Xtool stats edit

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-06 18:39

MJL - en.wiki - Edit Counter

General statistics edit

User ID 29291527
Registration date 2016-09-29 13:35
User groups extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user
Is administrator? 0
First edit 2016-09-29 13:41
Latest edit 2019-05-06 18:25
Live edits 6,553 (97.8%)
Deleted edits 146 (2.2%)
Total edits 6,699
Edits in the past 24 hours 80
Edits in the past 7 days 472
Edits in the past 30 days 1,687
Edits in the past 365 days 5,641
Average edits per day 7.1 (949 days)
Average edit size* 465.4 bytes
Minor edits 2,114 (32.3%)
Small edits (<20 bytes)* 1,703 (34.1%)
Large edits (>1000 bytes)* 714 (14.3%)

Pages edit

Pages edited (total) 2,956
Average edits per page 2.266
Pages created 918 (22 since deleted)
Pages moved 208
Pages deleted 0

Files edit

Files uploaded 1
Files uploaded (Commons) 69

Actions edit

Thank 302
Approve 53
Patrol 0
Accounts created 0

(Re)blocks edit

Longest block
Current block

Global edit counts (approximate) edit

en.wikipedia.org 6,488
en.wikisource.org 2,109
www.wikidata.org 593
commons.wikimedia.org 368
meta.wikimedia.org 170
simple.wikipedia.org 55
www.mediawiki.org 35
sco.wikipedia.org 28
en.wiktionary.org 12
sv.wikipedia.org 10

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

Namespace Totals edit

Rank Namespace Count
1 Wikipedia 1,460 (22.3%)
2 User talk 1,273 (19.4%)
3 User 1,238 (18.9%)
4 Main 1,090 (16.6%)
5 Portal 370 (5.6%)
6 Talk 339 (5.2%)
7 Template 278 (4.2%)
8 Wikipedia talk 226 (3.4%)
9 Portal talk 148 (2.3%)
10 Draft 42 (0.6%)
11 Category 38 (0.6%)
12 Template talk 22 (0.3%)
13 Category talk 16 (0.2%)
14 File 7 (0.1%)
15 Help 5 (0.1%)
16 Draft talk 1 (0%)
16 namespaces 6,553

Year counts edit

Year Count
2016 2
2017 295
2018 680
2019 5,576

Month counts edit

Month Count
2016-09 1
2016-10 0
2016-11 1
2016-12 0
2017-01 0
2017-02 0
2017-03 0
2017-04 0
2017-05 0
2017-06 8
2017-07 2
2017-08 0
2017-09 11
2017-10 6
2017-11 80
2017-12 188
2018-01 500
2018-02 48
2018-03 41
2018-04 21
2018-05 9
2018-06 17
2018-07 6
2018-08 8
2018-09 4
2018-10 6
2018-11 7
2018-12 13
2019-01 292
2019-02 1,879
2019-03 1,705
2019-04 1,273
2019-05 427

Time card edit

0:00 2:00 4:00 6:00 8:00 10:00 12:00 14:00 16:00 18:00 20:00 22:00
Sunday 21 42 38 14 2 0 0 11 29 100 54 30
Monday 35 23 35 32 2 0 1 7 58 47 40 40
Tuesday 39 62 21 18 1 0 1 5 18 10 33 17
Wednesday 10 7 24 12 0 0 2 17 39 42 37 58
Thursday 18 26 52 49 4 0 0 3 6 28 16 12
Friday 7 30 21 9 0 0 3 27 30 70 31 27
Saturday 13 27 28 10 13 1 2 17 17 35 77 58

All times are in UTC.

Top edits per namespace edit

Main edit

Edits Page title Assessment Links
22 National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States   Start Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 Historical rankings of presidents of the United States   C Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 The Greatest Showman   C Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 Connecticut   B Log · Page History · Top Edits
8 Eric Swalwell   C Log · Page History · Top Edits
7 List of members of the American Legislative Exchange Council   List Log · Page History · Top Edits
7 Brian Wenzel   Start Log · Page History · Top Edits
6 Mahagathbandhan   Start Log · Page History · Top Edits
6 Anglo-Prussian alliance (1756)   C Log · Page History · Top Edits

Talk edit

Edits Page title Links
20 Talk:The Matrix (franchise) Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 Talk:Pete Buttigieg Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 Talk:2019 Venezuelan presidential crisis Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 Talk:(486958) 2014 MU69 Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 Talk:Middletown Area Transit Log · Page History · Top Edits
8 Talk:Albania–Greece relations Log · Page History · Top Edits
6 Talk:Jack Evans (Washington, D.C. politician) Log · Page History · Top Edits
6 Talk:Historical rankings of presidents of the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits
6 Talk:National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits

User edit

Edits Page title Links
129 User:MJL/sandbox2 Log · Page History · Top Edits
93 User:MJL/sandbox3 Log · Page History · Top Edits
73 User:MJL/sandbox5 Log · Page History · Top Edits
67 User:MJL/Manual of Style/North Macedonia-related articles Log · Page History · Top Edits
63 User:MJL/common.js Log · Page History · Top Edits
51 User:MJL/Current events noticeboard/Header Log · Page History · Top Edits
47 User:MJL/sandbox4 Log · Page History · Top Edits
44 User:MJL/List of law firms based in the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits
37 User:MJL/History of the Constitution of the Netherlands Log · Page History · Top Edits

User talk edit

Edits Page title Links
176 User talk:MJL/Archive 8 Log · Page History · Top Edits
40 User talk:DannyS712 Log · Page History · Top Edits
25 User talk:Swarm Log · Page History · Top Edits
15 User talk:BrownHairedGirl Log · Page History · Top Edits
14 User talk:MJL Log · Page History · Top Edits
13 User talk:RTG Log · Page History · Top Edits
12 User talk:MJL/tasks Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 User talk:ImmortalWizard Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 User talk:MJL/Archive 4 Log · Page History · Top Edits

Wikipedia edit

Edits Page title Links
133 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Log · Page History · Top Edits
80 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure Log · Page History · Top Edits
50 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Log · Page History · Top Edits
48 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Log · Page History · Top Edits
35 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard Log · Page History · Top Edits
24 Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention Log · Page History · Top Edits
23 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003 Log · Page History · Top Edits
21 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Log · Page History · Top Edits
21 Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Log · Page History · Top Edits

Wikipedia talk edit

Edits Page title Links
72 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia)/2019 RFC Log · Page History · Top Edits
19 Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom Log · Page History · Top Edits
16 Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost Log · Page History · Top Edits
12 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard Log · Page History · Top Edits
7 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Portals Log · Page History · Top Edits
7 Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/SPI/Clerks Log · Page History · Top Edits
5 Wikipedia talk:Silly Things Log · Page History · Top Edits
4 Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UCONN Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Wikipedia talk:Arbitration Committee/Clerks Log · Page History · Top Edits

File edit

Edits Page title Links
4 File:Saathi Logo.jpeg Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 File:Prince logo.svg Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 File:Paint Tool SAI Logo.png Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 File:HM Orange M Sarawut.jpg Log · Page History · Top Edits

Template edit

Edits Page title Links
28 Template:WikiProject Connecticut/sandbox Log · Page History · Top Edits
16 Template:Emphasis added Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 Template:WikiProject status/sandbox Log · Page History · Top Edits
11 Template:Tl7 Log · Page History · Top Edits
10 Template:AC Notice Log · Page History · Top Edits
10 Template:Afd notice/sandbox Log · Page History · Top Edits
9 Template:Uw-subtle4 Log · Page History · Top Edits
8 Template:WikiProject Connecticut/testcases Log · Page History · Top Edits
8 Template:AC Notice/doc Log · Page History · Top Edits

Template talk edit

Edits Page title Links
3 Template talk:Editnotices/Page/Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-02-28/Humour Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Template talk:Stoneman Douglas High School shooting Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Template talk:Portal Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Template talk:Panchsheel Nagar district Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Template talk:Alt-right footer Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Template talk:Advert Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Template talk:Infobox United States Congress Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Template talk:Newsletters Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Template talk:Hapur district Log · Page History · Top Edits

Help edit

Edits Page title Links
4 Help:Wrapper Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Help:Archiving a talk page/Other procedures Log · Page History · Top Edits

Category edit

Edits Page title Links
3 Category:North Macedonia Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:Baseball portal Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:MMR vaccine controversy Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:Kenyan political party stubs Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:New Rochelle, New York portal Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:Real Madrid CF presidents Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category:Victims of Sikh terrorism Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tcheeku Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category:Real Madrid presidents Log · Page History · Top Edits

Category talk edit

Edits Page title Links
4 Category talk:Arab Christian communities in Israel Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category talk:Real Madrid CF presidents Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category talk:MMR vaccine controversy Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Category talk:Healthcare-related timelines Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category talk:Real Madrid presidents Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category talk:Victims of Sikh terrorism Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category talk:North Macedonia Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category talk:Palestinian Christian communities Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Category talk:Conservatism in the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits

Portal edit

Edits Page title Links
4 Portal:Sports in Canada Log · Page History · Top Edits
4 Portal:Lancaster, Pennsylvania Log · Page History · Top Edits
4 Portal:Basketball Log · Page History · Top Edits
4 Portal:Amusement parks Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Portal:Dresden Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Portal:Indigenous peoples of Canada/Did you know?/temp Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Portal:Sports in Canada/Selected biography/10 Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Portal:Nazism Log · Page History · Top Edits
3 Portal:Monaco Log · Page History · Top Edits

Portal talk edit

Edits Page title Links
4 Portal talk:Connecticut Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Portal talk:Sports in Canada/Selected organization/8 Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Portal talk:Indigenous peoples of Canada/Did you know?/temp Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Portal talk:Microsoft Log · Page History · Top Edits
2 Portal talk:Nazism Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Portal talk:Indigenous peoples of Canada/Did you know?/2 Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Portal talk:Indigenous peoples of Canada/Nominate/Selected picture Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Portal talk:Pakistan Super League/Selected biography/4 Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Portal talk:Indigenous peoples in Canada/Selected biography/3 Log · Page History · Top Edits

Draft edit

Edits Page title Links
41 Draft:Outline of the Northwest Territories Log · Page History · Top Edits
1 Draft:Template:tl5 Log · Page History · Top Edits

Draft talk edit

Edits Page title Links
1 Draft talk:Clarice Phelps Log · Page History · Top Edits

Rights changes edit

Date Rights Performer Summary
2019-02-13 10:58 +rollbacker Swarm User request
2018-01-06 19:56 +extended confirmed user Automatic
2018-01-03 06:17 +pending changes reviewer Anarchyte +reviewer; Requested at WP:PERM; Special:PermaLink/818382576#User:MattLongCT (using userRightsManager)
2017-06-30 21:04 +autoconfirmed user Automatic

All times are in UTC. –MJLTalk 19:10, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Timecard proves you're not getting enough sleep :-) Levivich 19:19, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich: This is probably true. I never used to stay up that late, but now.... –MJLTalk 19:20, 6 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 5 edit

1234567890anonymous edit

I saw your report at AIV. Since you have some doubts as to the user and whether or not they're being trolls or trying to edit in good faith, I went ahead and just applied a 24 hour block. If the user intends to try and edit in good faith, learn, and contribute positively - this block will set them in the right direction. If they just go about their business after the block expires, then we'll have a better idea as to the user's intentions.... :-) Let me know how it goes. Cheers - ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:13, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Oshwah: that sounds awesome; thank you!! :D –MJLTalk 03:14, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
You bet; always happy to land a hand. ;-) I hope this editor was trying to contribute in good faith, but only time will tell. We'll see.... ;-) ~Oshwah~(talk) (contribs) 03:18, 12 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Modified summary report edit

Oh look, another xtools report to keep myself accountable!

Selected report data

General statistics edit

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-15 19:15

User ID 29291527
Registration date 2016-09-29 13:35
User groups extended confirmed user, pending changes reviewer, rollbacker, autoconfirmed user
Is administrator? 0
First edit 2016-09-29 13:41
Latest edit 2019-05-15 19:10
Live edits 7,365 (97.7%)
Deleted edits 175 (2.3%)
Total edits 7,540
Edits in the past 24 hours 22
Edits in the past 7 days 522
Edits in the past 30 days 2,413
Edits in the past 365 days 6,453
Average edits per day 7.9 (958 days)
Average edit size* 457.4 bytes
Minor edits 2,331 (31.6%)
Small edits (<20 bytes)* 1,662 (33.2%)
Large edits (>1000 bytes)* 715 (14.3%)

Pages edit

Pages edited (total) 3,500
Average edits per page 2.154
Pages created 1,100 (32 since deleted)
Pages moved 214
Pages deleted 0

Files edit

Files uploaded 1
Files uploaded (Commons) 71

Actions edit

Thank 333
Approve 70
Patrol 0
Accounts created 0

(Re)blocks edit

Longest block
Current block

Global edit counts (approximate) edit

en.wikipedia.org 7,323
en.wikisource.org 2,110
www.wikidata.org 619
commons.wikimedia.org 373
meta.wikimedia.org 178
simple.wikipedia.org 55
www.mediawiki.org 36
sco.wikipedia.org 28
en.wiktionary.org 12
sv.wikipedia.org 11

* Data limited to the past 5,000 edits

Top edits by page edit

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-16 01:10. Modified by MJL at a later time.

Rank Edits Page title Links Namespace
1 176 User talk:MJL/Archive 8 Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
2 133 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
3 129 User:MJL/sandbox2 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
4 94 User:MJL/sandbox3 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
5 80 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
6 76 User:MJL/sandbox5 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
7 76 Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (Macedonia) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia talk
8 68 Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Macedonia) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
9 67 User:MJL/common.js Log · Page History · Top Edits User
10 65 User:MJL/sandbox4 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
11 57 Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
12 51 User:MJL/Current events noticeboard/Header Log · Page History · Top Edits User
13 50 Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
14 46 User:MJL/sandbox6 Log · Page History · Top Edits User
15 44 User:MJL/List of law firms based in the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits User
16 41 Draft:Outline of the Northwest Territories Log · Page History · Top Edits Draft
17 40 User talk:DannyS712 Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
18 37 User:MJL/History of the Constitution of the Netherlands Log · Page History · Top Edits User
19 37 User:MJL/Watch Pages Log · Page History · Top Edits User
20 35 Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Current events noticeboard Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
21 35 Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
22 33 Cod Island Log · Page History · Top Edits Main
23 30 User:MJL Log · Page History · Top Edits User
24 28 Template:WikiProject Connecticut/sandbox Log · Page History · Top Edits Template
25 27 User:MJL/Wikisource:WikiProject Validate Log · Page History · Top Edits User
26 26 User talk:Swarm Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
27 25 User:MJL/tasks Log · Page History · Top Edits User
28 24 User talk:MJL Log · Page History · Top Edits User talk
29 23 Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1003 Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
30 22 Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
31 22 National Emergency Concerning the Southern Border of the United States Log · Page History · Top Edits Main
32 21 Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia
33 20 Talk:The Matrix (franchise) Log · Page History · Top Edits Talk
34 20 User:MJL/EmployBridge Log · Page History · Top Edits User
35 20 Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Submissions Log · Page History · Top Edits Wikipedia

Namespace Totals edit

Generated using XTools on 2019-05-16 01:10

Rank Namespace Count
1 Wikipedia 1,614 (21.8%)
2 User talk 1,422 (19.2%)
3 Main 1,333 (18%)
4 User 1,217 (16.5%)
5 Talk 472 (6.4%)
6 Portal 382 (5.2%)
7 Template 314 (4.2%)
8 Wikipedia talk 229 (3.1%)
9 Portal talk 149 (2%)
10 Category talk 113 (1.5%)
11 Draft 49 (0.7%)
12 Category 45 (0.6%)
13 Template talk 26 (0.4%)
14 File talk 15 (0.2%)
15 File 7 (0.1%)
16 Help 5 (0.1%)
17 Draft talk 2 (0%)
17 namespaces 7,394


Signed, –MJLTalk 01:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

TheWikiWizard - May 2019 edit

Hello, MJL! Here is the May 2019 issue of TheWikiWizard.

Hope you like this month's issue! If you'd like to discuss this issue, please go to this issue's talk page. Happy Reading! --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:51, 16 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

May 2019 edit

  Hello, I'm MJL. I wanted to let you know that it appears you have submitted an unsourced Wikipedia article, at User:MJL to Articles for Creation. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources, preferably using inline citations. Please help by adding more sources to the article you edited, and/or by clarifying how the sources already given support the claims (see here for how to do inline referencing). You also may find it helpful to take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines. You can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you only meant to make test edits, please use the sandbox for that. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. –MJLTalk 18:51, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

  Hello, I'm MJL. I wanted to let you know that it appears you have submitted an unsourced Wikipedia article, at User:MJL to Articles for Creation. One of Wikipedia's core policies is that contributions must be verifiable through reliable sources (see here). You also may find it helpful to take some time to familiarise yourself with our policies and guidelines, and you can find information about these at our welcome page which also provides further information about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. If you think I made a mistake, you may leave a message on my talk page. Thank you. Testing this out again...MJLTalk 18:58, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Careful, MJL. You keep submitting unsourced drafts to AFC and that editor MJL is gonna bring the hammer down on you. They mean business. Levivich 21:05, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Levivich: I ain't worried about that dude. I'm clearly an UNBLOCKABLE now that I have written our article on Cod Island. –MJLTalk 21:21, 17 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Comments between differing cultures edit

I am sure that you know that there are culture differences between enWS and enWP. One can talk in shorthand at somewhere like an AN where they are a group of people with a shared language and knowledge, though that shorthand may not migrate well elsewhere. If you wanted my opinion here, then ask me to come and express it. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst: As I previously stated, you do have my sincerest apologies. This was an error of judgement on my part, and I will avoid such mistakes in the future. I'm still getting my bearings on cross-wiki contributions in that regard. –MJLTalk 22:35, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

TheWikiWizard - Update edit

Dear reader,

Thank you for subscribing to TheWikiWizard. This is a special message letting you know that the June/July/August issues of TheWikiWizard may be delayed, due to the absence of User:Thegooduser. Thegooduser and the other editors of TWW will try their best to deliver these issues to you. Thank you for reading TWW, and we hope to see you again in September 2019. Thank you for your patience and understanding, and enjoy your summer! :-) We apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused. Happy Editing!

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 00:04, 31 May 2019 (UTC) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk)Reply

The Signpost: 31 May 2019 edit

Scripts++ Newsletter – Issue 6 edit

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg edit

 

Thank you for uploading File:Two Gormiti figures.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator seven days after the file was tagged in accordance with section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Conduct dispute at Talk:China–United States trade war edit

Collapsed conduct dispute
Copied from Talk:China–United States trade war/Archive 1#Article_concerns

Even with the recent cuts, the article is still too long. Should we consider splitting off China–United States trade war#Chronology? –MJLTalk 01:37, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@MJL: Firstly can you please explain why you put in the globalize tag and the the Trump and Xi sidebars and that unverified statement. Those edits just didn't make any sense. Syopsis (talk) 01:53, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: First, full disclosure: Viztor mentioned this article up on WP:Discord, and that was what brought it to my attention. I think it is only fair that you know that. Secondly, the sidebar is for navigational purposes, but it's fine that you deleted I guess. It's merely cosmetic. However, the tag should stay. It rather clearly portrays a very US-focused view of the situation (not let's say... Mexico nor Japan or any other unrelated country for that matter). Please let another uninvolved editor remove the tag once the concern is sufficiently address. Thank you, –MJLTalk 02:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: Since it's a partial revert, I'll let it go. That said, since I obviously disagree with it, I respectfully ask that we try to work this out between us first before we escalate the situation any further. Please explain why you think the tag should stay. Syopsis (talk) 02:58, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] It almost doesn't mention any country besides China and the United States (despite the EU and Japan having a rather significant reaction). Almost all the sources are from American media. Other than that, the article puts undue weight towards political considerations in the United States. Finally, there is not a single mention is made in the reaction section from the Chinese side of this dispute. –MJLTalk 03:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: Then put the tag in the reactions section - why does it need to apply to the whole article? As for your other arguments: why should it even mention other countries? It's a trade war between THE TWO COUNTRIES. The sources are mainly from America - so what? Syopsis (talk) 04:18, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: In no particular order: It's a dispute between two of the largest economic powers in the world. Other countries have a very vested interest in the outcome of this dispute. Therefore, this article (like all articles on Wikipedia) should take care to put it into a global context and perspective. THe problem with having too many American sources is that it leads to biased coverage (in this case, a pro-USA POV). Finally, I do think the problem extends to the entire article. It entirely focuses too heavily on American political and economic consideration and nothing of the 100+ countries sitting on the sidelines for this dispute (all of whom have their own independent media we can source from). –MJLTalk 04:39, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: I have to say the "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) is as good as a dog's breakfast - it's bad reasoning, uses bad information and overall just trades on a bad attitude which just leads to all kinds of shitty consequences. It is just a pseudo-intellectual, desperate attempt to rationalize discrimination - it's wrong to devalue a person's opinion based on race or ethnicity but somehow we are supposed to be okay if we start doing it by nationality/geography. Really? I could understand if it went the other way because Mainland China doesn't have a free press, but even then...it just smacks of tryhard dog whistling. And about your specific argument that we should take the views of other countries into account - where is it going to end? Are we going to include the reactions of all the countries on Earth? If we are going to include the EU and Japan's views (as you suggested above), are you going to complain if it leads to more "bias"? I will also make the general remark that ive said above which is that what you are doing seems like just another mediocre attempt at buck passing: this main article is one-sided, but i can't be bothered to change it so I'm going to just take the short route, slap a tag on the article and then complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else will do it. What precisely you are proposing? Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Syopsis and MJL: I agree that the article should have a global perspective, in order to avoid a partisan tone and to reflect what is at stake for the global economy. Particularly because the United States is one of the two major parties to the trade war, it would be inappropriate to rely too heavily on US sources, since this will naturally unbalance the article.

That said, it certainly is possible to represent at least some portion of the Chinese perspective using US sources. Second, it seems to me as though many of the deletions from the lead are unwarranted. At this point, beginning by reading the lead, I have really no idea what this this dispute is about. It shouldn't be so hard to represent both Chinese and American viewpoints in the lead.

One thing that would help, I think, is historical background at the onset of the article. This would help explain China's particular regulations regarding foreign investment and economic partnership. This section could also describe China's rapid economic growth and the prospect that the Chinese economy will surpass the American, something which is obviously contributing strongly to the trade war. -Darouet (talk) 09:41, 7 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darouet: I have to say at the outset that it should be noted you really aren't in any position to be complaining about "partisan tone," natural balance or whatever given your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias as the other person who filed the meaningless RFC request above did. As i said above to MJL I don't buy the whole "biased coverage cuz it came frum dis country!" argument (I mean this generally, not yours particularly, because it's an argument that i've commonly seen) it's mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling and really just code for "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." As for your comments/specific suggestions: the lead removals are totally warranted the information that was there either could have went into/was already in the body of the article or just meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing, much like what your proposal for about the "historical background" would lead to (which is already kind of there and at any rate has already been tried in the way you want...and ended up as a complete clusterfuck) Syopsis (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Darouet: The removal of stuff from the lead wasn't me. In fact, all of my changes were reverted except for the tag which is what we are currently discussing. This is why I am... confused by Syopsis saying [The arguement behind my tag is]... "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am complaining on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." considering I did make changes that I felt at least helped. The only thing left from edits is the tag, and I sure am not going to start arguing for individual changes to an article when we can't even agree whether or not needs fixing. On a separate note to Syopsis, you should really avoid making the ad hominem personal attacks against Darouet like you just did in the beginning. Further, you never really had consensus to cut the historical background section, so I ask you please note that fact when saying it ended up as a complete [expletive]. Now, can we get back onto track here? –MJLTalk 01:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: It's not a personal attack, I was just stating a fact. That person has strong, partisan view on things and edits accordingly; it's pretty obvious if you look at the editing record. If it makes you feel better, I happen to think that applies to every user on Wikipedia - we all edit from a strong point of view. The difference is I am not the one trying to play both sides: talking about avoiding partisanship while editing partisanly. And yes, I stand by what i said about the "historical background" (what ever that even refers/referred to) - it was a complete clusterfuck. You had people cramming in totally irrelevant, blog-type, cherry-picked information in background section, followed by an alphabet soup of point-of-view, worded titles (also littered with blog-type, cherry-picked information, sometimes splattered with large chunks of irrelevant material) and concluded by stand alone paragraphs that had no reason to even be stand alone paragraphs in the first place. Much inferior to the background section in the current version of the article - you can pretty much find all the background info to the trade war there.
But moving on. What exactly is it that you even want to see changed in the article? All you have done is complain about the biasedness of the article with absolutely terrible reasons (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) while giving me zero ideas on what your solution even is. the only (proper) description for that kind of attitude is (you guessed) "I don't like the article, but i can't be bothered to change it so I am slap (or restore) a tag and complain on the talk page in the hopes that somebody else does it." Syopsis (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: [Thank you for the ping] First, I have never subscribed to the WP:STRAIGHT/WP:POLE philosophy that everyone has a POV and compromise somehow brings us closer to neutrality or something. I'm not trying to ascribe words to you that you did not author, but that's why I don't think it's fine to call someone else a partisan nor imply they are a hypocrite because of the fact. Whatever, I guess. I really don't want to argue conduct on a content talk page because that's not what this namespace is for. Let me just put this in perspective. The following editors have said as recently as 27 May 2019 that this article definitely as some' bias towards the US: ViperSnake151, Viztor, EllenCT, Timtempleton, myself, and now Darouet (actually, I am wrong here because in fact there are more editors who have said as such, but I digress). You are quite literally the only one recently defending this ludicrous idea that the article isn't biased. I proposed specific, concrete, changes I would like to have been able to make that you dismissed as silly (ie, that all the major players in line with reliable sourcing be included, that more sourcing come from outside the western hemisphere, and introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative). If that sounds like mindless complaining, I'm sorry. My first gosh dang idea was to split off Chronology section into its own article to cut down on length, but I guess that doesn't matter. I couldn't even tag this article without having to write a paragraph in defense of it (much less make content related edits). I would be more than happy to help make more specific changes if I wasn't spending most of my emotional energy trying to defend that single note which so perplexes you as to warrant this discussion. –MJLTalk 04:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: It seems you have a hard time reading so I will make it easier. WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO? You haven't proposed anything speciic, I've asked you three times now, all I have gotten is just non-answers. You started with the sources are all from the US, I challenged you on that so-called argument (why does it even matter what place/country the sources are from?) and you responded by not only refusing to answer, but now you have introduced some more nonsensical arguments - "introduce specific viewpoints that contradict the American government's oddly specific narrative" (we already have tons of this). Syopsis (talk) 05:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: Okay, we're yelling now. Here on User:MJL/sandbox6 I have bundled every single source that is used to convey the single point that China steals technology in the United States. I counted 23 different sources used to convey this single point where only maybe a few are used to detail it with things like US economic costs or a person reacting to something. What concerns me the most about this list is several are completely unrelated to the trade dispute. I cannot find a single shred of logical reasoning (1) this many sources are need for this one point (2) why a 2010 Bloomberg article by Andy Grove about American job loss to China is super-duper relevant to this international trade dispute, and (3) why we are citing material about unrelated events like this. What WP:RS said that a downed F-117 Nighthawk in Serbia was so relevant to 2019 world politics that it's being included in this gosh forsaken article??? –MJLTalk 19:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: 1) Talk to User:Wildcursive, he is the one who added most if not all the material. 2) Actually we still have not solved problem #1 which is the "global" tag that you restored. Why do we even need it? Nothing else matters until we solve that point because (surprise surprise) that is the first thing that we disagreed on. Syopsis (talk) 22:06, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: It's irrelevant who wrote the article. The discussion here is on article content and gaining consensus on steps forward. The tag does nothing but signify an ongoing discussion on how to improve the article to address these concerns. It should be pretty clear that this isn't some WP:DRIVEBYTAG. –MJLTalk 00:41, 9 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: I could give two flips if the tag was a drive by or if it was constructive. That is irrelevant. i am asking why YOU did what you did since YOU restored it. Why do we need the tag? t's a pretty simple question.. I don't know why you are trying so hard to dodge answering it. Syopsis (talk) 01:30, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Syopsis: We need a tag to signify that the article can be improved to other editors and our readers. Without a tag, readers might think that this article meets our standards even though it doesn't. I'm really not dodging the question. I don't know how many ways I can repeat that the article does not have a geographically diverse sources and thus skews in a American-centric view of the subject. You are welcome to subjectively disagree with that premise, but don't expect me to change my mind because it isn't a good enough answer for you. –MJLTalk 01:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral", perhaps he is right, there is no neutrality in its strict definition, however, when we are debating neutrality, it is defined the way wikipedia defines it, take proportionally from reliable sources, that is not that hard. Yeah, we would love our articles to be not so heavy-tasted towards one-side. Yeah we are only as neutral as our sources, and all we are trying to do is to make sure it proportionally represent views of reliable sources. That's it, if you don't like it, convince the sources, don't try to convince us, that's not how it works. Saying that is like saying those who try to do what is it right because they like it, of course, but so what? Viztor (talk) 05:08, 8 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: statements like these are counterproductive to discussion and article improvement, are inappropriate for an editorial board (which is what talk pages are), and are against Wikipedia policy:

"...your history of making partisan, non neutral-point-of-view edits/editing from a partisan, non-NPOV on other articles. It would be much better if you just stated the obvious, which is that you don't like the article because it doesn't fit your point-of-view/bias... mediocre, pseudo-intellectual dog whistling... meaningless, wannabe editoirlizing [sic]"

and

"He is really a nihilist who don't believe an article can ever be "neutral"..."

I don't know any of you, I don't believe we've interacted before, and I'm not even 100% sure I know what my "POV" is here. Instead, I've made three concrete proposals for article improvement: that we

  1. increase the background section,
  2. have a lead that describes both Chinese and American government positions, and
  3. that we use international news sources — including American, Chinese, and everything else — as much as possible.

@Syopsis, MJL, and Viztor: Do you agree or disagree with these points, and if you disagree, why? If you agree, do you have suggestions, caveats or concerns for implementation? -Darouet (talk) 15:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darouet: He keeps repeating the same point to everyone that we can never make it neutral and we're just trying to insert our own POV therefore it better stays the way it is, that's what I would call nihilism. I'm not saying it's a bad thing and I already explained in the same paragraph. #3 is what we've all been saying for quite a long time, of course I would agree.Viztor (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Darouet, Viztor, and Syopsis: To avoid the talk page becoming the place to solve both a conduct dispute and content dispute, I'm copying the above discussion onto my talk page. Darouet, I agree that both statements should not have been made, and I would like to discuss reaching a resolution. –MJLTalk 19:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Seeing as that Viztor took my offwiki advice and stuck their comments, this section is not needed. I invite Syopsis to follow this good example set by Viztor.  MJLTalk 01:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

The Signpost: 30 April 2019 edit

Redirecting page:User:MJL/Cod island edit

A page you created, User:MJL/Cod island, does not seem to have enough reliable third party sources to merit inclusion in the encyclopedia in itself. It has been redirected to User:MJL/Cod Island which is related to the subject of the article. –MJLTalk 03:14, 4 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Appreciation edit

Thank you for the kitten, it means a lot. Some people on here really just grind my gears, you know?

Oh and real quick if you're okay with the planned addition could you put it in writing on the talk page so I don't have to hear from John again?

Thanks a ton man, the world needs more people like you :)

Ppizzo278 (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

@Ppizzo278:, I just posted on the talk page. John can be somewhat coarse to discuss with, but he is a good editor. To be honest, I have a lot more shortcomings in respect to how I edit than him, and I'd like to believe that's something I was able to learn while I contribute here. We'll find a solution that works for everyone, and we'll all move on! I appreciate the compliment either way! :D –MJLTalk 02:24, 7 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

A barnstar in return edit

  The Prespa Barnstar
Thank you for your work in getting the new Macedonia guideline up and running. After the tenseness of some of the debates around the RfC, your calm and patient participation and your volunteering to act as the drafting clerk for the final editing rounds was very much appreciated. Fut.Perf. 07:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
I second that! You have our gratitude and appreciation, MJL, for all of your contributions and help!!!   --- SilentResident (talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 12:35, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply
@Future Perfect at Sunrise and SilentResident: Y'all are being too sweet! I was just happy to help and for the bit of recognition. I really don't know what else to say besides thank you, and I am glad I didn't actively make the situation any worse by being there! :D –MJLTalk 13:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)Reply


Your submission at Articles for creation: Swedish Levant Company has been accepted edit

 
Swedish Levant Company, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. If your account is more than four days old and you have made at least 10 edits you can create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bkissin (talk) 13:55, 23 May 2019 (UTC)Reply

Help with party page edit

Please see Talk:Green_Party_of_California#Grounds_for_Ideology, please and thank you. Stevemario (talk) 19:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC) )Reply

Speedy deletion nomination of Andrea Lewis (Jamaica) edit

 

A tag has been placed on Andrea Lewis (Jamaica) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. DannyS712 (talk) 02:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

@DannyS712: lol you beat me to it. –MJLTalk 02:49, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@MJL: not sure why, but I had the page watchlisted and saw your move --DannyS712 (talk) 02:50, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply
@DannyS712: I feel that. I have 5361 pages in my watchlist at the moment. I have no clue how most got there. –MJLTalk 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply

Discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps#When_can_we_publish_this_page? edit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Draft_talk:Clarice_E._Phelps#When_can_we_publish_this_page?. You might be interested to read my last comment. Also, thankfully, peer-reviewed stuff are still the scholarship-standard, not Twitter. WBGconverse 08:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)Reply