User talk:MJL/Archive 9

Xtool stats
Generated using XTools on 2019-05-06 18:39

Global edit counts (approximate)
* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

Time card
All times are in UTC.

Rights changes
All times are in UTC. – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Timecard proves you're not getting enough sleep :-) Leviv&thinsp;ich 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
 * This is probably true. I never used to stay up that late, but now.... &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

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:

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
 * Cscr-featured.svg The Evil IP address' Heading Editor


 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Newslinger's Notifier* Suffusion of Yellow's View Source
 * BrandonXLF: To Top Button* Restorer* Easy Summary* Subpage Mover


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Evad37: Xunlink (v2.0.0, handles portals)* XFDcloser (v3.13.0, upgrades at TfD and removal of backlinks, minor tweaks and fixes)
 * Twinkle (commit 26305a2, major updates to csd, xfd, and tag menus, additional improvements to other smaller features)


 * Farm-Fresh error go.png DannyS712 is now maintaining Visual editing, a fork of Flooded with them hundreds' VisualEditist script

Pending requests
 * Twinkle for mobile
 * Working with "psuedo-headings"
 * ...and many more, all available at User scripts/Requests



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

About the newsletter

Subscription options

Discuss this issue

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)
 * that sounds awesome; thank you!! :D &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

Modified summary report
Oh look, another xtools report to keep myself accountable!

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

Global edit counts (approximate)
* 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.

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

Signed, – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * What's Hot! (battle of the hairs?)
 * Articles (Deny Recognition, Wikipedia's Welcome Page!)
 * The Wikipedian This month we interview an Ip editor!
 * News about Wikipedia! (Wikipedia News and Events!)
 * Editor's Notes (New Sections to Main Page!)
 * Activity Page (Fun Activities, and answers to last time's questions...)
 * Ads (Ads)

May 2019
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 &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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 &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 18:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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&thinsp;ich 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
 * I ain't worried about that dude. I'm clearly an UNBLOCKABLE now that I have written our article on Cod Island. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 21:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * 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. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

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)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * From the editors: Picture that


 * News and notes: Wikimania and trustee elections


 * In the media: Politics, lawsuits and baseball


 * Discussion report: Admin abuse leads to mass-desysop proposal on Azerbaijani Wikipedia


 * Recent research: Wikipedia more useful than academic journals, but is it stealing the news?


 * Arbitration report: ArbCom forges ahead


 * News from the WMF: Wikimedia Foundation petitions the European Court of Human Rights to lift the block of Wikipedia in Turkey


 * Traffic report: Dark marvels, thrones, a vile serial killer biopic, that's entertainment!


 * Technology report: Lots of Bots


 * Essay: Paid editing

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 02:14, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
 * From the archives: FORUM:Should Wikimedia modify its terms of use to require disclosure?

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:

Scripts Submit your new/improved script here
 * Cscr-featured.svg userRightsManager


 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Opencooper's domainRedirect* Danski454's hotcat-summary* Guywan's 12HourFormat* DannyS712's Subcategories


 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Twinkle (commit 53b6bf4)

Pending requests
 * Help with helping
 * List annotator
 * ...and many more, all available at User scripts/Requests



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

About the newsletter

Subscription options

Discuss this issue

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 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 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)

Conduct dispute at Talk:China–United States trade war
Even with the recent cuts, the article is still too long. Should we consider splitting off China%E2%80%93United States trade war? – MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * First, full disclosure: 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, &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * [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. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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). &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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? &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * [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:, , , , myself, and now  (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. &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk'‐☖ 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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??? &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 00:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * 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)

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:

and

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.

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)

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)

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 &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as that took my offwiki advice and stuck  comments, this section is not needed. I invite  to follow this good example set by Viztor. { &#8211;  MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019
 News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia
 * News and notes: An Action Packed April


 * In the media: Is Wikipedia just another social media site?


 * Discussion report: English Wikipedia community's conclusions on talk pages


 * Featured content: Anguish, accolades, animals, and art


 * Arbitration report: An Active Arbitration Committee


 * Traffic report: Mötley Crüe, Notre-Dame, a black hole, and Bonnie and Clyde


 * Technology report: A new special page, and other news


 * Gallery: Notre-Dame de Paris burns


 * News from the WMF: Can machine learning uncover Wikipedia’s missing “citation needed” tags?


 * Recent research: Female scholars underrepresented; whitepaper on Wikidata and libraries; undo patterns reveal editor hierarchy


 * From the archives: Portals revisited


 * Humour: Jimbo and Larry walk into a bar ...


 * Opinion: The gaps in our knowledge of our gaps


 * Interview: Katherine Maher marks 3 years as executive director


 * Community view: 2019 Wikimedia Summit gathers movement affiliate representatives to discuss movement strategy

Read this Signpost in full · Single-page · Unsubscribe · Global message delivery 17:38, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

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 &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * , 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 &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar in return

 * I second that! You have our gratitude and appreciation, MJL, for all of your contributions and help!!! --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ (talk &#9993; &#124; contribs &#9998;) 12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
 * 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 &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

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)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Swedish_Levant_Company help desk] .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Help with party page
Please see Talk:Green_Party_of_California, please and thank you. Stevemario (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC) )

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrea Lewis (Jamaica)


A tag has been placed on Andrea Lewis (Jamaica) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * lol you beat me to it. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * not sure why, but I had the page watchlisted and saw your move --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel that. I have 5361 pages in my watchlist at the moment. I have no clue how most got there. &#8211; MJL &thinsp;‐Talk‐☖ 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps
You are invited to join the discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps. You might be interested to read my last comment. Also, thankfully, peer-reviewed stuff are still the scholarship-standard, not Twitter. &#x222F; WBG converse 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)