User talk:MJL/Archive 22

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

Virginia House of Delegates Case[edit]

Hi! Recently, you left a comment on my article that my citation style was inconsistent. I made some edits to the citations I felt were weirdly formatted by wikipedia's automatic and did them manually. I would really appreciate it if you could look at my article again. Thank you!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by Astav2020 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Astav2020: Thank you a ton for making that page! I've removed the tag now that you fixed the citation issue. Please, let me know if I can do anything else for you. Happy editing! –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:02, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear MJL. Thanks again for being so responsive and helpful with my page; I really appreciate it. I was wondering if you could please nominate my article for at least a C-Class level. Thanks again! Astav2020 (talk) 04:54, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Astav2020: Would you happen to be a teacher? I've begun reviewing the article, some initial concerns I have is that it's not exactly structured as readers may expect. The structure is a bit... off. It'd be great for an educational setting, but Wikipedia articles are generally formatted in past tense with goal of building an encyclopedia.
Here are some of Wikipedia's best articles on court cases you might like to read as good standards: Reed v. Town of Gilbert, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, Glasser v. United States, this one, and Bad Elk v. United States.
I'll finish looking at your article in a bit, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks :)[edit]

Hi MJL, I'll be offline, you'll be on your own. 😉 Thank you very much and good luck. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:27, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree: That's funny you messaged me because I was just about to message you saying we did a good job on saving that user from themselves there! Thank you a ton for the help in getting through to them. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:30, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, thank you. 😄 And no worries. I hope we're actually dealing with a very new editor, because then I see great potential in the interest shown to devote time to Wikipedia for something that must seem boring to most people: cleaning up. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@ToBeFree: My guess is on them being a former vandal possibly a bit on the younger side. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I know a sizeable amount of anti-vandal folks were former vandals at one point. [Not me for whatever reason.. Before I had my account here, and when I was 14, this is the kind of edit I made. I just never felt like vandalizing.] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:00, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There's still time, M. – Levivich 05:10, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I mean, I'm pretty sure if you will happen upon vandalism from my IP address, you will find it to have been from User:MJL's Evil Sister. She's explicitly taunted me with saying, after my explanation of the sockpuppetry policy, how easy it would be to get me blocked. ...And that is why I made her register an account lol. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 *Sigh.* You really are bad at vandalism, M.
First, the way the sister defense works is you vandalize something, then only after you're caught do you blame it on your "sister" and register "her" an account. You've gone and blown what could have been a months-long vandalism spree by registering the account first. Now who are you going to blame the vandalism on?
Second, "MJL's Evil Sister" is a terrible name for a bad hand sock. People are supposed to think that's someone else. What good is her brigading going to do you now?
You're a good editor, M, but when it comes to being disruptive, you still have a lot to learn. – Levivich 05:42, 24 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Jokes on you buddy, you think that this is my twin being bad at vandalism, but actually this is me being great at making my twin sibling look like they are bad vandalism! All according to keikaku! (0`w´0✿)~MJL's Evil Sister (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's over.

~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

December events with WIR[edit]

December 2019, Volume 5, Issue 12, Numbers 107, 108, 144, 145, 146, 147


Check out what's happening in December at Women in Red...

Online events:


Editor feedback:


Social media: Facebook / Instagram / Pinterest / Twitter

Stay in touch: Join WikiProject Women in Red / Opt-out of notifications

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:43, 25 November 2019 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

A bowl of strawberries for you![edit]

For spending time in digging up the past between the 2 warring editors and proposing suggestions to fix the problem. Although I disagree with the solutions proposed, I am glad that your proposals will take this forward and hopefully resolve the situation. DBigXrayᗙ 07:16, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charles P. Roland[edit]

Hello,my friend, could you please also add Charles P. Roland to List of living centenarians— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.220.187 (talk) 12:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:34, 26 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Truth or Legends: In Your Hometown[edit]

Hi. Thought I'd let you handle this one, due to your history with the draft. The sourcing is still pretty slim, but in my opinion barely passes GNG with the CBS and Fox refs (imdb doesn't count, and the fourth ref doesn't even mention the show). Onel5969 TT me 13:38, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Onel5969: To be honest, I rather hate denying drafts and if you think you can make an arguement that it meets GNG, then I'm all for you accepting it. I know the article's creator really wants it published, at least. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:02, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply, after re-looking at the sourcing, however, I don't think it makes the GNG threshhold. When I just went back, seems another editor agrees with that and has sent it to AfD.Onel5969 TT me 18:48, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@onel5969: Oof. Well.. at least I am not the villain here! I think it's funny we had the same idea just to put it back into draftspace just to return to the status quo.
I'll leave it for you to explain to our pal Jeremyeyork why that's gotta happen lol –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:01, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- and I hope you don't think I was canvassing you to comment at the AfD.Onel5969 TT me 19:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Onel5969: Nah, lol- You'd have had to predict the future to do that. Both the article and the draft are in my watchlist, so I was going to find out sooner or later. [I just check talk page messages first, then pings, write articles, and then watchlist.] –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:17, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bongo[edit]

What is the copyright violation on bongo? How much needs to be rewritten? Is there anything we can do to help? You don't seem to have listed it. 22:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:F510:8F00:592B:6913:1A3:4F94 (talk)

Hi, sorry for not getting back sooner. This is the copyright report. If you are able to rewrite this portion of the article, then it will likely be settled more expediently. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:52, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Review[edit]

Can you review Ramesh Solanki page?-- Harshil want to talk? 02:07, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Harshil169: If I review the page, I'm probably going to have to tag it for undue weight and lacking sufficient context. Is that acceptable to you? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 02:33, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I can submit it to some Indian who is familiar with subject. Let's see what is their opinion?-- Harshil want to talk? 02:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heck!Someone else already reviewed it. Thanks!-- Harshil want to talk? 02:45, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Harshil169: Yeah, I generally try to avoid reviewing articles that I'm not completely ready to standby 100% lol. My apologies, –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:02, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 11[edit]

News and updates associated with user scripts from the past month (November 2019).

Hello everyone and welcome to the 11th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter:

Enjoy your thanksgiving --DannyS712 (talk) 08:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Can you teach me how to reach consensus on something.[edit]

I wanted to change the name of an article. Instead of chamging I opt for discussion coz I know it's something some people won't agree. Anti Hindu Sentiments. I asked a request to change the name. One person disagree but others are in agree and I don't know how and what to do next. Edward Zigma (talk) 08:34, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Edward Zigma: The answer is simple: nothing. If it seems like there is a clear majority in support of an action, then whoever closes the move request will generally follow that. If they say something particularly objectionable, then someone else generally will respond instead. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:51, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Special Notice for TheWikiWizard[edit]

Dear Reader, You may have noticed that you did not receive a mailing for the November 2019 Issue, this is due to thegooduser being very busy with schoolwork and other important life issues. We do apologize that you have not received the November issue, and we will continue to work very hard to deliver to you the December Special Issue for 2019. We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. If you like hearing about Wikipedia News and events, don't forget that The Signpost (our rival paper) does cover such events, in case we do not publish an issue on time. Thank you for subscribing and we will work very hard to deliever the December Issue. Best, --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 02:39, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 04:10, 29 November 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)[reply]

The Signpost: 29 November 2019[edit]

News, reports and features from the English Wikipedia's weekly journal about Wikipedia and Wikimedia

Benjamin Florsheim Wikipedia Page[edit]

Hello User:MJL, I added a source citation for Mayor Florsheim's wiki page that confirms his birthdate and year of birth. Thank You so much for your help Moranmdtwnct (talk) 19:26, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Moranmdtwnct: It has now been published. :) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 19:42, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL thanks again Moranmdtwnct (talk) 19:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WV days to Christmas[edit]

Hello, how are you, you rWandering Vagabond here, could you please see if you could upload a picture for Rick Price, kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:02, 1 December 2019 (UTC) :Article to restore Barry Quin as credited as Barry Quinn— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'll look into it (our image use policy may prevent me from uploading one, but I'll certainly try my best!). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 18:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I surprise even myself sometimes, and I successfully found a rather good photograph of Rick Price! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC) favourites[reply]

Thanks i love that, have all his albums, yes i understand it can sometimes be difficult because of copyright, but it looks so much better, was wondering if you could also source some images for Home and Away favourites Roger Oakley and Norman Coburn, and Sheila Kennelly there is not many images regrettably for soap opera stars, due to the main problem of copyright again, but only pictures for there characters— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 03:52, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ISNT THERE SOMETHING TO OVERRIDE FOR FAIR-USE RATIONALE{{subst:03:54, 3 December 2019‎ 1.43.229.8}}
Sadly, no my friend. It's really important that Wikipedia has such a strict Image use policy because it encourages people to share their works in a free manner.
Just a preliminary search on those figures turned almost nothing useful, so basically the only chance we will have of ever getting a photo of them on here sometime soon is if someone meets them in person (or has a contact with their agent).
Honestly, the Rick Price picture was practically a miracle find, and I only managed to get the one we have now because someone took a photo of him 6 years ago under a compatible license. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:09, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

okay i have a article to restore Ugly Dave Gray — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 04:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

it is the wrong edit restored, the filmography had about 22 entries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 04:37, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Woops, sorry about that! Fixed now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:40, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 22:39:42, 3 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tessadow[edit]


Hi there, I am just trying to figure out specific feedback on why my submission was denied. It says due to its sources, though all sources included are from reliable websites and are reviews of the brand. Was there a specific source or section that should be changed?

Tessadow (talk) 22:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tessadow: Hi there! You have a list of Sources here as well which include links to Facebook and such. However, the primary concern I had was that the draft reads very much like an advertisement. That's a major problem. I would be happy to clean up the article for you, but that would involve getting rid of large swaths of the article (such as the Publicity/Press Commentary and Website sections entirely as well as removing a sizeable amount of prose). Instead of doing that, I just denied the submission. My apologies for the inconvenience.
Also, do you have any affiliation with Gap? I generally have to ask whether or not you are being paid to edit in situations like this. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 22:49, 3 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Request on 15:23:41, 4 December 2019 for assistance on AfC submission by Tessadow[edit]


Hi there, thank you for explaining your edits and concerns. I listed the sources initially as I had hyperlinked words in the body of the text with those links and just wanted to make sure I was citing appropriately! Regarding the press commentary, I included this section as I noticed other Wikipedia pages of similar brands (e.g. Untuckit) included these kinds of sections to share feedback on editor's experience with the product. If you are able to make the edits that you think would help that would be greatly appreciated, and I am not associate with GAP!

Thank you, Tessadow (talk) 15:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tessadow: Yeah, if you look at Untuckit#top, you'll see that the article has been tagged for needing improvement as it has the problem of reading as an advertisement as well. I'll make the necessary changes to Hill City for you in a bit. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Brandon McGee concern[edit]

Hi there, I'm HasteurBot. I just wanted to let you know that Draft:Brandon McGee, a page you created, has not been edited in 5 months. The Articles for Creation space is not an indefinite storage location for content that is not appropriate for articlespace.

If your submission is not edited soon, it could be nominated for deletion. If you would like to attempt to save it, you will need to improve it.

You may request Userfication of the content if it meets requirements.

If the deletion has already occured, instructions on how you may be able to retrieve it are available at WP:REFUND/G13.

Thank you for your attention. HasteurBot (talk) 01:25, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Volunteer Day[edit]

File:IVD GIF.gif

Happy International Volunteer Day. Every Wikipedians are volunteers and you deserve this recognition. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Abishe (talk) 05:33, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Abishe: Woah, fancy! Thank you!! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:36, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Longford Lyell Award[edit]

Hello Wandering Vagabond to Christmas ., could you please restore article , the Longford Lyall Award, also was wondering to ask an important question regarding article "INFOBOX SECTION", some people write in the OCCUPATION Section when doenoting more than one (1) entry (or more than one specific occupation) as actress, director, producer, screenwriter, playwright etc., was wondering as i write it ALWAYS as a hlist entry, what is appropriate, some say a {{hlist}} is usually for three (3) or more occupations or entries.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 06:50, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oop's typo!!! Longford Lyell Award most recent recipient is Sam Neill (actor) {{hlist|Actor|director|producer|...}}— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 06:58, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Done. To your question, I try to keep it to only the most critical stuff (and not more than three but maybe four), so for Sam Neill I would say {{hlist|Actor|filmmaker|vineyard proprietor}} since filmmaker can cover director, producer, and writer. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 14:06, 5 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you, but the last two (2) entries in Longford Lyell Award need to be referenced, as specially as it is a special distinction category, kind regards— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 01:23, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for your comment on my first article, and would you please review/suggest again?[edit]

hi, MJL,

many thanks for comments on my first article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:POLARDB I revised some and add more reference in the article, according to your comments and some help from other friends. Hopefully it looks better and acceptable now. Would you please review again? I am grateful for your suggestion/comments.

Takefor (talk) 18:46, 5 December 2019 (UTC).[reply]

 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Awards season[edit]

Hello, could you please restore article AACTA Awards, also the last two (2) recipients of the Longford Lyell Award need references, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 05:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AACTA Awards is doesn't seem to need fixing, and I'll get on the Longford Lyell Award in bit (Funnily enough, I got distracted with Writers Guild of America Awards 2019-- a competing awards ceremony!).
Also, I was rather surprised by this edit because I can't recall the last time you ever put a comment in the designated section before. I think you're starting to get the hang of Wiki-Syntax after all!!

Thank you, sorry i think maybe you maybe overlooked it (the mistake!!), i should have been more descriptive, it is in AACTA Awards down the page where it states 2019 ceremony,— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i can't remember what i added before— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:10, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also Having trouble invoking a named reference, as some people write <ref>, instead of ref name="Houston Chronicle" etc. ref name="what do i write here" /> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did this for article Huey Long (singer) when reference 1 was referenced again in the last sentence.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Basically, per this help page, if you want to use a reference more than once you should name it. It should go something like this:
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit.<ref name="Author20XX">{{cite web |title=Example Domain |url=http://example.com/ |website=example.com |access-date=6 December 2019 |language=en |url-status=live}}</ref>

Nulla rutrum, lorem vel ultricies elementum, sapien ligula malesuada sapien, at porta lacus quam at dui. Fusce rutrum facilisis porttitor.<ref name="Author20XX" /> Nulla facilisi. Donec cursus nulla at justo scelerisque, at ultricies arcu rhoncus. In convallis, elit sed laoreet feugiat, diam est viverra sem, sit amet laoreet quam felis sed tortor. Quisque laoreet nec turpis elementum sollicitudin. Fusce sodales porta auctor. Nulla sed eros et sem tempor feugiat. Sed sit amet erat sit amet eros luctus bibendum. In viverra eleifend justo at dapibus.<ref name="Author20XX" /> Sed tempor blandit eleifend. Curabitur semper elit fringilla arcu posuere mollis. Maecenas ac sodales dolor. Vivamus consectetur at magna et elementum. Duis euismod sem arcu. Pellentesque quis leo et nisl varius mollis ac quis justo.<ref name="Author20XX" />
I hope that helps! (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes , have heard of the Writers Guild of America Awards, they are a great recognition for individuals, for in Australia my favourite writer is C.J. Dennis The Sentimental Bloke — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:26, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's a long term project of mine to get all the 72 award ceremonies all nice and stuff. They're all currently a mess. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I'm mean for example 9th AACTA Awards how do i makes reference (2) the same as (3) if there is no ref name, written like this <ref>, rather then ref name="information" /> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you're going to want to make this line:
<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.aacta.org/aacta-awards/winners-and-nominees/|title=Winners & Nominees|website=Aacta.org|accessdate=24 January 2019}}</ref>

To read: 

<ref name="Aacta.org">{{cite web|url=https://www.aacta.org/aacta-awards/winners-and-nominees/|title=Winners & Nominees|website=Aacta.org|accessdate=24 January 2019}}</ref>
This will make Ref 2 be the same as Ref 3. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also, never forget to add an edit summary! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for the informations, help and assistance, I TRYED IT, to my surprise!!, pleasant surprise it did work, although one thing the reference section gives the same reference twice as 2 and 3, seemingly also i mean WOW they seem to want us to do the work, because for example , the old, ref name="Houston Chronicle" />, as i did for Huey Long (singer), you dont have to rewrite the full URL and title again. lol.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:06, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Some pictures may be uploaded for the following , i think the licenses has concluded Queenie Ashton, singer and actress, Olga Dickie, Scottish Australian film star, Colleen Clifford, actress and Edward Howell (actor) English Australian actor and scriptwriter, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops also forgot to mention Brian Wenzel — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good news and bad news; I wasn't able to find any pictures for anyone. However, I did get a good lead for Queenie Ashton, and I've sent an email to chase down whether or not this image is public domain. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:49, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Palestine-Israel articles 4: workshop reopened[edit]

Because of the nature of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 arbitration case and the importance of the exact wording of remedies, the Arbitration Committee would like to invite public comment and workshopping on the proposed decision, which will be posted soon. Accordingly, the workshop in this case is re-opened and will remain open until Friday, December 13. To opt out of further announcements, please remove yourself from the notification list. For the Arbitration Committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Infoboxes[edit]

Thank=you ,could you please also add an INFOBOX for Queenie Ashton, and Sheila Kennelly and Wendy Blacklock , thanks, reagards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:58, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 06:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your assistance some more INFOBOXES, Phillipa Baker, Alister Smart, Patsy King, Joy Westmore, Jill Perryman and sorry i dont know how to do them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:26, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Have uploaded a picture for Wendy Blacklock] , could we do an infobox also for Mike Dorsey and use the same picture, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:39, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oop's i forgot to ask is our Queenie Ashton picture okay — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oof, you're keeping me busy here! I have not heard back from the museum, but I received an automatic reply which said I should expect a reply in a few more business days.
As for the infoboxes, I'll have to see about doing them tomorrow. It's currently 2:50AM where I live, and I'm ready for bed haha –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 07:50, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i keeping you busy, lol, have a good sleep ZZZZZzzzzz.... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Copyrighted images[edit]

Basically, I had to remove the Wendy Blacklock picture. Basically, (and this might sound ridiculous because it sort of is) despite us hosting that photo, we are actually not allowed to use it in those cases. Our policy basically says that we aren't allowed to use copyrighted images of people who are still alive. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:07, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is okay, i thought it might have been but was not sure, as so many are copyrighted these days, it is why so many article's remain photoless, which is of course ridiculous as it just goes to spoil the whole project, how did you go with the INFOBOXES, kind regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 04:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, I try to avoid fair use/copyrighted images at all costs. That can be such a landmine to deal with, and it's just easier to upload pictures that I know to be in free.
Infoboxes are  Done, though I probably should go back and add a few more relevant parameters like who they married and such. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank-you for that, and much kindly appreciated, yes, i will certainly add more parameters etc. oops however you forgot Phillipa Baker (actress), sorry it was a disambiguation page, the other was a rower — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 04:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Baker is  Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank-you could uyou please kindly add to List of Living Centenarians, Virginia McLaurin, although you might have to add the NOTE, because the date of birth is disputed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 05:58, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On this right now. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, thank-you always for your help and assistance, whilst i have never been when to gloat, i think i have came a reasonably long way as an editor, i just do not like people who change my edits, without an explanation, i don't so much mind if people have a logical reason or give a explanation, but just to go along and change w/hat someone has wrote, it is just downright impolite and rude, dont' you agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:37, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly, this is all too common among editors who deal with IP users. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Also in regards to article Virginia McLaurin) birthdate is given as MARCH12, 1909, aged an extraordinary 110 year sold also the part where it says in article, other sources give a different date, i am not complaining, but as far as i can understand, even though a am certainly no professional editor , this constitutes original research, and just GERONTOLOGY WEBSITES, are not permitted, am i correct— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 08:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You are absolutely correct. I'll have to investigate that because genealogy websites are no where close to as reliable as the Washington Post. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:09, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the primary source. If they add it back, please let me know. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 09:16, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello , thanks could you please add Virginia McLaurin to List of living centenarians — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 10:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but she was removed due to an apparent consensus not to include her on the list. We'll have to go to the article's talk page and make a good arguement that she meets the list's criteria if we want to add her back to the list. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


RSN - Newsweek close[edit]

I'm not seeing what you saw as the consensus. Actually, there were far stronger arguments as generally reliable and now I'm wondering if you included the responses to the 2nd question that was asked. Would you look at that again? Atsme Talk 📧 23:29, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review when I get home –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm home but I forgot to do an essay. I gotta do that real quick. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 01:40, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No rush. Atsme Talk 📧 03:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme: Basically, the way the conversation went down left a lot to be desired. Too many users seemed to either operate in a simple binary where a source was either generally reliable or generally unreliable, or they were on the flip side and argued that general reliability shouldn't mean individual articles shouldn't be scrutinized (thus everything was just in a gray area). I basically was left with two options for consensus: status quo or WP:MREL.
I went with the latter because I felt the outcome reflected a more honest representation of the discussion. For example, one person who advocated for general reliability started their comment as follows: Generally reliable but used with caution... which, to me, seems to immediately contradict itself.
I will also point out that my close was not in favor of granting Newsweek with the status of general unreliability. It's just not generally reliable (Basically, it's not bad, but it's not particularly good either).
As hinted at in my closing, had folks advocating for general reliability addressed more of the other side's points (specifically with the CJR article), then I likely would've just closed in favor of the status quo. Reviewing the discussion again only makes me realize how disparent the opposing viewpoints were and realizing some people have rather idiosyncratic views on the matter. All that I might change is whether this was a no consensus close or not, but that virtually has the same results because a no consensus means not generally reliability (if there is doubt).
Also, I read both questions 1 and 2. Imo, Masem was rather persuasive in his rationale. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts - (1) there was a second question for those who voted no which tends to favor one result over the other and creates an imbalance. I did not vote no; therefore, did not comment in that section; (2) the consensus reached here, which was only 4 mos earlier, is a consideration that should have provided a bit more weight when closing this time around; and (3) Masem said it was generally still reliable, and that is what I see as aligning with overall consensus. You closed it as clear consensus that it is "not generally reliable post–2013." Perhaps Masem will weigh-in now that I've pinged him. Atsme Talk 📧 10:52, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I noted that at times (post-2011) it is publishing completely fine, appropriate stories, but I would likely seek out a more stable source for the same story simply because I don't have much trust in the work as a whole. I think the close is reasonable - it's not a deprecated source (and the more recent issues associated with those types), but the type of source that one should avoid on BLPs and where otherwise used, should be replaced. --Masem (t) 14:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Masem, how will the close at RSN and what you're saying now about BLPs effect the Newsweek citations in Donald Trump considering there are at least 5 or 6, some of which are dated between 2011 and 2019? Atsme Talk 📧 15:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Atsme and Masem: Individual editors are welcomed to challenge individual uses of the article, but as a whole they're fine to use if determined to be individually reliable. I wouldn't actually go as far as Masem and think that Newsweek is would be fine to use for BLPs as well if local consensus is fine with it. All my close did was just gave the benefit of the doubt. I have used Newsweek for Epstein didn't kill himself, and I don't plan on particularly changing it because the articles seemed fine for their use cases.
I appreciate the feedback, though. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 16:55, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so it appears to me that, IOW, it is generally reliable until it's not. 😂 Happy editing, MJL. Atsme Talk 📧 17:04, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A travesty of justice (?!)[edit]

Hello, how are you ,sorry for not getting back earlier regarding the artical Virginia McLaurin, yes , i see there was some censensus, i don't know if she fits the list criteria, but sh ei s not on there just because she Barack Obama, she is there for her tireless community work, i think she has a great love, conviction and humanity, bless her.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 03:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough because I feel like she would've made a great fit, but you always gotta go with the group here. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:46, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
So should we continue to try to get her added, or should leave it, some people think not everyone has a consensus to be added to this list, the same occured with the late humanitarion, spiritual leader and religion figure Shivakumara Swami — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 06:54, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
thank-you for your help let me know how we go with our picture, i will do some filmography again soon, regards, WanderingVagaBond as always, lol!!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to leave the Virginia McLaurin thing alone because some people get really heated about it.
If I get an email back, I'll let you know. Otherwise, I'll go through the many steps to uploading a fair use photograph. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:02, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, my friend again, how are you, yes we will leave the article of Virginia McLaurin, sad and rather disappointing, some people didn't think she met the criteria, even under article List of Activists, the argument semmingly as she is a volunteer or community worker she is not actually an "activist" as such. Also she seemed to fit as it is a rare distinction to have the service medal award under your belt. Anyhow, could you please monitor my account some disputes, i will write back tomorrow, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 11:08, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AfroCine: Thank You![edit]

Greetings!

Thank you very much for participating in The Months of African Cinema Global Edit-a-thon which was concluded on 30 November 2019. We are happy to announce that the Wikimedia Foundation approved to award tokens for our winners during this edition of the contest. These prizes would be given in the form of vouchers (primarily Amazon gift cards, but we can work with other possible options in your country) and would be distributed in this manner:

  • Overall Winner - $100
  • Second place - $50
  • Third place - $30
  • Diversity Winner - $30
  • Gender gap filler - $30

If you want your articles to be considered for the contest, please make sure that your articles have been listed and properly linked on this page. If you are not interested in the competition aspect and prizes, you can also choose to remove your session from that page.

Thank you so much for being part of this wikievent!--Jamie Tubers (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Shand[edit]

Hello, thank-you my friend, always very kind, could d you please add an INFOXBOX SECTION for Ron Shand, i am adding some more information soon, regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 15:11, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ALSO could please restore article for Ron Shand i have added further selected credits — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please add infox for David Sale and James Davern thanks again, kindly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 17:24, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
checkmark Restored –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Will do infoboxes after finals today. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you , what are the finals?, i will let you know of some other "INFOBOX SECTION", help. thanks again — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 06:02, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thankss can you also add INFOBOX, for Jane Barnell and Elizabeth Green the Stork Woman, much appreciated — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
TO PLEASE RESTORE OF ARTICLE Jackie Woodburne Northern Irish-Australian actress, best known as Susan Kennedy in Neighbours — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 07:32, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, looking at creating a new article for publication soon, regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 11:47, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It’s that time of year![edit]

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic)

Atsme Talk 📧 16:43, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Time To Spread A Little
Happy Holiday Cheer!!
I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree
in the spirit of the season.

 What's especially nice about
this digitized version:
*it doesn't need water
*won't catch fire
*and batteries aren't required.
Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️

and a prosperous New Year!!

🍸🎁 🎉

RfC[edit]

Hey, MJL! I'm not sure what I'm looking at here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=727082#Partial_blocks ? --valereee (talk) 20:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Woops! I forgot to put w:sco: in front of it. That was supposed to be a link to Sco.wiki's discussion on Partial blocks. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 23:22, 13 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Remarks[edit]

Sorry for my remarks on IF talk page. I perceive there is more to this story. I too am a good editor...Here is an article I just rescued from the editor's templates. Malford Milligan. it needs a lot more work. However the editor also followed me there from Eric Tessmer, Nancy Wilson and Jennifer Mee. Have a nice holiday sorry I got frustrated. Lightburst (talk) 03:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And they just re-templated the Malford Milligan. Such is life Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: Maybe I was a bit harsh on you without knowing the whole situation. Just like.. how did this even happen? I don't think I have ever seen anything I've written go over 40% (and that's just because of an extended quote). There's seriously no possible way for a new article to get 93.9% on Earwig without, at least partially, using content that has been copied and pasted directly into the article. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks you were right, I was frustrated by the following and the uncollegial templating of my talk page. But no, I had nothing to do with the writing of Malford Milligan. I slapped it with citation needed templates a few months ago, and added an infobox. I meant to go back there when time permitted and TNT the article. But I just today saw that Flamingo followed there also when I made a small edit to the page linking to a page I wrote on Greg Koch. I just now TNT's the whole mess and started over. Some sourcing is weak but earwig is at 8% now. Lightburst (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst: So what are you saying when you refer to "the editor's templates" ? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Vagabond[edit]

WANDERING VAGABOND, still, lol, thankyou for doing the INFOBOXX for Ron Shand , i had to make some minor adjustments, could you please do the others for me, i appreciate, the article needn't restoring, someone else did, regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 01:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oh awesome! Sorry I didn't respond last night. I fell asleep in the middle of doing the infobox for Ron Shand. I'll start doing the others right now! :D
To answer your earlier question, finals are tests we take in America which help determine whether or not we passed the class (the final test of the semester). –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:36, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Might go to bed soon by the way. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ARTICLE, TO PLEASE RESTORE Reference's and Categorie's Brian Crossley— Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.42.102.44 (talk) 17:39, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

checkmark Restored (edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:42, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intel Coffee Lake-based Xeon microprocessors moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of Intel Coffee Lake-based Xeon microprocessors, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intel Kaby Lake-based Xeon microprocessors moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of Intel Kaby Lake-based Xeon microprocessors, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Intel P6-based Xeon microprocessors moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, List of Intel P6-based Xeon microprocessors, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 04:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CASSIOPEIA: Oof. Could ya like please put it back into mainspace? It's just a split of Lists of Xeon microprocessors I needed to do for technical reasons. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 04:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MJL , pls provide sources. Stand alone lists do need source just like any other articles - see WP:STAND. by the way group sources are acceptable for stand alone list and sources can be in any languages. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 05:08, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CASSIOPEIA: Dawg, I'm saying that it was unsourced in mainspace and all I did was split the article because it reached its transclusion limit. There's also been some... irregularities with this list article. Maybe ferret can explain things better than me. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 05:13, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Guys, why would you need to split one convinient page into bunch of links and pages? Please, reverse it to it's previous state. Fellow user of this page — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.193.55.211 (talk) 11:38, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
IP - It's been clearly explained several times now. The list hit a literal technical limit and stopped rendering all the items it contained. MJL: Sourcing shouldn't be too hard to come by. For example for the P6 list: [1][2][3][4]. These aren't necessarily the best, just quick examples where all I did was search P6-based Xeon. Googling some of the model names might also help. -- ferret (talk) 12:20, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail[edit]

Hello, MJL. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.qedk (t 桜 c) 21:32, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blethering sassanachs[edit]

Yup I was trying to resurrect/save bagpipes from a disaster - have been somewhat delayed in action - usage of shortcuts or whatever by others are most welcome if it makes the place more usable and no problem for me - there's always more acronyms that can be applied to the things and noises... JarrahTree 07:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JarrahTree: Awesome! I'll retarget the redirect in a bit.
If there is anything I can do to help you along in reviving that WikiProject, I'd be happy to assist. Seriously, whatever you need I'd be willing to do. I'm a user with many trades. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 21:45, 18 Decembere.

New Page Review newsletter December 2019[edit]

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McLaurin[edit]

Hello, my friend, how are you, wishing you a merry christmas in advance, someone has readmitted the information of Virginia McLaurin, i was going to leave it, but it doesn't adhere to wikipedia policies, so maybe it is advisable to add a note regarding original research policy. thanks fo you help, regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1.43.229.8 (talk) 12:33, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'm a little disappointed that a user who has been around longer than me was the one to restore that edit, but I left them a note on their talk page anyways. –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 17:20, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi MJL! You created a thread called This may sound stupid for me to ask... at Wikipedia:Teahouse, but it has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please create a new thread.

Archival by Lowercase sigmabot III, notification delivery by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} (ban this bot) or {{nobots}} (ban all bots) on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]


DYK nomination of Epstein didn't kill himself[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Epstein didn't kill himself 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) 18:05, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

DYK nomination of Charles P. Roland[edit]

Hello! Your submission of Charles P. Roland 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) 19:57, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MJL/Archive_22&oldid=998964257"