User talk:MJL/Archive 4

No Heading
Relisted here for my convenience. I check this discussion a lot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 14:02, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

RfA
I think I am perfectly capable of finding the correct section myself, thankyouverymuch. --AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , My bad. I am glad reverted my changes. My apologies again. &#8213; MJL  -Talk-☖  19:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

the anti cabal
you may want to add "and other featured articles" - and no, they don't want all removed, just on the special articles, and can't stand the word ownership --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you are free to edit it as you like. I thought it was funny taking it to the maxim, but I am coming from a perspective of not having participated in any one of the debates. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  17:10, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I will not, have been through arbitration enforcement for an edit on Laurence Olivier, life is too short. - "Don't mention the topic" is seriously the best advice ;) - Happy 2019. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:14, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Test Sections
You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you engage in subtle vandalism on Wikipedia. Stop trying to change information (like numbers and dates) without explanation. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  21:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you engage in subtle vandalism on Wikipedia, as you did at Jimmy Carter. Stop trying to change information (like numbers and dates) without explanation. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  21:54, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks
MJL, Just wanted to say thanks very much for your kind words over at TE, That was very kind of you so thank you! :), Happy editing, Regards, Dave / – Davey 2010 Talk 00:19, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , It was nothing! I've seen you around, so I figured I would pitch in my two cents is all. :D &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  05:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

NAC
Please reconsider several of your last NACS at AFD. Particularly this one that should have been listed for at least one more day given its constant removal and participation only by the significant contributor. Praxidicae (talk) 13:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I mostly was relisting articles. Of the three I did close, I do stand behind two of them. I should have looked into the Articles_for_deletion/Bernard_Hiller one more before I closed it. I will undo it now. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  13:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am going to relist it even though it has only been 6 days. That would be the simplest way to gather more discussion, I feel. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  13:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  13:27, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Special:Diff/882342840
Hi. Green archive templates are used to close discussions which are successful. See Template:Archive top green/doc. The proposal appears to be failed. It doesn’t really matter if the colours of subdiscussions and main discussion are the same. Cheers. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 14:11, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , there is no mention of the term "successful" or any other requirement in the Archive top green documentation. In fact, it currently gives an example in which no action is taken, and the template is used. I do not understand where this idea it is only used for successful proposals is coming from. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  14:15, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Nvm. I probably mixed that up with other templates. Sorry for disturbing. (But to be honest it gives the feeling of that discussion being successful) ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 14:18, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree it gives that feeling, but I also find it all too useful in distinguishing between sub-discussions. It helps that the archived sub-discussions are blue and yellow which make green in the RYB color model. I figured that would help clear things up on that front. Cheers! &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  14:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Great idea. Thanks for your work. ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 14:24, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

MJL
Generated using XTools on 2019-02-09 14:34

Namespace Totals
— Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 14:35, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Reference desk
Thank you for the notification. --76.69.46.228 (talk) 07:42, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!
I appreciate you recently undoing my rollback. I kind of wigged out when I saw the comment that contained personal info and confused the two IPs with each other. I have already requested oversight on the matter. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:20, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And now I realize that you are in fact the responding oversight user... Welp. Glad that got taken care of. My apologies.  &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  19:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

RfC closing
Hey, you pinged me asking me to close (although the conversation was soon archived). It seems like it's currently too early to close that RfC as it's been open for barely over a week, although if responses continue coming in the way they do it likely will be a very one-sided close. signed,Rosguill talk 17:23, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I appreciate that! Whenever you feel is the most appropriate time to close should be good. Thank you! &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  17:34, 15 February 2019 (UTC)