User talk:MJL

This user's talk page might be watched by aggressive FRIENDLY talk page stalkers, so that means someone other than myself may reply to your query. Their input is both welcome and feared. I thank them for their HELP with those messages that I cannot reply to in a timely manner. Their existence is very much appreciated.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Evidence. Please add your evidence by August 4, 2023, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/SmallCat dispute/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 13:04, 21 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am contacting you because you previously signed up a pilot project on Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Pilots. I am working on a new project to make it easier to set up WikiProjects with built-in bot reports. As a proof of concept, see Wikipedia:Vaccine safety/Sources. If this is something you might find useful, your support at User:Credibility bot would be appreciated. Thank you. Harej (talk) 17:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

September songs

my story today

adding the flowers that seem to weep in memory, for what you said about Nosebagbear --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda Arendt
It's very much appreciated –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:54, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today's story is about a great pianist with an unusual career, taking off when he was 50. It's the wedding anniversary of Clara and Robert Schumann, but I was too late with our gift. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Today I remember Raymond Arritt, who still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder), and by teh rulez. - Latest pics from a weekend in Berlin (one more day to come). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed decision in the SmallCat dispute has been posted. You are invited to review this decision and draw the arbitrators' attention to any relevant material or statements. Comments may be brought to the attention of the committee on the proposed decision talk page. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 10:53, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you were soliciting opinions on the roads fork and was wondering whether you're interested in mine. For context I am the "one person who is trying to destroy our entire side of Wikipedia just on the notability side" mentioned in the TikTok video. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: I am incredibly interested in speaking to you (wasn't aware you were involved at all). I definitely want to speak to you about this! Do you do Discord? I'm in the Wikipedia server (near the top of the list). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:47, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't messed around on Discord in years... Also kind of philosophically opposed to doing interviews about wiki off wiki, I take an Audrey Tang style radical transparency approach to wikipedia and for me in this semi-anonymous form that means conducting wiki business on wiki. The big takeaway for me from that TikTok video is that it seems like we've been talking past each other, I hope interviews and third party analysis can help us all understand what happened here, why it happened, why it was so acrimonious (the one thing we can all apparently agree on is that feelings on both sides have been hurt), and whether there is hope of reconciliation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: Given the nature of the questions I have for you, I'd struggle to conduct a meaningful interview on English Wikipedia. If you want a public and transparent interview, we can do one on a livestream (like Twitch). I would even be willing to release the resulting video under a free license and upload it to Commons (assuming filesize permits). –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:34, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The roads topic area is almost comically low stakes, but not all of the topic areas I edit are (Palestinian-Israeli conflict, North Korea, human rights in China, the Taiwan-China conflict, contemporary American politics, American policing, cybersecurity, gender and sexuality, celebrity sexual assault/allegations thereof, etc). Maybe some day I will make an account for such communication but unfortunately I don't feel comfortable doing that today and I've already received death threats due to my wiki editing so not taking any new risks at the moment. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful, is there any background you want? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Horse Eye's Back: That's entirely fair! Privacy is pretty important, and I always respect that.
I've scheduled an interview for tomorrow. Is there anything you believe is important for me to ask them about? Any messages you want shared with the folks on the other side? –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:33, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The question I'm most interested in is whether people see this as two issues like the person in the TikTok video (there seems to be the presumption in the newsletter that everybody knows who this is but I don't) does or whether they see it as one issue. In the TikTok video they say that there are two issued here, sourcing and notability... IMO the sourcing discussion is a subset of the notability one, the issue isn't that we aren't allowed to use primary sources and newspapers its that primary sources and passing mentions in newspapers (which is all some roads have) don't count towards notability. The other question would be whether they also feel that the single word "typically" in WP:GEOROAD was the core of the dispute (note that in the video this generally vs typically conflict becomes ironically extremely clear). As for a message to pass on it would be that I understand that for them this was not an abstract policy discussion, I would be pissed too if I'd invested so many years into something only to have someone else question its value and I understand why all this outside pressure over the years has felt like other editors/the community at large questioning the value of roads articles. Thinking the project should have consistency across its topic areas doesn't mean that I'm not incredibly grateful for the contributions of those in the past, we stand on the shoulders of giants here no matter what topic area we edit (which I would note must not be very comfortable for the giant). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey MJL, forgive me for asking you directly because I do see you've stepped away from the project here, but I'm having a hard time getting a clickable button to work with a URL link and an embedded image and I was wondering if you wouldn't mind taking a look at what I've scrapped together so far. Also, this is entirely for personal use so I understand if this isn't a priority for you right now. Thanks! MicrobiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 19:00, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MicrobiologyMarcus: It took me a bit to figure it out, but it currently only seems possible to use {{clickable button 2}} like that if done like this test case. Though, it's certainly not an ideal way to go about that, but I have no idea how it could be done better.
To get a bit of the sense of how clickable buttons 1 and 2 are different, you could recreate Example 2 using {{clickable button 2}} simply by transcluding {{Clickable button 2|Special:NewSection/User talk:MicrobiologyMarcus|Let me know if I've done something silly.}}. You'd get the exact same result. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:11, 13 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's awesome! I'm impressed you pulled that from a log I was building to kept track of my sporadic attempts. And you got that really quick. Thanks so much for the help, I really appreciate it microbiologyMarcus ^{(petri dish•cultures)} 02:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's no big deal! The question was rather simple to answer, and it provided some new insights for me. Mainly, I have no idea how I would finish the merge if asked again. It's edge cases like this which gave me so much anxiety at the time I was trying. I just am not cut out for template work... –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 02:52, 14 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Help-Class articles indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 16:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Damn. Thanks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 02:56, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: lol thanks tho I don't drink, so I'll take a soda :P –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:03, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's two sodas then. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 18:46, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

		The Closer's Barnstar
		It is rare to need as much nuance in a closure as was required in the discussion to move Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) to Mike Johnson (politician). It's even rarer to see that nuance actually present in the closure. You are a credit to this project and its aim for collaborative editing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:56, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to challenge or anything, but I still think Mike Johnson (Oklahoma politician) + Mike Johnson (politician) is weird. Oh well, this time I'm one of those out of the everybody that couldn't be pleased. It happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Yeah, sorry. I did see you weren't a fan, but I figured you could always suggest a later move to Mike Johnson (speaker) when the flames died down [which would be a lot easier/simpler from Mike Johnson (politician) than Mike Johnson (no parentheses)].

@Pbritti: I much appreciate the barnstar! I spent a lot of time on this close (not just reading the discussion but checking everyone's links). The close ones are always pretty tough, but hopefully most people will be fine with it (since I think it reflects consensus well enough). Thank you so much!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:17, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings. With respect to your close on the Mike Johnson move, I understand your arguments, however, I do frankly disagree and was hoping to talk about it. For starters, you noted that "Enough people on both sides of the argument did state their prefered second choice was to move Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician) away from its current title into, at the very least, Mike Johnson (politician). Others suggested alternative disambiguations, but (politician) was easily the most prevalent."

This does not seem justified. By my count, only three people out of the more than 80 who responded voiced support for the title "Mike Johnson (politician)". It's not a vote, but that definitely doesn't strike me as consensus.

Additionally, in my view, you did not accurately represent the central arguments of the "Support" side. For instance, you pointed to one opposer's argument that the supporters based their arguments in WP:CRYSTALBALL. Obviously I'm biased as the nominator, but this does not seem accurate to me. The central argument of supporters was that he is already inherently notable by virtue of assuming this office. I know that that argument does not jibe with John Bell (Tennessee politician), but that article has received comparatively zero attention from editors, so this argument strikes me as WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Let me know your thoughts. I have not contested a close before so I don't want to step on anyone's toes, but I do take issue with the result in this instance. Best, Cpotisch (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to respond in full to this when I get home. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 23:53, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• (edit conflict) For what it's worth, I voted "oppose" in this nomination, but I sort of agree with the nominator here. I think the discussion established that there is not necessarily consensus for any type of "WP:PRIMARYTOPIC"-ish disambiguator. If I were looking at the close, I would have went with Mike Johnson (Speaker of the House). Steel1943 (talk) 23:55, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"would have went with", really? --Trovatore (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Feel free to participate in the WP:MRV, if it opens. Steel1943 (talk) 00:17, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, what I meant was I read consensus as needing to use WP:PRECISE disambiguation of some sort, but taking into account that the "(Louisiana politician)" disambiguator was a WP:SURPRISE. Steel1943 (talk) 04:16, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking to me, my comment was about grammar. I know, not really on-topic, but still. --Trovatore (talk) 06:08, 6 November 2023 (UTC) [reply]

Forget this, I'm gone. Steel1943 (talk) 06:10, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cpotisch: Sorry, fell asleep and forgot this when I woke up.

With respect to my statements regarding whether Mike Johnson (politician) was a fitting title, I probably could've done a better job clarifying that there wasn't a strong consensus for any specific disambiguator, so I just picked the one most people mentioned as their preference. 6 seperate people explicitly mentioned (politician) as their choice while one person (Gråbergs Gråa Sång) was explicitly opposed to it. Though, upon re-reading things, I may have misinterpreted Steel1943's comment For what it's worth, I also oppose any disambiguator changes to the title, considering all other disambiguators suggested so far violate WP:PRECISE against "Louisiana politician" since the phrase "Louisiana politician" is not ambiguous in this case. That might have changed the decision a bit. I can amend the close to make it clear the move is based off weak consensus for (politician) and a proper disambiguator can be discussed at a later date (if that would ease concerns).

The only reason I didn't go with (Speaker of the House) instead was the fact it had so many variations floating around. (Speaker of the House), (speaker), and (U.S. House Speaker) were all in contention; but it wasn't clear which format was most prefered. Again, I figured it the desire was there, another requested move could be placed.

As for the other concerns laid out by Cpotisch...

So one of the confusing things about Wikipedia is terms have awfully specific meanings here. I don't think you mean to refer to WP:Notability but instead WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Likewise, WP:OTHERSTUFF is an essay about whether we should delete something. It doesn't really makes sense to cite it here because some stuff exists for a reason.

The reason we refer to primary topics here is because the standards for what we consider primary topics are different than notability. The criteria for that include a topic's long-term significance (not just its current usage). If an argument is being made that a subject is primary with respect to long-term significance by virtue of the subject holding a given office, then a successful counterargument to that would be prior office holders who are not primary topics themselves. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:26, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the thorough reply. You definitely make a valid point about my imprecision in referencing certain guidelines and essays. I don't believe I was the one who pointed to WP:Notability, but yeah I completely misremembered WP:OTHERSTUFF. I'll ponder on this for a bit, as I am still somewhat inclined to request a move review (you make valid points, but I also feel like my grasp on the nuances of this process is tenuous enough that I'd want more input). But yours is definitely not an inherently unreasonable conclusion. Cpotisch (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERCONTENT may have been more what you were thinking of. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:57, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I think that was it. Cpotisch (talk) 00:02, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your response. I do agree that the discussion was a bit messy ... but as you seem to mention, there might've been a case for some sort of precise disambiguator (a point which goes against my own "vote"), even if it wasn't the one I stated. I'm at a point right now where I probably will not be the one to start the review, but if the review occurs, I will probably participate. (By the way, do not take this as me being ungrateful that you closed the discussion; contentious discussions are difficult to close, and someone had to do it. Kudos to you on that.) Steel1943 (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can't WP:BARTENDER your way into a WP:PDAB - partial disambiguation is an unusual phenomenon that should require explicit consensus in favor of its implementation, not one that emerges from nothing. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 00:27, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good point right here. May make me reconsider not opening a WP:MRV. Darn it. Steel1943 (talk) 02:48, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just started one if you didn't see. Cpotisch (talk) 04:17, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Pppery: I'm a bit confused by your statement here. It wasn't a close born from nothing; it was WP:NOTCURRENTTITLE-type close. The option I went with seemed to have the most support at the time; even though it was a WP:PDAB. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:21, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've been trying to give you the benefit of the doubt on this, but come on. A total of seven people even acknowledged the existence of the (politician) option. Depending on how you judge their responses, between three and six of those actually supported it. This is out of more than eighty who participated and more than fifty who supported the "Mike Johnson" title. It's not a vote, but something that >90% of participants never even discussed can't seriously be considered the result of consensus. Cpotisch (talk) 04:16, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This message has also been sent to ToBeFree.

At that arbitration case an editor, who I won't immediately name here but they are not an Involved Party, has in my opinion engaged in battleground behavior that includes bad-faith assumptions and aspersions. I can certainly provide multiple diff, but prior to doing that, could you tell me if there is a formal, within-case mechanism (perhaps in addition to notifying the clerks on their Talk pages) for reporting those concerns? Alternatively, do you suggest that I simply remain silent and let the arbitration committee consider, or not consider, such posts as they see fit? Thanks for your help. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(replied on my talk page :) ) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 19:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Mike Johnson (politician). Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Cpotisch (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks again for replying to my inquiry about this. I still feel that it would benefit from a move review, but thanks for closing it, nonetheless. Cpotisch (talk) 23:46, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect SP-3000 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 20 § SP-3000 until a consensus is reached. Felix QW (talk) 09:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Vito Castellano, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:05, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MJL,

Someone moved Mike Johnson (politician) back to Mike Johnson (Louisiana politician). I tried moving it back, but it said the page "Mike Johnson (politician)" was already in use. Since you were the one that did the move in the first place can you fix it? Thanks. Alexysun (talk) 19:51, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

See ES at [1]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:21, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: As Gråbergs Gråa Sång hinted at, my close was overturned. I brought it up here to NmWTfs85lXusaybq, but I can't deny the response to my objection was reasonable.. even if it hurt my pride. Nothing left to do besides write a new move request.
If you need help, I can get that process started for you; though, you might like to start that discussion yourself. Either way, let me know. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 04:38, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok well if his response was valid, how would a new move request be agreed upon? Alexysun (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: I'm a bit confused with your question. That discussion is already happening, and you already weighed in there where you expressed it was essentially a waste of time.. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 07:41, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see. First, I thought a move request was more formal and involved more of the "Oppose" and "Support" responses. Second, I want the article to be moved, but I was just expressing that there was too much pushback against the move for no reason. Alexysun (talk) 19:23, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexysun: It's not the real move request. For contentious stuff, it's best to try and get a sense for where people are at before a move request happens (ie. What should the options be). When it does occur, I'll be sure to notify you (and everyone else involved in that thread) about it. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:19, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok gotcha. Thank you. Alexysun (talk) 21:42, 16 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hi! i noticed that the page for the mixed access template seems to be the same as the open access template page. i left a message on the article's talk page a little while ago but i thought i would mention it here as well since you're the creator of it :] i just am not sure how to fix it myself, lol. thanks!

Eatingbugs (talk) 22:17, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Eatingbugs: I believe you're referring to the documentation page for {{Mixed access}}? I never bothered to create one since it works exactly like {{open access}}. I suppose I should really fix it so that family of templates have their own shared documentation, so I'll do that now to avoid confusion in the future. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:51, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would members of a militia not be considered a part of the army for stub sorting?

Best, Geardona (talk) 23:23, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Geardona: Nah, it's not that simple. The US Army was a different military formation at that point in history. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok! thanks! Geardona (talk) 18:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

	The Creator Award
	Thank you for your Wikipedia video creations on Youtube! I found yours when I was looking into another editor who makes Wikipedia tutorials that I was interested in and wanted to find out more about them. Huggums537 (talk) 20:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJL. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Vito Castellano".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 17:19, 12 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:CEN noticeboard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Schierbecker (talk) 07:21, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is this thing on? Probably the longest away I've been from Wikipedia.

I'll be back soon. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:50, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Maria Perez (politician), a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to disturb you, but I wasn't sure if my message would be recieved if I asked on English Wikisource, since you haven't edited that project for a year.

A few years ago (in 2019) you ressurected Wikisource news. I've tried this again, albeit in a far smaller format, but I have a question about the supposedly automatic messages (in theory from MediaWiki Message Delivery). (I don't have any experience in that technical realm). Do they get sent out by a bot at some point, ideally soon-ish? Do I have to do something to prompt it to send a message to the talk pages? Or does it not work, and I should thus hand out messages myself?

Thanks for any help you can provide. Cheers, Cremastra (talk) 23:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, MJL. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Proshipper, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 21:08, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MJL :) I'm looking for experienced editors to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 04:38, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:PCGamingWiki has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:40, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that image on the page. Don't know why I didn't think of putting it into a box like that. Have a fox as my thanks!

LakesideMiners^{Come Talk To Me!} 11:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Five years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article International Revolutionary Left has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No demonstration of notability. Attempts to find sources turn up nothing of note, only their own publications. Completely fails GNG as a result.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:01, 17 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow take page stalkers,

there is a situation in another wiki project, which is quite similar to the Kubura situation, with a right-wing nutjob running amok and making arbitrary decisions in violation of rules and similar stuff. I've already messaged MJL via Mail about this, but since he seems to be inactive for a longer time, is there any place or person that can be contacted, which is likely to respond? Thanks. --Mighty Wire (talk) 18:33, 3 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Committee for a Workers' International (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Epic Rap Battles of History has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. --woodensuperman 09:42, 9 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Barnstar of Diplomacy

A discussion on enwikt about Scots words led me to discover the 2020 scowp crisis. It was shocking. Thank God AG was resilient enough - I see he now has almost as many edits on enwdata as on scowp. But also, thank God for your diplomatic but firm leadership in setting things right. Without the two of you, scowp would have died, in 2013ff or in 2020. Enginear (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And congratulations on standing up to the vindictive, manipulative liar, James Somebody, at some personal cost. His repeated misgendering and use of a wp deadname is typical of such a bully. I have never before seen a vote of 39 nem con in Wikimedia, and it was largely his treatment of you and another that produced that vote. The only answer to such people is to vote against them. You have cats on your user page. The free world is praying that the US contains many cat-women. Russia and China not so much.

Enginear (talk) 16:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]