User talk:JFG/Archive 2018

Zuma launch failure

Do you really, honestly think that the outcome of this launch is "unclear" when the payload is in the bottom of the Indian Ocean right now as confirmed by U.S. officials (who obviously can't be named in a secret satellite launch)? Why are there so many people trying to hide that the launch has been a total mission failure here and in other articles??? MaeseLeon (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is "trying to hide" anything. We are faced with conflicting reports about the outcome of this mission, so that the WP:NPOV- and WP:V-compliant is to state the various comments made by officials at SpaceX, Northrop Grumman, and government representatives. Picking one source over the others is not encyclopedic. Hopefully, a clearer picture of the situation will emerge in the coming weeks. — JFG ^talk 15:01, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Funny, because I've just had an "edition battle" in other article with someone else who was trying to delete any reference to the ABC News article about the U.S. official (if logically unnamed) confirmation of the loss. And he's not the only one in the last days, in every SpaceX-related page there're people ready to jump in seconds when someone (not only me) just tries to write what's happened. I'm about to ask for page protection because there're clearly people with some kind of agenda here that I'm unaware of, but it's pretty obvious. Oh, and I'm not going to enter another "edition battle" with you, I'm getting tired, but saying that the outcome of this launch is unclear is false and disingenuous, the thing failed to separate and it's destroyed as reported and acknowledged by those U.S. sources, which is a total mission failure. MaeseLeon (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

I also requested page protection to calm down the edit-warring on 2018 in spaceflight, probably for the same reasons you did. I'm sure all editors are coming in good faith to report what they just read somewhere. Nobody has The Truth… — JFG ^talk 15:20, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Really glad the FL review is finished

Boy am I glad that the FL review finished before this Zuma debacle... what a mess. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:44, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yep, great timing there! — JFG ^talk 23:51, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Trump consensus

Re this, should The List link failed attempts to change, in your opinion? ―Mandruss ☎ 20:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

This may help prevent repeat arguments, and ease the burden of proof when discussing potential changes of consensus. However it would also make the consensus list heavier, and may be construed as excessive policing, or even WP:OWNership. On balance, I don't think it's worth bothering. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Requested move of Ryan Wesley Bounds

Please see the move discussion I have begun at Ryan Wesley Bounds. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 20:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: That looks uncontroversial; I just moved the page and closed the RM. — JFG ^talk 17:45, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Cheers! – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 18:34, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Move discussion in Nunes memo

I hope you don't mind, but I've moved the comment you made in the Talk:Nunes memo to the RfC's threaded discussion. Feel free to revert if you preferred it the other way. ^Falling_Gravity 04:13, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@FallingGravity: Thanks for the notice. I did revert, because my comments were made in response to a discussion thread at the bottom of the page; I only became aware of the RfC afterwards, and I commented there separately. — JFG ^talk 04:18, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Justices and Senior Status

Good evening! I just wanted to give you a heads up about a contentious topic that doesn't seem to be going away, Supreme Court Justices and senior status --do we acknowledge it in Presidential tables (i.e. Judges appointed by (insert name)) tables or don't we? I did a ping earlier but I'm not sure if it worked. The relevant discussion is here. Feel free to add to the discussion. I'm just tired of the reverts and re-reverts and constant back and forth so I'm trying to reach a consensus. If there's any other editors you think would benefit from the discussion, please let them know. Thanks! Snickers2686 (talk) 02:44, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

Update to #6

I don't understand this. As now written, there is no consensus against Jane Doe below the lead. I don't see any really coherent way to combine the two consensuses, nor any reason to do so. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Jane Doe case is part of the sexual misconduct allegations; I see no reason to single it out, now that we have a more general consensus. I see your point that Jane Doe should be excluded from the whole article, but keeping this mention in the very visible list of consensus may give it undue prominence and violate our own consensus not to mention it... I'd say let's unearth the old consensus if/when somebody tries to insert the Jane Doe case again. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Disagree that WP:DUE (and apparently WP:BLP) reasoning should apply to the list. The consensus is to omit it from the article, not the talk page, so it's hardly violated as you say. I will defer to you as a one-time exception. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:09, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Well, WP:BLP does apply everywhere on Wikipedia, and a rape allegation on a minor is a rather serious matter. Thanks for your understanding. — JFG ^talk 08:11, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

BLP would apply on the TP if not for the significant RS on the allegations, and I think you know that. There is no understanding, only concession. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:15, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. — JFG ^talk 08:26, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Tesla Roadster (Starman, 2018-017A)

Hi JFG. I would like to request that you restore the reference supporting the official designation of the SpaceX Roadster (spacecraft) (Tesla) in the infobox - just temporarily. If you check the link to COSPAR, NASA only lists 9 spacecraft launched through February 2, 2018, so the Roaster is not listed yet. When listed, the reference can go. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I've seen that, but if we add the ref tag, then COSPAR gets unlinked, and readers won't find out when the target site gets updated. Because the listed source is also used as reference several other times in the infobox and in the text, I think the loss of the link would outweigh the benefit of repeating the ref. — JFG ^talk 04:39, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

archiving

why is it frustrating for editors? Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:49, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Because the code for archives drowns the visible text in edit mode. It's particularly awful for people editing from a mobile device on a small screen. — JFG ^talk 12:51, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

That sucks, but WP:Link rot encourages archiving - I think the links can't be rescued afterwards, unless they've been archived? Especially an article sourced mostly to media sources that are likely to become unavailale in a few years, preventing the loss of citation integrity is more important then the inconvenience it creates - I agree that it's annoying and I don't like cluttering the wikicode - but I don't see an alternative here. Seraphim System ^(talk) 12:55, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Archive sites do their work independently. Yes, site archives can be recovered after the link dies, and that's the main task of the IABot. Just don't check the option that forces archiving of all links. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 16 February 2018 (UTC)

Question

Is your move request local or is it moving through relative project teams for wider community input (like an RfC)? ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:40, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: Which move request are you talking about? — JFG ^talk 14:42, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Racial views of Donald Trump. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:44, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

The move request abides by the usual WP:Requested move process, which advises a minimum of 7 days of discussion, and automatically posts a notice to readers on the relevant article, in order to raise awareness. Some move requests can evolve into long-winded discussion, see for example Talk:New York (state)/Archive 5#Requested move 9 June 2016 which begot Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 June#New York (state), Talk:New York (state)/July 2016 move request, Talk:New York (state)/Archive 6#RFC: Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?, and finally Talk:New York#Requested move 7 July 2017 that concluded the debate a full year later! The particular RM I opened on the "racial views" article is definitely local to this article, and has no purpose to influence other areas of the encyclopedia. I don't understand what you mean exactly by "moving through relative project teams", but I did post a notice of the RM on Talk:Donald Trump, so that "regular" editors there could be aware of the discussion even if they don't watch the other article. Of course, any editor is welcome to participate. — JFG ^talk 16:03, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I was referring to notices of the discussion on relative project pages/noticeboards, sorta like the deletion sorting process we use at AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

If you're concerned about OR...

...there is an entire article that was built on the same premise for what some are now claiming is OR regarding your proposal. Selecting a relevant quote that was published in a secondary source is indeed acceptable and compliant with our PAGs. WP:OR clearly states: sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement. It is not OR, it is NPOV as it will be in-text attribution...and it was published in a secondary source. There is absolutely no valid reason it can't be used...^{Atsme📞📧} 23:10, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

RFC close

Hey I was wondering, on your close here. Was that no consensus or basically concensus to not include? PackMecEng (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Editors' comments are fairly balanced between include and exclude, so there is no consensus. Perhaps an amended proposal may get consensus, by putting more context around the quotes, and citing reactions to it. What do you think? — JFG ^talk 20:08, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Ah I got ya. But hard to say, I am not sure it could do better than the 10-6 it got this time. It is a rather tough crowd there. PackMecEng (talk) 20:15, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

It appears the article will not be fixed unless consensus involves wider input from the community. Perhaps it would help if we coordinated a series of surveys for VP. Thoughts? ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:30, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Unproductive banter
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Drop the stick would get consensus. Put one in the win column. 😎 SPECIFICO talk 21:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC) Hopefully you'll take your own advice. 😙 Atsme📞📧 02:26, 1 March 2018 (UTC) Atsme, the stick is the active member. 🕹️ In WP terms, that's the one that posts repeatedly on numerous talk pages, noticeboards, polls, RfC's, Admin pages, etc. with the same complaint. Conclusion. I'm not the one with the stick. SPECIFICO talk 04:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@PackMecEng and Atsme: I'm personally stunned that many editors are vociferously fighting against inserting the few "views on racism" that Trump has occasionally expressed, going so far as to pretend he was talking about open-heart surgery when mentioning that people of all colors bleed the same red blood.[1] But this is Wikipedia and everybody must abide by consensus or lack thereof. I'm not inclined to "coordinate" any surveys. If there's a well-formed RfC about some proposed text, I'll participate. From experience, only proposals clearly tackling one issue at a time, with a simple question, have a chance to succeed. — JFG ^talk 05:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

After reading some of the responses on the TP, it appears the article may be more aligned with WP:SOAPBOX and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS; at least that's how it seems. I was reviewing the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 series template trying to get a feel for where the resistance originates, and there's probably enough information in the edit history of each to make a determination but I have much better things to do with my time. The sheer number of articles about the Trump-Russia controversies is mindboggling, especially considering that after all this time there is still no sign of collusion, which leaves readers wondering what is really going on. The latter tends to lead readers to believe the criticisms aimed at WP, which further leads to the impression that ("most notoriously") Wikipedia is just another far left source spreading misinformation, which could actually be supported by some of the Trump articles but then there are also conservative globalists and establishment politicians with strong connections to MSM that are fighting the DC outsider. I think what ends up happening is that instead of WP being the encyclopedia for all readers, we're losing readers of political articles. We've seen the resistence you've pointed out JFG - anything that reflects a positive image of Trump is not allowed, it seems, which speaks volumes in and of itself. What may be of importance to note is the obvious effort to send a specific message to our readers as I pointed out on the TP. I once thought such actions would be getting more attention from administrators because of the noncompliance with NPOV, but who can blame administrators for not wanting to get involved in these long, drawn-out discussions? Look at what happened at NPOV/N!! There will probably be more of the same types of articles that tend to alienate readers - it's scary to think what those numbers reflect in relationship to readership and editor rentention. Based on some of the higher quality, long-term poll results, we know that the majority of Americans neither hate Trump nor trust MSM. Readers are looking to alternative sources for information so determining who exactly is on the losing end remains to be seen. I think, for the most part, WP articles that relate to animals, animal biology, science, math, and medical issues are exceptional, and there certainly are numerous other topics that fall in that same vein, such as food topics, travel, geographic locations, and on and on. The best articles usually have project teams behind them. I think it would be a dream come true if all topics had project teams like Project Medicine. They deserve a great deal of credit. Who knows? Perhaps a "WikiTrumpopedia" will be created to handle all the articles that will be published over the next 7 or 8 years. At the rate they're being created on WP, it's not such a far-fetched idea. I did a quick review of the presidency of Obama, Bush and Clinton, and they don't even come close to that number, probably not even combined, and they each enjoyed two-term presidencies. 😂 It is sorta comical when you think about it because once the dust settles, and more scholarly articles are published by historians and academics instead of editors depending on the "hate Trump media", we're likely to see a busy AfD. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:21, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you! Always appreciate the suggestion of how to edit pages and the notice. Thank you as well for the work I see you do in maintaining other pages! UnknownM1 (talk) 01:07, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Hi JFG. Since you are heavily involved in the article Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, I was hoping to get your opinion on whether or not recent edits to the lede of this article violate NPOV. My comments can be found here. Best wishes. selfworm^Talk) 18:27, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

The Signpost

Hi. The Signpost has now been published after a long delay. There are some articles in it that may interest you particularly. Don't hesitate to contribute to the comments sections. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Simorgh (rocket)

• Hello. The sources say it was orbital launch (but not sub-orbital) on 27 July 2017, so the changes to 2017 in spaceflight are needed. See [2]: The first orbital attempt was launched in July 2017, but failed. Video: [3]: Iranian official sources state that the rocket has reached orbit. 91.124.117.29 (talk) 02:49, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have moved your comment to the appropriate forum, Talk:2017 in spaceflight, to gather input from other editors. I will reply there. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Useful fool

It's at 30 days. What are your close plans, if any? ―Mandruss ☎ 04:57, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Will request close at the standard venue. — JFG ^talk 05:35, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 06:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Falcon Heavy Color

Hey, I was the one consistantly changing the Falcon Heavy Color to Cyan. I thought the olive was a bit of an eyesore and I frequent this page on a weekly basis. I did not understand Wikipedia talk pages and I just now found out how to do it. I really like the new color scheme and will not be a nuisance in the future ;). Sorry about that 'war' lol. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:FCCA:E300:69E8:5AFD:F8C3:8DBE (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for 'fessing up, this was becoming a hilarious routine, no worries at all. If you like commenting on color schemes, take a look at 2017 in spaceflight#By rocket, that I just completed today. Plus, a warm welcome to Wikipedia: you might want to create a user name, which has many benefits, including to protect your privacy better than an IP address. — JFG ^talk 23:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Excess citations

I noticed this concern. I understand, but BLP requires multiple RS for allegations, and that's for each specific allegation. RS for the whole dossier won't do. I do suspect that some trimming could be done, but it would be a pain in the ass because it requires literally reading each source again, as I have done with many. Searching each article makes it easier, but still a lot of work. Deletion or moving of the wrong source leaves the allegation without the source it needs. Yet, I think I can figure out how to do it.

Since you brought it up, and I do respect your concern, please remove your tag before anyone starts deleting refs without understanding the issues. Improperly sourced content is worse than overly sourced content.

I promise I will start analyzing the places where there are more than three refs and do some trimming. Okay? I start back to work tomorrow, so it may take several days. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:27, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Actually, when a reader sees 6 citations to a claim, it makes the claim weaker. One or two are plenty enough. I remember once removing no less than 40 citations to the same fact, about a special-edition Chinga Tu Pelo beer mocking Trump's hair (yes we even once had a full article on that) after he had first ranted against Mexicans. Great advertisement for the brewery, but extremely suspicious wiki-editing.

I won't remove the tag, though; thanks to the notice, you may get some unexpected help from other editors while you're away. And if the result is no good, edit history is your friend. Good day! — JFG ^talk 05:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I was just reminding you about the BLP requirement for multiple refs. I interpret that as three or more, not one or two, though technically two is a multiple of one. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

BTW, while I'm on your page, thanks for the great teamwork today. We all got a whole lot done. That's how it's supposed to happen. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:41, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Good stuff. — JFG ^talk 05:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Request for fresh air

I have long wanted to cure my wikiholicism, and I feel that now is a great time to bow out for a while. Over the last few days, I have obtained some results I'm proud of:

• building some nice charts of rocket launches by family at 2017 in spaceflight and friends,
• enabling an automatic and distinctive display of CubeSats in those lists,
• shepherding a consensus to rewrite the lead of dark matter,
• condensing some prose to help our readers make some sense out of the Trump–Russia dossier, and most importantly,
• promoting an egg-loving colleague's brilliant micro-essay to WP:SHORTCUT status, as WP:POVFIGHTER.

There are no ongoing months-long philosophical discussions that I feel involved in, so that I'd like to leave with a lighthearted spirit. Coincidentally I noticed that I started intensive editing exactly two years ago ±1 day; that's well enough. For my own sake, I should rather not embark on any new discussions or Wikipedian endeavours. Excuse my self-congratulory tone, that's probably therapeutic. The very fact that I feel the need to compose such a public confession instead of just logging out means that somebody must help me avoid the mundane temptation of pressing the Edit button again. The very fact I'm still answering some threads and fixing random gnomish issues while composing this message reveals the uncanny depths of my addiction.

Now, therefore, I humbly request my dear wikifriend and admin MelanieN to impose a 30-day block on my head, and to only let me back in if some Swiss IP ever posts a picture of the Milka cow on her talk page. Nah, never mind, I'm pretty certain I will be patient. Many thanks in advance for giving me this self-imposed nudge to go out and breathe. — JFG ^talk 16:43, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

This sounds like a retirement, or at least an indefinite wikibreak, not a 30-day R&R. Perhaps you can clarify? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:59, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Now I see the thing at the top. Well since wikiholism is never cured by going on the wagon for 30 days, you'll be back on or about 9 May, refreshed and ready to resume "drinking". See you then. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:05, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Not gonna do it. After a couple of weeks you will realize you have breathed in enough fresh air, and you will feel the call to continue increasing the state of knowledge in the world. Seriously, what we do here can be frustrating and sometime kind of petty, but this is still an amazing undertaking we are part of. Enjoy your break. Oh, and can you suggest another French speaker that I could hand Marsile off to? --MelanieN (talk) 17:30, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

ENJOY!!! Depending on your age, that 30 days will either fly or drag. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:10, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I make it 5 hours short of 29 days, 9 April–8 May. You just couldn't wait another 29 hours. Pretty impressive anyway. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Haha, good catch! Technically I first came back because of repeated warnings about some hacker trying to hijack my account. Apparently this happened to a lot of people lately; I hope the tech team can fight the assault efficiently. Also, I made my first significant edits on 12 May about spaceflight and today about Trump -- first talk page post about disputed content[4] after 35 days, yay! Oh I missed the bickering… — JFG ^talk 10:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Welcome back sweetheart! I hope your break was fun and productive. PackMecEng (talk) 16:58, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"That line of enquiry has been closed" ?

I noticed your edit summary for this deletion. I wasn't aware of any news that Cohen's travels were no longer the subject of investigation. As far as I can recall, the allegation is still an open matter. Where did you learn that? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: See previous section and let the guy have his well-deserved break. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh! Okay. I wish him well. It's a well-deserved break, but hopefully not for long. He's done excellent work. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 04:14, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Korean Peninsula

Wikipedia capitalizes Korean Peninsula. Might want to change that before any !voting, and possibly wikilink it too. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Done, thx. — JFG ^talk 10:27, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Re hat

Regarding this the issue is not whether the replies are on topic or not, it is that we don't like to have long threaded discussions inside the voting section. In fact the post you mentioned that contained several relevant sources had already been copied in full and pasted into the discussion section. For the title of the hat/collapse, I prefer to keep it neutral: "Extended discussion", "Extended discussion, including sources documenting extra pressure", and "Partisan bickering" are all valid titles that describe the contents of the hat. From a pragmatic standpoint, I highly doubt making the list of sources more prominent is going to change anybody's mind. Everybody's already aware that there are sources talking about increased "pressure". Lastly as a side note, I was not the original hatter; I'm not sure who was. ~Awilley (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

OK cool; I hadn't noticed that the comments had been copied below. I usually mention the move when doing such clerking, so that readers know where to continue. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 16:18, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

A long overdue apology

Hey JFG, I should have come forward with this a long time ago but I wanted to apologize for a past incident where you made a very supportive comment and I misinterpreted it as a snide backhand and responded based on that misinterpretation. Although there was a specific reason I misunderstood your comment, that reason had nothing to do with you and you did not to deserve to be treated that way, nor did you deserve to have it go without an apology. Very sorry bud! Factchecker_atyourservice 21:13, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Frankly I had all but forgotten this particular exchange. Thanks for the reminder and your honest feedback. — JFG ^talk 06:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Confused

Isn't this a AE violation since they are essentially restoring their challenged edit?--MONGO 04:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes; I have warned the offending user,[5] who may not have been aware of DS restrictions. I now see you have warned them too; let's give them time to self-revert. — JFG ^talk 04:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I have tried to soften the bite by letting him know I was not aware of the page restrictions myself until a month ago. But he may be offline now as I am off to bed myself shortly.--MONGO 04:54, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

DBAN

Last night I dreamed that you advised me in article talk that the Chrome browser doesn't immediately show my edits to existing comments, something to do with how it handles its browser cache for improved performance. I should therefore avoid modifying existing comments. I responded that that makes the Chrome browser largely incompatible with Wikipedia talk spaces. I hereby ban you from my Wikipedia dreams. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:43, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I believe that "editing while dreaming" scores well on the Wikiholism test. I distinctly remember answering "yes" to "have you ever edited from your bath?" (question 94: 5 points). Now you out-scored my tub exploits with 17 points (question 105: "Do you edit articles in your sleep?") Let me gladly award you an extra 3 bonus points for crafting a realistic talk-page mediated tech support discussion. — JFG ^talk 07:33, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm a drunk, but I'm a happy drunk. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:50, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Mandruss, drinking is supposed to make you forget Wikipedia. You must not be drinking correctly enough. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:31, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Atsme That was metaphorical per Wikiholism. I'm not really a drunk. Sometimes a glass of red with dinner, more during the holidays. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I went ahead and modified it to fit metaphorically. 😆 ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Late ping

FYI, this doesn't send a notification, even though you re-signed. I'm aware of two tests that have confirmed this, and probably Scjessey can confirm it for this case. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:26, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Strange. For good measure, I also added User:Scjessey in my edit summary, that should have done the trick. @Scjessey: Can you check whether you got that notification from a few hours ago? — JFG ^talk 21:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I missed the link in the editsum. That renders this useless as a test of the other one, I think. Tell ya what, I'll do a test from my UTP and you can see for yourself. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

I predict that you did not receive a notification for this ping. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:39, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Correct. Didn't get a thing. But have you tried mentioning me in the editsum? (as I just did right now) — JFG ^talk 05:41, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

No I haven't, but I received that notification. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

OK thx, I learned something today. — JFG ^talk 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but doesn't the ping have to happen at the same time as a fresh sig? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

@BullRangifer: I'm 99% sure the ping and the signature have to be added at the same time in entirely new content—not a modification to existing content, even if re-signed. The remaining 1% represents the possibility that my memory of multiple past tests is flawed. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:09, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Damn! That's one heck of a memory. Got some to spare? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:12, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Sure. What would you like me to remember for you? ―Mandruss ☎ 23:14, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

Now 100% after JFG's confirmation above. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:47, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Is that "feature" documented wherever they explain how to notify your fellow editors? If not, we should explain it. (where "we" is not me, at least not me today) — JFG ^talk 05:59, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notifications#Triggering_events. "Note that the post containing a link to a user page must be signed; if the mention is not on a completely new line with a new signature, no notification will be sent." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 06:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Which nobody reads. People learn by watching, not reading. I see it done wrong a lot more often than I say something about it to the person doing it wrong. In this madhouse environment, many editors would call me a liar, since they've been doing that for years and nobody else has said anything to them about it. Or they would demand that I prove it to them. Not wishing to be called a liar, and not wishing to spend a half hour of my life proving it to them, I don't bother most of the time. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks NeilN. Although this part is bolded, I had to parse the full help page three times before noticing it. I would suggest two things: make this a bit more prominent, perhaps with a sub-header, perhaps with an example, and most importantly explain how to notify somebody when you don't want to create a whole new line, e.g. by telling people to use the edit summary. Most of the frustration I've seen around this technical issue happens when editors forgot somebody in a ping or misspelled their name, and go back to quickly correct their previous message. Unfortunately, the bug can even lead to bad blood between editors accusing each other of not pinging them while pretending to have done so. Not helpful when we are already debating contested content… — JFG ^talk 06:27, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

And the flip side of that coin, editors actually not pinging them while pretending to have done so. As a software developer, I have to try real hard to believe that the status quo is the best our developers could do for this problem, that there is no way they could at least give some visible indication on the page that the notification was not generated, given sufficient knowledge, creativity, and focus. But it's conceivable.
I hereby authorize a BOLD edit to that page. A separate heading would be good, making it possible to link directly to it. Or even a separate subpage, where you could devote more space to the issue. Either way, a WP:LATEPING shortcut could be created for easier linking. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@JFG: Sorry, but I've been away from Wikipedia for a while and only just found out about this discussion. I can confirm that I did indeed receive a ping with this edit, which I guess renders this entire thread moot! -- Scjessey (talk) 15:07, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

All is well that ends well. This discussion is not moot, as it revealed that the relevant help page should be improved. We'll get to it, somehow, someday. — JFG ^talk 15:15, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

😞 I'm feeling very unpinged. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:34, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Atsme: ―Mandruss ☎ 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

😊 All better. ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:55, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Surveys

Are you the one who changed "Open RfCs" to "Open RfCs and surveys" way back when? Can you articulate the purpose of the surveys part? If it's "here are some things where a drive-by or infrequent editor can contribute without a lot of reading or context", I don't think discussions like that last one qualify. When editors in the middle of unstructured discussion start using Support and Oppose tags, scattering them throughout the unstructured discussion, that doesn't morph the thing into a survey as I define the word. I wonder about the utility of the surveys part of that list in general. Thoughts? ―Mandruss ☎ 15:10, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't remember whether I tweaked this heading. I do agree it's convenient for a casual editor, or even for a "regular", to see at a glance which currently open questions may require their attention. I also agree that my latter addition today was not strictly necessary, however I feel that it does no harm. — JFG ^talk 15:18, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

That's the thing, I don't see why a survey requires more attention than a regular discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 15:22, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Doesn't a survey represent "consensus"? ^{Atsme📞📧} 15:36, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) By definition, both surveys and RfCs get started to solicit more input into an ongoing debate, and hopefully help reach consensus. Mentioning open surveys at the top of the page fosters transparency and accelerates consensus-building. — JFG ^talk 15:38, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

@Mandruss: FYI this looks settled.[6] — JFG ^talk 08:35, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Roger. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:37, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Misunderstanding of my comment

I think you are misunderstanding my comment "We don't need to get inside Trump's head to know his true soul." What I mean by that is, "we don't need to know Trump's true soul" because he is racist by his external actions, his intent is not critical to summarizing the RS that describe his racist actions and behavior. A rephrasing of my comment would be, "We don't need to get inside Trump's head AND know what's in there." My apologies if this wording was unclear. I am not claiming to know his soul. I am saying one does not need to. Andrevan@ 20:40, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; that was helpful indeed. And sorry for laughing about it, but the comment made my day! — JFG ^talk 20:49, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Tropical Soyuz cancelled after Ariane 6??

@JFG few references to it in non-public FLPP documents, they want to increase the launch cadence to reduce costs and the A62 will takeover the medium launch performance segment that Soyuz currently fills in their launcher lineup, particularly as the market is moving to GEO communication satellites heavier than Soyuz can launch. After the O3B constellation launches which Soyuz is ideal for (4x700kg to MEO) they only booked one more flight for Kourou last year (which has A62 as contracted backup), the bulk of the OneWeb launches (32-36 200kg LEO) will be from Baikonur. --WatcherZero (talk) 07:19, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I have copied your answer to Talk:Soyuz-2, for the benefit of other editors, and will continue the discussion there. — JFG ^talk 07:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Your hat

I realize that you used |closer=JFG, but I'm adding {{unsigned}} for multiple reasons.

• Signature can be used with both {{hat}} and {{cot}}
• People may not know to expand the hat to look for the closer (I edited for almost 5 years before I learned about that ten minutes ago)
• Knowing the time of the action is sometimes helpful

Anyway, {{hat}} is intended and designed for closing entire threads/discussions.
I feel it's worth a thorough explanation, and better here than in one of those essay-length edit summaries.
Hope you are in agreement. ―Mandruss ☎ 04:38, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

No problem. I'd just dispute that {{hat}} is only for entire threads: the point is often to mask a bunch of out-of-scope or unhelpful comments within a thread. PS: If people start fighting over timestamps of hats, we're failing as a good-faith community geared to building quality articles. — JFG ^talk 05:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, we are failing in that, but for far larger reasons than fighting over timestamps of hats. ―Mandruss ☎ 05:11, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Alas. Nevertheless, we persist! — JFG ^talk 06:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Le Pen

Hi Per WP:CANVASSING, Referring to the text of the page I read, any notification is not "canvassing". Indeed, everything depends on the audience (kind of notifying contributors whose proof we have that they vote together), or the message addressed to them does not present the reality in a neutral way. There, I notified without influencing the debate by non-neutral remarks.--Panam2014 (talk) 13:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

I have replied in detail on the talk page. I have no doubt that you made your notification in good faith, but that can still lead to bias in results, which is why the practice is discouraged. Here, you say you notified "editors interested in politics", so that will tend to skew the results towards opinions held by people who are more interested in the subject's political activities than her status as a woman or as an adopted child. — JFG ^talk 14:00, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the character has several dimensions, but she is known primarily as a politician. For the rest, it is not because contributors are interested in one of the dimensions of the character, family life, woman, political personality, that it determines the title they will choose. In fact, for me, either the page "canvassing" is not well done, or people may accuse of canvassing actions that do not fit the definition. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:08, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

The process may not be perfect, but we tend to adhere to such conventions even more strictly when article subjects are potentially controversial. This is why I called out your action, but no offense meant. Let's move on. I may even give an opinion on the name change before the poll expires… — JFG ^talk 14:12, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Best regards. --Panam2014 (talk) 14:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Prince Harry

What an innovative, novel solution to the discussion on Prince Harry's hatnote! I'm impressed at how simple it is. Edge3 (talk) 01:53, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Many thanks; glad to be of service! — JFG ^talk 03:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Google blames Wikipedia

Hilarious - not. CNBC = not sure what to do with this info. The term was removed here but Google had already picked it up. ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:57, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a random glitch, nothing to get excited about. Some vandal must be laughing today. — JFG ^talk 16:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I missed B1042

Thanks. --mfb (talk) 22:29, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

We all miss him. (her? zer? zee?) — JFG ^talk 22:32, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Holiness movement

Dear User:JFG, just for some background information, as you can see Holiness movement#Denominations_and_associations, the Church of the Nazarene is but one denomination of this tradition of Christianity. Also, does the discussion I initiated here contribute to the criteria as listed in No. 6? Thanks for your help! With regards, Anupam^Talk 09:29, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

I understand. Yes, part of the criteria to obtain template-editor privilege is showing you can obtain consensus and work with other editors to adjust templates. Now let's wait a few days until we get feedback. — JFG ^talk 09:37, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Hello User:JFG, could you kindly have a look at the discussion? I would be most grateful. With regards, Anupam^Talk 03:18, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the reminder. — JFG ^talk 03:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

RM relisting

HI JFG, I would advise against relisting WP:RM discussions in which you've already expressed an opinion, as you recently did at Talk:Marion Maréchal-Le Pen. The instructions at WP:RM#Relisting currently state "While there is no consensus forbidding participation in a requested move discussion after relisting it, many editors consider it an inadvisable form of supervote. If you want to relist a discussion and then participate in it, be prepared to explain why you think it was appropriate." However, the instructions don't seem to contemplate a situation in which a !vote takes place a few weeks before the relist. Further, since there had been no comments on the discussion for eight full days before your relist, it looks like the discussion was ready to be closed by someone. I'm somewhat surprised that no one has expressed an objection on that talk page yet, but I'd appreciate it if you'd keep this in mind in the future. Best, Dekimasuよ! 04:12, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Dekimasu: You are absolutely right; I had forgotten that I had !voted earlier; I went to see whether this could be closed and I saw no consensus, but thought that giving it some more time would be useful to see what happens in sources. Thanks for your note. — JFG ^talk 17:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

World War collages

I’ve responded to you on the the World War I and World War II talk pages. Roddy the roadkill (talk) 20:56, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Verifiability policy

Your restoration of a table to Holocene calendar does not satisfy WP:Burden. Please be aware a link to another Wikipedia article never satisfies the verifiability policy. Please discuss at Talk:Holocene calendar#Conversion table. Jc3s5h (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

I believe the table is informative to readers, and satisfies WP:CALC + WP:SKYISBLUE. Pleased to continue at article talk page. — JFG ^talk 11:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

This was not Vandalism

Dear JFG

You may not consider the fact the asteroid belt (or whatever it is named this week) was called 'The Asteroids' useful information, but this is the same as stating the fact that Pluto was once one of the nine planets of the Solar System is not useful. It is part of these astrological bodies' HISTORY. It is not vandalism. Let me ask how old you are. These were known as The Asteroids for many years, and this is what I learnt them as in Primary School as a child. I'm sorry that you prefer the politically-correct name, BUT it has a history before you came on the scene. I have reverted your 'reversion'. If this is removed, I shall refer the matter for adjudication. [User:211.30.179.119|211.30.179.119]] (talk) 10:00, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP211: nowhere did I say your edit was vandalism. Per my edit summary, explaining that the asteroids were known as The Asteroids was "not useful". I also understand the finer point you were trying to make, and it is better placed now with your latest edit.[7] Surely an even better wording could be found, but that's better discussed at the article talk page. To cast any doubt aside, I'm old enough to have learned about the asteroids and Pluto the same way you did. Finally, the wording "asteroid belt" is just as much part of history, I fail to see how "political correctness" has anything to do with this discussion. Here are books from 1867[8] and 1872[9] calling this region of space the asteroid belt, and speculating about its formation. — JFG ^talk 12:10, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Top 25 Report

Not particularly important, but this diff didn't remove the content about ITN. My edit, which you reverted, was merely changing the terminology employed by Nergaal is their edit to add the detail. I was torn on removing it, but decided to rephrase and leave it, as it may give readers insight into the operations of the main page. However, I am fine with the removal. Just clarifying the situation. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 12:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC).

Thanks for your note. I feel it's more neutral to simply state that the tournament was featured at ITN, and avoid speculating about the influence of ITN on the viewership tally. Not even funny! — JFG ^talk 12:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Renom...

I was surprised to see this, the title of which reminded me of the movie Free Willy. I was even more surprised to see the outcome, and lack of participation. Why was it not listed in any of the WikiProjects? There is now a proposal to merge it into the main article. I kinda sensed our pedia was in trouble when I saw what was happening with the jacket caper but I didn't realize to what lengths we were letting tabloid journalism rule over the pedia... ^{Atsme📞📧} 21:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You must be talking about Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Free Melania (2nd nomination)? Well, it sure reminds me of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Americans Against Insecure Billionaires with Tiny Hands (2nd nomination). As you like to say, — JFG ^talk 22:56, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I, too, was surprised by the lack of participation the first time around. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 02:25, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Space launch market competition

Hey, thanks for improving the Space launch market competition article. I just added back a small part of one of your edits, 'cause it seemed possibly a mistrake.

In addition, I just added some important context on the BFR, and what it's planned for, 'cause that seems real important to the launch market competition, if the plans come to pass. See what you think.

One question for you: do you think that bit should possibly fit elsewhere in the article??? The bit about 150 tonnes surely needs to be stated in the US heavy-lift competition section, for comparison with SLS. But not sure how to best do it. Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:40, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks N2e. The 150-tonne payload and full reusability were already there, so I removed the duplication now, and kept your additions. Looking good. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Officeholder box assumed office/in office

Hello. I noticed that earlier today, per consensus at the talk page for Melania Trump, you adjusted the parameter on the officeholder IB template so a custom term label could apply to an incumbent office/role holder. It seems that another thing that happened earlier today is that, for reasons I couldn't quite deduce, every incumbent officeholder box had the label for their start date change from "assumed office" to "in office" (i.e., the label used for former officeholders who have completed a term). I'm not sure exactly how these template edits work, but are these two changes related? I ask because I checked the talk pages when I noticed the change a little while ago, and it didn't seem that there was any discussion for it, and no other edits made to the template recently, so I'm guessing it was some kind of consequence of your edit. Not a huge deal in any case, but just curious about how these things work. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

@Sunshineisles2: You are correct, I had not noticed that {{Infobox officeholder}} forced "In office" as a |termlabel= parameter for the sub-template {{Infobox officeholder/office}}. When I changed the latter to accept a term label instead of the hardcoded "Assumed office" for incumbents, the default term label "In office" became visible. My edit was reverted in the meantime, and I'll have to solve the issue differently. Ping Neveselbert for info. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Why Can't add a self-made list as a source.

I made it by myself，why Can't add a self-made list as a source. Other sources are made by people by thenselves Braun Ge (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Braun Ge, welcome to Wikipedia! We are talking about this revert on the article List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Your question is fully addressed in our editorial policies WP:NOR, WP:SPS and WP:IRS. In a nutshell, Wikipedian editors compile information previously published by independent sources. Besides, your table of launches as a graphic would bring no extra information to the existing contents of the article, so that it would be rejected even if published independently. Don't let this discourage you; further constructive contributions are welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Context: we are talking about a conversation that Geogene had collapsed[10] and I restored.[11] — JFG ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

The statement by an IP, The sourcing of this article is beyond poor, I looked at some of the articles in question claiming direct Putin influence and they have zero solid evidence, its all inferences or insinuations by unknown sources is not a commentary on the sourcing in the article, it's a complaint that our reliable source criteria don't prohibit us from citing media that use anonymous sources. That complaint is going nowhere. Then there's also the opening remarks at the beginning of the thread, from an account registered in February that has all of 11 edits: This article seems biased, I for one do not believe in this being legitimate and many others don't either, however, I appreciate the information commonly believed put into an article. Again, this is just somebody's random opinion. A regular editor then asked them if they could be more specific, and this reply followed from someone else: Completely agree with Guymanforget. Didn't take reading past the first sentence to read bias here. The way it is laid out suggests these conclusions to be written in stone and there is a sizeable community that does not concur with that assumption. Oh, good, some other jerk with an opinion, that one a sleeper account that has gotten about 150 edits in 10 years. That whole thread was pointless, bad faith accusations from users that at best don't understand core policy, and at worst are probably sock puppets. There was no reason to uncollapse it, because "I don't like it" and "I don't like it either" aren't useful for improving the article. Stuff like that doesn't belong on Wikipedia talk pages, it should stay in the comment threads at RT and Sputnik News. Geogene (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Given the thread was kind of stale, you could have just archived it untouched. When you collapse some discourse that was meant to redress perceived issues with the article, even if you and I can deem such remarks unfounded, it sends a WP:BITE message to new users who are not frequent contributors. As long as such comments do not turn to insults or vandalism, they should be left alone. Everything you came here to explain, you could have written on the talk page to educate those users about Wikipedia policies and history of this particular article. Think about that next time. — JFG ^talk 14:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Those users weren't interested in hearing about Wikipedia policy, they were here to make drive-by political statements. The OP, for example, disappeared when a regular asked them in good faith if they could be more specific. The next account that stood in for them was challenged in good faith by a different regular; they responded to that with a mild insult No, I prefer to live in the real world where dissent is still seen as a useful path to ferreting out the truth. This page is yours. Have a nice life which does not indicate any interest in learning our policies. The next drive-by remark was, its just something that the democraps came up with to try and undermine him which is not evidence of any interest in WP policies either. These accounts aren't interested in our policies, JFG. They're offended by the article and dropped in to argue. Geogene (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from, and I have pushed back mercilessly on a bunch of obvious trolls, but I remain strongly attached to Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values such as AGF. Have you genuinely considered that the kind of replies that those users have received simply discourages them from arguing their point of view? A comment like This page is yours. Have a nice life! makes me feel that we are failing as Wikipedians. I do agree with you that the remarks by Zgrillo2004 were pure opinion, so that you could have hatted only this part. On the other hand, remarks by Guymanforget, Tvillars, TheConduqtor and Azuefeldt looked constructive. The thread could have brought some article improvement if "dissenters" had not been summarily dismissed. — JFG ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I didn't like the "the page is yours" thing either, but consider the arguments that Tvillars was making. I'll be quoting some of them here. Not a single American has been convicted of collusion with the Russians and yet the article states as FACT it took place. Does it? It's a huge article, but my browser's Ctrl+f isn't finding it. The article does state as a fact that interference took place, but that's not collusion. Another example is the only references to David Nunes are colored to support Russian collusion which couldn't be further from his position. The only references to Nunes I'm finding in the article aren't about collusion at all, it's about whether or not the Russians specifically wanted Trump to win, plus some House procedural drama. So Tvillars seems to have been saying collusion when they meant interference. But Nunes appears to accept that Russia interfered in the election [12], so it isn't misrepresentative. Then they mentioned the VIPS thing and SPECIFICO told them it had been argued before, and that's when Tvillars chose to discontinue the thread. Their last post was on May 21, I collapsed the thread on June 28. I don't consider that summary dismissal, at least not for Tvillars. I could have Fisked them like that on the spot, but we'd have gotten the same outcome, sooner. Geogene (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Understood. The thread was rightfully archived; case closed. No need to get bogged down in details unless some of the involved editors resurface. — JFG ^talk 22:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Are you saying that I am not allowed to have an opinion? I have voted for Trump, he was never a politician and what Putin said, wasnt aware that he was in Moscow. This hole thing is just an excuse by the democrats to impeach him so they can turn the US into a socialist country. Not to mention that they want war against Russia which from what I understand is cooperating with the US to hand these cyberattacks. Again, if I cant have an opinion then why are we only to makr articles that the progressive media pits out. Its just insulting to all of us conservative /SMDH --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You are most definitely entitled to your opinion, however opinion alone does not help improve articles. The wikipedian approach is to make a concrete suggestion for modifying the article contents, back it up with a reliable source (which in turn should not be an opinion piece), and get consensus for the change if another editor revert your edit. It is a difficult process, but it is necessary to maintain stability and credibility in an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". In the long run, it helps keep articles factual, neutral and balanced. Nevertheless, in politics, emotional reactions to news of the day tend to be over-represented, and that's sad indeed. — JFG ^talk 05:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

devising a damper on knee-jerk emotional headline-chasing

Right now, I'm worried about too many cooks spoiling the broth: I'm trying to hammer out a proposal with Masem and possibly NeilN, Awilley and EEng. But you will certainly be one of the first people I ping once we have an actual proposal, as you're one of the most consistently level-headed editors in politics right now. Hell, you could look at my contribs and figure out where we're discussing it and weigh in, but I want to actively avoid too many voices in that discussion, because it makes it take longer and produce a more complicated result. I've probably invited too many people already, but oh well. lol

I also think you might be able to help with an alternate proposal for a site-wide policy against "reaction" sections in articles about not-necessarily-political events like natural disasters and military actions, but I'm not quite ready to work on that yet. I will -again- certainly ping you when I am.

And of course, none of that is to say that I'm not open to having more than one discussion, if you want to have one here or at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@MPants at work: Thanks for your note. I have looked at the ideas you are juggling, and shall await your invitation before submitting any comments or ideas of my own. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump

Hello. It appears that you violated 1RR on Presidency of Donald Trump with two non-consecutive reverts to two different sets of new material:

1. 14:38, 19 July 2018, reverting this
2. 16:35, 19 July 2018‎, reverting this

Please self-revert. Politrukki (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

You are correct, thanks for the notice. I have reverted the Mueller indictments, and will start a talk page discussion. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, I actually meant that you should self-revert the latter edit, but I guess you are in the clear now. Many thanks. Politrukki (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe I had a choice of which revert to pick. When removing the Mueller paragraph, I was not aware that it had been added the same day, so that I consider this one to be my error. When removing the family separation issue from the lede, I was consciously reverting a change that did not have talk page consensus. Both reverts are being discussed on talk, so we'll see where consensus goes. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Deletion review for Ankit Love

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MB190417 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Pancam & PanCam

Hello. I just finished a draft of an article on ExoMars' camera PanCam. I just realized the MER rovers Spirit and Opportunity carry a camera setup called Pancam (upper case C). Being that the cameras are actually different and from different manufacturers, they deserve separate articles, but I am not able to create "PanCam" as it automatically redirects to Pancam. Can you please help with the redirect? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Had to perform a few more edits elsewhere (check my contribs for details). Added hatnotes per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:TWODABS, which is nicer than landing on a disambiguation page. — JFG ^talk 21:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought you were too busy so I requested help elsewhere. The feedback I got was to name both pages Pancam (Mars Exploration Rovers) and your draft to PanCam (ExoMars rover). With all my best intentions, I see the new article is now duplicated at Pancam (Mars Exploration Rovers) and PanCam. Redirect are my nemesis and I have no clue how to fix this. Could you, pretty please? Rowan Forest (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

I have restored the simple Pancam and PanCam titles, with hatnotes. The dabbed titles including rover names can remain as useful redirects, I have marked them with the appropriate {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Seems we're done with redirect logistics, now feel free to improve the article contents, on which you have already done a great job. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Once again, thank you for your help. And I apologize for the mess. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Watch my talk page! — JFG ^talk 14:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

May-Day! I just made another article in my sandbox: FREND (Fine-Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector) and it conflicts with the existing FREND (Front-end Robotics Enabling Near-term Demonstration). Can you work your magic, please? Rowan Forest (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

This one will need to be handled differently, because there are already several entries under Frend. @Rowan Forest: Is your draft ready for prime time? — JFG ^talk 06:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

It looked complete, so I moved it to Fine-Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector. Removed some superfluous categories and navboxes per WP:SUBCAT and WP:BIDI. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you again. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

Revert

Sorry, but bullet 1 vio. That content is only 5 days old,[13] well below NeilN's 4-6 weeks suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I thought this had been discussed recently, but it was on another article: Talk:Protests against Donald Trump/Archive 4#Hollywood Walk of Fame. I will self-revert and start a discussion. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

A question

Editor Lithopsian after all the explanations I have presented on the talk page of the "ferrolens" and neutral point of view with no counter arguments presented by any other editor/user (I have deleted the COI tag [WP:SILENCE], dormant discussion) and senior editor (you) passed the page after with minor edits as well an administrator with minor edits, has reinstated the COI tag after eight days of absence. The only think I did was prior to answer to a previous deleted prod on the talk page.

Is this normal behavior or a bias and him holding a personal dislike on me?

I have enough with this WP:HARASSMENT violations by this editor. If you don't want the ferrolens article, fine. I will delete it myself and depart. I have better things to do.

Markoulw (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea; you would have to ask Lithopsian why he added the tag again. He did state in his edit summary that you should not have removed the tag, because you are the person subject to COI; that makes sense to me. Another editor may remove the tag whenever COI issues have been resolved; looks like nobody took the time to look over this in detail yet. I did some rewriting and some formatting on the article; content looks fine to me but I'm not an expert. Finally, if you're going to communicate further with your fellow editors, accusations of harassment are not helpful; please read WP:ASPERSIONS. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

A favor?

Hey JFG - could you do me a favor? I’m going on vacation for a week starting Wednesday. Could I ask you to keep an eye on two newish articles that I’ve been helping with? At each article the main editor means well but doesn’t know what they’re doing. They need a lot of cleaning up after, and there doesn’t seem to be any other experienced editor watching the article. Look at the histories and you'll see what I mean.

One is 2018 North Korea-United States summit. There is an editor named Goodtiming8871 who adds large chunks of material that are sort-of-supported by the references, but clearly written by a non-English speaker, probably Korean, who seems to have a mild pro-NK slant. I always have to come in and clean up after them - to fix their grammar and sometimes rewrite to what the source actually said.

The other problem article is Trials of Paul Manafort, 2018, where most of the writing has been done by user Arglebargle79. They created the article mostly by cutting and pasting from other articles, and then recently they added descriptions of the trial without any references at all. Again, I did a lot of cleanup. So, if you have time and inclination, you might keep an eye on them and tidy up where necessary. If you don’t have time and inclination, that’s OK too. We are all volunteers after all. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi MelanieN, sure I can keep an eye on those pages. Obviously I'm already following the summit article, but I'm not familiar with the Manafort trial thing, will have to do some reading there. I've come across Arglebargle elsewhere, and I know this editor tends to be a prolific cut-and-paster of news headlines. Telling them about WP:COPYVIO might help. Happy holidays! — JFG ^talk 05:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I haven't seen Arglebargle cut-and-paste from sources at that article, but the majority of the article is a copy-paste from two other Wikipedia articles. Which of course is not a problem if acknowledged. I belatedly added a null edit to document that. My main problem with AG is that they added a whole section describing the first few days of the trial (as they saw it) without any sources at all. I did a rewrite based on sources - which may be necessary again since the trial is ongoing. I'll try to bring it up to date before I leave. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

NY Times

Just a quick note re The New York Times. My thinking is that "The New York Times is often called The Times, accordingly confusion with the British paper is widespread, so the hatnote is warranted" makes perfect sense for a hatnote on The Times (i.e. someone looking for NYT could conceivably search for "The Times") but I can't imagine how someone looking for The Times of London could accidentally wind up on the NYT article. Station1 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

You have a point, and I did add the {{distinguish}} hatnote to The Times of London for this reason. The reverse link from The New York Times is less compelling; on the other hand, it does no harm. Perhaps you could open a discussion at Talk:The New York Times to gather more input from our fellow editors? — JFG ^talk 09:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't think it's that important. As you say, there's no great harm. Station1 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2007 North America South and Eastern heatwave

Hi there. Could you consider amending your nomination in light of the addtional information that was found and added to the article? Bearian (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bearian: Thanks for your efforts in improving the sourcing for this article. Another editor has removed a lot of the anecdotal contents, so that we are making progress. If the article is saved by those changes, I'll be happy to have brought its sorry state to attention. There is no need to amend the nomination: the closer will be able to take improvements into account. Thanks again for your note. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Just piggybacking on this comment with all the heatwave stuff, but in addition to saying Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel in your AfD intro, you could also say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a weather almanac. I'd almost be tempted to propose something to that effect at WP:ISNOT, but it's just an idea for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

That would be a good addition to WP:NOT indeed. What started my interest was the navbox for {{Heat wave}} which curiously listed many more events since Wikipedia got traction in the mid-2000s, to the point where every summer was a heat wave. Looking at the individual articles, I realized that most of them had been created in the heat of the moment (hah!) and did not look exceptional in the long run. This tendency to create articles about current events will continue, so that a specific guideline against "weather report" type articles would possibly help editors focus on truly exceptional weather events. The jury is still out for 2018: it does look pretty hot in many regions of the Northern hemisphere, so that there's a good chance the heat wave articles for Europe, North America and Japan could be kept in the long run. We'll have plenty of time to re-evaluate them next year.

And now I have just started looking at winters! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave/List of cold wave AfDs — JFG ^talk 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, well there's a very good reason for that - "Sixteen of the 17 hottest years recorded have been in this century."- and that's globally, in the 21at century, since weather data-recording began in the late 19th century. And it's something that we've been experiencing in Australia, where heat waves kill more people than other natural disasters:

• Doctors for the Environment Australia: Heatwaves are silent killers but risks are highest for those on the margins of health
• Experts warn against underestimating heatwave threat
• Even without El Nino event Earth sweltered again in 2017, UN's World Meteorological Organisation says

If the deleted articles could be restored, they could always be improved, and allow readers to compare these events. Bahudhara (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

• 'We've been warned': Swelling Northern Hemisphere heatwaves bring unprecedented fires
• Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer

More from a global perspective, which may not be so well covered by Trump-obsessed U.S. media wars. Bahudhara (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

@Bahudhara: This article was kept and renamed. Please bring your sources and further discussion to Talk:2007 North American heat wave. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)

from my talkpage

First, have I managed to clean it up enough? and second, if yes, how would you recommend going about suggesting it? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look later. — JFG ^talk 17:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Removal of valid WP:GF content.

Your false conflation of "mischaracterization" as "personal opinion" on the Donald Trump nickname page was a clear violation of goodfaith additions WP:GF. If citations are required, which they are not, it should've been left in place and tagged with WP:CLARIFY and/or WP:CITENEED, instead of being undone. It shouldn't have simply been removed because you (and only you ...) happened to decide you didn't like what was stated by someone else or took issue with how it was worded. The mischaracterization is simply a logical statement of the truth. Nicknames are are not "bullying" but "verbal abuse", the latter being a type of insult, the former being physical violence. In other words, the statement at the top of the article needs clarification that the mainstream media is intentionally mischaracterizing the nicknames as something they are not. I hope you recognize the situation as it is and willingly choose revert the changes. Also, and I see this alot on Wikipedia, some people act as if they own or control a page. I hope that's not the case in your situation, although it does appear that you are reverting large numbers of edits on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Dear IP68, I have no idea which edits you are talking about. Here are instructions on how to quote edits or "diffs" for easy reference. If this is related to the "nicknames used by Trump" page, feel free to make your comments at Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, which is the appropriate discussion forum for this article. You can get an editor's attention from any page by using the {{ping}} template followed by their name, e.g. in my case {{ping|JFG}}. Generally, you may want to sign your posts with ~~~~, and open an account, which would make it easier for your fellow editors to interact with you, while enhancing your privacy, because IP addresses of registered users and not traced. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 11:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lead picture of the Collapse of the World Trade Center

Hello JFG,

You thanked me for my proposal for another lead picture for the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.
But it was was first moved down, to the "Collapse of the North Tower" section, and subsequently removed from the page again.

Regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

I noticed, and I have opened a discussion on the talk page. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, Thank you ! — I've been put on notice to explain my content edits in the "Other investigations" section, and will open an item regarding that on the talk page there soon. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Where do you want it?

Where should we have the won deposited for keeping dear leader's pictures looking good? PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Just remember 낮말은 새가 듣고 밤말은 쥐가 듣는다, keep it on the down low. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Trials of Paul Manafort

Funny - I had been planning to move this article today to remove the year, and when I went to remove it I discovered it's already gone - you beat me to it! Have you been reading my mind, or is it just a case of GMTA (great minds think alike)? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

In my interpretation, we are all meatware in service of the Mighty Wiki… — JFG ^talk 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

All hail the great and powerful Wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

What is encyclopedic tone?

As a native French speaker (which you are), your use of this word puzzles me. Tone is a word that we in English use to refer to music. Perhaps by analogy you could apply it to subjects other than music, but it still is not clear in what light you can do this. Is there an article on Wikipedia which discusses the standard of "encyclopedic tone", a term I believe to be best used by people who don't speak English natively? If it exists, this article would prove interesting reading material. DonaldGump (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Absolutely, we have that. See WP:TONE about the writing style considered encyclopedic for the purposes of this project.

Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

The use of "quote unquote"[14] can be construed as "clever" or conversational tone, which is addressed in the guideline thus:

Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.

More generally, Wikipedia has a house style at WP:MOS. — JFG ^talk 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Sea level archives

To help with longterm maintenence lets get the redirs and the annual subfolders deleted. The only downside is if the original path was referenced anywhere else and that's sufficiently rare if indeed it happens at all that its small potatoes comparerd to this sea (yuk yuk) of redirs sticking around NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Let me finish the merge and we'll get to that. In the meantime you might want to check the "What links here" for archived discussions by year, because there may be links to fix if we remove the redirects. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Working on it. FYI, I'm tracking my work at my sandbox. If you think it helps you're welcome to comment at talk page there and we could pass the editing of the tables back and forth. I didn't write the text for others so if you have Qs ask! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm just going through the remaining year archives, consolidating them by groups of one or two years in Archive 1…n. Currently done up to 2011 and Archive 5. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done. All good up to 2014 and Archive 6. Bot reconfigured to take over from Archive 7. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)

RFC Closure

Hi JFG, thanks for your contributions. I am not sure if you are aware of WP:ANRFC and especially Point number 3. Can you explain why you chose to ignore Point#3 and when you had a chance here to discuss the closure statement you chose to discuss the editor instead of his edits. I just felt that you should know this if you are not aware. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

I understand the process, however my first issue with the close was that it was made by a non-admin in contradiction with the request that was specifically asking for an admin; that's why I focused on the process, not on the closing statement. I know that NACs are generally fine, however I also know that when editors request an admin close, non-admins should refrain from closing. In fairness, WBG may have closed this RfC without seeing the close request, because he also did not mark it done at ANRFC. I was expecting that WBG would say "oops, had not seen the close request, sorry", and retract his close, I've seen that happen in other cases. If you read the thread I opened on WBG's talk page, you'll notice that I was starting the dialogue and waiting for his second answer, when he went offline. Other editors commented there, and I told everyone I wanted to hear from WBG first before taking further action. Only after getting no response for a week did I open the AN request for a close review. There, more people are asking for an explanation of WBG's reading of the discussion, and given that he's apparently away, it looks pointless to wait further. The simplest thing in my opinion would be for an admin to step in and make their own evaluation of the discussion, although I'm not sure that would be the proper process at this point. I have experience with the move review process, where a close can be formally challenged, but I am not aware of a similar process to dispute an RfC close, except posting a request at AN and letting the free flow of comments do its thing. We'll see what happens, thanks for your comments there. — JFG ^talk 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Just a little BTW, you should notify them on their talk page when posting on a notice board like that. If you do not mind I took the liberty of doing so here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I did ping the editor when opening the AN thread, so I think he was made aware. He's just been mostly offline. — JFG ^talk 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah they do not seem around much, especially lately... But on those admin boards there is a warning at the top saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Better safe than sorry. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Active Measures (2018 film)

Any comments about Draft:Active Measures (2018 film)? 69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Archival

Re this, "apparently resolved" is not "closed", which is what #13 says. I've treated "answered" edit requests as "closed" but otherwise applied a bright line that has worked just fine up to now. It wouldn't have hurt anything to keep that around for another 5 days—even if there were four times as many threads in the TOC—and I can safely predict that a blurred line will create problems with premature archival. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Understood; I had wondered why you archived one thread and not the other. I saw the second one as a distraction, and a continuation of the same editor's misplaced questioning. No biggie. I'm not going to attract attention to this by un-archiving it now. — JFG ^talk 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't either. How many non-Americans say "no biggie"? I've often felt you don't talk much like a ferner. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Ouch, you blew my cover! — JFG ^talk 10:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

NPR flowchart

Sorry to hear that my flowchart dissuaded you from joining all those months back. A while back I changed the caption of the flowchart indicating that it is best used for difficult cases when a reviewer doesn't know how to proceed. And as you said, the basic flow chart was also re-added.

I have had a lot of positive feedback from reviewers that it helped them learn all the various steps when they first started out, so I know that it is quite useful to at least some of them, but I definitely don't wan't to be pushing away potential applicants with it. Is there anything else you think could be done to not scare people off with it? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Right, I think both the simple and the detailed flowcharts have their uses. I would definitely want to be able to refer to the detailed version when assessing delicate cases, so don't ditch it. The simpler, color-coded version, is a great intro. The incentive that prompted me to apply today was the backlog chart. This needs to be included in any further invitations you launch, while still stressing that any work is voluntary and that (presumably) habits are quickly formed, so that page patrolling can become an enjoyable "daily breakfast" task for experienced editors. — JFG ^talk 23:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for these suggestions, I'll certainly take them on. Always a joy working with you. Cheers and good luck at PERM, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

Raptor

Hey JFG. COuld you maybe take a look at the Raptor engine article and see what you think. Has been a bit of two editors seeing things a bit differently for a bit, and now, although a (not full) bare link citation was added to a primary source, the previous source was secondary, and may differ from the (hour-long) video source the editor left. Need some fresh eyes. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

My eyes are far from fresh tonight, but I'll keep your request in mind for another day. As the saying goes, there is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Useful scripts for NPR

I just wanted to share a list of useful scripts for New Page Reviewing with you that I have been drafting for the next newsletter, as you can probably make use of them straight away:

• WP:Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
• User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to User:JFG/common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
• User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (I recommend 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
• User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is revdel annoying and time consuming? Install this script and deal with copyvios in the blink of an eye. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your Diff Ids and you can drop them into the script Popups.
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
• User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Welcome to the team. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all this. I've been using Twinkle before, and it really helps a lot: copyvio reporting took all of 30 seconds. I've also been using HotCat to help with assigning categories; you should add it to your list of recommendations. I installed a script to facilitate stub-sorting, but it's quite frustrating because it only drops you into the super-long list of stub tags, and you still have to manually find the best one. Is there a better tool for that? Regarding the revdel script, what us can it be to a non-admin? Does it have an option to ask an admin to process the revdels on your behalf? Thanks! — JFG ^talk 03:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

The revdel tool is for helping to add a revdel tag to an article (i.e. requesting revdel), it isn't super easy, you still have to get the diffs, but its better than nothing. I'll clarify this for the newsletter. Unfortunately I haven't found a better script for stub tagging. Hot Cat is awesome, I forgot that you have to opt in, I'll add it to my list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Another gadget I forgot about: MoreMenu is extremely useful and I use it all the time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

+1 on MoreMenu, I use that all the time. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Alrght, I installed More Menu, thx. If you're going to suggest scripts, I'd strongly recommend Disambiguation Assistant:

importScript('User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js');

We've got a great toolsets all around, except for stubbing. Oh well… — JFG ^talk 04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive help

Hi JFG, I have archiv-phobia. None of my attempts to set up archives have gone well and I seem unable to learn how. If you have time, could I trouble you to set up archiving for Talk:Atmospheric methane ? Thanks for any help you can give over there! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

 Done. Given low traffic, I set the archive at 6 months. The bot should do its job tonight; otherwise ping me again. — JFG ^talk 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

i-Space rediect

Hello. I noticed there are 3 companies by the name i-Space, and 2 have their articles in WP:

• ISpace Foundation
• i-Space (Chinese company)
• ispace (Japanese company), an aerospace company that will operate the Hakuto rover on the Moon.

The I-Space disambiguation page is at [15], but when typing Ispace in the search function, it redirects to ISpace Foundation instead of to the disambiguation page. The difference may be the hyphen or the use of caps, but I think it should redirect all variants to the same redirect page. Can you please help me fix that? Redirects are a black box to me. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

All settled. It would be nice if you could start an article about the Japanese Moon exploration company. I left a red link for them in the dab page. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Actually, there seems to be no need for a separate article. I have redirect the Japanese company entry to our article on Hakuto. You could expand that with basic info on the company, based on the SpaceNews article from December 2017. — JFG ^talk 10:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for the help. I'll start digging info on the Japanese company. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk)

Question

User:JFG, shalom. As for the article, List of military occupations, can you please tell me why 2,000 US troops, along with their Kurdish allies, who are currently stationed in the eastern banks of the Euphrates River in eastern Syria and who hold that territory against the solemn wishes of the sovereign government of Bashar al-Assad is not listed there as a "US military occupation"? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Davidbena:, you raise an interesting question. If you can provide sources calling this situation a military occupation, there would be no problem adding it to the article. Personal opinions of editors don't count, no matter how well-founded. But please let's move this to the article's talk page. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

The word "occupation" was thrown around, here and there, in various foreign news media reports, mostly of Russian origin. I'm not sure just how credible these reports are, since the argument from the US side is that the American presence in Syria is based on a UN resolution to defeat ISIS, and that the US has no wish to permanently stay there. It's complicated. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

About Template:Asteroid spacecraft

Hello, I noticed you've combined Template:Asteroid spacecraft with Template:Comet spacecraft, and I would like to first express gratitude for it, as I long felt those two template were redundant, and many pages displayed both of them. The reason why I'm writing here is I would like to hear your opinion on two questions I haven't settled with in regards of this template.

The first question is, how to classify Deep Impact's extended mission to asteroid (163249) 2002 GT. This flyby was to happen in 2020, but unfortunately it couldn't be realized as contact with the spacecraft was lost while en route. As 2002 GT was to be the first asteroid Deep Impact would visit, I originally put the probe in the Failed section of Template:Asteroid spacecraft. However, as the template now includes Deep Impact's nominal mission to comets, I'm not sure whether it should be labeled with a ^† mark, as its comet mission was a complete success. The second question is, how much the scope of this template should be expanded. For example, in the French version of this template, which is phrased as 'spacecraft missions to minor objects', it includes not only asteroid and comet probes, but missions to such destinations like Phobos. I am aware that the distinctions between asteroids and comets are now pretty vague with the discoveries of centaurs and main-belt comets, but not sure that means that the category should include every type of similar objects. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Hms1103. First of all, thanks for your appreciation. Indeed those redundant templates were crying for a merger. I can't make sense of the French version: it purports to list missions to "minor objects" but it includes dwarf planets, and on the other hand it omits a number of missions to comets and asteroids that are well-documented in the English version. I think the template is clearer for readers when specifying "dwarf planets, asteroids and comets" in the title, rather than "Small Solar System objects", a technical description whose scope lay readers cannot easily grasp.

Regarding Deep Impact, I would agree that we should only list the successful parts of the mission at Tempel 1 and 103P/Hartley. The template currently reflects this, unless I'm missing some detail. — JFG ^talk 09:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your view. I concur with your view that the current template is the optimal solution to meet the demand of of most readers. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Ziff brothers

Maybe I am missing something, but was there any discussion before you started Ziff brothers and changed the existing articles, Daniel M. Ziff, Robert D. Ziff, and Dirk Edward Ziff into redirects to this new article? All three articles had been around since 2012. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Greetings Edwardx. There was no discussion. The three articles were practically carbon copies of one another, and we had red links elsewhere pointing to Ziff Brothers Investments. Rather than creating an article about their investment fund that would essentially be a fourth copy of the same material, I figured that a joint biography would make more sense. Feel free to improve, as some statements I copied from the original articles were not verified in the given sources. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Archive size

Re: this, I had increased the archive size to 350 because of stuff like Archive 88 which contains only two level-2 headers (one an RfC granted). It makes it harder to follow the history and find specific things when you have a hundred archives each containing only a couple sections. I much prefer reviewing one big archive instead of hopping around between smaller ones. ~Awilley (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

I feel the same way. My talk page archives often have 50 or so sections. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I understand the feeling, however Archive 88 was exceptional in that it stored two very long-winded discussions. Most archives of the Trump talk page include a dozen threads. I find that navigating 200-250K of wikitext is long enough. The one archive that followed Awilley's switch to 350K felt very long. Obviously that's subjective, however I have rarely or never seen talk page auto-archives for articles set to more than 250K. Also, chatter on this particular talk page has slowed down, so that we will have a lower volume to wade through going forward (unless some super dramatic stuff happens again…) — JFG ^talk 08:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't really understand the objection about navigating wikitext. The amount of wikitext is the same no matter how you divide it up, and dividing it into separate pages actually makes it harder to navigate (hopping tabs and scrolling up and down, instead of just scrolling). Let me put it another way. If I wanted to see what happened between the months of June 2018 to July 2018, I would have to navigate through seven(!) different pages. Archive 83 contains about 8 threads closed on June 5, and archive 90 contains the second half of July into the beginning of August. (I increased the archive size in late July.) Does it really make sense to split two months into seven different archives? What if I wanted to track the number of times people proposed inserting variants of "racially charged" into the Lead during that period? Should I really need to hop between seven tabs to do that? Archive 91, which you thought was too long, contains less than a month of material. Responding to your last point, I wouldn't put too much stock into people spontaneously deciding to talk less about Trump. ~Awilley (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't use autoarchiving, so I don't understand the settings or exactly how it works. Is it possible to set it to trigger only for a size limit, and not for any time periods? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

@JFG, would this be an acceptable compromise for now?

@BullRangifer, that's what we are talking about. The 150k, 200k, 300k, and 350k are the size limits for the archive. When the page reaches the limit the bot creates a new archive. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Awilley, sorry for my late reply. I'd be happy with settling on 250K, as a middle ground between the original 150K and your initial update to 350. OK with 4 threads minimum as you recently updated as well. Regards, — JFG ^talk 09:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Question

Hi, JFG! I see that we were both working on the Religion section of the Trump article. I'm wondering, why did you make this edit? I had deliberately moved the the word "is" inside the quote (and yes, it is part of the quote), because I felt "was" was kind of ambivalent - did the past tense come from the statement itself, or it was Wikipedia's voice meaning at the time of the statement but maybe not now, or what. I thought that quoting the statement saying he "is not a member" was clearer. (A minor point, I know, but hey, copy editing is all about minor points!) --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

The statement dates back to 2015, so past tense seemed more appropriate: we are reporting what the church said at the time. Appreciate the collegial work on detail with you as usual. — JFG ^talk 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Switching sides on UNDUE

I noticed in these talkpage comments [16] [17] that you were complaining about editors arguing UNDUE when material is "positive" and then switching sides when material is "negative". The reverse is happening as well, albeit with different editors, and I wanted to point out you seem to take part in that yourself. For example, in Archive 81 you argued pretty strongly for including in the Lead that Trump had "pressured" North Korea to denuclearize. (See for instance the comment beginning with "I strongly object to calling the North Korea situation 'undue for the lead'" and the quasi-RfC you started in the following section.) But on the subject of the detention and separation of migrant children from their families, (archive 91) you argued that it was "UNDUE" and that it had "no lasting significance". ~Awilley (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not criticizing your opinions on those two issues, just pushing back a bit on the concerns you expressed yesterday. ~Awilley (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Awilley, thanks for stopping by and voicing your concern. I believe that my assessment was correct, as to the eventual long-lasting significance of a local US law enforcement issue vs a geopolitical shift in the Korean Peninsula. As a foreigner, I readily admit that I tend to sit away from the daily partisanship in American politics, and I pay more attention to policy shifts in international relations. Eventually, DUE and UNDUE elements of an eventful biography such as Trump's must take into account sound editorial judgment about the actual impact of events, and not blindly parrot what journalists get excited about today. Was the child-separation policy a disgrace? Certainly, and I said as much in the debates about it. Was the North Korean threat to regional and world peace worth worrying about? Absolutely. Did Trump play a key role in changing the tone and setting up meaningful dialogue towards a halt of NoKo's nuclear and missile programs? Definitely. Which one of these events should be mentioned in the lede section of Trump's biography? You be the judge. I agreed that it was too early to tell whether the Trump-Kim summit would have real consequences, however the summit itself was a significant geopolitical event, more so than the one with Putin, therefore I believed it should have remained in the lede. We shall surely revisit the issue when the next steps unfold. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

On your general pointing out that I may weigh things differently than some other editors, I agree, and I sometimes see my own contributions as simply trying to provide some balance. Of course I feel more strongly about some issues and I'm more inclined to let go of others. Generally, I dislike one-sided pile-ons about anybody, be they Trump, Hillary, Brett Kavanaugh or Sarah Jeong. In any case, I respect the eventual consensus of editors, whenever we can reach it. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Certainly hindsight will prove us all wrong. At the time, and now, I personally saw both as being about equally notable. (I would note that the children separation thing is also still an issue, with over 100 children who still haven't been reunited, and a giant tent city for new children being captured while crossing the border without parents. [18]) I don't think either deserves more than a single clause of a few words in the Lead, as things currently stand.

I definitely get that it's important to have voices of dissent, and I appreciate the respectful way in which you approach it. On providing "balance", the issue I have with that is most people interpret "balance" as opposing one non-neutral POV by pushing the opposite non-neutral POV, turning things in to a partisan tug-of-war. I see very few editors who are able to sidestep the tug-of-war and start from a position of "How do reliable sources treat this, and how can I make the article reflect that?". ~Awilley (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

2020 Democratic party primaries

You say McAulliffe and Omalley dont have any new refs so therefore cannot appear on the page. That is not true they have sources from late september, early october of them expressing interest. Same with Williamson mid october 2018 ref.

Gillibrand has said she is not running, can't emphasize that enough. If you are upset with old refs, why the hell are you removing Bullock and Blumenthal, but not Emmanuel and Raimondo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhian2040 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

@Rhian2040: Per recent sources, I have moved Williamson to the "interested" section, and Gillibrand to the "declined" section. I have not seen any recent sources about McAuliffe and O'Malley, but feel free to show what you have. However, please take further discussion to the article's talk page, so that everybody can participate. — JFG ^talk 20:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Mcaulliffe: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Former-Virginia-Gov-McAuliffe-says-hes-not-ruling-out-2020-campaign-493689191.html

O'Malley: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/06/05/martin-omalley-looks-to-reboot-democrats-and-possibly-his-presidential-hopes-in-florida/

Change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage

Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage. Since the name of: Ixquick is out of date. The updated name is: StartPage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notewiki2000 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

@Notewiki2000: Thanks for your note. I have never been involved with the article you just mentioned; perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else? If you'd like to suggest a title change for the article, the correct process is explained at WP:Requested moves. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 11:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WP:TOP25 for October 27-November3rd

Hi! I noticed you recently picked up editing on this weeks Top 25 report. I was wondering: do you mind collaborating for this week? I already have entries 1-8 done, but am newish to Wikipedia and could use some help with formatting, etc. Rogerknots (talk)

Sure, let's do that. I'd be super happy if you could pick up the articles about American TV series and wrestling events, because I'm neither familiar with them nor motivated to learn… Do you have a draft? — JFG ^talk 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

I've got a draft going in a google doc, because spell check and portability. Heres the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11iScywB86wlUMUDcKhr27B4svwiefQwrJDihY7B4SoA/edit?usp=sharing Rogerknots (talk)

Hope you end the report soon. (and wonder whether Rogerknots will ever appear again) igordebraga ≠ 17:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Andrea Leadsom edits

Wrong venue
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Is this where I discuss Leadsom's page edits? Who knows? RE: the following undone edits: "03:01, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:c459:db33:dc51:dd07 (talk)‎ . . (87,235 bytes) (+671)‎ . . (Leadsom did not respond to requests for comment on suspected COI edit of wikipedia page.) (undo)" This is not an "I don't like" edit. In the "Black Ops" section of Leadsom's page there are quotes from IDS and Tebbit alleging a smear campaign against Leadsom. But in fact neither IDS nor Tebbit prevented evidence - the news reports about Leadsom were facts and the increased press scrutiny would be expected for somebody in the running for PM. It is a fact however that an edit of Leadsom's wikipedia profile which deleted lots of embarrassing facts about Leadsom was reverted for COI IP (the IP address was in Towcester, a small town where Leadsom's constituency office is located) and when asked about this by the Guardian, Leadsom refused to respond. "No" would have closed the issue, but for some reason she didn't deny the allegations. So, in fact, the only "Black Ops" with any supporting evidence is Leadsom's possible edit of her own wikipedia page. "(cur | prev) 02:12, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:b9e4:601d:7e83:a41 (talk)‎ . . (86,564 bytes) (-895)‎ . . (Have removed comments by Allison Pearson as she is a bankrupt who didn't pay her taxes (see Allison Pearson) . The opinions on matters of conscience by bankrupts who haven't paid their taxes are not relevant.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)" Allison Pearson wrote a sympathetic opinion piece not a factual news piece about Leadsom. Pearson is a bankrupt who according to public records was made bankrupt after a request by HMRC, which suggests Pearson was made bankrupt because of non-payment of taxes. In fact, Pearson has confirmed to me by email (shall I submit it as evidence?) that she was indeed made bankrupt for non-payment of taxes. So the tax dodger Pearson is sympathetic to Leadsom whose husband ran and brother-in-law owned a company that used a potential tax avoidance mechanism once described by George Osborne as “morally repugnant”. I don't think the opinion of a tax dodging bankrupt on matters of "conscience" concerning another tax dodger are relevant. Pearson is tainted. "(cur | prev) 01:59, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:b9e4:601d:7e83:a41 (talk)‎ . . (87,459 bytes) (-872)‎ . . (Backed out possible COI edit: IP address appeared to be SW1; the edit is claiming Leadsom was Institutional Banking Director, but she released an "updated" CV to the FT which stated she was a deputy director; the link to the PDF is a link to some PDF on Leadsom's own website once you unscramble the static squarespace url; the edit comment contains a smear of the former colleague.) (undo) (Tag: references removed)" As written in the edit summary, there are reasons to believe that the backed out edit was a COI by Leadsom or someone related: the IP address of the edit appears to be SW1 where Leadsom's workplace is located; the supporting PDF linked to is on her own website - we have no idea where it comes from originally; the edit comment contains a smear of the colleague who criticised Leasdom - seems personal; it seems that Leadsom or her team has edited this page before to cover up her and her family's naughty behaviour. Some of what I have written won't be wikipedia-talk-page-compliant but I think there are some points made which are relevant according to wikipedia rules (in particular, linking to random PDFs on one's own website seems dodgy). I apologise for any time wasted. Steven Evans — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:76:59D:1:3DF4:44E8:1ADA:1CC5 (talk) 11:07, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

The place to discuss contents is Talk:Andrea Leadsom. I have copied your comments there, and replied. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:76:59D:1:AC5D:AB2D:EC84:E6CA (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

Spliting discussion for Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

2017 Special Counsel investigation (restoring last discussed title) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2017 Special Counsel investigation (restoring last discussed title). Since you had some involvement with the 2017 Special Counsel investigation (restoring last discussed title) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

typos

Yes, please always do correct my typos anywhere DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

Your attacks on longevity coverage

I don't believe as some do that everyone who reaches 110 deserves their own article. But anyone who becomes world's oldest person should be guaranteed an article. Why do you see it as in any way helpful to remove them? LE (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice WP:SPA with wonderful edit summaries. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

One spate of edits on this topic today provoked by a mass attempt to delete articles, after plenty of edits on other topics. LE (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is tons of precident to roll up these pages on superold ppl. You are fighting a losing battle. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a great need to defend such pages from those attacks. LE (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@LE: I don't see why the world's oldest known person between time X and time Y should be guaranteed an article on Wikipedia. As always, notability needs to be assessed based on the breadth of coverage, and independently of a single event. People whose record-setting age is the only claim to notability are best documented as an entry in a list, where their vital statistics are easily accessed and compared with their fellow supercentenarians. We have numerous such lists, typically including the oldest (known) people in country X, and global lists of the 100 oldest-ever men and women. I am nominating for deletion articles that consist fully of longevity statistics and routine coverage of a person's life triggered by her being the oldest. That kind of article typically reads like this: "Jane Smith was born in 1899, married John Taylor, worked a farm, begot 5 children, moved to a retirement home in 1988, where she died in 2011, having lived 112 years and 58 days. Up until her last days, she had been in good health, quickly recovering from a broken hip when she was 103. She attributed her longevity to sleeping soundly and drinking three cups of coffee a day. Smith was the world's oldest known person for 3 months, following the death of Kyoko Miyake of Japan; she was succeeded by Martina Cabreras of Spain." Her age is notable, not her life and deeds. This situation is best handled by a list entry. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

If a person's age is so extreme as to be of historic importance, a list entry is not enough. LE (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

That's an WP:ILIKEIT argument. We do have people with "historic importance" among supercentenarians: last veterans of World War I, psychologists, mathematicians, chess players, etc. Those people are notable for their life and deeds, as documented by several independent sources, not just routine obituaries or Guinness World Records. We also have a few supercentenarians who were world famous because of their age, and received extensive coverage over several years: that qualifies too. The most notorious example is Jeanne Calment, who remains to this day the only proven person to have lived beyond 120 years. — JFG ^talk 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Enforced wastefulness

You evidently like to slow down the Wikimedia servers, wasting computing cycles and as much electrical energy as possible by employing horrifically inefficient code. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 06:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

?? — JFG ^talk 09:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

That was weird. You know, someday I'll find that useful idiot research. It's here somewhere. EEng 04:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

There's hope: the most acrimonious propagandists on this article have disappeared: one was banned as long-term sock, one rage-quit after being placed under neighbourhood watch. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

NOPAGE

Let me suggest that in future nominations you not offer notability as a deletion argument (unless there really are essentially no GNG-qualifying sources) but simply go with WP:NOPAGE: "Whether he/she is notable or not, per NOPAGE he/she would be best presented in a list alongside [etc] [etc]." Bringing in notability just muddies the discussion. EEng 04:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Usually, when such articles are obvious NOPAGE cases, I just change them into a redirect. Nobody complained yet. (Actually, some people complained on three Japanese ladies, but they were later all removed post AfD.) Let the Australians have their hero… Cleanup is otherwise almost complete. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Thinking more about it, I would seriously suggest using something like this on any nomination that fits the NOPAGE criterion i.e. when what little is known about the subject can be best presented as a list entry or list entry + minibio:

Propose merging to List of Ruritanian supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE, which provides: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics ... as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic ... Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page ...

Note that this proposal has nothing to do with the subject's notability or lack of notability.

Just to repeat, where NOPAGE is a strong basis for nomination it's best to say nothing about notability, since that just confuses the discussion. EEng 06:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC) (Text revised 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC))

This should be placed at WP:LONGEVITY for reuse. Excellent Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Don't you think it somewhat immodest to sign your post "Excellent Legacypac"? Not that I disagree with the sentiment, of course. EEng 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. I've reworked the text above. Also pinging The Blade of the Northern Lights to be sure he sees this too.

• I've been thinking about this even more (always dangerous) and I'm beginning to wonder whether the way to handle future NOPAGE cases -- which might be most of them -- is to simply go ahead and do the merge to the appropriate list. The heavyweight AfD process isn't required for that. EEng 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Funny EEng. Redirection is easy to undo. Deletion harder to undo. A very good precident has been established now with all the NOPAGE deletions, although saying NOPAGE when the name will not be on any list is a little weird. Perhaps the answer is to dona mix of deletion/redirection. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  Well I guess if the current strategy of using AfD has been successful we should stay with it, though I still suggest pasting the text above straight into new noms which take the NOPAGE route. However, NOPAGE only makes sense where the name will redirect somewhere. The whole point of NOPAGE is we don't have to argue about notability anymore. EEng 05:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

  @EEng: Note that WP:NOPAGE has a less-aggressive synonymous WP:PAGEDECIDE, which may gather more sympathy from fellow editors. I have started using this shortcut instead, see Talk:Marie-Louise Meilleur#Merge. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  You have learned well, Grasshopper. EEng 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the progress being made on cleanup. Thanks to the users who have taken the lead on it. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

@EEng and Legacypac: Indeed we are making good progress. AfD outcomes have been pretty consistent, and they now constitute a rather compelling body of "legal precedent" to write down some consensus-inspired guidelines for our coverage of supercentenarians. At long last! Let's start suggestions on the project's talk page. Note that I often create redirects from deleted names, including basic birth/date/nationality categories, with the dual purpose of facilitating search and discouraging re-creation of permastubs. A template for such redirects is published at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity#Consistency in redirects and categories — JFG ^talk 09:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Jeanne Calment

Moved to Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4#Jeanne vs Yvonne

Hi. https://www.leafscience.org/valery-novoselov-investigating-jeanne-calments-longevity-record/ This is a source that says that Jeanne Calment was Yvonne Calment so her finally age is 99 not 122? Am I right? Or jeanne Calment was Yvonne Calment bus anyway she lived 122 years old? Ignoto2 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Man, this will really put the cat among the pigeons. EEng 19:23, 5 December 2018 (UTC) Well well well that is pretty convincing stuff. 99 years old is much more believable. Avoiding a bunch of taxes and gaining a life annuity are pretty good reasons to pull a switch. She would not have guessed she would live to 99 which extend her fake age so far out. Legacypac (talk) 19:52, 5 December 2018 (UTC) @Ignoto2: The gerontologist and statistician who looked at the data were suspicious of Calment's extremely outlying age of 122, whereas the next 42 oldest women ever died between 115 and 117, except one at 119. They noticed that Calment's only daughter, Yvonne, died of pneumonia at a young age, and Jeanne kept on living in the same household as Yvonne's husband, who never remarried, and raised their child (who was 8 upon his mother's purported death). The alleged story is that Jeanne died of pneumonia in 1934 (aged 59) and that Yvonne and her husband conspired to declare Yvonne dead instead of Jeanne, so they would not have to pay estate taxes. That scenario would be compatible with the "perfect track record" of various administrative proofs of Jeanne's age across decades,[19] because the identity substitution would have been invisible to census officers and the like. To answer your question directly, the person who died in 1997 would have been Yvonne, aged 99, pretending to be 122. That would also explain a lot of the anomalies in this person's capabilities and living conditions, compared to numerous other documented old ladies: living on her own from 88 to 110, walking without a stick until 114, outliving her blood relatives by three decades (father died 93 years, mother 86, brother 97), neurophysiological tests at 118 demonstrating "verbal memory and language fluency comparable to that of persons with the same level of education in their eighties and nineties." Of course, if she was really just 95 at the time, these results would raise no eyebrows. If this research is confirmed, that would indeed be quite a bombshell. Damn Russians! Where's Mueller when we need him? — JFG talk 20:32, 5 December 2018 (UTC) There are more prove that Jeanne died at the age of 122 than 99. Ignoto2 (talk) 21:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC) It's highly improbable she lived to 122. Identity theft makes so much more sense - motive, oppotunity, means. I searched for more sources but this is the only one, posted yesterday. Legacypac (talk) 20:50, 5 December 2018 (UTC) I have copied this section to Talk:Jeanne Calment/Archive 4#Jeanne vs Yvonne. Please continue the conversation there. — JFG talk 20:54, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

SPARK (rocket)

Hello JFG, can you give a source for the retirement of the SPARK rocket? There is no information on that in the article. --PM3 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This was an experimental project that failed its first launch in 2015 and was apparently not further funded. Before marking it retired, I have looked for sources and found nothing new in the three years since the 2015 test flight. If news emerge, we can re-instate it "under development", but for now it's dead. — JFG ^talk 06:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I also couldn't find any indication that the project was continued after the failed launch. --PM3 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Space launch market competition

Good day, JFG. I observed that the launch market comparison graphic you assembled to compare annual launches by the various large launch service providers has not been updated since September, at least in this article: Space launch market competition SpaceX have a launch slated to go off an hour from now, that if I have it right, will be their 21st launch of the year. 21! Your graphic has been one of the ways for the global Wikipedia reader to most easily see the impact that the lower-cost of economically-incented space launch services have done to shift from the old way of government funding rocket development responding primarily to political incentives.

So I was just wondering if you are intending to continue to update the templates, graphs and what not that present the data graphically. I know how hard it can be to keep things rolling that require manual editing, so no pressure if the answer is "no." I just want to get a read on it. N2e (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: Glad you appreciate the effort. Yes, I intend to update this overview after the year is over, so that we know exactly what has been launched. Note that Falcon launches, as well as other rockets for the purpose of this article, exclude "demo flights, CRS, and U.S. military payloads", so we only count commercial satellites and space probes. On the other hand, we count multiple satellites, so the market effect can be correctly compared to Ariane with their dual payloads. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@JFG:, I just realized today that your table wikitext was totally bottom-up and unique to that one article. I had previously thought that you had those graphs in several spaceflight-related articles, and had thought you were doing it based on a template you might have been building once, and then including in a couple of articles. I guess I just never looked at the wikisource before today.

Well, independently from that thought, I did have a thought or two about the meta requirements that might be useful for those tables and charts, and was going to write you to discuss. So where's the best place to do that? Here, on your Talk page? ... or on the article page? ... or is there some other meta place for the discussion, since you do have original wikisource on several articles (like Space launch market competition, and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and possibly others, and my guess is that my thoughts would have some meta-requirements ideaz for more than one article where such data and charts show up. Even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight might be a good place if the comments apply to more than just a couple of articles. So, where should we discuss this? Others might have thoughts as well. Thoughts? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

@N2e: Happy to discuss here at first. We can invite other editors' feedback as soon as we reach some mutual understanding of what would be the desirable improvements. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool. I'll add some thoughts below. N2e (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey JFG. I think that the graphs and such in the overview add to the article, and can help illustrate for the casual reader things that a lot of text may not do as well. I have a few thoughts on how that section might be improved:

• it seems that working into your overview the "last edited" or "last updated" time context is and will be often important given the graphs become instantly out of date each time a launch occurs, 60+ times a year. Could be be a useful thing. Maybe something like just a simple {{asof|yyyy|mm|lc=y}} in there somewhere; maybe some other/better way. Without something like this, the graph is simply wrong, but does not leave a hint to the reader that the information may not be current in this encyclopedic explication.
• you mentioned that you "exclude demo flights, CRS, and U.S. military payloads"; seems perfectly sensible for this particular article about "market competition". But I think what is included and excluded from the graphical and table data needs to be explicit in the graphs/table section.
• I had thought this was a template, since I had noticed your work appear in several articles. Looking more closely recently, I see it is custom wikisyntax for this article, which means that the other articles where your graphs occur are also (often?) custom wikisyntax. Seems to me like this would be a maintenance nightmare, as many many chunks of complex wikisyntax in many articles would be constantly in need of updating. I don't know the solution; but it seems like creating a graph template, and also a (or including the) table template, would simplify things by leaving just one place on wiki to update with all the new launches (several per month, all year, every year).
• a template would also facilitate other editors helping you to maintain the graphs/tables over time. ... and would also provide a Schelling point for where such topics might be discussed, improving the material over time, etc.
• finally, there is the nasty matter of sourcing. A {citation needed} tag has been on the table for a while. I don't know "the" fix here, but it seems to me that taking a template approach might allow it to be sourced in the template, and then whenever the template is picked up and used in an article, it would include the citations that support the statements being made in the graphs/tables. If we don't get this problem addressed, we'll never be able to improve this article (or any that use your graphs/tables) to good article status, and maybe not even to "B" level.

So those are some thoughts on what might be thought of (in my industry, anyway, software development) as some initial raw "requirements" that might usefully guide improvement going forward. HOpe they are helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Blocked in error

Aaagh! I just blocked your account by mistake, when I intended to block another editor. I've unblocked you a few seconds after realising my mistake. Many apologies, The Anome (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Really? I didn't even notice. No worries; just please could you clarify whether this error will create a permanent record in my heretofore spotless block log? — JFG ^talk 11:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Alas, yes, it will. However, I don't think anyone will think any the less of you for having it; I've had it done to me (see my block log), and it hasn't caused any problems. Note also the unblock message making it very clear that you were blocked in error. Again, apologies... -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. — JFG ^talk 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've actually considered blocking myself in the past, just to make the point that a non-empty block log is no big deal. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

I've been building my block log for years just to make the same point. EEng 15:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Top 25

While you don't return to writing the weekly report, just found out the bottom two comments here with "kind" words about one of your entries in the 2017 annual one... (here are some more positive ones) igordebraga ≠ 00:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm an incel at rButtcoin? My new business card. — JFG ^talk 09:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you, Igor, I'll be happy to participate in the 2018 roundup. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Though for that, you'd better contribute at least one week of the normal thing. Maybe not the latest one (Stormy clouds might be finishing it, and of course, don't know if you care enough about football), but hope you can help us sometime. igordebraga ≠ 02:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

Whenever you can (preferrably before January starts! Which is two days from now, so we're in a bit of a hurry), contribute your write-ups to the yearly 50. igordebraga ≠ 00:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Yep, kept this as my final wikitreat of the year… — JFG ^talk 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

So, bring us your gift ASAP. igordebraga ≠ 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Great write-up on Musk and Trump. Just the king of Queen, India and the guy who starved it to go, and then we can publish. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Liked your write-ups so far. So please, just deliver your words on Churchill to let us complete (and to think last year's was done by January 1st). igordebraga ≠ 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Just to get the report as a whole to a point where we can publish and begin belatedly promoting it, I have taken the liberty of writing a quick entry on Churchill. I know that you have one in the works yourself, so feel absolutely free to replace mine whenever it is complete and ready, as mine is merely intended as a stop-gap. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

OMG I left this hanging, sorry guys! @Stormy clouds: Your entry is brilliant, I would not dare supersede it. Well done, and thanks! — JFG ^talk 15:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)