Archives: | |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's your view on this? If they're right, we're very wrong. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion should continue at
Talk:2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots
|
---|
Hello! I don't believe you and I have collaborated on Wikipedia before. I appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, I mean that sincerely. I restored that article not because you didn't combine it correctly (you did). But an article related to the current U.S. president should have a discussion before it is deleted or redirected. If the article goes to a AfD or a redirect discussion, fair enough. But there needs to be discussion first. Thanks! Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
|
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.
Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
<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)
</onlyinclude>
tag all by its lonesome. I
check everyday for these. Usually, it means vandalism.
Bgwhite (
talk)
08:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It should be "government service" on the Trump page. -- Bod ( talk) 08:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what's awkward about "current consensuses"? [2] And what is a "consensus wording"? ― Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Got to run. More later. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
When you've the time, please look again at the "no consensus" section. Anythingyouwant is back to the 'neither won a majority of the popular vote,' which, as I recall, did not have support for inclusion. When you wrote your choice for the RfC, it said, "fifth elected without a plurality of the vote." That seems well sourced to me, but now he's wanting to change it to the 4th. I found this from Pew Research, which seems to sort the issues, but he's rejecting it [3]. He's back to the 'popular vote majority' which as you know is useless without the Electoral College. I realize you support 'few' now, but I worry that might cause more problems. It seems POV to me, as if Trump's election was off the mark that he's failed at something and that makes him illegitimate, when actually did well across the country. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
100% support this. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done
SW3 5DL (
talk)
04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 pod ous 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think I'm done. I'm making too many mistakes! El_C 07:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this phrase "...for over three decades beginning in 1987" [4]. I originally wrote that.
I don't know how I came up with that. I think I was tired :) Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Paging Androcles. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Re [5], the semi-permanence is intentional. RfCs often get archived before a closer shows up (and sometimes even before 30 days), requiring them to be manually restored. Semi-permanent DNAU prevents that. The intent is not for the period to expire, but rather to manually remove the DNAU after close. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Unresolved: 1. Return this one to 10 years? 2. Seek a consensus for future handling of RfCs? ― Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Re
[6], no big deal, but I don't know whether you're aware of the new community consensus now enshrined at
MOS:DATERANGE. The question arises whether we should (1) implement the new consensus as best we can, (2) wait until {{
marriage}}
supports it, if it ever does, or (3) simply ignore the consensus per
WP:IAR. ―
Mandruss
☎
13:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
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!
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)
I want this four codes for Kandahar Afghanistan Module:Location map/data/Afghanistan Kabul — Kdh ( talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This runs close to a personal attack, as I read it. Would you consider rewording? - Bri ( talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
About your close here. I do not see any consensus in the discussion about what should be in the infobox about ideology. Would you please revise your close and remove that claim? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my close and I note that the article has been updated accordingly without triggering a backlash. @ Jytdog: I would advise you to open another discussion if you feel that some of the removed items should be added back to the "Ideology" field. — JFG talk 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I edited a page in your userspace, User:JFG/sandbox/Launching. See the changes I made to what appears to be a template draft.--— Mr. Guye ( talk) ( My aftermath) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America First (policy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
23:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to note sans any other comment that using Daily Mail and Perez Hilton for any claims of fact in any BLP is contrary to WP:RSN discussions as far as I know, in and of themselves. This applies to just about any BLP on the face of the earth - or Wikipedia, and I trust you agree. Collect ( talk) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit of yours [8] changes the meaning of the text and changes it in a way that at least one editor @ BullRangifer: is currently disputing/rejecting on Talk [9]. You marked the edit summary "copy edit" but because of the change of meaning, the ongoing Talk page discussion, and your previous removal of the same relevant text, it appears to be more than that. It's also your second revert in less than 24 hours. Please undo this edit. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].[78] In January 2016, according to The Daily Beast, the report […some other stuff].[101]
In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].[78] Another Daily Beast article stated that the report […some other stuff].[101]
to this. Yes, certainly, just as they now collaborate with Taliban. For example, it was suggested that the whole story with Palmyra offensives was about letting ISIL "to take over" all weapons and ammunition left by Russian forces in Palmyra. This is nothing new. There were similar agreements during Soviet war in Afghanistan ( that man was responsible for some negotiations of this nature, there was a documentary movie). But I do not have time for collecting sources about it, sorry. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning America First (policy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my
fat fingers,
hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a block is still needed for the three users in question? El_C 04:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved the page.
Feel free to move it to another title, just please leave a redirect behind as you go.
Thanks for your sub article efforts !
Sagecandor ( talk) 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Having fun with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Man, what a mess! Ethanbas ( talk) 03:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO. BU Rob13 has verified that it is an improperly licensed non-free image. Please self-revert.- Mr X 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG, Since you're a frequent contributor to the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page, I thought I would get your opinion on something. Since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet, would replacing the info-box image on the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page with an image of the SES-10 mission be better? SES-10 was quite historical as the first orbital-class first-stage core to re-fly from CRS-8. Phillipsturtles ( talk) 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:JFG, asking you this because you're a very responsible editor btw. I sourced all the genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) myself a while back, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure whether they're directly calling this song these genres or the production/or sections of the song. Can you please take a close look at these sources ( [10], [11], [12]) and let me know if you think they're worded in a way that makes it appropriate to be used as genres on page? Thanks.-- Theo Mandela ( talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hugh McIntyre said the song "blends R&B, pop and even elements of hip-hop into something difficult to label".— JFG talk 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate very much what you are doing here, and I am happy that you (and others like user:Anythingyouwant) respect me and ask me for advice, even though I am from Germany. ;) In de.WP, I am busy since 2006, and I avoided any engagement in political lemmata since I have clear and strong political opinions outside of the mainstream and don't want to subordinate to "neutral" POVs in this case. The Trumps were initially just a side trip when I became aware that this somehow crazy guy who seemingly had no chance to become President had grandparents in Kallstadt, a village not far from my own village where they speak the same dialect as here.
So I bought The Trumps and wrote de:Fredrick Trump which is now – honestly ;) – much better than the English counterpart. I found it fascinating how different the worlds were where young Friedrich came from and where he made his way. (He also 'made' a fortune, as is stated in several articles, but this was almost irrelevant after the post-war inflation. He died in 1918.) And it is also fascinating how politics influenced the lives of Friedrich and his son Fred who is the topic of the maybe last article I will complete in the German Trump realm. To me, this has been a fascinating journey in strange worlds, but in the end I am a European who never had the opportunity to travel to other continents. It is not my mission to save the world from the ignorance about the familiar background of The Donald. I saved the German-speaking world, and I deserve an award for this! ;) -- Klaus Frisch ( talk) 00:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You said:
Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books
Thank you very much for your congratulations for my article writing efforts and new page creation !
I appreciate your taking the time to compose some compliments about articles I created !
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Template:Major US Cities, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac ( talk) 03:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Falcon 9 booster B1029, JFG!
Wikipedia editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice article. Many thanks!
To reply, leave a comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Trump consensus 19 links 1 and 2 need to be retargeted to archive. Also "lede section rewrite" in 15, 16, and 17. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Your constant editing, relating to articles about Russia, like removing the Flynn photo (bizarre explanation -- it was totally suited there), or the changing of a lot of details in the meddling article that confused me, do give me a pause w/ a great cause of concern, about possible political bias & motive (hope to be wrong). I hope to get clarification re your intent & motives; I don't want people to corruptly influence articles for their own political agenda -- nobody should welcome that no matter which side they are -- & I hope you could make it clear. I didn't mean to be 'rude', but I finally decided to ask you after seeing a lot of edits. And now I saw that I'm not the only one who complained about your editing in Russia-related articles ( User:SPECIFICO). I am, of course, not going to edit or reverse them, at least for the coming months -- I just want to know & I certainly hope to be wrong. Thanks. Archway ( talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Andrew/NYRM July 2017 and its talk (where I also pinged you).
How's real life? Andrewa ( talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, how's it going?
I have now committed to raising an RM based on my draft next Wednesday unless something comes up in the meantime [13] ... such as your new draft of course.
But realistically, unless you have this new draft already ready to critique, I suggest that in whatever time you have available you now critique mine instead, using of course what you have learned in preparing your new draft. Andrewa ( talk) 03:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG - sorry to keep coming back on this one, but I think we're definitely going to want to get this one rolling in the next 24 hours, unless you can give us an update on how you're doing with the condensed draft you mentioned yesterday, and when it will be ready. To be clear - no pressure on this, if you have too much else to do, then we can easily go ahead with the RM using Andrew's draft. Conversely, if you're almost there and can give us a clear timeline of when you're going to be ready, we can work with that. I think the main thing is we'd just like a little certainty on where we stand! Thanks, and all the best, — Amakuru ( talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Falcon 9 booster B1029 at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article has
one broken link that needs to be addressed, I believe; other than that, this article is good to go.
Michael Barera (
talk)
04:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can help me with something that's been bugging me. In this edit of mine, I'm not 100% confident in the word "column" there. Look at that link and see if you think another word would be more accurate. Things like "feature" and "section" have crossed my mind. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you´re right [14], though I see it as something of the Mar-a-Lago of his pop-culture. Can I have your opinion on somehing related? Today I noticed Template:Trump family, changed "descendents" to children (that and "ascendents" sounds a little pretentious to me), but then I noticed that son-in-law and uncle don´t really fit either way (potential tasteless jokes aside). Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this edit summary isn't a correct justification. If we were talking about the company Forbes, "its" would be correct in American English (not in British English though); however, in this case we are talking about The World's Billionaires, which is compiled by a team of reporters and, therefore, a collective "their" is appropriate. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have closed the practice about the requested move of Lega Nord. But cannot a request be extended beyond two weeks if there isn't an agreement? Because in that discussion 5 users are favorable and 5 users against (Some of them even using arguments that have been denied)...-- Wololoo ( talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing recent work on closing RMs. Just as an FYI, WP:RMNAC says that non-admins are supposed to use Template:RMnac anytime they make a close. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to topic, I would suggest adding a couple lines to the WP:RMPMC guideline, saying:
Page movers may use the special
{{rmnac|pm}}
signature, but they are not compelled to include it. The signature is recommended for sensitive cases, as a courtesy. Like other editors, page movers should exercise caution when evaluating the outcome of contentious debates. When in doubt, don't close.
Comments? — JFG talk 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Amakuru I get your point of view on this, and I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfC because I think it's a strong view point. I agree with JFG that it's probably worth reopening now that we're over a year in to the page mover right. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Shucks, I was just in the process of changing that and you beat me to it! My edit summary was "learn something new every day!" Thanks for the education. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Your excellent citation work is gonna get you in trouble...specifically when I'm reviewing an FA candidate, you will be called. Atsme 📞 📧 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello JFG -- The original Slate article was weak. I admit that. The Daily Signal article says, " 'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'” I think that supports my assertion that the impeachment-minded members of House and Senate are looking to a declaratory judgment as a basis for moving forward in the House. This whole topic is so fraught. I don't want to upset anyone. I do think the reasoning is clear and reference sufficient. I'd ask you to reconsider your position and put the Signal reference back and retract the failed verification original research?. All the best. Rhadow ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
JFG I was concerned about your wiki on Donald Trump. It seems a bit biased and inflammatory. I could tell someone that wrote it must be a bit frustrated with the election results. I saw that you made an edit hours ago and thought maybe you could look over it and try to spot some of the biased comments. The page is blocked to protect liberal opinion and cannot be edited. I use Wikipedia frequently to get facts, not angry opinion. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Wilhuff Tarken ( talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have worked on this template significantly. I don't have much experience with these, so could you change the green line from "confirmed" to "served" since Kelly has changed posts? This way it will be up to date. JocularJellyfish ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Re [16] - Say somebody came along and changed only the links. Could one reasonably point to #23 in their revert? I don't think so, since no links were included in any of the proposed language. That being the case, I don't think the consensus should show the links. If you feel that the previous text implied that the consensus was for no linking, you could add clarification of that point. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I closed the move request as "moved" this morning. You can carry out the link fixing now. I'll grab a few of those myself. bd2412 T 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
What would be appropriate? Vehicles?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 21:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello and know how you are. Well, I'm writing to ask you some help regarding Sabrina Ferilli's page in English and French, would you give her a refreshed and improved? right and not more than 10 minutes of your precious time. If so, if I can then return the courtesy you will be grateful for it infinitely. Thanks and greetings from Coreca-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 13:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Its launch capacity is more than 6.5 ton delta v 1500m/s GTO not standard 1800m/s GTO. That is superior than Proton.If you think it's just a midium-lift rocket .Proton should be updated from Heavy-lift to Medium-lift. ITO666 ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
GTO & LEO launch capacity is homologous . The more GTO capacity represents more LEO.H3 launch capacity on GTO is beyond Proton & H2B(19ton) and its LEO is more than Proton. ITO666 ( talk) 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
H2B 8t GTO is delta v 1830 m/s. Ariane 5 is launched in north latitude 5 degrees (Earth spinning faster)so its satellite can approach to GEO by 1500 m/s. If Proton is launched in Guyana,its GTO will be 9t. 51 degree inclination LEO(ISS orbit) of Proton is just 19t not 23t.Ariane 5 LEO capacity will increase by HM-7b instead of MBB Aestus.HM-7b is more efficent and higher thrust (so the payload weight is more than 21t ATV) ITO666 ( talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The weight of Zvezda encased instruments is 22.7t. its lsunch weight is only 20t. Kibo pressured module launch weight is 15.9t and full load weight is near 30t. ITO666 ( talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
JFG, I undid a series of your edits related to merging the August and September missile launches over Japan to the main North Korean missile launches article. I would say it seemed to me like most editors are for keeping the August article; I don't know if most editors are for keeping the September article. I'm personally in favor of keeping both articles, as these missile launches were very significant for a variety of reasons. If you would still like to merge the articles, I ask that you open a thread, possibly on the talk page of the main North Korean missile launches article, asking people if they think the articles should be merged. Sincerely, Ethanbas ( talk) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This archived close of an RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page differs to how I remember it - did you change it at all? (Retired editor Wormwood) 193.60.83.75 ( talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Were you still intending on writing some text for this? Here’s hoping the inspiration strikes, Humanengr ( talk) 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi again JFG. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents of the United States at my sandbox. Thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello JFG,
I noticed that you were active in a discussion about ' whataboutism' in July this year. It seems that I, logging into Wikipedia only sporadically, again missed to comment when it mattered, when there was a 'Request for Comment.' I'm not very familiar with the procedures on Wikipedia with regards to votes. What's the status of the lede of the article? Does the lede now count as the consensus of the editors? Can the lede be changed without another vote?
I criticised the article back in 2014, and it seems to me that one of my points of criticism still hasn't been addressed: If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)?
As far as I can see, nobody so far has come up with citations from scholarly sources, let alone from before 2008 or even before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe I'm missing something, but all that's provided in in the lede and the section 'Soviet Union Period' were not scholarly sources but newspaper articles resp. opinion pieces. Not exactly the high quality sources you'd expect in an article about a historical topic.
It seems to me the article is misleading the readers in multiple ways. But what can be done about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you want to share them.
Best regards Larkusix ( talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue of the length of some shipwreck lists has been raised at my talk page. Not sure if you will get the ping as I added it after the initial reply. Mjroots ( talk) 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, JFG.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Brad v 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your latest additions indicate that the Japanese Mars Terahertz Microsatellite will piggy-back on the Emirates Mars Mission, however, neither of those articles state that, and I have found nothing in the web to that effect. Could you please show a reference to that effect? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thx for the guidance. Given that I have, in effect, asked this question with no response several times from talk page participants in recent discussions, my intent here was to request feedback from a wider audience in advance of suggesting specific changes to the article. Given that DN has responded, would you suggest I remove the RfC template or ?? Humanengr ( talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please do not interfere in a private conversation. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I removed the RfC template. Would the following be more suitable?
[Title:] RfC: Should the bottom navbox include a parent category to accompany the eponymous category "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?
[Intro:] Given that there is a historical record of nations intervening in / interfering in / influencing other nation’s electoral processes (see, e.g., this Oxford Journal article cited as ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention), the omission of a parent category such as ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ (or similar) to the eponymous category yields the distinct impression the current article describes a one-of-a-kind event. This RfC is intended to address that misleading impression.
It is requested that those opposing inclusion of a parent category provide rationale for maintaining a ‘one-of-a-kind’ status. (My questions on this issue in earlier discussion remain unanswered.)
Humanengr ( talk) 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JFG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, JFG...I'll be the first to admit I'm a neophyte about CU procedures as
evidenced here. Considering there are times when it becomes apparent that editing is not about NPOV & getting the article right, rather it's about how many editors agree with a particular POV/version of right, it only gets worse when you add the cowardess of block evading IPs and socks who are there to pad iVotes and cause even more disruption on the TP. It can be a real pain in the
. This one is the
most recent for me. The behavioral pattern is one
I've seen before as I'm clearly the target. I guess there's nothing that can be done to stop them if they're using a cellphone while traveling, or happen to be stationary using a VPN...or is there? Do you know if WMF ever got around to completing a cost-benefit analysis regarding unregistered users vs registration?
Atsme
📞
📧
04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I moved Falcon 9 booster B1029 to Falcon 9 core B1029 and you reverted it, I explained why I moved it in the talk page and provided reasons for it such as they're referred to as cores on the list of falcon 9 launches AND by Spacex who manufactures and launches them YuriGagrin12 ( talk) 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
About this revision you recently made to 2017 in spaceflight : 'SS-520-4' is a code name for a specific flight, and not the name for the vehicle's configuration. Officially, there is only one configuration for SS-520, regardless of whether it has two or three stages. In fact, for the SS-520-4 flight, not just the satellite, but the third stage too can be considered as part of the rocket's payload, according to this article.
「既存の2段式ロケットであるSS-520ロケットに、新規開発の第3段ロケットと超小型衛星からなるペイロードを搭載して、技術実証する」
It translates: conduct technology demonstration on a preexisting two stage rocket SS-520 by loading a payload consisting of a newly developed third stage and miniaturized satellite. In other words, the SS-520 was to 'launch' a rocket stage and a satellite.
If you want to clearly differentiate SS-520-4 and 5 from the other flights of the rocket, calling them SS-520 (three stage variant) is one solution. Kind regards, Hms1103 ( talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hope you soon deliver the annual report's write-ups (after all, the only ones pending are your seven and Soulbust's for Stranger Things) igordebraga ≠ 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Archives: | |
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
What's your view on this? If they're right, we're very wrong. ― Mandruss ☎ 19:40, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Discussion should continue at
Talk:2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots
|
---|
Hello! I don't believe you and I have collaborated on Wikipedia before. I appreciate all you do for Wikipedia, I mean that sincerely. I restored that article not because you didn't combine it correctly (you did). But an article related to the current U.S. president should have a discussion before it is deleted or redirected. If the article goes to a AfD or a redirect discussion, fair enough. But there needs to be discussion first. Thanks! Juneau Mike ( talk) 20:24, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
|
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.
Insert CleverPhrase Here 11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
<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)
</onlyinclude>
tag all by its lonesome. I
check everyday for these. Usually, it means vandalism.
Bgwhite (
talk)
08:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
It should be "government service" on the Trump page. -- Bod ( talk) 08:25, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, what's awkward about "current consensuses"? [2] And what is a "consensus wording"? ― Mandruss ☎ 16:44, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Got to run. More later. Dicklyon ( talk) 22:44, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
When you've the time, please look again at the "no consensus" section. Anythingyouwant is back to the 'neither won a majority of the popular vote,' which, as I recall, did not have support for inclusion. When you wrote your choice for the RfC, it said, "fifth elected without a plurality of the vote." That seems well sourced to me, but now he's wanting to change it to the 4th. I found this from Pew Research, which seems to sort the issues, but he's rejecting it [3]. He's back to the 'popular vote majority' which as you know is useless without the Electoral College. I realize you support 'few' now, but I worry that might cause more problems. It seems POV to me, as if Trump's election was off the mark that he's failed at something and that makes him illegitimate, when actually did well across the country. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:38, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
100% support this. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:01, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Done
SW3 5DL (
talk)
04:16, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
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)
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 pod ous 14:59, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
I think I'm done. I'm making too many mistakes! El_C 07:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this phrase "...for over three decades beginning in 1987" [4]. I originally wrote that.
I don't know how I came up with that. I think I was tired :) Steve Quinn ( talk) 03:31, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Paging Androcles. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 09:57, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Re [5], the semi-permanence is intentional. RfCs often get archived before a closer shows up (and sometimes even before 30 days), requiring them to be manually restored. Semi-permanent DNAU prevents that. The intent is not for the period to expire, but rather to manually remove the DNAU after close. ― Mandruss ☎ 07:31, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
Unresolved: 1. Return this one to 10 years? 2. Seek a consensus for future handling of RfCs? ― Mandruss ☎ 08:18, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
― Mandruss ☎ 12:19, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
Re
[6], no big deal, but I don't know whether you're aware of the new community consensus now enshrined at
MOS:DATERANGE. The question arises whether we should (1) implement the new consensus as best we can, (2) wait until {{
marriage}}
supports it, if it ever does, or (3) simply ignore the consensus per
WP:IAR. ―
Mandruss
☎
13:41, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
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!
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)
I want this four codes for Kandahar Afghanistan Module:Location map/data/Afghanistan Kabul — Kdh ( talk) 12:02, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This runs close to a personal attack, as I read it. Would you consider rewording? - Bri ( talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
About your close here. I do not see any consensus in the discussion about what should be in the infobox about ideology. Would you please revise your close and remove that claim? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I stand by my close and I note that the article has been updated accordingly without triggering a backlash. @ Jytdog: I would advise you to open another discussion if you feel that some of the removed items should be added back to the "Ideology" field. — JFG talk 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
I edited a page in your userspace, User:JFG/sandbox/Launching. See the changes I made to what appears to be a template draft.--— Mr. Guye ( talk) ( My aftermath) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America First (policy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2017.
Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by
MediationBot (
talk) on
behalf of the Mediation Committee.
23:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I would like to note sans any other comment that using Daily Mail and Perez Hilton for any claims of fact in any BLP is contrary to WP:RSN discussions as far as I know, in and of themselves. This applies to just about any BLP on the face of the earth - or Wikipedia, and I trust you agree. Collect ( talk) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This edit of yours [8] changes the meaning of the text and changes it in a way that at least one editor @ BullRangifer: is currently disputing/rejecting on Talk [9]. You marked the edit summary "copy edit" but because of the change of meaning, the ongoing Talk page discussion, and your previous removal of the same relevant text, it appears to be more than that. It's also your second revert in less than 24 hours. Please undo this edit. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].[78] In January 2016, according to The Daily Beast, the report […some other stuff].[101]
In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].[78] Another Daily Beast article stated that the report […some other stuff].[101]
to this. Yes, certainly, just as they now collaborate with Taliban. For example, it was suggested that the whole story with Palmyra offensives was about letting ISIL "to take over" all weapons and ammunition left by Russian forces in Palmyra. This is nothing new. There were similar agreements during Soviet war in Afghanistan ( that man was responsible for some negotiations of this nature, there was a documentary movie). But I do not have time for collecting sources about it, sorry. My very best wishes ( talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
The request for formal mediation concerning America First (policy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.
For the Mediation Committee,
TransporterMan (
TALK)
03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by
MediationBot,
on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)
Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my
fat fingers,
hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you.
EvergreenFir
(talk)
22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Do you think a block is still needed for the three users in question? El_C 04:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I moved the page.
Feel free to move it to another title, just please leave a redirect behind as you go.
Thanks for your sub article efforts !
Sagecandor ( talk) 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Having fun with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Man, what a mess! Ethanbas ( talk) 03:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
This is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO. BU Rob13 has verified that it is an improperly licensed non-free image. Please self-revert.- Mr X 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG, Since you're a frequent contributor to the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page, I thought I would get your opinion on something. Since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet, would replacing the info-box image on the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page with an image of the SES-10 mission be better? SES-10 was quite historical as the first orbital-class first-stage core to re-fly from CRS-8. Phillipsturtles ( talk) 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi User:JFG, asking you this because you're a very responsible editor btw. I sourced all the genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) myself a while back, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure whether they're directly calling this song these genres or the production/or sections of the song. Can you please take a close look at these sources ( [10], [11], [12]) and let me know if you think they're worded in a way that makes it appropriate to be used as genres on page? Thanks.-- Theo Mandela ( talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Hugh McIntyre said the song "blends R&B, pop and even elements of hip-hop into something difficult to label".— JFG talk 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I appreciate very much what you are doing here, and I am happy that you (and others like user:Anythingyouwant) respect me and ask me for advice, even though I am from Germany. ;) In de.WP, I am busy since 2006, and I avoided any engagement in political lemmata since I have clear and strong political opinions outside of the mainstream and don't want to subordinate to "neutral" POVs in this case. The Trumps were initially just a side trip when I became aware that this somehow crazy guy who seemingly had no chance to become President had grandparents in Kallstadt, a village not far from my own village where they speak the same dialect as here.
So I bought The Trumps and wrote de:Fredrick Trump which is now – honestly ;) – much better than the English counterpart. I found it fascinating how different the worlds were where young Friedrich came from and where he made his way. (He also 'made' a fortune, as is stated in several articles, but this was almost irrelevant after the post-war inflation. He died in 1918.) And it is also fascinating how politics influenced the lives of Friedrich and his son Fred who is the topic of the maybe last article I will complete in the German Trump realm. To me, this has been a fascinating journey in strange worlds, but in the end I am a European who never had the opportunity to travel to other continents. It is not my mission to save the world from the ignorance about the familiar background of The Donald. I saved the German-speaking world, and I deserve an award for this! ;) -- Klaus Frisch ( talk) 00:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
You said:
Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books
Thank you very much for your congratulations for my article writing efforts and new page creation !
I appreciate your taking the time to compose some compliments about articles I created !
Sagecandor ( talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Template:Major US Cities, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac ( talk) 03:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for creating Falcon 9 booster B1029, JFG!
Wikipedia editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:
Nice article. Many thanks!
To reply, leave a comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.
Learn more about page curation.
— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
Trump consensus 19 links 1 and 2 need to be retargeted to archive. Also "lede section rewrite" in 15, 16, and 17. Thanks. ― Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Your constant editing, relating to articles about Russia, like removing the Flynn photo (bizarre explanation -- it was totally suited there), or the changing of a lot of details in the meddling article that confused me, do give me a pause w/ a great cause of concern, about possible political bias & motive (hope to be wrong). I hope to get clarification re your intent & motives; I don't want people to corruptly influence articles for their own political agenda -- nobody should welcome that no matter which side they are -- & I hope you could make it clear. I didn't mean to be 'rude', but I finally decided to ask you after seeing a lot of edits. And now I saw that I'm not the only one who complained about your editing in Russia-related articles ( User:SPECIFICO). I am, of course, not going to edit or reverse them, at least for the coming months -- I just want to know & I certainly hope to be wrong. Thanks. Archway ( talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Have a look at User:Andrew/NYRM July 2017 and its talk (where I also pinged you).
How's real life? Andrewa ( talk) 01:52, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
Hi, how's it going?
I have now committed to raising an RM based on my draft next Wednesday unless something comes up in the meantime [13] ... such as your new draft of course.
But realistically, unless you have this new draft already ready to critique, I suggest that in whatever time you have available you now critique mine instead, using of course what you have learned in preparing your new draft. Andrewa ( talk) 03:50, 1 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi JFG - sorry to keep coming back on this one, but I think we're definitely going to want to get this one rolling in the next 24 hours, unless you can give us an update on how you're doing with the condensed draft you mentioned yesterday, and when it will be ready. To be clear - no pressure on this, if you have too much else to do, then we can easily go ahead with the RM using Andrew's draft. Conversely, if you're almost there and can give us a clear timeline of when you're going to be ready, we can work with that. I think the main thing is we'd just like a little certainty on where we stand! Thanks, and all the best, — Amakuru ( talk) 13:44, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello! Your submission of
Falcon 9 booster B1029 at the
Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath
your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The article has
one broken link that needs to be addressed, I believe; other than that, this article is good to go.
Michael Barera (
talk)
04:15, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
Maybe you can help me with something that's been bugging me. In this edit of mine, I'm not 100% confident in the word "column" there. Look at that link and see if you think another word would be more accurate. Things like "feature" and "section" have crossed my mind. ― Mandruss ☎ 22:42, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps you´re right [14], though I see it as something of the Mar-a-Lago of his pop-culture. Can I have your opinion on somehing related? Today I noticed Template:Trump family, changed "descendents" to children (that and "ascendents" sounds a little pretentious to me), but then I noticed that son-in-law and uncle don´t really fit either way (potential tasteless jokes aside). Any thoughts? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:05, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
Actually, this edit summary isn't a correct justification. If we were talking about the company Forbes, "its" would be correct in American English (not in British English though); however, in this case we are talking about The World's Billionaires, which is compiled by a team of reporters and, therefore, a collective "their" is appropriate. -- Scjessey ( talk) 12:42, 15 July 2017 (UTC)
Hi, I see that you have closed the practice about the requested move of Lega Nord. But cannot a request be extended beyond two weeks if there isn't an agreement? Because in that discussion 5 users are favorable and 5 users against (Some of them even using arguments that have been denied)...-- Wololoo ( talk) 12:29, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for doing recent work on closing RMs. Just as an FYI, WP:RMNAC says that non-admins are supposed to use Template:RMnac anytime they make a close. TonyBallioni ( talk) 20:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Back to topic, I would suggest adding a couple lines to the WP:RMPMC guideline, saying:
Page movers may use the special
{{rmnac|pm}}
signature, but they are not compelled to include it. The signature is recommended for sensitive cases, as a courtesy. Like other editors, page movers should exercise caution when evaluating the outcome of contentious debates. When in doubt, don't close.
Comments? — JFG talk 21:52, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Amakuru I get your point of view on this, and I'm not sure how I would !vote in an RfC because I think it's a strong view point. I agree with JFG that it's probably worth reopening now that we're over a year in to the page mover right. TonyBallioni ( talk) 22:57, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Shucks, I was just in the process of changing that and you beat me to it! My edit summary was "learn something new every day!" Thanks for the education. -- MelanieN ( talk) 15:39, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Your excellent citation work is gonna get you in trouble...specifically when I'm reviewing an FA candidate, you will be called. Atsme 📞 📧 22:29, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for supporting my run for administrator. I am honored and grateful. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 03:07, 24 July 2017 (UTC) |
Hello JFG -- The original Slate article was weak. I admit that. The Daily Signal article says, " 'You look at the bill Sen. Warren sponsored,' he added. 'The lawsuits ask for declaratory judgment to fill in very wide gaps and reasoning.'” I think that supports my assertion that the impeachment-minded members of House and Senate are looking to a declaratory judgment as a basis for moving forward in the House. This whole topic is so fraught. I don't want to upset anyone. I do think the reasoning is clear and reference sufficient. I'd ask you to reconsider your position and put the Signal reference back and retract the failed verification original research?. All the best. Rhadow ( talk) 11:29, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
JFG I was concerned about your wiki on Donald Trump. It seems a bit biased and inflammatory. I could tell someone that wrote it must be a bit frustrated with the election results. I saw that you made an edit hours ago and thought maybe you could look over it and try to spot some of the biased comments. The page is blocked to protect liberal opinion and cannot be edited. I use Wikipedia frequently to get facts, not angry opinion. Thanks in advance for your consideration. Wilhuff Tarken ( talk) 12:41, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
You seem to have worked on this template significantly. I don't have much experience with these, so could you change the green line from "confirmed" to "served" since Kelly has changed posts? This way it will be up to date. JocularJellyfish ( talk) 00:43, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Re [16] - Say somebody came along and changed only the links. Could one reasonably point to #23 in their revert? I don't think so, since no links were included in any of the proposed language. That being the case, I don't think the consensus should show the links. If you feel that the previous text implied that the consensus was for no linking, you could add clarification of that point. ― Mandruss ☎ 09:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
FYI, I closed the move request as "moved" this morning. You can carry out the link fixing now. I'll grab a few of those myself. bd2412 T 14:06, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
What would be appropriate? Vehicles?-- Bellerophon5685 ( talk) 21:36, 1 September 2017 (UTC)
Good morning from Calabria, I'm writing to say hello and know how you are. Well, I'm writing to ask you some help regarding Sabrina Ferilli's page in English and French, would you give her a refreshed and improved? right and not more than 10 minutes of your precious time. If so, if I can then return the courtesy you will be grateful for it infinitely. Thanks and greetings from Coreca-- Luigi Salvatore Vadacchino ( talk) 13:38, 23 September 2017 (UTC)
Its launch capacity is more than 6.5 ton delta v 1500m/s GTO not standard 1800m/s GTO. That is superior than Proton.If you think it's just a midium-lift rocket .Proton should be updated from Heavy-lift to Medium-lift. ITO666 ( talk) 01:14, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
GTO & LEO launch capacity is homologous . The more GTO capacity represents more LEO.H3 launch capacity on GTO is beyond Proton & H2B(19ton) and its LEO is more than Proton. ITO666 ( talk) 11:28, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
H2B 8t GTO is delta v 1830 m/s. Ariane 5 is launched in north latitude 5 degrees (Earth spinning faster)so its satellite can approach to GEO by 1500 m/s. If Proton is launched in Guyana,its GTO will be 9t. 51 degree inclination LEO(ISS orbit) of Proton is just 19t not 23t.Ariane 5 LEO capacity will increase by HM-7b instead of MBB Aestus.HM-7b is more efficent and higher thrust (so the payload weight is more than 21t ATV) ITO666 ( talk) 17:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
Sources
|
---|
|
The weight of Zvezda encased instruments is 22.7t. its lsunch weight is only 20t. Kibo pressured module launch weight is 15.9t and full load weight is near 30t. ITO666 ( talk) 05:43, 28 September 2017 (UTC)
JFG, I undid a series of your edits related to merging the August and September missile launches over Japan to the main North Korean missile launches article. I would say it seemed to me like most editors are for keeping the August article; I don't know if most editors are for keeping the September article. I'm personally in favor of keeping both articles, as these missile launches were very significant for a variety of reasons. If you would still like to merge the articles, I ask that you open a thread, possibly on the talk page of the main North Korean missile launches article, asking people if they think the articles should be merged. Sincerely, Ethanbas ( talk) 16:45, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
This archived close of an RfC on the Alternative for Germany talk page differs to how I remember it - did you change it at all? (Retired editor Wormwood) 193.60.83.75 ( talk) 12:08, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
Were you still intending on writing some text for this? Here’s hoping the inspiration strikes, Humanengr ( talk) 19:33, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi again JFG. I was just wondering if you had any thoughts on my attempt at overhauling the List of Presidents of the United States at my sandbox. Thanks.-- Nevé – selbert 17:51, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello JFG,
I noticed that you were active in a discussion about ' whataboutism' in July this year. It seems that I, logging into Wikipedia only sporadically, again missed to comment when it mattered, when there was a 'Request for Comment.' I'm not very familiar with the procedures on Wikipedia with regards to votes. What's the status of the lede of the article? Does the lede now count as the consensus of the editors? Can the lede be changed without another vote?
I criticised the article back in 2014, and it seems to me that one of my points of criticism still hasn't been addressed: If "whataboutism" is such a "famous" Soviet propaganda tactic, why isn't the term mentioned in the relevant literature (scholarly texts about propaganda)?
As far as I can see, nobody so far has come up with citations from scholarly sources, let alone from before 2008 or even before the end of the Soviet Union. Maybe I'm missing something, but all that's provided in in the lede and the section 'Soviet Union Period' were not scholarly sources but newspaper articles resp. opinion pieces. Not exactly the high quality sources you'd expect in an article about a historical topic.
It seems to me the article is misleading the readers in multiple ways. But what can be done about it? I'd like to hear your thoughts, if you want to share them.
Best regards Larkusix ( talk) 13:12, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The issue of the length of some shipwreck lists has been raised at my talk page. Not sure if you will get the ping as I added it after the initial reply. Mjroots ( talk) 07:53, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() |
Hello, JFG.
I've seen you editing recently and you seem knowledgeable about Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Brad v 23:24, 4 December 2017 (UTC)Please see the discussion on Talk:Jeffrey C. Mateer. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 01:27, 5 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Your latest additions indicate that the Japanese Mars Terahertz Microsatellite will piggy-back on the Emirates Mars Mission, however, neither of those articles state that, and I have found nothing in the web to that effect. Could you please show a reference to that effect? Thanks. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
Thx for the guidance. Given that I have, in effect, asked this question with no response several times from talk page participants in recent discussions, my intent here was to request feedback from a wider audience in advance of suggesting specific changes to the article. Given that DN has responded, would you suggest I remove the RfC template or ?? Humanengr ( talk) 04:37, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
@ SPECIFICO: Please do not interfere in a private conversation. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I removed the RfC template. Would the following be more suitable?
[Title:] RfC: Should the bottom navbox include a parent category to accompany the eponymous category "Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections"?
[Intro:] Given that there is a historical record of nations intervening in / interfering in / influencing other nation’s electoral processes (see, e.g., this Oxford Journal article cited as ref 2 in Foreign electoral intervention), the omission of a parent category such as ‘Foreign electoral intervention’ (or similar) to the eponymous category yields the distinct impression the current article describes a one-of-a-kind event. This RfC is intended to address that misleading impression.
It is requested that those opposing inclusion of a parent category provide rationale for maintaining a ‘one-of-a-kind’ status. (My questions on this issue in earlier discussion remain unanswered.)
Humanengr ( talk) 15:28, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hello, JFG. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, " Timeline of the presidency of Donald Trump".
In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia
mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply and remove the {{db-afc}}
, {{db-draft}}
, or {{db-g13}}
code.
If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.
Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. TKK! bark with me! 14:44, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi, JFG...I'll be the first to admit I'm a neophyte about CU procedures as
evidenced here. Considering there are times when it becomes apparent that editing is not about NPOV & getting the article right, rather it's about how many editors agree with a particular POV/version of right, it only gets worse when you add the cowardess of block evading IPs and socks who are there to pad iVotes and cause even more disruption on the TP. It can be a real pain in the
. This one is the
most recent for me. The behavioral pattern is one
I've seen before as I'm clearly the target. I guess there's nothing that can be done to stop them if they're using a cellphone while traveling, or happen to be stationary using a VPN...or is there? Do you know if WMF ever got around to completing a cost-benefit analysis regarding unregistered users vs registration?
Atsme
📞
📧
04:21, 15 December 2017 (UTC)
Please see the discussion on Talk:Stuart Kyle Duncan. – JocularJellyfish Talk Contribs 17:09, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
I moved Falcon 9 booster B1029 to Falcon 9 core B1029 and you reverted it, I explained why I moved it in the talk page and provided reasons for it such as they're referred to as cores on the list of falcon 9 launches AND by Spacex who manufactures and launches them YuriGagrin12 ( talk) 02:45, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
About this revision you recently made to 2017 in spaceflight : 'SS-520-4' is a code name for a specific flight, and not the name for the vehicle's configuration. Officially, there is only one configuration for SS-520, regardless of whether it has two or three stages. In fact, for the SS-520-4 flight, not just the satellite, but the third stage too can be considered as part of the rocket's payload, according to this article.
「既存の2段式ロケットであるSS-520ロケットに、新規開発の第3段ロケットと超小型衛星からなるペイロードを搭載して、技術実証する」
It translates: conduct technology demonstration on a preexisting two stage rocket SS-520 by loading a payload consisting of a newly developed third stage and miniaturized satellite. In other words, the SS-520 was to 'launch' a rocket stage and a satellite.
If you want to clearly differentiate SS-520-4 and 5 from the other flights of the rocket, calling them SS-520 (three stage variant) is one solution. Kind regards, Hms1103 ( talk) 21:27, 28 December 2017 (UTC)
Hope you soon deliver the annual report's write-ups (after all, the only ones pending are your seven and Soulbust's for Stranger Things) igordebraga ≠ 00:56, 29 December 2017 (UTC)