User talk:MJL/Archive 18

Talk:Fascism/FAQ

I wanted you to know that I made a major edit to this. See what you think. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Looks pretty awesome!
Do you think we should end A7 with a line around the likes of Mussolini wasn't the most steadfast in his convictions. or would that be too much? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

No, I think that would stray a bit too much from the main point of the FAQ. Beyond My Ken (talk) 05:24, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beyond My Ken: Okay, so I was good to leave it out. You did a great job editing it, and I hope people actually read the thing. It'll save everyone a lot of time from pointless conversations. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Wide Neck page

I seen you moved Wide Neck to Draft:Wide Neck, perhaps because he is not notable enough or the lack of sources?.. What was the reason for moving his article? If he was non notable in your eyes that is fine with me, but if it was lack of sources regarding him, then how many sources does a biography page need to be notable? There are other sources I can look for that particular pages, what's the minimum number of sources needed to be required for Wide Neck so that he can be moved back into a article? --Proudpakistani11 (talk) 19:01, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Proudpakistani11: Wide Neck is in that gray/grey area where the article is potentially notable. If additional sources can be provided for his music career and personal life, it'll alleviate my WP:BLP1E concerns. The section on his personal life is unsourced at the moment, and there's only a two singles listed in the discography. Any coverage about when they were released and what the reception of them was would be perfect.
Hope that helps and Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Audi Q3

There been a big misunderstanding on the Audi Q3 page. A month ago I created a RfC for the infobox picture but during that a user made a edit which seem to be universally agreed [1] and it been fine since. But now some user have restore and closed the RfC and now there duplicate pictures of the grey Audi Q3 image. I don't want to revert it because I fear of getting blocked for since it involved my photo.

In a nutshell, some uninvolved editor managed to break the tension that was going over the infobox picture dispute but the RfC was never closed and now this user closed it and restore picture when it shouldn't of because it was fine as it was. --Vauxford (talk) 15:31, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford:  Reviewing... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:41, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

[2] Cunard claimed that I violated my topic ban because I restore a revision pre-RfC and the edits that happened on there wasn't by me. The last edit I did was the 26th May 2019. Now it seem I made things worst and I fear I'm going get blocked because of it. This all got into a tangle because of the RfC I created out of frustration. The dispute was solved because someone swapped the images so the grey car was in the main infobox and the blue car was in the second generation infobox, matching the rear but it never got logged or discussed on the RfC. --Vauxford (talk) 23:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: Why didn't you wait for me to finish reviewing this? Apologize and self-revert where possible; immediately. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:46, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: Now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I am going to keep refreshing the page for the article history of Audi Q3 until I see you've self-reverted. We can talk about this after that has happened. No exceptions. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:51, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Vauxford This edit was such a blatant violation of your topic ban. I'm sorry for not responding sooner, but I said I was reviewing the matter. I can only do so much at a time!! Please just self-revert already before you give me a heart attack and carpal tunnel. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:59, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I self-reverted it. I hope I wasn't too late. --Vauxford (talk) 01:49, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Vauxford: Nope! All good. Cunard I thank you for your patience. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:20, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice to Vauxford to self-revert, MJL. Cunard (talk) 04:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cunard: Least I could do! Thank you for your patience. However...
Cunard, would you mind reclosing again with consensus for alternative two (blue car)? Sable232 did not express that compelling of a reason for using the gray car while NickCT mostly just objected on procedural grounds. As alternative 2 was added after Sable's !vote, the only users on record were two of the three involved folks (Charles and Alex) and Nick. If more weight is given to the uninvolved users, then it's more decisive towards alternative 2. That's just my reading of the discussion anyways, and I think defaulting to the orange car rather than just what the article was before the close is an odd choice for a no-consensus close (since everyone seems to agree that the orange one would be a poor choice). Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:24, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I did not give more weight to the uninvolved editors in my close. I gave them the same weight as the involved editors. Which image to use in the infobox is based on what editors' subjectively think is a better choice. I found Sable232's subjective argument to be reasonable, "They're both less than stellar, unfortunately. The image of the gray one is taken from too high of a perspective - it appears as if the photographer was standing on something when taking it. Otherwise, the angle is good, and it has a better background, so I'd stick with that one."

The alternative photo was proposed on 27 May 2019. It did not change the minds of the involved editors Charles01 and Alexander-93. Later on, in the RfC, NickCT suggested using the orange car photo or the grey car photo (each of the photos had at different times been in the article section's infobox before the dispute started). I consider NickCT's rationale, "There is very little meaningful difference in terms of quality between these two images" and "Given there's no real difference with between the image quality, we should probably just give preference to the editor who had thier image here first, which seems to be Alexander-93" to be a reasonable argument.

Vauxford, John M Wolfson, Ybsone, and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 preferred the alternative blue car photo. I gave less weight to the arguments made by Ybsone (who did not provide a rationale) and 2800:810:46F:81A5:B508:7264:2AE1:3890 (per WP:MEATPUPPET, which says, "In votes or vote-like discussions, new users may be disregarded or given significantly less weight, especially if there are many of them expressing the same opinion.").

This means that there is a roughly equal number of users supporting the grey car photo and the blue car photo. Because which photo to use is a matter of subjective judgment, I found a clear lack of consensus to choose a specific photo.

Wikipedia:Consensus#No consensus says, "In discussions of proposals to add, modify or remove material in articles, a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit." I found that both the orange photo and the grey photo could be considered in "the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit". See the analysis here about when and how long each of these photos were in the section's infobox. I chose to restore the grey photo since it had more support than the orange photo. But since the grey photo is already used in the main infobox, I chose the orange photo instead.

Regarding "I think defaulting to the orange car rather than just what the article was before the close is an odd choice for a no-consensus close", the orange car photo had been in the article before the dispute started. I did not default to "what [was in] the article was before the close" because that would encourage editors to edit war to their preferred version of the article before requesting closure of a "no consensus" RfC.

Regarding "everyone seems to agree that the orange one would be a poor choice", I found that only Vauxford and John M Wolfson spoke against it while NickCT was fine with it.

As I noted in the revised RfC close, the situation has changed significantly since the discussion started in that the grey car photo no longer is in contention for the section's infobox since it is now used in the main infobox. I therefore recommend starting a new RfC to discuss which photo should be used in the section's infobox so that editors can make a clear choice between the orange car photo and the blue car photo. I restored the orange car photo since it is the status quo photo, but this is without prejudice against a new consensus determining a different photo (such as one of the blue car photos) should be used instead. I hope this longer explanation of my thought process helps.

Cunard (talk) 05:14, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Cunard: Thank you for providing that more detailed explanation! My apologies for the inconvenience on your part truth be told. This has not been the best topic to get involved in as of late, but your close is appreciated. I see your point here and would agree.
@Vauxford: Please read the above in depth view that Cunard was kind of enough to leave here. Due to your topic ban, I would ask GoldenRing about possible next steps forward, but please be brief with him. The question should be as simple as: Can I start an RFC here without being in violation of my topic ban? Regards, –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks MJL. This is a contentious topic to get involved in, I agree. A new RfC is supported by my RfC close and I think your advice for Vauxford to check with GoldenRing is sound. Cunard (talk) 06:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Talkback

at Floq's RfA, as to examples of (apparently) mere PAs and (thus) discountable !votes. Might reply here, if that gets closed before you see this. ~ Winged Blades^Godric 17:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric (AWB) and Winged Blades of Godric: Thank you again for this talk back which gave me a proper chance to respond. In case it wasn't obvious, I wasn't referring to your !vote as it was amended after things got obviously heated to provide a obviously more than decent and was originally jus a retort to a user who provided zero rationale to their oppose !vote (which is arguably fair game). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:58, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Am not replying there to avoid clutter.

You have posted a diff of BK saying something that is not highly civil to someone who called him a troll, in response to a very-legitimate !vote. How does the civility of his provoked-responses reflect on his original support-!vote (and it's count-ability) evades me.

Again, from your perception of Nableezy's !vote, it seems that you are meaning to imply that any !vote per an oppose-!vote is inherently in-civil. Weird.

Same for Iri. If you have posted his original support-!vote diff, I would have granted you some liberty but you apparently believe that his' awaring the crats about IHTS' potential bias is a PA that shall lead to his original !vote being discounted.

(edit conflict)~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:00, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric (AWB): Truth be told, I was just scrambling and picked the first diff I could find (which was always the most recent). For Black kite, it was the fact that they went out of their way to call out specific users and accuse them of impropriety during an RFA and as reason to support the candidate. If Black Kite felt Pack's response was out of line, well... we have dispute resolution for a reason. Telling them in response to screw off, well... come on! BK's an admin! They have to have known better. Just because Pack wasn't in the right for name calling doesn't mean BK is greenlit to be uncivil (especially as an admin).
For Iri, I didn't appreciate the What finally sways it for me is that not just one but all three of the editors on my personal "so consistently clueless that one can safely make decisions based on the principle that doing the opposite of what they support will be the right thing" list are lined up in the Oppose column, so if nothing else an extra vote on the other side of the line will go some way towards cancelling that out. bit. (which yeah, I think not only saying, but keeping and maintaining a list of users who's opinions you find so unbelievably clueless}} and just want to cancel out their vote is a tad uncivil. The diff I linked to obviously didn't say that, but it did say Iri is fine with their vote being discounted for that reason (which is a massive disservice to Floq imo). Sorry for the edit conflicts. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:21, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I still can't make much of how does his provoked-responses or incivility affect the viability of his original !vote. And, it's perfectly fine to support someone per the very reasons, somebody is opposing. But won't badger you:-)

As to Iri, it might genuinely seem like an attack on some users and I give that to you. But, what you have failed to spot is that he has provided some other quite-valid justification for switching camps, too and his !vote is not (thus) dis-countable. FWIW, I agree with that statement about the inherently clueless voices arguing in unison and provide you with the scope to add me, as someone whose !vote shall be now-discounted, based on the logic applied in BK's case.

ta, ~ Winged Blades^Godric 18:37, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Winged Blades of Godric (AWB): Nah, I genuinely appreciate you! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:39, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Point of order

I don't want to make the crat chat longer than it already is, but no (and explained on that same talk): so far the crats have traditionally "counted" unexplained supports, assuming per nom, and "discounted" unexplained opposes. Now one crat said she would discount also unexplained supports, creating the urgency of those threatened to be discoounted to deliver a reasoning afterwards. I was among them, so know the feeling, "hey I wanted to cut it short, and now you don't want to hear me". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: That's fair a fair concern to have. I should also stop editing Wikipedia at 4am because I don't think I phrased my reply to you right even after several tries. Let me get some sleep at get back to you on this. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 08:25, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

That's also fair ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: I struck a portion of my previous comments. I realized I could say what I wanted to say without it. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Have

you ever ventured to WP:TWL i.e. [3]. Would love to hear your opinions at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)#Disclose_the_editors_who_are_enrolled_over_Wikipedia_Library. ∯WBG^converse 16:07, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Australia TV

Hello, how are you?, have article for restoration (categories, reference s, links etc.) Mildred Kornman, bit-part actress thank-you for your assistance and kindness, much appreciated, good to be editing again, lol. Also going back to an early actor, ALAN ROWE, i can only see a page for the BRITISH ACTOR, not the AUSTRALIAN ACTOR, i was wondering if you could help me please find more information, i dont know if he's around now, he was pretty old when he was in the TV show Prisoner (Prisoner: cell block H)

I'm doing well! Happy August!! I'll look into Alan Rowe (the Australian one) for you. Cheers! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Neutral !Vote comments

Extended content

Can 'crats involved in assessing this case confirm that Neutral !votes are being taken into account per WP:RFA? Specifically: "numbered Support and Oppose comments are considered. Neutral comments are ignored for calculating an RfA's percentage, but they (and other relevant information) are considered for determining consensus by the closing bureaucrat. In nominations where consensus is unclear, detailed explanations behind Support or Oppose comments will have more impact than positions with no explanations or simple comments such as "yep" and "no way"." Leaky caldron (talk) 11:41, 31 July 2019 (UTC) The 'crats already know that, and will no doubt take that into account (people here don't elect just anyone to be a bureaucrat, only those whose judgement and fairness people here have trust in...). So how about letting the 'crats spend their time on evaluating the consensus in the RfA, rather than answering meaningless questions here? - Tom | Thomas.W talk 11:59, 31 July 2019 (UTC) (edit conflict) How about you allow me to ask any damn question I like? I don't see you hounding any of the other participants on this page. Leaky caldron (talk) 12:29, 31 July 2019 (UTC) "Hounding you"? I'm just replying to comments that are totally off target, no matter who made them, so if you get more replies than others it's only because you're more off target than anyone else here is. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 12:34, 31 July 2019 (UTC) For the final time - stop following me about and remarking on my comments. PLEASE! You did it yesterday and I let it go. You are doing it again. You are not a 'crat and I am not interesting in your non-relevant opinion of my contributions here. Leaky caldron (talk) 13:09, 31 July 2019 (UTC) It's not up to you to decide who can and who can't answer your posts here, and answering multiple posts of yours here, on this page, is not in any way hounding (if I had followed you around, and commented on every talk page you comment on, you might have been able to build a case, but the only place where I have responded to your posts is here...). So stop. - Tom | Thomas.W talk 13:15, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: If you get asked by a user to leave them alone, then the sensible thing to do is oblige. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@MJL: Are you seriously saying that I should stop pointing out logical fallacies (see "Math" section above; Leaky caldron obviously hadn't even bothered to read the self-nom statement in the RfA this discussion is about...) and deliberate misrepresentations (of what Dweller wrote in their 'crat statement) in Leaky caldron's posts just because they dislike being corrected? That's not how it works in a debate. This is the only page, and time, where I, to best of my memory, have ever responded to a post by Leaky caldron, so any claims about hounding are totally unfounded, and you don't get away with erroneous claims and statements simply by telling another editor they're not allowed to reply to the posts. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 05:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Let's take this to my talk page. I don't see why you can't just refute Leaky's claims elsewhere or in your own section if necessary. Do realize, your responses have come within minutes of Leaky's. That'd be distressing to me as well if I was them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 06:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no such thing as an "own section" on a talk page, only on Arbcom case pages, discussions on talk pages are threaded, with replies below the post that is being replied to, and slightly to the right of that post. And the reason for that is that talk page discussions must be easy to read/follow also for other editors than those directly involved in the exchange. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Arbcom does that to discourage needless back-and-forth bickering. You could easily just say in a level 3 heading, I disagree with the above sentiments and here is why. rather than make a direct reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 19:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No. I follow the general talk page guidelines, just like everyone else, besides, if the intention of an edit (like my edit pointing out that "simply vote counting" is a totally misleading summary of a 'crat statement, with a link to Dweller's statement so that people could see for themselves what the statement really said) is to point out to other editors that they shouldn't believe what was written in the post I replied to, my reply should of course not be hidden away somewhere else, like in an own section. The way we have always done things on talk pages works very well, so I see no reason to change it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 19:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Hidden? Who said anything about hidden? A level 3 heading with your reply is just as noticeable as having the first indented reply. Leaky caldron has clearly indicated a discomfort for you posting directly in response to them when they are soliciting feedback from the crats, admins, and such. I'm sure if I was posting the first indented response to them, even if it was in agreement, more than once on that talk page they'd get just as frustrated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:13, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I wrote "hidden away", that is out of sight/hard to find. And you're the one who suggested I should post my replies in an own section, which is an extremely bad idea on a talk page, especially one that sees heavy traffic, with many editors, many edits and often intense "exchanges", over a short period of time... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

And, no offense meant, but adding a level three header is an even worse idea, since it would very quickly make the entire thread unreadable. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: I suggest this to (A) cool down those intense "exchanges" as they don't promote a collegial atmosphere, and (B) slow down the speed of which replies happen between you two. There is seriously nothing useful about your exchange at the moment. (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:36, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

There is no exchange at the moment, it ended already before you entered it. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Look. First of all I am most grateful to MJL for interceding. It is a rare experience to find someone willing to defend me to this extent and it is appreciated. On the subject in hand, I have discussed this with Dweller today. Accepting that I was not the only one who raised an eyebrow about his statistical conclusion, he concedes that my interpretation is feasible "I suppose it does have an appearance of vote-counting" [4]. That is good enough for me and it should be good enough for anyone else. Best Leaky caldron (talk) 20:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: I'm just one of those Civility Police crazies who think that editors should feel comfortable contributing to conversations within the project while also never adding meaningful content to the encyclopedia. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Level Three headings

I completely disagree with my colleague above. The characterization that this makes the entire thread unreadable is demonstrably false. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

No one is going to buy that... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: Why do you say that? It works fine. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Not everything that works in a lab (= your talk page) works in a production environment (= high-traffic Wikipedia talk pages). So no, no one is going to buy that, and I'm out of here, because I see no point in continuing this discussion. - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 20:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Additional participant

Think of a three-way conversation, rather than a two-person dialogue. Then try to scale that up to more people. Trying to trace a chronological thread becomes very difficult. Due to the highly segmented section structure of arbitration cases, this can be more easily worked around, as each person can, for example, break down their responses on the workshop page to sections covering specific areas. But on the arbitration case talk pages, although it serves the purpose of reducing acrimonious back-and-forth, it makes it harder to trace a thread of thought between multiple persons. isaacl (talk) 00:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: the difference here would be that other users are free to reply in any section. It's essentially having two different conversations about similar points. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

More discussion

I thought your point was to avoid confrontation by putting a response in a separate section. So wouldn't different persons use different sections to avoid seeming unduly confrontational? isaacl (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: Nope! I believe there has been a misunderstanding. The suggestion was for this user to do it for singular replies to another user after having been requested to not directly respond to the latter user. It was in no way intended as a general rule nor for any other situations or contexts. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What happens when A asks B not to respond; B responds in a separate section and asks A not to respond; C responds to B and then B asks C not to respond; and so forth? While I do think rebooting conversation in a separate section can be a useful technique, I have misgivings with requiring it to be done on demand. Why should I have the right to force someone else to fork conversation to another location? isaacl (talk) 01:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: When that becomes a real issue, I'll happily review it. You also don't have the right to force someone else to fork conversation to another location. You have the right to respect another user's wishes you do so in the name of a collaborative project to build an encyclopedia. The alternative is creating pointless sideshows that no one really cares to see, but if it's your prerogative to get on the nerve of other users when it could have otherwise been avoided; I'm certainly not going to do more than call a spade a spade (which is that is pointless and silly). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Who's getting on whose nerve is the question. There are editors who respond to disagreement by denigrating the commenter's grasp of the topic under discussion and then refuse to respond. Why should they get a defacto one-way interaction ban on demand? (Now I agree there's no point in carrying on a repetitious back-and-forth for the sake of it; replying just to assert your right to reply doesn't move the discussion forward.) isaacl (talk) 01:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Isaacl: a de facto one-way interaction ban is too black-and-white for what I am suggesting. I think it appropriate to back off when asked to, and resume interaction after using best judgement. The basic point/theme I am trying to make is consider how other editors feel when writing a reply. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I agree with considering what is the best approach, and sometimes replying to someone else is not. Far too many editors, though, ask for others to back off solely because they are upset at being challenged. It's unfair to mandate that challengers exclude themselves from the ongoing conversation. fyi, there's no need to ping me. isaacl (talk) 04:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@isaacl: Users get a ping unless requested to do otherwise per the /Editnotice. I also find it helps with keeping conversations flow neatly. I'm glad we have an agreement there. It certainly is true that there are a subset of bad actors who tend to abuse our social policies. When the intention is to merely gain an advantage over another editor, then those requests should be seen as frivolous of course. However in this case, I am rather positive that another editor would sufficiently be able to respond to Leaky in much the same way Tom did. Leaky was being challenged by more than just Thomas.W here, so the fact that only he was called out was significant in my view. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

On a social networking site considering how other editors feel when writing a reply is a good approach, but Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a social networking site, so here proper sourcing, verifiability, a neutral point of view, not giving undue weight to fringe views/theories, and material being factually correct matters far more than how an editor feels (or claims to feel). Not being allowed to challenge edits that violate one or more of those principles just because the editor presenting that material or those views tells you to back off would give POV-pushers a free rein here, and would very quickly destroy the entire encyclopaedia... - Tom | Thomas.W ^talk 11:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Thomas.W: You should always consider how other people feel. You'll make better arguments, and you'll never come across poorly. You also realize that other editors were challenging Leaky, right? You weren't exactly giving unique insight in this regard. Dweller was more than capable of defending himself. It's also quite the leap of logic to go from considering how other people feel to very quickly destroy the entire encyclopaedia with only like 2 or so steps in between. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The fourth pillar is no less necessary than any of the others. What this project absolutely requires is collaboration. It is literally impossible for anyone to build an encyclopedia by themselves. And because we're not getting paid, what collaboration absolutely requires is enjoyment. There will be no encyclopedia if editors don't work together, and editors won't work together if it's not enjoyable. You can gather up all the best sources in the world and summarize them in the most neutral point of view way humanly possible, and none of it will mean anything unless you have happy editors.

Civility: it's not just for social networking sites anymore. – Levivich 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Now we're making headway!

At a high-traffic Wikipedia talk page: 7/30 LC 11:33 (cmt), TW 11:54 (reply); 7/31 LC 11:41 (cmt), TW 11:59 (reply); LC 12:29 (req stop), TW 12:34 (no); LC 12:32 (cmt), TW 12:59 (reply); LC 13:09 (2nd req stop), TW 13:15 (no). It's not too much to ask that editors not do that to each other. – Levivich 05:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Which part of the sequence went too far, in your view? Which one overstepped the mark? Leaky caldron (talk) 08:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Levivich and Leaky caldron: In my opinion, Leaky, you could've better communicated your reasoning to Tom (and did so on his talk page rather than there). I'd also not have called it hounding, but it is what it is. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 15:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

So you endorse his viewpoint that my question was meaningless and that being spoken down to like shite is ok then? The 'crats already know that, and will no doubt take that into account (people here don't elect just anyone to be a bureaucrat, only those whose judgement and fairness people here have trust in...). So how about letting the 'crats spend their time on evaluating the consensus in the RfA, rather than answering meaningless questions here? Odd that he did not make the same aggressive comment to Ched in the very first section in which he basically told the 'crats how to do their assessment! Leaky caldron (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Leaky caldron: Nope! I think without a doubt he was the one who overstepped the mark if that's what you are asking. I think your question was fine and within your rights to ask (and kept conversation moving of course). However, I think even if your question was meaningless, that would be irrelevant in assessing how you were treated. My choice of words in how I would hypothetically respond (ie. I'd call it badgering over hounding) is similarly irrelevant to my views of this matter.
BTW, Levivich was no doubt noticing what I was noticing; that Tom was responding to you within minutes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for clarifying that! Leaky caldron (talk) 16:40, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. Without commenting on the content and just on the timing, if I had to pick one as overstepping the mark, it'd be 12:59, which was an "insta-reply" that came within an hour of a request to stop with the insta-replies. I had this happen to me not long ago on another page: an editor replied to every one of my posts within minutes, strongly disagreeing, putting me down, etc. In that case I ignored it, but other editors noticed and commented on it. The problem with that sort of thing is that it not only brings down the morale of the person being insta-replied-to (and I think I agree that "badgering" is a better word for it than "hounding"), it turns the whole page/thread/conversation from collaboration into confrontation. I find that as a general rule, if someone says something really stupid, it is rarely a good idea to point that out. If you're right, and what they said really was stupid, then everyone else already knows that and you're adding nothing. If you're wrong, and others don't think it was so stupid, then you risk looking like a jerk, and maybe even a stupid jerk. :-) – Levivich 16:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Resilient Barnstar

You had several rather blunt admin on your talk page a few months back criticizing you pretty strongly. You took that in stride, and have become a real asset to the project in the time since. There aren't that many people who can take criticism from a bunch of anonymous strangers, still stay engaged with a hobby, and grow better at it, and for that, you deserve this barnstar. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Well, thank you! No clue what inspired you to say this, but it is still appreciated. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing in particular. I just have generally noticed you being helpful on the project and think that you've learned a lot while you've been here. Thanks for all the work that you do :) TonyBallioni (talk) 00:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

RfA

Hi. Just as a reminder, candidates are not even obliged to answer user questions at RfA. Especially when the number reaches a ridiculous 20 or more. This advice page may help: WP:RFAV, and you will also find this interestiung even if it's just for the humour. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Kudpung: Thank you for the reminder. I only asked because one of the oppose votes cited the fact that AA was going out of order as a reason to oppose. I wanted to give him the opportunity to respond to that. Also thanks for that link; it's a good read!! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

WV

Hello, my friend, how are you, thank-you for your assistance and kindness!, i was going to write yesterday and send thanks but went out earlier. i think you are my guardian angel!, lol. i just try to do my best and do what is right and not offend or upset anybody. was wondering how you went on the article for Alan Rowe Australia Actor, actually just found some interesting information on site DISCOGS, apparently a part from being an actor, he even made a record, to promote the heritage steam trains in Melbourne.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.110.199 (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Well, I should be thanking you! Wikipedia is 10x more fun for me since you've posted here. I forgot to check up on Alan Rowe, I'll do that now. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Request on 18:19:39, 5 August 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Fkhorasani

• Fkhorasani (talk · contribs)
  • Draft:Iranian American Sport and Culture Association (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Decline of our recent submission

Dear reviewer,

Thank you for taking the time and reviewing our submitted page. Our previous submission has not been accepted. As it has been requested, We have included new references for the page. As you may understand, activities of such an organization working on US-Iran Sports diplomacy is not covered by mainstream media. Nonetheless, we have provided more 20 references from several independent sources including TV channels, freelance journalists, and independent websites, blogs, and magazines. These references include hours of videos containing interviews, activities of the organization, and articles covering IASA.

You mentioned the three other reviewers have declined the submission. But if you look closer they have declined the submission over the past couple of months before we make corrections and improvements. As to Farsi/Persian language sources, many of our references are already Farsi/Persian. I'm getting the feeling the submission is being declined only because the references are in Farsi/Persian. We have provided proper number of independent primary and secondary references. We would like to request a fresh review of the submission, in the light of the improvements over the past few months and the new references that have been provided.

We appreciate your effort and dedication to Wikipedia. Please let us know if you need more information that we can provide to facilitate the acceptance of our submission.

Fkhorasani (talk) 18:19, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fkhorasani: In 100% honesty, it's the fact that almost all your sources are on YouTube. Just doing a quick google search on the organization, I found 2 really good sources.^[5][6] You can even take a look at fa:روابط_فرهنگی_ایران_و_آمریکا for some ideas.
Also, why are you saying "We" instead of "I" ? Are you more than one person? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:34, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your response and advice. I did further research, and using ur suggestions used new proper Persian/Farsi references to supplement the submission! Hopefully the references will be found adequate this time, as I have used all your suggestions to fix the issues with the previous submissions.

Thank you!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fkhorasani (talk • contribs) 01:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Fkhorasani: I'm rather uneasy about its quality, but it seems from a glance that much of it is now backed by reliable sources. I, therefore, have accepted the draft but plan on adding maintenance tags as well though. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 05:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Can I help you?

I see that you have reviewed my user page (if that's what it's called - the page that comes up when you click my username). Apparently you or general somebody think that this indicates an agenda on my part, I can assure you that this is not the case. If you have any questions please feel free. 5Ept5xW (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@5Ept5xW: My apologies for the confusion. I reviewed your page as part of New pages patrol to inform other editors that there were no spam or copyright issues with it. If you notice in this conversation, firmly state that I see no issues with your contributions whatsoever. I honestly don't even see the switch to gender neutral language as that big of a deal, but it was pretty clear to me that wasn't all you were doing in your recent edits. To say otherwise seems to be a genuine mischaracterization on the IP's part.
May I suggest you go through the WP:Adopt-a-User process? It'd help a lot with figuring out how Wikipedia works and all. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:38, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the response. I'll check out WP:Adopt-a-User when I get some time. Thanks, 5Ept5xW (talk) 21:41, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Guðrún Björnsdóttir

Hello! Your submission of Guðrún Björnsdóttir at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of that. Say, is Jónína Jónatansdóttir the same as my name, Yonina? Yoninah (talk) 23:48, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: You know.. I'm not entirely sure. According to wiktionary, it's the female equivalent of John. So... there's a chance. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

In German and Spanish, "J" is pronounced "Y". Is it the same in Icelandic? Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Please don't walk away from this experience thinking I'm fluent in Icelandic (I generally have to tediously translate sources sentence by sentence). However, I found the answer for you in this case: yes. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 00:07, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! Yoninah (talk) 00:08, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Watch it, buster!

You reference to "busy beavers" at AN could be misinterpreted as a gendered insult. EEng 10:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@EEng: *police sirens* Oh no, I just broke Trans Catgirl Law. You'll never take me alive, Wander! –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 13:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: 123456 (August 8)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Dan arndt was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:123456 and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:123456, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{db-self}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
• If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Dan arndt (talk) 03:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dan arndt: Well, considering it's a disambiguation page... I'm not really capable of showing notability. The primary purpose of the page is to get people to 123456 (password) which is a {{R with Possibilities}} because of the sizeable amount of coverage on it (here's just a random batch of sources).^{[7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]} I'm more than willing to write the article on 123456 (password) assuming that you agree that it meets WP:GNG. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

WV requests

Hello, my friend, how are you, thank you for all your patience and bearing with me, and also for your help and assistance, i have an srticle for you to restore of Greek Australian actress Chantal Contouri — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.219.97 (talk) 09:18, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Second article restoration Alan John Hopgood

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)