I was being disruptive, but I was not attempting to cause controversy. Nevertheless, I will not repeat my previous actions. --65.94.50.4 (talk) 05:21, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations and welcome to the arbitration clerk team!

Hi Robert. We have added you to the list of clerks and subscribed you to the mailing list (info: WP:AC/C#clerks-l). Welcome, and I look forward to working with you! To adjust your subscription options for the mailing list, see the link at mail:clerks-l. The mailing list works in the usual way, and the address to which new mailing list threads can be sent is clerks-l@lists.wikimedia.org. Useful reading for new clerks is the procedures page, WP:AC/C/P, but you will learn all the basic components of clerking on-the-job.

New clerks begin as a trainee, are listed as such at WP:AC/C#Personnel, and will remain so until they have learned all the aspects of the job. When you've finished training, which usually takes a couple of/a few months, then we'll propose to the Committee that you be made a full clerk. As a clerk, you'll need to check your e-mail regularly, as the mailing list is where the clerks co-ordinate (an on-wiki co-ordination page also exists but is not used nearly as much). If you've any questions at any point of your traineeship, simply post to the mailing list.

Lastly, it might be useful if you enter your timezone into WP:AC/C#Personnel (in the same format as the other members have), so that we can estimate when we will have clerks available each day; this is, of course, at your discretion. Again, welcome! Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:56, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! Good for Wikipedia. All the best, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 12:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nola

I probably should have said "he or she," but I was tired and very frustrated by this person and just wanted to write something quickly. The name is that of a character in the movie The Brood and the editor may or may not be a woman. I do suspect it's someone who knows the people he or she was complaining about, since it seemed such a personal attack. It was also remarkably circumstantial: I've created or been a major contributor of the black-oriented List of African-American firsts, All-Negro Comics, Luther (comic strip), Lobo (Dell Comics), Dateline: Danger!, Wayne Howard, Alvin Hollingsworth, Billy Graham (comics), African characters in comics and Category:African-Americans in comic strips, so by Nola's reckoning, I'm either black or promoting African-Americans. Anyway ... I hope it's over now. Thank you for asking and caring. With best regards, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:22, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re interactions

Kindly note Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Collect and such careless (now retracted) posts as [16] :) Collect (talk) 18:44, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep up the good work!

I just wanted to drop you a note saying that I think you are doing a great job at WP:DRN and elsewhere. I haven't been taking DRN cases because of medical issues (sometimes I have hours to kill sitting in front of the computer, sometimes I am not able to log on for extended periods) and it is nice to see that DRN is in capable hands while I recover. Keep up the good work. Your efforts are very much appreciated. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:21, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:116.212.192.38

Regarding this warning you issued. In case you didn't know, all of the IP's recent edits to Help talk:Edit summary and to Wikipedia talk:Researching with Wikipedia occurred before I issued the level 1 warning, and 116.212.192.38 (talk · contribs) hasn't edited since that warning. However, the vandalism was blatant enough that I was myself considering changing my warning to a 4im anyway, so I don't disagree with your action. Just thought I would clarify. Thanks. --RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 04:36, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hi Robert, Thanks for your email. I received what sounds like a similar email from LupinoJacky‏ and am happy to let the matter rest with the process of reviewing their unblock requests. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another reminder that I exist

I am aware that you were upset by some comments I made in good faith on the DRN talk page, but was it really necessary, first to pretend I had made no statement, and then to leave me off the list of participants altogether? My experience of DRN has been one massive downer. I would not be inclined to attempt it again, which is unfortunate, because the other mods seem to be able to treat all the participants with respect. Scolaire (talk) 18:26, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third opinion

Hi. Thanks for offering to help at Talk:Somalis in the United Kingdom. We've both now summarised our arguments. Cordless Larry (talk) 23:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Mabelina

Hi there: I don't know what to make of this latest from PurpleHz but it does not bode well for cordial relations, I don't think. Thanks for your intervention but what else can I do other reply immediately if he launches something again? Many thanks M Mabelina (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion

Dear Robert McClenon, I read the note you left on my talk page. There is a reason I prefer to remain anonymous and just be identified by my IP address. Also because I have started a series of discussion with my IP address, if I log in, this will change and it appears from a different user. I wanted to ask you if you are a wikipedia administrator or you are just asking me to log in because you personally think that way is better? 74.195.244.87 (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2015 (UTC) Feb 19, 2015 11:00 AM CST[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ag-gag

Hello! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ag-gag. Should you wish to respond, your contribution to this discussion will be appreciated.

For tips, please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment § Suggestions for responding. If you wish to change the frequency or topics of these notices, or do not wish to receive them any longer, please adjust your entries at feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A week gone by

With a week gone by and no response to Sunray's request for further comments, just so you know, Dispute resolution in March 2013 came down to familiar names and phrasing [17].

  • Can you live with… The United States ... is a federal republic consisting of fifty states and a federal district. ... The country also possesses several territories in the Pacific and Caribbean. — yes: TFD, Golbez, older=wiser first choice (Bkonrad), CMD.
  • Can you live with… The United States of America is a nation state governed by a federal constitutional republic, consisting of fifty states and a federal district as well as several territories. … — yes. TheVirginiaHistorian, second choice older=wiser (Bkonrad), Collect, Gwillhickers, Mendaliv, RightCowLeftCoast.

Consensus discussion led by Mendaliv on United States Talk page included this exchange,

  • The United States ... is a federal constitutional republic that includes fifty states and a federal district, as well as other territories and possessions.
"I might could live with this one." --Golbez (talk) 1:15 am, 24 February 2013, Sunday (1 year, 11 months, 30 days ago) (UTC−5) [18]

With TFD adamantly opposing, the 2-1 majority in the dispute resolution relented (two for including territories dropped out of the process), and the process failed on the discussion page thereafter following multiple mainspace reversions to exclude the territories. — they are now excluded.

You will notice how very close this last draft language is to our mediated Proposal Y, which Golbez once "endorsed", while TFD's good faith concession in mediation is a restatement of his 2013 position without supporting scholarly sources for his non-sequiturs, then silence. And now we again have, silence for a week. I am for a collaborative sourced on-line encyclopedia. But is something in this collaborative process I am missing? TheVirginiaHistorian (talk) 07:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Robert. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#Statement by Robert Walker and User:Robertinventor/JJ Copyrights. It's very kind of him to do my homework, but his only topic seems to be me; his latest 2,000+ edits are mainly concerned with me, except for an interval for Mars. It seems he's turned into a peculiar sort of SPA. I'm posting the same message with Drmies. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:07, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've also left a message at Robert's talkpage [19]. Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:14, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment request re 2015 in spaceflight

Please consider offering a comment on a discussion at Talk:2015_in_spaceflight#BRD_on_whether_satellite_orbital_explosions_are_notable.

Thank you very much. N2e (talk) 04:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am likely wrong but

Might you kindly look at the history for Project for the New American Century - I somehow fear that the ideal of a short readable NPOV encyclopedia article has been seriously waylaid :(. It appears to be dominated by the view that participants (all wikilinked thrice it seems) engaged as a group to run the Bush administration, sought 9/11 as an excuse to engage in war (having the US ignore warnings about 9/11), to promote bacteriological warfare and likely genocide, etc. My problem is the editor who seems most interested in the topic is one who is topic-banned from Arab-Israeli conflict etc. but seems to love pushing that envelope a teensy bit. OTOH, maybe I should just let the article be trashed this way. Thanks. Collect (talk) 14:08, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A brownie for you!

Hi Robert McClenon. Thanks for your help with the mecA article. Much appreciated. Cheers. tH0r (talk contribs) 13:01, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification needed on your closure of an RfC

Hi Robert,

You recently closed an RfC at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies § RfC: Comma or no comma before Jr. and Sr. but there seems to be some confusion about the exact wording that should now be at WP:JR. Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biographies § Clarification on wording and clarify what you intended.

Many thanks. —sroc 💬 15:13, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about a further RfC

Hello Robert. I saw your AN post about your closure of the comma issue, and the personal attacks. Why not just open a new RfC and have 'Do not' as the item in MOS to be discussed? There is a difference between 'is unnecessary' and 'do not' which seems likely to lead to continued conflict. The fact that it's a minor difference is no guarantee it won't be hotly disputed. EdJohnston (talk) 18:09, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Can you ask a question for me?

NAC: No, I won't ask a troll question for a troll. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:17, 6 March 2015 (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.

Seeing as I'm an I.P I bashed and discriminated practically before I even hit the submit button on the ref desks.

So my question about the medical procedure (faecal transplantation) gets deleted immediately. I see no reason why it isn't valid question. It irritates me seeing all these high and mighty editors with their admin friends whacking the undo button on impulse. No attempt to engage is made at all so they bring the whack a mole game upon themselves. So my point is, if it's clearly a troll question, why do they not point out why they disagree. Their actions demonstrate that they can't. Because it isn't a troll question. So there's no contest. Summery bans and reverts seem to be the dish of the day here. Is this what wikipedia has become?

So my question still stands. What would be the consequence of faecal transplantation between difference species. Examples given include dogs, horses and chimpanzees. The existing wiki doesn't cover this so I'm looking elsewhere. Can you help put this question forward. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.51.224 (talk) 21:34, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give medical advice. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:37, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You are wrong. Not asking for medical advice (I do not have a problem or need help) and I was asking on the reference desk. Not the help desk. It's a medical question. By your logic asking how large the average human brain case is would not be allowed. And I'm sure someone would come up with something like it's 500cc because that's the average in these parts and to claim otherwise would be a medical question.
But maybe I shouldn't have put it in misc, but that's splitting hairs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.36.51.224 (talk • contribs)
We aren't Yahoo! Answers either. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{re}} 21:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above 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.

Archives

Hi Robert. Shall I create an archive-box for you? Looks more "decent" than the list at top of the page. Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:45, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Better this way? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 05:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (idea lab). Legobot (talk) 00:05, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the discussion on Talk:Glengarry Glen Ross (film)

Hello, I am soliciting comments for an RfC that is currently open on the "Glengarry Glen Ross (film)" page. There is disagreement about where the film was set (New York vs. Chicago).

One of the issues is whether it is original research to cite to elements in the film itself (including props, dialogue, and a statement in the end credits that it was "filmed on location in New York City") to establish setting.

Response so far in the RfC has been mixed. Comments welcome! Xanthis (talk) 14:14, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

"Lift" Article, and Expert Retention

Hello Robert,

I note that you have recently been involved in some of the problems occurring on the "Lift (force)" article. This includes a recent ANI complaint, and your awarding of a "Trout" to one of the parties making said compliant. I believe the three main issues of concern here are covered in WP:EXR, WP:CIR, and WP:RANDY. I also believe that so far you are likely hearing only one side of the story, and not the side of the undoubted expert in the field (ie. J Doug McLean), who is being hounded out of Wikipedia.

This loss of expertise cannot be good for Wiki. Your thoughts?

Regards, Zapletal 101.170.170.142 (talk) 04:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, I see you have just posted on Steelpillow's Talk-page, saying ''You are the only frequent editor here who actually appears to be neutral and reasonable." This seems rather odd given that Steelpillow was one half of the team that did, as you described it, "the obvious railroad job" on the one expert and published authority here. Also odd given that two headings above that post Steelpillow outlines his strategy for the Lift article as "I do not intend to let the discussion reopen... [If the IP] gets all fired up and active ... we get the Admins to block the IP range."
I have no idea what you want Wikipedia to become, but hounding knowledgeable editors out of it cannot be conducive to building a high quality encyclopaedia. To save us both some time, would you please let me know where you stand on this issue? 101.170.170.160 (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

courtesy

I mentioned you here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Robert_McClenon_and_Guy_Macon

Re: Impersonation

Thanks for your note. I've been impersonated many times by "fans" over the years. Actually, this is one of the more clever ones. Generally they just reiterate my user ID and misspell it or add characters to it. Standard procedure is to indef the faker. SPI's typically don't turn up anything useful, so I stopped asking a long time ago. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:21, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Voluntary ban

Robert, I regret that I didn't make myself clearer in expressing my concern that the subject of Steelpillow's proposal for a voluntary ban had not responded, and my desire for that discussion to take place.

Your idea that I, "actually wanted closure in a way that would have been deeply unfair, imposing a so-called voluntary topic ban that wasn't voluntary, and without community discussion." is untrue. I thought I made that clear in my original response. Please stop making this allegation [20] [21] [22]. Burninthruthesky (talk) 09:38, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Robert doesn't mind my chipping in here, as you two are both pretty reasonable people who seem to have got off on the wrong foot. As I read it, Robert's remarks about Burninthruthesky are more voicing a concern about an unfamiliar editor than putting a case. I agree entirely that the ANI request, irrespective of its merits, was badly handled. The subsequent bickering could have been avoided had folks known each other well enough to act as brothers-in-arms who might have momentarily exposed themselves as mere humans. Trouting a friend is indeed a part of this acknowledgement, being intended to be light-hearted, but not every stranger will appreciate this and IMHO that was also badly handled. So I am hopeful that you folks can shake hands, bury any past slights on either side and whether real or imagined, and work together. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 10:41, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

barnstar

The Special Barnstar
for good advice not to be baited by admins so they have a convenient excuse to block you. Wowee Zowee public (talk) 20:36, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Thanks, but. I already have an account.108.84.28.198 (talk) 02:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Archives II

Hi Robert. As you notice, I've added an archive-box. I've also MiszaBot, for automatic archivation. The syntax is as follows:

  • |archive = User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive %(counter)d</nowiki> - the names of your archive-pages;
  • |algo = old(180d)</nowiki> - how long threads are at least to be stored at your talkpage;
  • |counter = 7 - the present archive;
  • |maxarchivesize = 200K - maximum-size of every archive;
  • |minthreadsleft = 5 - how many threads at least are to be left at your talkpage;
  • |minthreadstoarchive = 1 - the minimum number of threads to be archived

Best regards, Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 06:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ARCA archives

What's the permalink of the now-closed ARCA on GamerGate and Campus Rape? There's a good deal of interest in it. MarkBernstein (talk) 22:18, 15 March 20

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Robert_McClenon&oldid=651964904"