User talk:MJL/Archive 28: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 948: Line 948:
{{collapse bottom}}
{{collapse bottom}}
{{re|Darouet|Viztor|Syopsis}} To avoid the talk page becoming the place to solve both a conduct dispute and content dispute, I'm copying the above discussion onto my talk page. Darouet, I agree that both statements should not have been made, and I would like to discuss reaching a resolution. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
{{re|Darouet|Viztor|Syopsis}} To avoid the talk page becoming the place to solve both a conduct dispute and content dispute, I'm copying the above discussion onto my talk page. Darouet, I agree that both statements should not have been made, and I would like to discuss reaching a resolution. &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
:Seeing as that {{u|Viztor}} took my offwiki advice and stuck {{gender:Viztor|his|her|their}} comments, this section is not needed. I invite {{u|Syopsis}} to follow this good example set by Viztor. {{(:}} &#8211;<span style="font-family:CG Times">[[User:MJL|<span style="color:black">MJL</span>]]&thinsp;[[User talk:MJL|‐'''Talk'''‐]]<sup>[[WP:WikiProject Connecticut|☖]]</sup></span> 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Revision as of 01:58, 11 June 2019

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

You may want to increment {{Archive basics}} to |counter= 11 as User talk:MJL/Archive 10 is larger than the recommended 150Kb.


Moving History

As noted here, I have moved my talk page's history to User Talk:MJL/Archive 8. Sorry for the inconvenience, but I wanted to start off fresh. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:58, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A salamander for you!

Acorri has given you a salamander! Salamanders promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your salamander must be fed daily and will be your faithful companion for life! You can brighten someone's day by giving them a WikiCritter on their talk page with a friendly message, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.
To give a salamander: {{salamander|message=Your message here. ~~~~}}

I'm a day late, but happy 413! I'm surprised we were the only ones editing the article, on the tenth anniversary no less, with such a huge bombshell too. Well, I'm glad I wasn't the only one at least! Have a great 413 and happy editing~ ♦AcoriSage 17:53, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AcorriSage: Oh my gosh! This is the best gift I have ever gotten on Wikipedia!! In return, please have this bunny I found. Happy 4/13 to you as well!!! [my own delayed response was trying to vectorize bunnykind lol] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Bunnykind for AcorriSage
That's so cool and sweet, you just made my day! I gave it a spot on my userpage <3 ♦AcoriSage 23:41, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Outline of the Northwest Territories has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Outline of the Northwest Territories. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 15:17, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 5

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (April 2019). Hello everyone and welcome to the 5th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Until next month, --DannyS712 (talk) 00:22, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

bagpipes

the project is not inactive - It would be appreciated if you saw the amount effort to resurrect it recently - I am not on it daily , but have considerable amount to add to the project as it stands - and it does not fit into musical instruments - due the reasons given at the xfd discussion. JarrahTree 05:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful - either if you could revert yourself - or at least discuss what you think an effort to recover from inactive requires ? 05:04, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: To be honest, I was torn between tagging it inactive and semi-active. Does the latter work for you? (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
sheesh - being honest on wikipedia is dangerous - you never know what might catch you out :( - the problem is the xfd is still in limbo... I would ask for it to be removed until such time as someone actually closes the xfd process - then it will become obvious which way it goes - as with the amount of tagging or extra work either way the xfd goes... :( JarrahTree 05:08, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't on a self-imposed restriction from closing XfD's, I probably would have closed this as keep instead of placing the tag. I see the effort to recover from inactivity as a process, and policy wise the arguments you made there hold more water. I mostly just tagged the project instead because of the aforementioned pending MfD because I figured that was what should have been done originally.
I get this process can be nerve-wracking, but you gotta let it play out. I'll self-revert for you if it helps at all, though. (btw Ray Trygstad is semi-active still if you want to reach out to them.) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:17, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

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

Response

Hi! Thank you for letting me know about the student pages - with the articles, definitely feel free to edit and merge them as needed. We've emphasized to students that once the pages are moved live, they can be edited, merged, or deleted. Basically, while I'd definitely make sure to explain things to them and assume good faith, student work should not be treated differently than work put out by any editor.

With getting your university to participate, I think that would be awesome! Can you contact us at contact@wikiedu.org? This will connect you with the person who handles this end things! If you know of any specific professors who would be interested they can also contact us through that email address! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 20:47, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting page:User:MJL/Cod island

A page you created, User:MJL/Cod island, does not seem to have enough reliable third party sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in itself. It has been redirected to User:MJL/Cod Island which is related to the subject of the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

IP Note

you have deleted my article on BRIAN WENZEL, trying to add a filmogrophy section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 08:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I just explained here, you removed the reference section. You can get it back rather easily by going through the article history –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:19, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OKAY, THANK-YOU, COULD YOU PLEASE KINDLY COMPLETE FILMOGRAPHY SECTION FOR MR. WENZEL, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 08:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do, but please refrain from Shouting. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The filmography section IS HOWEVER NOT COMPLETE
okay sorry i apologise — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 08:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's okay, I guess. Where did you source this filmography from? We need a reliable source for all the entries. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i understand, it is from IMDb, "not the best and most reliable source", but its sometimes, be it most times, its all we have on FILMOGRAPHY— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 08:33, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, yeah at least you are aware that it's not the best to source things to IMdb. I'll get started on cleaning up the filmography using reliable sources, but in the meantime it'd be awfully helpful if you checked out this link and possibly create an account. That'd make my life a ton easier. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how are you, thankyou for your work on the article, is much appreciated, however thee is still some more credits to add, because the filmography only goes to 1980, kind regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 05:53, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i Have fixed some of the other links to serials.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 09:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
ned to reinstate ref section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 10:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, sorry I was asleep when you wrote me. On it now! :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello my friend, how are you? thank you for work and contributions, i understand as you know what to do with restoring reference and categories, i appreciate your kindness very much, i will let ypou know if i need any other help, best regards.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 20:35, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

​Of course, and Any time! :) [If I may remark, that it'd help a lot of you signed your talk page posts by writing ~~~~ at the end (where one might sign their name). It makes conversations easier to follow.] Take care, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 20:44, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Appreciation

Thank you for the kitten, it means a lot. Some people on here really just grind my gears, you know?

Oh and real quick if you're okay with the planned addition could you put it in writing on the talk page so I don't have to hear from John again?

Thanks a ton man, the world needs more people like you :)

Ppizzo278 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ppizzo278:, I just posted on the talk page. John can be somewhat coarse to discuss with, but he is a good editor. To be honest, I have a lot more shortcomings in respect to how I edit than him, and I'd like to believe that's something I was able to learn while I contribute here. We'll find a solution that works for everyone, and we'll all move on! I appreciate the compliment either way! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Portal update

Hi @MJL:. I'll take and update the Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania if that's still OK. I left a message on the deletion discussion as well. It may take a few days until I get some free time (I have another article I'm working on and not much time at all this week), but I'll fix up the links, articles, etc. I really had no idea there were Portals on here, but one for a medium-size metro area like this seems like a good addition worth keeping. Thanks Scanlan (talk) 04:23, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Scanlan: just saw and wrote a reply for you! :)
I can expand on what I meant here if you would like. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:26, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar in return

The Prespa Barnstar
Thank you for your work in getting the new Macedonia guideline up and running. After the tenseness of some of the debates around the RfC, your calm and patient participation and your volunteering to act as the drafting clerk for the final editing rounds was very much appreciated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I second that! You have our gratitude and appreciation, MJL, for all of your contributions and help!!! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Future Perfect at Sunrise and SilentResident: Y'all are being too sweet! I was just happy to help and for the bit of recognition. I really don't know what else to say besides thank you, and I am glad I didn't actively make the situation any worse by being there! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Cod Island has been accepted

Cod Island, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Robert McClenon (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

I presume you like kittens (based on your tps notice). So, here, have a kitten.

Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 21:13, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Dreamy Jazz: Why thank you! :D
I do hope I deserve it, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 08:43, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Japanese apple for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Japanese apple 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/Japanese apple 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. -- Tavix (talk) 14:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Current events noticeboard

Hi MJL, this month's discussion report on The Signpost notes that the current events noticeboard doesn't exist yet, even though there was community consensus to establish it on a trial basis in your successful RfC (which I supported). It looks like Yellowdesk also asked you about this in March. Are you still interested in creating this noticeboard? — Newslinger talk 03:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newslinger: I am! I just have become apprehensive about it since my adopter (Swarm) told me to bow out of meta-processes, clerking, closing, advising, mentoring, mediating, flattering, and chatting in non-article-related discussions. I really have not known how to respond to Yellowdesk given that advice. I wrote out the steps it would take at User:MJL/sandbox8, and I'd love nothing more than seeing it created, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The plan in User:MJL/sandbox8 looks great. I was just afraid that you had lost interest, as the noticeboard was a popular proposal. Please proceed at your own pace, and don't be pressured to rush this. — Newslinger talk 06:41, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1234567890anonymous

I saw your report at AIV. Since you have some doubts as to the user and whether or not they're being trolls or trying to edit in good faith, I went ahead and just applied a 24 hour block. If the user intends to try and edit in good faith, learn, and contribute positively - this block will set them in the right direction. If they just go about their business after the block expires, then we'll have a better idea as to the user's intentions.... :-) Let me know how it goes. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Oshwah: that sounds awesome; thank you!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You bet; always happy to land a hand. ;-) I hope this editor was trying to contribute in good faith, but only time will tell. We'll see.... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Modified summary report

Oh look, another xtools report to keep myself accountable!

Selected report data

General statistics

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-15 19:15

User ID 29291527
Registration date 2016-09-29 13:35
User groups extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user
Is administrator? 0
First edit 2016-09-29 13:41
Latest edit 2019-05-15 19:10
Live edits 7,365 (97.7%)
Deleted edits 175 (2.3%)
Total edits 7,540
Edits in the past 24 hours 22
Edits in the past 7 days 522
Edits in the past 30 days 2,413
Edits in the past 365 days 6,453
Average edits per day 7.9 (958 days)
Average edit size* 457.4 bytes
Minor edits 2,331 (31.6%)
Small edits (<20 bytes)* 1,662 (33.2%)
Large edits (>1000 bytes)* 715 (14.3%)

Pages

Pages edited (total) 3,500
Average edits per page 2.154
Pages created 1,100 (32 since deleted)
Pages moved 214
Pages deleted 0

Files

Files uploaded 1
Files uploaded (Commons) 71

Actions

Thank 333
Approve 70
Patrol 0
Accounts created 0

(Re)blocks

Longest block –
Current block –

Global edit counts (approximate)

►en.wikipedia.org 7,323
en.wikisource.org 2,110
www.wikidata.org 619
commons.wikimedia.org 373
meta.wikimedia.org 178
simple.wikipedia.org 55
www.mediawiki.org 36
sco.wikipedia.org 28
en.wiktionary.org 12
sv.wikipedia.org 11

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

Top edits by page

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-16 01:10. Modified by MJL at a later time.

Rank Edits Page title Links Namespace
1 176 User talk:MJL/Archive 8 Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
2 133 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
3 129 User:MJL/sandbox2 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
4 94 User:MJL/sandbox3 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
5 80 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
6 76 User:MJL/sandbox5 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
7 76 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia talk
8 68 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
9 67 User:MJL/common.js Log · Page History · Top Edits User
10 65 User:MJL/sandbox4 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
11 57 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
12 51 User:MJL/Current events noticeboard/Header Log · Page History · Top Edits User
13 50 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
14 46 User:MJL/sandbox6 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
15 44 User:MJL/List of law firms based in the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits User
16 41 Draft:Outline of the Northwest Territories Log · Page History · Top Edits Draft
17 40 User talk:DannyS712 Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
18 37 User:MJL/History of the Constitution of the Netherlands Log · Page History · Top Edits User
19 37 User:MJL/Watch Pages Log · Page History · Top Edits User
20 35 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
21 35 Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
22 33 Cod Island Log · Page History · Top Edits Main
23 30 User:MJL Log · Page History · Top Edits User
24 28 Template:WikiProject Connecticut/sandbox Log · Page History · Top Edits Template
25 27 User:MJL/Wikisource:WikiProject Validate Log · Page History · Top Edits User
26 26 User talk:Swarm Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
27 25 User:MJL/tasks Log · Page History · Top Edits User
28 24 User talk:MJL Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
29 23 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003 Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
30 22 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
31 22 National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits Main
32 21 Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
33 20 Talk:The Matrix (franchise) Log · Page History · Top Edits Talk
34 20 User:MJL/EmployBridge Log · Page History · Top Edits User
35 20 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia

Namespace Totals

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-16 01:10

Rank Namespace Count
1 Wikipedia 1,614 (21.8%)
2 User talk 1,422 (19.2%)
3 Main 1,333 (18%)
4 User 1,217 (16.5%)
5 Talk 472 (6.4%)
6 Portal 382 (5.2%)
7 Template 314 (4.2%)
8 Wikipedia talk 229 (3.1%)
9 Portal talk 149 (2%)
10 Category talk 113 (1.5%)
11 Draft 49 (0.7%)
12 Category 45 (0.6%)
13 Template talk 26 (0.4%)
14 File talk 15 (0.2%)
15 File 7 (0.1%)
16 Help 5 (0.1%)
17 Draft talk 2 (0%)
17 namespaces 7,394


Signed, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard - May 2019

Hello, MJL! Here is the May 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May 2019

Information icon Hello, I'm MJL. I wanted to let you know that it appears you have submitted an unsourced Wikipedia article, at User:MJL to Articles for Creation. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). You also may find it helpful to take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Information icon Hello, I'm MJL. I wanted to let you know that it appears you have submitted an unsourced Wikipedia article, at User:MJL to Articles for Creation. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources (see here). You also may find it helpful to take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines, and you can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Testing this out again... –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Careful, MJL. You keep submitting unsourced drafts to AFC and that editor MJL is gonna bring the hammer down on you. They mean business. Leviv ich 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I ain't worried about that dude. I'm clearly an UNBLOCKABLE now that I have written our article on Cod Island. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar
For not giving up, for not giving in, for putting your head down and continuing to build an encyclopedia, and for having a cheerful, optimistic attitude no matter what comes your way, I hereby award you this Resilient Barnstar. Thank you for being a part of this community. Leviv ich 21:09, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is too sweet! I don't know if I really feel comfortable accepting this, though. Maybe when I get cleared to go back to WP:AN/RFC, I'd deserve it, but at the moment... I'm just trying to listen to the advice from Swarm and BHG to not be a nuisance. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's v well-deserved barnstar. MJL had a tough learning curve, but has stuck with it, so thanks to @Levivich for giving recognition where it was due. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:01, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thirded and fourthed. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For sticking up for a colleague with bold kindness. Thank you! WanderingWanda (talk) 08:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Wander! Hopefully, I didn't act too much like a white knight :D (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Whiteknight, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page White knight (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:30, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, DPL bot! The page I was editing (/created) was also a disambiguation page. The link to the other disambiguation page was intentional. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:27, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A cookie for you! (Plus another thanks)

I appreciate your apology for re-reverting. You did it in good faith, and I don't blame you for the re-revert, but I am happy to see that you acknowledge the error. And thank you for finding my comments insightful. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I also wanna thank you for your comment about political engagement in the US. I'm from Denmark, which already has a lot more engagement than many countries, but it's interesting to know that so many people get to meet the governor every week. - 188.176.129.120 (talk) 13:45, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WOOD and Redirects

I don't read the woodwork essay as having anything to do with redirection of portals. It isn't labeled as a deletion essay, but I interpret it to be a deletion essay, recommending that pages should be kept in draft space or user space if they are marginal as to notability in article space. I concur with User:BrownHairedGirl that it should not be used as a justification for redirection of portals, or in general for redirection. Redirection is an alternative to deletion for articles when a subject is marginally notable, so that a musician can be redirected to their band, or, for that matter, a band with which the performer performed before becoming a star can be redirected to the performer. Also, I know that some editors like to stub existing articles down to redirects as a backdoor deletion. I think that existing articles should only be stubbed down to redirects after discussion (and there are a few editors who will stubbornly get into a redirect-war to backdoor-delete an article and try to do that as a way to avoid any consensus discussion (by saying that redirection is not deletion and so does not have to be discussed at AFD, but that redirection is not a valid topic for RFC either). So I don't like casual redirection of existing pages, and certainly not for portals to a related topic. At least that is my opinion, that the woodwork essay is about articles, not about other things. Well, it can also be used to move a controversial essay from project space to user space. I don't see the woodwork essay as having anything to do with redirection either of portals or of articles. Redirecting a portal that has subpages behind it seems like performing an illegal face or brain transplant. That is my opinion. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 22 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Robert McClenon: That's certainly more than a reasonable statement. I suppose the remedy for a unilateral conversion to a redirect as a way to backdoor-delete an article as you describe it would be WP:RfD. For me, the general sentiment behind WP:WOOD is that redirects are a halfway decent method of breaking deadlocks during a deletion debate. I guess I've been forgetting about that last bit there during a deletion debate. I'll be making sure to take that feedback from both you and BHG to heart. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
User:MJL - Well, first, you are right that it does mention redirects, and that it mentions them as a way to deal with a deletion debate. I think that redirection is appropriate in the cases I mentioned, where notability is not inherited. I think that portals should face a straight yes-no. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Swedish Levant Company has been accepted

Swedish Levant Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, MJL, and welcome to Women in Red. I'm happy to hear you intend to write biographies of women in politics. As far as I can see, you have already created one new women's biography and may well have improved existing articles. When writing new articles, you might find it useful to look through our Ten Simple Rules and our Primer. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:32, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:2010s

There is a sentence in this nomination that says, "I it had to do with the of its." There appear to be some words missing from that sentence. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Metropolitan90:  Done I didn't link Fr.wiki right, and it was parsed differently than I expected. Thank you for alerting me to this! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:56, 28 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments between differing cultures

I am sure that you know that there are culture differences between enWS and enWP. One can talk in shorthand at somewhere like an AN where they are a group of people with a shared language and knowledge, though that shorthand may not migrate well elsewhere. If you wanted my opinion here, then ask me to come and express it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: As I previously stated, you do have my sincerest apologies. This was an error of judgement on my part, and I will avoid such mistakes in the future. I'm still getting my bearings on cross-wiki contributions in that regard. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TheWikiWizard - Update

Dear reader,

Thank you for subscribing to TheWikiWizard. This is a special message letting you know that the June/July/August issues of TheWikiWizard may be delayed, due to the absence of User:Thegooduser. Thegooduser and the other editors of TWW will try their best to deliver these issues to you. Thank you for reading TWW, and we hope to see you again in September 2019. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and enjoy your summer! :-) We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Happy Editing!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

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

IP note (2)

Hello, Thank you of your kindness and assistance — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 18:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Wikipedia can be rough sometimes, so I try to help people out where I can. Just please sign your posts by typing ~~~~at the end of your comments. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:15, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 6

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (May 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 6th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Enjoy your summer, --DannyS712 (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notes from Wayward Vagabond

Hello my friend, how are you, need help with restoring article categories Benita Collings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.2.16 (talk) 10:21, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i need help!, recently i received a block for adding what was classified as unsourced, full names of people should normally be in infobox, if they are listed in the article shouldn't they — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.2.16 (talk) 11:18, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there WV! First of all, I highly recommend registering for an account on here. I get some people prefer to not register an account here for all sorts of reasons, but you will find that you have a much easier time with an account vs now. At the moment you are currently evading a block, and that's really bad.
Second, to answer your question, if the full name is listed in the main body of the article then it is okay to place in the infobox. This is covered in detail in the aforementioned game.
Additionally, most contributors will find your inability to follow talk page etiquette a problem. I've certainly gotten used to it, but that is really not a good thing.
Please just register an account (if you don't know what to name yourself, I recommend WaywardVagabond because you remind me of that character a lot) and play this game. It'll teach you everything you ever needed to know about Wikipedia syntax.
Lastly, you are actually quite lucky. This is not the first time you have been blocked. I am sure if that was known at the time you would have been blocked for a lot longer. I have personally known for a while now about your history, but I have yet to find it necessary to share this information with my colleagues like Bhunacat10.
The best you can do is listen to my advice and create an account and play The Wikipedia Adventure. This will help you keep out of trouble for the time being.
I really cannot do much more for you if you do not listen to that advice. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Help with party page

Please see Talk:Green_Party_of_California#Grounds_for_Ideology, please and thank you. Stevemario (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WV again

Hello, could you please restore references section for Colette Mann thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thank-you of you assistance, Colette Mann after everything i forgot the big one PRISONER (TV series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 23:14, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I sometimes wonder if you in fact listen to me or what exactly goes on, but I know you have to at least read it. Okay, I'm standing by for more changes. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:17, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank-you Mauren Edwards restore categories, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 00:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC) i mean Maureen Edwards, sorry of spelling error — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Already done Bamyers99 beat me to it. WV, this is clearly not a long term solution. It'd mean a lot to me if you took my advice and made an account. You'd get to use Wikipedia:VisualEditor and all sorts of features that you could really use (like WP:TWA). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:10, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, adding further links for actress Maureen Edwards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 07:01, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to report that you added the links without any issues. Congratulations! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:59, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there my friend, hope you are going okay, thank-you for your assistance and kindness, very much appreciated, yes, not to many problems linking (wikilinks) pages except for some disambiguations, i know also the sites of IMDB (Internet Movie Database.com) and IMDB (Internet Broadway Database.com), are not the best sites for references, sources, citations etc. etc. but of course they are better than not adding anything at all. Also love your profile picture of the cat, so beautiful and adorable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 07:51, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well thank you! Glad you like it! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lgross13/sandbox

Hello, MJL! Thank you for monitoring new pages and tagging the ones that need deletion. I wanted to let you know that I declined speedy deletion for User:Lgross13/sandbox. You had tagged it for speedy deletion as a hoax, but it is actually not a hoax. It is about TS7, a term used for Taylor Swift's unnamed upcoming album, just as the user said. They also correctly named a single from it that has been released. They didn't have any sources or anything, but that's OK in their own sandbox. I find it's always a good idea, before tagging something as a hoax, to do a quick Google search. In this case, here is what you would have found: [1] You'd be surprised how often people forget to do that! Anyhow, I know you do good work here, I just wanted to give you this followup. -- MelanieN (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, MelanieN. I do appreciate the feedback. It might not be worth putting on the Wall of Shame, but my reasoning for not doing the Google search was a pretty foolish one. I assumed it must be a hoax because there was no way the two artists would work together. Idk, I'm off my game. My CSD log isn't looking as good as it once was. RIP. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:05, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conduct dispute at Talk:China–United States trade war

Collapsed conduct dispute
Copied from Talk:China–United States trade war#Article_concerns

Even with the recent cuts, the article is still too long. Should we consider splitting off China–United States trade war#Chronology? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Firstly can you please explain why you put in the globalize tag and the the Trump and Xi sidebars and that unverified statement. Those edits just didn't make any sense. Syopsis (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: First, full disclosure: Viztor mentioned this article up on WP:Discord, and that was what brought it to my attention. I think it is only fair that you know that. Secondly, the sidebar is for navigational purposes, but it's fine that you deleted I guess. It's merely cosmetic. However, the tag should stay. It rather clearly portrays a very US-focused view of the situation (not let's say... Mexico nor Japan or any other unrelated country for that matter). Please let another uninvolved editor remove the tag once the concern is sufficiently address. Thank you, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Since it's a partial revert, I'll let it go. That said, since I obviously disagree with it, I respectfully ask that we try to work this out between us first before we escalate the situation any further. Please explain why you think the tag should stay. Syopsis (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] It almost doesn't mention any country besides China and the United States (despite the EU and Japan having a rather significant reaction). Almost all the sources are from American media. Other than that, the article puts undue weight towards political considerations in the United States. Finally, there is not a single mention is made in the reaction section from the Chinese side of this dispute. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Then put the tag in the reactions section - why does it need to apply to the whole article? As for your other arguments: why should it even mention other countries? It's a trade war between THE TWO COUNTRIES. The sources are mainly from America - so what? Syopsis (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: In no particular order: It's a dispute between two of the largest economic powers in the world. Other countries have a very vested interest in the outcome of this dispute. Therefore, this article (like all articles on Wikipedia) should take care to put it into a global context and perspective. THe problem with having too many American sources is that it leads to biased coverage (in this case, a pro-USA POV). Finally, I do think the problem extends to the entire article. It entirely focuses too heavily on American political and economic consideration and nothing of the 100+ countries sitting on the sidelines for this dispute (all of whom have their own independent media we can source from). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning, uses bad information and overall just trades on a bad attitude which just leads to all kinds of shitty consequences. It is just a pseudo-intellectual, desperate attempt to rationalize discrimination - it's wrong to devalue a person's opinion based on race or ethnicity but somehow we are supposed to be okay if we start doing it by nationality/geography. Really? I could understand if it went the other way because Mainland China doesn't have a free press, but even then...it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling. And about your specific argument that we should take the views of other countries into account - where is it going to end? Are we going to include the reactions of all the countries on Earth? If we are going to include the EU and Japan's views (as you suggested above), are you going to complain if it leads to more "bias"? I will also make the general remark that ive said above which is that what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to just take the short route, slap a tag on the article and then complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. What precisely you are proposing? Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Syopsis and MJL: I agree that the article should have a global perspective, in order to avoid a partisan tone and to reflect what is at stake for the global economy. Particularly because the United States is one of the two major parties to the trade war, it would be inappropriate to rely too heavily on US sources, since this will naturally unbalance the article.

That said, it certainly is possible to represent at least some portion of the Chinese perspective using US sources. Second, it seems to me as though many of the deletions from the lead are unwarranted. At this point, beginning by reading the lead, I have really no idea what this this dispute is about. It shouldn't be so hard to represent both Chinese and American viewpoints in the lead.

One thing that would help, I think, is historical background at the onset of the article. This would help explain China's particular regulations regarding foreign investment and economic partnership. This section could also describe China's rapid economic growth and the prospect that the Chinese economy will surpass the American, something which is obviously contributing strongly to the trade war. -Darouet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: I have to say at the outset that it should be noted you really aren't in any position to be complaining about "partisan tone," natural balance or whatever given your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias as the other person who filed the meaningless RFC request above did. As i said above to MJL I don't buy the whole "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling and really just code for "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." As for your comments/specific suggestions: the lead removals are totally warranted the information that was there either could have went into/was already in the body of the article or just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing, much like what your proposal for about the "historical background" would lead to (which is already kind of there and at any rate has already been tried in the way you want...and ended up as a complete clusterfuck) Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Darouet: The removal of stuff from the lead wasn't me. In fact, all of my changes were reverted except for the tag which is what we are currently discussing. This is why I am... confused by Syopsis saying [The arguement behind my tag is]... "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." considering I did make changes that I felt at least helped. The only thing left from edits is the tag, and I sure am not going to start arguing for individual changes to an article when we can't even agree whether or not needs fixing. On a separate note to Syopsis, you should really avoid making the ad hominem personal attacks against Darouet like you just did in the beginning. Further, you never really had consensus to cut the historical background section, so I ask you please note that fact when saying it ended up as a complete [expletive]. Now, can we get back onto track here? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: It's not a personal attack, I was just stating a fact. That person has strong, partisan view on things and edits accordingly; it's pretty obvious if you look at the editing record. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - we all edit from a strong point of view. The difference is I am not the one trying to play both sides: talking about avoiding partisanship while editing partisanly. And yes, I stand by what i said about the "historical background" (what ever that even refers/referred to) - it was a complete clusterfuck. You had people cramming in totally irrelevant, blog-type, cherry-picked information in background section, followed by an alphabet soup of point-of-view, worded titles (also littered with blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material) and concluded by stand alone paragraphs that had no reason to even be stand alone paragraphs in the first place. Much inferior to the background section in the current version of the article - you can pretty much find all the background info to the trade war there.
But moving on. What exactly is it that you even want to see changed in the article? All you have done is complain about the biasedness of the article with absolutely terrible reasons (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) while giving me zero ideas on what your solution even is. the only (proper) description for that kind of attitude is (you guessed) "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am slap (or restore) a tag and complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." Syopsis (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] First, I have never subscribed to the WP:STRAIGHT/WP:POLE philosophy that everyone has a POV and compromise somehow brings us closer to neutrality or something. I'm not trying to ascribe words to you that you did not author, but that's why I don't think it's fine to call someone else a partisan nor imply they are a hypocrite because of the fact. Whatever, I guess. I really don't want to argue conduct on a content talk page because that's not what this namespace is for. Let me just put this in perspective. The following editors have said as recently as 27 May 2019 that this article definitely as some' bias towards the US: ViperSnake151, Viztor, EllenCT, Timtempleton, myself, and now Darouet (actually, I am wrong here because in fact there are more editors who have said as such, but I digress). You are quite literally the only one recently defending this ludicrous idea that the article isn't biased. I proposed specific, concrete, changes I would like to have been able to make that you dismissed as silly (ie, that all the major players in line with reliable sourcing be included, that more sourcing come from outside the western hemisphere, and introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative). If that sounds like mindless complaining, I'm sorry. My first gosh dang idea was to split off Chronology section into its own article to cut down on length, but I guess that doesn't matter. I couldn't even tag this article without having to write a paragraph in defense of it (much less make content related edits). I would be more than happy to help make more specific changes if I wasn't spending most of my emotional energy trying to defend that single note which so perplexes you as to warrant this discussion. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: It seems you have a hard time reading so I will make it easier. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? You haven't proposed anything speciic, I've asked you three times now, all I have gotten is just non-answers. You started with the sources are all from the US, I challenged you on that so-called argument (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) and you responded by not only refusing to answer, but now you have introduced some more nonsensical arguments - "introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative" (we already have tons of this). Syopsis (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: Okay, we're yelling now. Here on User:MJL/sandbox6 I have bundled every single source that is used to convey the single point that China steals technology in the United States. I counted 23 different sources used to convey this single point where only maybe a few are used to detail it with things like US economic costs or a person reacting to something. What concerns me the most about this list is several are completely unrelated to the trade dispute. I cannot find a single shred of logical reasoning (1) this many sources are need for this one point (2) why a 2010 Bloomberg article by Andy Grove about American job loss to China is super-duper relevant to this international trade dispute, and (3) why we are citing material about unrelated events like this. What WP:RS said that a downed F-117 Nighthawk in Serbia was so relevant to 2019 world politics that it's being included in this gosh forsaken article??? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: 1) Talk to User:Wildcursive, he is the one who added most if not all the material. 2) Actually we still have not solved problem #1 which is the "global" tag that you restored. Why do we even need it? Nothing else matters until we solve that point because (surprise surprise) that is the first thing that we disagreed on. Syopsis (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: It's irrelevant who wrote the article. The discussion here is on article content and gaining consensus on steps forward. The tag does nothing but signify an ongoing discussion on how to improve the article to address these concerns. It should be pretty clear that this isn't some WP:DRIVEBYTAG. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive. That is irrelevant. i am asking why YOU did what you did since YOU restored it. Why do we need the tag? t's a pretty simple question.. I don't know why you are trying so hard to dodge answering it. Syopsis (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Syopsis: We need a tag to signify that the article can be improved to other editors and our readers. Without a tag, readers might think that this article meets our standards even though it doesn't. I'm really not dodging the question. I don't know how many ways I can repeat that the article does not have a geographically diverse sources and thus skews in a American-centric view of the subject. You are welcome to subjectively disagree with that premise, but don't expect me to change my mind because it isn't a good enough answer for you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral", perhaps he is right, there is no neutrality in its strict definition, however, when we are debating neutrality, it is defined the way wikipedia defines it, take proportionally from reliable sources, that is not that hard. Yeah, we would love our articles to be not so heavy-tasted towards one-side. Yeah we are only as neutral as our sources, and all we are trying to do is to make sure it proportionally represent views of reliable sources. That's it, if you don't like it, convince the sources, don't try to convince us, that's not how it works. Saying that is like saying those who try to do what is it right because they like it, of course, but so what? Viztor (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: statements like these are counterproductive to discussion and article improvement, are inappropriate for an editorial board (which is what talk pages are), and are against Wikipedia policy:

"...your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

and

"He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral"..."

I don't know any of you, I don't believe we've interacted before, and I'm not even 100% sure I know what my "POV" is here. Instead, I've made three concrete proposals for article improvement: that we

  1. increase the background section,
  2. have a lead that describes both Chinese and American government positions, and
  3. that we use international news sources — including American, Chinese, and everything else — as much as possible.

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: Do you agree or disagree with these points, and if you disagree, why? If you agree, do you have suggestions, caveats or concerns for implementation? -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet: He keeps repeating the same point to everyone that we can never make it neutral and we're just trying to insert our own POV therefore it better stays the way it is, that's what I would call nihilism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and I already explained in the same paragraph. #3 is what we've all been saying for quite a long time, of course I would agree.Viztor (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Darouet, Viztor, and Syopsis: To avoid the talk page becoming the place to solve both a conduct dispute and content dispute, I'm copying the above discussion onto my talk page. Darouet, I agree that both statements should not have been made, and I would like to discuss reaching a resolution. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as that Viztor took my offwiki advice and stuck their comments, this section is not needed. I invite Syopsis to follow this good example set by Viztor. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL/Archive_28&oldid=901309912"