User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 21

4038:

boards and more public notices in general that "articles" and "drafts" may be "deleted" with no notification of editors who have interest in them IF they actually make it to "draftspace" or "mainspace" to begin with? You said something phrased like incredulous disbelief about creating an "Articles For Creation Noticeboard" like there ISN'T a "notice board" where apparent "observers" of Knowledge can "request" that editors (no doubt "unpaid" and clearly just "helping build an encyclopedia" on their own copious amounts of "free time" away from their "day jobs" on a voluntary basis) "create" an article FOR THEM. Presumably just because those "observers" would like to have on included on a "free online encyclopedia anyone can edit" that they don't know enough about to actually USE to do anything but stumble blindly around until they stumble across the "Request For Creation" link/page where they can finally ask that what they haven't "stumbled across" in the way of "articles" on Knowledge be created especially for THEM. And are you suggesting that you don't know about the "article creation" pages and that a "notice board" a little more "visible" to people stumbling around Knowledge blindly looking for something that "isn't there" would be a BAD thing? At least for anybody but "unpaid editors" who seem to take an inordinate interest in "helping" observers by responding to their requests for article creation and who might look a little "suspicious" if they're the same editors and administrators who also seem to take an inordinate interest in DESTROYING contributed content from others and who seem to be sort of "bi-polar" when it comes to their reactions to "requests"?

2718:

revisions are intended to accommodate them. My initial edit was designed to be as unobtrusive as possible so I appended the text under an existing section call ‘Models’. To provide the non-scientist with an introduction to the field, it was necessary to include some background information at the beginning of the section. However, I believe that this text would be more useful if placed at the beginning of the Rubber Elasticity page. And this brings up the problem of the original organization of the page (everything except the ‘Integrated network models’ section). As it stands, I think that the first 3 sections are confusing to the non-scientist interested in the phenomena of rubber elasticity and I would like to make some changes. The first two entries in the Modeling section (‘Freely-jointed chain model’ and ‘Worm-like chain model’) appear to be redundant because they are both discussed in other Knowledge articles. They should therefore be deleted or perhaps simply referenced in a Theory History section. The ‘Thermodynamics’ section should also be relegated to a History discussion. The page should also include stubs to ‘Elasticity Experiments’ and ‘Other Elastomers’ (besides natural rubber). However, before doing such violence to the page, I would like to have the Knowledge Editors review what I have done so far. The ‘Polymer Physics Project’ page seems to have gone dark- no discussions since 2014, so I’m not sure that I can get any guidance from that community.

8849:- Much of your post really has a negative quality of scolding me for being negative. However, as to issue 1, I really mean that it has to be accepted and worked around, and that any attempt to mitigate it is just a waste of time. Issue 1 is: "Newcomers write and submit inept drafts on unsuitable topics". They come because this is the encyclopedia anyone can edit (?!), and they write and submit inept drafts on unsuitable topics because they are clueless or self-serving or both. We had a hard enough time with ACTRIAL and ACPERM without stopping them from submitting stupid drafts. The focus should be on what to do about the stupid drafts. We aren't about to get the newcomers to stop being clueless and/or self-serving. I think that you would be negative if I started cheerleading some half-brained idea about making the newcomers be smart and useful. Maybe not. Maybe you would cheer also, but we really need to focus on the second and third issues. Maybe I misunderstood your statement of the issue. However, dumping on me for being negative is a good way to get me to stay negative. 3906:- First, I am not sure what would be gained from having a Drafts for Deletion process. Is there a reason that we need an additional process besides Miscellany for Deletion (given that there is very little non-draft traffic at MFD anyway)? Second, I am not sure that I understand the point about AGF and reality and cultural changes at AFC. Are we saying that the reviewers need to assume more good faith on the part of the submitters, or that less good faith needs to be assumed on the part of the submitters, or what? My own observation is that I don't see a problem with the reviewers and their thinking, other than being overburdened, but I do see a cultural problem with the bystanders, who constantly dump on the reviewers for not leaving notes for the submitters, for not welcoming the submitters, and for being bitey. That isn't a cultural problem with the AFC reviewers, but a cultural problem with Knowledge in general, that too many editors carry 2144:. One comment I received is "reference bombing". Another one was I have written names of other artists Keramati has worked with. To resolve these two, I removed some parts of text. Although this way of writing (mentioning names of colleagues some has worked with) is evident in the examples I looked at, plus it helps showing the working level of the artist, I still got comments regarding this. Anyhow, as I mentioned earlier, I removed such parts. Consequently what remained is his list of albums. Even the list of albums shows he is a known person in his field (both as a singer and singing teacher), which makes the topic of the article musically notable. But again you have marked my article as non-suitable. In the current version of the article draft, I have even more than 2 independent references. It was even more prior t this, but I had to reduce it. So even now the number of references (4) seems to be sufficient ( 4525:- I am not really sure that I understand the dispute well enough to be able to advise you where to go from here. Is there some specific issue about article content? If so, there are various ways to try to resolve the dispute. Is there a more general issue about the tone of the current article? I don't really know what advice to give you other than to discuss on the article talk page. I am really a little puzzled. Maybe you think that the content dispute is clear enough, but I don't see a content dispute, only a vague content complaint. Either you don't have a specific content issue, or you aren't stating it clearly, or I am incapable of understanding it. If the first, then discuss on the article talk page. If the second, then either try stating more clearly what sections of the article you want changed, or again, try discussing on the article talk page. If the third, then go to the article talk page or 6359:

that he is an award winner. I believe that "may lead one to think that it was a higher award than it really was" is erroneous because throughout the article even in the first paragraph I explain which award it is and the others, I don't just mention "award winning" and leave at that, I later in the same paragraph and following paragraph I detail the awards. I also explain his relevance to the field of Cuban History and demonstrate that he is a "well known" scholar, with quotations and citations. I don't believe is a mistaken or promoting voice, it is also a fact within this scholar field. Also, due to your feedback and getting declined I have searched other scholars to see the model of language used, to see if I was been too far off and I have found a similar scholar within the same field and the article starts with "award wining" and you find descriptions such as "best known" as is the example of this page:

7014:- You might want to stop accusing me of being out to get you, which I am not, and try instead explaining your position. I have been asking about your position because you don't explain it because you are so defensive. I have said for some time that I think that your view that drafts may be moved from draft space to article space in order to delete them is terrible, but I am continuing to wait for you to explain it. I am not out to get you, but only to understand you. I mostly find the work that you do in cleaning up draft space extremely useful, except for one persistent idea about moving crud into article space, and you aren't helping me to understand you on that, and are just making things worse. I can understand that you are in a bad mood after the temporary loss of your review privileges. Don't make things worse for yourself. 9174:

that are accusing me of COI issues where there are none, sockpuppet issues that are not there, and edit warring/vandalism accusations that are unfounded, after reverting a single edit from a user who was editing in bad faith. I am brand new to Knowledge -- as in, these are my first few interactions with editing the page, and I'm overwhelmed with over-the-top warnings from other users, accusations, and in hostility in general. I've read the boomerang essay, and honestly, I'm afraid to move forward with conduct complaints for fear of being blocked from editing pages in the future. Is there any way you could help me with how to proceed with this issue? Or maybe weigh in with your honest opinion as to how this whole issue was handled? Thanks in advance

4589:- First, if you believe that further discussion on the article talk page is futile, what do you want to do instead? Second, I agree that there is a certain futility to the discussion on the article talk page, but that is largely because you have not proposed any specific changes or improvements to the article. I can see that you do not like the article, and that you think that it should pay more attention to the numerous other books that are also called Robert's Rules of Order, but what do you want to say about the other books? If you have decided that further discussion on the talk page is futile, then there is indeed an impasse, but, if so, it may be because the other editors are just as unsure about what you want as I am. 3042:, you made a complicated statement that didn't seem conclusive but that suggested that there was groupthink. I didn't understand whether you wanted an RFC. If you want an RFC, you can still either file one yourself or ask me to file one. I will admit that I get annoyed by editors who imply that because they are the one editor against several, that means that they are right and the others are wrong. That annoys me. However, I think it would have annoyed another volunteer. I also get annoyed by editors coloring outside the lines. I also get annoyed by editors who give long answers to short questions when short answers will do. (There are times when long answers are necessary.) So: Do you want an RFC? 354:- Let me explain about bullying, and also to comment further on the disconnect between different viewpoints. Bullying is not always done from a position of power. It can be done from a position of powerlessness, and you did it. If a parent has at least two children, and they are supposed to be playing, and a smaller one keeps saying to a larger one, "I'm going to tell Daddy! I'm going to tell Daddy!" repeatedly, that is a subtle form of bullying. That is what you did. You were indeed in a position of powerlessness that was carefully designed to be a position of powerlessness, and you and the other paid editors were asking Daddy to intervene, and were telling Daddy. Before you went to 533:, I saw that you rejected my draft of “Boundless (technology company)” and wanted to reach out directly for your advice. Another volunteer editor had suggested I post it for review yesterday, and I felt confident that coverage of the company by a wide range of respected media outlets (NYTimes, Seattle Times, Bloomberg, etc.) was sufficient to support notability. But I am new at this and editing with a declared COI, so I’m eager to improve both my editing skills and my understanding of Knowledge rules and guidelines. If I work on this article some more in draft space before resubmitting, how can I keep it from being immediately deleted again? Thanks in advance for your guidance. 55:

explanations which I posted both on your talk page as well as draft page (sandbox). I had gone through your discussion on your talk pages regarding moving drafts to article space. As for notability of the subject, I have allayed your (Legacypac) doubts in my response. The problem is that editors of wikipedia continuously move from one issue to another causing endless travails to the wiki contributors. You may kindly edit language but kindly do accept the reality that not all Western and Indian editors of wikipedia do understand the subjects posted on regional and national topics/biographies due to the complexities inherent in Indian national and regional cultures.

8870:"I don't agree with having two Submit buttons. I don't see the point to that."? So negative, dismissive, and completely unaware of the theories of how to brainstorm. I was hoping we could brainstorm, perhaps you didn't read it that way? When brainstorming, the basic theory is to come up nwith new ideas, build on good ideas, and challenge for detail on things that are unclear. Bad ideas should be ignored in favour proposing new unrelated ideas. I think you should have either ignored the two buttons idea if you see nothing in it, or asked "what is the point of the two buttons" to encourage more detail, or to have suggested somehting entirely different. 9934:- Is the draft meant to be AFC-submitted? It is currently in an AFC-submitted state. Do you want it reviewed? If so, the usual AFC procedure is to move it into draft space. If you do not want it reviewed at this time, please remove the AFC submission template. If you want it reviewed but want to request a special exception to have it reviewed from user space rather than from draft space, please put a statement to that effect as an AFC comment. Unless you tell me something else, I will remove the AFC template and move it back to user space without a redirect. However, if there is a conduct issue, it really should be reported to 2677:) Hi Robert, I recently viewed your comments on my submitted article of Grey Wolf Communication. As a brand new Knowledge user/contributor, I thank you for your comments. You mentioned that the article reads as if I have copied and pasted from other sources, however, I can assure you that I did no such thing, and attempted to cite and reference any information that was found through research. I went through the paper and made edits in an attempt to have the paper read more concise and hopefully remove any statements that may have sounded copied from other sources. Thank you again, and I will continue to make revisions on the article. 9479: 3038:- You say that you don't think that the article is very clear as to her death. That may be because the cause of her death isn't clear. You say that you do not see any moderation happening on your request. First, you started off by asking for a particular format of discussion, to be followed by adjudication by the volunteer, but we don't adjudicate content disputes. You also colored outside the lines. You also went on at length about the apparent rigidity and complexity of dispute resolution, but I wasn't interested. Then when I asked whether to close the thread as rough consensus one way or to use a 9473: 4490:

only about one version of Robert's Rules, when there are many versions in use. I'm not advocating that a different book be covered instead, but rather that the article should reflect that Robert's Rules encompasses numerous books derived from the original, both in use and out of use, in addition to RONR. My view is that the Robert's Rules article should focus on the history and diversity of Robert's Rules, with special focus on RONR, but that RONR should have an article of its own, and it should not be depicted as identical with Robert's Rules in the Robert's Rules article.

9485: 6010:

subjective promoting term, he did win the Premios Casa de las Américas in 2006 among others, which I believe it is one of his most notable achievements and is what I'm choosing to open up the article with. I have also included a citation, which has a link to a Knowledge page, "Premio Casa de las Américas 2006", where you can corroborate this information. As for the second descriptive term, "well known" I believe is a very neutral and accurate description. I have read the example on "Peacock Terms" that was provided by Knowledge and this is the example:

9491: 7040:

pages will vary greatly depending on who shows up and what arguments are made. There are circumstances where the mover should consider AfDing the page right away. I have never advocated widespread use of this tactic to delete things that are better handled at MfD, a CSD or via ignoring them but I strenuously object to any proabition against moving a page and testing its notability at AfD. Remember Draftspace is a somewhat new invention designed as a place to work on pages for mainspace, not a permanent location for articles of unclear notability.

6013:"Peacock example: Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter." By no means, does "well known" comes close to promoting a connotation as these words do: "defining", "brilliant", "most significant", "most important". Nowhere in my article this type of language is used. On the contrary it is my opinion that this term is very objective and fair, as it can be proved by all of his work and contributions. I do believe Abel Sierra Madero is a well known scholar within his field of work. 5832:

same. In fact, I have summoned my colleague in English department yesterday night; he sat down on my laptop and edited the text. After his clearing it, I moved it into article space. Then a set of four notices flashed on the article page stating that the draft was under the finishing stage of review and should not have been moved to article space--Inform author. Probaly due to this all edits could have got undone. Thus User: Robert McClenon could not find any edits carried out by my fellow academic from English dept.

4740:

sources. This edit was made on the trans woman page without any preceding discussion. 08:43, 19 October 2016‎ Picture of a Sunny Day (First sentence was unnecessarily verbose. Trans women are women according to MOS: IDENTITY) Previous definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a transgender person who was assigned male at birth but whose gender identity is that of a woman. Current definition: A trans woman (sometimes trans-woman or transwoman) is a woman who was assigned male at birth.

7440:. The WP Help Desk seems to me more to be focused on how-to questions and, as you said, on detail. When I am asked by a submitter why I declined their submission, I generally want a patient explanation of what notability means, which might agree with me or disagree with me. I don't need notability explained, but the submitter may really benefit from another viewpoint. In my opinion, the answers at the Teahouse are more appropriate for a typical submitter than the answers at the WP HD or the 4472:- I am not entirely sure that I understand your concern. Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used version of Robert's Rules of Order and is the one that is most directly derived from the original. Is there some other particular book that should be covered instead, or should the article be about parliamentary procedure in general that goes by the name of General Robert, or what? I didn't entirely understand the issue, and I still don't entirely understand your concern. 4844:- It seems that you want an RFC on the definition, but you don't know or care what the choices should be. Why? I can help you if I know what the two, or at most three, choices are. Please specify, and I can compose the RFC. If you don't tell me what the options are, then I don't know why you want the RFC at all, and will close this discussion and step out of the dispute in 24 hours. I really don't mean to be difficult, but I can't help you if you won't say what you want help with. 741:. As it is, the paid editors can create blatantly promotional articles, which will be tagged for cleanup, and may stay tagged for cleanup until the end of the digital world in 2038. It's worth it for them to break the rules. In my opinion, part of the underlying problem is that the English Knowledge still has an idea that it is more important to keep expanding the encyclopedia (and this means welcoming both good new editors and bad new editors) than to make sure that the articles are 6536:

kindly review and give your suggestions to improve it. Our understanding is that neither you nor we have any problem with English as we do keep writing to international journals and audiences. A number of my US/UK colleagues have read this text since the controversy erupted over our writing of this piece in English. They only felt that as the nature of the subject itself is problematic it might have compounded the problem of the editor. A prior reading of what is

2792:, probably into your user space rather than draft space. However, are you actually planning to work on your draft now, more often than every few months? Are you planning to request other editors to help you? You say that you would like other editors to review your work. You could have done this at any time before your draft was deleted, and you still can do this if you have your draft undeleted. If you want general advice about editing Knowledge, you may ask at 9467: 5856:

instance I have clarified that an identical piece in Telugu is already available in Telugu Knowledge on Kopparapu Poets entitled as Kopparapu Sodara Kavulu. In keeping with a call from Knowledge English, I have written about same poets in English wikipedia. However, all of you kindly read this restponse at a time and arrive at a calculated decision whether to keep it? Please note that I have high regard for you all and pray for encouragement to new contributors.

3173:, but you might or might not get what you want. Second, you did not answer my question about whether you have a connection or affiliation with Triple Pop. Nearly all of your edits have been about Triple Pop, including at least one draft about Triple Pop (maybe more) that was deleted because it was left alone for six months. If you have a connection, you must declare it; this is not a nice-to-do but a requirement. Third, if you want more advice, you may ask at 9194:- It isn't clear if you are asking a question or making a statement or what. I will comment briefly. You say that this started when you reverted a single edit from a user who was editing in bad faith. Why do you say that the user was editing in bad faith? For a brand-new user to come into Knowledge and immediately start off, on the one hand, by editing contentious articles, and, on the other hand, by accusing a long-time editor of bad faith, is troubling. 8650: 3576:, in my opinion, is not pertinent, and is a digression that doesn't belong there. In that edit, as I see it, you are talking about your preferences, speculating about the reasons that the shroud turned up as late as it did, positing "avenues to pursue" and so on. None of this is relevant to a Talk page discussion, in my opinion, as it's too much like a forum discussion about our personal thoughts or feelings about a subject, (see the last bullet item at 3018:

talk page pertaining to this discussion in favor of "unexpectedly" so there goes the "many to one" consensus procedure. I feel like I am addressing a group of procedure-o-philes who loves the procedures and rules but have lost sight of the goal -- to present a clear encyclopedia. If you read the explanation of why she died, I mean, some kind of clue as to the background, it is still unclear. But like I said, I am dropping this to end the distraction.

5672:. The stated guideline is that a film that is in principal photography is only notable if the principal photography has been itself notable, the subject of coverage. That is taken as meaning that a film is notable once it is in principal photography. If you think that the two do not match, I agree. What is written and what is done are not the same. I happen to think that this either has the side effect or has the intended effect (intended by 155: 2261: 9697: 9589: 8993: 3235: 10512: 10304: 10206: 4547:

facts was met with repeated reversion. I don't really understand why you would call this a complaint, and not a dispute. The article is about RONR (and its copyright), not Robert's Rules of Order. This means that the article requires major revisions. This has been talked to death on the talk page, and the other editor, in my opinion, is not discussing in good faith. I believe that further discussion on the talk page is futile.

11039:

copyrighted material, and copyrighted material is never permitted in Knowledge, What you call your private sandbox is hosted on the WMF's servers, and so is subject to US law. Even if the WMF were to allow limited storage of copyrighted material for a short period of time to paraphrase it, and I didn't say that they did, you had kept the material hosted on the WMF's servers for years without reworking it. No, no, no.

1311: 1640: 2335: 880: 3881: 371:

At least, that is what seemed to be the explanation after you couldn't provide a statement as to what you were requesting. You were treating a volunteer as an employee. That is what I think. By the way, the most likely result now is that the edit request queue will start to build up again because it is clear that what a volunteer editor gets for working the queue is buffets and spitting.

4505:

original versions, which sell well and are in use. A small number of parties want not only to recognize the merits of RONR, but also to invalidate other versions. This effort, in my understanding, is in conflict with the core sensibility and prescriptions of the original work (and in conflict with other parties). None of this is apparent to casual readers of the Knowledge article.

2294:. Don't worry, I've cleaned it up now, and it didn't take an hour, which is my standard for a long time. And I can see why you did it; it's just that mixing the replies with the questions wasn't your most brilliant idea. Anyway, I've resolved the problem per Legacypac's recommendation. Don't fret too much about it, I just wanted to make sure this mistake was memorable for you. 7362:- I don't really know why I am being asked about this draft. I didn't review this draft. I personally am not persuaded that we need articles on electronic simulated battles. We have articles on real battles (regardless of what century and what continent they were fought), and occasionally articles on battles in fiction, if the fiction has a sufficient audience (see 3821:- I will inquire. Are you proposing that there be a WP:AFCN (Articles for Creation Noticeboard)? If so, what would be reported at it? If its purpose is for reports of tendentious resubmission and other conduct issues at AFC, that is fine, but I am concerned that it would be used then by POV-pushers to report AFC reviewers for being unfair. (Yes, obviously, the 7687:- This was an editor trying to use Knowledge for self-promotion who was stubborn and wouldn't heed advice to stop. I am guessing that the matter is now wrapped up. If there is a next step, it will be that the stubborn editor decides to resume trying, and the result will presumably be a block (with the pages all gone, the only sanction left is a block). Okay. 6532:

with Wiki-policies and the attitudes of its editors/administrators. According to them, even if an article is accepted and posted into article space, there is no guarantee it would remain same after a week's time.Meanwhile, a number of editors/administrators keep on editing its text and no one knows where and in which form/shape the article ends up after a week.

3588:

sure I still fall prey to it myself from time to time (and you're welcome to call me out on it when I do). I just thought you might like someone mentioning it, because it can be hard to have the perspective to see it oneself, and another pair of eyeballs can help. I hope you'll receive this in the friendly way in which it was intended. Happy editing!

2639:- Hi Robert, thank you again for the advice; it's very helpful. I've read the COI policies, and have now declared COI on the article, outlining how I am connected to Empow Studios. I really appreciate your willingness (and patience) to help me learn. If there is anything else you think I may have missed, I'd greatly appreciate any further information. 1744:- Communication in Knowledge is normally done by talk pages, unless there is a reason for wanting privacy. If you are willing to receive email, please enable the feature to Email This User. Otherwise do not enable the feature. There isn't a need to use encrypted email addresses. Either use talk pages, or let Knowledge remember your email address. 1857:. The original AFD was very heavily loaded by sockpuppetry, and the closer properly ignored the IP !votes. The editor who is complaining about the AFD and DRV didn't take part in the initial AFD, because they were hibernating. Hibernating users tend to be throw-away socks for paid editing, but maybe this was a hibernating social-issue warrior. 3885:.I think AfC does need changes, and that you lay out one of the big reasons here: I'm all for AGF as well, but at some point we need to look reality in the face, and I feel AfC in general does a bad job at that. I'm not really sure how to incorporate what you are saying with the culture there, but I agree with your thoughts in general. 9243:

being fresh about them. At this point, I'm ready to back off completely, and hold off on editing all together, until further notice, until I get a better grasp on how to approach. I feel I was dragged into another user's dispute, and did not at all take kindly to accusations, and believed based on what I read, that I was in the right.

4687:. The SPFL is, as the name suggests, a fully professional football league comprising the top 42 football clubs in Scotland. Any level of football below that in Scotland is not considered to be fully professional. If you have a basis for suggesting that the SPFL is not a fully professional league, please clarify that for me. Thanks. 2312:- I concede that the way I addressed the questions was sub-optimal, and that resulting outcome was a little worse than sub-optimal. I will say that the way you formatted the list of questions neatly did not make for easy answering, but I agree that I in turn made it worse. There are standard instructions for how to put together a 4452:). Unfortunately, after six weeks the RfC has attracted little comment from neutral parties. I would appreciate your guidance on next steps, as I still believe that the current article is not about Robert's Rules at all, but rather about Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised, as explicitly stated in the first sentence of the lede. 927:, especially before the widespread recognition of the concept of netiquette, but net.kooks were a different matter. They weren't just unpleasant. They were recognized as something else. They had to be assumed to be crazy. Knowledge is not very different in this respect from any other large on-line community. It has kooks. 3665:

Wiki Editor to write a proper page with all required & mandatory details, and you can find all links, video, articles , social handles and everything about her. I kindly request you to have a look and re-consider for the Knowledge Page. Its been 2.5 months since I'm waiting for the approval so I decided to write you now.

1186:

interviews or quotes, I know that these texts can not be used as references, but I understood that the comments and statements made by the authors or the interviewers are valid. For example, reference 20 is intended to demonstrate the existence of Genesis, without taking into account what its Director says there. Thank you!

8924:- I don't know. You just established above that you can be negative, and I don't see the point to proposing bad ideas that will be dumped on. Since you do have a history of dumping on the AFC reviewers, I have no reason to think that you won't dump on ideas. If you want to brainstorm, you need to propose brainstorming. 5196:

notability of Tim Curnow’s career suitable for Knowledge and because noone else had described this for Knowledge, Terry Snow edited a potential Knowledge page titled Tim Curnow, Literary agent. For this page, reliable, independent and reputable sources were used for information. No compensation was paid for this editing.

3877:. I'd agree that there are behavioral issues here, but I also think they overlap with the content issues. I'm actually not that invested in the draft space despite the proposal: I was just tired of hearing complaints about it and getting pinged at MfD to try to find a policy reason to delete something that no one wanted 2316:, but you were doing something strange, which is using a Request for Comments as a Request for Comments. It is usually really used as a Request for Consensus. Next time, if you figure out to format your questions so that answers won't break them, someone else will do something even sillier and break them differently. 1219:- First, did you read the information at the top of my talk page? I see that you have posted a similar inquiry at the AFC Help Desk, and I will reply there, as other editors may. Second, do you have any affiliation or connection with Generations of Hope? Are you employed by them? If so, please make the required 9841:

roles in a variety of global organizations. The second review/note, I'm glad to see, is that the tone issues improved. I have continued to edit, rewrite, and add more public references. Many thanks, and I hope it is in shape now to move to being an article. At the end of the process, I'll get a good photo.

7232:, with which many other key points alongside Plot like- Production details, Visual aspects, Reception can be added. This is just my opinion and I hope you consider it, because unlike other shows, Stranger Things has gained a fabulous popularity and reception from both audiences and critics(even the former 6512:

more work by adding additional references to the the text besides adding external links. These external links direct anyone to online verifiable independent sources which clarifies to the reviewers' any doubts not only about the notability of Kopparapu Poets but also about their rich contribution to

10437:

I don't think this is ready for userspace. It is still written at too basic a reading level, with misused terms in the lede. I didn't get too far into it as it was so full of mistakes, it's just not ready. I think it's best if you move it back and do more cleanup, if you're committed to this article,

9840:

Hi Robert, I want to say thanks for being the first to review my submission for Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn. I made sure to bring straight to the top (first two sentences) that Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn has (twice) been the Chief Economist of France's Central bank, Banque de France), in addition to his

9173:

Hey there Robert -- I wanted to thank you for taking the time to weigh in on the dispute resolution noticeboard. While I'm more than ready to be done with the issue, I wanted to reference the boomerang essay that was cited on the dispute closure. The issue is the back to back warnings on my talk page

7444:

at AFC HD. The questions at AFC HD often indicate that the submitter didn't read the guidelines (or even that the submitter is clueless). If I want a discussion that isn't just with the submitter, I need a forum that has other editors, which isn't the draft talk page, and the quality of the answers

7409:

Just to be perfectly clear: that's my opinion and mine only, and even if it was the majority opinion of Teahouse responders you are plainly within the "rules". Your questions are far from disruptive and their volume is relatively low after all. I am just wondering whether there is a particular reason

7039:

As I've said, there are some cases where a move to mainspace is the best solution for a page that may or may not survive a deletion discussion. Notability and promo guidelines are not clear cut and the only way to really know where a page stands is to test it. Even then, the results of an AfD on some

5831:

This note is in response to all your comments on my draft: Kopparapu Poets or Literary Duo: Kopparapu poets. While the former is found in the sandbox as a redirected draft, the second one is found in the edit summary/contributions page. Though the two drafts are having different heads, the content is

4739:

Disagreement over how to define trans man. One side states that any person who is born male is a man (male human) and the other side states that any person who identifies as a man is a man (masculine identity). Both sides argue that their position is supported by alternate interpretations of the same

4288:

where 2 execution lines saw that the page wasn't notified on, and then proceeded to notify in both cases. Hope this explains why you got the notification and why you got two of the notifications. I suspect if you made that first revision be not visible, the notifications would go to the right user.

3929:

My experience with AfC has typically been that reviewers go above and beyond to AGF, which I think it in part a vestige from the early days of the project when it was created to help IPs create new articles (fun fact for those watching at home, my 'first article' created was an AfC request in the old

3914:

too far, but that is just my opinion (and is politically incorrect, since I see an orthodoxy at work). (The saccharine wording of the AFC decline template is part of the problem, because it encourages submitters to improve and resubmit their drafts, and there is no good way to decline drafts without

3486:

Hello, I submitted an article called "Super Smash Bros. (Video game, 2018)" but you said me that it already exist and linked me the Super Smash Bros. series article but my article was about the last game coming to the Nintendo Switch and not about the series. Also, besides the series article, there's

2454:

is notionally intended as humourous, but in all my experience, it is rarely received in humour, but instead it more often engenders resentment. If you've ever seen someone collide with a fish, you will appreciate that it rarely induces laughs for the recipient. Maybe it would be more appropriate to

1817:

the COIN case. I reviewed that person's history here and I see no sign of paid editing. There are all the signs that they came to WP dragging a very sharp ax and have been grinding it on every topic they touch... and those topics have generally been limited to contentious social issues. This person

1253:

in preparation for this article. Second, the article was about the series as a whole, not just the game. I don't want to be aggressive, but reading the first sentence of the draft compared to the first sentence of the standing article, you can tell one is of the series and one is of one of the games.

1185:

Hello how are you? I have seen your review, sorry but I don´t understand why you think that the references are not adequate, since they are government and NGO pages, recognized media, academic articles and books by renowned writers of the sector. If you say this because of the references that contain

476:

Hi Robert. Thanks for your comments. I have included two independent news sources plus some other websites and an academic paper. What more can I do to make the article more noteworthy? Would papers presented at conferences also suffice? I'm discovering that possible news articles where the codes may

8866:

I find your three classes of draft submitted to be interesting, correct, and probably useful. I think we can and should try to think of ways to filter class 1 from classes 2 and 3. In fact, I thought changing the big blue submit button to to a big blue request_feedback button, might be a practical

8426:

I’m not sure if they are referred to as user pages. I’m trying to sort sub pages for about I am working on. I know it will take awhile to get them done, and I also want to add more articles for base starting points. I’m not sure I’m doing it correctly. Any input I would appreciate it and I apologize

6531:

is not the only piece in English Knowledge which is under sourced. I can take you to a number of such articles in English Knowledge on a whirlwind trip. But, the editors and administrators refuse to delete such articles due to various excuses. My academic friends note that there are so many problems

3784:

That there is no mechanism yet does not mean the problem can't be solved that way. With Tony successfully arguing for ACPERM, a lot of the traffic that went to main space before will now be redirected to draft space. As such, the number of people active in that area will likely increase at well. As

3017:

I'm going to drop this matter but I don't think the article is very clear, still, as to what happened. I did not see any moderation on happening at all on my request. It looked more like it was more a matter of getting it over with as quickly as possible. By the way, somebody posted a comment on the

2330:

Yeah, I'm not actually saying that it was your fault. I, for one, could have done something to indicate that I expected the questions to be answered in paragraph form below. And I generally don't bother assigning blame for things anyway, because it accomplishes nothing, and said time could be better

370:

be topic-banned from servicing the queue. That of course isn't what you wanted. You just wanted them to service the queue in a robotic fashion rather than a human fashion. Third, I still think that you were acting as though you had an employer-employee relationship, and could demand better work.

11038:

made a mistake in moving that page and another page into draft space, but you made a bigger mistake in keeping those pages, consisting of copyrighted material, in user space in Knowledge for a period of years. You say that they were still under development, but you had them for years consisting of

8249:

on 24 May. My inclination would be to take no further action and propose closing the SPI, though I don't participate at SPI very often so I don't know the drill. My only complaint about ChessQueen1 is that they gave a dodgy answer when you asked them if they were part of the group, but their actual

6545:

and Venkata Ramakrishna Kavulu. One may also refer to the online article available in the Hindu dated Dec 7 2012 in which reference is made to the notability and scholarly excellence of Kopparapu Poets at par with other contemporaries of the times. However my draft will remain in draft space till

6358:

I have taken the discussion to the Tea House, I'm not getting any responses. I don't think "award winning" is a vague term because he has won many awards and I can't list them all in the first sentence (I'm referencing this since you say I don't specify which award in the first sentence), is a fact

6047:

and discuss with other editors than to argue with me. Second, saying that someone is "award-winning" is so a vague peacock term, because it doesn't say what award, and may lead one to think that it was a higher award than it really was. Third, being well-known should not be stated in the voice of

5191:

Hello I want to ask if this Declaration of Conflict of Interest (BELOW) is what is required and where do I place it? I have cut and rewritten the declined submission for the Draft: Tim Curnow in more neutral language but I will not re-submit it until I have the okay that the declaration of conflict

4774:

This is the best that I can do. Current Knowledge definition: A trans man is a man who was assigned female at birth. Previous Knowledge definition: A trans man is a transgender person who was assigned female at birth but whose gender identity is that of a man. Here are some definitions of trans man

4489:

I agree that "Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised is the most widely used version of Robert's Rules of Order." I don't agree that "it is the one that is most directly derived from the original," but that's a technical point and not an important dispute. The problem, rather, is that the article is

4022:

and I are saying the same thing, about well-meaning but misdirected bystanders ("busybody outsiders") who carry AGF and Do Not Bite to silly lengths (in cases where either the lack of good faith or the lack of clue has already been proved). Just criticizing the reviewers, or offering to "help" the

3979:

What opinions and thoughts do you have on the subject of "undisclosed paid ADMINISTRATORS" and "sockpuppetting" by those with "sysop" status and tools sufficient to allow them to "secretly" create and use "alternate accounts" and entire "identities" as other "editors" with user accounts so they can

3829:

where paid editors reported a volunteer editor for, well, not doing as requested by the paid editors. (I was one of several volunteer editors who shouted down the complaint, but it left a sour note.) I would find it useful to have a way to report abusers of AFC (especially if the Twinkle arv menu

2717:

I have been editing the /Rubber Elasticity/Integrated Network Models page for several months, attempting to make it more accessible to the non-scientific reader. Although it is scientific subject matter that is of interest to many scientists, more non-scientists are likely to visit the page and my

506:

I saw your post here and thought I'd comment. It is much preferable to expand an existing topic like the one you linked. Just set up sections for the US and Canada. That page already has Canadian references. All pages are works in process and many have issues. Fixing and improving existing pages is

329:

Anyway, I would still like to say, although we've been on opposite sides of this matter: I appreciate the work you put in here. Knowledge is extraordinarily important, and I realize you spend a lot of time dealing with some of the more controversial areas. The drama boards can be thankless, but are

58:

Regarding language expertise in English, we welcome edits which donot alter the meaning of the sentences. But be sure, in terms of honesty and integrity, I am no less to any of you in so far complying with the policies of wkipedia. Kindly encourage me a contirbutor with your edits and moving it to

10808:

Hi Robert, Thanks for your reply! The page for Marc-Olivier Strauss-Kahn has been thoroughly scrubbed, as well as completely referenced/cited throughout. That should take care of the issues that were raised. If you are interested in re-reviewing it, I'm hopeful it's now in shape to move to article

10563:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

10355:

10257:

9897:

Yes, I could move it back to userspace myself, but, as I explained to RHaworth, I am being wikistalked by a pair of pretty vicious wikistalkers. One of them is an expert at misusing references to the acronyms to our wikidocuments to make non-disputes have the surface appearance of genuine serious

7606:

declined the article; this emphasis was made more clear on IRC. I had let them know that they could reach out to you on your talk page. Again, they insisted on their request. Instead of ignoring their request, I offered to reach out to you on your talk page in hopes of seeding a discussion. I hope

6763:

has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do

6225:

The writer has over 60 publications in Hindi language and has received many awards for his works. However, the article is declined because of the person not having significant coverage in news, books or peer-reviewed journals. I have used references from four news sources, one magazine source, two

4546:

Robert's Rules of Order is in the public domain. The original works by Henry Robert can be printed for free from the Internet, and there are multiple updated versions for sale. These basic facts are omitted from the lede of the Knowledge article, and minimized within. My attempt to introduce these

3664:

Hello Robert, The first draft was submitted by some random fan of Neha Chowdhury, who didn't fill any information or work links of her, just copied one liner and submitted for review. Strict action should be taken by such Wiki Editors who are spoiling the platform. Now we have asked a professional

3587:

I don't mean this is as a criticism, nor do I think you need to remove or edit your comments at the Draft article in any way. I'm just trying to make a point about article Talk pages that I found a bit subtle myself and that took me a while to cotton on to. It can be a fine distinction, and I'm

3568:

by Wdford and Guy are also appropriate for an article talk page, because agree or disagree with what they have to say, the remarks both deal with how to improve the article in some way (e.g., in Wdford's case, by discussing reliability of sourcing; and in Guy's case, by discussing what constitutes

3357:

2757:

When I initially posted my article, several editors read it over and said that it was too difficult to understand. I have made significant progress in correcting that deficiency (I think) and would like to have a non-scientific editor read the new version over to see if it is a) acceptable or, b)

1496:

Thank you for the information. I made this page as a requirement for an art history class where I am currently enrolled at Montana State University. I was informed by my professor that notability for an artist is if there have been five or more publications (online or in print) about their work. I

1401:

Dear Editor,This message is regarding your note on my article Kopparapu Duo Poets declining your kind approval. In general terms you are right that one article is posted on one person or an entity. But, in Telugu poetic traditions in India for over a century, a kind of poetic tradition has come to

10847:

Thanks, Robert. I mean cleaned up, making many cuts, as well trying to ensure that the notability issue has been addressed, with many new accurate citations, as well as fact-based evidence, etc. Did my best to address the issues and make it a piece for Knowledge. Mr. Strauss-Kahn is notable. Much

10064:

I still don't understand. Perhaps it isn't capable of being understood by human beings. If the problem was an improper A7 tagging on an article, then the A7 tag could have been removed and the article semi-protected. Unless I either get a clear explanation that can be understood, or I am told

9242:

I apologize, I was following what I thought was the advice that was posted in the closed dispute resolution noticeboard when the matter was closed. At this time, I'm pretty much done, and have only prolonged this due to new discoveries on how to even handle these issues, as opposed to my emotions

8732:

seems to have been accepted, you moved it into article space. One attempt was made to delete it. It is still likely to be deleted. The proper procedure for a page that doesn't have references yet, or otherwise isn't ready for article space, is to create it in user space or draft space. Do you

7401:

is probably better. Since the TH is the newbie version of the HD, it makes sense (1) to avoid cluttering it with more advanced questions and (2) to reach a "sharper" audience (Teahouse responders are those with the patience to repeat a hundred times what notability means, help desk responders are

7220:

Hello, Thanks for reviewing my submission titled "Chapter Eight: The Upside Down" of Stranger Things (TV Show), even though it was rejected. The reason I tried to submit the article was that the summary was missing key details and yet, it was considered "too long or excessively detailed". Thus, I

6511:

I have just now got edited/rewritten the Draft: Kopparapu Poets available in sandbox in which you find some of your comments posted atop the draft. It is awaiting further review after re-submission. As there is no bar in editing the draft under re-submission I have got it edited. I have done some

6009:

Thank you for your feedback and suggestion. I have made some changes to a few sentences and I have read what qualifies as Peacock Terms. I don't believe I am using any Peacock Term, the only two descriptive terms used are "award winning" and "well known". The term "award winning" is a fact, not a

5195:

Declaration of Conflict of Interest Terry Snow and Tim Curnow were students at Auckland University in the 1960s. They had independent careers in different countries, one a journalist in New Zealand, the other a literary agent in Australia. After 40 years, they renewed acquaintance. Because of the

3557:

where you wrote about possible radiation theories and whether they should be in the article. Whether the answer to that question turns out to be yes or no is irrelevant for the point I'm trying to convey; what counts, is that that is a perfectly appropriate question to pose on the talk page of an

2578:

I am affiliated with Empow Studios, but I'd like to make sure I am not perceived as doing this for promotional reasons, so if there is anything you recommend to keep this purely informational, please let me know. I'd very much appreciate any advice here so I'm following policies and your criteria

2412:

As SmokeyJoe says, I broke the numbering, but it was an easily breakable numbering system. To break manual numbering requires either malice or stupidity, as opposed to sloppiness. Anything that you think can't be broken is likely to be broken by stupidity, but anything that can easily be broken

737:- Well, part of the problem is that the paid editors now think that declaring is their only obligation. However, the main problem, I think, is the idea that deletion is not cleanup, and that articles cannot be deleted simply because they are blatantly promotional if they do nonetheless establish 598:

To protect against future speedy deletions, first, keep a copy off-line just in case. Second, make sure that your draft is not purely of an advertising nature. Third, do not move the draft into article space until you are really sure that it is ready for article space, which best means to let a

8458:

has been deleted on your speedy deletion request. Can you please help me over it and get it undeleted. All the references linked to the page are not just mere mentions, They are article from a reliable source from renowned tabloid in India. The information is clearly verifiable. Also the article

6535:

I do not want to argue with you on these matters.However, as an editor you might be facing a number of such complaints from both India and other countries round the world. I do not wish to move my draft into article space. I know the dangers involved in doing so. But, I shall be grateful if you

5643:

as saying that a RS announcing principal photography alone doesn't constitute notability and getting lots of editor pushback. What is your current practice in this regard? I had been going the DRAFTIFY route but after pushback had just sort of skipped over films. Since another one popped onto my

4504:

The original versions of Robert's Rules are now in the public domain, and are in use as such. RONR was developed in part as a means of preserving copyright protection by creating a new work, since the original copyrights were going to be lost. There are also other newer versions derived from the

4283:

pages in draft space to multiple execute nodes on the WMF Tool Labs compute cluster. In this case the page has the potential to show up under multiple subcategories: AfC submissions by date/01 August 2017, AfC submissions by date/23 February 2017, etc. Normally when the bot evaluates a page for

2574:

After reading your corporate notability page, it looks like Empow Studios would be a valid subject for a separate article dedicated to Empow, however, I had included some citations & external links that didn't hit on all 5 of the qualifying sources. I have edited the article to now show only

1970:

I have been through the guidelines for writing articles about musicians: The person the article is about (Mohsen Keramati) is known in his country and has works published by authorized publishers. Some of the album covers of his works are given as reference. In addition to that, you can see that

1723:

Hello Robert, I am a very new editor here, I have only been editing for a single day, and I was wondering if you would be willing to sort of mentor me and help me learn the ropes. I would really apreciate it if you did so. Thank you. you can contact me at (. -. -.. . .-. --. ..- -.-- ..--- --...

317:

After some reflection, I can understand why you've used the phrase "bullying" to describe my decision to go to ANI, though the possibility did not occur to me until that point. For what it's worth, in writing the complaint I did not at all feel like I was doing so from a position of power, but a

6503:

Thanks for your response. I am a new contributor to this Knowledge. We are a batch of English professors who wished to try our hand in Knowledge. I had not intentionally created two drafts as you rightly assumed in good faith. If you can be of some help in this regard, kindly retain the Draft:

5505:

In keeping with your suggestion I have taken the help of another English author for editing and rewritiing the draft. You can clearly find substantial cuts and revisions in the text. As suggested by Legacypac, another reviewer like you, I moved it to article space. The article is already in

4037:

Is Legacypac aware that you're "quoting" him/her on your talk page or is your mention of their username some kind of "canvassing" tactic or even a "meatpuppetting" tactic where you "invoke" their name and wait for them to "show up" and back up your personal opinions against creating more notice

1889:. For your information, I don't think that there was socking at the DRV, only at the AFD. Most of the socking was by IPs. There was one account, SAT85, which has since been banned as a sock of Apollo the Logician, a well-known sockmaster. Other than that, there appears to have been off-wiki 716:

Hi, Robert. I see that a user called Es279 previously contacted you about their article on this organisation (his/her employer). They have now created an article and I have put a COI notice on it and asked them not to edit it again. This paid editing thing is getting out of hand (see the latest

325:

that "you and I are the only two interested parties in this matter, and likely will ever be". It was at this time I felt compelled to bring the issue to wider awareness. ANI seemed like the right place at the time, but I respect the objections stated thereafter; perhaps COIN would have been the

54:

Dear Legacypac and Robert McClenon, This is a response to both of you in pursuance to your yesterday's posts. Though you are right regarding evaluating the stories/biographies of Indian regional languages, it may not be proper for me to move it to article space without your satisfaction with my

5855:

is not written in praise of them? Was it written neutrally totally? It is interesting to note that for similar articles/write ups different yardsticks have been applied by reviewers be they the editors or the administrators. Same questions are posed again and again by different editors. For

3789:

and then there would be a venue (just spitballing here). In the end, my point is that we need to handle conduct problems at AFC like we handle them everywhere else. I am one of the most ardent defenders of AGF but even I understand that someone who resubmits the same draft three times without

7221:

tried to create the page with the details after researching thoroughly from different sources and websites, (like the episode pages of other TV shows for instance, Game of Thrones, Westworld etc) because with the lack of essential details, it just wouldn't make any sense to the reader.

10892:- I am a little puzzled by your statement that you are "not completely aware of the process". Users are added to a case by adding them to the case. You are the filing party and it is your responsibility to identify the editors who commented on the content dispute about the article. 693:

I was about to request semi-protection, so thank you. It doesn't appear that that unregistered editor has anything worth saying, and besides they can always get my attention by pinging me in an article talk page or their own IP talk page. Thanks for semi-protecting. It was needed.

599:

reviewer decide whether it is ready for article space. It currently is not. The references are in a variety of respected media outlets, but they are mostly in the nature of press releases, in which the newspaper writes what the company says about itself. For more guidance, ask at

8310: 7267:- I don't entirely understand. I declined the draft because it didn't appear that this one episode needed its own article, and it doesn't appear that the other episodes have their own articles. I don't understand about the "missing key details". I will be asking other editors at 6226:

public library catalogues, one journal and one database among other sources. I have used total 33 references. How does the significant coverage for notability is defined? I see many other Knowledge articles having fewer references to be accepted.Atul Anand 07:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

2758:

showing progress. The original content and organization of the page was not coherent and I would like to modify it to provide a clearer discussion of rubber elasticity. Before I make changes on the previous page content, I would like to have approval from an editor. Thank you.

875:

Yeah, I don't know what their deal is. Some of their stuff looks like a lot of time went into it and some is not even coherent. I just do not get the LTAs in general. I mean if I wanted to howl futilely into the night, I'd go into the woods at night and … well … howl futilely.

267: 6218:. There are couple more articles I edited last year. I don't have a connection with the subject. I am a researcher who had once interviewed him but I think I have tried not to write this article as an original research. Does this clarify my position? I will ask for advice at 3148:

I revised the text per your suggestions for the proposed page for Triple Pop, and independent record label. I hope this text is now compliant, would appreciate a review for the page for Triple Pop. If not, please let me know, happy to revise again. Thank you for your time.

3852:

when he proposed that a "DFD" system be created to handle draft deletions. Any noticeboard carries the risk of being abused but if more people become involved in AFC following ACREQ, then there should be enough neutral editors to handle complaints. This might be something

3748:

I posted a dispute resolution request for the article Ashkenazi Jews as Ivymike1002 on May 2. You closed it as premature. I've posted a number of edits to the talk page including one after you refused it. Every time I post an edit to the talk page, the edit is deleted.

3965:. We do a good job of blocking socks, but not of individual flacks. In general, at AFC, I don't have a way to report submitters who need blocking. If I could get them blocked, I wouldn't have to MFD their drafts as often. How do I get the fools and flacks blocked? 10130: 4735:

Robert McClenon, I would like to ask for your assistance in writing a neutral phrasing of the problem that I posted on the dispute resolution noticeboard. Can you please let me know how you might word this better so that it might be submitted for an RFC? Thank you.

4678:

Regarding the article which I wrote on Zdravko Karadachki and which you declined, you state that this was on the basis that he has not played in a fully professional football league. Yet, setting aside his experiences in Bulgaria and Canada, he currently plays for

2376:

Compassionate, hash (#) auto-numbering is a fragile wikiformat that I recommend avoiding unless the explicit intention is to count, like at RfA. Instead, manually number explicitly your points. This is not fragile, and isolated questions can be easily copied. For

4127:. Second, the draft is clearly written to praise its subject, Vikram Gandhi, rather than to describe him neutrally. I am not sure how much will be left if the promotional language is toned down. Third, you may ask for the advice of other experienced editors at 562:. I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. You ask "how can I keep it from being immediately deleted again?" I don't think it was deleted. It was declined. There is a difference. If you don't understand that difference, please ask at 8483:, and may appeal either the speedy deletion or the deletion discussion. In particular, if you say that it had more references than the deleted version, you can appeal the speedy deletion. Or you can discuss with the deleting administrator. Or you can make a 7297:

was declined? I was just telling the story about a real player battle that took place in ARK: Survival Evolved, it's just a battle report i have no idea how that would be a game guide. Looks like double standarts are prevalent here because this virtual battle

4760:- I tried to look for a straightforward statement of the dispute on the article talk page, and I don't see it. Can you or someone please show me what the two or three alternative versions of the definition are? If so, we can put the question based on that. 1280:- I read the existing article and the draft, and it is not clear to me what the distinction is. I am sure that it is obvious to you, but not every reader starts off with detailed knowledge. If you want the advice of other experienced editors, please ask at 7939: 4123:- First, there has already been a deletion discussion, the conclusion of which is that Vikram Gandhi is not considered notable. I won't approve a draft on a deleted topic without comparing it to the deleted article. You can request the deleted article at 7157: 5324:

Hi Robert, I'm just now starting the RTX Ray Tracing Technology page and was hoping that the community would help me to build it out. I'll dive back in tomorrow with a few other writers and flesh it out a bit more. First time I've created a page! Thanks,

2884:

Dear Mr. McClenon, Robert, on the 9th of March 2018 I received a e-mail from you about declining the draft "Rollin Motors". On 18th March 2018 I made ceveral changes in the draft "Rollin Motors". Did you received these changes or did I mist your answer?

4794:- Is there a definition that you are proposing? It appears that you just want to complain about the definition and use either DRN or RFC to continue the dispute. What definition do you want? I don't plan to submit an RFC with 5 proposed definitions. 3933:). While I think that we should certainly be more understanding of users in the draft space, to SoWhy's point, I also have no problem blocking them, and I think that we could likely block a bit faster than we currently do for behavioral problems there. 9818:

about the idea that the script should advise the editor how to request undeletion of the draft, because it is very likely that the creator will not see it for the hours that the tag is in place before the speedy deletion, which is, after all, speedy.

6974:

Thank you. On first reading, it is just as I perceived and feared. We have one editor, Legacypac, who has been on a crusade for two years to clean up draft space even if it means moving crud into mainspace where there are rules against having crud.

1583: 8035: 10781:

Thanks a lot Robert McClenon for your valuable feedback. I will definitely go through all the guidelines & try to add contents as per the Wiki Policy. However, this might take a while to give it another try. Already forwarded to my content team.

10696:

9267:

Robert, I'm so sorry, I seem to be having trouble with the structure of the Human Rights in Israel case on WP:DRN. I'm agreeing to take it on, I think I botched the heading or something. I apologize, I'm very bad with the tech aspect of this. Thanks

318:

sense of powerlessness. I felt like the user in question had me in a corner—being the only one to ever respond to requests, and often saying no for reasons I found puzzling—and as far as I could tell, no other editors had any idea this was going on.

7843: 6803:

There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the

2995:- Did you rename an article, or rename a draft? Also, what if anything are you asking me to do? I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. If you want me to take another look, it would help to provide me with a link to it. 8479:- When posting to my user page, please use the Add New Section feature, which will create a proper heading. Your draft did not differ materially from the deleted version. If you think it was different, you have three options. You may request 4000:

The reviewers are not the problem at AfC - the problem is busybody outsiders with no AfC or MfD experience who run interference on AfC reviewer efforts to stop promo/coi/non-notable nonsense etc pages from sticking around. Yes I'm being direct.

1724:...-- -.... ----- .--.-. --. -- .- .. .-.. -.-. --- --)privacy reasons). If you agree to do so you will need to post on my talk page so I can give you the language it needs to be translated to before it can be decoded to english. Thanks again. — 9198:

does not edit in bad faith. They are stubborn and sometimes combative (as, it appears, you are), but they are always editing with a focus on the integrity and quality of Knowledge. I see that you accused Jytdog of "Possible Vandalism". Read

101:

You say Ms Kamiel is not sufficiently notable for a Wiki article. My understanding was that, because there is a link to her name under Knowledge categories of Guggenheim Fellowship award winners, that this award makes her notable. Not so?

10871:

regarding additional editors to be added. I am not completely aware of the process involving the addition of new users to a content dispute. Could you indicate which users should be added and who this responsibility falls upon? Thank you.

3980:

use those sockpuppet accounts to create "consensus" for their "official" acts which are nothing more than the result of their own biased, opinionated and completely subjected personal beliefs on what is and what isn't "right" on Knowledge?

8245:, which I've been asked to look at to see if I wanted to take an admin action. The only recently active person who might be a sock (or a meat) is User:ChessQueen1. That person has not edited any more since you gave them a COI warning at: 6504:

Kopparapu Duo Poets presently available in my sandbox and delete the Draft: Literary Duos: Kopparapu Poets. In fact I pray you to kindly delete 'Duo' from the Draft: Kopparapu Duo Poets as I do not know how to delete it. Let it be simple

3056:

No, no request for RFC. I'm just going to stop wasting time on this. Most of the comments have been about side issues, but the real issue is that the cause of her death is not clear, so that is exactly what it should say! But, I give up.

2182:. I had assumed that you would take part in the discussion there. Instead, you simply asked me a few days later whether I had heard anything. Maybe you want a volunteer to follow your draft through the approval process. If so, go to 4775:

from the cited sources, CDC: People who were assigned the female sex at birth but identify as men, APA: People who were assigned female but identify and live as male, Cornell: Individuals assigned female at birth who identify as male.

2907:- I do not normally follow a draft through the review process. I see that you have made a few changes to the draft. You have not resubmitted it for review. I would suggest that you ask for the advice of other experienced editors at 10713: 4102:

I was not aware about previous article creation and deletion was take place about Vikram Gandhi. I don't have previous article copy and I written it myself. Is there any problem in the article or need to improve. Please suggest me.

10598: 10022:

RHaworth agreed to restore it, but chose to restore it to draft space, not userspace, as I requested. RHaworth added the Afc tag, not me. The article wasn't moved to draft space, and the Afc tag was not added, as the result of a

5835:

We are all academics in English and communication department in a reputed University in India, and keep writing to national and international journals in English. Yet with all humility we accept your suggestions and follow them.

10830:- I do not normally follow a submission through the approval process. I do not know what you mean when you say that the page has been "scrubbed". It had tone issues when I reviewed it, and I will leave it to another reviewer. 7370:, but I think that, since the draft has been nominated for deletion, the proper forum for discussion is the deletion discussion. Is there a reason why I was asked about this draft? (I haven't even yet !voted on the deletion.) 3415: 1301: 10396:- Do not remove a speedy deletion tag from an article that you have created. You may contest a speedy deletion request by pressing the button and entering the reason to keep the article, but you may not simply remove the tag. 1561: 5787: 3298:.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of 10544:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 10336:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 10238:, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read 1993:

The article has no intention of advertising for the subject person. I have even seen a short Knowledge article about him (not in English, but in Persian language). Some of the sources used in my article are used there, too:

3554: 3543: 1570: 8525: 8517: 2813: 1825:

accounts that may be paid, involved with that deletion discussion? (it is a topic perhaps more advocacy-prone than paid-editing prone due to the whole evolution thing, but as it is a bio there may be paid editing...)

10458:

20:06, 23 June 2018 (UTC) P.S. OK, I see you've moved on to other work without continuing the cleanup, so I'm going to move it back to draft. I'd prefer you to do it, but if you've moved on to other stuff already... -

9224:- I see that the sock-puppet investigation has found that your account is not related to the blocked Bernie44 accounts. That doesn't resolve the matter of conflict of interest. I also see that you decided to file at 8893:

I propose treating all AfC ideas as brainstorming. There are a myriad of big and little problems, with no obvious solutions. Although I think the reject template is a good idea, but of course not a complete solution.

7428:- Yes. The reason that I don't ask on the draft page or the talk page is that I want the opinions of other editors, not just to create a record. What Help Desk are you asking about, anyway? There are: the Knowledge 6540:

in Knowledge and by clicking on the link given to access Encyclopedia of Indian Literature published by Sahitya Academy New Delhi, one can know about the notability of Kopparapu Brothers vis a vis their contemporaries

1414:

extempore poetry and often both groups challenged each other leading to the excitement of Telugu literary lovers. Hence I request you to kindly go through the article again and do let me know if you have any questions

5256: 3953:

that we should be more understanding of users in the draft space. We should try to identify which of them need more understanding (because they are trying to help) and which of them need to be dealt with quickly and

1818:

is probably community ban-able now if someone wanted to bring that case. I think we should give them a chance to reflect, and if they don't, they will have provided yet more diffs that will demonstrate the problem.

408: 448: 9104:

Hello robert, is there a way to let y'all know to ping me for drafts that are in Chinese and created by a chinese user name 0r random alphanmeric? I've seen a rash of these and feel they need special attention.--

4897:

You were recently listed as a party to or 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

8840:. I was hoping for more positivity. Issue 1, "There is no solution, and not even any mitigation"? That is very very negative, do you mean to assert that is is to accepted, don't even think of trying anything? 7463:

Fair enough. I did not understand your aim to bring a newbie-friendly opinion to the submitter (rather than asking for input for yourself). (FTR I did mean, and link, to the general Knowledge Help Desk (WP:HD))

3760: 6933: 79:- Did you read the banner at the top of my page? Please do not post messages to the top of my user talk page. Please post them to the bottom of my user talk page. I will read your message within 24 hours. 3267:, by which pages can be deleted at any time, without discussion. If the page meets any of these strictly-defined criteria, then it may soon be deleted by an administrator. The reasons it has been tagged are: 2780:- I see that you submitted a draft on Integrated Rubber Models in December 2016, which is nearly one-and-one-half years ago. I said that your draft appeared to be too technical, and that it needed a better 9880: 2570:

This draft is about Empow Studios, not Leonid Tunik, although Leonid Tunik is the Founder of Empow Studio, and plays a large role in the history of Empow Studios. I have edited this to make it more clear.

10102: 8282: 8007: 7911: 7815: 7129: 941:

Do not bother to ask a canid (regardless of species) why he or she howls futilely at the moon. Do not ask the moon, either; the moon doesn't hear. Do not ask why a kook howls futilely into the night.

10794: 10619: 7548:, and the submission of autobiographies, while not forbidden, is strongly discouraged. (In years of AFC reviewing, I have once seen an autobiography that satisfied Knowledge policies and guidelines.) 5810: 366:, which is a forum for requesting administrative action. I know that some editors use it for vague complaints; that doesn't make using it for vague complaints a good idea. You had a right to ask that 10753: 10708: 10668: 8513: 7507:

P.S. I am talking with them right now about how the article needs more coverage from multiple reliable, independent sources and inline citations so that the information in the article is verifiable. --

3502: 5893: 5882: 299: 5865: 5365: 5296: 2499: 1606: 8566: 1327: 10069:. This whole thing doesn't make sense to me. If you want it in article space, move it to article space. If you want it to be reviewed for AFC, it belongs in draft space. I don't understand. 8724:- Your comments, in my opinion, show a misunderstanding of what stubs are and how they are used in Knowledge. Apparently you thought that stubs are not required to have references or to satisfy 7540:- Do you want to know why I declined the draft, or my opinion on the current state of the draft? Neither version of the draft (the one that I declined or the current one) appears to satisfy the 6871:

Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.

9867: 8504: 5105: 990:

Thanks for making my draft article a reality! You left a comment on the talk page that I'm not sure I understood- what were you trying to say with the reference to the Anybot algae articles?

362:. You hadn't gotten what you wanted, and you were willing to cry and whimper and act out until you got what you wanted. Second, I had tried to ask, at the very beginning, what you wanted at 10744: 10659: 2896: 2953:- I am not entirely sure what you are saying. You submitted a draft that mentioned a temple, and I said that the temple was already mentioned in an existing article. What did you rename? 7096:

First off, thank you for your feedback. I found an additional source which may help with the general notability issue you raised. Please go back to the page and let me know your thoughts!

2593: 1123: 5382: 5339: 6372: 5908: 5520: 5387: 5287: 3271:

It seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. (See

1544: 498: 8459:

submission was declined without even reading the reference sources. Can you please please check the reference sources mention in the draft. any form of help will be greatly appreciated.

5506:

Telugu wikipedia, and this is my effort to put the same authors in English. Text is not same, however. Please review and help edit. Kindly pardon if any thing hurts you in this process.

2116:. In general, if an editor asks for comments at another public forum, it would be a good idea to take part in the discussion, rather than expecting the reviewer to report back to you. 310:

Hi Robert, you might not be especially excited to see me on your talk page, but I felt I should say something, given our disagreements and the ongoing discussion at VPP. (And a ping to

5117: 3764: 1871:

OK, I will have a look at the deletion discuss and DRVs and see if anything looks like socking....thanks for bringing the person's behavior up - it definitely needed/needs looking at.

9317: 4614: 4023:

reviewers without understanding the situation, won't help. It isn't purely an AFC problem. It is a cultural problem in Knowledge that is obvious at AFC (and in some other places).

3530: 2150:

According to all above, I am confused now. If I present explanations (supported by references), it raises doubts for you. If I don't, you still find it not-suitable. comment added by

1208: 6918: 5929: 6448: 6118: 6028: 5598: 5468: 3602: 1195: 9992:

A wikistalker, who has to resort to using anonymous IP addresses placed an A7 on the material, when it was in article space. My wikistalker did not leave the courtesy heads-up on

5894:

https://te.wikipedia.org/%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%B0_%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%B5%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81

5883:

https://te.wikipedia.org/%E0%B0%95%E0%B1%8A%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%8D%E0%B0%AA%E0%B0%B0%E0%B0%AA%E0%B1%81_%E0%B0%B8%E0%B1%8B%E0%B0%A6%E0%B0%B0_%E0%B0%95%E0%B0%B5%E0%B1%81%E0%B0%B2%E0%B1%81

5023:, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 4973:, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 4347:, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 4214:, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace. 8867:

mechanism for this. The self serving I would expect to ask a different style of question, and cluelessness is usually most clearly revealed by the quality of the question asked.

6913: 6084: 5129: 1982:'s suggestion. Again it is explained that he has published CDs focusing on teaching Iranian traditional music. So I think all these show that he is a known person in the field of 1249:

You said, "Please stop submitting multiple copies of this page. It wastes the time of the reviewers and is annoying," but that is a ridiculous claim. First, I moved Cookie Run to

1157: 6436:

Also, I never thought I was arguing with you, instead I was explaining the writing according to your feedback. After "well known"- I specify the area in which he is well known.

6150: 1022:, or for some other reason there should not be an article. In that case, the reviewer will decline the draft, and may even tag the draft, or another version of the article, for 919:, there were people whose behavior was so bizarre as to be best explained by mental imbalance. They were sometimes known as net.kooks. People were sometimes rude and abrupt on 790:- I don't think anything makes paid editors think twice, not even a block. I also tagged the article for GNG, but I think that they just do what they can to cheat as they can. 10292: 8216: 6406: 6325: 5975: 5554: 5421: 5356:

I don't entirely understand. What do you mean? Perhaps the problem is that you submitted a draft for consideration as an article when it wasn't ready for review. If so, so.

4698: 4648: 4306:- Thank you. I just wondered. I hadn't noticed that I was indeed a "first mover". In any case, if it hasn't been touched for five months, I will leave it alone and let it go 1366: 8837: 3012: 8913:

On issues 1 and 2 you wrote: "I can offer some, but they will be terrible, and won't be worth it, and I won't describe them." I would love to hear your bad ideas. Bad ideas

8600:- Since you didn't mean to duplicate the draft, I converted one of the copies into a redirect to the other. I suggest that you tweak the current copy of the draft to address 6928: 4911: 4903: 3677: 3455: 3084: 1026:. In this case, there was nothing wrong with the topic. The articles were apparently garbage because the bot was no good. As we say in the Information Technology industry, 481:

I have thought about incorporating my article into this one, but the Canadian code as it's own standalone article and one for the South African codes as well is preferable.

8512:

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

5609:- I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will look at the draft, but cannot promise a thorough review. I would suggest that you ask for advice at 4952: 10194: 8879:- You didn't say that we were brainstorming, and now you are being at least as negative as I was. If you want to brainstorm ideas, I suggest proposing that we brainstorm. 6774:

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.

5220: 3597: 654:

I'm aware that I've submit numerous pages of the same organisation. Would you be able to assist me in creating a MyPlayers page please? I've been struggling for months now.

6857:

A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with

3225: 10500: 10385: 10065:

that I am not supposed to understand and just am supposed to obey orders (and the orders are merely weird and not obviously wrong), I will have to request a discussion at

7598:

My reason for seeking further details regarding your feedback is that the user had requested that rather than generally improving the article, they wanted to know exactly

6109: 1050:

is a genus, and the paper identifying the genus was published in a proper journal, that is reason enough. I'm always glad to see a draft on an Indian admiral, because if

3158: 2354:- The first time that I trouted anyone it was for putting a part of his statement in 36-point text, a form of SHOUTING that is even more disruptive than block capitals. 477:

be mentioned are on news sites that require subscription. Also, how is it possible that this article was published when it seems to suffer from similar problems to mine:

10906:

Ok, thanks. I wasn't sure if we were required to fill out another form similar to the form used to create the actual dispute or if we could simply edit the page itself.

10287: 8781:

might be in order. I saw this article begins with a notice about a sandbox, which sounds rather strange. The spelling mistake in the article is "meant" spelt as "ment".

8689:

so I did some research and created pages for those links. Both were created as Stubs so they could be expanded over time. Both pages have similar amount of content. The

6149:, I have made substantive changes in the draft since you had last reviewed and rejected this article in March this year. I would like you to review it again. Atul Anand 5088: 3844:

I'm not proposing it, I'm assuming that sooner or later it will be necessary given the shift of new creations from Main- to Draftspace following ACREQ's implementation.

3636: 1148: 10593: 8306: 3915:

using the stupid template.) So what really is AFC itself doing a bad job of? Is there a problem with the reviewers, or with attitudes toward the reviewers, or what?

3394:- Twinkle strikes again. It wasn't my draft. She kept re-creating it in user space, and I moved it to draft space and declined it. Oh well. I think it has now been 10704: 10644: 8888: 8251: 8207: 7215: 6397: 6316: 5966: 5545: 5412: 4639: 3756: 3383: 3198: 2933:

Thanks for your review. I have now renamed the article to be Tai O Yeung Hau Temple to avoid confusion with other articles with similar name and different locations.

2853: 2695:

I have no comment on the draft itself (Robert may or may not, that's outside of my purview); however, when leaving messages on talk pages, please place your signature

2533: 1357: 7341:. Your article does not have sufficient sourcing to reliable sources to prove that it is worthy of inclusion in Knowledge. Indeed, you should look at the sourcing of 3027: 9237: 8858: 7255: 6899: 9749:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

9641:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

9122: 9045:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

6196:

I see that the draft has been reviewed again and has been declined again as not establishing notability. If you want to discuss further, you may ask for advice at

2648: 2621: 2476:

Well, I hope I did not cause offense, and I sincerely apologize if I did. I will note your observation and consider its implications more diligently in the future.

10995: 10560: 10537: 10505: 9303: 9252: 9216: 9118: 9008: 8986: 8246: 7379: 7055: 5231:- Unfortunately, your post is difficult to read, and is not helping. It reads as if English is your second language, although I infer that your first language is 4344: 4332: 4211: 4199: 3730: 2640: 2608:

and make the required declaration. You are doing it for promotional reasons, whether or not you want to be perceived that way. You may ask for further advice at

2601: 2585: 2505: 2445: 2363: 2345: 2325: 1706: 9975: 9828: 8496: 8416: 8399: 8379:

Hi Robert I was wondering if you could guide me with some of my subpages? You seem to know a lot and I need some help! Thanks Recordyear 06:20, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

7488:

The creator of the draft came to the IRC help channel to better understand why the article was declined. Could you offer more specific feedback to them as to why

7083: 6984: 6291: 6266: 6191: 6170: 5777: 4853: 4598: 4284:

being eligible it checks to see if it's notified on the page in the last month preventing duplicate notifications. In this case we hit on the exceptionally rare

1054:

says that he has his admiral's commission, that is reason enough, and I am even more glad to see a taxon, because that is a slight expansion of human knowledge.

9244: 9221: 9191: 9175: 9139: 6793:: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing. 6065: 5622: 5492: 5163: 4053: 3522: 3118: 2805: 2749: 1803: 1775: 277: 273: 10946: 10932: 10915: 10901: 5760: 3004: 2962: 1332: 1232: 507:

nearly always better than introducing new pages someone else will need to fix up as well. Thanks for your interest in helping improve coverage of these topics.

10126: 9955: 8956: 8476: 8460: 5096: 4722: 3974: 3942: 3924: 3627: 3354: 3260: 3203: 10422: 9521: 9067: 8613: 7593: 6222:

on notability. Would it be appropriate to exclude a notable literary person from Knowledge because of less press coverage? Atul Anand 06:46, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

3705: 2706: 1753: 1480: 259: 239: 88: 10839: 10640: 9712: 9690: 9604: 9582: 9572: 9183: 9099: 7935: 6440: 6378: 6297: 6036: 6020: 5947: 5606: 5590: 5526: 5476: 5460: 5393: 5248: 5020: 5008: 4970: 4958: 4899: 4538: 4481: 4263: 3407: 2524: 2483: 2471: 2405: 1690: 1678: 1626: 1530: 951: 10405: 9860: 9791: 9680: 9160: 9091: 8976: 8903: 7787: 7765: 7696: 7669: 7627: 7575: 7557: 7153: 7023: 5707: 5694:

Thanks for the response - I found it informative. I look forward to participating in a discussion around this topic, and seems at minimum that a section on

5689: 4867: 4835: 4817: 4808:

Robert McClenon, I am perfectly happy with any of the definitions from the cited sources. Most concisely, People who were born female, but identify as men.

4803: 4784: 4769: 4032: 3190: 2426: 2140:- I tried to follow your and the other reviewer's comments. I have even looked at how other people authored articles in the same field. An example of it is 703: 11048: 10078: 10045: 9771: 9663: 9508: 7280: 6886: 4177: 4160: 4140: 4085: 2920: 1216: 1200: 1187: 1129: 964: 936: 892: 870: 640: 612: 593: 579: 10494: 9898:

policy issues. That is why I asked RHaworth to move it to userspace, where it belonged. And I am going to ask you to move it back, for the same reason.

8627: 8468: 8031: 7470: 7458: 7352: 7111: 6969: 4319: 4298: 3074: 3051: 1118: 1080: 1063: 398: 380: 9884: 9722:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 9614:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 9106: 9018:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 8828: 8754: 7839: 2784:. I also see that you were notified that your draft was about to be flagged for deletion as an abandoned draft, and it appears that your draft was then 1916: 1902: 1880: 1866: 1293: 1269: 9910: 9423: 9399: 9384: 9372: 9358: 3868: 3839: 768: 11079: 8984: 8619: 8597: 8582: 8158: 6659: 6554: 5857: 5507: 5154: 4409: 3685: 3669: 3608: 3109: 2199: 2125: 2044: 1647: 1456: 1440: 1338: 343: 125: 76: 60: 9395: 8254:

look fine. Based on behavior I suspect that Lilastav and ChessQueen1 are different people, though they are both enthusiasts for the project. Lilastav

7530: 7516: 6993:

You might want to back off the accusations against me all over Knowledge Robert. I like you but I'm not liking you trying to paint me in a bad light.

821: 799: 782: 754: 673:

Sorry Robert, I have semi-protected your talk page for three days for the time being. Let me know anytime if you would like it to be lifted. Regards,

11023: 9391: 6158: 5847:

and find out whether the comments/observations that you have made on my draft Kopparapu Poets applies to it? Also kindly examine whether the article

5092: 4889: 4376: 3894: 3713: 3391: 3364: 2769: 2729: 2683: 2666: 7049: 7002: 5515: 4569:- I will take another look at the article talk page within 24 hours. I am still not sure from reading your posts that I understand what you want. 4112: 3319:

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Knowledge to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you

999: 10178: 10101: 10009:

I requested userification, so I could see whether this particular article fell short, and would have been an exception, that would not survive Afd.

9075: 8390:- Please do not top-post. Use the tool to add a section at the bottom of my talk page. Top-posts are hard for me to find and I may ignore them. 8374: 8358: 8281: 8083: 8006: 7981: 7910: 7885: 7814: 7128: 4243: 3786: 3542:

discussion (spoiler: anything that tends to promote the improvement of the article, but not forum-like opinions about the subject itself) by using

3166: 3150: 3090: 1240: 1090: 655: 143: 111: 10881: 9402:

a link to Tony's reply and again was reverted (at least this time with an edit summary). So now I try to stay away from editing other's comments.

7566:, removed the AFC comments from the draft after discussion with you. The instructions say to leave them in the draft for a record by reviewers. 7417: 5653: 5026:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

4976:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

4350:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

4217:

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

516: 9688: 9580: 8823: 8110: 7264: 7243: 7199: 7088: 6705: 3580:) and had little concrete to say about how to improve the article. That sort of thing is acceptable (to a point) at your user talk page, or on a 1971:

releasing some of his works were published on well-known Persian language news websites. In the article it is explained that he was a student of

10988: 5479:- I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. I will take a look at your draft within 24 hours. Please ask for a review at 5052: 5002: 4529:

and find a different experienced editor to advise you. I really don't know what to do for you because I don't really understand your concern.

4431: 9294:- The only problem was that you used a second-level heading rather than a fourth-level heading. A second-level heading in DRN is for a case. 8224: 6710: 2456: 10857: 10818: 8696:

I agree that both pages do need improvements such as references. I just wanted to help get the pages created as stubs and improved over time.

2984: 1042:

players. In each case, there is a notability guide that says that such people are notable. Properly documented taxons at any level are also

11015:) from my private sandbox without my input or consent before it was ready for public draft namespace. I vigorously protested his move on his 9866: 8665: 7722: 7482: 5736: 4381: 839: 305: 10479: 2331:

used actually fixing the aforesaid problems. If I'm being completely honest, I just like trouting people, and had a good excuse right here.

1659: 1556: 745:. However, that is just my cynical viewpoint, and I know that it violates the party line, which is that expansion is the prime objective. 8242: 8220: 8105: 7726: 6736: 6482: 5108:- Try posting something constructive rather than vague non-specific complaints. Either that, or edit the article and discuss your edits. 4556: 4514: 4499: 4461: 1410:

whose link is given here for your reference in Knowledge. Parallel to the times of these duo poets, Kopparapu Duo Poets also performed the

773:

I agree with you, and I don't really get this. But at least the COI notice makes the article "look bad" and makes the creator think twice.

663: 9544: 4010: 1506: 542: 8258:, not California if we take them at their word. Let me know if you would object to closing the SPI at this point with no blocks. Thanks, 7738: 7501: 6948: 6616: 3849: 2244: 2232: 2175: 2163: 2151: 2109: 2096: 2084: 2071: 2059: 2028: 2019: 2007: 1944: 1936: 1448: 439: 45: 3331:. However, even if you use one of these processes to release copyrighted material to Knowledge, it still needs to comply with the other 2942: 1315: 1303: 10993: 9168: 8529: 8455: 6923: 6640: 6562: 5081:

Hello, after how many weeks of posting on the talk page with no response can the conversation be considered to be one-sided? Cheers.

4915: 978: 4578: 3810: 1814: 10568:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 10360:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 10262:. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the 8212: 7313: 6880:

has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.

4064: 3328: 322: 68: 8790: 8711: 8590: 8267: 133: 10541: 10333: 10235: 8686: 8449: 8175: 7389: 7034:

If Cryptic wants to drag up old threads and actions we can do that. He abused his Admin tools to block me once and remains a critic

6575: 5727:

Could you review again? I wish to add substantially more material relating to the founding of mass casualty radiation management.

4331: 3324: 1770: 1733: 812:, that is exactly what I am saying. Not all of them, but enough so that they all deserve the bad reputation that a few get them. 9718:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

9610:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

9014:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

6599: 3169:- First, I do not normally follow a draft through the approval process. If you want a volunteer who will do that, you may ask at 2438:

In all seriousness, though, your proposed alternative makes more sense than what I did, and I will keep it in mind in the future.

2301: 2190:, and ask the editors there for advice and comments, rather than expecting another editor to be your errand boy for the purpose. 1014:

was evidently one of a few thousand articles that were created by the bot and then deleted. My point was that I was ignoring the

280:

page as I noticed the film was renamed back then. I assume it is being moved but it says page is being considered for deletion.

124:

In response to your comments I have modified the title and provided a lead sentence. Kindly review the resubmission and do suggest

10092: 8795: 8272: 7997: 7901: 7805: 2975:

Hi Robert, there are many Yeung Hau Temples in Hong Kong. The article I submitted is the one located in Tai O so I renamed it.

2515: 726: 96: 10869: 9283: 9203:. Yelling "Vandalism" is not an appropriate way to "win" a content dispute, and accusing an editor with whom you disagree is a 7224:

I think, it would be best if the summaries are omitted and replaced with episode pages, taking help from other sources like the

2674: 1038:

notable. These include people who have held certain positions, such as generals and state senators and first-tier professional

11019:

page because of the potential COPYVIO issue It was still under development. Please restore it to my private sandbox. Thanks. —

10960: 10501: 10293: 10195: 5630: 5500: 4198: 3264: 3199: 2291: 219: 7614:. Perhaps a more explicit explanation on their talk page may be more effective in this case (in addition to referring them to 2052:

Thanks. I am still looking at the article and about to make a minor change. There is a source that even I decided to remove.

10735: 9433: 8127: 7119: 6241: 6100: 4749: 4684: 1406:

program. Only a few such duo poets existed for some decades in the last century and passed away. Most popular among them are

861:- Yes. Another admin offered that identification. They apparently have something against FPaS (and maybe against humans). 8943:"a soft decline and a hard decline". It seems everyone has agreed with this for a long time. I seem to have lost track of 464: 10700: 10650: 8562: 7068: 7057: 6895: 6494: