User talk:MJL/Archive 5-1

Closure on refdesk question

Hi MJL,

I was somewhat alarmed to read that you are considering closing the discussion (I assume you meant the Question II discussion, about closing the desks?) as "no consensus". It is not "no consensus". There is a clear consensus not to close the refdesks, and I very strongly recommend that that is how the discussion should be closed. --Trovatore (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Trovatore, I see you found this which caused me to say what I said. I really didn't mean any specific question, but I was more so referring to the main proposal and not the shut down proposal. Trust me, I have read a lot of the comments since I typed that as well. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 03:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Which discussions are you closing, exactly? All or (II), only ? ∯WBG^converse 15:00, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, the main thread unless you have objections to a {{nac}}. I was going to get co-close with DannyS712. However, by all means you are welcome to close in our place. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 15:29, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

So I guess all. The problem is that both the initial proposal and Proposal II are rather thinked with many people making their !votes contingent on one or the other passing. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 15:31, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Any progress on this? --JBL (talk) 17:46, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Joel B. Lewis, I have yet to hear back from Winged Blades of Godric, so I put it on hold until then. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:18, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I am so sorry to have missed your initial ping and for the consequent delay in yours' closing. Please proceed with your close and I have confidence in your abilities:-) ∯WBG^converse 18:26, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

WBG & Joel B. Lewis, I just closed the discussion. Thank you both for your support! ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 05:49, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry

Thanks for cleaning up after me. I'm sorry for not realizing that I wasn't fully following Wikipedia's rules. I'll propose my edits in the talk page in the future. Sorry to make more work for you and thanks for not getting frustrated with me. Csmithepe (talk) 16:58, 11 February 2019 (UTC)Csmithepe

Csmithepe, Haha, it's nothing! I saw you were trying to follow the rules, so I wanted to help you out. If there is any questions you may have, please feel free to post here (or email me). Thank you so much for your understanding and patience with the process! :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Rollback

Hi MJL. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:Administrators' guide/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! ~Swarm~ {talk} 10:59, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD closure

Thanks a lot for closing this CfD discussion! However, you should be aware that as the closer you should remove the CfD tags from the category pages so that it is clear that the categories are currently no longer discussed at CfD, and you should add "Old cfd" templates on the category talk pages so that it is easy to track the history of the categories in CfD discussions. More detailed information about closing CfD discussions can be found here. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, My apologies! I was under the false impression that WP:XFDC did this automatically. Maybe I should change my vote in Evad37's Request for adminship! (Just kidding). I will try not to make that mistake again, and I am very glad you informed me of this matter! It's all set now. :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:37, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

XFDcloser doesn't do much at CFDs compared to the other venues (and this is noted in the close dialog), but it is getting better – see WT:XFDC#WP:CFD relists? - Evad37 [talk] 07:43, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

No apologies needed, it is a misunderstanding that is occurring frequently. I would love to have XFD closer doing all that stuff automatically too. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Lole484

I wanted to address your question at the above report. I know you would like to be an SPI clerk, and I think it would be more useful to respond to your question in light of that wish. Many people gain SPI experience by filing reports, either new cases or new reports about existing cases. One of the primary roles of a clerk is to analyze reports. Identifying socks can only be done by analyzing their behavior first. Commenting on other editors' reports can be helpful but generally only if you are adding evidence that materially proves or disproves socking. In that scenario, you are doing the same thing as when filing a report yourself: you are analyzing the behavior of the users involved. Based on what I've seen, I think it's premature for you to be a clerk. You need to (a) gain more experience and (b) demonstrate that you have an aptitude for the job; it's not for everyone. I hope that helps.--Bbb23 (talk) 12:22, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

Bbb23, if that is how you feel, then I will respect it. Thank you for reviewing my contributions. I will take these suggestions to heart moving forward. I appreciate this response! :) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:39, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD Macedonia

Would you be willing to revert the procedural closure of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_16#North_Macedonia? The RFC is most obviously not going to change the new article name while the RFC also does not directly discuss the category names, so this CfD discussion needs to take place anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:19, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Marcocapelle. The article name was changed via RM on 8 Feb and the category should follow suit via cfd. The RFC concerns the wording of the article, not its name. Oculi (talk) 10:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with Marcocapelle and Oculi. This was an inappropriate non-admin closure (see WP:BADNAC#2), because it is a controversial closure.

The article name of the country has already been agreed at Talk:North Macedonia#Requested_move_8_February_2019, where the closer @MSGJ noted an overwhelming consensus that now is the right time to move this article.

The adjectival forms are indeed being discussed at the RFC, but they have been explicitly excluded from the CFD. So the CFD and RFC can run in parallel. Please revert your closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:43, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

PS See also WP:NAC#Other_deletion_discussions: "In general, XfDs other than AfDs and RfDs are probably not good candidates for non-admin closure, except by those who have extraordinary experience in the XfD venue in question".

So far as I am aware, you don't have that extraordinary experience of CFD. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Marcocapelle, Oculi, BrownHairedGirl, Is there not a way to move the discussion to the RfC? Under Non-contentious housekeeping, we are also deciding whether or not to endorse the article name change. I would suggest I do one of the following with your permission: (Order is in my preference)

1. Amend Non-contentious housekeeping Proposal A to include categories and notify everyone who has participated so far about this change.
2. Amend Non-contentious housekeeping without making such notification and make a note of a change under the discussion section.
3. Creat a seperate section title Categories and have the CfD process there take place.
4. Add this question under the section titled Other proposals.
5. Revert the changes I made and do this like normal.

Thank you all for your patience with me. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 16:44, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MJL, this is not complicated. You are not an admin, so you should not have closed this discussion. Please just revert your close.

If you want to link from the RFC to the CFD, then please do so ... but categories are discussed at CFD. There currently ~650 category pages pointing to a discussion which has been improperly closed, so this is needs urgent attention.

Please reopen it promptly, or I will escalate this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:18, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

• Adding a link in the RFC to the CFD discussion is the best solution indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, @MJL, for reverting the close.

However I remain very disappointed that it took so many rounds to persuade you to revert a close which you (as a non-admin) should not have made. This iss is especially poor since you waited just 2 minutes between initially notifying me of your concerns about the CFD[1] and then closing it.[2] --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:59, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, I'm sorry about not waiting a bit longer before closing it after that first comment, okay? However, can we please just keep discussion in one place for now? I can't keep bouncing around all these different pages. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 20:54, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Notice of noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding your failure to revert your controversial non-admin closure of the mass CFD on North Macedonia. The thread is "Reversal sought of non-admin CFD closure". Thank you. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl Thank you for the notice. I will providing a comprehensive response shortly. I am currently on my phone and with family. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 18:51, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

@MJL, this is a very poor response which is now starting to look like wilful disruption.

The CFD remains closed, at what would otherwise be a peak time for comments.

The point remains simply that a) for all the reasons above the CFD should not have been closed, and your suggestion of redirecting discussion to sub-part of a huge RFC is disruptive; b) regardless of your view on that, this should not have been a non-admin close.

Per WP:ADMINACCT, admins are required to respond promptly to concerns, and have repeatedly been warned not to participate in admin actions where they will not be available for followup. The admin action which you undertook here requires the same level of attention.

Please stop spinning this out. Just revert your closure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:CENT

MJL, in your last post to the WP:AN discussion, you asked in the edit summary Was it really necessary to undo the removal I made at WP:CENT?

I can't reply there, because that discussion was closed. So I'll reply here.

The answer is yes. There is a proposal to rename ~650 categories, in a topic area which has been highly controversial. So it is important that any decision reflects a broad consensus; that's why I listed it at WP:CENT.

If the CFD was closed, then obviously it should be removed from WP:CENT. But once that CFD was re-opened, it was right to restore it at WP:CENT. There's nothing personal about that either way.

Look, I'm very sorry to read that that you feel upset about the way this went. As volunteers, we all edit en.wp as a pastime, and it's horrible when that pastime makes us feel bad.

I really do hope that this won't put you off. In my first few years of editing, I had several v traumatic bruising episodes which made me want to just close my account and never edit here again. I just took short beaks, and came back to less difficult areas. In hindsight, I would have done some things v differently. There are other things which I reckon I should just have left to others; and there are other areas where I reckon I should have chosen my timing better, and not entered controversy until I felt more able for it. (I now keep a long list of things to tackle some day when I feel my my flame-proof overalls have been massively upgraded). I still make a fool of myself from time to time, but I've found a way of handling that as no big deal; just another lesson. As they say "If you're not making some mistakes, it probably means you're not trying hard enough".

I don't want to say what lessons you should draw from this. That's up to you, and since we ended up at loggerheads, my thoughts wouldn't help. But I will say that learning from episodes like this is what turns a good editor like yourself into a great one.

Best wishes, --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:22, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

BrownHairedGirl, Trust me. I don't take anything personally for too long. I edited my userboxes for an hour to catch my spirits up. I will probably just refrain from CfD's from now on. There seems to be a lot of processes there that I simply don't understand. Regardless, I personally hope you do not take my actions today as a reflection on my capabilities as an editor nor as indicative of how future interactions with me will go. I will work cooperatively with everyone and anyone for this project, so I have taken to heart the idea to not let past disputes shut the door on being kind to anyone. Thank you for hashing things out with me. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hey, yesterday was yesterday.

I try very hard not to remember disputes, because the overwhelming majority of them involve some sort of misunderstanding and/or some point in people's mood cycles which happened to collide. If the same pattern repeats a lot, I do eventually start to take notice, but one disagreement is best left as water under a bridge.

Here's to new bridges! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:24, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Hang in there

	Tomorrow will be better
	You make a lot of valuable contributions to Wikipedia, don't let a bad day get to you! Schazjmd (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Schazjmd, thank you. This made me feel a lot better. :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:21, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for helping cleaning-up National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States. Admittedly, it was a pretty bad mess when I first started writing on it. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 00:58, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Assist With Article

Hey, I feel somewhat embarrassed to ask you this: but do you know how I can add the 2019 Siena survey to historical rankings of presidents of the United States? The article is typically updated when a new survey comes out, but I'm not very good with the code that Wikipedia uses. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 01:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ExclusiveWillows, I would be fine with doing it for you, but it seems you indicated that this seems like something you want to learn about. We have Help:Table which has some pretty comprehensive information. If you would like me to give you a step-by-step guide on what you would need to do to add the survey to the article. How specifically would you like me to help? ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 01:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

My particular difficulty would be with the tables. (See the 2010 Siena + "Overall Aggregate Rankings") Coding for the table might be much more advanced, so I'll probably just ask someone on the article's talk page to do it. ExclusiveWillows (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

ExclusiveWillows, nah I can do it. No need! :D ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 04:13, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

 Semi-done ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 04:59, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Quikjet Airlines

I did not read the outcome of the discussion as a consensus for or against any outcome. Opinions favoring merging or redirecting the article effectively support the removal of an article at this title. bd2412 T 21:29, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

The Resilient Barnstar- City Express Money Transfer

Dear MJL, Thanks for understanding me and accepting my article. I am much grateful to you and other editors as well. May I ask, when my article will go live? Your suraj (talk) 08:28, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your suraj, I do not have an exact answer for you sadly. Legacypac ideally would know better than myself. ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 14:15, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Your suraj, in case you did not see: your article (City Express Money Transfer) just went live. CongratulatioNs! ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 17:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Dear MJL, Thanks a lot my friend. I am much grateful to you and other editors. Your kind co-operation is highly appreciated. Your suraj (talk) 03:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Arbitration motion

The arbitrators are considering a motion related to a clarification request which you filed. The motion can be found at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Clarification and Amendment#Motion: Manning naming dispute. For the Arbitration Committee, Bradv🍁 14:31, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the warm welcome

Thank you very much Mr. Long for the warm welcome and your kind words. I would like also to thank you for the useful links and tips that you offered. It will take me some time to learn the intricacies of the Wikipedia editor community but until then I can offer you a piece of 🍰. --Despotak (talk) 16:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Despotak, it's nothing! If there is anything I can do for you, please do not hesitate to ask. Also, thank you for the cake!! (PS: If you would like to send WikiLove, you can click that heart icon at the top while on a user's talk page. There's some pretty great treats!) ―MJL -Talk-^☖ 16:55, 14 February 2019 (UTC)