User talk:JFG/Archive 2017

RfC

I don't think it will go 30 days, and in any event, this needs fresh eyes. Please move your comment on the RfC. Best to keep that neutral. It's more likely to be successful, and quickly, that way. Appreciate it, thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: What do you mean by "moving my comment on the RfC"? Adding my latest proposal C4 there? Wouldn't you agree that we are close enough to consensus that we don't need a formal RfC? Besides, RfCs with multiple choices usually end up inconclusive. — JFG ^talk 00:06, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I was asking you to move your comment off the RfC.This really needs fresh eyes. Having other editors arrive from other disciplines, not just politics, but history and BLP experience, can only help. I've spent almost my entire day trying to help with this. No consensus has been reached. That's when it's time to call in the larger community. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

I spent a large part of my day trying to help as well, and that's exactly part of the reason I don't want an RfC! Through your efforts, mine, and those of Mandruss, MelanieN and Anythingyouwant, I believe we are very close to agreement indeed, while having taken into account all possible angles to this discussion. — JFG ^talk 00:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Believe me, I fully appreciate what you've done. I just sent you mail. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. As a matter of principle, I do not communicate off-wiki. I will go edit some spaceflight news to change my mind… No rush to comment on the RfC for now, I'll need a clearer head. — JFG ^talk 00:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Normally I don't communicate off-wiki either, but it has been an exhausting day. I started the RfC to get the fly out of the ointment. SW3 5DL (talk) 00:32, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

List of state leaders in 100 to List of state leaders in AD 100 ‎(Rename per RfC Talk:AD 1)

Please stop and change these back.

List of the format "List of state leaders in XX" already inply "the year XX" and not "the number XX" so adding "AD" is uncalled for by the RfC and totaly uncalled for by the purpose of the RfC. tahc ^chat 17:25, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

@Tahc: You are right, there is no intent to change such titles in the RfC. Both pages are redirects to List of state leaders in the 1st century, so we're all good. — JFG ^talk 17:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Modification of Trump consensus

I disagree with that change because the added bit fails verifiability via the link, undermining trust in the entire list. It begins the slide toward what I was afraid of, making the list just another battleground. I don't care if you leave the link in the infobox, but I don't think it should be included in the consensus list. If somebody disputes it in the infobox, we should be able to get a new, separate consensus within a few days. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:30, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: You are right; better be extra cautious in this topic area… — JFG ^talk 13:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thank you ―Mandruss ☎ 15:37, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Restructuring

Hi JFG, shortening the Pope material makes sense. But the fact that Trump spoke about restructuring the intelligence services seems problematic because that sentence says nothing about Russia whereas the sentence is in a subsection about Russia. The placement of this sentence makes it sound like the restructuring is somehow a response by Trump to the intelligence services' behavior regarding Russia. Is that correct?Anythingyouwant (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: I have not looked in detail; I just restored a recently-deleted citation which seemed to me appropriate in this context. We can't speculate whether Trump hinted at restructuring solely because of the Russian hysteria or due to other factors as well. It's true that this sentence looks a bit out of place as it stands in the prose. Feel free to amend the section if you have a better idea how to represent the context. Reading the Fox News report, there is a quote we could use to clarify: "The view from the Trump team is the intelligence world [is] becoming completely politicized." What do you think? — JFG ^talk 13:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

If the proposed restructuring is related to Russia, it's probably a response to leakage of the dossier that buzzfeed published, but this seems like speculation that goes way beyond the scope of that section of the BLP.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:29, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. So we should not say it's in response to that event specifically. Still, the hint at restructuring and slimming down "politicized" intelligence services is notable enough to be in the bio. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

His spokesman says it's false. See "Trump is not planning to restructure spy agencies, spokesman says" by Antonio José Vielma (Thu, 5 Jan '17), CNBC.com.Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. And I see you removed Josh Earnest's speculation as well. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump consensuses list 2

Dearest JFG,
Considering the amount of experienced opposition to the position that the colorized photo is mandated by the RfC, I think the added notation in the list is inappropriate. This is the first addition to the list that has been at all controversial, and I think it sets a bad precedent for turning the list into the battleground that I was afraid of. Already we have at least one user saying in effect, "Of course it's covered by the RfC, it says so right there in the list!" So the list is not only a battleground but a weapon, too. I'm sorry to see it go down like this, and especially by your hand. The list entries are fairly useless unless they have almost everybody's support, which is why I have reserved it for only the clearest consensuses. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for your note. I am not as concerned as you are, because the consensus list and associated edit notice have largely fulfilled their purpose; this is the first time I see a battle around it. Although we worked together to set it up, neither you nor I WP:OWNS the consensus list, and in the unfortunate case where we disagree on interpreting one of its items, we should both step back from it. Let editors "use it as a weapon" all they like, and note that the list itself hasn't been attacked. The image dispute will eventually get resolved either by local consensus, by RfC or at the DRN. I must also point out that I would have the exact same "back off" attitude if the page had been locked on the other Wrong Version.

On my addition of the new photo to item 1, I did that precisely to prevent any warring about whether this image was official enough to replace the older one. The prior consensus to wait for an official picture was almost unanimous, including editors who liked the prior image and editors who hated it. Little did I expect that some people would aggressively try to shut down the first official presidential image that was uploaded to Commons. This situation arose from the initial lack of clarity on provenance and copyright status of this portrait, and from the haste with which some editors decided to close down the discussion. Given the overwhelming Keep opinions in the deletion request at Commons, it is very likely that the copyright status will be accepted and the image will stay. And obviously if an "officially official" portrait later emerges, we will update it. — JFG ^talk 12:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I've made my reasoning clear on the talk page, and nothing you say above addresses any of it. And it's very easy to suggest we both back away from the list entry when your desired addition is in it. How about I remove the added text and then we back away from it? You ok with that? ―Mandruss ☎ 12:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I fully understand your reasoning and I'm sure you understand mine, which is in a nutshell "I applied the December 12 consensus". Now, you are obviously free to remove my update note on item 1 but such action three days after the fact may counter-productively re-ignite the debate on the Talk page. This note is already marked "disputed", so I guess the current status is conveyed appropriately. The key issues are now being discussed at Commons about copyright status and at DRN about consensus-building and editor conduct. Meanwhile the page is locked and we should all take a break. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, the addition did not have the result you intended, and I think that was entirely predictable. In the future, please refrain from using the list to bolster highly contested positions, regardless of whether you think the opposition position has any merit. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:29, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

I object to my action being characterized as "using the list to bolster highly contested positions". In my view, I was simply applying a highly-supported consensus. Obviously I was wrong in anticipating people's reactions, but that doesn't make my edits manipulative in the slightest. — JFG ^talk 13:35, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

In your position, I would have immediately removed it when the strong opposition became known, precisely because the list should not be a battleground. You didn't do so. I don't consider that manipulative, I consider it poor judgment which compromised the integrity of the list. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:46, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Drive-by comment, this is the problem methinks: Let editors "use it as a weapon" all they like, and note that the list itself hasn't been attacked. As soon as you start letting ANYBODY use the 'official' list of standing consensii as a WP:BATTLEGROUND tactic, you guarantee the demise of the list itself, because #1) fewer wikipedians will trust it as an unbiased non-POV list, and #2) at least some wikipedian will work to make the list POV, since that is why they are using it as a weapon in the first place. For the list to succeed in dampening bickering, it has to be impeccably neutral, never used as a 'weapon' and indeed any attempts to weaponize it quickly being squashed, and ... in my oh-so-humble opinion ... needs to have some attached nosecounts that indicate the STRENGTH of the various consensii listed. Because that would act as a pressure-release-valve, so that when user#321 disagrees with a standing consensus which is listed as item#456 of the list, they can insert a quasi-WP:NOTVOTE that they disagree with item#456 as being consensus. Not only will this approach help keep the list honest (only 10-to-1 consensii can be listed to keep the list from being 'weaponized') it will also keep frivilous RfCs from happening, I predict. But as we discussed before, it is hard per WP:NOTDEMOCRACY and WP:BURO to justify including nosecounts. So I'm not sure what the best way forward is, but I can definitely advise, if you see somebody, anybody, trying to use the list as a bludgeon to shut their content-opponents up, then immediately remove that list-item! Because otherwise the list will become weaponized, by POV-pushers from one side or another, at some point. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:05, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

no blind trust

JFG, you closed the trust-discussion per WP:NOTFORUM, but I still want it open  :-)

The problem is that wikipedia should not be saying "no blind trust" because per WP:Accuracy there actually *is* a blind trust, albeit for a small percentage of Trump's assets (cash/stocks/etc). I don't know the percentage, it wasn't in the sources at the time, so maybe Objective3000's comment about reductio ad absurdum will apply ... depends on what the percentage is, which I assume will be published at some point (or an estimate thereof at least). But there are two trusts, one blind and one 'innovatively constrained to be one-eye-open-one-eye-shut' methinks. Wikipedia should at least have a footnote in Donald Trump explaining that the main trust is not blind per se but a smaller secondary blind trust does also exist, and linking over to the Legal affairs of Donald Trump... or whereever the detailed discussion of the exact type of trust would be considered on-topic for the article-talkpage.

Can you unhat the section, or leave it hatted but open a new subsection, about whether or not the main biography should ignore the two-trust thing, and just gloss over the details by saying 'trust' without qualifier? 47.222.203.135 (talk) 15:56, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Howdy, 47.222! I hatted the part of the discussion which was delving into legal commentary on what is or is not a blind trust. This is certainly an interesting subject, but should only be discussed on talk pages in so far as it allows a proper representation of sources towards improving the article. All you say here is armchair legal analysis and speculation. If you find WP:RS explaining the Trump setup better, then by all means open a new section to discuss that, or boldly add the information to the article. — JFG ^talk 16:02, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

And although it was armchair, I did include the sources for my discussions, albeit buried in verbiage of my own  ;-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

The point is that we should only discuss RS about Trump's trust setup at Talk:Donald Trump. A general discussion on trust types should go to Talk:Trust law instead. — JFG ^talk 16:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Sure, agree with that. My enumeration of the possibilities, was mostly in response to the sources not saying specifically what Trump was doing exactly. As time goes by we'll have more specifics, and correspondingly less hypothetical concerns. I was mostly arguing, in other words, that until we had some firm specific exacting complete-picture-with-percentages kinds of sources in hand, we ought NOT be saying simplistically that "Trump created a trust" in wikivoice sans qualifying footnote... thereby implying 'it' was not 'a' blind trust... since per sources available at the time, he in fact created (at least) two, and one of them was apparently blind, although specifics and percentages were left ambiguous/unknown by the sources. I'll dig for more sources, and then reopen discussion, thanks. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

PS: You can also continue the discussion under the hat without opening a new section. — JFG ^talk 16:04, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I was asking, if you minded me continuing under the hat.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 16:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Good. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 16:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh really

What's your view on this? If they're right, we're very wrong. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

An involved editor can close any discussion when consensus is clear. For example, I recently performed an involved snow close of the move request for "Donald J. Trump". In the case of Barron's link, there was a lone opponent, who probably reverted your close because s/he didn't like to be out!voted. Let it go, someone else will close, or the discussion can even remain open with no effect on the article. On a side note, perhaps you shouldn't have called the boy a "little Trumpkin" (you know, BLP on Talk pages, general lack of irony among some contributors, und so weiter…)

While we're commenting on each other's decisions, I'd love to read your opinion on my close of a pretty controversial RfC today: Talk:Vladimir Putin#Citations about Putin. — JFG ^talk 20:53, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

I would be lost trying to close something like that. There's so often policy that points one way, and other policy that points the opposite way, and no way to judge which should be given more weight. So I couldn't offer anything useful as to your call; try me again in a few years. Fwiw, it's formatted nicely and appears to follow the guidelines for closing. ―Mandruss ☎ 01:35, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Trump article

Discussion should continue at Talk:2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots

Hello! I don't believe you and I have collaborated on Wikipedia before. I appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, I mean that sincerely. I restored that article not because you didn't combine it correctly (you did). But an article related to the current U.S. president should have a discussion before it is deleted or redirected. If the article goes to a AfD or a redirect discussion, fair enough. But there needs to be discussion first. Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 20:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC) @Michaelh2001: Thanks for your comment. I suppose you are referring to 2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots which I merged into Protests against Donald Trump earlier today. I initially considered applying a {{Merge to}} proposal, but in the process of writing the rationale for the merge, I realized that there was very little specific content, so that an immediate merge would avoid duplicated efforts by editors in both articles. Note that I acted within process, as the template says: If it is obvious that a merge would be appropriate, then you may boldly merge the pages without tagging and without discussion. The discussion you ask for is legitimate, so I will cross-post my reply on the article's talk page. An AfD would be inappropriate, because notability of the event is not questioned. I do not think this has the potential to expand beyond today's news though, and even then Protests against Donald Trump is the perfect place to document what happened in DC yesterday. — JFG talk 21:10, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Social policy of Donald Trump) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Social policy of Donald Trump, JFG!

Wikipedia editor Insertcleverphrasehere just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Amazing coverage here, needs some category work, Ill add wikiprojects

To reply, leave a comment on Insertcleverphrasehere's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

@Insertcleverphrasehere: Thanks, I just did a fork from Political positions of Donald Trump, so that the page is more manageable. As a standalone article, it needs lots of editing to fairly represent the issues. — JFG ^talk 11:47, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

What are the major splits here, that will be useful in future presidencies? We have a spinoff for economic policy, and a spinoff for social policy, which covers most of the domestic-issues methinks... but are there any falling through the gaps? Is there a planned spinoff for international-economic-policy and for international-military-policy, or are those better kept together, since e.g. foreign aid often has a large military-equipment component? Similarly I can see a lot of cases where 'economic' policy will have social repercussions, and vice versa. Meta-comment: I realize this is not the correct page for my question, but I don't think there is a correct page (short of starting a conversation on each of the article-talkpages mentioned), but if you prefer I can think it over further and then ask at Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump which is probably quasi-central enough. 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:37, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@47.222.203.135: My idea of the policy sections, as reflected in current contents and sourcing available, was materialized in this version of the {{Donald Trump series}} sidebar. Other editors rightly claimed that we should only list subjects that already had their own articles, so I split off the largest sections and we have 4 articles. Feel free to start some of the missing articles or suggest other reasonable ways to split the issues. In terms of venue, Talk:Political positions of Donald Trump would be appropriate, however you may as well be bold as I was; didn't get any backlash while everybody was focused on protests… A good time to get some serious encyclopedic work done! I did note on the talk page that I had no intent to proceed with further splits immediately, as the page has been seriously trimmed already and the individual policy articles need a lot of… polishing. — JFG ^talk 20:52, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots article - still exists?

On a version change you said that the article 2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots has been deleted. However I can still see this article exists. Are you sure it has been deleted? Gfcvoice (talk) 23:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't say it was deleted; I said it has been fully merged into Protests against Donald Trump. After performing the merge, I redirected it but the article creator reverted that and said he wanted to expand. Still no expansion has taken place and protests are covered in detail in several other articles. Therefore, adding this article to the navbox doesn't bring any more information to readers. See Talk:2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots and feel free to weigh in there. — JFG ^talk 23:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Improper removal of transclusions

The ~90 pages (AD 13 - AD 99) in which you removed the <onlyinclude> tag as a "useless transclusion" were transcluded onto other pages. I already reverted AD 23 as it was transcluded onto two other pages. Please revert your edits. Bgwhite (talk) 07:27, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

@Bgwhite: Thanks for your comment. I have updated the transclusion methods so that the <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags are no longer necessary, and I am now proceeding to remove them progressively from all year articles. See the discussion at Talk:AD 1#Transclusion of births and deaths by year on decades pages for details. In your example AD 23, the page is transcluded into the article 20s via {{Events by year for decade}} and {{Births and deaths by year for decade}} which in turn uses {{Transclude births}} and {{Transclude deaths}}. All those templates now rely on section headers and string substitutions to select the appropriate contents to be transcluded. The <onlyinclude>...</onlyinclude> tags are no longer necessary and they add spurious whitespace, thus they can be safely removed. The positive effect of those changes is that decades articles such as 20s now inherit all the births and deaths from individual years, whereas previously the information was often missing (see for example the prior version Old revision of 20s where birth and death sections had been empty for ages). — JFG ^talk 07:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Ahhh, what you are doing makes sense. Next time, could you add something like, "Per Talk:AD 1#Transclusion", so clueless people out of the loop like me knows what's up. FYI... I stumbled upon them because on AD 23, you left a </onlyinclude> tag all by its lonesome. I check everyday for these. Usually, it means vandalism. Bgwhite (talk) 08:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

I get it. I was probably still honing my replacement script when doing AD 23. Good catch! Yes, I will amend the edit comment when processing further years. — JFG ^talk 16:29, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

'former xyz' versus 'outgoing xyz'

JFG, thanks for your improvements here,[1] but I am not sure I agree that we should be calling... in this table of people at a specific meeting in December during the PEOTUS transition-phase... Mike Pence the "former governor of Indiana" and Gary Cohn the "former president of Goldman" et cetera.

Because at the time (December), they were still objectively speaking, the Governor and the CorporatePresident. At the time they were both also simultaneously 'incoming VPOTUS' (aka 'VPEOTUS') in the case of Pence, and 'incoming NEC chair' in the case of Cohn. Hence my use of "outgoing guv" and "outgoing corp.prez" 47.222.203.135 (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, technically they were outgoing at the time, true, however they did not represent their former corporation or former office at the table: they represented their future role in the Trump administration. Therefore I think "former" is appropriate. And it will remain true when people read this today or next year. — JFG ^talk 20:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Presidency of Donald Trump

Your edit of Presidency of Donald Trump in which you changed "take office as president" to "assume the presidency" happened to occur while I was doing a large copyedit. On the edit conflict screen I saw your change and elected not to go with it. I don't feel strongly about this; feel free to make your change again if you believe it is better. —Anomalocaris (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Anomalocaris. I was trying to avoid redundancy of "taking office" in the paragraph"; same formulation was chosen on the Donald Trump main biography. — JFG ^talk 08:41, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump

Hi JFG, I would welcome your opinion of how best to treat List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump as I notice you had useful suggestions leading to the creation of Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump. These are important topics but I am not certain about the current organisation and am keen to ensure the articles rigorously follow WP:BLP given the litigious nature of the subject. BW |→ Spaully ^τ  08:29, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Spaully, I waited a couple days to see where this story was going. All the passenger lawsuits have been merged into Lawsuits against the immigration policy of Donald Trump, which will probably soon be renamed Legal challenges to Executive Order 13769 per trending support at the relevant move discussion. I don't see much point in listing them individually any longer, unless one of them stands out in the future and gets its own article again.

On the other side, we have a very long article for legal affairs of Donald Trump, which got a bit out of hand during the campaign; I think that one could be pruned without losing much substance, and it needs quite a bit of copyediting as well. If you find a source mentioning the hundreds of lawsuits in which Trump has been involved in his career (of which according to the article he won the majority), that would be worth writing a list. Otherwise, it's more productive today to better organize and condense the existing stuff, and then write an overview which should replace the Donald Trump#Legal matters section of the main bio. — JFG ^talk 02:38, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Another idea: Probably the general article on Trump lawsuits should be split by topic: business lawsuits (real estate disputes, bankruptcies, media productions), personal lawsuits (divorce, defamation, pussy-grabbing claims) and political lawsuits (campaign statements, executive actions). In each section, make note of legal actions initiated by Trump as well as those filed against him. If any of those sections gets too long, it can be forked into a new article. — JFG ^talk 02:44, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Whatever you guys think is best. I would agree that the current page is probably going to become unmanageable as the number of lawsuits increase based on what Trump is doing. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

If we have this handled in some sort of categories, then we could redirect the page to various categories into something like "Trump Lawsuits for Exec order XXXX. Octoberwoodland (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on 5% threshold

You may want to participate in this RfC regarding to the inclusion of candidates in election infoboxes. MB298 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Governmental service

It should be "government service" on the Trump page. --Bod (talk) 08:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

@Bodhi Peace: I just restored prior consensus wording, and here is the earlier discussion about mentioning lack of government(al) service; it does not look like the exact adjective variant was debated. Anyway, my user page is not the appropriate venue; you are welcome to suggest this change on Talk:Donald Trump. — JFG ^talk 08:33, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

The emperor truly wears no clothes. A governmental service is provided to someone, "government service" is someone serving in government. --Bod (talk) 08:39, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Please take this to the article talk page; I may even agree with you — JFG ^talk 08:50, 11 February 2017 (UTC)

Awkward?

Sorry, what's awkward about "current consensuses"?[2] And what is a "consensus wording"? ―Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

The new section title "Consensus wordings" fits better what the edit notice says ("Please review the established consensus wordings"), and avoids the awkward plural "consensuses" (at least to my tongue…) While you were writing to me, I just went through the article and documented all the itemized consensus wordings. I also preserved prior links with an extra anchor. Hope you feel OK with this change. — JFG ^talk 16:51, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't. For the first time, I strongly object to a change to that list.

• The word consensuses isn't seen a lot, but hey it's a word in the English language. "Consensus" is a countable noun, and all countable nouns have a plural form. It's not awkward to use it. It may be relatively difficult to speak it, like some other English words, but we're not asking anybody to speak it.
• "Wording" is not descriptive of 8 out of the 15 items: 1, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 13, 14.
• The word "current" is important, per WP:CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps we can discuss and find our little local consensus on the section wording? I think that it should be consistent with the edit notice, and that one can change too. What about "Current consensus outcomes"? It takes WP:CCC into account, it is not exclusively about wordings, and it avoids the tongue-twister plural. What do you think? Then the edit notice would be amended to say "Please review the established consensus outcomes." — JFG ^talk 17:13, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

A consensus is an outcome - an outcome of one or more discussions. So "consensus outcome" is highly redundant. If you really find the plural that offensive, I would prefer "Current consensus" to anything yet proposed, and I can't think of anything better. I suppose "consensus" could be read as uncountable, a mass noun. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:20, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose that would work. The text at the top of the consensus section already uses the singular form to represent the collective outcomes of all the discussions: Reverts to consensus as listed here do not count against the 1RR limit. Then the edit notice would just say "Please review the established consensus", or do you have a more punchy suggestion? — JFG ^talk 17:25, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Please review the current consensus" would work for me, and is more in line with your apparent need for consistency. I'm fine with that or "Please review the list of current consensus", your choice. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:30, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

I think "established" reinforces the weight of consensus for editors unfamiliar with the process. Saying just "current consensus" in the edit notice sounds like the consensus is weak and subject to change (which it is, but there are pretty high hurdles to clear). How about "Please review the current established consensus"? Too redundant? — JFG ^talk 17:35, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Si. I don't see it as our mission to educate editors about correct process (at least not in the edit notice), only to be consistent with it. Wikilink as current consensus if that helps. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

On second thought, don't wikilink that. The sentence "Editors may propose a consensus change by discussion or editing" (emphasis mine) does not apply here and would be misleading; we don't need to make it easier to find. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:46, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Alternately, we could just title it "Established consensus" to convey a firm stance, while explaining the process to change consensus in the intro text, e.g. Naturally, as time goes by, consensus can change by opening a discussion and gaining support for proposed ch)anges. — JFG ^talk 17:56, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Again, in my view all editors need to learn how to self-educate using existing p&g (and by asking questions for clarification); that benefits both them and the project. In the long run I don't think it helps either them or the project to spoon-feed and hand-hold. ―Mandruss ☎ 18:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Sure, however wouldn't you agree that the edit notice needs to convey a sense of firmness? After all, preventing perennial changes to settled issues was the goal of this setup, and it looks rather successful at the moment. And you didn't say whether you would agree to calling this section "Established consensus". On my side, I can live with or without hand-holding, as long as we do not appear inflexible. — JFG ^talk 18:22, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

"Firm" and "flexible" appear to be in tension. I think the NOTE at the top of the section adequately conveys firmness, essentially saying that any edits against those consensuses (sorry!) may be reverted at will, not subject to 1RR, and the word "current" in the heading balances that with flexibility per CCC. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:18, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

OK. I'll switch the section title to "Current consensus" and the edit notice to "current established consensus", that should take care of the flexible firmness… — JFG ^talk 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your firm flexibility. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:17, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Ridiculous stuff happens all the time, my friend.

As to the Donald Trump Timeline: The Re-election committee is paying for it. You are probably right that events aren't usually supposed to be put up until they actually happen (there are exceptions Such as the Olympics), but just because something appears to be off-the-wall and ridiculous, doesn't mean it isn't real. It's totally real. There's no other reason for it. Why do you think he's having it? Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Arglebargle79: Thanks for contacting me, however this is off-topic for my talk page; please let's discuss on the relevant article talk page, so other editors can participate too. — JFG ^talk 21:25, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Branch lines

Thanks for the close. I can help. I volunteer to do all the post-move cleanup, and if I get ahead of your moves I'll work on those, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:26, 17 February 2017 (UTC) I'll start at the bottom and do moves, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:29, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Sounds great, thanks, it's good you're familiar enough with the train line intricacies to perform the cleanup. I'll be busy with a bunch of Naruto articles as well. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Got to run. More later. Dicklyon (talk) 22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Looks like we're done. Teamwork! Some of those articles have charming photos, e.g. Minsterley branch line. As a Swiss resident I love our small and quaint train lines, see Albulabahn and friends. I must visit England some Summer day… — JFG ^talk 22:46, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

I've still got lots of cleanup work in front of me, but I'll get there. And the RMCD bot is way behind on its part. Dicklyon (talk) 00:40, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

I've ridden a number of your mountain and high-speed lines, but not that one. Very nice. Dicklyon (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

All done. Dicklyon (talk) 01:13, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

4th or 5th?

When you've the time, please look again at the "no consensus" section. Anythingyouwant is back to the 'neither won a majority of the popular vote,' which, as I recall, did not have support for inclusion. When you wrote your choice for the RfC, it said, "fifth elected without a plurality of the vote." That seems well sourced to me, but now he's wanting to change it to the 4th. I found this from Pew Research, which seems to sort the issues, but he's rejecting it [3]. He's back to the 'popular vote majority' which as you know is useless without the Electoral College. I realize you support 'few' now, but I worry that might cause more problems. It seems POV to me, as if Trump's election was off the mark that he's failed at something and that makes him illegitimate, when actually did well across the country. SW3 5DL (talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Baloney. I am not suggesting to include "neither won a majority of the popular vote" in the BLP. I am also not suggesting to include "popular vote majority" in the lead. Nor am I rejecting the Pew article. You have put quite a lot of falsity into one little talk page comment. And stop WP:Canvassing.Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

How is it canvassing to ask an involved editor for his input? You specifically mentioned the majority vote again. You are becoming disruptive and dogging my edits is evidence of that. Please stop. SW3 5DL (talk) 02:27, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I mentioned "majority vote". That's quite different from suggesting to include it in the BLP, which I have not been doing. But merely saying "majority vote" at a talk page seems very bland to me, especially when discussing pluralities and whatnot. Posting a notification of discussion that presents the topic in a non-neutral manner is canvassing, and your initial comment above was extremely non-neutral. Please don't do it again. Thanks.Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

This discussion has no place on a personal talk page; please take it back to article talk where it belongs. I have commented there. — JFG ^talk 06:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

As sources for their own conclusions

There is no reason to believe that intelligence or espionage agencies are reliable sources for their own conclusions, which may be 100% different from their statements. Rather, they are RS for their statements. -Darouet (talk) 23:00, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree, but why post this on my talk page? — JFG ^talk 23:54, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

I suppose from your last two comments in that section, I thought you might think we could state with confidence that various intelligence agencies had actually concluded xyz. If you did believe that I was curious why, but wasn't sure you'd want to go into a long explanation in that talk section. Anyway wherever you like! And I might have been wrong. -Darouet (talk) 00:25, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

My apologies if I came across as abrupt. -Darouet (talk) 00:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

No abruptness assumed, just puzzlement. To your point: yes we can definitely say that US intelligence agencies have concluded something. However I was inquiring about the desired scope of the article: is it about the agencies' conclusion, about the government's accusations, or about the Russians' supposed activities and denials thereof? Is it about political infighting? Is it about cyberwarfare? Is it about espionage? All of the above? All of the above but only from official sources? All of the above and the kitchen sink? A very useful series of questions, don't you think? — JFG ^talk 00:37, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

edit

100% support this.SW3 5DL (talk) 02:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

@SW3 5DL: I appreciate that we can agree on some things while disagreeing on others! Now I would appreciate even more if you'd care to strike your inappropriate call for topic-banning me. — JFG ^talk 02:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

 Done SW3 5DL (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

RfC on the type of treemap

Hello JFG. There is a discussion going on about using which type of treemap for 2016 United States presidential election in each state articles. Please join the discussion, so the dispute can be resolved. Thank you. Ali 19:09, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice, I have commented there. — JFG ^talk 07:51, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Are you still planning on doing the Top 25 report?

Tackling Trump on this site is a 24/7 job, so I understand if you're distracted. But remember, I moved away from the Top 25 report precisely because it's really hard to fit into a busy schedule. If you're gonna take it on, you have to put your other concerns aside, otherwise it won't work. Anyway, sorry to be a downer, and I hope that you are not troubled by more pressing concerns, but if you aren't planning to do this week, let us know. Serendi^podous 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Right, sorry about that; I answered at WT:Top 25 Report. — JFG ^talk 00:34, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

US Presidents sidebar

Hi there JFG. Great job with creating the Template:Sidebar/US President series, I have just noticed. Would you mind helping out with the creation of such a sidebar specifically for British Prime Ministers? I'm not entirely sure how to go about it, your help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, and all the best.--Nevé–selbert 20:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: Sure, I'd be happy to create a generic template for British PMs. I've looked at {{Template:David Cameron sidebar}} as an example, and it's very similar to the US Presidents style, which means the work should be relatively easy. Do you have a list of all the existing PM sidebars already? I can't find a category matching this position. — JFG ^talk 20:18, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, sure. Quick question though, would it be possible to have separate colour schemes for Conservative and Labour prime ministers? Here are the ones I could find:

1. Template:Thatcher sidebar
2. Template:Blair sidebar
3. Template:David Cameron sidebar
4. Template:Theresa May sidebar

Bit surprised Churchill didn't have one TBH.--Nevé–selbert 20:22, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

There has been a convention to use a single color for US Presidents, because after they are elected they are supposed to represent the whole nation, not their party. Spartan7W may have something to say, as I remember having this discussion with him about the US cases. — JFG ^talk 21:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I created the David Cameron one or just rebuilt it, but I schemed it a black field with the medium blue double border not based on party but based on the colors used by the Prime Minister's office. This was changed, obviously, but I didn't notice as I pay attention to U.S. topics when I pay attention.   Spartan7W §   21:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In the UK, the role of head of state has never been entwined with that of head of government. For it is the Queen who is supposed to represent the whole nation whereas the prime minister is almost always a partisan figure (save Churchill during his first term, and I guess a few others who led cross-party governments during wartime). Besides, using the colours would help to dispel the notion (mostly among the American readership) that the British prime minister is the country's head of state.--Nevé–selbert 22:00, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the details. I have no opinion on the best way to represent UK Prime Ministers but I'd rather be sure whether you want one or two colour schemes for the template before working on it. Perhaps you could try to build some consensus by advertising the discussion in the UK politics portal or some such? — JFG ^talk 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm very much in favour of two colour schemes, JFG. If someone takes issue with it, I'll be more than happy to leave a note at WP:UKPOLITICS.--Nevé–selbert 19:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I'd rather you ask the question before I dive into the work… Thanks, — JFG ^talk 20:56, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

With all due respect, why not ask the question yourself?--Nevé–selbert 21:44, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, I'm not British and wouldn't know how to ask properly. :) — JFG ^talk 21:51, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

The status quo isn't controversial, though. You're making a mountain out of a molehill, frankly.--Nevé–selbert 22:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

How many users would you consider to comprise a consensus, if you don't mind me asking?--Nevé–selbert 22:43, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

It would be appropriate to see input from 3 or 4 people. — JFG ^talk 06:48, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Input for what exactly? I don't see why you're making a big deal about something that's already uncontroversial.--Nevé–selbert 19:08, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

We've got to find some middle ground here. As a compromise, what do you make of readying the new template using neutral colours for the time being while I seek a consensus for the use of party colours? Seems reasonable, I'd say. Moreover, if consensus does go my way, does that mean we'll have to make two separate templates for Tory and Labour prime ministers, or would a simple parameter sort all that? Thanks anyway, for the interest you're taking in doing this. It's much appreciated, .--Nevé–selbert 22:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Sure, it's easier to start with a single color scheme. If you get consensus for using different colors, I suppose we could make use of standard party color schemes which are already used on several election pages, e.g. {{Labour Party (UK)/meta/color}} and {{Conservative Party (UK)/meta/color}}. The appropriate color would be picked by the template depending on the party name passed as a parameter. — JFG ^talk 03:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert and Spartan7W: Here is why the color was changed: somebody thought the black background version looked like a death certificate… I guess I'll start with some neutral shade of grey, pending input on party coloring. — JFG ^talk 03:59, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done – I give you {{Sidebar/UK Prime Minister}}, already applied to Thatcher, Blair, Cameron and May. Enjoy, — JFG ^talk 07:28, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I've opened an RfC at Wikipedia talk:UKPOLITICS#Using party colours for prime ministerial sidebars.--Nevé–selbert 22:39, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I have commented there. Have you advertised the RfC on the various PM talk pages? I think that would make sense. — JFG ^talk 23:29, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

It's official, there is a decent consensus for party colours. The border colour may need to be added manually though, I don't know.--Nevé–selbert 14:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Good, I'll see how to implement this in the coming days. We should probably use a single border colour independently of the PM's party. — JFG ^talk 14:32, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I feel inclined to agree. I'd say we go for a subtle grey colour, #CCC perhaps.--Nevé–selbert 14:21, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Done

(So long as I keep in mind that: on the Internet, nobody knows you're a Chipmunk!)

I think I'm done. I'm making too many mistakes! El_C 07:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

@El C: Are you talking about this? That was no problem at all; relax and enjoy your weekend! — JFG ^talk 07:31, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, one mistake among quite a few today. But at my defense, I also got a few things right! That's good advice though, well worth heeding! El_C 07:44, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

"Over 30 years"

Thanks for catching this phrase "...for over three decades beginning in 1987" [4]. I originally wrote that.

I don't know how I came up with that. I think I was tired :) Steve Quinn (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Was kind of fun reading, though! — JFG ^talk 03:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

JFG -- could you please copy my "One point at a time" para back to …

its proper place in the Ali Watkins thread (as the first item subordinate to Masem where you have your sub-thread pointer). It's needed there for comtinuity and completeness -- thx Humanengr (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 14:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Syntax

Thanks for helping out so much with the Trump BLP. I just want to mention two things about this phrasing that you used: "bestselling author and motivational speaker that Trump regarded as a mentor. He and Ivana had three children...." First, can we use "who" instead of "that" when referring to people? (That's a pet peeve of mine.) Second, isn't this phraseology a bit awkward in that it says that the mentor (Peale) and Ivana had three children? Sure, readers will figure out that we don't mean such a thing, but wouldn't it be smoother to say "speaker, regarded as a mentor by Trump"? It's totally up to you, which is why I mention it here. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Good point, didn't notice the Reverend could be conflated with the father! I'll fix it. — JFG ^talk 14:53, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, "accessing the presidency" should probably be "acceding to the presidency". :)Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:08, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, be bold and fix it… Isn't it great to check each other's grammar? — JFG ^talk 15:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Nah, someone will count it as a revert, and presto I'm banned from all American politics articles. I'm being bold suggesting it to you!Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:18, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Facepalm — JFG ^talk 15:21, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Done.Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:40, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Paging Androcles.Anythingyouwant (talk) 09:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

article name for Tsyklon rocket family

I suggest all of Tsyklon family rocket-related article be changed to Cyclone because the yuzhnoye website uses Cyclone as its official name:

http://www.yuzhnoye.com/en/company/history/cyclone-2.html
http://www.yuzhnoye.com/en/company/history/cyclone-3.html
http://www.yuzhnoye.com/en/technique/launch-vehicles/rockets/cyclone-4/

Indeed this seems to be a somewhat complex topic for all aerospace / defence industry related article from non-English speaking world esp from the eastern bloc. The topic perhaps needs more debates, though I'm not sure where to place the discussion page. PSR B1937+21 (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@PSR B1937+21: The usual practice has been to name articles in the same way rockets or spacecraft were named when they flew. Yuzhnoye just recently switched to the "Cyclone" denomination, so I think it would be incorrect to retroactively move retired rockets away from their historical "Tsyklon" spelling. Only the new Cyclone-4M makes sense. If you'd still like to open a move discussion, the process is described at WP:RM, you can open a discussion for multiple related moves on a single talk page, for example at Talk:Tsyklon-3. — JFG ^talk 12:18, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

I reverted your edits on United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. When an individual has been nominated for Judge, he should be added to the pending nominee table, not to the current judge table. An individual should only be added to the current judge table when confirmed by the Senate. I have updated the article, if you want to look at it for future reference. Thanks. Safiel (talk) 14:53, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

@Safiel: Oh thanks, I hadn't noticed there was another table! — JFG ^talk 16:29, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Trump RfC DNAU

Re [5], the semi-permanence is intentional. RfCs often get archived before a closer shows up (and sometimes even before 30 days), requiring them to be manually restored. Semi-permanent DNAU prevents that. The intent is not for the period to expire, but rather to manually remove the DNAU after close. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: OK; I was just puzzled to see a 10-year delay! Perhaps 60 days would be a reasonable middle ground? — JFG ^talk 07:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

If the idea is to manually remove, it doesn't matter if it's 60 days, 10 years, or a thousand years. Ten years just happens to be the default for DNAU, so it's easiest to remember and code. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:35, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Have we ever established how many RFCs we can handle or should handle at once? We could do an RFC about that.🙂Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:36, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Not to my knowledge. I rather doubt it. But we might get a consensus for this use of DNAU in RfCs, not unlike the one we already have for 7-day archive age. I suspect this will come up again from time to time. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

@Anythingyouwant: Sometimes people jump to RfC format before exhausting ordinary discussion… But that's fine; if you want to see real untractable differences with perennail debates on article scope, neutrality and simultaneous RfCs on every word, head over to Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. — JFG ^talk 07:43, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Come to think of it, perhaps it would be beneficial to apply the "current consensus" approach to the Russian interference article. @Mandruss: what do you think? — JFG ^talk 07:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

It's an interesting subject. I think the list has been a net positive only because nobody has yet turned it into just another battleground. With a different mix of editors, that could easily change. Editors need to understand that it should include only the clearest consensuses, and we've been lucky so far. I'm not familiar with the mix at the other article, so I couldn't say whether it would be a good fit. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to try and fail, but you won't have me there to help you support it. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:52, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Haha, you're probably wise to stay away from this particular minefield! — JFG ^talk 07:56, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem keeping RFCs un-archived indefinitely until they are closed, provided this part of WP:RFC is followed: "Editors are normally expected to make a reasonable attempt at working out their disputes before seeking help from others. If you are able to come to a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion with other editors, then there is no need to start an RfC."Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:48, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

We can always reach a consensus to abort an RfC as inappropriate or unnecessary. That's a separate question from that of semi-permanent DNAU. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

But there's a compromise between aborting it and leaving it open forever stretching the archiving past the standard 30 days: letting it archive normally after 30 days. And that ought to be done if there was already talk page consensus, or if there was no serious attempt at reaching such consensus before the RFC was started. Anyway, regarding Russia, here's something I wrote last October. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:59, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

10-year DNAU doesn't leave it open forever. It leaves it open until we take positive action to let it go (by removing the DNAU). (Actually it doesn't leave it open; rather, it keeps it on the page; might as well use the correct words for clarity.) ―Mandruss ☎ 08:08, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unresolved: 1. Return this one to 10 years? 2. Seek a consensus for future handling of RfCs? ―Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Here's the prior discussion that was opened less than twelve hours before the RFC was opened. If it was me, I wouldn't prevent archiving after 30 days, but please note my COI since I was involved in both. Less than 12 hours doesn't seem reasonable, and anyway there was a 2-1 consensus against the proposal.Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:26, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Meh, this particular RfC is possibly heading to a snow close; I wouldn't bother too much about the DNAU delay at this time, we can extend it if the discussion is not resolved by early April. For future standards, I think we should apply a 60-day DNAU upon RfC opening. I have rarely seen RfCs not being formally closed or otherwise dismissed more than a month after their nominal expiry date. — JFG ^talk 08:33, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

In that case I guess a discussion is needed in article talk. I stand by my position that RfCs should always be kept until there is positive action to release them, in which case the 10-year does no harm and should be used as the easiest to remember and code. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:39, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

No sweat, Mandruss, go ahead and restore the default 10-year DNAU; we don't need a big debate for such a little thing. — JFG ^talk 08:42, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Done. Need for discussion TBD. ―Mandruss ☎ 08:45, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, we can come back to this if the RFCs start piling up.Anythingyouwant (talk) 11:22, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Once again, those are separate and independent questions. The use of 10-year DNAU with manual removal neither increases nor decreases the piling up of RfCs. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:44, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, not archiving would seem to make the RFCs potentially accumulate on the talk page if they are not promptly closed. Even if they don't accumulate, I'm against preventing archiving after 30 days if the original poster of the RFC failed to previously make reasonable attempts at consensus or is using the RFC to circumvent that consensus. Anyway, thanks for the EGG edit to the lead. Cheers.Anythingyouwant (talk) 15:24, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

YGM

Hello, JFG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

―Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: I've seen it, thanks. I have replied in the relevant thread; I don't communicate off-wiki, unless something truly private needs discussion. — JFG ^talk 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

I read your comment there. It doesn't directly address my questions, but I'll do my best to read between the lines. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:34, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

Consistency in date ranges within infobox

Re [6], no big deal, but I don't know whether you're aware of the new community consensus now enshrined at MOS:DATERANGE. The question arises whether we should (1) implement the new consensus as best we can, (2) wait until {{marriage}} supports it, if it ever does, or (3) simply ignore the consensus per WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know that full years are preferred, and I prefer this style personally, however abbreviated ranges can still be used where it makes sense, e.g. in tables and lists of dates. The infobox qualifies per policy: Two-digit ending years may be used […] in infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently […]). The {{marriage}} template uses shortened ranges, which made the infobox look inconsistent. We don't even need to IAR! — JFG ^talk 13:49, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

You elided the phrase "in the case of two consecutive years". ―Mandruss ☎ 13:52, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, because I read the guideline as listing exceptions with an "or" conjunction, not an "and": two-digit ending years may be used for consecutive years OR when space is limited OR in certain topic areas. — JFG ^talk 14:25, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

I opened a thread at Template talk:Marriage. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I can read it that way, too, if I try real hard. I'm leaving the template talk thread open, as I still don't think it should impose that presentation. I'll think about a bold change to the guideline to remove that grammatical ambiguity. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:31, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Help please:)

Hei my frind i need this four codees for kandahar can you please help me this is the codes : top, bottom, left, right. I want to make one map system like this for kandahar in pashto wiki>>
return { name = 'Kabul', top = 34.8019, bottom = 34.2142, left = 68.8486, right = 69.494, image = 'Location map Afghanistan Kabul.svg', } Kdh (talk) 11:35, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bukti.khan: I'd love to help but I don't really understand your request and I'm not a map specialist anyway. Perhaps ask your question at WT:WikiProject Maps? Good day, — JFG ^talk 11:54, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

I want this four codes for Kandahar Afghanistan Module:Location map/data/Afghanistan Kabul — Kdh (talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

OK, now I understand what you want to do. You can start by copying the Kabul map to a new Kandahar map at Module:Location map/data/Afghanistan Kandahar, then you'll need to find a map background image for Kandahar and copy its boundary coordinates into the new page. Instructions are at Template:Location map/Creating a new map definition. Again, if you need further help, there are plenty of experienced map editors at WT:WikiProject Maps. Good luck! — JFG ^talk 12:10, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

GAR

SpaceX reusable launch system development program, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kees08 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

List of executive actions by Donald Trump

Hi. Now all the sections are uneven. Why do that? The layout does not look improved. It looks staggered. It should look consistent. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976: It's not good practice to force column widths. Layout now adapts better to each reader's screen. And it doesn't looked jagged to me; what do you mean by that? — JFG ^talk 22:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess my screen looks at it differently, but some sections seem shorter in width and others longer. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How wide is your screen roughly? It looks pretty good on a typical laptop screen around 1200 to 1500 px wide. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

15.6" wide - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What happens when you reduce the width of your browser window? — JFG ^talk 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I have replied at the relevant talk page. — JFG ^talk 16:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

UK Prime Ministers sidebar cont.

Forgive me for being impatient JFG, but do you have a specific timeframe in mind regarding the implementation? Regards.--Nevé–selbert 10:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I looked into it but it wasn't straightforward to implement properly. I'll give it another go later this week. — JFG ^talk 10:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 10:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 20:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG. Any way you can make the border colour a lighter grey? Great job, anyway.--Nevé–selbert 13:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Sure. Can't make it much lighter though, it would look washed out. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi JFG, I see that you have template editor. Would you please consider editing the list of Trump consensuses to reflect "Many of his public statements were controversial or false". I am hesitant to implement the consensus before it is documented in the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No time right now; I'll take a look a bit later today. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump

I have added a new Option C to the most recent survey at the Trump talk page. I think everyone will find it appealing, so please comment about it and we can be done with this. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's worse, so I won't comment. Let's see how the survey plays out over the next few days. — JFG ^talk 05:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's fine to leave as-is anyway, because saying he was a businessman during one time period is vague about whether he was (or is) a businessman in another time period, and because "entering politics" is an appropriately vague statement too. Although it might be best to simply change the word "politics" to "government" which would (maybe) address objections by some other editors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Activities beyond New York" would require us to move lots of stuff into that section. The golf courses, for example are beyond New York. So is Mar-a-Lago. And, removing the word "Business" from header suggests he personally went bankrupt multiple times which he never did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, "Activities" can be confusing. Earlier, the section was called "Hotels beyond New York", I think that was a better summary of the contents. "Bankruptcies" is in the "Real estate business" section, so we don't have to repeat "Business", it's a harmless simplification which makes the TOC more palatable. Incidentally, we should be discussing this on Talk:Donald Trump, not here. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

[7] Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we explicitly invite active / all partisans to 'is confident that' proposal …

given the intensity of ongoing discussion below? Note that I also spoke in strong terms in my discussion with Geogene here. I'm considering removing the last sentence of my initial statement there prior to any such invite. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that would be canvassing. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Humanengr (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Would you care to mention whether you support the rest of the proposed lead section besides the first paragraph? — JFG ^talk 15:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. On another issue, did you see what SPECIFICO said on my talk page, including this: "JFG has given you the same advice I articulated above."? Humanengr (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I hadn't been watching. And I have no comment except that you probably noticed that SPECIFICO loves handing out litigation threats. — JFG ^talk 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider rewording?

This runs close to a personal attack, as I read it. Would you consider rewording? - Bri (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: Yeah it may sound a bit harsh, however I am criticizing the editor's behaviour, not his character. I refrained from filing a complaint for disruptive editing because I thought he would WP:LISTEN to what policies and other editors have been telling him over several weeks. Note that I defended his work in other cases, so it's nothing personal. — JFG ^talk 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: I have reached out to Another Believer and we're good, we just happen to disagree on content. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Close at Alternative for Germany

About your close here. I do not see any consensus in the discussion about what should be in the infobox about ideology. Would you please revise your close and remove that claim? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Jytdog! Towards the end of the discussion, I see consensus among Joobo, L.R. Wormwood and Helper201 about 5 items which should remain in the "Ideology" field, where Checco would keep just 4, Autospark just 3, Pincrete was neutral and you didn't voice an opinion. Anyway, as noted in my close, the RfC question addressed only the removal of "climate change denialism" but a rough consensus happened to be hashed out about other "ideologies", so I felt obliged to mention it, for the sake of consensual article improvement. If you want clarification on the question, please take it up with those other editors. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are three editors who are all on one side of the issues. One of them already took action based on that part of your close, diff. Their discussion is miles from any kind of real consensus. If you will not change your close I will go to AN and I am pretty confident that it will be overturned. Please do change it yourself and save us all drama. This is just about that part of your close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you can include User:Kamalthebest and User:Sigehelmus in the consensus too, given their comments in the survey. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus to remove the material that has already been removed, though some editors would apparently like to remove more. I don't know why you're determined to die on this hill. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not true. The RfC was not focused on cleansing the infobox, just removing one thing. Am awaiting JFG's response. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There would still appear to be a consensus to remove those items from the infobox, regardless of the parameters of the RfC. If you want us to do this for each item, I'm sure we can all find better things to do with our time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is only one thing that matters in this discussion, and that is whether JFG will remove that part of the close or not. Please do not clutter this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my close and I note that the article has been updated accordingly without triggering a backlash. @Jytdog: I would advise you to open another discussion if you feel that some of the removed items should be added back to the "Ideology" field. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited User:JFG/sandbox/Launching

I edited a page in your userspace, User:JFG/sandbox/Launching. See the changes I made to what appears to be a template draft.--— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: Thanks for your edit. I created this draft to salvage a deleted template, in case we want to use it again at some later date. Doesn't look likely in the near future, though. — JFG ^talk 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America First (policy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

perezhilton.com and Daily Mail used in any BLP

I would like to note sans any other comment that using Daily Mail and Perez Hilton for any claims of fact in any BLP is contrary to WP:RSN discussions as far as I know, in and of themselves. This applies to just about any BLP on the face of the earth - or Wikipedia, and I trust you agree. Collect (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: I most certainly agree. Have I done that??? — JFG ^talk 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. But you may have noted articles and BLPs which have done that, and I think at AfD that you might reasonably note that such sources have been used when you propose deletion. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I might indeed. Were you alluding to the Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) article, which has one Daily Mail cite among other gossip rags? And regarding Perez Hilton, I had never even heard of him before you mentioned his name here. The beauty of Wikipedia: you never know what you're going to learn today… — JFG ^talk 14:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian intervention

This edit of yours [8] changes the meaning of the text and changes it in a way that at least one editor @BullRangifer: is currently disputing/rejecting on Talk [9]. You marked the edit summary "copy edit" but because of the change of meaning, the ongoing Talk page discussion, and your previous removal of the same relevant text, it appears to be more than that. It's also your second revert in less than 24 hours. Please undo this edit. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen, SPECIFICO, I'm rather tired of your acting as a policeman on this article, and I suspect I'm not the only one. This is not my second revert, and it cannot even be called a revert. It also does not change the meaning. If you disagree you know the process. Meanwhile, please stay off my talk page. — JFG ^talk 14:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this is not a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Before my edit, the article said:

In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].^[78] In January 2016, according to The Daily Beast, the report […some other stuff].^[101]

After my edit, it said:

In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].^[78] Another Daily Beast article stated that the report […some other stuff].^[101]

My edit did two little things in one shot: correcting a false date (2016 instead of 2017) and removing a repetition (same date as previous sentence + same Daily Beast publication). I correctly labeled this a copyedit and contrary to Specifico's assertion, I did not change the meaning. — JFG ^talk 15:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that explanation. A better edit summary could have prevented this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Re

to this. Yes, certainly, just as they now collaborate with Taliban. For example, it was suggested that the whole story with Palmyra offensives was about letting ISIL "to take over" all weapons and ammunition left by Russian forces in Palmyra. This is nothing new. There were similar agreements during Soviet war in Afghanistan (that man was responsible for some negotiations of this nature, there was a documentary movie). But I do not have time for collecting sources about it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This Palmyra story sounds really weird though: Russians were rather proud of helping take the city back from ISIS, they even sent an orchestra to play there for show. Then several months later, ISIS briefly took it back for just a few weeks. Not credible that Russia would have masterminded all this as a false flag with a goal of delivering supplies to the Islamist commanders; there would be a myriad easier ways to accomplish that. Also, you may take note that geopolitical considerations have evolved quite a bit since Soviet times… — JFG ^talk 08:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the orchestra was led by Sergei Roldugin who prominently appears in Panama papers. Yes, perhaps that claim was wrong, it was probably an "opinion piece" somewhere. The relationships between Russia and ISIL is a big subject that I would rather not discuss here. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the guy with an expensive cello? Big subject indeed. Thanks for the discussion, always a pleasure! — JFG ^talk 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America First (policy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

May 2017

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I need an IRL kitten right about now! — JFG ^talk 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte

Do you think a block is still needed for the three users in question? El_C 04:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That would have been my judgment, yes. I have rarely seen an edit war with ~30 edits per warrior over a couple hours. Unless they have since calmed down, apologized to each other and resolved the dispute on talk… (I don't know, I haven't followed this article, just stumbled upon the edit war at ANEW.) — JFG ^talk 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to move it

I moved the page.

Feel free to move it to another title, just please leave a redirect behind as you go.

Thanks for your sub article efforts !

Sagecandor (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you as well! — JFG ^talk 21:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool, good job so far ! The tougher part is trimming down size of parent article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also am doing for to having trim article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Having fun with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Man, what a mess! Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: You bet! While I was away, all the fluff since 1979 was deleted: good riddance!!! Back to the routine daily innuendo from anonymous sources… — JFG ^talk 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you intetentionally restore a WP:COPYVIO?

This is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO. BU Rob13 has verified that it is an improperly licensed non-free image. Please self-revert.- MrX 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I wouldn't recommend bothering with trying to move an immovable object by trying to replace this image throughout enwiki. People will figure it out when the image is deleted in about seven days. If the Commons community doesn't delete it, the WMF is highly likely to delete it via office action. Legal is aware of the situation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry BU Rob13, I'm done bothering with this, but it should be removed if what you and other OTRS volunteers report is true. Restoring the image to the article under such circumstances is irresponsible and contrary to policy.- MrX 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Well, Commons discussion now closed as delete, image to be imminently deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and BU Rob13: As soon as the notice of copyvio came to the talk page, one editor replaced the official portrait with a picture that was poor quality, distorted and unflattering (yeah, we know from past experience it's hard to find a flattering one, but still we should at least aim for a neutral image). A discussion ensued, where on the one hand some people expressed doubt about the exact copyright status, and some people scrambled to suggest an appropriate picture. I arranged the proposed images in a gallery to facilitate choice, and I figured that the discussion should have a chance to unfold until the copyvio situation was confirmed by the specialists at Common. It turned out that the community managed to decide on an acceptable replacement fairly quickly (while I was sleeping) and the official portraits were first deleted, then temporarily restored to allow some time to replace them everywhere.

I remember being involved in a similar situation when the Steele dossier was uploaded in full and the Commons discussion deemed it a clear copyright violation but the offending file was still displayed in articles until it was actually deleted, although I was of the opinion it should not have stayed due to its libelous potential. Then it was replaced by a low-resolution picture of its first page. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think if Wikipedia has lived with Trump's official portrait during four months, a few hours or even a few days to handle the copyvio situation is not too much trouble. — JFG ^talk 05:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Setting aside policy and with a big caveat that I am not a lawyer, there's very strong reason for an individual not to restore a copyright violation regardless of whether it's "not too much trouble" etc. An editor who actively adds a copyright violation to a live page where one did not exist in the previous revision could be individually sued for damages, if any apply, or statutory damages, if the work was registered with the US Copyright Office. Again, not a lawyer, but it's not a good idea, especially with an image this prominent. Our policy is of course clear that copyright violations must be immediately removed regardless of how long they've been there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's bright-line copyright policies. This particular case was resolved swiftly as soon as editors were notified. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 in Spaceflight Main Image

Hi JFG, Since you're a frequent contributor to the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page, I thought I would get your opinion on something. Since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet, would replacing the info-box image on the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page with an image of the SES-10 mission be better? SES-10 was quite historical as the first orbital-class first-stage core to re-fly from CRS-8. Phillipsturtles (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Phillipsturtles: Yes, the hero image was Dragon 2 for many months, then when this mission was pushed to 2018, it was replaced with Falcon Heavy, but that is a bad choice because the rocket hasn't flown yet and the picture is just a rendering. I don't think we should replace it with CRS-10 because the 2016 article already includes the first booster landing on a drone ship. We would be giving too much prominence to SpaceX. A few days ago, I replaced FH with the new Indian rocket GSLV Mk III which had just made its maiden flight, however the picture was soon deleted as a copyvio We could use the rendering of it but that's not very satisfactory. Another option (my favorite) would be to illustrate the 786th and last flight of Soyuz-U that took place in February. I have found several nice pictures of the launch but their copyright status is unclear at the moment. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Using an image of the last Soyuz-U flight would work great. Seeing how many times this launch vehicle flew is definitely significant towards it's retirement and deserves being shown. Another idea would be something like the 2016 in spaceflight photo collage. By using this, we could include Soyuz-U, China's lunar return mission Chang'e 5, and even an image of Cassini–Huygens. How do you feel about this? Phillipsturtles (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Phillipsturtles: My personal taste goes to having a single image for the year. In the 2016 mosaïc, none of the pictures really makes an impression on the reader; I would rather keep just the Falcon landing there. Compare for example with 2011 and the last Shuttle landing, or 2015 with the first close-up view of Pluto. Some older pages like 2008 and 2009 have longer prose to summarize the year, and that gives enough space to illustrate with several pictures. That would be my suggestion. First, choose a "hero image" for the infobox, then expand the text and add a couple extra pictures. One of the recent views of Jupiter by Cassini would be great indeed; I also like the Juno pictures of Jupiter's poles. — JFG ^talk 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Slide" music genre

Hi User:JFG, asking you this because you're a very responsible editor btw. I sourced all the genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) myself a while back, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure whether they're directly calling this song these genres or the production/or sections of the song. Can you please take a close look at these sources ([10], [11], [12]) and let me know if you think they're worded in a way that makes it appropriate to be used as genres on page? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Thanks for your kind words. I checked your sources, and I'm pretty sure that Pitchfork is authoritative. The Forbes thing is more of an individual opinion, less notable to include. "FACT Mag" looks like just some random dudes trying to sound clever – I'd pass. If other editors disagree with the sourced genres, try adding the relevant quote from the source in the citation with "|quote=blah blah blah". Don't assign 5 genres to the same song, though… Also, instead of cramming genres into the infobox, you can add a writer's opinion in the prose, e.g. Hugh McIntyre said the song "blends R&B, pop and even elements of hip-hop into something difficult to label". — JFG ^talk 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Trumps and user Klaus Frisch

I appreciate very much what you are doing here, and I am happy that you (and others like user:Anythingyouwant) respect me and ask me for advice, even though I am from Germany. ;) In de.WP, I am busy since 2006, and I avoided any engagement in political lemmata since I have clear and strong political opinions outside of the mainstream and don't want to subordinate to "neutral" POVs in this case. The Trumps were initially just a side trip when I became aware that this somehow crazy guy who seemingly had no chance to become President had grandparents in Kallstadt, a village not far from my own village where they speak the same dialect as here.

So I bought The Trumps and wrote de:Fredrick Trump which is now – honestly ;) – much better than the English counterpart. I found it fascinating how different the worlds were where young Friedrich came from and where he made his way. (He also 'made' a fortune, as is stated in several articles, but this was almost irrelevant after the post-war inflation. He died in 1918.) And it is also fascinating how politics influenced the lives of Friedrich and his son Fred who is the topic of the maybe last article I will complete in the German Trump realm. To me, this has been a fascinating journey in strange worlds, but in the end I am a European who never had the opportunity to travel to other continents. It is not my mission to save the world from the ignorance about the familiar background of The Donald. I saved the German-speaking world, and I deserve an award for this! ;) --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Klaus Frisch: Very informative article on Friedrich in German, thanks! Funny that the Blair book had to go through German Wikipedia to perhaps then inspire edits in the English one. — JFG ^talk 04:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been fun to me and very informative with respect to the history of the US and the reality and consequences of untamed capitalism which has never existed in Europe. To the contrary, Roosevelt is said to have saved the States from the fate of Germany and other European countries through his Keynesian New Deal. Which was, BTW, the source of the wealth of Fred Trump and eventually also of his famous son.

As to the usage or non-usage of serious sources other than newspapers especially in en.WP in the Trump realm, I don't think this is funny. In face of the incredible efforts of two obvious Trump fans in Talk:Melania Trump to discredit the one serious and very informative Melania biography that exists (and me as the one who called attention to it), I wonder: Why is the DT biography by the renowned journalist and author Michael D'Antonio not even mentioned or listed in Donald Trump? And why is there no article on this person? Confused and worried, --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Even worse: There is no mention of Trump's visit in Saudi-Arabia, the first foreign country that he visited as President and where he stayed for three days, while the rest of his tour in Europe was just a series of brief encounters. Is en.WP on the way to become a Minitrue (Orwell, 1984)? (1984 was, BTW, when I received my degree in biology.) If I look at these giant deficits and, on the other hand, at the discussions about MT's failing at the beginning of her academic education and about her totally irrelevant language skills, I feel very much to be in the wrong film here. Ping me or mail me if you want to tell me something. Ich bin hier raus. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books"

You said:

Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books

Thank you very much for your congratulations for my article writing efforts and new page creation !

I appreciate your taking the time to compose some compliments about articles I created !

Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I know it's hard work. — JFG ^talk 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. I've written several Wikipedia articles recently. From scratch. A few about books critical of Trump. And more about books authored by Trump. About an even balance so far, of new articles added to Wikipedia. Probably in the course of all of those new articles put together, gone through several hundred sources on the subject matter. Sagecandor (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Template:Major US Cities

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Template:Major US Cities, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thanks for the notice; I had totally forgotten about this. Looks like I created this draft to WP:PRESERVE the contents of Template:Major US Cities which was slated for deletion at the time. Reading the deletion discussion, that was a draft of a more compact look that I was proposing as an alternative to deletion. As the discussion closed to delete, this draft became moot; I'm happy to let it go. Can I move it to my user space for future reference? — JFG ^talk 07:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed it was just a test edit of something that existed elsewhere and had been copied away again. Thanks for the your comments. Of course you can move it or copy it, just tag the redirect or draft page for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Moved to my sandbox with no redirect. It's gone! — JFG ^talk 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Falcon 9 booster B1029) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Falcon 9 booster B1029, JFG!

Wikipedia editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article. Many thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus update services needed

Trump consensus 19 links 1 and 2 need to be retargeted to archive. Also "lede section rewrite" in 15, 16, and 17. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss:  Done. Page protection has been lowered, you should be able to edit it yourself. Cheers, — JFG ^talk 07:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Added item #20 about protests while I was there. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about your editing

Your constant editing, relating to articles about Russia, like removing the Flynn photo (bizarre explanation -- it was totally suited there), or the changing of a lot of details in the meddling article that confused me, do give me a pause w/ a great cause of concern, about possible political bias & motive (hope to be wrong). I hope to get clarification re your intent & motives; I don't want people to corruptly influence articles for their own political agenda -- nobody should welcome that no matter which side they are -- & I hope you could make it clear. I didn't mean to be 'rude', but I finally decided to ask you after seeing a lot of edits. And now I saw that I'm not the only one who complained about your editing in Russia-related articles (User:SPECIFICO). I am, of course, not going to edit or reverse them, at least for the coming months -- I just want to know & I certainly hope to be wrong. Thanks. Archway (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

@Archwayh: Thanks for reaching out. I do enjoy editing in current affairs and political topics, and I am striving to uphold a neutral point of view. It's a bit hard to respond to your concerns without seeing exact diffs, for example I don't recall where I removed a Flynn photo. To your general feeling of bias, I can state having no personal relations with either the USA or Russia, and I have been known to defend edits that uphold political positions of each "side". If you feel that my edits have been unbalanced for example in the Russian interference article, that is easily explained by the overwhelming one-sidedness of this particular article, as reflected in many editor debates ever since it was created.

While I appreciate your polite enquiry about my motives, I am however concerned that by discussing politics with me, you may be violating your topic ban: pinging NeilN for guidance about that. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 03:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, I appreciate you clicked on my page & saw the discussion about the topic ban -- which was originally for 1 month & was supposed to be expired. I didn't know I got one, continued editing, & then it was extended due to a rushed & ill-advised decision. I'm planning to appeal soon; just taking my time to do it right. But it has nothing to do w/ page talk (it's about articles). Second, to my original point, I was referring toward your edit here -- the explanation doesn't add up. It is, to the best of my knowledge, a fair & super-legitimate use of a non-free image. We couldn't ask for a better photo. I saw some other edits that I'm not going to relitigate (I'm sure there's balance in some closely watched articles like Russia election meddling, in which you edited a lot). But the most important line that caused me concern was your line, "While I was away, all the fluff since 1979 was deleted: good riddance!!! Back to the routine daily innuendo from anonymous sources." Do you mean that leaks about the Russia investigation are all false or illegitimate in this project? As you know, leaks are everywhere; during the Ken Starr probe (Clinton folks complained a lot), the email probe, & other political inquiries. The right didn't complain about anonymous sources back then. And I don't get what is "one-sided" about that article -- it mentions the DNI report by 17 intel agencies. It's a fact that some Trump supporters don't like to hear (although it has nothing to do w/ his legitimacy or collusion, just about Russian hacking & disinformation), & that is unfortunate. The collusion part may be more debatable, as it is still being investigated. Archway (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for the diff about the Flynn picture. I agree that the picture would be relevant in this article, but as stated in my edit summary, my removal was purely based on Wikipedia's strict copyright policies: please read WP:NFCC for details. This particular image has a non-free use rationale for the Michael Flynn article but not for any other; you may try to create one and see if it passes scrutiny by the copyright brigade…

Regarding my comment on "fluff since 1979" above, this was meant in jest, as the article in question, Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, had somehow accumulated dozens of irrelevant facts going back 37 years before such interference. I do not have an opinion about leaks being "false or illegitimate": we cover leaks when WP:RS cover leaks, and it just so happens that a lot of RS reports on this topic are indeed "daily innuendo from anonymous sources". Wikipedia must carefully source all statements for proper attribution, and it's sometimes hard to distinguish between facts, hearsay, anonymous leaks and journalistic opinion.

I won't comment on your last point: discussion of the article's neutrality should happen on its talk page. — JFG ^talk 04:57, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My new draft re new york New York new York New york new YORK...

Have a look at User:Andrew/NYRM July 2017 and its talk (where I also pinged you).

How's real life? Andrewa (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Andrewa, I have seen your draft and appreciate the brief approach. I think we need some middle ground between Paine's long draft and your short one; my own proposal is somewhere in between, trying to make a strong case without drifting into sideshows. Real life has quite a few deadlines for this month, I should be more relaxed after a few days. — JFG ^talk 03:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

I think you need to report back to the rest of the group if you have not already done so. Andrewa (talk) 10:26, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

The participation of every editor in this process is appreciated, but the process can not be contingent on any one editor. We should post this move request as soon as reasonably possible. bd2412 T 13:04, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

How does my draft need to be expanded to make a strong case? I particularly like the focussed brevity of the rationale and would probably resist any suggestion to expand it, it is the bit that turned out far better than my expectations. But appreciate other comments on this, see User talk:Andrewa/NYRM July 2017#Rationale and discuss there. (Briefly I hope.) Andrewa (talk) 18:44, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hi, how's it going?

I have now committed to raising an RM based on my draft next Wednesday unless something comes up in the meantime [13] ... such as your new draft of course.

But realistically, unless you have this new draft already ready to critique, I suggest that in whatever time you have available you now critique mine instead, using of course what you have learned in preparing your new draft. Andrewa (talk) 03:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with that, and like your simplified approach, but try to capture any salient points of the draft atop the general discussion page. bd2412 T 04:25, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by capture any salient points of the draft atop the general discussion page.

Unfortunately it is not likely to stay that simple. I predict it will be quite a week. Andrewa (talk) 05:17, 1 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi JFG - sorry to keep coming back on this one, but I think we're definitely going to want to get this one rolling in the next 24 hours, unless you can give us an update on how you're doing with the condensed draft you mentioned yesterday, and when it will be ready. To be clear - no pressure on this, if you have too much else to do, then we can easily go ahead with the RM using Andrew's draft. Conversely, if you're almost there and can give us a clear timeline of when you're going to be ready, we can work with that. I think the main thing is we'd just like a little certainty on where we stand! Thanks, and all the best,  — Amakuru (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Thanks for your note. I'll be done tonight. — JFG ^talk 18:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Okay! bd2412 T 18:15, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Falcon 9 booster B1029 DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Falcon 9 booster B1029 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article has one broken link that needs to be addressed, I believe; other than that, this article is good to go. Michael Barera (talk) 04:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Word

Maybe you can help me with something that's been bugging me. In this edit of mine, I'm not 100% confident in the word "column" there. Look at that link and see if you think another word would be more accurate. Things like "feature" and "section" have crossed my mind. ―Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Column sounds good to me: some people still read paper! — JFG ^talk 13:36, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump SNL

Perhaps you´re right [14], though I see it as something of the Mar-a-Lago of his pop-culture. Can I have your opinion on somehing related? Today I noticed Template:Trump family, changed "descendents" to children (that and "ascendents" sounds a little pretentious to me), but then I noticed that son-in-law and uncle don´t really fit either way (potential tasteless jokes aside). Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Thanks for your comments. I saw your change from "descendants" to "children" and I think it's better. Jared Kushner used to be listed as spouse of Ivanka Trump, not as son-in-law of Donald Trump, I think it made more sense that way – would you agree? Trump's notable uncle and sister fit rather well with parents and other ancestors, but we could tweak the section title from "Ascendants and siblings" to "Ancestors and relatives" (will do). There is also a duplicate link to "Ancestry", as an earlier article was merged, I'll remove that. — JFG ^talk 06:46, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Gah, got a flashback to old discussions at Swedish royal family. Anyway, Jared is good, and "Ancestors" is better than "ascendents". To me it still sounds a little pretentious, but it´s shorter than "Parents, grandparents and relatives", and somewhat motivated by the inclusion of Trump family. Other US presidents don´t seem to have this particular template, am I right? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes: for previous presidents, their family is included in their overall navbox. However, Trump's navbox was already yuuuge before he started his campaign, so that it was split into {{Trump businesses}}, {{Trump family}}, {{Trump media}} and {{Trump presidency}}. Now the {{Donald Trump}} navbox also includes the family and I feel it should not be duplicated. It's hard to decide what should be included in there. My personal suggestion would be to use {{Trump presidency}} as the main navbox. Ideas? — JFG ^talk 07:41, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

One navbox to rule them all. It´s not crystal-clear to me what´s "best" here, though logically {{Donald Trump}} should be best for Donald Trump. Personally, I´d like a (collapsed) everything-and-the-kitchen-sink navbox under the current one, but of course, such a nav-box would be... well, you know. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Re:pretentious, we could say "Parents and relatives" instead of "Ancestors and relatives". — JFG ^talk 07:44, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I like that, tried an edit. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gråbergs Gråa Sång: Now you made me curious about Swedish royal family! Why are the current King and Queen only named "The King" and "The Queen" in the family tree? Is this some protocol tradition? That looks quite pompous and uninformative to readers; I would suggest "King Carl XVI Gustaf" and "Queen Silvia" but I don't want to disturb the peace if there's indeed consensus for the shorter designations. Just being curious…— JFG ^talk 07:54, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I really can´t say. SergeWoodzing, an opinion? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Depends on where they are listed. Most formallly, in Swedish, they are given as the King or the Queen without names, just as the Queen is in Britain etc etc etc . In lists less formal and/or lists that feasibly should be more informative, I would add their names. We are here to inform, after all, not to adhere to the strictest formalities in every instance. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 16:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Forbes

Actually, this edit summary isn't a correct justification. If we were talking about the company Forbes, "its" would be correct in American English (not in British English though); however, in this case we are talking about The World's Billionaires, which is compiled by a team of reporters and, therefore, a collective "their" is appropriate. -- Scjessey (talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

@Scjessey: So you're saying I was either right for the wrong reason or for the wrong WP:ENGVAR… Thanks for the note! — JFG ^talk 16:40, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, my comment was pretty redundant but I thought it was worth it in the interests of completeness. Or it may be just because I'm an asshole grammar Nazi. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:26, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Information about the requested moves

Hi, I see that you have closed the practice about the requested move of Lega Nord. But cannot a request be extended beyond two weeks if there isn't an agreement? Because in that discussion 5 users are favorable and 5 users against (Some of them even using arguments that have been denied)...--Wololoo (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

@Wololoo: The discussion had already been extended by one week and attracted only one new comment. Discussants offered valid arguments both ways, and I saw no trend towards an emerging consensus. I would suggest a 6-month pause before trying again. — JFG ^talk 14:51, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately not all users offered valid arguments, in particular an affirmation that was clearly denied (the academic texts), for this reason I think the discussion, vitiated by questionable statements and with the same number of users pro and again the move, can not be terminated.... :( --Wololoo (talk) 17:52, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Your recourse is WP:Move review; not sure it would support your stance, though you're free to try. — JFG ^talk 19:35, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok --Wololoo (talk) 21:12, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

RM nacs

Thanks for doing recent work on closing RMs. Just as an FYI, WP:RMNAC says that non-admins are supposed to use Template:RMnac anytime they make a close. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks Tony. I hold the opinion that experienced page movers can dispense with the {{rmnac}} signature, unless the close is particularly sensitive. I'd be happy to open a discussion to amend this particular guideline, now that we have some hindsight about the unbundling of the page mover right. — JFG ^talk 20:47, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Sure. I know you're an experienced editor and work in the area, I was just calling attention to the guideline since it has been raised at least one MR recently (and I think more than one before June, but I don't feel like searching through the archives.) My main concern was that I really don't want more move wikilawyering in move reviews over the subject. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:53, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. Been through a couple move reviews myself, all endorsed. Which is why we should update this guideline, which was written when only admins were trusted "by default" with page moves. {{rmnac}} should only be mandatory for occasional non-vetted editors; they of course are welcome to assist with discussion closures but the label is a courtesy to more experienced users scanning the logs that maybe they should read such closures a bit more closely. At move review, the close must be evaluated strictly on its merits, irrespective of who closed it, be they a newbie, an admin, a page mover or a BDFL. — JFG ^talk 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I can think of some who are still opposed to basically any NAC of an RM, but IMO RMs are probably the most NAC friendly environment on-wiki because of the debundling. The Template:RMnac currently has a parameter that will link to page mover closure at WP:RMCI. It might be worth either changing that parameter to change the text to page mover closure or create a new template for that for the people who would still want a nac to be identified as such. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Wouldn't the most direct solution in this case be to make JFG an admin? If you nom, I'll second, even though noms don't need seconds. bd2412 T 21:26, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

That's certainly a possibility, though the recent trend at RFA has been for admins to nom: I suppose given the nature of this thread a non-admin-nom would fit though. Might not help the chance of success, but it's at least poetic :) TonyBallioni (talk) 21:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Guys, I'm flattered but I don't want the mop and bucket. Unbundling worked well for my needs, which are covered by page mover (proud first recipient!) and template editor rights. I'll be sure to remember your kind patronage if someday I reconsider. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Back to topic, I would suggest adding a couple lines to the WP:RMPMC guideline, saying:

Page movers may use the special {{rmnac|pm}} signature, but they are not compelled to include it. The signature is recommended for sensitive cases, as a courtesy. Like other editors, page movers should exercise caution when evaluating the outcome of contentious debates. When in doubt, don't close.

Comments? — JFG ^talk 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I'd support. I'd also support updating the template to make it clear without clicking that it was closed by a page mover. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:01, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: @TonyBallioni: (sorry, talk page stalker here) FWIW we had a long conversation on this last year some time, (I can find it if you're interested), and decided not to use any special templating for page movers. It is a technical right, to be able to move pages in that manner, not a community-endorsed right such as adminship, and therefore a close by a page mover shouldn't be implied to carry more weight than one by any other non-admin, and they should use the RMNac template like any other non-admin would. As an aside, I suspect both of you would make fine admins anyway, from what I've seen of you around the Wiki, without detailed searching for skeletons in the cupboard!  — Amakuru (talk) 22:08, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

 Done I have updated {{RMnac}} to produce a different text for page movers: "(closed by page mover)" instead of "(non-admin closure)". Shortcut {{rmpm}} is available too. Amakuru, do you have a suggestion for an update to the guideline text, taking into account prior discussions and the new signature variant? — JFG ^talk 22:19, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Nooo.. the whole point is it should not say "closed by page mover". Here is the discussion: Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_20#Template:RMpmc. The decision was to keep the text identical. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Gasp. Let's pause for a moment, let me read the discussion. — JFG ^talk 22:25, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I've skimmed it and I remember the debate. This was more than a year ago, when the page mover right was fresh from the presses, and people were unsure about potential abuse of the system and trustworthiness of the inductees. I think those concerns have subsumed and I would advocate a new discussion at WT:Page mover to check if consensus has changed. Meanwhile, the {{rmpmc}} I just created can be used as an experiment, and be reverted to the nac text if people don't endorse it. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) As you'll see, I was one of those who argued against having different wording. It's not meant to be disparaging to experienced editors such as yourself, but more to remove the feeling that existed in the early days of the Page Mover right, that page movers had a "higher status" in closing discussions than any other non-admin. But since the right was pretty much just given out to anyone who asked for it, as long as they had 3000 edits and six months service, there was no proof that person had any sort of ability to judge and close a discussion, more than anyone else. I think it's better to have the wording be all the same, for anyone, and leave the page mover as a technical right.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I understsand your point of view: we need to submit this to the community. Would you be so kind as to undelete {{RMPMC}} and let us run the experiment? I see you haven't reverted my code change on {{RMnac}}, so it should just work. If the community doesn't want a different text, that's easy to change back in {{RMnac}}; the {{RMPMC}} shortcut will still be useful. — JFG ^talk 22:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, like I said, I don't like it. I think the decision last year was the right one, and still is - having page movers is a very useful thing, and reduces the administrative burden, but they aren't supposed to have extra status over others. Feel free to start the conversation at the talk page, and if you decide to recreate the redirects now I won't delete them again, but I personally think we should have the discussion first and then amend the text if and when the consensus from last year is overturned, rather than beforehand.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:46, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Amakuru I get your point of view on this, and I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfC because I think it's a strong view point. I agree with JFG that it's probably worth reopening now that we're over a year in to the page mover right. TonyBallioni (talk) 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

@TonyBallioni: Certainly. It's always good to discuss things and get the community's up-to-date point of view! Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

RfC opened at Wikipedia talk:Page mover#RfC: Labeling page mover closures — JFG ^talk 23:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

sources-talk

Shucks, I was just in the process of changing that and you beat me to it! My edit summary was "learn something new every day!" Thanks for the education. --MelanieN (talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I created {{sources-talk}} a few weeks ago as I was tired of typing manual hats of sources in discussions, especially when they interfere with archive templates. Glad it helps fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 16:07, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

Well, that explains why I wasn't familiar with it; I'm glad to know I haven't been in ignorance of it for years. (Wouldn't be the first such thing, though.) Good invention; it definitely is our "friend". --MelanieN (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

BTW does anybody know about this new template besides you and me? And now, I guess, your talk page stalkers? How do you publicize a new template? --MelanieN (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

No idea where to publicize such a thing, besides using it and seeing people copy it. — JFG ^talk 23:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I used {{Reflist-talk}}, - what's the difference? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: {{sources-talk}} wraps around the usual {{reflist-talk}} and collapses the references into a grey expandable box labeled "Sources". It clarifies the discussion thread when debating text that includes more than 2 or 3 sources. You can copy and paste whole paragraphs of article prose including sources without bludgeoning the talk page space. — JFG ^talk 10:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Got it, sounds good! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

Ahem....

Your excellent citation work is gonna get you in trouble...specifically when I'm reviewing an FA candidate, you will be called. ^{Atsme📞📧} 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)

RfA

Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Trump Impeachment: Declaratory Judgements

Hello JFG -- The original Slate article was weak. I admit that. The Daily Signal article says, " 'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'” I think that supports my assertion that the impeachment-minded members of House and Senate are looking to a declaratory judgment as a basis for moving forward in the House. This whole topic is so fraught. I don't want to upset anyone. I do think the reasoning is clear and reference sufficient. I'd ask you to reconsider your position and put the Signal reference back and retract the . All the best. Rhadow (talk) 11:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Rhadow, you may be mistaken: I didn't write anything about the Trump impeachment lately, didn't tag the text either. I think the extent of my involvement in this article is supporting the ongoing merge proposal with Impeachment March. — JFG ^talk 21:22, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I removed Trump's portrait this morning: [15] This is not the edit you are looking for… — JFG ^talk 21:25, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

JFG I was concerned about your wiki on Donald Trump. It seems a bit biased and inflammatory. I could tell someone that wrote it must be a bit frustrated with the election results. I saw that you made an edit hours ago and thought maybe you could look over it and try to spot some of the biased comments. The page is blocked to protect liberal opinion and cannot be edited. I use Wikipedia frequently to get facts, not angry opinion. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Wilhuff Tarken (talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Template:Cabinet of Donald Trump timeline

You seem to have worked on this template significantly. I don't have much experience with these, so could you change the green line from "confirmed" to "served" since Kelly has changed posts? This way it will be up to date. JocularJellyfish (talk) 00:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@JocularJellyfish: I restored the prior version: no need to update, this is a historical record of nominations and confirmations ending in May when the full first Cabinet was confirmed. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

@JFG:, thanks for the update. JocularJellyfish (talk) 03:11, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Links in #23

Re [16] - Say somebody came along and changed only the links. Could one reasonably point to #23 in their revert? I don't think so, since no links were included in any of the proposed language. That being the case, I don't think the consensus should show the links. If you feel that the previous text implied that the consensus was for no linking, you could add clarification of that point. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Didn't think of that scenario. I just noticed that all our consensus items had the exact links embedded, so I added them for consistency, and it's a good "copy/paste" reference that people can revert to. I think that if somebody wants to change the links without changing the text, we can have a quick discussion to settle that, without claiming that exact links are authoritative. Would you agree? — JFG ^talk 10:04, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

But the same quick discussion could occur without including the links in #23. If we want continued respect for the list, we need to be very careful not to include "riders" that weren't discussed. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:24, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Those links were there before the discussion, I don't think they are controversial in the least. You moved them on some more precise anchor text, and that's good too. If somebody complains, we'll discuss what to do with the community. — JFG ^talk 13:49, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

The issue is not whether the links are controversial but that they were not part of the consensus. We don't (or shouldn't) include things in the list simply because someone thinks they are uncontroversial. We have both done a fair amount of give and take re that list, but as closer I'm going to stand my ground on this one and revert that part of your changes per BRD. You're free to open a discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 16:19, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Fine with me if you want to remove the links, no worries. — JFG ^talk 16:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Prince Albert

FYI, I closed the move request as "moved" this morning. You can carry out the link fixing now. I'll grab a few of those myself. bd2412 T 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

@BD2412: Thanks for the notice. I've done a bunch, I think we're all set. Left a couple {{dn}} notices where I couldn't readily find out the correct target. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Great, thanks! Even a high-volume page can be knocked out quickly with a good plan of attack. bd2412 T 19:50, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

After the New York travails, we must be fearless. — JFG ^talk 19:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Carrier rockets

What would be appropriate? Vehicles?--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 21:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

You mean, where should a rocket go as a subcategory of Category:2013 introductions? Yes, Category:Vehicles introduced in 2013 sounds good, or introduce a Category:Rockets first flown in 2013 alongside Category:Aircraft first flown in 2013, plus Category:Spacecraft first flown in 2013 for Cygnus (spacecraft). But such categories would probably be too sparse, so vehicles sounds appropriate. By the way, I don't see why we have the 2013 vehicles category listed as a child of both Category:Products introduced in 2013 and Category:2013 introductions, given that the former already inherits the latter. But I suck at categories... — JFG ^talk 21:43, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Thats the way they were when I found them. While, in some cases, putting items into multiple intro cats can be justified I think vehicles should be its own separate cat. Granted, on some level everything is a product - NASA ordered space shuttles from Boeing, right? - alot of these vehicles are not consumer products, which I think was the purpose of the products cat.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 23:54, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

If the "Products introduced in X" category is dedicated to consumer products, then it makes sense. Thanks for the tip. I have placed Cygnus in Category:Vehicles introduced in 2013, and your probably wanted to work on more rockets and spacecraft: enjoy! — JFG ^talk 03:56, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

an help for Sabrina Ferilli

Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello and know how you are. Well, I'm writing to ask you some help regarding Sabrina Ferilli's page in English and French, would you give her a refreshed and improved? right and not more than 10 minutes of your precious time. If so, if I can then return the courtesy you will be grateful for it infinitely. Thanks and greetings from Coreca--Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino (talk) 13:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Dear Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino, I have never heard of Sabrina Ferilli and I am not active on movie actors and actresses, therefore I do not think I am the best person to assist you. Try posting a request at WT:FILM perhaps? — JFG ^talk 13:52, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

About H3 rocket

Its launch capacity is more than 6.5 ton delta v 1500m/s GTO not standard 1800m/s GTO. That is superior than Proton.If you think it's just a midium-lift rocket .Proton should be updated from Heavy-lift to Medium-lift. ITO666 (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@ITO666: The definition of "heavy-lift launch vehicle" refers to its LEO capacity being over 20 tonnes. GTO capacities are not an easy-to-compare yardstick because they depend on the upper stage capabilities, the orbital inclination reachable from the launch site and the targeted Δv as you point out. Proton-M can lift 23 tonnes to LEO and has proven it by delivering some heavy ISS modules (even with the earlier Proton-K). I have not seen any such capability published for the upcoming H3 rocket. The H-IIB which currently flies HTV cargo missions to the ISS can lift 18.5 tonnes to LEO and 8 tonnes to GTO (more than the announced figure for H3), yet it is still classified as medium-lift. — JFG ^talk 04:55, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

About LEO

GTO & LEO launch capacity is homologous . The more GTO capacity represents more LEO.H3 launch capacity on GTO is beyond Proton & H2B(19ton) and its LEO is more than Proton. ITO666 (talk) 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

No, GTO capacity is not automatically proportional to LEO capacity, for the factors I cited above, and perhaps others. Take a look at Comparison of orbital launch systems to check a few examples of discrepancies between comparing LEO and GTO figures among a pair of launchers. For example, Ariane 5 lifts a lot more to GTO than Proton-M (almost 11 tonnes vs almost 7), but Proton lifts 10% more to LEO (23 tonnes vs 21).

Do you have a source showing announced LEO capacity for H3? That would settle it. — JFG ^talk 12:01, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

H2B 8t GTO is delta v 1830 m/s. Ariane 5 is launched in north latitude 5 degrees （Earth spinning faster）so its satellite can approach to GEO by 1500 m/s. If Proton is launched in Guyana,its GTO will be 9t. 51 degree inclination LEO(ISS orbit) of Proton is just 19t not 23t.Ariane 5 LEO capacity will increase by HM-7b instead of MBB Aestus.HM-7b is more efficent and higher thrust (so the payload weight is more than 21t ATV) ITO666 (talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sure. Any LEO data on H3 specs? Note that Proton-K launched the 22,776-kg Zvezda module in 2000, and Proton-M is slightly more powerful, so definitely closer to 23 tonnes than 19 towards the ISS orbit. Regarding "Earth spinning faster", that's an advantage of Kourou, but the inclination change has a lot more impact. See how Soyuz rockets launched from Kourou can lift much more into GTO than the same from Baikonur or Vostochny. — JFG ^talk 18:46, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Sources

The weight of Zvezda encased instruments is 22.7t. its lsunch weight is only 20t. Kibo pressured module launch weight is 15.9t and full load weight is near 30t. ITO666 (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Undid missile merges

JFG, I undid a series of your edits related to merging the August and September missile launches over Japan to the main North Korean missile launches article. I would say it seemed to me like most editors are for keeping the August article; I don't know if most editors are for keeping the September article. I'm personally in favor of keeping both articles, as these missile launches were very significant for a variety of reasons. If you would still like to merge the articles, I ask that you open a thread, possibly on the talk page of the main North Korean missile launches article, asking people if they think the articles should be merged. Sincerely, Ethanbas ^(talk) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: I've seen your unmerging, and placed my comments at Talk:August 2017 North Korean missile launch over Japan. Let's discuss there. I'll add a notice at Talk:2017 North Korean missile tests as you suggest. FWIW, I don't see on what basis you can say that "most editors are for keeping the August article", because this does not seem to have been discussed anywhere (unless I missed it). But by all means, let's start to discuss it... — JFG ^talk 16:54, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Archived RfC close

This archived close of an RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page differs to how I remember it - did you change it at all? (Retired editor Wormwood) 193.60.83.75 (talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I haven't touched it, see my closing edit back in April. Are you considering a return to the 'pedia? — JFG ^talk 21:00, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

I just remember it being worded differently - and no, I have no intention of returning. Thanks, 193.60.83.75 (talk) 23:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

NYC Universities

Hi JFG, thank you for your recent signficantly constructive edits on NYC. There's this one edit though that I think is problematic. I didn't realize it at first, but the problem then becomes that there would be no other reason to mention any specific universities in the lede, for WP:UNDUE reasons, and I believe that would be overdoing it. Thinking further about it, I think it's entirely reasonable to place the rankings in the lead section as notable, and it's been thought of as reasonable for a few years now, although we know how well that reasoning has worked out (New York (state) ;). But in all seriousness, university prominence I believe is entirely appropriate and not uncommon in a city article lede. The problem now is that this User Attic Salt, who has somehow just escaped a sockpuppetry investigation even when he/she edits like an experienced autoconfirmed editor and yet their oldest edit is listed as being placed on 22 September 2017, less than one month ago, is doubling down on your edit. Upon thinking about it, do you still feel that way? If so, we'll just have to remove all mention of the universities from the lede, and again, I believe that would be remiss. Castncoot (talk) 00:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

We've reached a compromise in the meantime, thanks. Castncoot (talk) 02:11, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

@Castncoot: Glad it worked out. The compromise seems reasonable. — JFG ^talk 02:41, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Thanks! Castncoot (talk) 03:04, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

‘Limitations of evidence‘ text

Were you still intending on writing some text for this? Here’s hoping the inspiration strikes, Humanengr (talk) 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Not tonight, but thanks for the reminder. Perhaps over the weekend... — JFG ^talk 19:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

List of Presidents

Hi again JFG. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents of the United States at my sandbox. Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Why not have the link to the presidency below their name with the title (Administration), instead of occupying another column and repeating their name. Galobtter (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

Whataboutism

Hello JFG,

I noticed that you were active in a discussion about 'whataboutism' in July this year. It seems that I, logging into Wikipedia only sporadically, again missed to comment when it mattered, when there was a 'Request for Comment.' I'm not very familiar with the procedures on Wikipedia with regards to votes. What's the status of the lede of the article? Does the lede now count as the consensus of the editors? Can the lede be changed without another vote?

I criticised the article back in 2014, and it seems to me that one of my points of criticism still hasn't been addressed: If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)?

As far as I can see, nobody so far has come up with citations from scholarly sources, let alone from before 2008 or even before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe I'm missing something, but all that's provided in in the lede and the section 'Soviet Union Period' were not scholarly sources but newspaper articles resp. opinion pieces. Not exactly the high quality sources you'd expect in an article about a historical topic.

It seems to me the article is misleading the readers in multiple ways. But what can be done about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you want to share them.

Best regards Larkusix (talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Long shipwreck lists

The issue of the length of some shipwreck lists has been raised at my talk page. Not sure if you will get the ping as I added it after the initial reply. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing

Hello, JFG. I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 08:35, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Archinaut has been accepted

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

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Bradv 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Jeffrey C. Mateer

Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Mars Terahertz Microsatellite

Hello. Your latest additions indicate that the Japanese Mars Terahertz Microsatellite will piggy-back on the Emirates Mars Mission, however, neither of those articles state that, and I have found nothing in the web to that effect. Could you please show a reference to that effect? Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

I haven't checked recent sources; however the Emirates Mars Mission is the only mission powered by a Japanese H-2A rocket going to Mars in July 2020. Probably we can find a Japanese-language source confirming the arrangement. @Fukumoto: could you perhaps take a look? — JFG ^talk 16:44, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

By cursory googling, a September article of Sankei News writes that they are intending to seek a ride on NASA or ESA rocket.

• http://www.sankei.com/economy/news/170903/ecn1709030005-n2.html

--Fukumoto (talk) 03:23, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks. Can that article be cited to say either:

• as of September 2017, discussions to arrange for a piggyback on a NASA or ESA primary mission were ongoing."
• as of September 2017, no arrangement for a piggyback on a primary mission had yet been reached."

Or would another turn of phrase best convey the present situation? No mention at all of talks with the H2A-powered Emirates mission? — JFG ^talk 21:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

@Fukumoto: any comment on what we can say at this stage? — JFG ^talk 21:43, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find no further information at the moment. I think the second expression is better. --Fukumoto (talk) 04:29, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

 Done, thank you. I have edited the article accordingly.[17] — JFG ^talk 02:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

re RfC

Thx for the guidance. Given that I have, in effect, asked this question with no response several times from talk page participants in recent discussions, my intent here was to request feedback from a wider audience in advance of suggesting specific changes to the article. Given that DN has responded, would you suggest I remove the RfC template or ?? Humanengr (talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: Please do not interfere in a private conversation.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Humanengr. You get no response when other editors think the question is not germane, that it's passive-aggressive POV-pushing, that it's a leading question, or other unproductive forms of talk page participation. Lots of folks are watching and reading that talk page. When you get no response, it means nobody felt you had a great idea worth honing into article content. Therefore, you should conclude, IMO, that it's time to try a different idea and see whether that one is well-received. And if not, then move on to #'s 3, 4, 5... or go to a different article and try that for awhile. Otherwise, you'll end up with nothing but frustration and disappointment for your efforts. SPECIFICO talk 04:46, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Please stop. Humanengr (talk) 04:51, 12 December 2017 (UTC) Yes, exactly. SPECIFICO talk 05:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Your RfC asks a generic question about international relations, hence my remark to mind the WP:NOTFORUM policy. It's easy to drift into nonproductive discussions on these highly-charged political articles. You also fail to suggest a specific article change. For both these reasons, the formulation does not fit the community's best practices for raising an effective RfC. Indeed, removing the RfC template would feel more appropriate, so that the section would become a simpler discussion to confront your ideas to those of fellow editors, without having a specific article change in mind. Relevant changes may eventually emerge from such confrontation of viewpoints. In addition, some of the questions you are raising seem to apply to the category system rather than to the Russian interference article per se, so they may be better debated on relevant category talk pages or wikiprojects. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

I removed the RfC template. Would the following be more suitable?

[Title:] RfC: Should the bottom navbox include a parent category to accompany the eponymous category "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?

[Intro:] Given that there is a historical record of nations intervening in / interfering in / influencing other nation’s electoral processes (see, e.g., this Oxford Journal article cited as ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention), the omission of a parent category such as ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ (or similar) to the eponymous category yields the distinct impression the current article describes a one-of-a-kind event. This RfC is intended to address that misleading impression.

It is requested that those opposing inclusion of a parent category provide rationale for maintaining a ‘one-of-a-kind’ status. (My questions on this issue in earlier discussion remain unanswered.)

Humanengr (talk) 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

This might turn out not to be needed, depending on discussion pursuant to my latest post on the Talk. Humanengr (talk) 21:49, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Well … perhaps I should proceed as above with some additions from my recent posts. Your thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 23:25, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Apologies for the successive updating. I'm reworking in accordance with guidelines and will handle from here. Thx again for your cmts. Humanengr (talk) 03:47, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Not much to add from my side. If the discussion does not pick up, perhaps editors are just not interested. You're possibly reading too much into the goals of the categorization system. — JFG ^talk 10:20, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump

Hello, JFG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

@Tikuko: This draft was replaced long ago by several timeline articles, no problem deleting it. — JFG ^talk 17:02, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorting things out...

Hi, JFG...I'll be the first to admit I'm a neophyte about CU procedures as evidenced here. Considering there are times when it becomes apparent that editing is not about NPOV & getting the article right, rather it's about how many editors agree with a particular POV/version of right, it only gets worse when you add the cowardess of block evading IPs and socks who are there to pad iVotes and cause even more disruption on the TP. It can be a real pain in the . This one is the most recent for me. The behavioral pattern is one I've seen before as I'm clearly the target. I guess there's nothing that can be done to stop them if they're using a cellphone while traveling, or happen to be stationary using a VPN...or is there? Do you know if WMF ever got around to completing a cost-benefit analysis regarding unregistered users vs registration? ^{Atsme📞📧} 04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks that you learned a lot about SPI and CU processes today! They are indeed not trivial at first sight… In the case that currently bothers you, I would advise you to simply ignore the IP's comments. As explained in WP:SPI, CU investigations are not meant to "out" a particular editor. Egregious socking can usually be identified per WP:DUCK symptoms. In personal disputes and conduct matters, admins will generally request IP commenters to log in before taking their input into account.[18] A cursory glance at the Matt Lauer merge discussions you were involved in shows clear consensus against your position, so it's time to move on to other areas of editing.

Finally, be aware that millions of IPv6 addresses start with "2600:", that is not evidence of anything. To equate two IPs to the same individual, would have to see a much closer match in the address, e.g. a long prefix string, or very clear similarities in behaviour (tone, timing, involvement). Neither was the case when you reported 2600:1005:b10c:…; admins noted in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Block evasion that there was no apparent connection to Kingshowman; sorry I put you wrongly on his track, I was just citing him as a notorious example of the way some persistent block evaders operate (see WP:LTA). Have a great day! — JFG ^talk 08:34, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

PS: No idea about the current WMF position on mandatory log-in. This sounds contrary to Wikipedia's spirit on its face. Vandal-combating tools have improved so much in recent years that IP disruption can be kept in check while allowing good-faith contributors to work on the project and learn. I personally wouldn't support such a drastic step. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Requested move of Stuart Kyle Duncan

Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish ^Talk_Contribs 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)

Hello, you undid my move.

I moved Falcon 9 booster B1029 to Falcon 9 core B1029 and you reverted it, I explained why I moved it in the talk page and provided reasons for it such as they're referred to as cores on the list of falcon 9 launches AND by Spacex who manufactures and launches them YuriGagrin12 (talk) 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

It's not so simple. Journalists sometimes call it a "booster", sometimes a "core", sometimes a "first stage", and our articles mostly use "booster" in various titles, e.g. List of Falcon 9 first-stage boosters. If you believe that "core" is the most-often-used wording, you would have to provide detailed sourcing to prove this, and obtain consensus to change the titles via the WP:move request process. Please read our policy on article titles; it's sometimes hard to choose when there is no obvious common name used in most sources. Hope this helps! — JFG ^talk 03:24, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Thank you, what I was talking about in the articles was in the list of falcon 9 launches it shows on the left Core№ so thats why I thought Could move it. YuriGagrin12 (talk) 03:29, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

No worries. I have also reverted the B1019 and B1021 titles, and left some explanations there. — JFG ^talk 03:32, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks! Did you redirect those pages as well?

 Yes — JFG ^talk 04:23, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

SS-520 rocket

About this revision you recently made to 2017 in spaceflight : 'SS-520-4' is a code name for a specific flight, and not the name for the vehicle's configuration. Officially, there is only one configuration for SS-520, regardless of whether it has two or three stages. In fact, for the SS-520-4 flight, not just the satellite, but the third stage too can be considered as part of the rocket's payload, according to this article.

 「既存の2段式ロケットであるSS-520ロケットに、新規開発の第3段ロケットと超小型衛星からなるペイロードを搭載して、技術実証する」

It translates: conduct technology demonstration on a preexisting two stage rocket SS-520 by loading a payload consisting of a newly developed third stage and miniaturized satellite. In other words, the SS-520 was to 'launch' a rocket stage and a satellite.

If you want to clearly differentiate SS-520-4 and 5 from the other flights of the rocket, calling them SS-520 (three stage variant) is one solution. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

@Hms1103: Many thanks for the clarification. We should definitely change the mention of "SS-520-4" in the infobox of 2017 in spaceflight: because of the English press coverage, I thought it was the maiden flight of the "-4" variant, but we should indeed call it the "three-stage" variant. Does this variant have a particular name in Japanese sources, or is it only described as "a two-stage SS-520 augmented with a third stage"? — JFG ^talk 23:43, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

As the SS-520 uses an S-520 sounding rocket for the first stage, among the space enthusiasts of Japan, a speculative SS-520-based orbital rocket was unofficially called 'SSS-520'. However, the so-called 'SSS-520' differs from SS-520-4 in that instead of adding a third stage on the top, it was theorized to have a new 'zero stage' under the usual SS-520. (An image of what the 'SSS-520' may have looked like) So I will advice against using this name to describe SS-520-4 and 5.

My understanding is that as JAXA has no intentions to serialize the three staged SS-520, they didn't invent a new name for it. Although technically indeed an orbital rocket, it can only reach orbits with extremely low altitude where satellites fall back to Earth within a year (for TRICOM-1, it was expected to remain operational for a month after launch), and it gives a rather rough ride to satellites (the maximum acceleration is 30G), only sturdy, tiny satellites can be launched for it. As there is little market demand for such a rocket (perhaps a few tech demonstration satellites), SS-520-4 was to be both the maiden and final launch for this variant. Only because of its botched flight was SS-520-5 conceived. On a side note, JAXA has encouraged private firms to use this project as a starting point of a commercial small-lift launch vehicle, and as a matter of fact a company was recently founded for exactly this purpose. But that will be a different story, as such an rocket will most likely be one size larger than SS-520-4.

Some Japanese media called SS-520-4 the telephone pole rocket (due to its size), but jokes aside I think the two versions of SS-520 can still be differentiated by context, as the SS-520 orbital rocket, and SS-520 sounding rocket. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Top 50

Hope you soon deliver the annual report's write-ups (after all, the only ones pending are your seven and Soulbust's for Stranger Things) igordebraga ≠ 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, got a long train ride tomorrow; that should help me get my thoughts in shape. — JFG ^talk 01:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Your Melania entry was a good starter, hope the rest of those come up quickly (specially as the year is almost over!) igordebraga ≠ 21:19, 30 December 2017 (UTC)