Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard

RfC on the need for and implementation of a Current events noticeboard
Should there be a noticeboard about maintaining accurate information on article subjects in the news or which are related to current events? &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  22:54, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Support

 * Support, as Proposer. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  22:55, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, now that housekeeping is out of the way; I can go into more details. According to WP:PNB, Noticeboards on Wikipedia are administration pages where editors can ask questions and request assistance from people who are familiar with the policies and guidelines covered by each individual board. As far as I am aware, there is no central place where users can go to ask questions specific to News and Wikipedia. For policies, guidelines, essays, etc. on the site we have: WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BREAKING, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and WP:CAFET (just to name a few). Generally, items in the news see a spike in activity, and I feel it might be valuable to have a single place to go for editors to discuss issues, content, and consensus. What I am proposing specifically is something like Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard as I feel Current Events lie somewhere in the intersection of many different discussion boards. I consider it best for us to attempt at higher standards with articles in Category:Current events. Thank you all for your time. &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  23:42, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Support the nominator has been able to address my concern on whether the noticeboard would be useful. I think that it would be useful when issues and BRD's get out of hand. I see it as the intermediary between AN and the talk page of the article. The idea about WikiProjects talk pages being the place for these discussions may not always be possible, as the activity level of a WikiProject is variable and dependent on many factors (inc. time of the year). Having to rely on their activity for potentially time critical decisions or issues may leave problem(s) with an article for a while, as this issue may not merit a discussion on a more general purpose noticeboard. Having a centralised noticeboard for problems relating to current events which don't merit more general noticeboard discussions seems like a good idea. However, my support is based on the presumption that this noticeboard will be well trafficked and checked by editors experienced in the area of current events. It could end up that editors post there and a few days later someone comes along to help out; this time could have been spent dealing with the problem if it was taken to AN. Therefore, because my argument for support is based on a presumption, I will leave it as a weak support. I don't think that ITN is an appropriate place, as the scope of the proposed page would be for more than just ITN pages. Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 10:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC) (striked part I have later decided is a bit moot)
 * Support The examples in the discussion section convince me that it could be useful. Schazjmd (talk) 20:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Sounds reasonable, probably useful. SemiHypercube 21:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I expect the proposed noticeboard to be heavily used, as there is no central venue for discussing articles on current events. In the news only covers a handful of articles linked from the Main Page, and there are many other articles that would benefit from this noticeboard. Current events attract a lot of traffic. Affected articles become volatile, and the list of affected articles is constantly changing. With this noticeboard, editors who are familiar with handling these types of situations would be able to easily see and contribute to all of the articles of this nature that need attention. —  Newslinger  talk   22:01, 7 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support this is a common problem and a good idea that's worth a trial. Run well, this would be a net positive for our project. --Tom (LT) (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support see my comments below in neutral, hope the good outweighs the harm, need a centralized place to deal with tendentious editors who find their way to current events. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  11:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Please do not feel pressure to !vote support if you still have reservations. I would rather the proposal fail than see it succeed with reluctant supporters. It will be of no offense to me personally. Thank you for your contributions. :D &#8213; MJL -Talk-☖  22:36, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Not to worry-- I just wanted to take my time to think about it. When an article I edit was hit with tendentious editing, I decided those folks would show up, with or without a noticeboard, so may as well have the board!  Best regards, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  01:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Cambalachero (talk) 12:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support Wikipedia has become an important news source for millions. We need a few more mechanisms to help support our efforts in this area and IMO a notice board is more likely to help than hinder. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support ― Abelmoschus Esculentus  ( talk •  contribs ) 08:22, 9 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: We need this: a centralized place to handle urgent issues with high-impact events, for the same reason we need a BLP/N. I share some of the concerns raised by other editors but kudos to the nom for having this well thought-out as reflected in the answers and examples given. I think we're ready to give this a go. The big question is, should it be CE/N or CUR/N? Levivich 07:18, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , you know I never thought about where it will be located. I recommend WP:CUR/N since WP:CE is very associated with Copy Editing. Thank you so much for participating! :D &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:CEN links to Centralized Discussion. CURN is the only available option. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 22:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I think that this is definitely worth a try. Although we have noticeboards for NPOV and RS and BLP, Wikipedia clearly has a hard time dealing with current events (where historical perspective is lacking). And there is something to be said for a noticeboard that comes before the dispute has to go to ANI. I've been concerned for a long time about how we are dealing (or not dealing) with current events, and this strikes me as a very worthwhile idea. --Tryptofish (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support as a good idea worth a try. ~ Rob 13 <sup style="margin-left:-1.0ex;">Talk 01:22, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support - an added safety net to help ensure we're getting the article right. <span style="text-shadow:#F8F8FF 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em,#F4BBFF -0.2em -0.3em 0.6em,#BFFF00 0.8em 0.8em 0.6em;color:#A2006D">Atsme ✍🏻📧 01:37, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support at least as a trial. Too many current events cross BLP and NPOV and RS issues to make those noticeboards necessarily the best place. --M asem (t) 02:07, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support 1 year trial pinged by EEng. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊  16:47, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support: Totally sensible proposal, and something that could be incredibly useful in times of rapidly changing events. GN-z11  ☎  ★ 09:10, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 *  Support - Support as potentially useful. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:11, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support  - I like the idea of a trial period for this. It's a little hard to predict what shape its content will take, but it's true this occupies a great deal of space on other noticeboards. Whether we want to admit it, it concerns something that is (a) important, (b) procedurally controversial, and (c) subject to a wide range of problematic editing, such that it may be useful to centralize the discussions. &mdash; Rhododendrites  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 17:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support It seems the most practical way of attracting a wider variety of editors to these discussions,and keepingtogether discussions which can on occassion overload some of the other noticeboards.  DGG ( talk ) 00:04, 17 February 2019 (UTC) see below changed to oppose
 * Support with caveat that single-article talk page discussions are kept to article talk. This will certainly be a useful noticeboard, e.g. for posting notifications about other discussions (except WP:ITNC). I don't see much room for a systemic basis of POV pushing since everyone agrees that a current event is a current event. w umbolo   ^^^  09:33, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support There are a lot of unresolved questions regarding the coverage of content related to current/recent events. Several of the current practices are questionable and there is a need for further discussion in this area to establish firm, clear and convincing consensuses on inclusion policies. A central noticeboard would help with this. SD0001 (talk) 16:01, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. The WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOT problems (and related ones, like WP:NOT, etc.) are worsening all the time, mainly due to lack of "concentration", as it were, of community consensus results against such non-encyclopedic claptrap.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Support. I see recent news items pop up in AfD a lot because of WP:TOOSOON and WP:NOTNEWS (e.g. a recent one is the 2019 Boeing 737 MAX crisis AfD) so it'd be nice if there were a centralized place to discuss such things prior to creating such an article. So as an example of a possible use case for such a proposed current events noticeboard: Just today, there was that US college bribe scandal, and I was wondering, 'would this deserve an article?', 'did someone already create an article for this?', and 'what existing articles can this news item add to?' Such a noticeboard might be a good place to get prompt answers to such questions. -- Ununseti (talk) 01:26, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Oppose

 * That's what article talk pages are for. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:50, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , I can't even begin to tell you how much I appreciate your dissenting opinion on this matter. Thank you for your participation! &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  14:07, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I think that it would be more effective to WP:REVIVE WikiProject Current events than to create yet another noticeboard. We don't need a central place so that random editors can bring a dispute to a wiki-expert; we need a mobile team of editors who are willing to go directly to the affected articles (and to other noticeboards, e.g., to BLPN for a dispute about a current event involving living people) and solve problems in situ.  The WikiProject format is going to be more effective model than the one in which I sit at my noticeboard and wait for someone to bring me a question.  Noticeboards work better when the problems are small and portable.  The disputes being described here are neither small nor portable.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as placing too much emphasis on violating WP:NOTNEWS. I am however aware that current events since at least June 2016 have been not only highly unusual but also influenced, obscured, obfuscated, deflected, and utterly misrepresented in a concerted effort by multiple international groups, individuals, and publications, and therefore such a noticeboard might have some use. However, as Andy says, that's what article talkpages are for, and what WP:RSN and other venues are for. I would appreciate the opinion of, for instance, and  on the matter. -- Softlavender (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm aware of this RfC but haven't commented because it is pretty hard to judge whether this noticeboard would be helpful or not until it is actually created and used - simply because it depends on who (if any) shows up and what sort of issues are brought there. Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:18, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * ,, and , I would very much be okay with a one-year trial. That certainly could also possibly address and others' concerns as well. The noticeboard is quite different because there is no Current Events policy unlike other noticeboards. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  18:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I cannot for the life of me figure out why violating NOTNEWS would be considered a good thing. Is too much emphasis on not violating NPOV next? And anyway, the existence of a noticeboard does not mean that only a single kind of opinion would be tolerated there. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Beats me; I don't work here. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, They are entitled to their concerns. I am not in the position of validating them or whatnot. I just try to address them. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * OPPOSE - as running contrary to multiple WP, and functional issues. First, the talk pages are the place to talk about content per WP:TALK so this would seem setting up a competing location fighting against that, and also functionally having two locations of discussion would make it harder to identify where an edit was discussed or even have two differing consensus. It would need additional guidance and work to have things untangled, and just not worth having things tangled.   Second, there really should be a 48-hour waiting period... this would obviously run contrary to NOTNEWS, BREAKING, CRYSTAL, CAFETERIA, etcetera, and less obviously it would run against DUE and NPOV.  Functionally, it simply takes a while for the WEIGHT of something to develop, and for responses and further info to emerge.  Plugging in that mornings feed simply is poor practice as the daily viral usually seems to not last and too often turns out to die due to falsehood.  I have seen it repeatedly at the Donald Trump page, most recently the Buzzfeed flap, that posting this morning feed wastes tons of editor time on OR assertions and speculation.  Posting each story du jour also simply winds up a poor narrative quality in a disjointed diary collection of mostly unremarkable tidbits.   Ultimately, not EVERY mornings NYT lead is going to be a major historical item and the only way we can reliably know is in retrospect of at least a few days to see if it grows or dies.  It’s also just not worth the loss in quality and reliability to be going on with the latest half-baked emerging info.  Quality lies at least partly in restraint.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:02, 17 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose We already have a place where people pontificate about the news of the day – WP:ITN/C. We see some polarisation there – sports vs science; UK vs US; good news vs bad news – and the results are not very edifying or productive.  It's not clear what value the proposed noticeboard would add to this.  Items in the news such as The Independent Group already attract attention and discussion on their talk pages.  Another noticeboard would tend to generate forum shopping and canvassing. Andrew D. (talk) 11:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Markbassett. If you want to keep up to date what are current events, go to Category:Current events. If you wish to discuss them, use their talk page. And if it's about what appears on main page, WP:ITN/Cis the place. If there are behavioral, RS or BLP issues there, the noticeboards already exist. I can't see much of a purpose for this. --Pudeo (talk) 10:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Oppose as unnecessary  the controversial current events discussions are already sufficiently prominent that we do not really need to advertise them further. The net effect of this would be to add another layer to the disputes on those subjects, which is the last thing we need.   I originally supported, but I now think this i more likely to fragment discussions than centralize them.  DGG ( talk ) 20:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral

 * While I don't see anything bad with the proposal or idea, I am neutral because the proposal and extra info does not really explain if there is a need for such a noticeboard. I understand that if it exists, editors and readers will find it and so it will be used, but have there been cases relating to current events where such a noticeboard would have helped? I think if such a need is shown, so that the noticeboard would then be useful, I would move to support. Dreamy <i style="color:#d01e1e">Jazz</i> 🎷 talk to me &#124; my contributions 17:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC) moved to support
 * Neutral for now, as I too am not immediately seeing a need for this. Wikipedia talk:In the news and In the news/Candidates do good jobs regarding articles for the ITN section of the main page. For more general discussion of article content, I'd expect that subject-specific noticeboeards/wikiproject pages would be more useful as editors there will be more familiar with events of the type that has happened, where to look for good sources and what (parts of) news reports written by non-specialists are useful and which (bits) are just nonsense or trivia. Beyond enough clueful people to repeatedly say that WP:NOTNEWS is a guideline that needs interpretation (not an absolute prohibition on covering news events) and that long lists of formulaic tweets from random celebrities are not encyclopaedic (if they belong anywhere it's on Wikiquote) I'm not sure what value a new noticeboard will bring. Thryduulf (talk) 23:40, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm neutral here - I've nominated pages at ITNC that clearly weren't ready simply because they were about high-profile current events and needed more editors. It's technically against the rules, but IAR is a rule too.  If this makes it easier to find editors for articles such as 2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis I'm all for it -- but that article is already on the main page and suffering for a lack of contributors (there are about 4 good editors there who are overwhelmed by the IPs and news updates), so I'm not sure a noticeboard will help. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 17:08, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Re four overwhelmed, yes. What we need is help from bilinguals, help keeping the talk page in order, help dealing with WP:TEND, etc.  A good deal of time is spent dealing with socks, NOTAFORUM, and POV pushers, and just generally trying to understand what IPs are asking for on talk. Will a noticeboard provide that, or will it become just another noticeboard for power-hungry bullies to congregate (eg COIN)?   My other concern is that informing even good, neutral, experienced Wikipedians about context and history re Venezuelan events so they can make helpful edits takes considerable time; in the absence of a free press or independent judiciary, even helpful Wikipedians need a lot of background to help inform their edits.  How can a noticeboard help with that problem, or will it exacerbate it?  How can a noticeboard help good editors with good intentions, who aren't accustomed to editing in an environment of freedom of press limitations, better participate?   I am wanting to be convinced one way or another, but my overall experience with noticeboards is that they become a gathering place for abusive and uninformed tribalism. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:40, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have moved to support, because what else can we do, but my prediction is that the tenditious editors who show up on every current event will just use the board as a gathering place for coordinating their POV launches. Let's hope I'm wrong.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  13:47, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Discussion

 * Can you explain your rationale behind having this? --DannyS712 (talk) 23:33, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , I am glad you asked! Currently almost done typing as we speak. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:36, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * , Done.
 * and, actually I have a few examples where a Current events noticeboard could be helpful.
 * Example One, Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 January 30 and Articles for deletion/2018–2019 Iranian general strikes and protests. Both of these discussions are unrelated to one another. At issue for both is a needed understanding on the current importance of this event and what details are needed for this encyclopedia. What would be most helpful for these articles is if they were discussed in a centralized location where editors who understand the context behind these events can contribute. At the least, a central noticeboard could have been used to notify users of both discussions.
 * Example Two, while I do like WP:ITN and WP:ITN/C, neither are meant to discuss specific articles. Whether or not Maidan Shar attack or the Taliban should be tagged with Current currently is (and probably shouldn't always) be discussed on there.
 * Example Three, it is also decently well known that articles and links on the front page are more heavily vandalized. The difficulty with articles WP:ITN is that the facts are not always clear. It is also more difficult to manage since generally people may make edits on less well trafficked articles related to the event. Determining consensus in those events is much more difficult. For example, whether or not Qatar supports the Taliban. Obviously, the talk page could simply handle this for the most part, but a noticeboard would be a nice alternative to bring attention to these issues.
 * Example Four, Juan Guaidó had numerous content disputes.     This is an event where details can change by the minute. If it were not for  and  working so diligently to make sure it was accurate, it would be a completely different article. We can't rely on editors like them for every single article, though.
 * As for why a wikiproject would not be sufficient, it could be, but I don't know how appropriate it would be. My concern with current events is similar to WP:BLP. I feel like we should have similar standards to BLP for Current Events. Why? During a current event, Wikipedia is one of the immediate search results to come up despite WP:NOTNEWS. I suspect people do this for background information on a subject (like how I might look up Jussie Smollett after the 2019 attack to learn a bit about who he is or for a refresher). Getting the wrong information in those cases can do serious damage to not only our credibility but for the health and wellbeing of others.
 * So there you have it! :D &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  01:58, 1 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Question what's wrong with reaching out to the various wikiprojects for input when an article in their area of interest is also a current event? As a "regular" at ITN/C, my concern with your proposal is a narrow cabal of informal arbiters determining the "significance" of article content in a wide range of topics simply because the article is a current event. --LaserLegs (talk) 12:32, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I suppose I have not considered whether the noticeboard being something like WP:CABAL. I suppose that is sort of an issue with all WP:CONTENTDISPUTE Forums, but you are probably right that it is exacerbated by a board having a narrower subject matter. Not to diminish your concern, but I am sort of failing to see how WP:FTN does not have sort of the same issues as the ones you described. I'm not saying they do a bad job, but theoretically that could be the case. This might not happen there because a noticeboard is supposed to bring more attention to an issue (not less) by leaving things more transparent. The ad hoc way we go about things related to current events kind of have leaves people with less of a voice in the matter if they have trouble navigating the system. As for why one can't reach out to the WikiProjects, I don't feel like that would go away with this noticeboard. In fact, when that does happen, members of the project will be able to have a place to alert more people of the issue. The job of this noticeboard would be to make those decisions that they already have to make more timely. Did I answer your question because I hope so? &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks MJL, you did, and it could be my concern is itself a fringe theory. Thanks. --LaserLegs (talk) 22:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Question: What about ongoing or failed nominations for ITN, or articles that have not been nominated but there is a dispute about something that is in the news nonetheless? This noticeboard would cover them too? Have in mind that, at any given time, there are hundreds of articles that are "in the news" in some capacity, but only a selected handful are featured at the ITN section of the main page. Cambalachero (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , yes ongoing and failed nominations for WP:ITN as well as articles that have not been nominated would be covered by this notice board but only if there is some sort of issue relating to content. I suspect that ITN articles on the main page would be frequent flyers for this board, however as they are more traffic'd. Thank you for your question! &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:25, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Comment: Have in mind that topics in the news may usually involve stub or faulty articles, or even with no written articles yet (either because it's a new topic, or because the topic was overlooked until now). You should add links to the pages about creation and improvement of articles (and also when not to create new articles, despite the news). Cambalachero (talk) 00:34, 3 February 2019 (UTC) Comment: Seeing this RfC reminded me of similar ideas we had in a research paper back in 2015 (see Signpost coverage here). One of the things we looked into was whether the most popular articles showed signs of stable popularity, or whether they were breaking news events that had short-term significant changes in popularity. We found that 46% of the most popular articles (over the course of a month) showed signs of spikes in popularity, and suggested that Wikipedia could benefit from a "rapid response team" that could work on those articles. I expect that this to some extent already happens, but having a central place for discussion and coordination seems to me to be a good idea. Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 15:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Comment there seems to be consensus to at least try this out. Can we perhaps get an early close?  We don't need too much bureaucracy here.  In the meantime, the 2019 Nigerian general election (scheduled for today GMT) appear to be postponed; current events editors may want to watch that page over the next 10 days. power~enwiki ( π,  ν ) 16:34, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * , by all means you or another user are welcome to close it. I know I am having enough trouble as it is updating National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States (luckily, no deadline... but still..). This news cycle has been killer on me. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  16:49, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm too involved to close the discussion, but I may create the page later today (with the caveat that it will be G6/G7 deleted if there is a consensus here not to have the page). power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 16:55, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My advice would be to keep it open longer. It hasn't really been open that long, in that RfCs typically stay open for a month unless the responses are pretty much unanimous, and this one is important enough to be listed at WP:CENT. There could still be useful input from editors who have yet to respond. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:25, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I created Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard/Header so people can try to collaborate on how to describe this noticeboard in parallel with the request for comments. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:51, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

HouseKeeping / Notifications
This RfC is being posted in the following locations: &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:22, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Village pump (proposals)
 * Portal talk:Current events
 * Wikipedia talk:Noticeboards
 * Wikipedia talk:In the news
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Current events
 * Including the Talk pages of its participants
 * Wikipedia talk:Recentism
 * Wikipedia talk:Don't misuse the Current Events template
 * Also on WP:POST/N/S —  python coder    (talk &#124; contribs) 13:27, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Added to WP:CENT by . &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL  -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  13:37, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

I've also transcluded it on my Talk Page for my own convenience. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  14:04, 8 February 2019 (UTC)  Stricken and removed. &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

Further mentioned or Located at: &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  01:32, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * User talk:MJL/Archive 4
 * Requests for comment/Wikipedia proposals
 * Requests for comment/WikiProjects and collaborations
 * Requests for comment/Politics, government, and law
 * User talk:Dreamy Jazz
 * Village pump (all)
 * User talk:Swarm
 * User talk:Yellowdesk

Arbitrary Break
Later mentioned: &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  03:23, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC.
 * Template talk:Current events

Spur-of-the-moment Mentions:
 * Talk:2019 American Declaration of a State of Emergency — Preceding unsigned comment added by MJL (talk • contribs) 17:10, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Plus...
 * Added to Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed
 * In a reply at Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis
 * &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  15:42, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Previous Comment on Village Pumped
I just opened up a RfC. Please check it out! :D &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  23:12, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * (moved. from here) &#8213; <em style="color:black">MJL -Talk-<sup style="font-size:75%">☖  20:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)