Hmm....what's your source on that the Soyuz-U variant has been retired? According to sources at NASASpaceflight.com and Novosti Kosmonavtiki, there are at least 3 more Soyuz-U left to fly (for Progress MS-3/4/5). They even have the serial numbers of the rockets left to fly..... Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 10:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, seems I was a bit quick in my eulogy for Soyuz-U :) -- 2016 in spaceflight listed the future Progress MS-3/4/5 flights on Soyuz-2.1a like the first two; I didn't go back to check sources. Let me rephrase accordingly. — JFG ^talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG. Thanks for edits to the list. All NAVSTAR satellites are designed with apogee propulsion system, except for GPS IIF. See http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-2f.htm and http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/navstar-3.htm. All PAM-D upper stages (for IIR and IIRM series, e.g. http://www.n2yo.com/browse/?y=2000&m=7) have decayed, while Centaur/DCCS still stay on the graveyard orbit. @JFG: PSR B1937+21 (talk) 15:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JFG. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, and move subpages when moving the parent page(s).

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

• Wikipedia:Requested moves
• Category:Articles to be moved, for article renaming requests awaiting action.

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, post here, or just let me know. Thank you, and happy editing! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• P.S. Congratulations on being the first user to be officially granted this right! — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 20:13, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Coffee, I feel so privileged, just took a screen grab for posterity Seriously, many thanks for this initiative, which will surely fluidify the inner workings of the encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 20:19, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering who the first "real" person with this would be! I think we've got most of the technical bugs worked out - but if you hit anything odd in logs, etc please let us know. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

I just got started on the backlog with Catholic Church in Nigeria, worked fine; I'll keep you posted if I stumble on any issues. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

bold mettā

Thank you for quality contributions to articles, beginning with Paul Otlet, for clarifying the meanings of epoch, for redirects and page moves, unifying for example the pirate parties, for advocating compromise, - user of European languages and Japanese, boldly spreading mettā, you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:56, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Current Events Barnstar
		For timely current data updates to (and consensus building at) Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Guy1890 (talk) 05:41, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Guy1890: Thank you; I am truly humbled and honoured by your award. This episode was indeed a quite interesting exercise in sticking to facts and keeping a cool head. Funny how some editors' passion easily turns into paranoia. Thanks for your help in keeping things sane as well. — JFG ^talk 07:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Your account has been granted the "templateeditor" user permission, allowing you to edit templates and modules that have been protected with template protection. It also allows you to bypass the title blacklist, giving you the ability to create and edit editnotices. Before you use this user right, please read Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

You can use this user right to perform maintenance, answer edit requests, and make any other simple and generally uncontroversial edits to templates, modules, and edinotices. You can also use it to enact more complex or controversial edits, after those edits are first made to a test sandbox, and their technical reliability as well as their consensus among other informed editors has been established. If you are willing to process edit requests on templates and modules, keep in mind that you are taking responsibility to ensure the edits have consensus and are technically sound.

This user right gives you access to some of Wikipedia's most important templates and modules; it is critical that you edit them wisely and that you only make edits that are backed up by consensus. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

Useful links

• All template-protected pages
• User:AnomieBOT/TPERTable – outstanding template-protected edit requests (bot-generated)
• Request fully-protected templates or modules be downgraded to template protection

Happy template editing! –Darkwind (talk) 06:55, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Darkwind, I'll be sure to use the privilege wisely. — JFG ^talk 07:04, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In the spaceflight by the years articles, the usual practice as far as I know (which is shared with all the websites dealing with such statistics, such as http://planet4589.org/space/) is that only problems related to launch vehicles that caused the spacecraft to miss its target orbit or suffer from serious damage would be counted towards any kind of failures. Problems with the spacecraft itself would not count (see e.g. the Fobos-Grunt case).

Besides, I don't see anything that shows the problem to be non-salvageable at this moment (see e.g. http://spaceflightnow.com/2016/08/02/navy-looks-for-plan-b-to-salvage-its-newest-communications-satellite/), so I'm not sure your wording in the 2016 in spaceflight article is warranted. Galactic Penguin SST (talk) 14:09, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Galactic Penguin SST, you are correct, this is a similar case to Fobos-Grun. In fact I added a long comment to clarify that the rocket was not at fault, but the stats should remain untouched; I'll revert myself on the timeline of spaceflight graph as well. Maybe we should place a note in the page explaining what is considered a failure or partial failure, in the same way as we had to explain sometimes what is and is not a spaceflight.

On MUOS-5 being salvageable, my money is rather on the army finding a creative way to use the bird in its present orbit, given the rather large ∂v requirements to move it to GSO if they can only rely on attitude-control thrusters. That would be similar to what happened to AMC-14 or Galileo FOC 1+2. — JFG ^talk 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, there appears to be rough consensus at the RfC you opened. I personally still don't believe in the moves actually, but it looks like they will proceed, and a potential closer will likely judge that as well. Most of the templates that should undergo changes are reasonably mentioned in the RfC afaik. I'm planning on being on semi-wikibreak in the next month or so (I'll see how that goes), so I don't know if I'll have the time to enact or properly oversee the move transition and template changes. Would you be willing to to implement the conditional logic to the year nav/dab templates? I'll be around some time I guess, and let me know if you wanted a second opinion on something — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 16:31, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the notice. I'm happy to see that consensus is forming there. We still have about a week until closing (30 days from 19 August). I'll be quite busy myself at that time, so assuming the move is approved, we should work with the closer and any other volunteers to apply the prerequisite changes to templates. It looks like there will be a debate on the titling of year pages so that would buy us time as well. WP:No deadline helps. Perhaps before you leave you could suggest an exact sequence of steps to be taken, and I can review it? When that process is settled, I don't worry about implementation. — JFG ^talk 17:18, 13 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: In the Talk:1 RFC, I see that you recently stroke your "(for now)" but still have an "oppose" !vote bolded. Do you really mean to oppose? — JFG ^talk 17:16, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, yes I do mean it, still mostly per the technical concerns. I share similar feelings with some editors who think this is a solution in search of a problem. Though if the eventual closer closes the request as having consensus, that's okay by me. I'll help out if I can. Currently, I'm worried that the closer says, "move the pages", and people start acting on them, breaking nav/dab links. I'm not enthusiastic about hatching out a technical plan until the RFC closes in favor — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:41, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. Let's see what happens. — JFG ^talk 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment. Have you visited The Museums?? EEng 15:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wow EEng, your love for Trump knows no boundaries! — JFG ^talk 15:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It got over-ridden in an (edit conflict), but please discuss your (rightfully) bold changes on talk. Thanks ;)Lihaas (talk) 01:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, let's talk there. — JFG ^talk 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I noticed your edit comment on one of the Falcon articles about engine burns. All first stage reentry burns use 3 engines.

The landing burns can either be done with 1 engine or 3 engines. 1 engine burns are safer - especially on the ocean - because they allow impact speed to be picked with greater precision (which optimally should be 0 m/s). Imagine a rocket coming in for a landing while the drone ship is rocking on 15 foot waves. If the boat is swinging up toward the rocket, the rocket needs to rapidly adjust its speed so that it doesn't crash into the deck of the ship.

However, 1 engine burns use much more fuel than 3 engine burns. They use 1/3 the fuel per unit of time (of course. One engine lit compared to three), but they have to burn for much more than three times longer than a three engine burn due to extra gravity losses. 3 engine burns on the other hand minimize gravity losses, but allow so little margin for error when coming in for a landing that the stage often lands hard, damaging the legs or even weakening the structural integrity of the whole stage if the landing is too hard. — Gopher65_talk 03:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Gopher65: This explanation makes total sense, thanks for taking the time to message me. Have you found some sourcing other than Reddit in the meantime? — JFG ^talk 10:14, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG. Saw you undid yesterday my edits to this, questioning my source. I had put the source at the start of the table to refer to the whole table (is there a better way to do this?) which you (presumably) took to mean the source was for the first column (Name) only. So, I have reinstated my edits with the source (SES) on each column to make it clear (all columns of the table have been originated/updated from this source since I first included the table 4 years ago). I left your sfn_ls source at the head of the Date column (for SES-10 and SES-11) and your 'Early 2017' from sfn_ls for SES-11 instead of 'H1 2017' from SES as they could mean the same thing! Hope this makes sense to you... Satbuff (talk) 08:21, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Satbuff: Yes, that's much clearer, thanks! Looks like SES-17 is not on the overview page though. I sometimes find much more detailed information on future launches in SES and Intelsat quarterly reports, perhaps this one can be sourced accordingly? — JFG ^talk 12:31, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a source for SES-17 (I'm sure it was mentioned in the original SES overview I cited but, as you say, not now!). Satbuff (talk) 18:16, 5 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

	The Editor's Barnstar
	Thank you for your work on Donald Trump! Keep it up! Thatwweguy 619 (talk) 22:36, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

...the article should mention the issue of [something substantive with long-term consequences which came up during the campaign cycle but which was later deleted from the article covering the events] other than from a sensationalist angle… Good luck with that :) — JFG, 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is pretty classic. I'll frame that quote on my wall or something.  :-) 47.222.203.135 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to make your day! — JFG ^talk 21:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

		The Teamwork Barnstar
		To @Neve-selbert, Drdpw, JFG, GoodDay, and Spartan7W: for collaborative work together in preparing the President- and Vice-President-elect changes to the lists of Presidents and Vice Presidents of the United States. Thanks for your efforts! YBG (talk) 22:08, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@YBG: Thank YOU; team spirit much appreciated. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 18 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Template:Ariane 5 scheduled flights page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 10 January 2017 (UTC)  Fixed — JFG ^talk 13:35, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop and change these back.

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, JFG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 04:09, 14 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Falcon 9 page, your edit caused a missing references list (help | help with group references). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — JFG ^talk 13:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Political positions of Donald Trump page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done — JFG ^talk 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Social policy of Donald Trump, JFG!

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

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

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

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

With your work in different maintenance areas, and given the current WP:RFA climate, you should be able to pass a request for adminship easily. Have you ever thought of running? feminist 05:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Feminist: Thanks for your consideration. So far, I have not felt the need to wield admin tools beyond the template editor and page mover rights that I already obtained. I do enjoy settling disputes and finding common ground between opposing editors, however I fear that the admin bit would push me to spend more time on the drama boards, which frankly is a somewhat depressing perspective. In that context I prefer being mediator than judge. I'll be sure to remember your sponsorship if I reconsider some day. — JFG ^talk 06:18, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the International Space Station page, your edit caused a broken reference name (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — JFG ^talk 20:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That was the best subtle burn of them all. Thanks so much for being willing to help do the report.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Milowent: Glad you enjoyed the spirit! — JFG ^talk 20:55, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2rr. Please undo. SPECIFICO talk 09:29, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@SPECIFICO: What are you talking about? Diff please. — JFG ^talk 12:01, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say it's up to you and nobody else to track your reverts, but I'm afraid you'd feel badly so I did some extra work in the hopes of avoiding another AE drama:

[3] [4] The second one adds an edit comment that utterly misrepresents what she said, by the way, and I urge you to give a careful re-read of the short bit of the article to check your understanding of its statement after you undo your revert. Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 13:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

First edit is not a revert, it's a complex cleanup of the cybersecurity section, which I fully explained on the Talk page after Space4Time3Continuum2x called it POV pushing. Second edit is a straight revert of your addition about Masha Gessen, where I argue in my edit summary that you are misrepresenting the source, and I quote her exact words. No cause for concern on the DS front, but feel free to open a discussion to defend your prose. — JFG ^talk 17:26, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

I removed some content that you added to an article that was completely lacking in secondary sources, is not encyclopedic, and is clearly controversial (others removed the same stuff for the same reasons). Now I see that you're trying to drag me into no less than two separate arbitration requests, plus additional behavioral accusations on the talk page. Yeah, I deleted your stuff. No, it doesn't belong in the article. You should probably accept that and move on rather than trying to pick a fight with me about it. What you seem be thinking you need, but which you most certainly do not need, is for me to drag you into an AE proceeding on Harassment. That will be happening in the surprisingly near future if you do not alter your obnoxious behavior. But if it stops now, it doesn't have to. Geogene (talk) 02:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About the disputed content (which was not originally authored by me), I have replied on the relevant article's talk page. Note that I gave you an opportunity to self-revert and, far from dragging you to AE, I explicitly refrained from opening a new case over this, because the DS/1RR rules can be interpreted differently. Please do not threaten me either. Good day, — JFG ^talk 07:14, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend that you self-revert here [6]. My My very best wishes stated in their edit history "challenging some materials via reversion" [7]. This is exactly on point at the current AE. The DS template on this talk page specifically states "Consensus required: All editors must obtain consensus on the talk page of this article before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion). If in doubt, don't make the edit." Steve Quinn (talk) 06:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is no arguing with this now. It has been fleshed out. Also, I am sure this is supported by a content policy WP:V per WP:BURDEN. Steve Quinn (talk) 06:59, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: MVBW was not reverting an edit; he was boldly deleting text, and I reverted him. Textbook BRD, now let's discuss; I'm always open for discussion on the merits of the material, no matter which "side" it falls on. Back to Talk page… — JFG ^talk 17:02, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a request for sanctions pertaining to you at WP:AE ---Steve Quinn (talk) 03:34, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Steve Quinn: Thanks for the note; I have replied at AE. Those repeated litigations are a giant waste of time for all editors and admins involved… — JFG ^talk 04:51, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

To this. WP:REDACT is about article talk pages. WP:AE is not a talk page and not a place for bickering. My advice: please improve your own statement. Are you telling that you did not violate the restriction? Why? Did not you restore a content challenged by another contributor through reversion? My very best wishes (talk) 13:43, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To respond to your another comment [8], there is no problem with defining was revert is. This is all defined in WP:3RR. Obviously, your and my edits were both reverts. The reverts on this page are not forbidden, but limited to only one per 24 hours. All reverts are restorations of content. However, my revert did not restore any content previously challenged by another contributor through reversion. Your revert did. In addition, I made only one revert on this page during three days, but you made two reverts during 24 hours and 30 minutes [9][10], which is very close to 1RR violation. My very best wishes (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@My very best wishes: I believe my understanding of the situation to be correct. The relevant policy page defines "revert" quite clearly: To revert is to undo the action of another editor. Your edit was not a revert, as it removed a large section of material that had been collaboratively edited over several weeks by dozens of editors. My edit was a simple, straightforward revert of your action. — JFG ^talk 06:34, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to the policy, "revert" is undoing work by other contributor(s). Therefore, removing a large section of material was obviously a revert. If you do not trust me, please ask any administrator. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

In your interpretation, any removal of text is a revert, because obviously any visible text has been added by someone. I guess we must agree to disagree at this point. Peace, — JFG ^talk 22:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

According to WP:3RR, A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material.. So yes, removal of material is usually a revert. Adding new material may or may not be a revert, depending on previous history. But whatever. I would rather not edit pages with such an editing restriction. My very best wishes (talk) 01:35, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Please undo your second revert. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 14:46, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No such violation. Please stay off my talk page. — JFG ^talk 14:58, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I reported your 1RR violation here. Note that you did it several times. My very best wishes (talk) 20:03, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Only one of all the reported edits was a revert, the rest was normal editing. I have replied in detail at WP:ANEW. Thanks for the notice! — JFG ^talk 20:43, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To my surprise, admin decided those were not reverts. My apology. So, you can continue doing exactly the same on this and other pages, I guess. My very best wishes (talk) 21:20, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No problem; we all learn something every day. — JFG ^talk 21:23, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Luck of the draw. Most admins would have nailed it. That's why AE is better for these enforcement things. SPECIFICO talk 21:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

So sue me. (bis) — JFG ^talk 21:57, 3 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

1. micdrop *no idea what is going on in meta* Endercase (talk) 21:49, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, this might interest you – [11]. It's a really interesting coincidence ;-) – [12], [13]. -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:16, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Tobby72: Thanks but I assume good faith from all editors, and the case you cite was dismissed by ArbCom. — JFG ^talk 10:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Mmmm, good times, good times. Come on Tobby72. Let it be.Volunteer Marek (talk) 09:10, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for catching this phrase "...for over three decades beginning in 1987" [14]. I originally wrote that.

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

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

This is reply to that. First of all, please do not make misleading edit summaries like here. There was no discussion. Second, what I did was not revert of multiple edits (several sequential edits count as one), and it was not blind revert, but a compromise version. Finally, if you disagree with content changes, please use article talk page. Thank you. My very best wishes (talk) 12:43, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Dear My very best wishes, I had no intent of criticizing your revert. I noticed that you chose to keep some parts and remove some others, and inadvertently undid some purely cosmetic non-controversial changes which I later restored. However I was just asking you to clarify what you were talking about when you said "both statements should be included", as I only saw one statement that was being edited (the Clapper quote). I came to your talk page because it was more a question of personal understanding than about the article. Now do you remember what was the second statement you were mentioning? Sorry for any misunderstanding. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 13 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

At Russian intervention. Here [15] [16]. Thx. SPECIFICO talk 12:07, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No violation. Give me a break already… — JFG ^talk 13:29, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a chance to tell me why you think there's no violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:57, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll give you a chance to tell me why you think there is a violation. — JFG ^talk 14:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I asked question here that involves you. You are welcome to respond and explain it. My very best wishes (talk) 02:42, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Settled — JFG ^talk 14:54, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You need to revert this [25]. Thanks SW3 5DL (talk) 06:45, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No: I disagreed with your bold reshuffling and reverted it; a discussion is open on Talk:Donald Trump, please move your remarks there. — JFG ^talk 06:49, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. here. SW3 5DL (talk) 06:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. — JFG ^talk 08:13, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Vendetta (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:50, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Re [26], the semi-permanence is intentional. RfCs often get archived before a closer shows up (and sometimes even before 30 days), requiring them to be manually restored. Semi-permanent DNAU prevents that. The intent is not for the period to expire, but rather to manually remove the DNAU after close. ―Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nobody has supported the text you've reinserted in the US 2016 Presidential Election article. You have violated DS by reinserting your earlier edit without first getting consensus on talk. I suggest you undo your violation. I previously mentioned this on article talk, but I see the violation still in the article. Thanks. Go to 3d opinion or RfC if this is very important to you. SPECIFICO talk 19:17, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

DS are not a suicide pact. But I reverted until other editors care to comment. — JFG ^talk 02:44, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

...had the best edit summary. Really great edit summary. Everybody says so. Edit summary so good it'll blow your mind, believe me folks. MWGA. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:22, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I just love seeing playful edit summaries on my watchlist. Especially on political articles.

We're only getting started, folks, believe me. Those editsums will fly around so fast, your head will spin! — JFG ^talk 03:00, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Who's "we"? Never did hear the explanation for that one? SPECIFICO talk 19:26, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"We" is the first person, plural personal pronoun (nominative case) in Modern English. @SPECIFICO: I advised you repeatedly to stop trolling my talk page. I mean it. — JFG ^talk 19:29, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "trolling" and can't understand what you'd mean by that, since it's a clear question. Yes, we know it's plural. If it were only your own behavior that's "just getting started", I'd have expected the singular. Hence my question. However, I note that you haven't answered it and you're not obligated to answer it now. To your request, I will not ask this question again on your talk page. SPECIFICO talk 19:56, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

When you and VM asked "who is we" in some discussion on the infamous Russian interference article, I gave a straightforward reply and VM accepted it. Only you keep insinuating bad faith, collusion and whatnot. This is sanctionable behaviour and you know it. That you are now intervening in a humourous discussion between MjolnirPants and myself to re-iterate your aspersions can accurately be called "trolling", to which I answered in the most polite and humorous way I could muster. Peace be upon you! — JFG ^talk 20:03, 25 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

We're gonna build a wall around this talk page. And SPECIFICO is going to pay for it, I guarantee! (Seriously man, we're just joking around, don't try to turn this into another content/conduct/POV dispute.) ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 00:08, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Damn right! Ever noticed her name rhymes with Mexico? — JFG ^talk 05:07, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

		The Donald Trump Barnstar
		Thank you, JFG, for your numerous well-tempered contributions to Donald Trump related articles. --FeralOink (talk) 19:38, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your activity on the dossier talk page today. I then circled back around, and saw how much work you had done in the past six months, on expanding and improving Wikipedia through your contributions on Donald Trump-related articles. I commend you for maintaining neutrality in your extensive work. Very few editors have been able to do that.

After briefly scanning your talk page this morning, I was deeply moved by your appropriately gentle rebuke to another editor, where you said this: "On a side note, perhaps you shouldn't have called the boy a "little Trumpkin" (you know, BLP on Talk pages, general lack of irony among some contributors, und so weiter…)." (I am a woman with no children and a deceased husband. It warms my cold heart whenever I see Melania and her little son. She loves him very much.) Your deft use of humor, and striking the right tone, is rare and an important part of contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you for your good work.

If you wish to remove or hat any of this rather emotional outburst, feel free to do so. I hope you keep the Trump barnstar proudly displayed. I am a member of the Donald Trump Wikiproject, but I would have given you the barnstar even if I weren't, as I feel you have earned it!--FeralOink (talk) 19:52, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: I endorse the barnstar. I took the gentle rebuke to heart and have refrained from any further reference to little Trumpkins, such as in this edit summary. ―Mandruss ☎ 12:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Mandruss: I laughed, and am still smiling, after reading that edit summary! "Gestating" :o) Wikipedia is fortunate to have you and JFG, as you are able to write about Donald Trump without becoming irrational. Many Internet denizens from the United States and western Europe either hate him or love him, with no middle ground!--FeralOink (talk) 07:45, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@FeralOink: Many thanks for your kind words; having raised two boys who are now ready to face the weird wide world, I have my own reasons for being sensitive to protection of minors from tabloidesque interest… I appreciate interacting with other well-tempered editors, and I wish you well in your continued efforts at improving the encyclopedia. — JFG ^talk 12:40, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Re [27], no big deal, but I don't know whether you're aware of the new community consensus now enshrined at MOS:DATERANGE. The question arises whether we should (1) implement the new consensus as best we can, (2) wait until {{marriage}} supports it, if it ever does, or (3) simply ignore the consensus per WP:IAR. ―Mandruss ☎ 13:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another DS violation at Russians

One [28] Two [29] SPECIFICO talk 23:50, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AE ← is this way. — JFG ^talk 23:57, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! You stole that from me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:15, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Good artists copy, great artists steal. — JFG ^talk 04:43, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like this line is popular.[30] — JFG ^talk 04:56, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Falcon 9 booster B1021 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to ASDS

Sergey Lavrov (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to The Telegraph

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed — JFG ^talk 00:42, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 April 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Donald Trump says he hopes to achieve a foreign policy whereby "old enemies become friends"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Mifter (talk) 00:02, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You've escaped justice for now, but you can't escape it forever.

Just when you think it's safe to remove the truth from an article based on your churlish WP:BLPREMOVE claims, one of your betters will make a 10,000-word post arguing (successfully) that maybe there were no BLP implications after all, thus you've violated 1RR on an article subject to discretionary sanctions—whose purpose is to ensure that the truth is not improperly removed from WP articles—and all of a sudden, BLAM, you'll be indeffed without discussion. Book it. Your days are numbered, troll.

lololololololol Factchecker_atyourservice 19:42, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: As far as I know, I have never interacted with you, and I fail to understand the purpose of your sudden rant against me. If you have a legitimate complaint against my edits, Wikipedia provides plenty of venues for grievance: WP:ANEW, WP:ANI, WP:AE, WP:BLP/N, WP:RS/N, etc. Finally, I would remind you to read WP:AGF and WP:NPA. Maybe WP:VNT and WP:RGW would help give you a deeper understanding of Wikipedia principles as well. Thanks, — JFG ^talk 06:16, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG: Apologies for provking that response, my comment was supposed to be a joke (hence the "lolololololol"). The "joke", in my mind, was that this massive discussion unfolded at BLP noticeboard on the substantive merits of a content dispute, and countless users chimed in with very thoughtful responses, yet one user kept a rather insistent position that the real issue was that you needed to be blocked for violating 1RR because, allegedly, your claim of BLP exemption was false. To me, it seemed like a case study in questionable priorities. Also I recently came off a block for 3RR for reverting material that had obvious BLP problems, so I felt like I was in a similar boat. Factchecker_atyourservice 17:02, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Factchecker atyourservice: Oh I see, hadn't noticed the <smallest>lololololol</smallest>, sorry! Well it's a fact that certain editors are contributing more noise than signal; c'est la vie… The same people can insist that something they don't like is a BLP violation, whereas something they like is not, while making evasive responses to any issue of substance. C'est la vie sur le wiki… — JFG ^talk 19:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

After another look I see the "lolololol" looked like it was part of my sig. Now you can see one reason why I've failed as a comedian: awful delivery. Factchecker_atyourservice 20:20, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The following sanction now applies to you:

You are restricted to 0rr (including manual reverts) on post-1932 US politics articles that already have the 1rr restriction

You have been sanctioned for violating the 1rr restriction on Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections after multiple warnings.

This sanction is imposed in my capacity as an uninvolved administrator under the authority of the Arbitration Committee's decision at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2#Final decision and, if applicable, the procedure described at Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Discretionary sanctions. This sanction has been recorded in the log of sanctions. If the sanction includes a ban, please read the banning policy to ensure you understand what this means. If you do not comply with this sanction, you may be blocked for an extended period, by way of enforcement of this sanction—and you may also be made subject to further sanctions.

You may appeal this sanction using the process described here. I recommend that you use the arbitration enforcement appeals template if you wish to submit an appeal to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. You may also appeal directly to me (on my talk page), before or instead of appealing to the noticeboard. Even if you appeal this sanction, you remain bound by it until you are notified by an uninvolved administrator that the appeal has been successful. You are also free to contact me on my talk page if anything of the above is unclear to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]