User talk:MJL/Archive 6

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thank you for tackling the contentious refdesk debate. Your closure was great. -- DannyS712 (talk) 07:26, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

OH MY GOSH MY FIRST BARNSTAR!!! DannyS712, this means so much to me! Thank you! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:38, 14 February 2019 (UTC)


Issuing level 1 warning about removing AfD template from articles before the discussion is complete. (Peachy 2.0 (alpha 8))

Information icon Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Pavitri Manjhi. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. This is an automated message from a bot about this edit, where you removed the deletion template from an article before the deletion discussion was complete. If this message is in error, please report it.—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 16:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This Barnstar is for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
We appreciate your scrutiny, precision and community service shown lately, in a number of processes, including the 2019 Macedonia Naming conventions's RfC and the Albania–Greece relations's RfC. Much appreciated, and keep up the good work! - ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 01:39, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
SilentResident, dawg you didn't have to give me that, but thank you :') –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:49, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
The man is out of control. Are you just coming across these discussions? Or are you actively patrolling WP:AN/C? Because if it's the former, we could certainly use you with the latter! ~Swarm~ {talk} 06:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, yeah I got into going to WP:ANRFC because I wanted to reduce the backlog there. I'd probably say that DannyS712 is better about getting things closed there, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Hahaha, still, any help is appreciated. :-) --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 13:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

thanks!

The Signpost Barnstar
This barnstar is for you from the Acting Editor-in-Chief for helping make The Signpost the best it can be this issue. We hope to see you back in the Newsroom again. ☆ Bri (talk) 02:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)


Noble bio

Per the discussion at WP:REFUND, here are some thoughts on the possible sources you mentioned for an article about Pat Noble, based on the guideline that sources contribute to establishing notability if they are reliable, independent of the subject, and provide significant coverage:

  • AP News - AP is clearly reliable and independent, but the coverage isn't significant (just a mention that he will be speaking at an event).
  • IVN - Noble is described to a degree that at least some commenters are likely to consider significant (this is probably the most subjective of the three criteria), but IVN is self-described as "an open news platform for independent-minded authors" and the specific author is described as a student, so I would not expect this to be accepted as a reliable source.
  • Patch in 2011 - Patch is a local news platform that seems to have a highly variable level of editorial oversight depending on who the local resources are, so commenters may be skeptical of its reliability. This is also a profile of candidates in a local election, which many Wikipedians view as WP:ROUTINE coverage that doesn't establish notability.
  • Daily Caller - Daily Caller is controversial as a source; there's an RfC open about it right now.
  • philly.com - The Philadelphia Inquirer is an independent RS. Coverage seems somewhat significant but not in depth, so probably some folks will argue on that point.

From this batch, I'd say the the Inquirer is your best source, followed maybe by Patch. I would suggest you avoid even mentioning Daily Caller or IVN in a discussion about a WP:BLP, as disputes about their reliability are likely to do more harm than good. The AP story is a good source for what little it says, but too insignificant to use for notability.

I hope those notes help you as you continue your search for additional sources to use. --RL0919 (talk) 21:35, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

RL0919 This helps a ton!! Thank you so much. I didn't know that bit about the Daily Caller. I do take solace in the fact that the Patch article was written by staff, but that can still mean a lot of different things as you mentioned. I'm off to find even more coverage. Surely there will be more to find!! :D
I really can't thank you enough for all your help. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:43, 22 January 2019 (UTC)
Latest discovery: [1]. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:47, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
Significant and Passing mentions:

–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Non joy of policy

Aid me to understand your effort.

My perspective:

The only way to deal with the addiction of editors to add the template "current", years ago, was to define the need as an editorial notice, that dozens, perhaps hundreds of confused editors were editing a crisis page, and interfering with each other. Otherwise, in my non humble opinion, the template was an attempt to gain attention, contrary to the not-news and other policies of wikipedia.

Help me out on your perspective.

Yellowdesk (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Yellowdesk, well in my view the importance for the template is really based off the article's inclusion of Category:Current events. I mostly find that number of recent contributions, however, matter less than the recent coverage of the event. Either way, I more so want to make sure the discussion I linked you to has your perspective in it since you are very involved with this issue. I would imagine that the proposed noticeboard would have these types of discussions fairly regularly. Is there anything more specific you would like me to address? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:22, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
I also feel that not-news does not specifically prohibit a focus on article subjects that recently appeared in the news. In fact, I feel that maintance on those articles can be some of the most valuable work we do as Wikipedians. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:25, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again for inviting my comments....


I will attempt something thoughtful,
and it may be along the lines of
"will this be an improvement, and opportunity for consensus?",
which is what I think is desirable on the wider topic of current-ness.

Here is an extemporaneous not even a rough draft of my thoughts, that may be improved on the proposal page.

I think a fundamental conversation about the non-need of various current templates is desirable, and also praise for the good consequence of the "in the news" process that shows up on the front page as a good (actually, great) process, that needs no further attention.

Articles can be added to category current without the various templates...I admit I have never looked at harvesting old articles out of that category...hmm, there's a thankless task.

Over the years I have aided a number of versions / copies of {{current}} to be deleted, but there is a recurring revival, or persistence of them, surrounding the idea of "urgency".

Here is a rough draft of some of which I may propose for deletion eventually:

{{current war}} (there are dozens of wars at any time),
{{current section}} (superfluous in all occasions),
{{current person}} (dubious usefulness, just link to the article of interest)
{{current sport}} (all sports have events, all are temporal at predictable times, which is often clearly stated in the article lede, such as championships, finals and the like: superfluous
{{current sports transaction}} (a template for uncite-able, unreferenced rumor)

{{current wildfire}} (by policy of an one interested editor, only when a wildfire is completely extinguished and every ember is cold perhaps many months after disastrous news and editorial interest has abandoned the topic, may the template be removed)
and so on.

Useful maybe:
{{current}} (many editors participating)
{{current disaster}} (natural disasters, now and then of use, when there are many editors participating)

Thanks again, and I will give this some further thought.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:33, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Trump RfC close

Closes are one of the most critical functions we have, as well as one of the most difficult, and that's one of the best closes I've seen. You have a rare combination of traits and talents, don't waste it. I'm fairly sure I'd say this even if the outcome were different. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Mandruss, (I am very tempted to make a joke about how my last closing went) Thank you so much! I have to say I was surprised to see this comment on my talk page. I didn't think it was that special, and I just recently had a discouraging experience with my closings.
May I ask what you found so impactful from it? Closing RfC's and debates are pretty much the one thing I really enjoy contributing here (for example, this one). I would love to expand on whatever good qualities you saw in it!
Side note: that was an interesting one to do because I decided to mask all the participants' names when I wrote it. There were a lot of users I recognized there, and I didn't want to give undue weight to any one contributor.–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:34, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

I would just like to mirror what Mandruss said. I appreciate you taking the time to go though and close that spaghetti mess. It is much appreciated. PackMecEng (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

May I ask what you found so impactful from it? Even after sleeping on it, a fully articulated answer escapes me. The best closers are both willing and able to take a bunch of complex and disorganized discussion, thoroughly analyze it and synthesize it, and convey the results in a clear and organized manner. They extract order from chaos. Being somewhere on the autism spectrum, I also like your precise attention to form in the close statement. May I ask what you do for a living? ―Mandruss ☎ 11:17, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Mandruss, actually I am just a student. Though, my primary interest is in politics (I'm elected to a small local office that doesn't pay). I'm certainly not uniquely qualified in anyway. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to The Wikipedia Adventure!

Hi MJL! We're so happy you wanted to play to learn, as a friendly and fun way to get into our community and mission. I think these links might be helpful to you as you get started.

-- 00:15, Thursday, February 21, 2019 (UTC)

Mission 1 Mission 2 Mission 3 Mission 4 Mission 5 Mission 6 Mission 7
Say Hello to the World An Invitation to Earth Small Changes, Big Impact The Neutral Point of View The Veil of Verifiability The Civility Code Looking Good Together

Discussion with the Peeps

LOL it's good you're finally learning the ropes ;-) but I don't think you'll find a mission about how to make überdifficult closes :-D Leviv ich 00:27, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Listen listen Levivich [5] it's never too late to start learning lmao. In all honesty, I was curious what the whole thing was about it since I saw swarm recommended it to his other adoptee. You get a fake barnstar, so I would totally say it was slightly worth it. I skipped to Mission 8 though, but hey it was decently fun. I suppose I will recommend it from now on. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:44, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Side note: I also did not know there was anyone who watched my talk page until you posted here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:46, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Of course people watch your page!!! --DannyS712 (talk) 00:49, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
WAIT, WHO ELSE IS HERE?! This is awesome!! I could finally put up a Talk Page stalker notice up on my page! I've always wanted people to hang out here! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:55, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Congrats on completing The Wikipedia Adventure, and on your fake barnstar. For your next assignment, please see WP:Tutorial. :P What's with all the high praise about your closures? I wanna see them! ~Swarm~ {talk} 15:10, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

Swarm, beats me! Everytime I close a new one people tend to respond. I only closed a few. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:32, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, it's just [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL&

action=info fewer than 30 page watchers], unfortunately. It'll eventually go up ―Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk • contribs) 14:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus, I'm almost there! I just have to manage to get the main page deleted, and then people will notice me!! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Motion: Manning naming dispute

The Arbitration Committee has resolved by motion that:

To consolidate and clarify gender-related discretionary sanctions, the Arbitration Committee resolves that:

  1. Remedy 15 of the Manning naming dispute case is amended to read:
    The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Sexology Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all articles dealing with transgender issues" "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" and associated persons remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any dispute regarding the proper article title, pronoun usage, or other manner of referring to any individual known to be or self-identifying as transgender, including but not limited to Chelsea/Bradley Manning. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the Sexology GamerGate case, not this one.
  2. Clause 2 of the February 2015 motion at the Interactions at GGTF case is struck and rescinded. Nothing in this motion provides grounds for appeal of remedies or restrictions imposed while discretionary sanctions were in force. Such appeals or requests to lift or modify such sanctions may be made under the same terms as any other appeal.
  3. The following amendment is added to the Interactions at GGTF case:
    The standard discretionary sanctions adopted in Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/GamerGate for (among other things) "all edits about, and all pages related to ... any gender-related dispute or controversy" remain in force. For the avoidance of doubt, these discretionary sanctions apply to any discussion regarding systemic bias faced by female editors or article subjects on Wikipedia, including any discussion involving the Gender Gap Task Force. Any sanctions imposed should be logged at the GamerGate case, not this one.
For the Arbitration Committee, Miniapolis 17:41, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
Discuss this at: Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Motion: Manning naming dispute

WP:CENT

Hi MJL

Fine to remove[6] the North Macedonia CFD from WP:CENT. The CFD has been open for 7 days, and as such is now eligible for closure.

So I don't see much point in sending more notifications at the point of closure.

And I was surprised by your edit summary comment that participation so far has been relatively one-sided. ~650 categories are tagged, it got prominent billing at WP:AN. and it was notified at the outset[7] at WT:WikiProject North Macedonia#Category:Republic_of_Macedonia_has_been_nominated_for_discussion. Plus it's all over Wikipedia:WikiProject_North_Macedonia/Article_alerts.

So I see no justification for the "one-sided" comment. The participation of over 20 editors is high for CFD, and flows from broad and neutral notification. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

I have collapsed[8] the procedural discussion at the bottom of the CFD. With the addition of your long para, it was taking a whole screenful on my laptop.
And having read your latest post there, I'm still not at all clear what you are trying to achieve with these interventions.
The discussion is exceptionally widely notified, has plenty of comments, seems to be heading for a clear consensus, and is due for closure. It will need bots to implement any closure, so it needs to be closed by an admin ('cos WP:CFDW is protected). So I don't see anything else being needed.
I'm sure you meant well, but I'm a lot less sure about the judgements you made. This all looks to me like a pointless make-work, which has added a screenful of unnecessary distraction to a discussion. Coming only 7 days after your prev misjudgement on this topic, it might have been wiser to just leave it be. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Note

Hi MJL. I've removed your application from the SPI clerk's noticeboard. While we appreciate that people are interested in becoming clerks, it is generally best to apply after you've been editing consistently on the English Wikipedia for a longer time. Your activity increased pretty rapidly within the last month or two, so I think it is better for you to wait a bit before applying. I know we haven't been the best at keeping the applications up to date in the past, but that is something we're trying to get better at now. Hope all is well :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni, per this conversation with Bbb23, I effectively withdrew (I kind of forgot to officially do so, though). I appreciate the cleanup of WP:SPI/CN a TON, though~! Also, I find it funny that you have been the first one to comment on my inactivity pretty much all months outside December 2017 and January 2018. Thank you for all your work on Wikipedia!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Wiki

Ok Juanjose06 (talk) 05:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Juanjose06, ¿Necesitas ayuda? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Si Juanjose06 (talk) 06:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Juanjose06, ¿Con qué necesitas ayuda? (yo no hablo espanol bueno) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Si MJL no puede ayudarle, yo puedo tratar de ayudarle. --DannyS712 (talk) 06:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 February 2019

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Josiah Thompson moving to Bolinad

I happen to know he moved to Bolinas in June of 1977 because I was with him. How is that I formation not constructive? Thanks. Patricia Phenix Patricia Phenix (talk) 11:58, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Patricia Phenix, my apologies. I most likely should have sent you a message concerning our policies on original research. You most likely are correct, but we need to be able to verify what you are saying is correct by citing a reliable source. Thank you for getting back to me! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:40, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Troll

Special:Diff/885549137 - WP:DFTT Cabayi (talk) 19:07, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Cabayi, ah thank you. I figured it was a WP:CIR issue. Thank you for the correction! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:09, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
I guess it could be, but it scares me how much competence would be lacking for that to be so. Happy editing, Cabayi (talk) 19:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hello

I don't want to beg for help. But if u could just look at my comments at Talk:Alex Ferguson, you can see my arguments. Since you are the one who only trust me at this point, I want to look at my comments to MelanieN. Basically, I was angry with the admins because they were giving me advice without any explanation, and expecting me to listen to them

I actually think there is a chance for resolving and not getting me banned. This is not WP:CANVASS, I am rather trying to explain. Neither I nor MelanieN is at fault here. It's just a series of misconception. You can check my archive 3 talk for more info.

Sorry, but suddenly this adrenaline rose within me. You are pretty much my only hope now. I want to clarify and repeat again that I am not blaming MelanieN.

It was like she "adviced" me something like "A LOT of people are emailing me that you should not be doing GA", but she didn't explain me why. I have same really quality ga reviews u can find in my userpage, especially the recent ones (this year), and no one really told me I was bad. In fact I received positive feedback on my talk page from nominators, if any. So of course I would get angry if someone gives me "advice" like this.

I don't have any grudges against anyone and I genuinely believe I maximum ban I should get, is to never again go to ANI. That's it. Other matters where some of my faults which I regret, and others were biff with admins unnecessarily, where I also regret my lack of communication.

I am not blackmailing you here. You can completely ignore this. It is up to you. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 23:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard,  Doing... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

What should I do here?

Hello MJL,

Within a past couple of days, I have individually reassessed three articles (Talk:Cody Rhodes/GA2, Talk:Triple H/GA1 and Talk:Matt Hardy/GA1), and FA reviewed one article (Wikipedia:Featured article review/CM Punk/archive1). I do admit it wasn't right of me to do all of these at once, and therefore, a member of WP:PW is apparently upset with me.

However, according to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, I am eligible for the individual reassessments and the point of the review is for others who are willing to keep it as GA to solve the issues. Also, I do admit my FA review was a bit rushed, but that is the place where people are supposed to look for improvements and fix them, not delist. In Wikipedia:Featured article review, there is a clear difference between Featured article review (FAR) and Featured article removal candidate (FARC).

So the options I see here is to keep all of them as it is, and I will try to give enough leeway for others to solve the problems, or withdraw all of them, move the GAR comments to the talk pages and the FAR to peer review.

I would like to here your opinion on this. Thanks, THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I need clarification with the topic ban. It is clear that I can no longer edit pages that are "WP:..". However, I think it is a little bit vague. I would like at least tag pages with WP:AFD where ever I feel right. I have done some really productive work in this scope. I will also be upset if I can't add materials to WP:GA, because that was one of my strengths and have done many great reviews that you can find on my user page.
Again, I don't actually think a topic ban is fair, even for WP:ANI. I commented over the past few months and everyone was okay with that. I made one major mistake, with The Rambling Man, and everyone came against me. I still think it is not right given the experience I have. It was just a mistake. All the mistakes were done and I stopped after each warning. Even for policy based discussion, everyone has the right to voice their opinion regardless of their experience. I have participated on other AFDs really well and all RFC discussions. I have to admit, that some of the people who are against me did not like my valid arguments, hence they are like this. I still don't get what problems people have with my actions.
Some admins had this misconception of not accepting their "advice", but as I say again - why should I without any proper reasoning?
The thing I did to "redeem myself", I commented suggestions for improvement on the Ferguson talk page. I used tagging inappropriately, and everyone came against me, and thought that qualifies as WP:BITE.
Obviously I was upset with admins and put out that stupid message on my userpage, and admins took it too much and thought I am WP:NOTTHERE. However, I believe my
Previously that, I always did something in good faith, but others reacted too harsh and that impacted me badly.
Now I can't even counter my case at ANI, hence I leave this all to you. I feel that everyone had WP:BITE me too much. I can't do this and that, without explaining why not.
It is really up to you now what should be done. There were too many misconceptions and I still believe it was too hard for a relatively less experience editor like me.
What you are doing now as a mentor is excellent. However, I still think the ban is really unfair, I made one big mistake at ANI, and everything was productive, and admins were after me too much, felt that was kind of WP:TAGTEAM.
I leave it up to you now. I really wanted to get this out of my chest. I think admins and experienced editors thinks themselves superior and expect newcomers to follow as they say blindly. The mop is not for that.
In the eyes of the public, they say Wikipedia is biased and does not have diversity (and I have said this many times.). Apart from the huge gender gap and bias, there is also country bias. I see great bios of them in Canada, US, Britain, Australia. Too much advantage for mainly english speaking countries. However, people of other ethnicity and countries have their own culture and admins should accept that more. We take offense differently.
If some new editor, say from the African continent, wants to make a bio of their people, this one dominant culture will have too much suppression.
Again, this is all out of my chest, which I believe if listens properly by ther higher-ups, this encyclopedia will be far better. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't know why you've pinged me, but if I could offer any advice, it would be to spend more time creating and improving content than commenting on it, or users' actions. I also don't know what "major" issue we had, it certainly wasn't "major" for me, so I'd appreciate it if you didn't ping me and/or use such terms about any perceived issues again, thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Retiring

Thank you very much for ALL your help and hard work towards me. However, I decide now to retire. Wikipedia doesn't need me, and me leaving does no harm.

I appreciate all your work again, but I think I have lost a lot of people's respect in this toxic community and your mentoring is a little too late.

Hence I announce my retirement.

One final thing, have a close eyes on Legacypac and Beyond My Ken. They are dangerous as hell and the worst of the worst.

I have pondered for my decision for quite a while.

THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 12:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ImmortalWizard, sorry to see you go. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
MJL, thank you very much for trying. Just last night he was full of optimism, taking advice well, doing the Wikipedia Adventure - and now this. I can't find any online reason for his reversal; I think it may have to do with messages he got in email. Anyhow: I tried, you tried, I actually liked the guy - but it seems like this particular user is just not cut out for Wikipedia. -- MelanieN (talk) 18:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
That didn't last long. You can continue your mentoring. THE NEW ImmortalWizard(chat) 16:47, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@ImmortalWizard, MelanieN, Adam9007, and The Herald: May I suggest one of these fine editors become your mentor? I am currently not in the best position to help. My apologies. Note: The Herald is an experienced user whom has not interacted with you before. They may be a good choice as well. Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Venezuela

I re-opened your collapse of part of the discussion in ANI. I don't see how we can collapse part of the discussion which includes replies to previous questions. However, I respect your opinion and will restore your edit, but ask that you look at this again to determine how best to handle this. TFD (talk) 12:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

TFD, I moved the subsequent comment around and renamed the conversation title. However, I do think that my collapsing this was in line with the Wikipedia Refactoring guidelines. I do not see much to be gained from that conversation continuing on its current course. Regardless, though, collapsed conversations are not archived ones. The conversation is still active, but it is collapsed for the ease of readers who do not wish to read about an unrelated (and since irrelevant dispute). I hope that makes sense.
If such is not a satisfactory answer to you, I will remove the collapse. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, Regarding, [9]: I am not playing any "refactoring games." (those do not sound fun.) My refactoring was a direct response to this comment. Would you like to expand your thoughts on the matter here? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
No. I would like you not to do it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, not do what exactly? Should the remedy be to remove the collapsed table, move and rename it, or keep it the same? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Leave it alone. Stop trying to WP:BITE a newbie off of Wikipedia for disagreeing with your foreign policy perspective. Just take your own advice and walk away. This whole situation is execrable and having some maturity to go, "ok, maybe I can deal with the fact one person at article talk needs some mentorship about RSes" would be the right course of action. Not fighting with TFD over what to call a collapsed digression about what does or does not constitute canvassing in this awful and WP:POINTed conflict. Simonm223 (talk) 13:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Simonm223, I don't know what you are referring to. This is a simple discussion about something only incidentally related. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I have nothing more to say at this venue. Please don't @ me again. Simonm223 (talk) 14:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Template and =

Re this: In order to pass on content containing the equality sign (say "foo=bar") to templates (say {{tq}}), use {{tq|1=foo=bar}} (notice the 1=), which produces foo=bar. Hope that helps and is not too cryptic. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 00:13, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Abecedare, Yes it is very helpful! Thank you!! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Rollback mistakes

MJL, I used to hit rollback by mistake all the time, until some got me on to a script that does something (which I can't remember) to prevent those kinds of mistakes. It is in one of my userpages. Do you want me to look for it for you? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Found it already ... it's in User:SandyGeorgia/monobook.css. I don't remember what it does ... maybe removes the button entirely so you don't hit it by mistake. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, many thanks! I will certainly check that out! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I don't remember how one installs it, so no more help from my end ... I did it too long ago to remember. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
SandyGeorgia, voilà –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:01, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Cool beans! My thinking was that I edit so fast, it was possible and likely that I would hit rollback some day and not even realize it. Since misuse of rollback can get one into Very Big Trouble, I decided to do without! I don't do that much vandal fighting. I can see where it's useful for folks who play whack-a-mole all day, but not so much for others. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trayvon Martin (2nd nomination)

Hi MJL. Unfortunately after I withdrew the nomination another editor registered a Delete !vote. This negates the possibility of a Speedy Keep. See WP:SK #1. Unfortunately the discussion will have to run its course unless things reach the point where a WP:SNOW close is justified. At this point I don't believe that is the case. Best regards... -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:23, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Ad Orientem recycle Reopened –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:28, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
There's no need for the discussion to run its course. I have no objection to it being closed early, and my vote may be stricken, providing the close is registered (correctly) as "withdrawn", rather than "speedy keep". Joefromrandb (talk) 06:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Joefromrandb, I'd be willing to reclose as withdrawn were you to strike "Delete or merge" from your initial vote. I'll permalink to this conversation as well, so people will know that we had consensus for this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:25, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

MMR vaccine controversy

You have taken quite a risk closing Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_5#Category:MMR_vaccine_controversy as an unexperienced non-admin, especially considering the huge discussions around the article title. I do not have an opinion on whether it was a good or bad close - this is just a friendly warning that you'd better close less controversial discussions if you want to stay out of trouble. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, you are not wrong.. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:05, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Could you please revert that close? The "controversy" term has been thoroughly rejected by the community at Talk:MMR vaccine and autism, and the CfD discussion was heading in that direction as well. Bradv🍁 14:14, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Bradv  Done and recycle Reopened. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:18, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
MJL, thank you. Bradv🍁 14:20, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

MJL

Generated using XTools on 2019-03-03 16:30

Namespace Totals

Rank Namespace Count
1 Wikipedia 895 (26.4%)
2 Main 707 (20.9%)
3 User 661 (19.5%)
4 User talk 610 (18%)
5 Talk 200 (5.9%)
6 Wikipedia talk 125 (3.7%)
7 Template 125 (3.7%)
8 Category 30 (0.9%)
9 Category talk 16 (0.5%)
10 Template talk 11 (0.3%)
11 Portal 6 (0.2%)
12 File 1 (0%)
13 Help 1 (0%)
14 Portal talk 1 (0%)
14 namespaces 3,389

— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 16:30, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Slow down

An editor's edits can gain too much fame.
Things can get hairy when admin complain.
If you make them ask twice,
they might offer advice,
and knock seven letters right out of your name!
Leviv ich 05:32, 6 March 2019 (UTC) (non-admin closure)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I see Serial Number 54129 has raised this issue with you, and you responded on his talk, but it is also something I and others have noticed so now seems as good a time as any to note it here: at the rate you are currently going, you are heading towards an indefinite WP:CIR block within a month. I know this is hard to hear, but you’ve barreled into some really complex issues of Wikipedia that require sound judgement and an understanding of how this project works. Both of those are things that only come with time. I say this as someone who spends the majority of his time behind the scenes these days, but you really should consider restricting your contributions to mainspace/talk pages for a while until you get a grasp of how Wikipedia works, which you currently don’t. TonyBallioni (talk) 16:49, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

TonyBallioni Okay... I'll give myself a trout Self-trout. My apologies. I will stay out of the way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:08, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
I'm afraid I must agree with my colleague, above. I've witnessed fuck up after fuck up involving you naively and/or ignorantly jumping into things you don't understand and which you have made very little effort to try and understand. I'd suggest a mainspace or nospace editing philosophy from here on in. Nick (talk) 17:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Nick, okay this is going to get to me. (1) what does "nospace editing" mean? (2) Are you referring to anything that has not directly been brought to my attention? Examples of things I am aware of: CfD North Macedonia (here & more generally here), WP:CENT (here & here), and WP:SPI (here & here). It's going to bother me if there is something else to add to this apparently growing list. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:56, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
That's a decent starting point, just looking through everything you've edited in the Wikipedia namespace brings me out in hives. We have you jumping into The Signpost, there's this request, and this mess from the last few hours. Mainspace or Nospace was a forceful way of suggesting you focus on articles or be blocked per CiR as Tony discussed above. The technical areas behind the scenes and you just are not mixing well at all at the moment. Nick (talk) 21:15, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
MJL, 'elected public office?' - People who join Wikipedia for the purpose of policing it and throwing their real life weight about, have joined for all the wrong reasons. Nick obviously hasn't yet seen the mess you left on my talk page and then just as disingenuously very quickly struck following their comment here. Removal would have been the more shrewd alternative like Serial Number 54129 cautiously and in courtesy removed their perfectly apt and inoffensive comment - not that I'm worried about your veiled PA on my talk page - we admins get quite used to it - I'm more concerned that you may be digging yourself even deeper when instead you could be concentrating your efforts on what most of us do here: creating an encyclopedia. Otherwise your Wikipedia journey is destined to be a short one. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Your deliberately 'shaking a hornet's nest' is a self-admission to trolling; more aptly explained at WP:IDHT.Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 23:53, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi MJL. I am going to keep this short and to the point. You are doing about 80 mph in the express lane heading for the exit marked "Indefinitely Blocked." Three highly respected admins have advised you to stick to mainspace editing. I don't think you are going to get any more "friendly" advice. I believe you mean well. But that only goes so far. -Ad Orientem (talk) 00:06, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @TonyBallioni, Nick, Kudpung, and Ad Orientem: Holy moly, what's all this about? I'm not here to be this user's defense lawyer, but I do take exception to the tone that is being employed here. This user is my adoptee, and I'm not happy that multiple admins are threatening to block them without any efforts made to contact me about any areas of improvement that I need to be working on with them. What the hell is going on here? The only specifics I see above are two links provided by Nick, and neither one even looks serious to me. I'm happy to coach this user and to help teach them our norms and practices, but I haven't observed anything that would even begin to suggest they need to be indefinitely blocked, that they are not competent, that they are not here in good faith, or that they are unwilling to concede mistakes and learn from them. And, they have stated that they are elected to a minor, unpaid local office, I seriously doubt they're here to throw that nonexistent weight around. The complaints seem to stem from the fact that the user is overzealously becoming involved in areas without the required experience. I understand that's frustrating, but it's no reason to threaten to block a new and inexperienced user who is merely excited about becoming involved. Can someone please refer me to these problematic episodes, so I can actually correct them on where they went wrong and what needs to change? If I found otherwise, I would block them myself, but there is currently no indication that this user is unable to be mentored due to lack of competence, and, with respect, I don't think blocking a user behind the back of their mentor, who was never given an opportunity to coach them, would stand against a community review. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Swarm, first, let me apologize for not talking to you first. I didn’t realize they were your adoptee. If I’d known, I would have either emailed you or left you a talk message.
In terms of specific incidents, what motivated was the recent interaction with Serial Number on their talk/Kudpung’s. A few users had raised general concerns about MJL moving so fast in private to me, and seeing it raised by SN I felt it was a good idea to let MJL know that there definitely was a certain frustration building.
As for the blocking bit, I can go through and find incidents (there are a few at SPI where he’s been less than helpful in an attempt to be helpful, one particular ANI, and I’ve seen many others on my watchlist that have been Facepalm Facepalm moments), but my note was more about the general pattern than anything else, and actually kept it general on purpose so it didn’t get caught up in an analysis of one or two specific incidents.
You and I have both been around long enough (and you much longer than me) that we’ve seen the Very enthusiastic new user who rushes into behind the scenes work and causes a bunch of minor disruption in good faith by helping out in areas they aren’t experienced in that isn’t enough to block on its own but over time annoys enough people that they end up CIR blocked cycle play out. Right now, if MJL doesn’t change their focus and get more experience in mainspace or even anti-vandal work, that is where I see this is heading. I know MJL is here in good faith and is trying to help, but I’ve also seen this pattern before and know where it ends if someone doesn’t say anything. I hope that makes sense, the intent here wasn’t aspersions but a general “the way you’re editing is likely going to frustrate a lot of people and if the editing outlook doesn’t change, a block is probably going to happen at some point.”
Anyway, thanks for the ping and I hope my response makes sense. TonyBallioni (talk) 01:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

(←) @TonyBallioni: I totally hear where you're coming from, and I understand. I will look into the exchange you're referring to and followup more specifically with MJL, along with any other concerns the other admins involved have. No worries about not contacting me, and no worries about your original message; I was going to send you a friendly email when I got the chance to discuss this in a more calm and productive way, but unfortunately it was turning into a bit of an excessive pile-on by the time I got the opportunity, and I just needed to hit the breaks a bit on the increasingly-incendiary tone developing here. Like I said, I'm not here to play defense lawyer, obviously you're all admins whom I respect, and I don't doubt that the concerns you have are genuine concerns, and addressing the issues is the most important thing. But, I need to understand the problems before I can solve them. It's not any of your responsibility to coach and mentor this user, but it is mine, and I'm willing to try and work through these issues in good faith with the user, so there's really no need to increase hostilities any more. Everyone is welcome to message or email me explaining any specific issues they have, and I will do my best to redirect the user accordingly.
In the meantime, MJL, you should note that it is not particularly easy to piss off this many admins, so you're obviously doing something wrong. I'll look more into specifics and try to give you some more constructive criticism, but as a general rule, something you should understand that the behind-the-scenes management of the project operates as a kind of informal hierarchical meritocracy. One must start with the basics and master them before branching out. For example, you have to be an established article editor who has a high level of policy knowledge, to be taken seriously at XfD. Then, you need to be an established and experienced XfD participant before you can start closing XfDs. Even then, you need to understand the procedural complexities and boundaries to closing different discussions under different situations before you perform closes. Likewise, you need to be an established and competent editor with a good reputation and mainspace credibility, before you'll be taken seriously as an AN/I commentator. Then, you need to be taken seriously as an AN/I commentator before you can start closing/clerking AN/I threads. There's nothing wrong with being excited and eager to help out, but it's important to understand that this kind of "work your way up" culture persists strongly in all areas of Wikipedia. You should be experienced in dispute resolution and consensus-building before you close RfCs. You should be an experienced and competent recent changes patroller before you gain Rollback rights (you lacked sufficient understanding of recent changes patrol to secure Rollback, and you're getting in hot water with it already). Even though, in theory, someone can jump right into certain tasks without it being any sort of clear violations, doing so without having "earned" the level of responsibility you're taking on is not in line with Wikipedia's culture, and, well, you're just going to piss a lot of people off when you do that, and you're going to receive a lot of pushback. A user who needs to be told to self-revert their closes due to errors in judgment, needs to be able to take the lesson that they are not at the level to be performing such closes, and should not continue doing so. And, when you receive such pushback and seem like you're not "getting the hint", people take it as a sign that you're unable to assimilate with Wikipedia's culture. And, when that situation is irreconcilable, it can lead to a CIR block. So, I think that's what people are getting at when they question your competence and tell you that you need to slow down and stick to editing the mainspace. I don't actually think you need to be confined to the mainspace, but as a new user, mastering basic editing, norms, policies and practices in the mainspace should be your primary focus, with perhaps a bit of dabbling in the project space, and you can, very gradually, branch out in behind-the-scenes work as your level of experience and clout increases. Like I said, I have yet to look at specific incidents, and will be happy to offer you more constructive criticism when I have, but I think that's the gist of the problem here. Please don't be hurt by my comments, I am not meaning to attack you, only to help you improve as an editor. I completely have your back in that you are a competent, reasonable person who is capable of being a great editor, and I recognize the fact that when mistakes are pointed out to you, you do your best to resolve them, and that really is the most important thing. You just need to pace yourself and take time to learn, starting with the basics. The reason for this is that the scope of Wikipedia's policies, guidelines, norms, culture, and practice are far too complex for a new user to fully understand after only a month or two of active editing. I've been an admin for years, and I'm still learning. This goes for me and Tony, and Kudpung and Ad. Even as admins, if we just suddenly start authoritatively handling areas we are inexperienced in, we will get the same scoldings, and will be slinking away with our tail between our legs. :P You will not have any trouble if you start slow, research relevant policy, guideline, and information pages, observe others and learn best/normal practices, and become a regular participant before you start taking on "management" or "clerking" tasks. Don't let hesitation prevent you from becoming involved. Just don't bite off more than you can chew. As always, let me know if you have any questions. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:48, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Swarm. Like Tony I was unaware of your relationship with MJL and apologize for stepping on your toes. After reading all of the above comments I am more than happy to defer to your judgement and step back from this. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Okay, I've observed this user jumping into things too quickly, and my advice to them in that regard is fair. But, if the primary catalyst for the above confrontation was this user's "rude" response to an inflammatory Signpost article that many admins, including myself, perceive to be horrendously transphobic, then I'm afraid I cannot fault the user, and in fact I will commend them for standing up to those defending it. ~Swarm~ {talk} 07:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

John Hickenlooper

Coud you please explain what you were doing here within the framework of Wikipedia:Rollback policy? Maybe I'm missing something. Thanks. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Policy: WP:ROLLBACKUSE, point 1. Warnings: User talk:WSLQ#March 2019. Diffs: [10] [11] [12]. Other user: [13] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Those diffs seem to show you using rollback to win a content dispute; and regardless, Kudpung's diff was certainly not of you reverting blatant vandalism, which is the sole point of the tool. FYI. ——SerialNumber54129 00:14, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
That was an addition of sourced, relevant content, and I honestly can't tell why you assessed it to be promotional POV-pushing. It was certainly not vandalism that would warrant rollback. SerialNumber is correct, rollback is quite straightforwardly for obvious vandalism only. ~Swarm~ {talk} 00:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Swarm, okay my apologies. I just reverted my rollback. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Abelmoschus Esculentus' User Scripts

Dear all. Recently, our community lost a dedicated user, Abelmoschus Esculentus (talk). Among their projects were a number of user scripts that they left behind. I (DannyS712) have copied the scripts, and have taken over maintaining them. You currently import one or more of Abelmoschus Esculentus' scripts, and I thought that you might want to import a maintained version. Links to each script are provided below.

If you have any questions, please reach out and talk to me. --DannyS712 (talk) 00:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

WPCT

Hey, I saw your invite at Athaenara's talk page and really appreciate your activity in trying to grow the project! Markvs88 (talk) 13:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Markvs88, I always try! Have you seen my signature, though? I've been pretty much giving free advertising to WP:CONN with every edit on talkspace! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

G'morning

Good morning, MJL. I watched in horror last night as what Swarm described as "the increasingly-incendiary tone developing here" unfolded. As I hope you know, I have found you to be an eager Wikipedian, full of good intentions, willing to help, and I want to let you know how much I appreciate that. As an old-timer who has been in more than one rodeo, I'll say the tone that Swarm describes was as chilling as anything I've seen directed at a non-troll, non-vandal on Wikipedia, and I hope you aren't discouraged by it.

Was it wise to close the MMR vaccine category thing? Well, I am one of the top editors on that MMR controversy article, I have read and know the sources as well as any medical article I edit, I disagree with a lot of the commentary in those discussions, but I know there are certain topics and editors one should simply avoid if one wants to have a pleasant editing experience here. It's a fraught topic, and best avoided.

One thing is obvious, though; your good intent and desire to participate here needs to be complemented by more mainspace article work, so I'm here to offer a suggestion. One place that can always use help and more eyes is WP:FAR. You can not only gain experience commenting on the problems found in articles, but in many cases, you can dig right in to edit those articles and help save their star. And from there, you can learn potentially enough to move on to being a WP:FAC reviewer. If you are interested in jumping in there, I am sure that Casliber will take you under his wing.

Keep your chin up, MJL. You're obviously a good guy, it is very discouraging to see helpful editors treated so aggressively, and I see you're in good hands with Swarm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:30, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, that's some good advice! I am pretty sure the lesson to take away from this is for me to stay away from clerking the controversial subjects. I think I have a decently clear path for what I want to do next. I really want to get my to-do list done first, then contribute to either WP:FAR or WP:GAR. You are also right that Swarm is a good person to learn from. Thank you for your kind words, Georgia. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
My ears were burning. Umm...content writing is good/enjoyable. I can vouch for that. What you wanna write? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 21:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Peer review. Anyone who has posted an article here would be extremely grateful for a fresh pair of eyes to have a look and offer some input on comprehensiveness, emphasis, grammar, sourcing etc. If you can offer any input at all, folks will be very grateful. great place to garner goodwill....also stuff sits at WP:FAR gathering dust for want of comments. Sometimes I leave stuff open for months there just waiting for a comment or two more to establihs consensus Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:39, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber: I've been waiting a while for Alabama v. North Carolina to be peer reviewed - no one wants to touch it, so MJL, if you want to, please give me some feedback (the peer review has been opened on the talk) --DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Casliber and DannyS712:, oh word; I'm on it! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:42, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
MJL and DannyS712, you all ping me when you're done, and I'll go through. Fair warning-- I review to FAC standards! And I review without looking at who wrote what, or what earlier reviewers said, so I won't be biased by that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:04, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tally for airlines AFD

Just curious, why did you tally the design I did? --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:44, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Tyw7, I just thought it was cool they all had (or will likely have) different outcomes. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Generally stuff I place within <small></small> tags isn't really that serious. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah gotcha. I thought you were doing some serious tally. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
It's a drafity. If you're curious. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:53, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Sockery

Howdy, User: World Band Receiver is quite likely a sock, fwiw. GoodDay (talk) 06:03, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

GoodDay, almost a guarantee (unless a lurker). However, I have no clue who the sockmaster would be. I have also been warned about filing SPI cases (here & here). Therefore, I just am assuming good faith since no other avenue is available to me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 12:55, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Sienna poll

Hello thanks for the intro into Wikipedia... I'll be sure to read the 5 pillars immediately. In regards to the poll I edited it was highly confusing because it included Truman, who as we all know was president before Eisenhower, and then included every other president post WW2 so..... If it's post ww2 & includes Truman it must also include Eisenhower is all I was thinking. In any case, thx for the intro and the info & I'll check it out when I get a chance! Squidclaw (talk) 00:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Squidclaw, Ah! I think I get it now. You are referring to this poll, correct? Well, I can tell you that, on pages 60-62, Eisenhower is covered in that poll. However, he did not rank in the top 10 best or 10 worst for whatever reason in that specific poll. I hope that helps! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:29, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

careful, please

Please read WP:OWNTALK regarding User talk:MPS1992. I'd prefer that we don't run the risk of poking too much; I have great confidence in WP:ROPE and its promises. Thanks for keeping a look-out, though. I just don't want to see you accidentally run afoul. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) Chris Troutman (talk) 18:46, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Chris troutman, I was going to aggregate all the comments people wrote, so we can have a permalink to link back to. Since I they was too quick on the draw, I gave up. I just did it in my sandbox: here. Many thanks, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 8 March 2019 (UTC) CE: 20:51, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992

Re: [14], WP:OWNTALK says:

"Although archiving is preferred, users may freely remove comments from their own talk pages. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. This specifically includes both registered and unregistered users. (Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history.)

There are certain types of notices that users may not remove from their own talk pages, such as declined unblock requests and speedy deletion tags (see User pages § Removal of comments, notices, and warnings for full details)."

Yes it is annoying, but it is allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Guy, I am very much aware per the comments by Chris troutman above. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:53, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
I had hoped the phrasing of my edit summary would imply my knowledge of the subject, but I guess not. I was attempting to re-inform the user about their statement to "rights" on Wikipedia. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 20:58, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, I demoted this heading because I didn't feel it needed it's own section. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:55, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes it is annoying, but it is allowed. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Yep, MPS1992 is allowed to remove most content from his talk page. But the concern in doing so here is that multipe editors have attempted to discuss his recent actions on the Signpost talk page, and his behaviour since, and his only response is to repeatedly delete all these editors good faith efforts. With his most recent deletion (as of this post), he made it clear he is refusing to discuss this issue. He removed an entire discussion, from a WP talk page, involving eight other editors, and justified it as his "right to do so" because in his opinion, the discussion was "ignorant". So without any kind of follow up or clarification, does this mean we can expect further disruptions like this? I think it would be better to ensure that there will be no further behaviour of this kind, and whether that's accomplished by hosting the discussion on another talk page, especially the user talk page of an affected contributor like MJL, on the Signpost talk page or at ANI, doesn't matter (to me at least), but this should be discussed and resolved. (pinging Guy Macon, Headbomb, Chris troutman & Leaky caldron) - wolf 21:04, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

wolf, I'm okay with having it here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:09, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Note for anyone who cares: I'm updating User:MJL/sandbox2 with the latest comments made. I will most likely continue this with edit summaries and such. It's just for my own convenience, but anyone else is welcome to take a look there and make edits for the time being. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about missing the prior explanation. MPS1992 isn't the first person to try this and he won't be the last. What I usually do once I notice the pattern is to post a final "deleting a warning template is considered evidence that you have read the warning" comment (interestingly, in about half the cases that is the one post they don't delete) and then stay off the talk page, occasionally checking the edit history. If they don't repeat the disruptive behavior, I am done. if they do, off to ANI because further talk page warnings clearly will not work. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:48, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Blanking a section in that context was probably a boneheaded move that did little but to throw fuel on the fire. That said, the response has already been massively disproportionate, with 10 separate messages, many hostile and threatening, and including a formal templated warning, which is basically seen as the ultimate form of willful condescension you can send an established editor. Like I said, the user threw fuel on the fire, perhaps he asked for it, perhaps he made it worse by deleting those comments, whatever. IMO it's not exactly unreasonable, much less an offense, to delete aggressive comments from hostile users from one's talk page, and preserving deleted comments in your userspace is not something we do. In the grand scheme of things, MPS was reverted, and he hasn't pressed the issue. Nothing good's going to come from getting caught up in high-strung emotions, acting like he needs to be crucified for it. But more to-the-point, this sort of "keeping records" on other users is generally considered to be an inappropriate use of one's userspace, and I encourage you to blank the page. ~Swarm~ {talk} 02:46, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Swarm,  Done. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    In response to the first bit about our response: This is something I will have to be cognisant of in the future. Thank you. Regarding the second bit, I take full responsibility for that. My apologies to all involved. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    Accepted without reservation. Have a good weekend. MPS1992 (talk) 10:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
  • @Swarm: I agree with your comments and understand how they're intended to move things toward a conclusion, as opposed to continuing to prolong this matter, on whichever user page. I will say that my concern was not just the removal of an entire discussion from the Signpost talk page, but the reasoning given for it; that it was his "right" to do so and that his reason for it was because the discussion was, in his opinion, "ignorant". I can't imagine such reasoning and justification being accepted anywhere on this project. And, it leaves open the obvious question; will he do it again? This was, for me at least, the reason why I tried to enagage MPS in discussion to try and clarify and better understand, not only his initial actions, but the actions and comments he made since. The discussion he deleted had contributions from eight different editors. At least four of them tried to engage MPS on his talk page, but he refuses to discuss his disruptive bahaviour. So where does that leave things? AFAIC, MPS knows he was totally wrong and wrong on all points. He is now hoping this will just blow over and all these editors will move on. That could be a good thing. If he knows he was wrong, then hopefully he won't do it again. No more talk page disruptions, no more insults and attacks, and no more grandiose claims about mythical "rights". Hopefully he's learned from this. We will see... - wolf 04:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    wolf, we will indeed! Hopefully, they won't continue those kinds of acts in the future. For now, I think this is all set, though. Cheers, :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:11, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
    It should be noted that Swarm's opinion (" ...including a formal templated warning, which is basically seen as the ultimate form of willful condescension you can send an established editor. ") is a common opinion but is not an opinion shared by everyone. The page arguing for Swarm's opinion is at WP:DTR. The page arguing for my position is at WP:TTR. I think that TTR has better arguments. Neither of our opinions is based upon any policy or guideline. --Guy Macon (talk) 17:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

CSD criteria

I'm not quite sure what you are trying to achieve by removing your warnings to the author and using CSD criteria that do not apply in this instance. If you can explain what you have been trying to do, I may be able to help. There is of course always the possibility that I may have missed something. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL/Archive_6&oldid=960090596"