User talk:Robert McClenon: Difference between revisions

Archives

Index

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 60 days are automatically archived by ClueBot III if there are more than 7.

This version of the page may not reflect the most current changes. Please purge this page to view the most recent changes.

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 17:32, 12 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon, I’m just making sure that you’re still looking to review my draft since it’s been a couple days! Sorry for the bother, and thank you for taking the time to give it a look! Alexishere13 (talk) 11:07, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Alexishere13 – I am not sure how to act on your draft, and I have unset the review flag, and will leave it for another reviewer. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:47, 5 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) on a “Economy, trade, and companies” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, for your information, as you were involved in the previous discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Airport destination lists or the RfC on consensus of WP:DESTNOT at WT:NOT, I wanted to let you know that the discussed broader RfC has been opened at WP:VPP#RfC – The inclusion of destination lists in Airport articles. If you wish to contribute, please feel free. Many thanks! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 20:45, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danners430 – Thank you for trying to do something about this situation. Maybe it will work. If not, you tried. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I’m just writing to you out of curiosity on why you closed the Battle of Maritsa in the way you did?

As I’ve mentioned previously, I am currently away on holidays, which is why I am inactive on Wikipedia, but I must say that I’m a little surprised by your decision and felt the need to write to you about it.

On the actual TP of the battle in question, every single user (including Aeengath) agreed to Shkodër + a footnote, but Aeengath went back on that and opened up a DRN. However, consensus was already established for ‘Shkodër + footnote’, so the whole process was unnecessary.

I noticed that you asked for a summary of what each side wants in the DRN, which Aeengath in all honesty hijacked and guided without opposition simply because I’m not available to contest it. They made it appear as though there’s agreement for that decision, but if you look at the TP on the Battle of Maritsa, there was not. I would give you links to users agreeing with ‘Shkodër + footnote’ and everything else, but I am writing from my phone and honestly don’t want to spend my holidays debating something which already had a conclusion. I believe @Himaldrmann had the same concerns as I regarding how this was closed.

It’s not too big of a deal, but it is disappointing to see a user somehow claw their way out of a consensus agreement by misguiding a moderator on a DRN. Again, I’m just curious as to how you came to the conclusion that there was consensus for such a change. Did you ever read the TP discussion in full per chance? Botushali (talk) 00:41, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Botushali – I have reopened the DRN case. I have looked through your previous posts for a statement that you are not actively editing Wikipedia, but I am not sure that would have made a difference. I do expect you to make a statement in the reopened case after I finish making a reopening statement. To answer your question about reading the article talk page, I had read the article talk page, and concluded that the discussion was lengthy and inconclusive. I do not always read lengthy and inconclusive prior discussion in detail, because I prefer to mediate disputes starting over, because previous discussion was not useful. So please make a statement as to what you want the article to say, or I will close it again. Robert McClenon (talk) 06:17, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:31, 9 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Robert McClenon, back in April you commented, “If this draft is accepted, it should either take the place of the present disambiguation page, Penn Foster (disambiguation).” I see the reason for the most recent submission decline is: There already is a disambiguation page. If there are no other issues with the article, is it still possible for the article to take the place of the present disambiguation page? DegreeDriven (talk) 19:58, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:DegreeDriven – There needs to be a disambiguation page, because there are three Penn Fosters, and acceptance of the draft would be a fourth. The question is whether the draft can be accepted as Penn Foster and the disambiguation list moved to Penn Foster (disambiguation), or whether the draft should be given some other distinguishing name. If it is accepted, all four articles should be listed. I will look at the draft in more detail again within 48 hours.

Robert McClenon (talk) 01:38, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for another feedback. I have corrected, I hope, the two reference formatting issues you noted in the last review. Regarding the concern about reliable sourcing: should I partially quote the supporting evidence, for example “The NIMH Director described her contributions as a discovery in a 2022 statement”, and then place the reference link? Or in the Annual Reports of the Polish Psychiatry Institute, would it help do provide the page number, where the detailed description of the author’s research is provided? Walerus (talk) 23:20, 12 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walerus – I am not sure yet, but it appears to me that the draft is ready for acceptance. Please resubmit the draft and let me know and I will review it. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:41, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for one more review. I made a cosmetic change, otherwise I resubmit, as you suggested, as is, and will be waiting for further comments. Walerus (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Walerus – It isn’t submitted yet. Please submit it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:40, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Robert. I like and agree with your essay, WP:LUDA. I think we both find ourselves contributing to WP:MFD with it as an implicit basis quite regularly.

I’ve been bold and made some edits to the essay. While essays are not meant to be uniquely-authored, you are the primary author and as a matter of politeness and practicality, I have no objection if you would choose to edit or revert my changes. Martinp (talk) 14:16, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

User:Martinp – If I hadn’t welcomed additions and changes, I would have put it in user space. Thanks. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Robert, thank you for your feedback and help! I have revised the draft to add independent sources and show the company’s notability. I would appreciate your review again before resubmitting. Thank you! Draft:Videojet Technologies DL548 (talk) 18:03, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the missing BLP references, my fault. I have added three of them. One is a reference about the author (M.D. Czajkowska-Majewska) from the Archive of the Science of Poland, with information about her education (Early life and education section). The second one is  the author’s CV from the webpage of the Institute of Psychiatry and Neurology, Warsaw, Poland (Academic career section). The last one is a listing of the author’s popular publications from the website of the National Library of Poland (Science outreach  section). Her research publications can all be found on her included profiles from the open sources: Google Scholar, PubMed, Semantic Scholar, Dimensions. Thank you! Walerus (talk) 20:07, 14 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:The Bengal Files on a “Society, sports, and culture” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 20 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

January–February 2026 Backlog Drive | New pages patrol
New Pages Patrol is hosting a one-time, two-month experimental backlog drive aimed at reducing the backlog. This will be a combo drive: both articles and redirects will earn points. The drive will run from 1 January to 28 February 2026. The drive is divided into two phases. Participants may take part in either phase or across both phases, depending on availability. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled during the drive. Two-month drive-exclusive barnstars will be awarded to eligible participants. Each article review earns 1 point, while each redirect review earns 0.2 points. Streak awards will be granted based on consistently meeting weekly point thresholds. Barnstars will also be awarded for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Interested in participating? Sign up here.
You are receiving this message because you are a New Pages Patrol reviewer. To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself from here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

– CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:42, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Abishe (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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

Since you are a page mover, it might be useful to install User:Ahecht/Scripts/pageswap. It would be helpful while accepting AfC drafts in some particular cases. –MPGuy2824 (talk) 08:20, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:MPGuy2824. The documentation says that it swaps the histories. Does it actually swap the articles themselves with their histories, which is what I want if there is a redirect with non-trivial history? I will look at it again the next time that I want to accept a draft when there is a blocking redirect with non-trivial history. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:56, 4 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the script swaps the histories of the pages too along with the titles (see WP:PMRC#4). –MPGuy2824 (talk) 04:59, 5 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:MPGuy2824. I installed the swap script. However, then, before using it, I realized that it would not be satisfactory for the situation in which I wanted to use it, which is the situation in which I normally swap pages. That is accepting a draft into article space and swapping it with a redirect with history that is moved from article space to draft space to preserve the history. That is because the acceptance of a draft is not a simple move from draft space to article space, but includes cleanup that is done by the AFC accept script. So I did the accept in the usual manual way. I have the swap script, and will use it when I encounter a situation for a “simple” swap. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:27, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I posted in the Requested Moves post you opened for Prasat Ta Krabey ((Discuss) – Prasat Ta Krabey → Prasat Ta Khwai – )and now I don’t see it. It was there after I posted it but now I can’t see it. What do I do? MoonsMoon (talk) 02:44, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:MoonsMoon – You were confused by a potentially confusing header. As a result, you posted your comment in the wrong place, and it was removed by a bot because it was posted in the wrong place. I see that you thought that Wikipedia:Requested moves/Current discussions is the place for current discussion. It is a list of requested moves for which there is current discussion on the article talk pages. The place to make your post is Talk:Prasat_Ta_Krabey#Requested_move_6_January_2026. Does that answer your question? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, thanks. MoonsMoon (talk) 05:39, 7 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump on a “Politics, government, and law” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 18:31, 9 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy. I see you’re active at DRN so figured you’d be a decent shot at this. I came across a long-running (month long) edit war at Niclas Adler while doing my typical patrol of 1346 (hist · log). I’m not involved but added the page to my watchlist. There is a mixture of TAs and experienced editors involved. Can you take a look? Not exactly sure what should be done but hoping someone can mediate. Thanks! NicheSports (talk) 02:56, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:NicheSports – I took a quick look, and it appears that the temporary accounts are the problem. I have requested semi-protection. My thinking is that when there is edit-warring between experienced editors, page protection forces them to discuss; but when there is edit-warring between unregistered editors, page protection can make them go away or register accounts. I don’t like to mediate with unregistered editors, but I don’t think that mediation will be necessary. I think that what is needed is to make the temporary accounts leave the article alone. I will take another look later. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Great stuff. I considered doing that but saw an admin was involved and was confused why they hadn’t already requested protection so I just watched for a few weeks. Thanks for handling NicheSports (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:NicheSports – The admin was probably avoiding taking any admin action because they are involved and so was simply acting as an experienced editor. I didn’t try to look at the content dispute, but it looks as if there are at least two unregistered editors, warring against each other. I will wait and see what happens next. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense. I’ll watch and see how it turns out. NicheSports (talk) 18:02, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) The page on Niclas Adler has now been semiprotected three months by User:Daniel Case. Looks to me like a good solution, for the moment. If any IP editor decides to go ahead and create an account, it would be worthwhile to try to discuss with them. The page itself is not too bad but the notability of this person is marginal. The claim that he was ‘detained in absentia’ is mysterious — this may be a problem in translating from Swedish. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I auggested, an AfD might not be out of the question. Daniel Case (talk) 19:18, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your review Robert.
I am a current student in Art of Problem Solving (no paid editing) and have alread discosed in my talk page.
Regarding notability: The draft relies on independent secondary sources with significant coverage of the organization: – The Atlantic (2016 “The Math Revolution”): Multiple paragraphs discussing AoPS’s online platform, community, enrollment, expansions (e.g., Beast Academy), and role in advanced math education trends. – Common Sense Education review: In-depth independent analysis of the company’s divisions, resources (online school, Alcumus, forums), and educational model. – Cathy Duffy Reviews: Comprehensive independent review of the curriculum, textbooks, online tools, and problem-solving approach. These address the organization directly (history, products, impact) beyond passing mentions.
The draft has also been revised for neutral tone. Does this help, or are there specific improvements needed? Thanks. Davidninjaking (talk) 17:19, 10 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Donald Trump 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 20:30, 11 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 03:30, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, @Robert McClenon

I am writing regarding the ongoing dispute over the Maire Tecnimont article.

After your earlier COI warning to @Msforzese, I revised the structure of the disputed material in good faith, integrating it into a neutral “Major projects” section alongside undisputed projects. Despite this, Msforzese has now removed the entire “Major projects” section, including neutral, well-sourced descriptions of projects that were not part of the original dispute.

Given the prior COI concerns and the continued removal of any material that reflects disputes or difficulties involving the same company, I am concerned that this now goes beyond a normal content disagreement and may constitute protective or tendentious editing.

I have documented the removal on the article’s talk page. I would appreciate your guidance on how to proceed.

Thank you TextGardener (talk) 16:14, 12 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Lactalis on a “Economy, trade, and companies” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 12:31, 13 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Redirects in languages other than English on a “Language and linguistics” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 16 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

hello reviewer! The under review template is past 12 hours limit can you review it Yapsbot (talk) 07:11, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League on a “Society, sports, and culture” 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.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 23:30, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Robert McClenon,

Thank you for taking the time to review the draft. I’d like to seek clarification regarding the notability concern so I can improve the submission in line with policy.

The subject has received sustained, independent coverage over several years in national secondary sources such as The Hindu, The New Indian Express, India Today, NDTV, The Week, and The Times of India, covering his IPS career, tenure as BJP Tamil Nadu state president (2021–2025), electoral contests, and political controversies.

My understanding is that this meets WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN, but I’m happy to further neutralise tone, reduce event-style reporting, or restructure sections if specific issues remain.

I’d appreciate any guidance on what changes would be necessary for the draft to meet AfC standards.
Thank you for your time. TamizhanEditor (talk) 06:57, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk) 11:30, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there,

I’m leaving this message because you contributed to the recent RfC regarding the inclusion of airport destination lists. As promised, now that that RfC has closed, I’ve initiated a further discussion about the sourcing standards to be applied to these lists.

If you wish to contribute to the discussion, please do so at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Airport destination lists – sourcing requirements.

Cheers! Danners430 _{tweaks made} 15:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Following this close, I’ve resumed discussion[1] on the talk page of the article in question, but I honestly realize that the discussion has stalled (that editor has already stated they “will not be leaving any further comments”[2]), and that’s why I initiated dispute resolution in the first place. (Other editors and I have already listed WP:RS.) What should be done if there is a clear consensus for the proposed changes? (Which seems to already be the case.) Who should edit the article accordingly? I’ll wait a few days to see if there are further comments. Israell (talk) 14:53, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Israell – My first item of advice is to discuss at the bottom of the article talk page, rather than continuing a discussion in the middle of the talk page. Some editors look at the bottom of the talk page and not in the middle. My second item of advice is to edit the article boldly. In particular, edit the lede section to add “songwriter” or any other activity to the opening sentence. If that is reverted, either start an RFC or request that I start an RFC for you. I have started more than a hundred RFCs and am willing to start one for you. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:59, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the problem. I will edit the citations to only come from reliable sources (primarily NOAA and NWS) CycloneTheta (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

When I see your datestamp in discussion, I tend to relax a bit, as a calmer and cooler head than mine has chosen to weigh in. I don’t know how this particular case will come out, but a large number of sensible wikipedians has agreed such hostage-taking statements may acquire a disproportionate influence if allowed to stand unchallenged. I’m all about free speech; this was precisely my objection to the naked threat against such free speech. If trusted servants of the pedia are made subject to unchallenged and personalized psychological manipulation, the entire system of “rough consensus and running code” is behind us. Thanks again for choosing to share your views. BusterD (talk) 19:24, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:BusterD – Thank you for your statement about your opinion about my judgment. After forty-plus years of using electronic media (before some people who were adults at the time knew about electronic media), I have learned that expressing emotion in electronic media is seldom useful, and that one should think before writing, and think again before posting. I infer that you are talking about Joseph2302. Speech that intimidates other speech is difficult to deal with. Cases involving editors who make significant contributions but also have long block logs are often difficult to deal with. I think that sometimes the disruption by such users outweighs the benefit of their contributions. I think that the English Wikipedia community agrees that there have been UCoC violations. We disagree on what sanction is in order. Thank you for commenting. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:14, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My oldest but current email address dates from 1995, so I’m a bit behind you in experience. I was involved with the Compuserve, Prodigy, and AOL communities for online RPGs. Graduated to local BBS and newsgroups. My experience on Wikipedia has caused me to highly value wikipedians with whom I hold a good faith disagreement. If I respect them and they hold a variant position to mine, I usually want to learn more about the variance. I often feel better informed and sometimes need to slap my own forehead for my not-knowing better. Always glad to see your datestamp, Robert. BusterD (talk) 20:45, 3 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:BusterD – You might be interested in a post and reply on the user talk page of Fortuna imperatrix mundi, in which Fim says that you and others are really more concerned about admin recall than about the UCoC. I collapsed the exchange to try to be a calmer and cooler head, although I thought that their reply was inappropriate and uncivil. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on User:Kakakhail asad/sandbox requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, as it exhibits signs of having been generated by an AI model with no clear human review. Text produced by these applications can be unsuitable for an encyclopedia and output must be carefully checked.
For further information, see the section G15 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think these signs were incorrectly identified and you assert that you did carefully check the content, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page 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 tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia’s policies and guidelines. Additionally – if you would like to create an article but find it difficult, please ask for help at the Teahouse. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there Robert McClenon. Just FYI, you added my signature with a CSD notification: Diff/1336589160. This is presumably just a shit happens-type mistake. 🙂 —Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:21, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gurkubondinn – No, it was half on purpose and half an accident. You tagged User:Kakakhail asad/sandbox as G15, and Twinkle put the CSD notice on my talk page. Twinkle stupidly thought that I was the author of the sandbox, because I had previously moved a draft from the sandbox into draft space. I determined who the author of the sandbox really was, and copied the CSD notification, including your signature, to the user talk page of the owner of the sandbox. The CSD notification really had had your signature, and I copied it. I am now trying to determine who to complain to about Twinkle giving me the CSD notification. My annoyance is not so much that I got a notice about something I did not write. My annoyance was more because the real author didn’t get the notice. If I have to do this again, I will try to remember to cut out the previous signature. So I apologize for annoying you about an annoyance. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Robert McClenon – ah, I see. In that case I should apologize for annoying you about an annoyance of an annoyance.

I think I can maybe help you with figuring out whom to complain to about Twinkle being annoying, because I remember talking about it with Chaotic Enby at some point, but to my own annoyance, I can’t find it on their talk page or archives. If I completely misremember then I apologize for annoying them in this cycle of annoyance. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 17:54, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely remember having such a chat! Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 18:13, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, User:Chaotic Enby. Do you have any knowledge about how Twinkle decides who to notify about CSD taggings? As you can infer, I was notified about the G15 tagging of User:Kakakhail asad/sandbox. My real concern is that the originator wasn’t notified, because the Twinkle script was confused as to who originated what. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:24, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

My guess that it is because the first/oldest revision of the page is is attributed to you: Diff/1303567468. The summary suggests that it was a page move though, so I am not sure why it is the first revision. —Gurkubondinn (talk) 19:28, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It is unfortunately a feature of MediaWiki software that the only interrogable element is the identity of the user flagged by the software as the creator of the article. All else is deemed to be unreliable(!).

The creator is the best we have, perfect or not.

The question has been discussed more times than you can shake a stick at. That does not mean it should not be discussed again, but ‘doing the sme thing again and again and expecting a different result is the path to insanity’ to misquote someone or other.

We have all had articles misattributed to us. 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 20:23, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, I’ve got Dasht Tehsil (Kech District) (a draft that I cleaned up) showing up as mine for instance, after it got deleted under WP:G5 and then partially undeleted. Chaotic Enby (talk · contribs) 20:29, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I also get G13 notices. I usually ignore them, because I don’t think anyone should care much that an unused draft is about to be thrown away. Sometimes they are for drafts that I moved from a sandbox to draft space, and I sort of understand that it thinks I am the creator. But sometimes they are for drafts that were developed in a sandbox when I had moved a previous draft out of the sandbox. That is less understandable, and is similar to this G15 notice, but I am coming to see that the determination of who is identified as the creator may be obscure. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:38, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

With sandboxen it happens when someone not the creating editor moves the was a sandbox to no lomger a sandbox, and then reuses the sandbox. The user who performed the move is the pseudo-creator now of the sandbox, and MW software says so.

We can try it. Set up a user sub page, and ping me from it. I will move it while leaving a redirect and ping you from it. You can then see who created the original 🇵🇸‍🇺🇦 Fiddle^Timtrent Faddle^Talk to me 🇺🇦‍🇵🇸 21:14, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Robert, I noticed your frustration or annoyance at trying to get a word in edgewise in the recently closed Rfc that at times was difficult to edit because it was changing so frequently. We have all been there. I immediately understood the meaning of your four very brief posts one after the other as actually all part of a one, unified reply thought, but published in small, separate chunks as a remedy for not getting shut out yet again by another conflict. May I offer a tip that may work better for you next time?

When I end up in that situation, and sometimes even prophylactically when I suspect I might, I find the insertion point where I want to reply and note the timestamp of the last reply above it and paste the ts into a text editor (or better: into Special:ExpandTemplates), then I compose my response under the timestamp, taking care to start off with the right number of colon indents. After I’m done with that, I skip a few lines and write my edit summary. If the message merits it, I use ExpandTemplates to verify and edit your work as needed. When ready, select + copy my message *and* the edit summary onto the clipboard. Now comes the commando operation:

The steps following #1 should be done as rapidly as possible:

1. go back to the Talk page and refresh the page, and hit the edit section link
2. find the insertion point using search-on-page for the timestamp just above where your message will go
3. paste the clipboard at the insertion point
4. most browsers will place the cursor at the end of your pasted text; scroll down to it if not
5. your edit summary will be there; select & *cut* the summary, and paste it quickly into the edit summary field
6. Hit the Publish button (not ‘Preview’; you’re in a hurry, remember?); plus, you’ve already checked it in ExpandTemplates
7. Review your message after publication, fixing any problems at your leisure.

This sounds a lot more complicated than it is; the numbered steps take only a few seconds from page refresh through Publish. And the beauty of it is, in the unlikely event that someone publishes another edit in those few seconds, you do *not* have to go through the annoying, two-window, edit conflict resolution process. Instead, just cancel out, copy your message to the clipboard, and run the commando op again. Works like a charm! (It occurs to me that a user script might be able to do this even faster, given the insertion-point timestamp and a sandbox page with your message as inputs.) Hope this helps, Mathglot (talk) 01:19, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathglot – I am a little puzzled. What RFC was that? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:33, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Let me go find it, it’s all over my history. Be right back! Mathglot (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Gaakkk! Mea maxima culpa. The Rfc is here (an excruciatingly long, tortured, boring, and inconclusive read, btw) but it wasn’t your comments, it was someone else’s! Chalk up another embarrassing miscue due to my swiss-cheese memory; I should have checked before posting here; my apologies. Feel free to collapse, blank, archive, or convert to Comic sans font and roll on the floor laughing. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]