User talk:MJL

This user's talk page might be watched by ~~aggressive~~ FRIENDLY talk page stalkers, so that means someone other than myself may reply to your query. Their input is both welcome and feared. I thank them for their HELP with those messages that I cannot reply to in a timely manner. Their existence is very much appreciated.

(talk page stalker) Don't mind us, just go about your editing.

MJL may want to increment {{User talk:MJL/Banner}} to |counter=32 as User talk:MJL/Archive 31 is larger than the set 31Kb (help).

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33

"Jschlatt" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Jschlatt and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 9#Jschlatt until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. QuickQuokka ^{[⁠talk • contribs]} 04:19, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Announcement next month

Hey talk page watchers!

Something big will be announced next month by me. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ooooh exciting! -- TNT (talk • she/her) 17:28, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Pat Ford (activist)" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Pat Ford (activist) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 March 22#Pat Ford (activist) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 09:56, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A mature Circle of Trust

Circle of Trust at Little Seoul. Don't look at Twitter. El_C 11:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Click

Check the updated code now. The link color is different but I don't know where that color style comes from. Gonnym (talk) 17:02, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonnym: The link color being different is an improvement imo. Either way, I think the results are good enough for the merge now.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:26, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ANI discussion involving you

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is WP:Signpost team ignores NPOV. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:09, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lighten up

Whack!

You've been whacked with a wet trout.

Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

MorphinBrony (talk) 02:26, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MorphinBrony: Though I am always happy to see other fans of Homestuck editing Wikipedia, I need to point out to you that you have pretty much exclusively edited on April Fools Day. What that tells me is that you don't really know what is and is not going to be acceptable around here.

While you think your WW3 joke is "funny", I most assuredly did not think so. Like many other people on Wikipedia, I know people who have had their lives ruined because of the Russia-Ukraine War or who are living in active warzones right now. Go read the latest edition of the Signpost if you want to see for yourself. –JJP ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How dare you. I have never read Homestuck in my life. MorphinBrony (talk) 02:50, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MorphinBrony: I warned you about the stairs. I told you dog. –JJP ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, that, haha. Well, I haven't updated my userpage in years, and I've only read SBaHJ outside the context of Homestuck because it's quite frankly too long for me to get invested in. Yeah, it's a cop out, I know.

Anyway, sorry to bother you. Next year, I'll try to be funnier. And maybe I should edit here for real more often. MorphinBrony (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools Day 2022

First of all, nice job for setting up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geometry Dash (second nomination) for me! The rest of your contributions to the day were hilarious as well.

However since the day is coming to a close can you close the AfD? If possible, have the result be "2.2 released".

Thanks for making April Fools 2022 much funnier! 172.112.210.32 (talk) 23:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can do that.

–JJP ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:57, 1 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The 413 announcement

I started a new YouTube series called "Why Wikipedia Works". More information will be available as soon as I am ready to share. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:02, 13 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: Not really a concern. The phrase isn't original enough to be considered copyrightable. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 14 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Robotics." listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robotics. and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 20#Robotics. until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Steel1943 (talk) 01:11, 20 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi! Recently, you offered mediation and advice to me regarding a couple incidents. While they are not yet resolved, I wanted to extend thanks for both your critical eye towards my work and cordiality through that affair. If you ever wish to lend more insight into recommendations towards me and my editing, let me know. You earned a lot of respect for your patience. ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:16, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: Always happy to be of help!

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:08, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Just wondering, but is it ok if I just cease my involvement in that conversation? It's been a week and not gotten anywhere and repeatedly I've had to refrain from posting things that would have made things worse. Is that bad form, or should I just vote in the survey you posted and leave it at that? ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:26, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Pbritti: You are of course free to walk away from a discussion. WP:VOLUNTARY and all that. ;D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On the recent disputes on Syro-Malabar Church and Eastern Catholic Churches

Hi, I want to clarify one thing. I am only seeking the restoration of status quo ante in both articles.Qaumrambista (talk) 05:24, 21 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: It's not that cut-and-dry. For a large part of the article's history, the date on Eastern Catholic Churches was set to 1663 (and earlier).

When PPEMES first added the years to the table, the date was listed as 1599. Another user later that year removed the date and claimed the churches were never separated. An anonymous user in 2017 then added a note which said the date was 1599. In 2018, a different anonymous user said the date was 1663. This stayed the case for the next two full years

In 2020, an anonymous user changed it to 1559 and then to 1599. It stayed at 1599 until 2021 when someone changed it 1567 and then to 1552. This was the case until the very next month when they decided it should be 1923 instead.

The date was again changed this year in March when Aby John Vannilam reverted it back to 1663. Eleven days later, a user with a suspiciously similar name to Aby John Vannilam (Aby john vannilam) put it back to 1923 only to get reverted by Goodone121 in favour of 1663. Finally, on 14 April 2022, as you may be aware, a series of edits took place flipping back and forth from 1923 and 1663.

Therefore, by all accounts, the status quo ante year could either be 1663 or 1923. However, the former (1663) does have a longer (and more stable) history as the establishment year. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:00, 22 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I really don't think so. Actually, the original version was 1599, wasn't it! 1923 is the date that is consistent with the other entries there, since the hierarchy was recognised only in 1923. Meanwhile, the 1663 date appears to be a sort of pov propaganda because none of the sources cited actually back that date. The Syro-Malabar Church faced a schism following Coonan Cross Oath of 1653. The non-catholic faction claims that the Catholic faction came into being in 1663 and the catholics argue that non-catholic faction was founded in 1665. We cannot support either claim unless we have reliable sources which explicitly support one of the versionQaumrambista (talk) 12:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: Pbritti has already presented a source for 1663. There is no reason to doubt its authenticity per the assumption of good faith. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:33, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: I did not question the reliability of the book or the authenticity of its content. The problem is the book does not support the argument they have placed. You can find in the same book clear mentioning of 1923. It is noteworthy that the year 1663 is not at all explicitly marked.Qaumrambista (talk) 16:51, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And one more thing. I have not alleged that Pbritti is doing propaganda here. When I reverted the year from 1663 to 1923, they undone it. They now seem to be clinging on to it, regardless of what the cited source actually say. I am saying this because the book itself clearly gives the year 1923. Qaumrambista (talk) 16:59, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Qaumrambista: Do you have the page number for when Attwater mentions 1923? If so, you should add a citation to it on Eastern Catholic Churches. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:06, 23 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: certainly. Page 214. I cannot edit that article. I have been blocked from editing there for one month.Qaumrambista (talk) 04:21, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Concern regarding Draft:Emily Hall Tremaine

Hello, MJL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Emily Hall Tremaine, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 07:00, 27 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Portal talk 2

Template:Portal talk 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 07:51, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Talk update by user

Template:Talk update by user has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Izno (talk) 19:33, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fun game

User:MJL/Wikipedia YouTube video script

Write whatever you want until 18 May 2022, subject to the rules in the edit notice. I'll then make a video reading your script in two weeks. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:40, 12 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Advice

Creating and promoting a public video beginning with the clear image of a prominent professional Wikipedian and former Foundation official with the text, "If you know who this is, you have a problem," is not likely to be seen as a sign of maturity or good judgement. 2600:387:C:6C34:0:0:0:5 (talk) 02:30, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It was a joke about how insulated the Wikipedia community can be? Like, if you are able to accurately identify a Wikipedia micro-celebrity with no hints or context, then you might be a little too absorbed by Wikipedia (or at least that was the idea). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:06, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I stumbled acroos yor talk page thanks to your little fun expirment about a Script for YouTube NJTFan22 (talk) 15:00, 24 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@NJTFan22: Sorry that I couldn't include your addition. I hope you enjoyed the video though.

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:20, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A dinosaur for you

	The requested dino
	As requested. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 22:33, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

>

Nomination of Emily Hall Tremaine for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Emily Hall Tremaine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Hall Tremaine until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.

Alexandermcnabb (talk) 13:23, 11 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance

Hey! Hope you're doing well. I believe there has been a misunderstanding in this discussion, so I would greatly appreciate your assistance as a mentor: User talk:Golden#What BRD is not — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 21:02, 12 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Monitoring / mentoring

In good faith, I'm opening this discussion per the following reason: Since you were so firm on my talk page that you monitor Golden's edits and will let them know if they're wrong, you shouldn't have missed edits like this; A) Shushi wasn't occupied, B) There is no such thing as "partial revert of a sock", this is highly dubious and selective editing; either you revert the whole sock edit or not, end of story. In any case, "occupation" isn't the term to use here in fact it's POV, Shushi has nothing to do with Armenian-occupied territories surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh. Golden should/is aware of this at the very least because they voted in the article move. I'd expect you enact on your words and let them know to not repeat POV edits like this. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 04:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@ZaniGiovanni: I did miss that (only human), so thank you for sharing that with me.
@Golden: ZG is right. Do not partially revert socks. WP:BANREVERT does not apply here because: this edit was made before CY was banned (and contrary to popular belief, reverting socks should only be done for edits made after the sockmaster was banned). Regardless, if there was parts of the edit you disagreed with, then you should've just made them as normal edits.
Also, as ZG said, please be careful with using potentially-POV terms like occupation. This applies even if you are reverting a banned user since we are always responsible for the edits we make (regardless if we have a specific reason for them or not). If you aren't 100% confident a term should be used, don't make the change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:56, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realise the edit was made before the sockmaster's ban; my apologies! Restoring the term "occupation" was also a mistake, which I have now corrected. Thank you for informing me. — Golden ^{call me maybe?} 15:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC

MJL, so I do not open another topic - the subject is the same - your mentee's behavior. It took him < 1 minute to revert me and remove the Armenian name from the lede. This is despite the established practice on Wiki - places claimed by the Republic of Artsakh that were formerly populated by Armenian-speaking people have their name in the lead in Armenian. He removed the Armenian name with an edit summary "it's irrelevant to a city that barely had any Armenian population prior before occupation and small numbers during occupation" on 17 June 2022 disregarding the discussion about the Armenian name opened on 19 April 2022. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: The very next minute after this edit, Golden self-reverted.
To be honest, I am not sure what you out of this situation. Golden, for their part, has made a response for you to reply to at your leisure. If having further discussion was your goal, then you should be satisfied. If you want me to weigh in on the content dispute itself, then I'm sorry to say I am going to be very reluctant to do that if there is an ongoing discussion already. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:55, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, MJL, this was just a courtesy notification, I am sure you are monitoring your protégé's activity closely. By the way, have been reading about protegee-mentor relationships, inclusive of negative mentoring experiences recently 1 2 for some reason - turns out there is a whole science about them, which is fun to read. --Armatura (talk) 14:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: Does this have anything to do with your posting on Rosguill's talk page and/or your post to the Teahouse? You aren't being subtle about what you are trying to accuse me of. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:39, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are good reads I have read over the weekend and thought, as a mentor, you might be interested in reading as well. Scientific works, based on analysis of mentor-mentee experiences. --Armatura (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: I am going to remind you what you said about me at the Teahouse; What does a third person do, if a mentor appears to be abusing their role and harassing a third person in order to protect their protege? If you think I'm harassing you, say so now. I don't take that accusation lightly. You thought my behavior was serious enough to bring to an admin's attention, but now (only a few days later) you're here innocently providing me reading material. How am I supposed to react to that? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:45, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting to see you are taking something that does not mention your name as something said in your address. If you associate yourself with some of the things I asked about in TeaHouse, perhaps there has been some reflection after cooling down. You got more testy with me than would have been ideal (citing admin's words here) but if I really wanted to accuse you, I would do it on the relevant board, Wikipedia has mechanisms for that, don't worry. By asking neutral users, I wanted to understand what is what and how I am supposed to react to something that frankly puzzled me. The reading material is for reading and reflection, you are welcome not to do any of these, I won't be offended. Have a good evening, MJL --Armatura (talk) 18:04, 19 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Armatura: Here is the timeline of your contributions because you don't quite seem to get it:
20:08, 13 June 2022 - a response to me
00:41, 14 June 2022 - your post to the teahouse
14:06, 14 June 2022 - your post to Rosguill's talk page (which directly links to our previous conversation)
There are no intervening edits.
Sure though. You weren't talking about me there. That must've been my imagination.
Oh, and what's this...? Yes, I see. The very next thing you do after our conversation is "write" George Klein (physician) and this edit (both copyright violations)..
I like to think I am a kind and patient person, but at this point I am unbelievably floored at your situation right now. I am very close to my limit here, so please choose your next words (if any) to me particularly carefully. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Continue thinking of yourself as kind and patient person, MJL, I believe you are one. Best wishes, --Armatura (talk) 05:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]