Jump to content

User talk:MJL/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rathasena Mata Temple

[edit]

I am a local resident and you have made all incorrect edits on the page. Here is the location. &oq=Rathasena+Mata+Temple&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3.382j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&npsic=0&rflfq=1&rlha=0&rllag=24648912,73719018,9699&tbm=lcl&rldimm=4930708951284837845&phdesc=8bqqaZy9aBM&ved=2ahUKEwi2gY6d9pvjAhVIWH0KHVOtCFsQvS4wAXoECAoQHA&rldoc=1&tbs=lrf:!2m1!1e2!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:1#rlfi=hd:;si:4930708951284837845,y,8bqqaZy9aBM;mv:!1m2!1d24.7418349!2d73.7524263!2m2!1d24.5559896!2d73.68561129999999!3m12!1m3!1d90052.3119031042!2d73.71901879999999!3d24.64891225!2m3!1f0!2f0!3f0!3m2!1i98!2i298!4f13.1;tbs:lrf:!2m1!1e2!3sIAE,lf:1,lf_ui:1 Meeanaya (talk) 18:46, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Meeanaya: Dang, my bad. Can you please write out the name of the temple in your native language? Your link doesn't work for me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:50, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have corrected the page.Meeanaya (talk) 18:51, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thank you so much MeeMee!! !–MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:52, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please add correct co-ordinates from https://www.google.com/maps/place/Shri+Rathasena+Mataji+Mandir/@24.7318789,73.7488469,15z/data=!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0x446d65aacc2bedd5?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwijnq-M-JvjAhUBSX0KHRkqAwkQ_BIwD3oECAoQCA Meeanaya (talk) 18:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MeeMee:  Done Thank you for your patience, and I left a personalized welcome message on your talk. You seem to know what your doing though (better than me actually haha). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:08, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WV restoration(s)

[edit]

Hello, have another article need restoring, the very funny John Hamblin, have also added a special radio interview, recorded in 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 16:14, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done WV, you have the most amazing timing. Whenever I'm feeling down, one of your requests cheers me up! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:18, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, need help to restore article, references, external links and categories etc, had some conflict with this one, Queenie Ashton — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.2.16 (talk) 03:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done As always, let me know if you have additional trouble. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:48, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, yes i will, next article Edward Howell (actor), thank-you kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.2.16 (talk) 12:47, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:46, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. I was wondering. Your friend is making a lot of edits with very little explanation. Perhaps you can impress on them that in a collaborative environment edit summaries/explanations are really mandatory, and prevent quick reverts. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 14:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Drmies: Understood, I will explain this concept to WV. I appreciate the understanding and patience on your part in the meantime! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Put a barnstar on it!

[edit]
The Userpage Barnstar
In recognition of the humblingly brutal honesty you evince on your Wall of Shame. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:17, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@The Man in Question: Lol thank you.
My barnstars are my strict positive section, and my wall is the strict negative. Now it feels like I'm being rewarded for my mistakes, though. Maybe accepting this is going to somehow create a paradox that will inevitably end back up on the wall. Attribution: Twitter (CC-BY-4.0) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:29, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
A mistake is a mistake and deserves no award. Owning up to your mistakes, however, does. One of the five pillars is civility, and this is an important part of it. — the Man in Question (in question) 22:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your help, good communication is appreciated! Shelyric (talk) 13:56, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Council proposals

[edit]

I suggest dropping the stick and walking away from this, as you are edit warring to cover up your prejudice against an active proposal. -- Netoholic @ 15:17, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you finally have chosen to discuss this with me. Let's look at the timeline:
  • 00:07, 5 July 2019 - RL0919 closes the MFD as keep and a note that MFD shouldn't be needed to close another discussion. - [1]
  • 01:44, 5 July 2019 - I close Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/Men as not created to avoid future drama. - [2]
  • 06:53, 7 July 2019 - You revert me citing (what essentially is) WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS - [3]
  • 14:12, 7 July 2019 - I restore my close saying I was aware of the other proposals (because I've read them before) and that you should post on my talk page if you want me to self-revert as you are WP:INVOLVED.
  • 14:44, 7 July 2019 - I then start clerking the backlogged project because multiple people have said it was a mess. I assumed you would AGF and included a removal of the (then closed) Proposed WikiProject Men - [4]
  • 15:03, 7 July 2019 - You reverted most of my housekeeping without an explanation. A minute later, I reverted you saying it was unexplained. [5]
  • 15:05, 7 July 2019 - You accuse me of making changes per WP:POINT with an additional revert - [6]
  • 15:10, 7 July 2019 - This causes me to have a massive edit conflict that was completely avoidable by posting to my talk page. [7][8]
  • 15:14, 7 July 2019 - You begin casting aspersions against me and make clear that the only reason for your reverts was the single removal of your proposal. Nevermind you restored all the dead links, archived proposals, nonsense, and the like. Let's not forget the fact, I offered to self-revert were you to posted on my talk page, so we could discuss. Nope. Instead, you claimed that I was acting out of process because apparently there is no WikiProject Council process which uses such a "closure". Not to mention you claimed I was trying to hide your proposal among all the maintenance which is woefully untrue. - [9][10]
  • 15:17, 7 July 2019 - You post to my talk page with your opinion that I drop the stick and to cast additional aspirations against me.
@Netoholic: Tell me where I went wrong besides disagreeing with you. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:48, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget that you also "closed" it as a non-admin and in which you are WP:INVOLVED. You should selfrevert on that basis alone. Also, since you've never "clerked" that page before, it's clear you doing so to obfuscate your delisting of that active Men proposal. --Netoholic @ 17:46, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netoholic: Wow. There's a lot of WP:ABF there. Also, I did not participate in that discussion, so I was not involved. The closing admin said that the MFD was unrelated to the proposal, so it wasn't taken into account. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:55, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You voted close in the MFD, you can't then be the one to implement such a close. Tell me where on Wikipedia it is acceptable to do that? --Netoholic @ 00:05, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: That particular MFD had no bearing on the results of my close. MFD:WP:WPPRO/MEN was explicitly closed leaving that option open for any editor to decide. I would say any user besides UnitedStatesian and yourself who commented there should not be considered involved based of the plain reading (and intent) of the guideline. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:56, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So let's recap, prior to me WP:CLOSECHALLENGE this to the AN:
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Council has no stated procedure, requirement, or precedent for any proposal to be "closed" (most are instead archived after either a WikiProject has been started or after a very long time of being listed.
  • You voted "close" in the MFD, making you automatically WP:INVOLVED in such a closure.
  • You're a non-admin.
  • You've never "clerked" the Council Proposals page before, and seem to have done so only in furtherance of your desire to delist the Men proposal, despite it being one of the newest proposals listed.
  • You've edit-warred in furtherance of the above "closure" and delisting.
Despite insisting that I bring this to your talk page, you continue to not see the errors you've committed in the above, and continue to refuse to self-revert. Your actions seem to be based more upon using procedural tactics in opposition to this proposed article improvement WikiProject, rather than a genuine desire to improve Wikipedia. I continue to be amazed at the extreme lengths people will go through rather than let just let the proposal sit listed. If you think this proposal is bad, then surely no one will sign up and it will naturally be archived in a couple years by an uninvolved editor. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: (1) They do have a stated procedure, but it hasn't been followed in years. (2) I keep saying that the closing admin found that the MFD could not be used to close the proposal. My !vote there was effectively null. (3) So? This wasn't a WP:BADNAC. (4) I've always wanted to clerk it, but I have never had business that brought me back to that page. When I was a young Wikipedian, I had dreams of starting my own WikiProject using that page. The fact it was a mess that no one used was rather off-putting to me. (5) You're joking, right? I didn't even come close to violating WP:3RR. I reverted you twice for both pages, and then another user (whom I have absolutely zero way of contacting except on-wiki btw) restored my close for me. The crazy part is that I would have been much more cooperative with you had you listened to me initially instead of just ignoring my suggestions to take this to my talk page earlier. (6) I have refused to self-revert at this point because another user has restored my close. You also have (A) refused to acknowledge your own wrong-doing in this mess and (B) accused me of acting in bad faith. You've essentially put me in a position where if I self-revert, I must accept both those facts as true. (7) Users never even bothered to close Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals/WikiProject Men's rights when it was created. Should I have let this proposal or this one stay up until the end of time? There is no bot that does this stuff, so it just won't happen "naturally" by any means. This community has discussed your perennial proposal enough at this point, and you won. Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Men exists now (likely because I didn't vote against it). (8) However, I am not infallible. I very clearly may be in the wrong here. If you want to challenge my close, then by all means I welcome the input. I just can't guarantee they will be as receptive as I have been thus far of your arguments. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:55, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
(responding to ping) IMHO, if the close was truly problematic, someone other than the proposer would have raised the issue or reverted it. – Levivich 16:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so then if you aren't basing this "close" on the MFD, you are basing it on nothing. You cannot close something without a consensus-establishing discussion. You are though still INVOLVED as you expressed a desire to close it in the MFD. Levivich also restored your "close" but he is also INVOLVED. Just because you are opposed to the idea of this WikiProject doesn't mean you can "close" discussion about it. Imagine if editors wanted to make a WikiProject for a specific sports team, but editors who are fans of a rival came in, outnumbered them, and "closed" the idea of the WikiProject? Imagine the same if rival country WikiProjects could be shut down in this way. Or rival political ideologies. Ridiculous idea... and that's why WikiProject proposals are not "closed". Please show me ANY evidence of there being such a "stated procedure" to do so. -- Netoholic @ 21:51, 8 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: You're logic is so flawed here. The criteria for WikiProjects is dead simple: Per WP:COUNCIL/P, If you do not have a group of people, then you do not have a WikiProject, even if you have created a WikiProject page. A WikiProject is the people, not the page. I count a total of one person who was supportive of your idea in that discussion (you). I've also followed WP:NACINV rather well. I've only been involved in discussions at MFD which are incidental to this discussion which I've closed. If I said, "Hey I'm going to close X discussion." then I wouldn't have a COI in regards to closing that discussion. To your last point: Template:Archived WikiProject Proposal top/doc. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:50, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really not realize the difference between CLOSURE (ie, an end to a discussion) and ARCHIVING (delisting when a discussion has served its purpose)? WikiProject Council Proposals are designed -precisely- to gather interest in a WikiProject - and the Men proposal has only been listed 2 months vs some proposals that have been present for several years. The only proposals on that page which should be ARCHIVED are those that have 1) been created, or 2) Proposer has withdrawn or gone inactive. Neither is the case here. You clearly are applying incorrect procedure to the Men proposal, and doing so as a thinly-veiled tactic because you personally oppose the proposal itself. -- Netoholic @ 02:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: Wikipedia:Closing discussions#Closing vs archiving. There's some additional bad faith there as well. -_-
The community has really discussed this topic to death, Neto. It really can't get much more exposure than it already has. Do you *really* want me to revert my close just so I give the same result in another month? Is *that* an acceptable outcome? It's the same result either way, so there's nothing that could be gained. If you have been unable to find a single other editor after all this time and drama; then one month, 3 months, a year- it's not going to make a difference. Your incessant badgering about process is not helping the matter either. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:17, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
When the proposal reaches the the bottom of WP:WikiProject Council/Proposals and someone uninvolved decides to archive it in a few years just like any other, that will be satisfactory. I am badgering nothing, but there has been constant WP:GAMING of process by editors like you that think they know what the future holds, as you've just admitted. -- Netoholic @ 05:36, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Netoholic: This is patently absurd. By my headcount, three other editors have agreed with me (Bilorv, UnitedStatesian, and Levivich), and only yourself in the other corner. What little good will you ever had with me was essentially tarnished the moment you started edit warring instead of discussing like I originally asked. Even if I was wrong (which I admin could always be the case), you displayed your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and I am not about to let that slide just for the sake of letting us all get along here. If you started this conversation with WP:AGF and simply saying, "MJL, I do believe your close was unfair and think it right for it to have additional time to proceed." Then we wouldn't be here. What's worth is you keep accusing me of stuff when I have tried to be nothing but cordial. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:14, 9 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Bernie Dresel

[edit]

Draft:Bernie Dresel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MJL,

Thanks for taking the time to review Draft:Bernie Dresel (2nd review). There was another reviewer who had reviewed it before you and gave feedback. I did exactly what was asked and gave primary references for the awards section (for every award). There was no feedback given by you as to how the page needs to be further improved in order to be accepted. If you can, please give some specific problems/deficiencies you are finding with the page and how it can be improved.

Thanks! Shelyric (talk) 12:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelyric: Thank you for reaching out to me!
At that moment you listed a good amount of your citations in this section. Generally those should never be separated out like that for a biography of a living person. However, I just used Toollabs:refill for you to fix that concern. Please in the future to try to properly format your citations. I'll be submitting this now for you, though. Congrats and Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:44, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL,

Thanks and I admittedly did that the wrong way. I had put the citations and footnotes into the page but I copied them again in the edit page to show what I had done. My fault, sorry and misunderstood the function of the edit page and how it works. I appreciate you looking at this and seeing what I had done, and pointing it out.

Thanks, always... Shelyric (talk) 13:54, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelyric: Of course! WP:AFC is a bit unique in that reviewer comments are put in the article masthead. For the future, feel free to place stuff like that in the article talk page using {{Reflist-talk}}.
No need to be sorry! I probably should have checked to see if those bottom citations were new or duplicates, but I'm glad I didn't because we both were able learn something! (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 13:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MJL, I will continue to clean up the citations and try to make them more consistent in how they are presented (standard published material vs internet based information). I did see the message left on the page by another editor/reviewer. I will also be trying to get the bio photo uploaded very soon and make the proper back-links so the page it is not marked as "orphaned." Again, thanks! Shelyric (talk) 14:05, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Shelyric: Okay, but with the bio photo, unless you own the copyright, please do not re-upload without going through WP:OTRS. Photos given "to Wikipedia" aren't allowed actually, but they have to be licensed to let anyone use it without permission. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:26, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft got deleted.

[edit]

Draft Reborn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Added –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

My draft for Mankind Reborn was deleted for copyright infringement. Truth is, I am the author of what was put on that page as I am the community manager of said game (Mankind Reborn) and most definitely not violating any copyright. Can something be done about this? A lot of news outlets have copied our game's overview and introduction, which we gave permission for.

Necidious (talk) 11:59, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necidious: If you are truly the original author, what you can do is follow Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials#Granting us permission to copy material already online. It'll take some time to process the request, but eventually it'll happen. If you give me the ticket number, I'll try to find someone willing to expedite it for you, but I can't make any assurances since there is normally a long wait time. I hope that helps! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:31, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Hey bud, it's fine. I rewrote it entirely myself now an hour or so ago and put it up for review, to speed up the process. I have the backstory ready as well and add to it once the stuff I wrote now gets approved, I don't think the backstory is posted anywhere else as it's located somewhere in the depths of our game's staff section, so I should be fine regarding that. :D Necidious (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, I revised my page. Hopefully it's acceptable now. I deleted the self-sourced references and added from reliable sources. Necidious (talk) 20:38, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Necidious: I'm afraid I have to agree with Serial Number 54129 that your sources didn't establish notability. The folks at WikiProject Video games have compiled a list of both reliable sources and otherwise. We need three rockstar sources to meet WP:GNG, and you seem to have 2 decent and one possibly problematic one. You'll need to fill it out with a few more. I'm going to look into seeing if I can get a discussion started on MMOhub's reliability though since it was last discussed almost 10 years ago. Still, more secondary and outside sources would help. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:34, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: I honestly don't understand. Looking at Dual Universe, they're in the exact same position as us if not further behind in development, uses the self-sourced references and barely have any "notable" sources as you put it yet are approved whereas we get disapproved. Could use some help here. Necidious (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necidious: I know it's rather unfair, but we refer to the essay called Wikipedia:Other stuff exists for arguments like that. I am fully convinced of this game's notability due to a uniqueness factor that it clearly possesses. If I had the clout to just invoke WP:IAR right now and get, this through, I probably would. My choice to not accept the article as it stands is because I don't know for certain it would survive a deletion nomination. I believe you and the article's subject deserve better than that.
You must understand that I am a bit out of my depth here. I write political articles. I also only got my start on Wikipedia this year. If I made assurances to you that this would be easy, it'd be plain dishonest. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MJL: Oh, I don't blame you, bud. I'm just venting here, haha. Where exactly can I request the Wikipedia page to be written? I know we're capable of being published on Wikipedia, it's just a wee bit unfair. Necidious (talk) 00:35, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necidious: I mean, this is the link to request an article, but please be warned that it is incredibly unlikely you will see much come out of that in the near future. The page I linked has a backlog going back to 2016.
Articles are generally made by volunteers with a passion for the subject matter at hand, so the best I could do for you help you write the article yourself.
I believe you have the capability of establishing notability with reliable sources here. You just gotta not give up! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:19, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Necidious: It doesn't need to be online necessary (or even in English). Game Informer, SKOAR!, PC Gamer, and others listed here would all help. The article from The Indie Game Website is your golden ticket at the moment, and we can back everything else up with just one more like that. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

From my Talk page

[edit]

National Guard (Mexico) or Mexican National Guard, which to pick? Looking at the National Guard page and the interwiki links, I'd say we keep National Guard (Mexico) instead of Mexican National Guard. Feel free to edit the article. Mistah B (talk) 01:01, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistah B: I don't mind having it renamed it if that is what you request. I just wanted to make sure you weren't miffed by not being the designated "page creator" which some people get sensitive about. I'll put in a proposal at WP:RM/TR for you in a short moment. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:05, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care nor mind being the designated "page creator". Not my thing; so don't worry about the issue. Mistah B (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mistah B:  Done See Special:Diff/906310052. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL/Archive_14&oldid=908498906"