User talk:Robert McClenon#Dispute resolution

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Biography 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.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:26, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Spanish Civil War 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Perth 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains 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.

Blocking redirect has been deleted, per request. Cyrius|✎ 15:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Sonic the Hedgehog 3 (film) 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.

:Geonosis is deleted G6. Please proceed with draft acceptance. -- Whpq (talk) 17:59, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Anthony Fauci 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Adult human female 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.

hi @Robert McClenon, whatever i do is apparently wrong. this time i was simply reverting the drastic changes until there was a consensus. the editor wanted to get his changes in prior to a consensus and i were participating in talk page to reach a consensus, now i am again subject to tban. just looking at the logs, you'll see what i am saying is true, i was simply reverting undiscussed edits that were controversial and challenged. Wlaak (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert, Thank you for all of your patience and help. I had two questions; One, would it be okay to hat the sock-puppet comment? Two, would it be okay to propose a TBAN for both Wlaak and Suryayeproject3? or are there better options? Suryayeproject3 appears to want to push their POV across, while a TBAN may not be the best option a formal warning/consequence is due. Both are guilty of the same things. Thank you, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 11:16, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:CF-501 Falcon - Yes, if I understand correctly, but I have a question. I read this post before I looked back at WP:ANI, and wondered why you were suggesting hatting my comment that the history going back five years includes sockpuppetry. Also before rereading ANI, I was agreeable to topic-banning Surayeproject3. Then I reread the WP:ANI thread, and see that there is a new comment by another sockpuppet below my comment. Of course it is useful to collapse comments by block-evading users; those comments add no value, but distract from discussion. If that is what you are asking about, of course the illegal !vote can be collapsed. I don't know if there is a better sanction, but topic-banning them both is a good start, and we should also declare the topic to be contentious. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:41, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Robert McClenon, Glad to see you agree. I have support asilvering's proposal at VPR. Would you like to do the formal proposal for a TBAN on both editors? I am not experienced with the wording of such proposals. I will hat the sock-puppet. Best, CF-501 Falcon (talk · contribs) 16:46, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Roseto effect on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

Hi @Robert McClenon I noticed a brand new account editing the Draft, they don't seem to have done any harm but I am wondering if you have submitted it anywhere or posted it anywhere that could have made them find it Wlaak (talk) 15:25, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

:I have never seen this before but I was even notified on my watchlist that his account was created:

:* User creation log 13:14  User account QQ052025 talk contribs was created Do you know why? Maybe because I wrote to him on his talk page just now?

:Wlaak (talk) 15:34, 9 May 2025 (UTC)

@Robert McClenon thank you for the work you have done! i was wondering, should Arameans not be moved to "History of the Arameans"? As we now both have Arameans in Israel and Aramean people, would it not be contradicting/confusing to have "Arameans" be of ancient Arameans (described as extinct, although academically proven otherwise) and then "Arameans in Israel" speaking of the same Arameans but as a modern people? Wlaak (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Wlaak - The titles of articles on related subjects should be discussed in connection with the discussion of whether the article on Aramean people should continue to exist. Discuss in the deletion discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aramean people. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:37, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

:::@Robert McClenon i have a question regarding your review, thank you for it. what was your opinion on it? was the content in it overlapping with any other to a degree its considered a fork? naturally one cant avoid some overlaps, specially with the antiquity section of Arameans Wlaak (talk) 07:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Femosphere 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.

I noticed you reached this milestone recently. Very impressive! IAWW (talk) 19:20, 17 May 2025 (UTC)

:User:It is a wonderful world - Thank you. Is there a report that shows edit milestones? Robert McClenon (talk) 03:11, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

::Noo I just saw it when I looked at your contribs. I like to see what people are working on sometimes. IAWW (talk) 06:26, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Moderator. How long does the Rfc draft going to take? And how shall it be done? Shall I participate as well? Protector100 (talk) 00:27, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

::User:Protector100 - I will be providing a draft for review at DRN within 24 hours. I will try to answer expected questions then. Any other questions can be asked at DRN. That case is not closed until I launch the RFC. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello there, we will settle the lead images ourselves, without RFC. You may close the case. Thank you for your assistance. Protector100 (talk) 14:44, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

The Arbitration Committee has opened an arbitration case titled Indian military history in response to an arbitration enforcement referral. You are receiving this notice because you are a named party to the case and/or offered a statement in the referral proceedings.

Please add your evidence by June 5, 2025, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage.

For a guide to the arbitration process, please see Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Party Guide/Introduction. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:36, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Robert McClenon. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "sandbox".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|User:Andyvee123/sandbox|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! Folkezoft (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

:Thank you, User:Folkezoft, maybe. You just discovered the misfeature that sends a G13 notice to the editor who moved a sandbox into draft space. You can ignore this comment, and I will ignore the note after poking fun at it. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:29, 22 May 2025 (UTC)

Just a comment in response to [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3ADispute_resolution_noticeboard&diff=1292261007&oldid=1292259550 your note re closing the DR] I created for Drag pageantry. I did notify the two editors who appear to insist on that content [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARob97dc&diff=1292201642&oldid=1292069647 here] and [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AUALRSSR&diff=1292201687&oldid=1036788547 here]. Was that not correct? (I have no issue with your decisiosn to close, just wanted to check on whether I did the notification incorrectly). --ZimZalaBim ^talk 03:41, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

:User:ZimZalaBim - Okay, yes. You did notify them, but you didn't list them, so I didn't check whether they had been notified. I have changed my closing statement. You are required to list and notify the other editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:54, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Robert McClenon. This message concerns the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Sean Kerr".

Drafts that go unedited for six months are eligible for deletion, in accordance with our draftspace policy, and this one has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply {{edit|Draft:Sean Kerr|edit the submission}}, and remove the {{tlc|db-afc}}, {{tlc|db-draft}}, or {{tlc|db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you read this, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions here. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the draft so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:User:CptViraj - Well, this message is even stupider than usual. I have no record that I created the draft, but I almost never create the drafts that I get these messages about, and no evidence that I moved it, and no evidence that I reviewed it. Things happen. Robert McClenon (talk) 11:28, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::I'm really sorry. Obviously some sort of error by the script. I usually check the usernames of notified users but for this draft, somehow I overlooked. You may remove this message. I'll be more careful from next time. Thanks! -- CptViraj (talk) 12:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::No, no, no, User:CptViraj - You missed my point. I am not complaining about your leaving the message via the script. I am ridiculing the script. It is not unusual to get similar stupid messages. They don't bother me, because they are not being caused by a human, but by a script. Maybe some day someone will fix the script. Maybe they never will. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I get these messages frequently, usually when I renamed/moved a sandbox to draft space. Usually I can understand them from the history. Sometimes, however, it is just clear that the script is being weird. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:38, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::I see. I think this time it happened because the draft history was merged with the mainspace article, so the earliest revision that remained might have been made by you. So the script thought that you created the draft. Anyways, I really hope someone fixes the script someday. -- CptViraj (talk) 15:24, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

File:Information icon4.svg

Hello, Robert McClenon. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or draft page you started, "Connect".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_undeletion/G13?withJS=MediaWiki:G13-restore-wizard.js&page=Draft%3AConnect request its undeletion]. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:00, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

I have seen your several invitations to the other party to participate, but since this has hit stalemate, I would like to know how to resolve this. The other editor states that citations are needed, when the citations I posted satisfy all the claims in that section of the article. I have posted voluminously both in the Dispute Noticeboard and in the Talk page of the article itself, explaining in detail why the citations I posted, alongside an image and direct quotations in Block Quotes from the sources satisfy verifiability, and yet here we are. The Citations Needed tags are still there; no effort has been made by the editor who placed them there to find sources they believe more suitable than those I have posted. This can't end here, but if the DRN is not the place to resolve this, please advise what is the place to have this addressed. I do not wish to remove the tags and start an edit war. Chrisdevelop (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Robert McClenon,

Recently, major edits were made to the Sibling Abuse page to refine outdated information and clean up excessive citations. A different wiki editor, a colleague of mine, made a mistake and submitted these edits as a new article rather than improving it directly on the page. With this in mind, could you approve these edits, or do we have to start again on the original page? Let me know what course of action I should take moving forward.

Thank you! LylaLeona (talk) 14:39, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

::User:LylaLeona - I thought that my instructions to User:Reece apgar were clear. I wrote: {{tq|Articles for Creation is not used to replace the current version of an article by a revised version of the article. Reworking or replacement of an article is done by normal editing, and should be discussed on the article talk page, Talk:Sibling abuse. }} There isn't a procedure for approving the replacement of an article by a draft article. I don't know what you mean by {{tq|start again on the original page]]. Yes, you have to discuss at the article talk page, Talk:Sibling abuse and edit the existing article, Sibling abuse. Is there some sort of off-wiki coordination between you and Reece apgar, such as a class? Robert McClenon (talk) 23:59, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Robert,

I'm messaging you as I'm unsure how best to proceed after you closed a discussion on the dispute resolution board (this being for the dispute titled '[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard&oldid=1293747165#Daisy_Bates_(author)| Daisy Bates (author)]'). As the other editor does not wish to summarise their position and as they've been (imo) mildly hostile in their previous replies, I am hesitant to simply restart the discussion on the talk thread as you suggested in the closing comment. I'm unsure if a RfC would be fair and similarly closed if I'm also having to summarise their position for that.

FropFrop (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2025 (UTC)

::User:FropFrop - I have taken a quick look at the dispute, and am not entirely sure what you are asking. Your DRN request was closed because you failed to notify the other editor, and because you tried to summarize their case for them. You say that they do not wish to summarize their position, but you did not give them an opportunity to summarize their position. Try to discuss with them on the article talk page, in a separate section. If they are uncivil, ignore the incivility and try to discuss the content issue. If that is unsuccessful, you can make another request at DRN. If they engage in personal attacks, or otherwise make discussion impossible, you can report them to WP:ANI after reading the boomerang essay, but try to discuss content. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{tq| You say that they do not wish to summarize their position, but you did not give them an opportunity to summarize their position.}} I asked that they give a summary of their position for a RfC in the article's talk page and they replied along the lines of "No, I've already explained it, this discussion is over."

:::{{tq|Try to discuss with them on the article talk page, in a separate section.}} Yeah fair enough, I'll give it another go. Thanks for the advice, it is much appreciated.

:::FropFrop (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

You are receiving this message because you are on the update list for Indian military history. Due to an influx of evidence submissions within 48 hours of the evidence phase closing, which may not allow sufficient time for others to provide supplementary/contextual evidence, the drafters are extending the evidence phase by three days, and will now close at 23:59, 8 June 2025 (UTC). The deadlines for the workshop and proposed decision phases will also be extended by three days to account for this additional time.

For the Arbitration Committee, HouseBlaster (talk • he/they) 03:02, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hey Robert, thanks for the section. I saw it and was working on an explanation for you for the other side of the dispute, but it's been taking a bit because it's a lot text. Also to clear up some misunderstandings I didn't avoid DRN. I saw that Sariel Xilo only invited people on his side of the debate, so I was intimidated and wanted to use the talk page as I didn't know if I could invite people as a new editor. Similarly, I never tag team edited. I made the first edit as a WP:RFCNEUTRAL concern which I thought was allowed. I only had a good intention and didn't edit again.

Anyway it's almost done. I saw you just voted so my question is:

1. Would you still like me to post it?

2. Will you consider changing your stance based on my clarifications above and/or seeing the history of the dispute? Since you said {{tq|I think it is especially important to ask them to present the "other side" before considering any community bans}}. BMWF (talk) 13:33, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

::User:BMWF - Yes, and yes. I am usually willing to consider changing a previously stated position after reading information that clarifies. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:56, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

:::Thanks, I posted some information about the other side of the dispute.

:::Also I want to note that Wyll is very new and may not have full context on the dispute. I think he is confused and may not even fully know what a close is. Personally I didn't know the reopen procedure (but I know it now). Anyway I'm sure he will respond. BMWF (talk) 19:59, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

30px :Wikipedia:Silver nitrate, a page which you created or substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; you may participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Silver nitrate and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of :Wikipedia:Silver nitrate during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. House^{Living room}_{DIY Fixings} 09:45, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello Robert,

I’m following up on your previous review of my draft article about Bruce Falkinburg (declined on 19 April 2024). I’ve revised the draft to include multiple reliable secondary sources with significant coverage of Falkinburg’s musical and artistic work—such as Blabbermouth, Glen Echo Photoworks, and Discogs—along with a clearer explanation of how it meets WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG.

I would be grateful if you could take another look or offer further suggestions. Here's the updated draft: Draft:Bruce Falkinburg

Thanks very much for your time!

Cheapcop (talk) 07:09, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I noticed you closed my DRN Case recently, saying "Four days after the filing editor was advised that at least one other editor was involved, the other editor has not been listed or notified." I am not sure what this means. The other editor, TarnishedPath, was [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ATarnishedPath&diff=1294115238&oldid=1293905649 notified on his talk page] shortly after I filed the case. אקעגן (talk) 20:01, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

:אקעגן = You notified {{noping|TarnishedPath}}. They were one of three editors who were involved in editing and discussing the article. You were another. The third was {{noping|IOHANNVSVERVS]]. If you didn't know that there was another editor, you could have asked, and I would have told you. Also, TarnishedPath, whom you did notify, has not replied. DRN is voluntary, and TarnishedPath has chosen not to reply. So there is no one to discuss with. Resume discussion on the article talk page. Robert McClenon (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)

::I did not include {{noping|IOHANNVSVERVS}} in the original list, because he was not involved with the discussion of re-adding the tag. In any case, I am not sure what is left to discuss there-{{noping|TarnishedPath}} refuses to restore my tags, and I am impeded by WP:1RR. How do I proceed from here? אקעגן (talk) 17:50, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:::{{Reply to|Robert McClenon}} Can I file the case in DRN again? I see I missed your comment last time, and only arrived to see the case was closed. אקעגן (talk) 14:58, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::אקעגן - Did you read my closing statement? Has there been more lengthy and inconclusive discussion? Is there now a dispute about article content, as opposed to a tagging dispute? Robert McClenon (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::The dispute is about whether the act of tagging itself requires consensus. If that is not appropriate for DRN, what is the proper venue for that? אקעגן (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::{{tps}} I'm not aware of the specifics of this dispute but I will note that dispute resolution is an entirely voluntary process. You might be well-served to see if the other parties have any interest in re-starting the DR process before going through the effort of creating a new file there. Simonm223 (talk) 16:29, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::אקעגן - First, you can always file a DRN case. Whether I will open it depends on whether there has been new lengthy and inconclusive discussion, whether at least one other editor responds, and whether you raise an article content issue. The question that you ask, about whether the act of tagging requires consensus, is not an article content question but a policy question. Do you have an article content issue? Has there been recent lengthy and inconclusive discussion? Robert McClenon (talk) 18:44, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Thanks to you both. There are objections to the article's content that I and others have raised, without any consensus being reached so far. If it continues as it is, perhaps I will file a DRN for it.

::::::::However, as you say, the DRN approach would not be appropriate for the tagging question, since this itself would be strictly a matter of policy. I ended up at DRN through WP:SEEKHELP, hoping I could have this matter resolved. Looking at WP:ENFORCE refers me back to arbitration enforcement. Are there places to ask for resolution about policy matters? אקעגן (talk) 20:40, 13 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::אקעגן - First, putting a tag on an article does not require consensus. It indicates the lack of a consensus. However, if there is consensus against putting a tag on an article, or in support of removing a tag from an article, putting a tag on the article against consensus is considered disruptive. Second, do not report content disputes to Arbitration Enforcement. Arbitration Enforcement is a conduct forum. It deals on an expedited basis with disruptive editing in contentious areas. Third, have you tried discussing the content of the article with other editors? Robert McClenon (talk) 01:20, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::There is no consensus to either add or remove the tag. Whenever I put the tag, it was removed, and when I asked for it to be restored, and asked why it was being removed, I was unable to get reasonable responses, in my view. אקעגן (talk) 21:42, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::::{{Reply to|Robert McClenon}} Following up on this. If Arbitration Enforcement isn't appropriate, and DRN isn't appropriate, where do I go once this topic has been discussed in the talk page? אקעגן (talk) 17:37, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

::::::::::::So I went back to the talk page discussion and it seems like the locus of the dispute is the reliability and due weight of Morris (and Karsh) as sources since you want to revise the lede based on their views. Their reliability has been disputed by other editors. Have you considered WP:RS/N or an RfC as avenues to resolve the dispute? Simonm223 (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2025 (UTC)

{{YGM}}

But it's short! Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 06:43, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

:User:Liz - The essay The Unblockables is misnamed, but should be allowed to keep its name for historical reasons. The essay is really about unbannablrs, editors who are frequently blocked for various reasons and never stay blocked. They are unbannable, or never stay blocked, because they have fan clubs, who are willing to excuse their violations of civility because they are seen as "productive" or "excellent content contributors". There are also editors who are not blocked at all, which is because they take the fourth pillar of Wikipedia seriously, or because they learned, even before editing Wikipedia, that there is never any advantage in expressing emotion in electronic media. The essay that I quoted is not really about editors who are not blocked, but about editors who do not stay blocked. I learned in the late twentieth century that expression emotion in electronic media is not useful. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:48, 11 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:List of active separatist movements in Europe on a "Politics, government, and law" request for comment, and at Talk:T. V. S. N. Prasad on a "Biographies" request for comment, and at Talk:Dragon Age: The Veilguard and Talk:List of Tarja Turunen concert tours on "Media, the arts, and architecture" request for comments. 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:James Barry (surgeon) 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.

{{User QAIbox/auto|years=Nine}}

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2025 (UTC)

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Circumcision on a "Maths, science, and technology" 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Talk:Elizabeth II 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.

File:Internet-group-chat.svgYour feedback is requested at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Temporary account IP-viewer on a "Wikipedia proposals" 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.