HI I see your post and I have made pages before
I am currently in the process of adding to the page that I just made
I am doing this on my cellphone so it's taking a bit to update but I will not be leaving it blank
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifey93 ( talk • contribs) 06:21, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Dear Robert - You apparently took no time to look and evaluate where my work is going. Though I am new to Wikipedia, it does not preclude the fact that at least I am able to CORRECTLY SPELL my own name! You call me Bobby Baron. That already tells me you don't pay attention. My name is Barry Baron (mistake number one). The second mistake is assuming my mother has something to do with my research. This is incorrect and it happens to be a deceased sister. I take great care in adding content. You sir, I believe, need to take greater care in researching what you are criticizing. I fear maybe Wikipedia may want to re-evaluate your approach to others judging from the plethora of negative comments herein. Prove me wrong (actually the word is incorrect, but in this case,wrong is becoming a moral issue). I am trying my best to educate the planet a bit more on a subject you obviously have absolutely no concept of its importance. I simply suggest you look before you leap, sir. I certainly heed warnings at an arm's length and research considering the source. I am a former intelligence officer and used to manage interrogations on enemy prisoners; I see where this is going. It's not going to look good on your resume if your comments can't be more constructive and logical. I see the Dunning-Kruger effect (cognitive bias)sneaking up on you. I believe apologies are in order, Sir. BARRY BARON ( talk) 13:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Dear Robert,
I'm sorry that your opinion of my post is so negative, but i understand it must be a hard life if you're leaving such negative feedback on people's Wikipedia's articles. I must address your point, saying Steven Joseph Barnes is a 'non-notable person' because it is quite frankly rude. How is it up to you to decide whether someone is important enough for their own Wikipedia page or not? I'd kindly ask you to reconsider your review of my article, as it is downright disrespectful to instantly regard my post as a hoax, especially about someone who is a local icon. Although the article does have humorous content, I believe it to be a factual representation of Steven for the benefit of others and its not acceptable to criticize someones writing style.
Cameron
PS I hope this post doesn't appear to be hostile, I'm just very passionate about this icon who I've known since birth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenJosephBarnes1997 ( talk • contribs) 22:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
Dear Robert,
I created the user Romeomancini, even in the italian wikipedia page, because it is for the painter, but I have provided the email with my name and surname anna lisa vergarolo. I am afraid now to change everything, please keep my email address with my name and surname. I am not even sure I am writing in the right place here for you, please let me know. I have deleted the phrase that you thing it is not encyclopedic, anyway in Italy it is history that there was fascism and nationalism before second world war, not an opinion.-- Romeomancini ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC) Romeomancini ( talk) 16:06, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Kind of a double standard there isn't it? Someone can lie about someone, but the other person shouldn't let it be known that he's lying? I don't agree with that at all. RJII 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from leaving harrassing messages on my discussion board. And please cease from declaring a consensus on the Ted_Kennedy article when no such consensus exists.-- Agiantman 19:35, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
You have once again left a harrassing message on my discussion board. Please refrain.-- Agiantman 00:06, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
But, it is cleverer than you think , McC: majority opinion rules. Of course it is completely illogical , in fact I assume it is a typo error, asit is so contradictory of sources.
Other thing is that , well, arbitration doesn't achieve anything, a little mental spank and a few days in the can at best.
Then, well you get users like me who have a floating IP number.
I think Jimbo in fact knows all this , and is chuckling , as he is very clever . Famekeeper 23:34, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
Kind of a double standard there isn't it? Someone can lie about someone, but the other person shouldn't let it be known that he's lying? I don't agree with that at all. RJII 00:34, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
This is a WP problem . There's avast gap that can only be filled by defeating POV faith refusal to include the missing material . McC I either withdraw to as you say my own website (because WP fails on NPOV) or I await arbitration to result in censure(after civilty) of the POV blocking and the wrongful denial , or Str1977 accepts the inclusion of any and all sourced material . That is , complete justification for all so-called filibuster , FK POV smears , with a mutual apology for logic provocation by him , and giving in to it by me . Of course , perhaps the WP don't want to offend . Now when you guys send note of that , get back to me , otherwise I am not needed . I will tell the editor on Holocaust , that no I am not allowed . OK? WP can moulder without me . Famekeeper 14:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)
cc McClenon
I'm sorry Jimbo , but I see the responsibility to settle intractable disputes rests with you . I seem to run into intractable dispute on your WP , so I ask you to take responsibility . No one else can take this your place . I refer you to the articles Pope Pius XII and Hitler's Pope as the centre of this dispute and ask you to put yourself into the position of final arbiter now, OK ? I particularly think that the surviving Roman Jewess's words be taken as an issue : I wish you therefore to show or not show , that an Auschwitz survivor be called POV ( rv'd ,Pius in WWar 2) . You will see that the difference between the two articles at this minute is simple : one (PPII) is the 'censored' or whatever version of the other (H's P).
Having been battling to and beyond the brink for 8 months on the one article , I say that only you can survey this with any authority to do anything about it . Let you be the judge of all the WP requisites, knowing that your judgements are real , and that ultimately you yourself will equally be judged . Auschwitz survivors are definitely in a minority and this responsibility for arbitration I lay at you because you are the organ . I will consider myself in-active until you please let me know that I am required . As various users may find this disappearance odd , I post this letter to you for them to see elsewhere . Famekeeper 09:36, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
You are the bully , and daily you prove it. I will indeed, when I have the time, call for arbitration , but not about your bullying . There will be no blocking of course, but as you say it will be the only way to teach abusers what is the result of their malfeasance . Your piss arse lttle bullying is insignificant as it does not seek to radically affect presentation of truth here. I am not concerned with you except that I have archived material on my userpages concerning the Rfc against you, such that it can be resuscitated should a further action be required against your bullying. You are as you are, and welcome to yourself - a proven little liar, caught out and desperate not to look bad-in other words exactly what constitutes the typical bully . Someone insecure in themself who tries to deflect from their personal inadequacy by attacking the seemingly weak . I have proved your bullying at your own Rfc:mCClenon . Str1977 is actively intellectually dishonest , unlike yourself who is too crass not to leave an obvious trail(viz the dishonesty I irrefutably prove at yr Rfc:McClenon . I doubt very much that Mack Le Non is a real name , but you chose or it chose you well . I think you are paid to come in here to act as a bully , as I cannot see that any idealism drives you . Str1977 will have to answer for himself at the time that I choose. I have him cornered at last into an acceptance of the secret annexe, something I have been aiming for for many many months . He holds out on a misplaced working committee of 1 April with Kaasie and the Centre. Maybe Kaas did meet the Centre that day , obviously as he was their leader and had been off for a week with the popes, but that is unlike my sourcing to him , not proved to me as relevant . It is a large claim by him though, and I know why he makes it - to deflect Kaas and his friend Pacelli's guilt , and thus leave the Holy See safe from attack . However they are open to attack through the Secret Annexe of the REichskonkordat, and you have now seen that he cannot defend them there on that score, but only lay his POV open to evident wishfulness. Prudence is not a fact , but a motivation . I will skewer Str1977 on his own edits, as I skewer you and your unattractive bullying dishonesty , on your edits . I have specified these down to the minute and I openly say that you are of bad-faith as , according to your own lights , irrefutable proof is prdicate for such accusation. Go clean your mouth out with soap and say a hundred rosary's for your lie to the Wikipedia . You are not in danger of going to hell, but the christian who defends conscious evil , is . Now spit the soap out, kid . Famekeeper 13:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)
why did you say I was vandilising a page. Only stating the facts poopy head
What does it make you think to read this headline , McC ? That is my point . Famekeeper
I was quite shocked tonight when I stumbled onto the recent RFA for Rl and saw your vote and its justification. Quite frankly I can see no excuse for the harm caused to our community by your ridiculous imposition of a bureaucratic and arbitrary numerical standard which is neither supported by policy or by community behavior. I find it further unacceptable that you choose to use a helpful user as a pawn in your wiki political battle and as a result alienated him from our project. I have never before been so ashamed to be a Wikipedia editor. After careful consideration I believe that all users who have caused this travesty are a greater harm to our project than an asset. I am especially disappointed in your case because you offered to switch to neutral if he explained that his 100% wasn't a minimum, he did and you failed to follow through with your word. Please confine your activities to the main namespace or discontinue your involvement altogether. Thank you. -- Gmaxwell 05:49, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Factual accounts of another users clear violations of policy and abuse are not personal attacks. 2605:A000:160A:C016:B4CA:F72B:8AEC:2B85 ( talk) 04:40, 13 February 2015 (UTC)
Dear Mr. McClenon: I'm Charles Glasser, and I was retained recently by The Daily Caller to try and see if there was a way to bring some errors to your attention. I'm aware that some people preceeded me in attempting a resolution, it apparently ended in a flame war and looking at your recent note on the talk page for The Daily Caller, you seem to be saying that you consider my request for resolution closed, or in the alternative, raised in the wrong process. Sadly, one fellow who seems to have a deep interest in the Daily Caller has even tried to encourage you to ignore my request because I'm a media lawyer and questioning both my sincerity and legitimacy. (Pls see Daily Caller talk page for my comments/answers). This is by no means a legal threat, that's not how I roll. I am only asking if I can supply SOMEONE with an dry, calm, rational explanation of what's wrong with the article and why. The WP process is terribly confusing, loaded with coding jargon, and as a person of good faith, I'm hoping you, likewise, will show the kindness if not respect to be or to help find a neutral arbiter to hear me out. I am more than happy to answer ANY questions that you may have. Yours truly, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 ( talk) 02:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com
Dear Mr. McClenon: I'm Charles Glasser, and I was retained recently by The Daily Caller to try and see if there was a way to bring some errors to your attention. I'm aware that some people preceeded me in attempting a resolution, it apparently ended in a edit/flame war and looking at your recent note on the talk page for The Daily Caller, you seem to be saying that you consider my request for resolution closed, or in the alternative, raised in the wrong process. Sadly, one fellow who seems to have a deep interest in the Daily Caller has even tried to encourage you to ignore my request because I'm a media lawyer and questioning both my sincerity and legitimacy. (Pls see Daily Caller talk page for my comments/answers). This is by no means a legal threat, that's not how I roll. I am only asking if I can supply SOMEONE with an dry, calm, rational explanation of what's wrong with the article and why. The WP process is terribly confusing, loaded with coding jargon, and as a person of good faith, I'm hoping you, likewise, will show the kindness if not respect to be or to help find a neutral arbiter to hear me out. I am more than happy to answer ANY questions that you may have. My only wish is to find the right procedural process. Yours truly, 2601:8C:C301:14B0:C4C8:1536:BFD5:5D89 (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC) 2601:8C:C301:14B0:D9EC:E0D5:A3D7:6CB9 ( talk) 12:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)Charles Glasser charlesglasseresq(at)gmail.com
I've noticed from much of your feedback that you have extreme self-hate and anger. I think it would behoove you to take a break from wiki. Your baseless accusations of other's behavior reek of arrogance and self-doubt. You are insulting many who are trying to do the right thing but can't get past your own hangups. So go ahead and delete this post but you'll think about it I'm sure. 103.73.196.138 ( talk) 01:04, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Thank you for reading this and sorry for taking up your time. I have been working on an article with my partner for quite a while, but it has been denied multiple times. I believe you were one of the first reviewers on this article and I was hoping I could get some insight into how I can get this published.
First here is the article in question.
---> /info/en/?search=Draft:Naoki_Terada
My first question is why has this article not been approved when the Japanese version has and is basically the same thing just translated?
Japanese article ---> https://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%AF%BA%E7%94%B0%E5%B0%9A%E6%A8%B9
Also, I have been speaking with another reviewer, but I could not get a good answer from them regarding this. The other reviewer kept mentioning sources, but my partner found other similar articles that have much less sources than our article.
Article 1 ---> /info/en/?search=Arata_Isozaki
Article 2 ---> /info/en/?search=Kazutoshi_Sat%C5%8D
Any insight or help you could provide would be great since my partner is really eager to have this published and we have been working on it for a very long time.
Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.101.83.131 ( talk) 19:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi Robert,
It appears as though you reviewed my work but I cannot find any comments. Just looking to find out what kind of corrections I can make to get this published on Wikipedia. Thanks! Julia Reising ( talk) 23:40, 1 March 2023 (UTC)