User talk:Robert McClenon/Archive 39

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Your feedback is requested at

Hello Robert! I see that the last vote in the RFC was week ago. Is it time to implement conversion to DAB? Who can close the RFC, may I do it as an involved editor? I'm not so familiar with the rules, and therefore ask you all these questions :) --Heanor (talk) 07:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Heanor - First, an involved editor should not close the RFC. Second, an RFC normally runs for 30 days. Let it run. When the 30 days are completed, the bot will remove the RFC tag, and it will be ready to request closure. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, thank you for reply. I did not know that. I know that an involved editor may close merge and split proposals, but not WP:RM etc. --Heanor (talk) 16:38, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I am having trouble adding a section under Gnosticism in the Knowledge article. After being reverted, even though I added reliable sources, I explained in the Talk section of the article that Mandaeans should be listed since their name literally means 'having knowledge'. The Mandaean religion stresses salvation of the soul through esoteric knowledge and since they are the only Gnostic religion that has survived from antiquity, it is important they be listed under religious concepts of knowledge. Other religions are listed in the article where knowledge or 'gnosis' is not as profound as it is found in Mandaeism. I have been accused of providing original research even though I provided reliable sources and everything I added was cited and that it is not notable enough. Mcvti (talk) 00:18, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

balance. The other editors haven't stressed that much, but that is also an important consideration, because Mandaeism is a religion with far fewer adherents than Christianity or even than Judaism. I wouldn't put much emphasis on the etymology of the name of the religion. Robert McClenon (talk

) 03:05, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your unbiased opinion, I appreciate the help Mcvti (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi What Kind of Reference was expected...(I am new to Making articles)--Merwinmathew (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

What more do you guys want for my article to be accepted? Espngeek (talk) 11:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I wanted to drop a quick note for all of our

• AFCH will now show live previews of the comment to be left on a decline.
• The template {{db-afc-move}} has been created - this template is similar to {{db-move}} when there is a redirect in the way of an acceptance, but specifically tells the patrolling admin to let you (the draft reviewer) take care of the actual move.

Short and sweet, but there's always more to discuss at

) 16:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

First, thanks for taking your time with the resolution board and the time to read this. I am confused after reading the rule provided[1] in the Pit bulls dispute resolution page and would like clarification of your opinion if possible. Per guidelines:

"So long as no one has yet responded to your comment, it's accepted and common practice that you may continue to edit your remarks for a short while to correct mistakes, add links or otherwise improve them. If you've accidentally posted to the wrong page or section or if you've simply changed your mind, it's been only a short while and no one has yet responded, you may remove your comment entirely.

But if anyone has already replied to or quoted your original comment, changing your comment may deprive any replies of their original context, and this should be avoided. Once others have replied, or even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

We each have our own arguments to make on that page. No one responded or quoted mine, until Geogene referenced hospital studies, which I did not edit since the reply. It stood alone before that and should be free to edit, so long as no one directly quoted or replied to, which none were. I don't see a rule not allowing users to adjust their own arguments in the dispute resolution, which leads me to believe these are the only guidelines to follow for this topic, but if you know of another I appreciate you helping me out if you can share it as I am relatively new.

I get that its "best practices" to indicate changes, but best practices are just that, best practices and not actually required, although going forward I will add a summary of changes for best practices.

Secondly, there was no personal attack that I can see.

Per guidelines[2] "There is no rule that is objective and not open to interpretation on what constitutes a personal attack as opposed to constructive discussion, but some types of comments are never acceptable:

Abusive, defamatory, or derogatory phrases based on race, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, religious or political beliefs, disability, ethnicity, nationality, etc. directed against another editor or a group of editors. Disagreement over what constitutes a religion, race, sexual orientation, gender identity, disability or ethnicity is not a legitimate excuse.

Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. An example could be, "You're a railfan so what would you know about fashion?" Note that it is not a personal attack to question an editor about their possible conflict of interest on a specific article or topic; but beware – speculating on the real-life identity of another editor may constitute outing.

Using someone's political affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views, such as accusing them of being left-wing or right-wing, is also forbidden. Editors are allowed to have personal political POV, as long as it does not negatively affect their editing and discussions.

Linking to external attacks, harassment, or other material, for the purpose of attacking another editor.

Comparing editors to Nazis, communists, terrorists, dictators, or other infamous persons. (See also Godwin's law.)

Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links.

Threats, including, but not limited to:

Threats of legal action

Threats of violence or other off-wiki action (particularly death threats)

Threats or actions which deliberately expose other Wikipedia editors to political, religious or other persecution by a government, their employer, or any others. Violations of this sort may result in a block for an extended period of time, which may be applied immediately by any administrator upon discovery. Admins applying such sanctions should confidentially notify the members of the Arbitration Committee of what they have done and why.

Threats to out (give out personal details about) an editor.

These examples are not exhaustive. Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all."

At best, one can argue it was a comment about their behavior, but I directly quoted the user from the talk page and referenced the source. So it was not without evidence.

How are you interpreting the guidelines? I'd love to hear from another opinion and thanks again for taking the time to read this.Unbiased6969 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

talk page guidelines. You and I are looking at the same section. We clearly disagree on what is a "short while". You made a series of edits initially. Then you came back eight hours later, and made another series of edits. For purposes of dispute resolution, I think that eight hours is longer than a "short while", because other editors may be composing replies during that time. Then you came back twenty hours later and made another series of edits. So you and I disagree about the second reason, and I am more inclined to rely on a neutral editor (myself) than on a participant as to what is a "short while". Third, I said that there were allegations of personal attacks. I did not say that there were personal attacks. I looked to see if I saw a personal attack, and I did not. However, the allegation of personal attacks is itself a conduct issue. You and I both do not think that there was a personal attack. But there was an allegation of a personal attack, and I hadn't even had time to tell the editors to discuss edits, not editors. The case was already out of hand before a volunteer opened it. That is why I closed the case. Robert McClenon (talk

) 04:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

If you want the opinion of another volunteer, maybe User:Nightenbelle is willing to offer her opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh thank you for the clarification. I was just trying to be sure I did nothing wrong, but in your opinion the duration between the edits was the issue. I can see how different people can have varying opinions on the definition of a short while later. I am just new, so I am trying to learn, and the guidelines are just a starting point since they don't define everything. I am good on getting another volunteer to look at the dispute. I don't know how to do all that and I can see how it was already a lot for someone. Thank you again for taking your time to explain as it did help understand and gain more clarity. Unbiased6969 (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi. I saw your comment at

On the other side of the coin, there's no advantage to going fast. There's no ongoing damage that needs to be contained quickly. If this doesn't get resolved for a week, or two, or three, it's not going to make any difference. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

User:RoySmith - I agree with the general idea of not being hasty, and of taking things slowly. I don't disagree with slowness in general. I disagree with ArbCom, and maybe with you, for two specific reasons. First, I think that the slowness could be figured in after voting to accept the case. In this specific case, as in Timwi, it will be seen that ArbCom is being played with (just as Jonathunder is playing with the tools, when he edits at all). Second, I see an appearance of special treatment for administrators. I am partly responding to a comment by Barkeep49 about the gradual loss of administrators, in which he seemed to be expressing the hope that keeping legacy admins was one way to slow that gradual loss. I thought that he was honorably mistaken, because the perception of easy treatment of legacy admins contributes to anti-admin sentiment, which in turn contributes to the toxic culture of RFA, which is continuing the gradual loss of admins. I agree in most cases that ArbCom should proceed slowly. I just think that the slowness in this specific case has more long-term harm than its short-term benefit. So I think that is why and how we disagree. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure what else you all want us to do. No one else is interested and we've both made our points, first through the editing war, and then through the talk page. The whole point of a dispute resolution is because an impasse has been reached; there is literally nothing else to discuss. --Criticalthinker (talk) 06:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 15:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 19:33, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 00:31, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Biographies request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 10:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hello, Robert McClenon. Nearly all of the re-creations of Pathan which you mentioned at the latest AfD are created by OE1995. The user is someone who seems to be absolutely determined on re-creating articles for subjects they wish for. I've already opened at a discussion at the ANI on this which didn't get much traction. Salting the pages they touch is only a temporary solution because they move onto other articles and we have to start the process all over. -- Ab207 (talk) 18:56, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The proposed decision in the Skepticism and coordinated editing has been posted. Please review the proposed decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:00, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you stated that I removed sourced content in the Lachin page, where I dont?

It was not a removal of the sourced content. User ZaniGiovanni added the statement to the article and supported it with the source, however his statement was not exactly reflecting what source said, and not properly squished into the article. There fore I reverted it, and replied him on the talk page clearly explaining my points. As per WP:ONUS he is the one who should start discussion on the Talk page if there is no consensus on the edit he made or proposed.

you are welcome to joint talk page, if you wish, hopefully with additional editors we can reach consensus. --Abrvagl (talk) 18:06, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Abrvagl - I did not make that statement. That is a ping of me, not my signature. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it is clear now. when and if you have a time (it is straightforward, and should take much time of your), can you please share your view on the this discussion (

WP:RSHEADLINES, and do not have relation to the article, therefore it should be removed. However, it is hard to reach consensus with ZaniGiovanni, because he continuously stating the same thing, which not even related to the my point. thank in advance! --Abrvagl (talk

) 18:44, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Religion and philosophy request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hi, Robert - it's been a while since I worked DNR and I've forgotten some of the protocol. I'm a team member at Project Dogs and noticed this filing at DRN. I forget if uninvolved editors are allowed to comment in the discussion section, and would appreciate your input. Atsme 💬 📧 02:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

civil and concise. Welcome. Robert McClenon (talk

) 07:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for the copyedits in my comment at DRN. I was actually relieved that you closed the case but I was hoping to delete that misplaced fragment of a sentence I left in my comment lest it haunt me for a lifetime. I was sitting in the exam room waiting for the ophthalmologist to enter, and I let my impatience be my guide. My eyes were numbed and dilated, but silly me, I grabbed the iPad, posted my comment, and then realized it needed a bit of copy editing. I attempted to make a simple change before the doctor walked in but I made more mistakes instead. Atsme 💬 📧 04:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

Thank you for taking the time to comment on my Article for Creation submission. I will edit and add sources as requested. Many thanks also for your hard work and many contributions to the site. RedPurpleX (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Draft here

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Liz - The thing that tries to trace the provenance of abandoned works strikes again. Well, at least this time it isn't implying that I can rescue it. I guess I must have moved it from a sandbox to draft space. Duh. I thought I might have gotten a useful question or comment. No. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you recommended that the draft I submitted for Articles for Creation had your comment that the title needed to be disambiguated. The article is currently called

Hi, and thank you for your generous contributions to Wikipedia. I was unaware that there was a draft for Lockwood south and all contributions were my own and without the utilisation of any Wikipedia drafts relating to this or any other topic. Thank you An aggressive and ambiguous amphibian's absurd and adaptable anagram alarmed all ants (talk) 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robert, Thank you for your comment on the draft article

Hi Robert Thank you for your prompt review and feedback on my article Draft:Palatine Lodge No. 97. Can you please provide me with examples of where there is a need for citations from reliable, independent sources. Thanks again and regards --Stev201961 (talk) 21:00, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Stev201961 - I did not review the draft in detail. I left a message on it both for your information and for the information of future reviewers. I see that you have also asked User:Onel5969, and I recommend continuing that line of inquiry. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:49, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 05:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

An arbitration case regarding Skepticism and coordinated editing has now closed and the final decision is viewable at the link above. The following remedies have been enacted:

• Rp2006 (talk · contribs) is warned against a battleground mentality and further incivility.
• Rp2006 is indefinitely
  living people associated with or of interest to scientific skepticism
  , broadly construed. This topic ban may be appealed after six months have elapsed and every six months thereafter.
• talk · contribs
  ) is reminded to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• Roxy the dog (talk · contribs) is warned to remain collegial in editing and interacting with others.
• GSoW is advised that a presence on English Wikipedia, perhaps as its own WikiProject or as a task force of WikiProject Skepticism, will create more transparency and lessen some of the kinds of suspicion and conflict that preceded this case. It could also provide a place for the GSoW to get community feedback about its training which would increase its effectiveness.
• Editors are reminded that
  aware
  of these discretionary sanctions under awareness criterion 1.

For the Arbitration Committee, –

Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard § Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Skepticism and coordinated editing closed

If you are not too busy, could you reconsider accepting the draft? I want to add that I first encountered its original author Publius In The 21st Century in a dispute elsewhere; we don't have the same politics. But I was impressed by the civility of Publius, and I want to encourage new editors with good human skills to persist in trying while they gain better encyclopedia skills. Also, in this case, I think Carrie Severino is notable. HouseOfChange (talk) 04:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The improved draft is now in en.wiki as Carrie Campbell Severino. It has been reviewed and graded C-class. Again expressing gratitude for all your excellent work on AfC. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:38, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robert

I've been contacting all the established Teahouse hosts and, as you're often to be found there, and work a lot with new users, I wanted to make sure you're aware of the imminent rollout of new Growth Team Features which every new account will be getting by default. Each user will soon see a new 'Homepage' tab next to their User page. It contains two main elements which might impact on your involvement - and you'd be welcome to get involved and help out directly with one of them.

• Firstly, they will be offered a range of 'suggested edits', and encouraged to make simple improvements to pages that interest them. (Being aware of this feature would be helpful for all Teahouse hosts if you're likely to offer advice on tasks for them to start out doing.)
• There's also a 'Your impact' box to show them how many people have seen the pages they've just edited.
• Finally, each new user is randomly assigned a 'mentor' from a list of friendly, experienced editors, like yourself. If they get stuck, they can ask a question directly to them via a Your mentor box, and hopefully get a swift, friendly answer from that mentor. Currently, this feature is given to 2% of new users, but it's set to increase to around 10% in the very near future.

To spread the load on our current

I have added some academic sources about the subject and I think it establishes adequate notability. Greatder (talk) 07:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk

) 15:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert McClenon, I have noticed that one article which is an unreleased web series & is too soon to be live. What should be our next step? -- VKG1985 (Talk | E-Mail | Contrib) 17:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

deletion. Robert McClenon (talk

) 23:03, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robert, I've made changes to the page and I don't see why it still should be in draft status - if you think so, please explain what else I should improve. The notice about relying on a single source is no longer true, can I remove it? Or could you? I would like to make the page visible, and it seems to me that it already deserves being published. What do you think? Thank you, Larisa Mlarisa (talk) 10:22, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Mlarisa - The article was moved from article space to draft space by User:Singularity42. They can probably provide a better explanation of why they draftified it and whether your edits have addressed their concerns than I could. I didn't review the article; I only put a notation on it. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Saw I was pinged here, so I'll but a (brief) note). I don't normally review drafts (the tasks I focus on are elsewhere in Wikipedia) but I believe the current version addresses the reasons why I moved it to a draft. I'm sure a draft reviewer will get to it shortly (I'll be offline for the rest of the day myself...) Singularity42 (talk) 17:45, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Robert McClenon,

I've been waiting on a review for quite a while on my draft for Robert Rennaker, so I do want to thank you for being the first to review it. That page in article space you found was from me (in good faith) using the search function to create an article about Dr. Rennaker. I hadn't realized this would appear as a circumvention of Wikipedia's AfC review procedures, but I was somewhat desperate to get this into article space. The page in article space is up for deletion, so the draft may likely be the only thing I'll have afterwards. Could I ask for some advice to prevent its deletion or an additional review from you if it is deleted?

Thank you in advance, Jonknox12 (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Jonknox12 - What do you mean when you say that you were "somewhat desperate to get this into article space"? What will happen if he doesn't have an article? Do you see where I say, above, that you should not waste your time and mine telling me that you spent a lot of work on the page or that your employer needs it? Who needs the page in article space? What will happen if the article is deleted? Why is it important to you to prevent its deletion? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I was "desperate" because I've been waiting a month to get a stub article reviewed. I understand now that circumvention was not a viable solution, but, regardless of the amount of time I've spent working on it, I believe Robert Rennaker to be notable enough to get a page in the article space of Wikipedia. I have the sources needed to back that up, as well. All I ask is another chance from you to have it reviewed before I have to wait another month or longer. I apologize if you saw any of my original comment as a personal attack, but I simply want to get this article approved. I could use some help, if you could spare the time. Jonknox12 (talk) 16:28, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

the Teahouse is a good place to ask. There will probably be someone there who won't just ask you what the hurry is. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Heya, if you plan on using your pagemover/swap abilities to move articles so that you can accept drafts, please do not also tag them with {{db-afc-move}}, as it ends up putting pages in the draft space with a pointless speedy request on them. I do my best to check the G6 cat at least twice a day, but sometimes I can only get to it once, and cleaning up db-moves after they've already been moved is just more work. Thanks. Primefac (talk) 10:46, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - Okay. Do you mean that when I move the redirect, I should change the G6 to another category of G6 rather than adding a tag? Is this a matter of how speedy the request is? Robert McClenon (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I mean that you should do one or the other. If you ask for a db-move (of any variety) then you don't need to move the page yourself. If you are going to move the page yourself, then you don't need to request a db-move. Primefac (talk) 14:52, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Primefac - In this case, I had been waiting for the delete to allow me to do the move, and got tired of waiting for the delete. Of course, if I move the page (the redirect) myself, I will then have to ask for the delete afterward, because the moved redirect is now a redirect from nowhere. So are you saying that after I have moved the redirect, I should remove the db-afc-move and change it to a {{db-moved}}? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:16, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Primefac (talk) 19:48, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing that article.

Fylindfotberserk (talk) 18:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Can you explain how you found the Da Vinci (magazine) article not notable? I thought i've put different sources for each one especially the section after the overview. Thanks WillsEdtior777 (talk) WillsEdtior777 (talk) 13:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Hours later, I am still chuckling at your phrase "bot pull the thingy" here. Thank you for reminding me that I (still) need to grow up. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 17:42, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

User:JoJo Anthrax - Bots never grow up. Some of them are unintentionally mischievous, like either Peter Pan or J. M. Barrie. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 03:30, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Wikipedia technical issues and templates request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

User:TechnoTalk - Thank you for your post. I rejected the draft because it said nothing except that the album existed, and was resubmitted in the same state as it had been declined. That is insulting to the reviewers. What you have done to the draft is a significant improvement. I will think about it for a while and will probably remove the rejection to allow you to resubmit the draft in its revised state. I will reply again within 24 hours (unless I forget). Robert McClenon (talk) 03:31, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

User:TechnoTalk - There are two drafts with different forms of the title. They can be merged into one draft with Personnel information, Reception information, and a track listing. The result will probably be acceptable then. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I request you to move this article I draft space. Thulo Pokhari Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I will push article space, after the complete this article. Do not delete Endrabcwizart (talk) 05:13, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

User:Endrabcwizart - I cannot move it to draft space. There is already another even more incomplete draft. You can move the article to your user space and work on it there. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:25, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Ohh. Thanks for help me. you are great. Endrabcwizart (talk) 01:49, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

	The Original Barnstar
	This Barnstar for Suggestion me right way. Endrabcwizart (talk) 01:50, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

I have started a discussion in which you may care to comment at [[3]] Cheers Elinruby (talk) 02:39, 21 March 2022 (UTC) Elinruby (talk) 03:43, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 16:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Hey, Robert! In regard to this diff, were you intending to comment on the "joke" AfD itself or the MfD about the AfD? I ask because I think it wound up in the wrong place. (I mean, it's not like I got confused three times when filing the thing! No sir...) ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 04:58, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Matthewrb - I was commenting at the MFD, and so was commenting about the joke AFD. I was saying that the joke AFD is a bad joke and should be deleted as per nominator. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:12, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. The comment is showing up on the AFD, which is why I asked. Thank you! ~ Matthewrb ^{Talk to me · Changes I've made} 05:29, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Matthewrb - I've moved it. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:41, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The issue is that Wikipedia editors do not have subject matter expertise

Those Green Threads are some obsolete construct discarded from Java 20 years ago

Virtual threads offers scalable parallelism

Oracle has spent five years on Virtual Threads because they really want them. And they are still not ready to launch them in 2022

The Chrome browser introduced tabbed browsing with each tab its own process. A novelty in terms of stability and performance, Chrome also featured virtual threads internally in its i/o processing. Google developed both Chrome and Go

The Virtual Threads page is required

Haraldrudell (talk) 18:48, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I can't find a reception because the series just started. Plus, you said wait for the first episode to air so it can be moved. SpectresWrath (talk) 15:11, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi! Please look at my

• Davidindia (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:KP aravind (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I have created a page Aravind KP but it was not published but later much worse page without any references was published. I request you to check it and guide us so that we can make it to the standards of Wiki

the page is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravind_KP

Davidindia (talk) 03:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

the Teahouse can help answer them. Robert McClenon (talk

) 03:45, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

i think we just need to clean up and make the new article news worthy instead of the current fan-style Davidindia (talk) 17:28, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

the Teahouse. Robert McClenon (talk

) 17:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Davidindia (talk) 05:41, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi Robert. I am an AfC reviewer and I just accepted the article

Draft:Logically, but was then renamed. So that is now what I think. Robert McClenon (talk

) 00:58, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

That makes sense. Thank you! JSFarman (talk) 01:11, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

I added more to the

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

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 11:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

. | Sent at 12:32, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

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

Your feedback is requested at

Hello Robert McClenon, Archana Jois This article is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy. Now this article improve and add source please check it and if you think now this article Wikipedia notable remove this top deletion policy. Thanks Tanvirnahid565 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:43, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

[4] A little overkill with all the templates lol; you nearly quadrupled the size of the draft! Curbon7 (talk) 00:29, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Curbon7 - Yes. In retrospect, two of them would have sufficed. Once I develop the templates, they are easy to use. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello Robert McClenon, Archana Jois this article are improve now and add news source he is notable person now on Wikipedia he acted notable flim WP:NACTOR. Now remove this tag deletion policy from the top. Tanvirnahid565 (talk) 13:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

@Tanvirnahid565: That isn't how this works. You can't remove an AfD tag from an article that still has an active AfD debate. —Jéské Couriano v^_^v ^{a little blue Bori} 23:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

User:Jéské Couriano - I don't blame them for not knowing how AFD works. AFD is a complicated process. I do sort of blame them for posting the demand to remove the AFD tag twice. If I ignored them once, then yelling louder will just annoy me. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

And I did acknowledge that the article had been improved by changing my !vote to Neutral. The article probably will be kept, so they don't need to keep bothering me. But that is how it works. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 22 April 2022 (UTC)