User talk:Robert McClenon

Archives

Index Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17 Archive 18 Archive 19 Archive 20 Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23 Archive 24 Archive 25 Archive 26 Archive 27 Archive 28 Archive 29 Archive 30 Archive 31 Archive 32 Archive 33 Archive 34 Archive 35 Archive 36 Archive 37 Archive 38 Archive 39 Archive 40 Archive 41 Archive 42 Archive 43 Archive 44 Archive 45 Archive 46 Archive 47 Archive 48 Archive 49 Archive 50

This page has archives. Sections older than 60 days may be automatically archived by ClueBot III when more than 7 sections are present.

If this page has been recently modified, it may not reflect the most recent changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

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

Hi, Robert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

story · music · places

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

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

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

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

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

Hello !!! Robert McClenon

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, Robert,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

When to do which?

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

Cheers & thanks,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi,Robert.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am not sure how to take this further.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have edited other pages FOR FREE on this site.

I consider myself intelligent and well read.

I do not deserve these ongoing attacks.

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

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

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

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

The only people who win here are the Editors.

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

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

Wishing you a great day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

story · music · places

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Evidence. Please add your evidence by October 10, 2024, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Backlash to diversity and inclusion/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, SilverLocust 💬 12:19, 26 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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