Archives: | |
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)
Hi, in reference to the delegate total—in the edit you undid I just added the 42 delegates from Wisconsin. I just had a look at the total again and did a sum over all the delegates that have been allocated so far, which now comes out as 1,689. The reason the column in the table doesn't sum to the total is that there are uncommitted delegates, but I take it the "Total" there is supposed to be "total delegates allocated so far" rather than "total delegates pledged to a particular candidate". — Nizolan (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't NC colored gold? Hillary won that state Todd4069 ( talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
On the Dem map NC should already be colored gold for Hillary Todd4069 ( talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry lol apparently i don't know my states I was looking at KY. The dems haven't had the primary yet Todd4069 ( talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ha thanks for your diligence! Todd4069 ( talk) 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted your change back to a redirect because I feel like having a dedicated article for launch and payload is important for these very significant launches. For the past three launches, much coverage (enough to meet WP:GNG) on the launch itself rather than the payload has come up, somewhat of a shift from the past. Because of that, articles started being made for launches as well as payloads such as Falcon 9 Flight 20, Falcon 9 Flight 21, and Falcon 9 Flight 22. I see Falcon 9 Flight 23 as the continuation of that and far more notable than Falcon 9 Flight 22 because it actually worked and therefore is getting a lot more coverage in the news. It's a stub right now so it doesn't add much over the main article, but I think it's a good idea to keep the clearly notable subject on its own article so that it can be expanded in the future. Appable ( talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and your work on the important WP article:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016. You are entirely correct as I read:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
"THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
RULE NO. 1: Organization of the Republican National Committee
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate."
Hi just wanted to notice I updated the map. The size of each pie chart is propotional to its state delegates. Although it took some time, but it is finally done!;) Ali Zifan 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello JFG,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Timeline of spaceflight/WIP for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Women's Laser Radial World Championship and Talk:Article 50. I made these redirects from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.
For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the note. In the case of Article 50, I didn't perform a full 3-step swap and I skipped re-creating the Talk page when I made the new redirect of Article 50 to Withdrawal from the European Union. In the case of Women's Laser Radial World Championship(s) I'm not sure why the talk page wasn't swapped properly; good on you catching the error! — JFG talk 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I love your changes to the 2016 in spaceflight article! I suggest you also update Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group to document the new sections and formats. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Vkumar1216#spelling -- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you know the article does not mention Yarovaya if you do not speak Russian? Are you searching for "Яровая"? You know, in Russian we have declinations. Try seraching for "Яров".-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, I've created a discussion for finding editors for the closing panel, at the Administrator's noticeboard. The discussion is here, so this is just courtesy notice. Thanks, Kylo Ren ( talk) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2016 NFL Draft. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I know it's late. If there's any way you can resolve this, I'd be happy to back out the review. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, saw your note at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Post-discussion potential move considerations. My intent was to mention that editnotices, archiving, template-namespace links, etc. would be uncontroversial and can (should) be done quickly. Didn't intend for the section to be a link/grace period discussion (which is more situation-specific). Per WP:MULTI, feel free to move that section to another page or let me know if you want me to do it (though I think you have more context). — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello, I politely ask you to reconsider your decision to close the RfM, as consensus had formed towards moving the page. Furthermore, in your decision you cite guidelines while claiming to cite policies (see WP:POLICY), so I strongly recommend you ammend your comment. I'm going to wait one more day before starting a formal move review. Thank you. Anonimu ( talk) 08:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Queen Anne of Romania. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Anonimu ( talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: [1], please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. The question should be the first part of the text, followed immediately by your first signature. If you click through to one of the listing pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, you'll see that the question does not appear there. It should not only appear there, but it should be the only thing that appears there. (You'll also see that a lot of other editors are doing it wrong, too.) If you fix the RfC, the listing pages will be automatically updated before long. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, hope everything's going well. Thought I'd share a script here ( js) that semi-automates round-robin page swaps for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)
Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 02:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on
Talk:Free trade zone#Requested move 28 August 2016. For your information, see also
Talk:List of Special Economic Zones in India#Requested move 28 August 2016.
128.179.146.139 (
talk)
11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
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)
Extradition is state-level law, so if someone has been extradited to New York, they have been extradited to the state (even if they are physically moved to the city, extradition subjects them to the laws of the state). In case it comes up, by the way, all New York laws are state laws. The city only has ordinances. bd2412 T 16:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that a bot has removed the RfC notice concerning PT of NY [2] but I don't see any closure... you srer more experienced in RfCs I gather, what happens next? Andrewa ( talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer my support for this edit, which seems broadly in line with the language we worked out together a few days ago. If you find yourself getting push back on the article talk page, let me know and I will go to bat for you on this issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A "live" discussion that was still ongoing has been returned to the New York talk page. Please be more careful when you manually archive. Paine u/ c 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
At WP:HIGHBEAM, it appeared to me that your signature had become detached from your subscription request and has been moving down the page; I have moved it back to where I assume it was supposed to be. [3] If I have guessed wrong, please feel free to revert my change, and my apologies in advance for any misunderstanding. Best-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG. Just wondering how you managed to convert the year ranges with Thatcher. Did you use a script? (If you did, I'd like to know which.) Thank-you.-- Nevé – selbert 08:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
See my comment on that article's talk page. MB298 ( talk) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Concerning Presidential & Vice President related articles. Please be patient & wait until Trump & Pence have taken office :) GoodDay ( talk) 08:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait until January 20, 2017, PLEASE. There's not need to rush things along. GoodDay ( talk) 08:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
For your information, see
Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Requested move 17 November 2016.
Kalimera Pouliths (
talk)
08:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
Hi JFG. Regarding your recent closure at Talk:Amouli, could you describe why it was closed as not moved (other than the !vote spread)? Your closing comment didn't elaborate. I was just curious because the request was consistent with established guidelines, deferred to reliable sources, sought consistency with like articles, etc., so I wanted to try to better understand what the stronger argument was that you saw on the other side. Thank you for any clarification! ╠╣uw [ talk 19:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Re: [4]
Say what? I've never seen that particular reasoning in 3.5 years. If it's admittedly useful, what difference does it make that people rarely bother to do it? That would seem to set an upper limit on excellence. What is the benefit of consistent mediocrity?
Another editor saw President-
elect of the United States and found it "jarring". They thought they were fixing it by changing the wording slightly. I agreed that we don't need to allow that break in the first paragraph of the article, and I fixed their fix by restoring the wording and adding the nowrap. We both considered the issue resolved.
The following is downright ugly: January
20, 2017. In several shorter articles I have nowrapped every date, as well as every time-of-day (4:00
p.m. is also ugly), and I have never had a hint of objection to that (let alone the objection that we don't usually do that, therefore we shouldn't). At Donald Trump I chose to nowrap only the date(s) in the first paragraph, at least for the time being. ―
Mandruss
☎
04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
|
|
between every day and month, or before am/pm designations. Perhaps we could suggest this as a software improvement, and see if it gets consensus? —
JFG
talk
11:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Please stop spamming that link. In most cases, it's already listed in the article you're adding it to. Trump isn't president yet, so he hasn't nominated anyone for his cabinet and he can't until he takes office in January. The category is already listed, just hidden until the date it's actually true. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the background-coloration, [5] I wasn't sure how to highlight the whole row. Seems simple now that you have illustrated. In your immediately previous edit, you removed some names which are redlinked, but also some that are no longer visible in the live politico site. My copy was in an open browser tab, and said at the top of the source-prose that it was "updated 2016-11-25" which is why I named the ref thataway. In other words, the politico tracker is adding and removing names as they get tips from transition insiders. The names that I plugged in were visible on the 25th of November or thereabouts, at the URL in question. So is it okay to keep them? Or once politico deletes them from their live tracker, we should also remove them here, on the assumption that their earlier info was found by them to be incorrect? Or is it okay to leave them in, perhaps adding a note that they were in the source at one point but no longer were as of mm/dd/yyyy? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. However, there is no need to take the changes I made to the talk page. It is factually incorrect to put the Hong Kong flag in place as the column clearly is labelled 'country' not 'region' or 'country and/or region'. It would be incorrect to change the labelling of the column because all other flags are for countries. Robynthehode ( talk) 12:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.
I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.
Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721
Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.
Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 ( talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I just happen to be extremely careful to use quotation marks whenever my text retains three or more words in the same order as a source. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk)
When it comes to the historicity of elections, the number of pledged electors is a lot more significant than actual electoral college votes cast. By footnoting off the actual number of pledged electors, you are condemning future generations to a lot of extra clicks. I realize there is a hypothetical situation where someone loses the presidency because of faithless electors. But it is not bluntly likely. In terms of a presidents electoral strength, it is only pledged electors that matters when we are comparing electoral margins. You should footnote off the number of faithless electors, not the other way around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you not change Trump's electoral votes from 306 to 304? And Clinton's similarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Feran: Seeing that the infobox contains final results (304/227), I have now added a footnote explaining the discrepancy with pledged electors, thereby fulfilling your prophecy. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. — JFG talk 07:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm walking away from the United States presidential election, 2016 for awhile. It appears that some folks there, have gone nuts over the fact that Sanders won an electoral vote for president. They're increasingly pushing to put him in the Infobox & are pushing to add confusion to the Results section via adding Sanders, Powell, Paul & Kasich write-in-votes, even though those votes don't correlate with their electoral votes :( GoodDay ( talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. My intent was "link 1" for the first or only link in each entry, followed by "link 2", etc, for additional links. This, following the precedent set by the "Current/recent consensuses" template box near the top of Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I don't see what uniqueness buys us there, and it's another detail that one has to attend to. Cost-benefit ratio? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic for a personal talk page; please take this to Talk:Donald Trump if you need to. — JFG talk 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This was entirely inappropriate, so I have reverted it. See WP:TPNO and WP:TPO.- Mr X 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you choose to propose the move that didn't get any support in a previous discussion where you suggested it, instead of proposing a move ("Alleged..." or the similar "Allegations of...") that got support in the same previous discussion where you suggested it? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being patient with your access request. It should be processed relatively soon. Please let me know if you no longer think you need access. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Archives: | |
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)
Hi, in reference to the delegate total—in the edit you undid I just added the 42 delegates from Wisconsin. I just had a look at the total again and did a sum over all the delegates that have been allocated so far, which now comes out as 1,689. The reason the column in the table doesn't sum to the total is that there are uncommitted delegates, but I take it the "Total" there is supposed to be "total delegates allocated so far" rather than "total delegates pledged to a particular candidate". — Nizolan (talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Why isn't NC colored gold? Hillary won that state Todd4069 ( talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
On the Dem map NC should already be colored gold for Hillary Todd4069 ( talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Sorry lol apparently i don't know my states I was looking at KY. The dems haven't had the primary yet Todd4069 ( talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Ha thanks for your diligence! Todd4069 ( talk) 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted your change back to a redirect because I feel like having a dedicated article for launch and payload is important for these very significant launches. For the past three launches, much coverage (enough to meet WP:GNG) on the launch itself rather than the payload has come up, somewhat of a shift from the past. Because of that, articles started being made for launches as well as payloads such as Falcon 9 Flight 20, Falcon 9 Flight 21, and Falcon 9 Flight 22. I see Falcon 9 Flight 23 as the continuation of that and far more notable than Falcon 9 Flight 22 because it actually worked and therefore is getting a lot more coverage in the news. It's a stub right now so it doesn't add much over the main article, but I think it's a good idea to keep the clearly notable subject on its own article so that it can be expanded in the future. Appable ( talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the correction and your work on the important WP article:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016. You are entirely correct as I read:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
"THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE
RULE NO. 1: Organization of the Republican National Committee
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate."
Hi just wanted to notice I updated the map. The size of each pie chart is propotional to its state delegates. Although it took some time, but it is finally done!;) Ali Zifan 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello JFG,
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Timeline of spaceflight/WIP for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tpdwkouaa ( talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Women's Laser Radial World Championship and Talk:Article 50. I made these redirects from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.
For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
@ Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the note. In the case of Article 50, I didn't perform a full 3-step swap and I skipped re-creating the Talk page when I made the new redirect of Article 50 to Withdrawal from the European Union. In the case of Women's Laser Radial World Championship(s) I'm not sure why the talk page wasn't swapped properly; good on you catching the error! — JFG talk 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I love your changes to the 2016 in spaceflight article! I suggest you also update Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group to document the new sections and formats. -- IanOsgood ( talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Please see User_talk:Vkumar1216#spelling -- S Philbrick (Talk) 00:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
How do you know the article does not mention Yarovaya if you do not speak Russian? Are you searching for "Яровая"? You know, in Russian we have declinations. Try seraching for "Яров".-- Ymblanter ( talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, I've created a discussion for finding editors for the closing panel, at the Administrator's noticeboard. The discussion is here, so this is just courtesy notice. Thanks, Kylo Ren ( talk) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of 2016 NFL Draft. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I know it's late. If there's any way you can resolve this, I'd be happy to back out the review. Dicklyon ( talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, saw your note at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Post-discussion potential move considerations. My intent was to mention that editnotices, archiving, template-namespace links, etc. would be uncontroversial and can (should) be done quickly. Didn't intend for the section to be a link/grace period discussion (which is more situation-specific). Per WP:MULTI, feel free to move that section to another page or let me know if you want me to do it (though I think you have more context). — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
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)
Hello, I politely ask you to reconsider your decision to close the RfM, as consensus had formed towards moving the page. Furthermore, in your decision you cite guidelines while claiming to cite policies (see WP:POLICY), so I strongly recommend you ammend your comment. I'm going to wait one more day before starting a formal move review. Thank you. Anonimu ( talk) 08:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a Move review of Queen Anne of Romania. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Anonimu ( talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Re: [1], please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. The question should be the first part of the text, followed immediately by your first signature. If you click through to one of the listing pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, you'll see that the question does not appear there. It should not only appear there, but it should be the only thing that appears there. (You'll also see that a lot of other editors are doing it wrong, too.) If you fix the RfC, the listing pages will be automatically updated before long. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG, hope everything's going well. Thought I'd share a script here ( js) that semi-automates round-robin page swaps for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)
Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. ( talk · ctb) 02:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?
Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment on
Talk:Free trade zone#Requested move 28 August 2016. For your information, see also
Talk:List of Special Economic Zones in India#Requested move 28 August 2016.
128.179.146.139 (
talk)
11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC).
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)
Extradition is state-level law, so if someone has been extradited to New York, they have been extradited to the state (even if they are physically moved to the city, extradition subjects them to the laws of the state). In case it comes up, by the way, all New York laws are state laws. The city only has ordinances. bd2412 T 16:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I see that a bot has removed the RfC notice concerning PT of NY [2] but I don't see any closure... you srer more experienced in RfCs I gather, what happens next? Andrewa ( talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)
I just wanted to offer my support for this edit, which seems broadly in line with the language we worked out together a few days ago. If you find yourself getting push back on the article talk page, let me know and I will go to bat for you on this issue. -- Scjessey ( talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
A "live" discussion that was still ongoing has been returned to the New York talk page. Please be more careful when you manually archive. Paine u/ c 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
At WP:HIGHBEAM, it appeared to me that your signature had become detached from your subscription request and has been moving down the page; I have moved it back to where I assume it was supposed to be. [3] If I have guessed wrong, please feel free to revert my change, and my apologies in advance for any misunderstanding. Best-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi JFG. Just wondering how you managed to convert the year ranges with Thatcher. Did you use a script? (If you did, I'd like to know which.) Thank-you.-- Nevé – selbert 08:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
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)
See my comment on that article's talk page. MB298 ( talk) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Concerning Presidential & Vice President related articles. Please be patient & wait until Trump & Pence have taken office :) GoodDay ( talk) 08:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait until January 20, 2017, PLEASE. There's not need to rush things along. GoodDay ( talk) 08:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
For your information, see
Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Requested move 17 November 2016.
Kalimera Pouliths (
talk)
08:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC).
Hi JFG. Regarding your recent closure at Talk:Amouli, could you describe why it was closed as not moved (other than the !vote spread)? Your closing comment didn't elaborate. I was just curious because the request was consistent with established guidelines, deferred to reliable sources, sought consistency with like articles, etc., so I wanted to try to better understand what the stronger argument was that you saw on the other side. Thank you for any clarification! ╠╣uw [ talk 19:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
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)
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)
Re: [4]
Say what? I've never seen that particular reasoning in 3.5 years. If it's admittedly useful, what difference does it make that people rarely bother to do it? That would seem to set an upper limit on excellence. What is the benefit of consistent mediocrity?
Another editor saw President-
elect of the United States and found it "jarring". They thought they were fixing it by changing the wording slightly. I agreed that we don't need to allow that break in the first paragraph of the article, and I fixed their fix by restoring the wording and adding the nowrap. We both considered the issue resolved.
The following is downright ugly: January
20, 2017. In several shorter articles I have nowrapped every date, as well as every time-of-day (4:00
p.m. is also ugly), and I have never had a hint of objection to that (let alone the objection that we don't usually do that, therefore we shouldn't). At Donald Trump I chose to nowrap only the date(s) in the first paragraph, at least for the time being. ―
Mandruss
☎
04:51, 4 December 2016 (UTC)
|
|
between every day and month, or before am/pm designations. Perhaps we could suggest this as a software improvement, and see if it gets consensus? —
JFG
talk
11:15, 4 December 2016 (UTC)Please stop spamming that link. In most cases, it's already listed in the article you're adding it to. Trump isn't president yet, so he hasn't nominated anyone for his cabinet and he can't until he takes office in January. The category is already listed, just hidden until the date it's actually true. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:35, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing the background-coloration, [5] I wasn't sure how to highlight the whole row. Seems simple now that you have illustrated. In your immediately previous edit, you removed some names which are redlinked, but also some that are no longer visible in the live politico site. My copy was in an open browser tab, and said at the top of the source-prose that it was "updated 2016-11-25" which is why I named the ref thataway. In other words, the politico tracker is adding and removing names as they get tips from transition insiders. The names that I plugged in were visible on the 25th of November or thereabouts, at the URL in question. So is it okay to keep them? Or once politico deletes them from their live tracker, we should also remove them here, on the assumption that their earlier info was found by them to be incorrect? Or is it okay to leave them in, perhaps adding a note that they were in the source at one point but no longer were as of mm/dd/yyyy? 47.222.203.135 ( talk) 22:06, 7 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment. However, there is no need to take the changes I made to the talk page. It is factually incorrect to put the Hong Kong flag in place as the column clearly is labelled 'country' not 'region' or 'country and/or region'. It would be incorrect to change the labelling of the column because all other flags are for countries. Robynthehode ( talk) 12:48, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
The Donald Trump article will be an extremely hard article to bring up to average Wikipedia standards, not to mention GA or FA. It will probably involve much fighting and many months. Either that or one group of people will wear out the other 2-3 groups. Compounding the problem is that Trump is very controversial. About 52% of people voting did not want him. Another 25% had negative feelings toward him even though they voted for him. That leaves maybe 20% that either support him a little or a lot, 80% don't like him or viciously hate him.
I feel it is beyond my expertise to fight a talk page battle so I will leave it to more experienced hands like you (or 3 others that I wrote to). Below is a link to my sandbox, which shows an edited version that does 3 things. 1. It fixes the jumping back and forth of related areas that are placed apart (there's quite a bit of that). 2. Trims down some trivia. 3. The lead represents a better summary and also is the permitted 4 paragraphs. I did not edit the political and campaign sections yet and don't intend to.
Here is the link. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:Usernamen1/sandbox&diff=prev&oldid=754347721
Consider commenting on the Donald Trump talk page about this sample revision. I do not plan on extensive discussion on the talk page and will leave it up to you. Let me know what you think.
Disclaimer: I am a foreigner and not a registered Republican or Democrat. Usernamen1 ( talk) 05:02, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
Regarding this edit, I just happen to be extremely careful to use quotation marks whenever my text retains three or more words in the same order as a source. TheTimesAreAChanging ( talk)
When it comes to the historicity of elections, the number of pledged electors is a lot more significant than actual electoral college votes cast. By footnoting off the actual number of pledged electors, you are condemning future generations to a lot of extra clicks. I realize there is a hypothetical situation where someone loses the presidency because of faithless electors. But it is not bluntly likely. In terms of a presidents electoral strength, it is only pledged electors that matters when we are comparing electoral margins. You should footnote off the number of faithless electors, not the other way around.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Did you not change Trump's electoral votes from 306 to 304? And Clinton's similarly? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Feran ( talk • contribs) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
@ Feran: Seeing that the infobox contains final results (304/227), I have now added a footnote explaining the discrepancy with pledged electors, thereby fulfilling your prophecy. Hopefully this addresses your concerns. — JFG talk 07:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Howdy. I'm walking away from the United States presidential election, 2016 for awhile. It appears that some folks there, have gone nuts over the fact that Sanders won an electoral vote for president. They're increasingly pushing to put him in the Infobox & are pushing to add confusion to the Results section via adding Sanders, Powell, Paul & Kasich write-in-votes, even though those votes don't correlate with their electoral votes :( GoodDay ( talk) 00:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the updates. My intent was "link 1" for the first or only link in each entry, followed by "link 2", etc, for additional links. This, following the precedent set by the "Current/recent consensuses" template box near the top of Talk:2016 Orlando nightclub shooting. I don't see what uniqueness buys us there, and it's another detail that one has to attend to. Cost-benefit ratio? ― Mandruss ☎ 04:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Off-topic for a personal talk page; please take this to Talk:Donald Trump if you need to. — JFG talk 23:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
You are receiving this notification because you participated in a past RfC related to the use of extended confirmed protection levels. There is currently a discussion ongoing about two specific use cases of extended confirmed protection. You are invited to participate. ~ Rob13 Talk 16:12, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
This was entirely inappropriate, so I have reverted it. See WP:TPNO and WP:TPO.- Mr X 00:38, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Why did you choose to propose the move that didn't get any support in a previous discussion where you suggested it, instead of proposing a move ("Alleged..." or the similar "Allegations of...") that got support in the same previous discussion where you suggested it? -- Bob K31416 ( talk) 17:08, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for being patient with your access request. It should be processed relatively soon. Please let me know if you no longer think you need access. -- JustBerry ( talk) 16:13, 30 December 2016 (UTC)