User talk:JFG/Archive 2019

Heads-up

Right or wrong, I would not recommend reverting a reversion, otherwise you risk falling foul of discretionary sanctions. I suggest self reverting, then taking it to the talk page. I agree with you on Salon being an opinion-based source, and would certainly back your position in this instance. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:15, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Reverting reversions is allowed (but not exactly encouraged) under the new "BRD" discretionary sanctions. The rules were loosened a bit to allow for this type of good-faith editing. ~Awilley (talk) 15:21, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

@Awilley: It's hard to keep on top of all the regs! Just ignore me, JFG. You know what you are doing! -- Scjessey (talk) 19:09, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you and happy 2019! — JFG ^talk 15:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

2 January 2019

I am just writing with regards to the reversion of my edit on the page, List of American supercentenarians as the edit summary didn't really elaborate on the reason(s) for doing so. I am quite under the impression that the reason was because the concerned paragraph appeared to be more focused on a person other than the person who was the primary subject of the section. I also probably should have checked the History section of the article before I started editing as I noticed that another user had edited the same section with regards to the same dispute and it had already been removed before I commenced editing. --Tomcollett (talk) 15:10, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries, thanks for your input. Yes indeed, we should not delve too much into stories about other people when discussing a particular person. — JFG ^talk 15:45, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

GGSE-1

Thank you for manipulating the left-hand image. Can you tell me how to center the text underneath it? --Neopeius (talk) 21:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Moved this to Talk:GGSE-1. — JFG ^talk 15:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Czech Republic template

Hi. because of your edits on Template:Country data Czech Republic, specially this | shortname alias = Czechia, this {{flagcountry|CZE}} returns Czech Republic which is obviously not good in English wikipedia. I don't know if you did it intentionally or that was just a mistake but I think you should fix it. thanks in advance. Mohsen1248 (talk) 22:06, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have reverted the changes. — JFG ^talk 15:44, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign

Hello, JFG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Investigations of collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign".

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. JMHamo (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@JMHamo: Yeah, that's moot, no problem. Plenty of articles cover this topic already. — JFG ^talk 13:01, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Good luck

Years ago I edited the GWBush article and had the most edits to it at one point. There were many many more active editors back then and therefore active contributors to that page, but the ability of most to differentiate between encyclopedia content and news content and to properly make rational NPOV additions that deeply enforced BLP and other policies then was far better than now. Today, the hate filled garbage that is spewed onto the Donald Trump BLP and associated articles has no off valve. Frankly, the obsessiveness of the anti-Trump crowd is the phenomenon, it is also what I find unprecedented. I'm just not able to work collaboratively with people that violate so many fundamental Wikipedia principles and have so low ethical and moral standards that they can lie about their ability to remain neutral on the subject yet post so much hatred and venom and then expect people such as I who did BLP before it was even policy to not see their demands for constant negativity as anything other than pure agenda-driven partisan POV pushing. So I wish you luck in dealing with such people..I find them so loathsome and pathetically sad I must go elsewhere.--MONGO (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks… Americans do love their conspiracy theories; nothing left to say on JFK and 9/11, so we now have Russiagate vs Emailgate. If you think the Trump BLP is bad, take a look at Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections and its talk page. Fascinating stuff! The Soviets had it all planned in 1984! — JFG ^talk 16:24, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

It really looks like something between TDS and PTSD. I mean, no one hardly believed Trump was gonna win. The Hillary supporters all felt it was ironclad that she would be the next President. The level of venom and hatred on display there is mesmerizing and so adolescent. I feel almost like I'm back arguing with the wackos on 9/11 conspiracy theories stuff.--MONGO (talk) 19:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

That is a good point on the 9/11, I bet he had something to do with it... Russia probably helped him pull it off as well. PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Never mind it is already covered.[1][2] PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

From that article: "On September 11, 2001, just hours after terrorists brought down the World Trade Center, Donald Trump seemed to brag that one of his buildings was now the tallest in downtown Manhattan. "I mean, 40 Wall Street actually was the second-tallest building in downtown Manhattan, and it was actually before the World Trade Center the tallest, and then when they built the World Trade Center it became known as the second-tallest, and now it's the tallest," he said.The interview came under scrutiny during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign. Trump's claim that his building was then the tallest in downtown Manhattan wasn't accurate — the nearby 70 Pine Street building is 25 feet taller than Trump's 40 Wall Street, though Trump's building has four more stories"..I hope the "lie-counters" and "truth-crusaders" fully documented this "pants-on-fire" lie about how tall his building was.--MONGO (talk) 19:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

But sources! Millions of them!! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Today's predicament is an inverted 9/11: back then mainstream RS were calm while fringe advocates were jumping up and down. Today mainstream RS encourage the general hysteria, and they love the attention just as much as the Tweeter-in-Chief does. — JFG ^talk 20:32, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Just the Hillary supporters? Trump was just as surprised as the rest of the country..."I went to see my wife. I say, 'Baby, I tell you what. We're not going to win tonight'." soibangla (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

people that violate so many fundamental Wikipedia principles - You mean like this? Hell, your opening comment here is a blatant violation of more than one fundamental Wikipedia principle. I've had it on my user page for years: "Neutrality looks like bias to those who don't recognize their own bias." I'm sorry, MONGO, but you're a prime example, setting a terrible example for less-experienced editors, and a strong candidate for an AP2 topic ban in my opinion. I don't participate much at AE but I'd make an exception for you.
Multiple editors have noticed that Donald Trump gets about as many complaints of pro-Trump bias as of anti-Trump bias—and astutely concluded that we must have it about right. ―Mandruss ☎ 20:14, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

I was reading this in its entirety just now and it's an interesting read and I thought everyone, yourself included, offered some reasonable conclusions. Sorry if I disagreed with your editing proposal but I already struck my one support there since I do not see the article as being fixable. I have harped numerous times that such articles are hopelessly dependent on current event sources. I see no chance a fully neutral article about said person is possible at this time so I must be living in a dream world...only after the passage of time and reflection could such a possibility happen there. Have fun.--MONGO (talk) 20:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

• "all Presidents do this" and "a world leader of unimpeachable qualities such as Donald Trump": unimpeachable: not able to be doubted, questioned, or criticized; entirely trustworthy

In fact, there is no public record of any president doing what Trump has done:

Veterans of past administrations could not recall a precedent for a president meeting alone with an adversary and keeping so many of his own advisers from being briefed on what was said. When they meet with foreign leaders, presidents typically want at least one aide in the room — not just an interpreter — to avoid misunderstandings later. Memorandums of conversation, called Memcons, are drafted and details are shared with officials who have reasons to know what was said. “All five of the presidents whom I worked for, Republicans and Democrats, wanted a word-for-word set of notes, if only to protect the integrity of the American side of the conversation against later manipulation by the Soviets or the Russians,” said Victoria J. Nuland, a career diplomat who worked for Dick Cheney and Hillary Clinton, among others.

soibangla (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Let me know when Trump gets impeached and removed from office. He may even have those three sixes on him somewhere.--MONGO (talk) 00:41, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I find it fascinating that one can assert "all presidents do this," which is flatly, patently, categorically and certifiably false, then in the same breath call Trump "unimpeachable," essentially meaning infallible and god-like, while characterizing as TDS sufferers others who cite countless reliable sources across countless topic areas showing overwhelming objective evidence that Trump is a compulsively lying trainwreck. Since you edited the GWB article back then, you may recall that many considered him to have been "chosen by god" to be president, and Karen Hughes setting him up for this photo op, and they stuck by him as he made one blunder after another blunder after another blunder, until by the time Katrina came along they finally admitted that he had been a trainwreck all along. And then the economy collapsed! soibangla (talk) 01:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Obviously, "unimpeachable" was written in jest. Wikipedians are required to check their prejudice at the door, but are encouraged to bring some levity to potentially acrimonious debates. Funny how "trainwreck Bush" is suddenly a saint now that Trump beat his brother to office. — JFG ^talk 15:31, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Humor is disallowed when we are discussing the second coming of Satan, apparently.--MONGO (talk) 15:59, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I protest: Hitler came second. No, Stalin… errr, Mao. Wait, Pol Pot! — JFG ^talk 16:02, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Much salivating is happening at an article near you. Revelations of stupendous issue have emerged, maybe....maybe not.--MONGO (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah yes, whenever someone says something particularly fascinating, then it's ye olde "it was obviously just a joke! You take everything so seriously! You have no sense of humor!" Indeed, when I first read the editor's posts, I figured they had to be satirical parodies. They weren't. He was deadly serious. Just sayin'. soibangla (talk) 18:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, deadly indeed and you should be around when we are eating beans by the campfire on yet another roundup.--MONGO (talk) 18:27, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Um...well OK then soibangla (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Did you stalk me here? Feel free to express your disdain at my talk as I imagine JFG is not interested in this melee any more.--MONGO (talk) 01:20, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

I'm a gracious host; feel free to debate. — JFG ^talk 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

(486958) 2014 MU69

For now, I have changed the archive period at (486958) 2014 MU69 to 21 days, so that many of the older discussions can be archived. Once this happens, I plan to change it back to 90 days. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019

Hello. It appears your talk page is becoming quite lengthy and is in need of archiving. According to Wikipedia's user talk page guidelines; "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." - this talk page is 158.8 KB. See Help:Archiving a talk page for instructions on how to manually archive your talk page, or to arrange for automatic archiving using a bot. If you have any questions, place a {{help me}} notice on your talk page, or go to the help desk. Thank you. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:22, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I plead the EEng defence, your honour! — JFG ^talk 19:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Bias against Melania Trump

Hello,

I am the person who asked about the unnecessary section regarding Melania Trump’s travel costs in comparison to Michelle Obama’s. You recommended removing it. I do not have the ability to do so, would you mind doing it? Or giving me access to remove it?

Thanks, Lawrencebeesley1912 Lawrencebeesly1912 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

As I wrote in that thread, I'm neutral about including or excluding this information from the article, so I won't touch it. I cannot give you access either, because this article is governed by a WP:semi-protection due to regular vandalism, meaning that only editors with 4 days and 10 contributions to the encyclopedia can edit directly. You already are a registered user, so the easiest way for you to edit this article would be to make a few contributions elsewhere, and your ability to edit this will be triggered automatically. Alternately, you can formulate an edit request on the talk page via the {{Edit semi-protected}} template, upon which another editor can act on your behalf. — JFG ^talk 23:01, 1 February 2019 (UTC)

Zak's published article

Hi, saw you asking Alpha carinae if they had access to Zak's published article on Jeanne Calment. Didn't seem appropriate to mention it there but I'll just say here that if you cared to look, it's possible you might find it on Sci-Hub. Oska (talk) 10:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

True. Thanks! — JFG ^talk 10:12, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Great. Tell me if you couldn't access it.--Alpha carinae (talk) 16:31, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit - your sources please?

Wrong venue

My contribution to "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" under "Reactions" [US Holds Key to Korean Peace] were repeatedly deleted by JFG (and earlier FINNUSERTOP) as "unsourced" and "off topic". JFG, can you please substantiate your actions? You should read the sources (readings) which were attached; there are numerous other available sources too. Your cursory dismissal of these well-known sources is both puzzling and baffling, with due respect. You may have a different take, and I can accept your diverse views and opinions (your sources?). The relevance of the dishonoured or unhonoured Budapest Memo by the US and allies, albeit re Crimea, to any Trump-Kim "Denuclearisation-for-Peace" agreement on the Korean Peninsula is so obviously and abundantly clear, as engaged by multiple sources from 2014 (and I provided the wsj.com source for starter). As a self-appointed editor of Wikipedia, I believe you should allow, and not censor, all shades and spectrum of facts-based arguments instead of just editing/deleting them away. You can of course post helpful rebuttal articles (WITH FACTUAL SOURCES, OF COURSE) to assist readers form 360 degree perspectives of the multi-dimensional issues enmeshed into the DPRK-US relationship. Please read my readings AGAIN, and other very credible articles easily obtained through a simple Google search. I hope to read your rebuttal articles. - written by DrMikoWise. DrMikoWise (talk) 19:40, 12 February 2019 (UTC) DrMikoWise (talk) 19:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC) DrMikoWise (talk) 19:53, 12 February 2019 (UTC) I have nothing to rebut and no personal opinion about the relevance of material you added. I'm just asking you to follow Wikipedia processes, in particular the WP:BRD cycle. This discussion belongs on Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit, where all interested editors will be able to jointly determine the best way to include material that you have suggested and any other commentary. Kind regards, — JFG talk 08:25, 13 February 2019 (UTC) I have no intention to engage in any "edit war", JFG. As you must know, I have only just begun to contribute to Wikipedia. This initial experience has been very disappointing. Your editing actions - "unsourced" and "off topic" - are totally baffling, arbitrary and untransparent, especially for a Commons encyclopedia. I have some experience in writing and editing for top-class refereed journals. You (and all the purported unknown editors? who?) now decided to delete the entire "Reactions" section of the "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit" - why? What's left are just fluff and dry stuff. An encyclopedia should contain much more facts-based, credibly-sourced perspectives - just compare with the Encyclopedia Britannica (assuming you and other self-appointed editors, truly with due respects, would accept it as a gold standard). And you threatened in a message to "ban" me? Sounds very China's and DPRK's intolerance of free speech and diverse thinking, eh? Why/what are you so afraid of in the "Reactions" contents? They provided interesting background information to inform Wikipedia users of the complex issues of the Summit. JFG, you could have simply pointed me to the proper formatting of the contributions instead of brushing it off as "unsourced" (which of course it is not but contained multiple sources) or "off topic" (which indicated that the 'editors' did not read and/or understand the contents and embedded links). And your "best way" to consider the NationalInterest and my materials is to censor/delete them off? Seriously, people? Your latest action WILL discourage other contributions who would have richly added to the Topic in the run-up to the Summit. myEndNote - Wikipedia processes are well-written and respected, but I think they are being abused and misused by "humans" who are knowingly or unknowingly arrogant in their self-importance and un-selfconsciousness of their own bias and prejudice. You DO NOT have to censor or delete multiple & credibly-sourced materials - however disagreeable they may be to you and then some. Just trust your readers' intelligence to form their own conclusions - isn't that's why the Commons and Wiki movements are about? written by: DrMikoWise (talk) 10:43, 13 February 2019 (UTC) The following was first posted in Teahouse. Re-post here for your benefit and immediate response since you first initiated the unreasonable edits which remained UNEXPLAINED. Whither Editorial Intolerance, Lack of Transparency and Accountability - "2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit"? DrMikoWise (talk) 23:39, 13 February 2019 (UTC) [From MarchJuly] Hi DrMikoWise. It appears that you've found Talk:2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit and have started a discussion about this topic there. That's really the best place for a discussion about the content of 2019 North Korea–United States Vietnam Summit since that it where those interested in the subject matter are likely going to be found. In addition, when you're WP:BOLD and make changes to an article which are subsequently reverted by someone else, the general thing to do is follow Wikipedia:Bold, revert, discuss cycle and engage in article talk page discussion. Please try and remember that the ultimate goal is to the improve the overall quality of the article, not to try and have the article reflect our own personal viewpoints, etc., and any disagreements among editors as to how to achieve this goal are expected to be resolved per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. So, you're going to have to establish a consensus in favor of making the changes you want to make by showing how the changes comply with relevant Wikipedia policies and guidelines. If you're not familiar with how article talk pages work, you can find some more information in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines and Help:Talk pages. -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:20, 14 February 2019 (UTC) Thank you, MarchJuly, for the the sensible advisory reminder to one and all. Your fellow editors should also read AGAIN the Wikipedia Guidelines before rushing to judgement and delete the "disputed" content. Acting contrary to your own Wiki-Guidelines, they DID NOT first attempt to edit or improve on the content but simply dismissing it WRONGFULLY as "unsourced" and "off topic". Neither did any of the arrogant self-righteous editors follow the CONSENSUS guideline to "take into account all of the proper concerns raised, (so as) ... to arrive with an absence of objections ...(or) ... settle for as wide an agreement as can be reached". And since "there is (YET) no wide agreement, consensus-building ...(SHOULD)... involve adapting the proposal to bring in dissenters without losing those who accepted the initial proposal". In accordance with the Guidelines, I had in fact "DISCUSSED" why I made the Contribution and then "REVERTED" the wrongful edits, before being threatened with a "BAN" for daring to start an "EDIT WAR". Such behaviors by your editor(s) are reprehensible and should not be condoned by the rest of us who feel more ordinary and less self-righteous. How indeed can you build CONSENSUS, as advised by the Guidelines, when the purported "offending" content have already been removed so arbitrarily by a few editors before any Consensus decision, thereby preventing others from viewing them (with their multiple sources which also contained other multiple embedded sources!) so as to adjudge publication suitability. Up to this very moment, the editor(s) involved HAVE NOT even bothered to explain and shared their thinking driving their rush to "delete" instead of building the recommended "Consensus" in the Wiki-Guidelines. Do the said Wiki-Guidelines NOT apply to these "editors"? Did they have special EXEMPTIONS from the Wiki-Guidelines because of some superior "editor" status? Their stubborn refusal and failure to explain their actions denies critical accountability in editorial decision-making and constitutes a DANGEROUS and blatant disregard for basic and decent human respect accorded to every Wiki Contributor. Suggest the edits be restored for others to read and to debate further HERE so as to build the needed Consensus ... in accordance with the Wiki-Guidelines. The proverbial ball is clearly now in the hands of those few editors (JFG /and others) who are guilty of gross editorial negligence by disregarding Wiki-Guidelines and acting prematurely in haste without first the requisite due diligence and mutual consultations. DrMikoWise (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2019 (UTC) PLEASE RESPOND ASAP IN THE TEAHOUSE, JFG, FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL. DrMikoWise (talk) 08:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Blaine Trump

Hi JFG. Just wanted to let you know that I removed your G4 nomination from Blaine Trump, since the article is considerably expanded compared to the deleted version and cites several sources dated after the last AfD. It will have to go back there. – Joe (talk) 07:05, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I have actually started to help with improvements to the article. No pressing reason to delete it again. — JFG ^talk 19:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Atsme

Re your unblock support, she's not blocked but is asking for a t-ban to be lifted :) --regentspark (comment) 11:54, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. Amended. — JFG ^talk 13:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

CfD closure

If you wish, you're free to follow up on the closure of this CfD discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

Crew Dragon conversion to Cargo Dragon

In the discussion about changing the name of the "Dragon 2" page, you wonder, "Strange that this [source] does not mention removing the launch escape system ... and their[sic] propellant, which make up a lot of useless mass for cargo."

Pure speculation, but I'd bet that SpaceX eventually wants to test propulsive landings on returning cargo flights. If there's nothing in the load that's particularly breakable, parachuting onto land probably isn't a significantly different shock than parachuting into water, so why not see if you can soften the landing? And once NASA sees lots of successful propulsive landings, maybe they change their tune about using it with passengers.

-- Greg Noel 2600:8801:8001:9F00:E073:5268:55FF:D4B8 (talk) 01:55, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

That would be interesting, but NASA usually has important cargo to recover; not sure they'll accept that risk. We'll see. — JFG ^talk 09:48, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Handle it the same way they do first-stage landings: aim for the water just off-shore; if everything is working fine, adjust the landing point on-shore at the last minute. But it's pure speculation, and years away, so I agree that we'll see. -- Greg Noel 2600:8801:8001:9F00:E073:5268:55FF:D4B8 (talk) 11:38, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Thanks a bunch for the work you did putting together the RFC at Talk:List of federal judges appointed by Donald Trump and getting a very productive discussion started. Marquardtika (talk) 15:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Some baklava for you!

Thank you for your diligent assistance in WP SF! Please do join us at the WP SF Discord server -- it's been invaluable for quick reviews and suggestions. Join Server Neopeius (talk) 20:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Trump

I am in the process of de-watchlisting all articles related to candidates for US president in 2020.

Feel free to ping me about my own edits to that article, but otherwise I will not be watching the Donald Trump article, or any other article with his name in the title. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:45, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. May I ask what prompted you to retire from those topics? — JFG ^talk 21:02, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

I live in Iowa and they're already running TV ads here. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:20, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

PHP 7

Hi JFG. I see that you are using the PHP 7 beta. Have you experienced any issues with slow loading of pages or history, or inability to edit on a mobile device?- MrX 🖋 11:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Working without a hitch. Not editing from mobile, so can't comment. — JFG ^talk 12:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

ITN recognition for Beresheet

On 16 April 2019, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Beresheet, which you created. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page.

Stephen 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

What the?

Is this move vandalism? PackMecEng (talk) 02:54, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I wondered that myself. Where is JFG hiding these days? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 11:37, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

@PackMecEng and Atsme: May I know what you are talking about? — JFG ^talk 15:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Apparently Generic username1312 moved your talk page and user page to User:Genericusername but JJMC89 moved you back this morning. PackMecEng (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

What PME said. I wasn't sure if you decided to change your name or what. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:16, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I'd be slightly more creative if I ever changed my name. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

So you are saying you would pick a less generic user name? PackMecEng (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd pick something simple and distinctive like User ^talk or Talk ^talk… — JFG ^talk 06:58, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for correcting my error on 2019 in spaceflight a few hours ago, meant to put the "3 May 2019" not "11 May 2019". — Preceding unsigned comment added by OkayKenji (talk • contribs) 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

Rama Arbitration Case

You were recently listed as a party to a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Evidence. Please add your evidence by May 10, 2019, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Rama/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:41, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Previous listing as a party

My apologies for the above section stating that you are a party. You are not, I made a mistake with the template. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 19:51, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Indeed I am not a party; I just made an uninvolved statement in the case request. — JFG ^talk 04:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Page move

Regarding this, I am allowed to move pages, and we are encouraged to be bold. If you had read my edit summary, you should see that there is no reason for the move to be controversial. According to that page you referenced, there should be no reason for me not to move the page. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I have already notified you of the appropriate process on your talk page. And yes I did read your edit summary; it's simply that not all editors may agree with its substance. Personally I have not given it any thought yet; this was just a procedural revert. Re: there should be no reason for me not to move the page, our WP:RM#CM guideline states that a move request process is recommended whenever "There has been any past debate about the best title for the page" or "Someone could reasonably disagree with the move" – I reckon that both of these clauses apply in this case. — JFG ^talk 22:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. I wasn't aware that this particular aspect of the title had ever been a subject of discussion, but since it has, I'll back off.

Currently the title is inaccurate and not in harmony with the contents of the article. That's the only reason I dropped that word. The title sets up a false expectation that Trump campaign members' contacts with "officials" were the only things investigated, when, in fact, their contacts with numerous Russians were investigated, from oligarchs, Russia FSB and GRU agents, professors, politicians, businessmen, etc. I would guess that most contacts were not with "officials". -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:18, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

You're right about the laundry list of contacts with Russian people, some of whom were officials (Kislyak, Torshin), most of whom were not (real estate people, oligarchs, an activist lawyer, a pop singer), and some of whom are not even Russian (Georgians, Ukrainians, Soviet-born Americans). I believe that the "false expectation" was that the Trump campaign was secretly in cahoots with Putin's minions, and that's why we saw the scaremongering about "Russian officials" throughout the last 3 years. Now that this narrative has been somewhat deflated by the Mueller report, we can surely adjust the article, but I don't think a simple change of title is enough to address the accumulated accusations and dead-end tracks. — JFG ^talk 22:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay. It's good to get your perspective on this. What's the proper procedure now? I'm getting scared to do anything at Wikipedia for fear someone will try to get me in trouble. I was really acting in good faith and not trying to cause any trouble or controversy. I try not to be bold in such situations, preferring to discuss first. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

ec...

I have self-reverted my last two title changes pending resolution.

I have performed hundreds of page moves during my years here, but only on controversial pages have I ever encountered objections, which is why I quickly stopped doing it when there was any chance of controversy. This appeared to be a cut-and-dried situation of obvious need where the encouragement to be bold with page moves justified the change. You are the only one to protest, thus discouraging me from being bold in normally uncontroversial situations. Maybe I misjudged this one, but now we will never know. -- BullRangifer (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

No need to be scared of anything. Just open a move request and present your rationale, then sit back and trust the process. — JFG ^talk 22:44, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I'll give it a try. I don't think I've ever done it before. I've always been bold and nearly always successfully. Feel free to share your views there. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:04, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

In my view the most useful part of WP:RM#CM for the AP2 area is "Use this process if there is any reason to believe a move would be contested" — to which I add "reasonable or otherwise." Except in clear cases of pure cosmetics (spelling, etc), I think it's best to err on the side of too much process in AP2, particularly when we're talking about a process that generally takes just a week to complete. ―Mandruss ☎ 23:07, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree. This will be the safest and most collaborative way to do it. I'll get to it later. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:21, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, y'all. I edited the lede of the article you're discussing here yesterday; now using a faster public wifi connection, btw, than I have at home. Just wanted to state my own preference is for BullRangifer's title, for the reason he articulated in his original edit summary: "Dropping "officials" as the contacts included many types of Russians. This does not change the scope, but brings the title into harmony with the content. Oligarchs, their hangers-on, et. al, need to be included in the article, too. No idea where "there" is, re sharing my views about this, btw, so would be grateful if someone would copy this comment to the appropriate board. Thanks to all for sorting this. 165.225.34.65 (talk) 00:26, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

As soon as BullRangifer opens a move request at Talk:Links between Trump associates and Russian officials, you'll be able to comment there. — JFG ^talk 00:31, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Great moment in wikipedia editing

Lol you use MJ after having your allegedly insidious motives criticized over half the talk page. Classic. Shinealittlelight (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

That's neutrality for you! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ — JFG ^talk 00:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

George Francis minibio at List of American supercentenarians

I've restored the minibio you deleted per the outcome of this deletion discussion. I think it's only proper to seek broader consensus, seeing as the very existence of the minibio was derived from and mandated by community consensus. schetm (talk) 07:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

@Schetm: Thanks for the notice, but I don't think an AfD/merge discussion from 2007 has any strong relevance today. Happy to discuss the removal of this mini-bio on the article's talk page. — JFG ^talk 16:22, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding the appropriate scope of our timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — JFG ^talk 21:37, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

It's eerily satisfactory to notify myself as well as all my fellow editors. — JFG ^talk 21:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Name change on page of Japanese prime minister

I think WP:SPNC does apply here. https://mainichi.jp/english/articles/20190521/p2a/00m/0na/016000c 黄雨伞 (talk) 21:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I have replied on Talk:Shinzō Abe. — JFG ^talk 21:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Copyeditor's Barnstar
	Thanks for fixing the archive links. I almost forgot about the checkmark;) Manabimasu (talk) 21:53, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

table issues

After your indexing edit, it seems that the table wikicode of the oldest living people table is dumped raw into the article in the wikipedia android app, ruining the article... Namiocik (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Oops, thanks for the notice. Will look whether that issue has been reported to the mobile app dev team. I saw other table issues when using other templates, e.g. on 2019 in spaceflight. — JFG ^talk 19:09, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Impact of tariffs

Um, after commenting to MrX in his competing thread, afraid I got my mobi scrolling in this into thread for a few replying to Soibangla before realising that it goes on and on ... So I am reverting my self out, but do you want such individual bits discussed ? Or do you think the thread needs some more direction from you or just hab the whole as a mess now OBE and restart ? Unclear to me now how or If to edit in this thread. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I think the whole thread belongs in Economic policy of the Donald Trump administration and China–United States trade war. But what do I know? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I'm always fascinated by the collective urge to cram news-of-the-day reporting into Trump's biography. Not sure whether this happened with previous presidents. — JFG ^talk 06:19, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Somebody once told me the Trump BLP is being pretty-well maintained with the current processes in place.[3] ―Mandruss ☎ 12:39, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I've asked Soibangla to remove all that grab bag of stuff junking up the section, that he later said was pursuing un-reverting the prior edit, and maybe recraft a language proposal. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:57, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you!

I sincerely appreciate your contribution to the DS/alert annoyance proposal, and helping to get it closer to ARCA approval. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:30, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. Simplifying this drama minefield would be a welcome step. — JFG ^talk 18:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Slate article

Wow, don't you look like the hero in the new Slate article. And you got the last word. Congrats. R2 (bleep) 18:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Re: “When, on the same article, you’ve got a group of editors who say, ‘This is absolutely biased one way,’ and you have another bunch of editors who say, ‘This is absolutely biased the other way,’ that’s when you’re correct.” It's rather easy to get an article to that state. All you have to do is load it up with contradictory POV statements from opposing points of view.

My own standard is when the majority of people in those groups can say, "Meh, I guess that's fair." It's more difficult to get an article to that place, with careful wording, dispassionate tone, and attention to possible implications. It requires a lot of compromise and "writing for the opponent". I don't think the current culture around the Donald Trump article is conducive to this kind of article development at the moment. ~Awilley (talk) 02:34, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

So JFG doesn't get the last word after all? I suppose there is no last word. R2 (bleep) 05:29, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Two articles

Jonathan Chait of New York:

• [4] Mueller: Trump Is Not Not a Criminal
• [5] Conservatives Stunned by Mueller Suggesting Trump Is Not Innocent

Thought you should read these. Cheers, starship.paint (talk) 02:18, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Sadly, the twisted logic in all these statements only fuels political feuds. — JFG ^talk 02:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Geschichte der Gegenwart

I think you're the perfect person to ask about this. Would you consider this to be a reliable source for facts? Self-published, or perhaps an opinion source? Thanks in advance. R2 (bleep) 16:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Interesting, wasn't aware of this publication. It's a political online magazine, it has editorial staff, so I'd consider it RS. Most contributors are faculty members from Swiss and German Universities, so you'd have to consider their bias. The magazine has a page on the German Wikipedia: de:Geschichte der Gegenwart. It states they are funded by donations only, and includes a long list of contributors, almost all notable enough to have their own article. — JFG ^talk 23:20, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

@Ahrtoodeetoo: Looking over some of the articles on that website, it's clear that it primarily publishes opinion essays on politics. Any claims or arguments made in those articles should be attributed to the authors. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:34, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Where I got the idea

See the last sentence in the last paragraph under the subsection "Assertions by medical professionals" - relating to your hat. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Trump footnote

The editsum here is correct, strictly speaking, per the lead at United States Electoral College. But they left it even worse. I'm not sure how to fix it, and hey, you wrote it. ―Mandruss ☎ 19:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

 Done.[6] Thanks for the notice. — JFG ^talk 04:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Question

Will you double check my double checking of the source that was cited for the exceptional claim against The Wall Street Journal? The only thing I can find that WSJ published was an opinion essay by a scientist and a rebuttal letter by the scientist he was questioning. The RfC was closed by a non-admin and I've asked for source that supports the claim to be cited but...well, just take a look at my comment on the WSJ TP whenever you have time please mr. mentor o'mine. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you point me to the relevant edits and discussions? — JFG ^talk 04:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Talk:The Wall Street Journal#Concern over lead - my concern is over the policy vios: (a) opinion stated as fact in WikiVoice, (b) the cited source does not support the material, and (c) there are other sources mentioned in the RfC but those sources are opinions of competitors. I presented valid reasons for my concerns on the TP. I don't consider the WSJ a promoter of anything - it is a RS, a multiple Pulitzer recipient, they publish newsworthy information and opinion pieces authored by experts, and they also publishes letters to the editor and rebuttals by experts. It appears that we're dealing with an "exceptional claim" that requires "exceptional sources" because there is a significant divide within the scientific community. I have no intention of getting into the global warming debate - my focus is accuracy & adherence to NPOV in the lede. I am a member of WP:LEADTEAM. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 13:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I have now read the RfC and your arguments against its conclusion. I think the best course of action would be to open a new RfC, explaining how the previous one was, according to your research, flawed. I'm quite busy IRL at the moment, but I'd be happy to give you my opinion on any wording of such followup RfC that you'd like to draft. I'm not up for drafting it myself. — JFG ^talk 20:22, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Gerneth

I'm challenging the purported consensus on the Gerneth merge. Three support vs. two oppose isn't a ringing endorsement for a merge, and the procedure at WP:ANRFC was not followed. The fully allotted time, per the guideline, should be given, and then a request for a close should be made. schetm (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Answered at Talk:List of German supercentenarians#Merge proposal. — JFG ^talk 08:25, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Biggest bunch of incels contributed to this extremely stupid article

There was no "Russian" interference - you lost, you losers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.241.60.146 (talk) 00:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Template:Trump family

A tag has been placed on Template:Trump family requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion because it is an unused duplicate of another template, or a hard-coded instance of another template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is not actually the same as the other template noted, please consider putting a note on the template's page explaining how this one is different so as to avoid any future mistakes.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 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. --woodensuperman 15:41, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello JFG,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

---

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Donald Trump

Hi JFG. You violated enforced BRD on Donald Trump. The restriction sates:

Enforced BRD: If an edit you make is challenged by reversion you must discuss the issue on the article talk page and wait 24 hours (from the time of the original edit) before reinstating your edit. Partial reverts/reinstatements that reasonably address objections of other editors are preferable to wholesale reverts.

You added the material here, and after I reverted it, you added it again here without discussing it on the talk page.

Also, if you consulted the discussion I linked Talk:Donald Trump/Archive 100#Exercise in my edit summary, you would see that three editors supported the material that I added, while none supported your version. In fact, you cited Trump's tweet(!) while disregarding contradictory facts in other sources.

Please self-revert. Thank you.- MrX 🖋 11:29, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Acknowledged. Your version did not have consensus either. Let's keep both out until the new discussion pans out. — JFG ^talk 11:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my version did have consensus, which I've already proven. If you violate restrictions on this article again, I won't politely warn as I did this time. Respect the boundaries, like everyone else.- MrX 🖋 15:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

No need to be so aggressive. I could as well say "next time you revert an edit you don't like, don't call it a simple "CE" in your editsum", but I won't. — JFG ^talk 16:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

MONGO buttinski time...comeon MrX...take a chill pill.--MONGO (talk) 16:49, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

• Hi JFG. I think this edit summary was rather misleading. You went too far with some of the substantive changes to call that copy editing. R2 (bleep) 19:40, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

  I don't think so, but in any case feel free to WP:SOFIXIT. — JFG ^talk 19:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I can't fix your edit summary. In general, you shouldn't describe a change as copy editing unless it's really, truly copy editing. I'm apparently not the only person who was bothered by this. R2 (bleep) 20:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I'll give it to you that it was a lot of copyediting, including moving a sentence into a different paragraph where it made more sense. I don't think I changed any substantial meaning, though. When I do really trivial copyediting, I mark it as a minor edit, which was not the case here. Also, some of my changes actually restored prior text that I think had better grammar (e.g. "even after they were exonerated by DNA evidence in 2002; Trump maintained this position as late as 2019" instead of "even after being exonerated by DNA evidence in 2002, maintaining this position as late as 2019"). — JFG ^talk 20:39, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Donald Trump

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Donald Trump you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

The article Donald Trump you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Donald Trump for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Barkeep49 -- Barkeep49 (talk) 18:41, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

DS Alert Notice at ARCA

	Your Notice Award
	JFG, thank you for participating in my DS Alert proposal at ARCA, and for volunteering your help. It did not go unnoticed. The resulting motion has been carried and enacted. 😊 Atsme Talk 📧 14:17, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Just tested it out on you, but it looks like it isn't working yet. GoldenRing already modified the template [7] so it looks like it should be working. ~Awilley (talk) 14:42, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

That's because I tested it at the same time you did, and I also made a mistake because the template name is case-sensitive, so we must type {{Ds/aware}}, not {{DS/aware}}. — JFG ^talk 14:59, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

I think it was the typo. I saw the edit conflict, but I also saw the warning template without the extra text. It worked for me just now. Thanks, and sorry about the rogue alert. ~Awilley (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Atsme. So many domains I'm aware of…[8] I must be totally woke by now! — JFG ^talk 15:01, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Wahhhh...I think I broke it. I added the DS template in my custom box, listed all the topics, collapsed it so all that shows is the ugly green bar instead of one that matches my notice box, and then tried to alert myself to ap and it did not trigger that I was already alerted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 17:49, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It should alert you if you try to actually publish the alert, not just upon preview. — JFG ^talk 18:03, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

It saved and published - see revert. I wonder if the filter is seeing the collapsed list in my custom notice? Please feel free to experiment, and then I'll revert it and copy it back so the Arbs know I am aware. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:47, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

The filter is too smart for its own good. If it has been triggered once, even without saving, then it won't warn you the next time. This enables people to actually deliver alerts by saving a second time. If you try alerting yourself to a topic you've never touched, the filter should work. Don't worry, it will still work for other editors who might not have heeded your top-of-page notice. — JFG ^talk 18:53, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

Last question (maybe) - does my alert aware template still work if I put it inside the hide-text brackets? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:00, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Should still work. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

It worked for Mongo, but Montanabw just tried it and she said it didn't work. Maybe she's not using the correct code to trigger it. Is the following the correct template to use? {{Ds/alert|ap}}

I do not see any {{Ds/aware}} tag on Montanabw's talk page. While I was there, I made a note about Elizabeth Williams Berry's purported age. — JFG ^talk 22:39, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah, you mean Montanabw tried an alert on your talk page? For that she must use {{subst:Ds/alert|ap}} or just {{subst:alert|ap}}. Without the "subst", nothing subsists. — JFG ^talk 22:43, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Ah ha!! I'll pass that along. Thx! ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:37, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

Questioning your RFC Close at The Guardian

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think your non admin close at The Guardian was entirely incorrect and baseless to be frank. There were 10 independent editors that clearly voted to delete the political alignment from the infobox. You went against the vast majority of editor's opinion. I question your logic too that you applied? Would you care to elaborate a little further as to how you came to the conclusion you did? Merphee (talk) 11:03, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

I wrote a rather detailed closing statement, precisely because this was a complex case. I don't really see how to elaborate further, unless you have precise questions, which I'd be happy to address. — JFG ^talk 22:26, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like an excellent and well-reasoned close to me. Well done JFG. Yet again showing why you're Wikipedia's preeminent non-admin.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Seconded. El_C 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I third it - very well done analysis leading to what appears to be a rather obvious conclusion based on the comments accompanying the iVotes. 👏👏👏👏 ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The tallying of votes produced the "obvious" and correct solution? cygnis insignis 03:12, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

He didn't "tally votes", he assessed the consensus, but if you disagree with the outcome why not simply unilaterally re-open RfC again as you did here? That's how this process works, right? Endymion.12 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

The tally yielded 10 votes to remove the subjective label from the infobox. The next closest option yielded only 6 votes, yet you went with that option. The process to arrive at the conclusion you did while extensive was highly 'subjective' and based solely on your own personal criteria you chose to use. We are told to follow policy in every other area and there should be policy which applies here when closing an RFC instead of going against the clear and vast majority of independent editor's votes. Merphee (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I stand by my rationale, which explained why a label should be included, and my conclusion is well within policy. If you are still not satisfied with this close, your next recourse is WP:AN. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Rather than just saying your rationale is based on policy could you perhaps show objective evidence of what policy it was based on? Merphee (talk) 00:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The close speaks for itself, and has been endorsed by two experienced admins. I'm not interested in a wikilawyering contest just because you don't like the outcome. — JFG ^talk 02:53, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yet you are unable to show in any way at all how your entirely subjective criteria used to close the RFC and personal point of view was based in any way whatsoever on any actual policy at all here on Wikipedia that we all supposedly edit based purely on Wikipedia policy. Interesting indeed. Merphee (talk) 15:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Again, I'm not required to WP:SATISFY you by entering a policy debate. And rest assured that I have no personal point of view regarding The Guardian's political alignment. Feel free to make your case at WP:AN. — JFG ^talk 15:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not going to do that and still no actual policy or objective criteria would be used or applied to closing the RFC anyway. Have a nice day. Merphee (talk) 00:59, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Enjoy your Sunday as well! — JFG ^talk 07:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

This seems a good place to try and get more eyes on this stuff. Merphee is an absolute bleeding ulcer. Any talk page discussion with them becomes a veritable wall of IDHT; when they claim that Australian newspapers don't have alignment in the infobox, they fail to mention how that happened (answer: because they embarked on a project of boring anyone who disagreed to death). They consistently claim any RFC produced the result they think it should have (as is happening here); on the talkpages of Australian newspapers they then come back and cite those RFCs as support.

They're not an asset to the project; only a tiny fraction of their edits contribute anything, and the overwhelming majority of their edits serve to frustrate, and waste the time of, editors who are here to contribute.

What can be done? Pinkbeast (talk) 14:22, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

The appropriate process to raise grievances about a particularly annoying editor is to expose the case at WP:AN. Beware of potential WP:BOOMERANG though, that crowd is fierce. — JFG ^talk 14:49, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

They've been there before ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive988#Problematic_editing_by_Merphee this) is when I first became aware of Merphee) and other editors have mentioned it, but the characteristic cloud of incoherent protest seems to confuse the issue. Pinkbeast (talk) 14:54, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hah, quite a case of WP:IDHT there! Reminds me of an RfC I just closed… Not much to do, I'm afraid, unless this editor indulges in outré abuse again some day. — JFG ^talk 15:07, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Pinkbeast I realise you and i have had conflict before and you are very angry about losing an argument at another article page. However there is no excuse for this outright baseless personal attack on me as you have done here simply because I disagree with your personal point of view that you try to constantly push into many of our articles. Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith and drop the stick now. This discussion and outcome at the Guardian is over and the close by JFG is accepted. Merphee (talk) 04:52, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Pot. Kettle.... HiLo48 (talk) 06:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh HiLo48 this is the type of childish behaviour and comments when the issue has already been resolved which has almost got you BANNED, not blocked but BANNEd from Wikipedia. Please be civil. Merphee (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

IABot and rescuing sources

Hey there, I'm looking for advice and clarification regarding a recent undo you did. You seem to be a more experienced editor than I am, so I am acting in good faith by constructively discussing this.

I pretty much just discovered IABot today. I had seen it here and there in article revision histories, and I searched "WP:IABot", which redirected me to the bot's userpage. After reading that, I tried it out, and I ended up using it on around 15 different articles. I admit that I was pretty liberal in my usage of the bot functionality. Perhaps I went a bit overboard?

In your edit summary, you mentioned: "Too heavy. Please only rescue dead sources, if any"

I assume that "heavy" refers to the size of the edit? 18,232 bytes do seem like a lot. I did some digging around earlier and briefly looked over articles like WP:LR and WP:CS, but I didn't find any mentions of standard procedure or guidelines regarding using the IABot. The only restriction I found, which was on the IABot website itself, was a maximum of five uses per minute. Let me know if there is an official list of guidelines for IABot usage, or if there is a commonly-accepted community code of conduct.

Overall, I do agree with your decision to undo. 18k+ extra bytes will make an already large article take longer to load. Plus, I think the archives for those articles have already been created anyway, right? Theoretically, they should be preserved in the WaybackMachine. If any of those citations become dead sources in the future, their archives will (hopefully) be there waiting.

Let me know if you have any general advice on when and when not to use the IABot. Thanks in advance, and have a nice day. —Bobbychan193 (talk) 08:36, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bobbychan193: Thanks for your message. IABot is a very nice tool, but the use of the "archive all links" checkbox (or whatever it's called now) is a matter of disagreement and editor taste. Generally, on long articles, there is consensus to "rescue" only those links that need an archive because they are dead. If all links get an archive, the article becomes quite difficult to edit in wikitext mode, and it also becomes unnecessarily heavy in raw transmission and rendering time (we should accommodate people who still have metered Internet access, and not-so-stellar speeds). Not to mention the bludgeoning of the reference section with useless archive links; better let those links that really need an archive stand out from the rest. Hope this helps. — JFG ^talk 08:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks for the clarification. Is there a threshold for what constitutes a long article? Either word count, or page size, or even number of references? —Bobbychan193 (talk) 08:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd use gut feeling. — JFG ^talk 09:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Bobbychan193 see WP:LENGTH ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:36, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Can you understand why I'm pissed?

1. I have a thousand template edits and have been placing Template:Vital article on talk pages for six years, yet I am denied the right to edit protected templates on the strength of a lack of 8 edits.
2. Template:Vital article has never been vandalized despite being a high-profile unprotected template for five years, yet the person who protected it refuses to consider unprotection
3. And in this entire process, everybody (except for maybe you) seems to be treating me with abject distrust

Wikipedia bureaucracy at its finest! pbp 23:49, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

I hear you. If you're already pissed at ordinary Wikipedian bureaucracy, I pray you never get embroiled in WMF bureaucracy!… — JFG ^talk 00:01, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Timelines

My favorite line from the Butina timeline is "Butina tells an American Facebook friend who complained about California's gun restrictions that he should "hold demonstrations" for gun rights." Confirms my long held suspicion that mass shootings in America are probably influenced by (if not directly ordered from) the Kremlin.

The timeline discussion is complex, and I'm not sure I can really suggest the best way to handle all those items. -Darouet (talk) 16:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

"mass shootings in America are probably influenced by the Kremlin". Oh yes, because they helped the current president to be elected and because they have connections with NRA. And BTW, sowing ethnic tensions in the USA was a long-standing approach even by the old-time KGB, as explained in books by historians on the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Exactly: this was precisely J. Edgar Hoover's great insight, that despite his admiration for Martin Luther King Jr., Einstein, and thousands of others, he was forced to spy upon them (with regret), because they fell victim to Russian / Soviet propaganda. "Useful idiots" as always. And the irony goes deeper, again, given what historians have to say about Soviet influence on the development of Jim Crow laws in America, and Catherine the Great's (in)famous lobbying of the founding fathers to keep slavery during the struggle for independence: effectively creating the racial tensions they then exploited. This is probably meant as a joke, but I've even heard people say that Satan, when he took the form of a snake, whispered into Eve's ear in a language resembling Russian, thus creating original sin. No matter how far back you go... Darouet (talk) 17:07, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

"a snake, whispered into Eve's ear in a language ... ". Yes, this is funny. On the other "side", I heard one Russian patriot saying very seriously that the correct historical name of Jerusalem is actually "Rusalem" which proves it belongs to "us", just like Kiev where he said out tanks need to be tomorrow, etc. We have a page about him, he is a talented and well educated man. This is not to justify the deeds by Hoover of course.My very best wishes (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Indeed the whole Butina story is quasi farcical. Regarding timelines, I'm almost done with the draft; take a new look. To me, it's the only way to make sense of this giant spaghetti. — JFG ^talk 17:16, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi @JFG: I actually think the timeline is fascinating, and it's obviously taken a lot of work. One thing that concerns me, since you have asked (😇), is that attribution is not always being maintained in the timeline. Where does this information come from? Who first reported it, and more importantly, what is the original source? It may not surprise you that this has been a concern of mine for some time [9]. For instance in the timeline section that concerns the IRA, you write: "Aleksandra Krylova and Anna Bogacheva, two IRA employees, travel to the U.S. to collect intelligence. Maria Bovda, a third employee, is denied a visa." This is sourced to the Washington Post [10], but really the source is an indictment — that is, a series of formal allegations — prepared by Robert Mueller. Attribution would be important under any circumstances, but on the off chance that Krylova, Bogacheva and Bovda are real people (that is, if we take the allegations seriously), it is especially important that we write about allegations concerning them accurately: we need to note the source of the allegations and attribute properly. Anyway, just my two cents. -Darouet (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Swiss controversy advice

Hi. I would like to ask for your help/advice on Draft:Zava. It is a properly stated conflict of interest contribution. Since you have “de-3” tag on your profile, I assume that you know German well enough and can give an advice on how to improve the part about Zava launch in Switzerland. There was a controversy around it that is currently not present in the article because I couldn’t draft the right phrasing (I am not a German speaker and Google translate is unreliable). Can you please tell what was the controversy about and what would be the right phrase to describe it? These two articles cover it (Blick, Ktipp). My original wording was On June 20, 2012, DrEd was launched in Switzerland, where it faced opposition from local cantonal pharmacy supervisors, but I am not sure that this is the right description. Thank you in advance. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:52, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bbarmadillo: The Blick article explains that upon launch, a cantonal pharmacy supervisor (in Solothurn, where DrEd had enlisted a local pharmacy delivery service) complained that it was not possible to mix telemedicine with retail service. The prescriptions issued from London by a Swiss-registered doctor were considered valid. In reaction, DrEd offered to deliver the prescribed medications from Germany, if the client so wished. The article further notes that this setup would not allow the Swiss health insurance companies to directly pay the pharmacy (but the patients would likely be reimbursed after sending the receipts – my note), and that medicine would have German packaging instead of the Swiss one (losing the multilingual notices – my note). All in all, it did not look like a major issue. I don't have access to the Ktipp article, which sits behind a paywall. That was the 2012 situation. For more recent developments, the German article has more detail, especially about the acceptance of telemedicine in Germany. As of today, DrEd Schweiz delivers medications from a Swiss pharmacy.[11] I also noticed that the Swiss pages of the DrEd/Zava site have a notice informing clients that the service for Swiss clients will stop on 7 September 2019. No idea whether it's because of a legal issue or a simple business decision. — JFG ^talk 23:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Thanks a lot for taking your time to look into it. So it was business as usual, nothing special. I guess, in this case the current factual information about the date of launch in Switzerland is enough. Can you, please, also take a look at the Austrian part of the article? I feel that the wording in this part can be more exact, but again I encounter language, translation limitations. In January 2013, Austrian consumer magazine Konsument tested DrEd.com ordering a prescription for a malaria drug and a Gonorrhea treatment. The verdict was negative. Konsument, Der Standard. What should be said instead of negative? --Bbarmadillo (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I have now read the Konsument report, from 2013, and can confirm they rated the service as globally negative. There is no reason to sugar-coat it, unless other credible sources provide a better rating. Specifically, the consumer magazine noted that the online doctor "comically" advised a sex worker of the need to inform her sexual partners of the last three months about her STD infection. Apparently Austrian law also requires the doctor to inform the sanitary authorities of any case of STDs where a greater risk to public health might be expected, which should have been the case here. Granted, the magazine may have been pushing it by picking this particular example as a test patient. In another case, they asked about malaria prevention for a trip to Ethiopia, and they complained that the online doctor gave them an "unnecessary" preventive treatment, because their test patient was supposed to travel only above 2500 meters altitude, where the disease was not present. Again, this specific test case maybe pushing it, and I'm not sure a regular in-person doctor visit would have avoided this kind of over-protection (personal note: I have received all kinds of contradictory advice on malaria prevention when traveling to various African nations). Still, the consumer magazine concludes that Austrian patients should absolutely avoid DrEd or any online medicine service, because they "cannot replace the personal meeting between doctor and patient". Wearing my Wikipedian hat, I would advise you to report the negative rating, while attributing it to Konsument; that seems to be what the article already says, but perhaps the wording can be improved. — JFG ^talk 01:17, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your advice! I've edited the article accordingly. --Bbarmadillo (talk) 16:57, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of C.G. Jung House Museum

Hello! Your submission of C.G. Jung House Museum at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Now promoted, thx. — JFG ^talk 11:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

DYK for C. G. Jung House Museum

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Undiscussed merger

Could you explain the basis for your merger of Everything Trump Touches Dies into Rick Wilson (political consultant)? The book is described as being on a well-regarded best-seller list and has/had several cited critical commentaries about it. DMacks (talk) 02:00, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@DMacks: It's been a while; I had to look through archives. Basically the book article had only a couple lines,[12] so it was a case of WP:PAGEDECIDE. — JFG ^talk 20:45, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for checking up on it! DMacks (talk) 03:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello JFG,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion

• Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
• Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.

Not English

• A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.

Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Just fyi

Keeping our discussion in mind, I massaged the {{Requested move/end}} template until it would do as you suggested. It can now display the full outcome of the RM discussion with the same effort as past procedures. Was easier than I thought it would be. See here and here for examples. Thank you for the inspiration! P. I. Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there 20:12, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Category:Parodies of Donald Trump in South Park has been nominated for discussion

Category:Parodies of Donald Trump in South Park, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. SanAnMan (talk) 16:44, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

That category was kept. — JFG ^talk 09:11, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

DS Violation at Donald Trump

Baseless accusations
The following discussion has been closed by JFG. Please do not modify it.
After a talk page discussion among several editors, in which the distinctions among versions were discussed and tested against the hatted text from the Mueller Report previously posted on the talk page, you declined to participate in talk discussion and instead repeated your previous revert. That is a violation of the 24-hour Enforced BRD requirement for discussion. Instead of engaging in the extended talk page discussion of your previous revert, you made what appears to be an American-style "CYA" appearance at talk minutes before repeating your revert without discussion. Please undo your recent revert and engage on talk if you disagree. I suggest you give a careful read to the talk page discussion and the quote from Mueller about the legal standard. This is a required warning under DS. SPECIFICO talk 03:12, 7 October 2019 (UTC) Diffs?--MONGO (talk) 05:32, 7 October 2019 (UTC) I explained my edit on the talk page,[13] and I can see no violation on my part. Conversely, you introduced "per talk" a verbiage that was never proposed on the talk page.[14] I don't care if that's a DS violation, but it certainly is not a proper way to introduce changes to high-profile sentences currently under discussion. Earlier on this same sentence, you labeled "ce" a significant change of meaning,[15] for which I called you out.[16] Please be more honest with your edit summaries in the future. — JFG talk 06:53, 7 October 2019 (UTC) To be fair, I think it's reasonable to assume that the "per talk" edit summary was a reference to the general thrust of SPECIFICO's arguments in the "Establish facts vs. prosecute crimes" talkpage subsection, and not a specific proposed wording. ~Awilley (talk) 04:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC) Another DS violation here [17]. You reinstated an edit of yours without engaging on talk. Please self-revert and engage in a real talk page discussion of the issues several editors have raised wrt "your" version. @Symmachus Auxiliarus: @Awilley:. SPECIFICO talk 22:31, 10 October 2019 (UTC) SPECIFICO, you need at least two diffs to prove a violation. One of JFG's original edit, and one of JFG reinstating that edit within 24 hours or without discussing on talk. ~Awilley (talk) 00:03, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Hello Awilley. Sorry, when I started writing I hadn't planned to ping you and I knew JFG was aware of the sequence. Edit (there was at least one prior revert, but here's the sequence w/o talk page comment: [18] and [19]. The POV that has been discussed on talk, and which JFG's edits continue to insinuate is out-of-context language that readers could take to confirm Trump's "no collusion" claims. At any rate, the diffs speak for themselves. It's disappointing that JFG has reverted over and over to sustain "his" language without ever addressing the issue that's been identified on talk. The closest he ever came was to declare the straw man that he was quoting "Mueller's language" -- which was never in dispute and was not the subject of any disagreement. SPECIFICO talk 00:16, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Here is the talk page over that span. [20] OK, but those diffs are reverts of two different things. One removes "found that it could not assemble sufficient evidence to prosecute them under the legal framework of conspiracy" and the other removes "but found that the Trump campaign welcomed the foreign interference under the belief that it was politically advantageous" Those aren't the same thing. And the diffs are 4 days apart so 1RR isn't an issue. ~Awilley (talk) 01:37, 11 October 2019 (UTC) They don't need to be reverts the same thing for a violation to occur, but indeed, they do need to be more-or-less within the 24-hour time frame. El_C 01:42, 11 October 2019 (UTC) For 1RR it doesn't matter if the reverts are the same thing. With the BRD sanction (and the former consensus required sanction) it can matter if they are reverts of the same thing. ~Awilley (talk) 01:51, 11 October 2019 (UTC) Only on consensus required would that be an issue, with the BRD sanction, it is also limited to a 24 hour wait, anyway — no? El_C 01:59, 11 October 2019 (UTC) The issue is the same. It's one that was explained on a talk page thread, to wit, that although Mueller used the word "establish" he did not act as a fact-finder to establish a narrative of events, such as the Warren Commission or 9-11 Commission did. Mueller's mandate was a prosecutor's mandate and his use of establish, i.e. establish a basis for criminal prosecution, is not adequately represented by the short version of "establish" that JFG has edited into the article at least 3 times, twice by reverts. Yes, he did revert the same thing the past 2 times. It's the issue raised on talk. He nominally appeared at Talk a few minutes before the first revert linked above -- only to declare that he was about to revert, citing the non-disputed straw man of Mueller's own words. The issue is that he did not discuss (in any sense) on talk between the 2 reverts linked above, both of which relate to removing content about prosecution and Mueller's not having found the basis for charging a crime -- as opposed to only stating "not establish" which gives the impression of confirming Trump's "no collusion". @ZiplineWhy: added the contextualizing language after JFG reverted my attempt to clarify the distinction. This is the way Enforced BRD is supposed to work, with improved versions being offered. It is no defense that the same exact wording was not reverted. The substance, meaning, and talk page issue was the same in each of JFG's at least 3 reverts. SPECIFICO talk 02:41, 11 October 2019 (UTC) @SPECIFICO, please drop it. Drop what? He restored the text to his version without going to talk. Awilley you have not addressed the crux. Edit warring is not about the text that is removed. It is about the version to which it's reverted, i.e. an editor repeatedly reinstating his preferred version. In fact it's more disruptive when the reverts are removals of various editors attempts to find differing versions of improved language. Moreover if your BRD sanction can be gamed by reverting to slightly different wording then it is not a viable sanction. SPECIFICO talk 04:02, 11 October 2019 (UTC) @El_C, under the BRD sanction, editors are required to wait 24 hours and discuss on the talk page before reinstating an edit of theirs that has been reverted. So if JFG had reverted the same edit twice without discussing on talk that would be a violation, even if more than 24 hours had passed. (The example above was not a violation because the two reverts were not of the same content.) ~Awilley (talk) 03:06, 11 October 2019 (UTC) JFG had said I explained my edit on the talk page, so I already assumed that requirement to have been fulfilled. But I can see how my statement could be unclear and I understand yours better now, so thanks for that. El_C 03:18, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you

Belated thanks for the kind barnstar. It's exactly what I needed to lift my spirits after receiving a less welcoming response from another wikiproject. I'm heartened to see everyone pulling in the same direction, and feel confident that the year pages have a working and reasonably future-proof framework in place, Certes (talk) 09:01, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Top 25

Your reports were consistently entertaining, hope you find some time to do one until the year ends (not necessarily the next), if only to guarantee a spot among the writers of the Yearly Report. igordebraga ≠ 00:28, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Still too busy IRL to commit to anything, but I took to heart the lesson of my previous attempt, and will only work on a report if I'm confident I can finish it in one sitting. — JFG ^talk 09:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Will you do the report you claimed? igordebraga ≠ 02:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes: will be posted this afternoon. — JFG ^talk 07:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Moving to tomorrow morning, sorry about that, just FYI. — JFG ^talk 22:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Come on man, weren't you writing it offline? At least the 5000 hasn't come out yet and you can still delivers the late one whenever you can. igordebraga ≠ 17:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello JFG,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 816 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools

• It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
• It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.

Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes

• Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
• Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.

Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

---

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Pedantic writing point #41

No particular objection to this comma, but it's not an Oxford comma. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Oh, I see: this is not a serial comma separating three or more conjoined items in a list, rather it just separates two conjoined statements. Learning something every day! — JFG ^talk 10:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

I was fairly confident you would take that in the spirit intended, or I wouldn't have said it. Here's to knowledge. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Again! [21] ―Mandruss ☎ 22:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

D'oh! — JFG ^talk 07:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

Too funny! Thanks for the laugh, guys. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I think I just discovered I'm attracted to the word "pedantic". That's what brought me here. Now, that's funny too! ---Steve Quinn (talk) 07:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

A survey to improve the community consultation outreach process

Hello!

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking to improve the community consultation outreach process for Foundation policies, and we are interested in why you didn't participate in a recent consultation that followed a community discussion you’ve been part of.

Please fill out this short survey to help us improve our community consultation process for the future. It should only take about three minutes.

The privacy policy for this survey is here. This survey is a one-off request from us related to this unique topic.

Thank you for your participation, Kbrown (WMF) 10:44, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:04, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Three-digit years

Thanks for getting this change moving. I've been saying for years (or perhaps "against years") that these base name articles do not describe their primary topics. I think we have enough RMs going for now and this might be a good time to wait for the verdicts, DABTESTs and a possible RfC. Based on page views, other good candidates for the future would be 118, 108 and 143. Based on incoming links we have 108 again, 145 and 131, though 145 is padded by {{Sailing dinghies and skiffs}}. I've only looked at 1xx so far, as these numbers seem more likely to be used for other purposes and less likely to be historically significant years. Certes (talk) 14:14, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Certes. The most obvious examples of non-primary 3-gidit years are being addressed, and usually enjoy unanimous support for moving to a dab page. For now, I'm leaning against a generic move, but that could change. An especially troublesome factor for me in the longstanding convention of assigning years as primary topics for most 3-digit numbers is that those years were generally not known by that numbering at the time they occurred. For specific suggestions, please add them to User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB. — JFG ^talk 17:04, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

There were no notable years between 55 BC and 1066 AD per this textbook, which is a strikingly accurate misrepresentation of history teaching in British schools up to at least the 1960s. It was extraordinarily parochial: the Continent simply didn't exist unless we were fighting someone, and not always then (especially not if we had lost). I wasn't taught about anything later than 1707 (union between England and Scotland - and no discussion as to why it took place)!

The «3-digit posse» seems to be working well together: there's a broad consensus as to what WP:POLICY ought to be. Je vous remercie pour votre travail sur ce sujet. Narky Blert (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Certes, Narky Blert, and Paintspot: a way we could deal with the 101-200 numbers is I go through that list and specify in batches (out of say 25 numbers at a time) which ones should probably be disambiguated and I provide a list of them at User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB, then any that anyone thinks shouldn't be moved or deserves a full RM can be listed at RM and those that aren't objected within a week can go to RMT (and if any are contested there they can also go to RM). A notification and a ping to the 3-digit RM posse could then be placed at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Numbers. I'm thinking I will go through the 101-200 numbers as noted above and having batch 1 of 101-125 requiring moving, batch 2 of 126-150, batch 3 of 151-175 and batch 4 of 176-200, then any others that people can think of (as well as those already listed on my subpage) could also go in the next batch. This would cut down on the clutter and repeated debates of those that are not controversial or otherwise satisfy WP:SNOW especially since so far no requests to put the DAB at the base name have so far failed. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Crouch, Swale: That sounds like an excellent idea, if you're prepared to put the work in: it's a systematic approach. The posse could just post brief comments on your dedicated page, rather than having to remember full details of what we said last time. I imagine we all know each other's arguments by now. There have indeed been several heavy SNOWfalls. Narky Blert (talk) 17:43, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the additional suggestions Certes but 3 of those are outside the 101-125 batch, so I'll asses/list them next week. I've started User:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB#Batch 1 (101-125) and added the relevant hatnotes. However I've only done up to 114, I'll probably finish up to 125 tomorrow and then I'll ping everyone and notify the wikiproject, then the 7 days can begin. Out of the ones I've currently assessed all have 4 or more topics but only 108 and 109 have DAB pages, the others just have hatnotes, in all cases the number has more views than the year so its not primary even in a WP:2DABS situation. Any comments on there can go at User talk:Crouch, Swale/Year DAB but as noted I'll complete and start it tomorrow. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

"Interplanetary Transport System" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Interplanetary Transport System. Since you had some involvement with the Interplanetary Transport System redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. --Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 04:55, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

It’s that time of year!

Christmas tree worm, (Spirobranchus gigantic) Atsme Talk 📧 16:31, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
	Time To Spread A Little HappyHolidayCheer!!
	I decorated a special kind of Christmas tree in the spirit of the season. What's especially nice about this digitized version: *it doesn't need water *won't catch fire *and batteries aren't required.
	Have a very Merry Christmas – Happy Hanukkah‼️ and a prosperous New Year!! 🍸🎁 🎉

Gee, a Christmas worm? Whatever rocks your boat… — JFG ^talk 18:14, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

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

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Space debris

Hi JFG. I've got an idea to float, and a request to possibly collaborate on adding a table (and maybe graphs too) to improve an article. That article is "Space debris", an article I note you've edited a few times in the last three years. In fact, I just noticed in the past thirty minutes that you updated the total debris count in 2016, which was the last time the debris counts in that article was updated before I updated it 8 or 12 hours ago, in late 2019 (as I noticed earlier that I was updating 2016 info and sources). That's what gave me the idea to write you.

As you know, the active satellite count will be rising rapidly over the next five to eight years. Hopefully, the derelict count of human-made space debris won't be rising as rapidly.  :) I've observed you do a lot of awesome work on spaceflight-related topics with tables and graphs... and thus, an idea was born.

But either way, I found a good source for some historical debris counts, and was thinking that possibly a table with a yearly count (if we can find reliable sources for the older years) might be a very good thing. We could, perhaps, add total debris tracked by the US sources (which publish "most" of it; they seem to keep a few classified things off the list, but the amateur skywatchers have datasets that may fill in some of that info too); but other global sources for these data would be welcome as well. I picture that a table might be a good addition to the "Debris growth" historical section of the article. We could start with just trying to fill in, say, every five years or so back into the 1950s mists of early spaceflight technology as humans came to possess that technology.

Whadayathink? Would this topic be of any interest to you?

Cheers. N2e (talk) 02:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, good idea, I'd be happy to work on it with you. Where are your sources? — JFG ^talk 22:40, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

The two most current, and regularly produced, are the Union of Concerned Scientists for active sats and the NASA orbital debris office quarterly newsletters for total debris count. If I'm right, you used these two for the 2016 data, and I used updates of them for the 2019 update I just put it. But they both seem to have regular series that we could use both for a good bit of back history (since c. 2000 or so), and also have regular updates to keep the article current. I used a couple of years of those, in prose, in a section called Space debris#Debris history in particular years, which might be where such a table would fit. Rename it better if you think of something better.

Importantly, depending on what you think, we might also potentially be able to start a column on exploding second stages 'cause a} those are still all too common (three Delta Centaur SS breakups in just the past couple of years) and b) something that the NASA orbital debris newsletter reports on (it appears) very regularly. Moreover, it seems to me that those many-debris-object breakups are rather clearly poor engineering and lack of taking responsibility by the creator of the space pollution in the first place: the launch service provider and (if, say, a military mission), the country that launched the rocket body and left it up there. With the NASA coverage in their orbital debris newsletter, Wikipedia could grow to present a(n increasingly) good picture of what is going on in that class of major debris, and whether it is getting better over time, and which creators of the debris are (still, in the recent past) creating such a negative externality and pollution for all.

If and as we start working on it, I suspect we'll also find the ESA Debris office a good source, and maybe also Harvard/Smithsonian astrophysicist Jonathan McDowell's sat report website as a good source. If we are lucky, we'll find the Indian gvmt, Chinese gvmt, Russian gvmt might also have and release public debris data; maye JAXA as well. I've not checked any of those, but would be really cool to keep as global as possible.

All good sources. I would add the SATCAT database which tracks debris back to their source event, and regularly updates counts. Much of it is then compiled into the NASA quarterly newsletters, but still it would be a good source for prose or tables describing spent stage explosions. — JFG ^talk 16:14, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Yup. And I ran into a 2001 "History of On-Orbit Satellite Fragmentations" paper that is cited in [http://www.pollutionissues.com/Re-Sy/Space-Pollution.html this source], today. Have not read the source yet, but that might be good to help source debris in the early decades of spaceflight, before the NASA orbital debris newsletter vol. 1 even got put together circa 2000. It looks great for breaking up the "operational" (derelict satellites and rocket bodies) from the fragmentation debris, where the latter seems to be a LOT larger percentage of the total debris by 2001.

I think it is going to be very helpful to develop a really solid set of summarized encyclopedic info on the debris over the history of spaceflight. N2e (talk) 04:42, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

The countdown

JFG, you are the perfect mentor. Thanks for all you do, and for investing the effort to build a quality encyclopedia!	2020!!
	Out with the old, in with the new!! I'll remember 2019 like it was yesterday! Remember, a New Year's resolution is something that goes in one year and out the other. Definition of a hangover: Wrath of Grapes. What kind of doctor fixes broken websites? A URLologist. 🎉🥂🍾🎊 Atsme Talk 📧 13:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Mmhhh... Fireworks from the 4th of July 2014? Bad sourcing, my friend… — JFG ^talk 08:28, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

😂...granted, my memory is a little faulty BUT, considering I uploaded the video in June 2014, and simply called it 4th of July for whatever reason, I'd be willing to bet $$ that it's New Year's fireworks. My fragmented memory recalls bits of watching the fireworks from a rooftop when I was staying at The Horseshoe Casino in Shreveport, LA on New Year's Eve, 2013. I was basking in the rewards of a freak 8-month winning streak that brought fun rewards including jet transport, limo service, free cruises, wide screen television sets, free hotel stays with free food & wine, nearly a grand in free chips each visit, and so on. I'll add that the losing streak that followed was quite an awakening! Lesson well learned. 😳