Archives

2016 2017 2018 Awards Bots Drama Fun Old

Hello. I noticed that earlier today, per consensus at the talk page for Melania Trump, you adjusted the parameter on the officeholder IB template so a custom term label could apply to an incumbent office/role holder. It seems that another thing that happened earlier today is that, for reasons I couldn't quite deduce, every incumbent officeholder box had the label for their start date change from "assumed office" to "in office" (i.e., the label used for former officeholders who have completed a term). I'm not sure exactly how these template edits work, but are these two changes related? I ask because I checked the talk pages when I noticed the change a little while ago, and it didn't seem that there was any discussion for it, and no other edits made to the template recently, so I'm guessing it was some kind of consequence of your edit. Not a huge deal in any case, but just curious about how these things work. --Sunshineisles2 (talk) 21:49, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Sunshineisles2: You are correct, I had not noticed that {{Infobox officeholder}} forced "In office" as a |termlabel= parameter for the sub-template {{Infobox officeholder/office}}. When I changed the latter to accept a term label instead of the hardcoded "Assumed office" for incumbents, the default term label "In office" became visible. My edit was reverted in the meantime, and I'll have to solve the issue differently. Ping Neveselbert for info. — JFG ^talk 22:58, 2 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are indirectly invoked, I think it only fair to point you to this discussion as a courtesy. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:22, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. These editing restrictions are a minefield indeed. They should not hamper good-faith collaboration, but rules are rules and we must all tread carefully. I will comment on your talk-page thread. — JFG ^talk 17:58, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I made it by myself，why Can't add a self-made list as a source. Other sources are made by people by thenselves Braun Ge (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Braun Ge, welcome to Wikipedia! We are talking about this revert on the article List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches. Your question is fully addressed in our editorial policies WP:NOR, WP:SPS and WP:IRS. In a nutshell, Wikipedian editors compile information previously published by independent sources. Besides, your table of launches as a graphic would bring no extra information to the existing contents of the article, so that it would be rejected even if published independently. Don't let this discourage you; further constructive contributions are welcome. — JFG ^talk 10:23, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Context: we are talking about a conversation that Geogene had collapsed[2] and I restored.[3] — JFG ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement by an IP, The sourcing of this article is beyond poor, I looked at some of the articles in question claiming direct Putin influence and they have zero solid evidence, its all inferences or insinuations by unknown sources is not a commentary on the sourcing in the article, it's a complaint that our reliable source criteria don't prohibit us from citing media that use anonymous sources. That complaint is going nowhere. Then there's also the opening remarks at the beginning of the thread, from an account registered in February that has all of 11 edits: This article seems biased, I for one do not believe in this being legitimate and many others don't either, however, I appreciate the information commonly believed put into an article. Again, this is just somebody's random opinion. A regular editor then asked them if they could be more specific, and this reply followed from someone else: Completely agree with Guymanforget. Didn't take reading past the first sentence to read bias here. The way it is laid out suggests these conclusions to be written in stone and there is a sizeable community that does not concur with that assumption. Oh, good, some other jerk with an opinion, that one a sleeper account that has gotten about 150 edits in 10 years. That whole thread was pointless, bad faith accusations from users that at best don't understand core policy, and at worst are probably sock puppets. There was no reason to uncollapse it, because "I don't like it" and "I don't like it either" aren't useful for improving the article. Stuff like that doesn't belong on Wikipedia talk pages, it should stay in the comment threads at RT and Sputnik News. Geogene (talk) 13:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Given the thread was kind of stale, you could have just archived it untouched. When you collapse some discourse that was meant to redress perceived issues with the article, even if you and I can deem such remarks unfounded, it sends a WP:BITE message to new users who are not frequent contributors. As long as such comments do not turn to insults or vandalism, they should be left alone. Everything you came here to explain, you could have written on the talk page to educate those users about Wikipedia policies and history of this particular article. Think about that next time. — JFG ^talk 14:06, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Those users weren't interested in hearing about Wikipedia policy, they were here to make drive-by political statements. The OP, for example, disappeared when a regular asked them in good faith if they could be more specific. The next account that stood in for them was challenged in good faith by a different regular; they responded to that with a mild insult No, I prefer to live in the real world where dissent is still seen as a useful path to ferreting out the truth. This page is yours. Have a nice life which does not indicate any interest in learning our policies. The next drive-by remark was, its just something that the democraps came up with to try and undermine him which is not evidence of any interest in WP policies either. These accounts aren't interested in our policies, JFG. They're offended by the article and dropped in to argue. Geogene (talk) 14:17, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand where you're coming from, and I have pushed back mercilessly on a bunch of obvious trolls, but I remain strongly attached to Old Fashioned Wikipedian Values such as AGF. Have you genuinely considered that the kind of replies that those users have received simply discourages them from arguing their point of view? A comment like This page is yours. Have a nice life! makes me feel that we are failing as Wikipedians. I do agree with you that the remarks by Zgrillo2004 were pure opinion, so that you could have hatted only this part. On the other hand, remarks by Guymanforget, Tvillars, TheConduqtor and Azuefeldt looked constructive. The thread could have brought some article improvement if "dissenters" had not been summarily dismissed. — JFG ^talk 14:44, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't like the "the page is yours" thing either, but consider the arguments that Tvillars was making. I'll be quoting some of them here. Not a single American has been convicted of collusion with the Russians and yet the article states as FACT it took place. Does it? It's a huge article, but my browser's Ctrl+f isn't finding it. The article does state as a fact that interference took place, but that's not collusion. Another example is the only references to David Nunes are colored to support Russian collusion which couldn't be further from his position. The only references to Nunes I'm finding in the article aren't about collusion at all, it's about whether or not the Russians specifically wanted Trump to win, plus some House procedural drama. So Tvillars seems to have been saying collusion when they meant interference. But Nunes appears to accept that Russia interfered in the election [4], so it isn't misrepresentative. Then they mentioned the VIPS thing and SPECIFICO told them it had been argued before, and that's when Tvillars chose to discontinue the thread. Their last post was on May 21, I collapsed the thread on June 28. I don't consider that summary dismissal, at least not for Tvillars. I could have Fisked them like that on the spot, but we'd have gotten the same outcome, sooner. Geogene (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. The thread was rightfully archived; case closed. No need to get bogged down in details unless some of the involved editors resurface. — JFG ^talk 22:33, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Are you saying that I am not allowed to have an opinion? I have voted for Trump, he was never a politician and what Putin said, wasnt aware that he was in Moscow. This hole thing is just an excuse by the democrats to impeach him so they can turn the US into a socialist country. Not to mention that they want war against Russia which from what I understand is cooperating with the US to hand these cyberattacks. Again, if I cant have an opinion then why are we only to makr articles that the progressive media pits out. Its just insulting to all of us conservative /SMDH --Zgrillo2004 (talk) 04:40, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are most definitely entitled to your opinion, however opinion alone does not help improve articles. The wikipedian approach is to make a concrete suggestion for modifying the article contents, back it up with a reliable source (which in turn should not be an opinion piece), and get consensus for the change if another editor revert your edit. It is a difficult process, but it is necessary to maintain stability and credibility in an "encyclopedia that anyone can edit". In the long run, it helps keep articles factual, neutral and balanced. Nevertheless, in politics, emotional reactions to news of the day tend to be over-represented, and that's sad indeed. — JFG ^talk 05:37, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right now, I'm worried about too many cooks spoiling the broth: I'm trying to hammer out a proposal with Masem and possibly NeilN, Awilley and EEng. But you will certainly be one of the first people I ping once we have an actual proposal, as you're one of the most consistently level-headed editors in politics right now. Hell, you could look at my contribs and figure out where we're discussing it and weigh in, but I want to actively avoid too many voices in that discussion, because it makes it take longer and produce a more complicated result. I've probably invited too many people already, but oh well. lol

I also think you might be able to help with an alternate proposal for a site-wide policy against "reaction" sections in articles about not-necessarily-political events like natural disasters and military actions, but I'm not quite ready to work on that yet. I will -again- certainly ping you when I am.

And of course, none of that is to say that I'm not open to having more than one discussion, if you want to have one here or at my talk page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:50, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@MPants at work: Thanks for your note. I have looked at the ideas you are juggling, and shall await your invitation before submitting any comments or ideas of my own. — JFG ^talk 10:17, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. It appears that you violated 1RR on Presidency of Donald Trump with two non-consecutive reverts to two different sets of new material:

1. 14:38, 19 July 2018, reverting this
2. 16:35, 19 July 2018‎, reverting this

Please self-revert. Politrukki (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, thanks for the notice. I have reverted the Mueller indictments, and will start a talk page discussion. — JFG ^talk 05:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I actually meant that you should self-revert the latter edit, but I guess you are in the clear now. Many thanks. Politrukki (talk) 08:15, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I had a choice of which revert to pick. When removing the Mueller paragraph, I was not aware that it had been added the same day, so that I consider this one to be my error. When removing the family separation issue from the lede, I was consciously reverting a change that did not have talk page consensus. Both reverts are being discussed on talk, so we'll see where consensus goes. — JFG ^talk 08:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Ankit Love. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. MB190417 (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I just finished a draft of an article on ExoMars' camera PanCam. I just realized the MER rovers Spirit and Opportunity carry a camera setup called Pancam (upper case C). Being that the cameras are actually different and from different manufacturers, they deserve separate articles, but I am not able to create "PanCam" as it automatically redirects to Pancam. Can you please help with the redirect? Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Had to perform a few more edits elsewhere (check my contribs for details). Added hatnotes per WP:SMALLDETAILS and WP:TWODABS, which is nicer than landing on a disambiguation page. — JFG ^talk 21:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you were too busy so I requested help elsewhere. The feedback I got was to name both pages Pancam (Mars Exploration Rovers) and your draft to PanCam (ExoMars rover). With all my best intentions, I see the new article is now duplicated at Pancam (Mars Exploration Rovers) and PanCam. Redirect are my nemesis and I have no clue how to fix this. Could you, pretty please? Rowan Forest (talk) 14:30, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored the simple Pancam and PanCam titles, with hatnotes. The dabbed titles including rover names can remain as useful redirects, I have marked them with the appropriate {{R from unnecessary disambiguation}}. Seems we're done with redirect logistics, now feel free to improve the article contents, on which you have already done a great job. — JFG ^talk 14:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, thank you for your help. And I apologize for the mess. Rowan Forest (talk) 14:37, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Watch my talk page! — JFG ^talk 14:38, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

May-Day! I just made another article in my sandbox: FREND (Fine-Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector) and it conflicts with the existing FREND (Front-end Robotics Enabling Near-term Demonstration). Can you work your magic, please? Rowan Forest (talk) 19:40, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This one will need to be handled differently, because there are already several entries under Frend. @Rowan Forest: Is your draft ready for prime time? — JFG ^talk 06:05, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It looked complete, so I moved it to Fine-Resolution Epithermal Neutron Detector. Removed some superfluous categories and navboxes per WP:SUBCAT and WP:BIDI. — JFG ^talk 06:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:04, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but bullet 1 vio. That content is only 5 days old,[5] well below NeilN's 4-6 weeks suggestion. ―Mandruss ☎ 21:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I thought this had been discussed recently, but it was on another article: Talk:Protests against Donald Trump#Hollywood Walk of Fame. I will self-revert and start a discussion. — JFG ^talk 22:18, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Editor Lithopsian after all the explanations I have presented on the talk page of the "ferrolens" and neutral point of view with no counter arguments presented by any other editor/user (I have deleted the COI tag [WP:SILENCE], dormant discussion) and senior editor (you) passed the page after with minor edits as well an administrator with minor edits, has reinstated the COI tag after eight days of absence. The only think I did was prior to answer to a previous deleted prod on the talk page.

Is this normal behavior or a bias and him holding a personal dislike on me?

I have enough with this WP:HARASSMENT violations by this editor. If you don't want the ferrolens article, fine. I will delete it myself and depart. I have better things to do.

Markoulw (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea; you would have to ask Lithopsian why he added the tag again. He did state in his edit summary that you should not have removed the tag, because you are the person subject to COI; that makes sense to me. Another editor may remove the tag whenever COI issues have been resolved; looks like nobody took the time to look over this in detail yet. I did some rewriting and some formatting on the article; content looks fine to me but I'm not an expert. Finally, if you're going to communicate further with your fellow editors, accusations of harassment are not helpful; please read WP:ASPERSIONS. Thanks. — JFG ^talk 17:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFG - could you do me a favor? I’m going on vacation for a week starting Wednesday. Could I ask you to keep an eye on two newish articles that I’ve been helping with? At each article the main editor means well but doesn’t know what they’re doing. They need a lot of cleaning up after, and there doesn’t seem to be any other experienced editor watching the article. Look at the histories and you'll see what I mean.

One is 2018 North Korea-United States summit. There is an editor named Goodtiming8871 who adds large chunks of material that are sort-of-supported by the references, but clearly written by a non-English speaker, probably Korean, who seems to have a mild pro-NK slant. I always have to come in and clean up after them - to fix their grammar and sometimes rewrite to what the source actually said.

The other problem article is Trials of Paul Manafort, 2018, where most of the writing has been done by user Arglebargle79. They created the article mostly by cutting and pasting from other articles, and then recently they added descriptions of the trial without any references at all. Again, I did a lot of cleanup. So, if you have time and inclination, you might keep an eye on them and tidy up where necessary. If you don’t have time and inclination, that’s OK too. We are all volunteers after all. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 05:00, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi MelanieN, sure I can keep an eye on those pages. Obviously I'm already following the summit article, but I'm not familiar with the Manafort trial thing, will have to do some reading there. I've come across Arglebargle elsewhere, and I know this editor tends to be a prolific cut-and-paster of news headlines. Telling them about WP:COPYVIO might help. Happy holidays! — JFG ^talk 05:49, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I haven't seen Arglebargle cut-and-paste from sources at that article, but the majority of the article is a copy-paste from two other Wikipedia articles. Which of course is not a problem if acknowledged. I belatedly added a null edit to document that. My main problem with AG is that they added a whole section describing the first few days of the trial (as they saw it) without any sources at all. I did a rewrite based on sources - which may be necessary again since the trial is ongoing. I'll try to bring it up to date before I leave. --MelanieN (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note re The New York Times. My thinking is that "The New York Times is often called The Times, accordingly confusion with the British paper is widespread, so the hatnote is warranted" makes perfect sense for a hatnote on The Times (i.e. someone looking for NYT could conceivably search for "The Times") but I can't imagine how someone looking for The Times of London could accidentally wind up on the NYT article. Station1 (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have a point, and I did add the {{distinguish}} hatnote to The Times of London for this reason. The reverse link from The New York Times is less compelling; on the other hand, it does no harm. Perhaps you could open a discussion at Talk:The New York Times to gather more input from our fellow editors? — JFG ^talk 09:09, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's that important. As you say, there's no great harm. Station1 (talk) 03:30, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Could you consider amending your nomination in light of the addtional information that was found and added to the article? Bearian (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bearian: Thanks for your efforts in improving the sourcing for this article. Another editor has removed a lot of the anecdotal contents, so that we are making progress. If the article is saved by those changes, I'll be happy to have brought its sorry state to attention. There is no need to amend the nomination: the closer will be able to take improvements into account. Thanks again for your note. — JFG ^talk 15:17, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just piggybacking on this comment with all the heatwave stuff, but in addition to saying Wikipedia is not the Weather Channel in your AfD intro, you could also say Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a weather almanac. I'd almost be tempted to propose something to that effect at WP:ISNOT, but it's just an idea for now. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a good addition to WP:NOT indeed. What started my interest was the navbox for {{Heat wave}} which curiously listed many more events since Wikipedia got traction in the mid-2000s, to the point where every summer was a heat wave. Looking at the individual articles, I realized that most of them had been created in the heat of the moment (hah!) and did not look exceptional in the long run. This tendency to create articles about current events will continue, so that a specific guideline against "weather report" type articles would possibly help editors focus on truly exceptional weather events. The jury is still out for 2018: it does look pretty hot in many regions of the Northern hemisphere, so that there's a good chance the heat wave articles for Europe, North America and Japan could be kept in the long run. We'll have plenty of time to re-evaluate them next year.

And now I have just started looking at winters! Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 European cold wave/List of cold wave AfDs — JFG ^talk 16:28, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, well there's a very good reason for that - "Sixteen of the 17 hottest years recorded have been in this century."- and that's globally, in the 21at century, since weather data-recording began in the late 19th century. And it's something that we've been experiencing in Australia, where heat waves kill more people than other natural disasters:

• Doctors for the Environment Australia: Heatwaves are silent killers but risks are highest for those on the margins of health
• Experts warn against underestimating heatwave threat
• Even without El Nino event Earth sweltered again in 2017, UN's World Meteorological Organisation says

If the deleted articles could be restored, they could always be improved, and allow readers to compare these events. Bahudhara (talk) 09:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 'We've been warned': Swelling Northern Hemisphere heatwaves bring unprecedented fires
• Drought, wind and heat: Bushfire season is starting earlier and lasting longer

More from a global perspective, which may not be so well covered by Trump-obsessed U.S. media wars. Bahudhara (talk) 03:03, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Bahudhara: This article was kept and renamed. Please bring your sources and further discussion to Talk:2007 North American heat wave. — JFG ^talk 11:04, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	For you punny comment about "heat of the moment". Bearian (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

First, have I managed to clean it up enough? and second, if yes, how would you recommend going about suggesting it? -A lad insane (Channel 2) 17:49, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up, I'll take a look later. — JFG ^talk 17:55, 9 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your false conflation of "mischaracterization" as "personal opinion" on the Donald Trump nickname page was a clear violation of goodfaith additions WP:GF. If citations are required, which they are not, it should've been left in place and tagged with WP:CLARIFY and/or WP:CITENEED, instead of being undone. It shouldn't have simply been removed because you (and only you ...) happened to decide you didn't like what was stated by someone else or took issue with how it was worded. The mischaracterization is simply a logical statement of the truth. Nicknames are are not "bullying" but "verbal abuse", the latter being a type of insult, the former being physical violence. In other words, the statement at the top of the article needs clarification that the mainstream media is intentionally mischaracterizing the nicknames as something they are not. I hope you recognize the situation as it is and willingly choose revert the changes. Also, and I see this alot on Wikipedia, some people act as if they own or control a page. I hope that's not the case in your situation, although it does appear that you are reverting large numbers of edits on that page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.54.0.181 (talk) 01:08, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear IP68, I have no idea which edits you are talking about. Here are instructions on how to quote edits or "diffs" for easy reference. If this is related to the "nicknames used by Trump" page, feel free to make your comments at Talk:List of nicknames used by Donald Trump, which is the appropriate discussion forum for this article. You can get an editor's attention from any page by using the {{ping}} template followed by their name, e.g. in my case {{ping|JFG}}. Generally, you may want to sign your posts with ~~~~, and open an account, which would make it easier for your fellow editors to interact with you, while enhancing your privacy, because IP addresses of registered users and not traced. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 11:53, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG,

You thanked me for my proposal for another lead picture for the Collapse of the World Trade Center article.
But it was was first moved down, to the "Collapse of the North Tower" section, and subsequently removed from the page again.

Regards, --GeeTeeBee (talk) 14:59, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed, and I have opened a discussion on the talk page. — JFG ^talk 15:05, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Thank you ! — I've been put on notice to explain my content edits in the "Other investigations" section, and will open an item regarding that on the talk page there soon. --GeeTeeBee (talk) 15:09, 12 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Where should we have the won deposited for keeping dear leader's pictures looking good? PackMecEng (talk) 13:45, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you. — JFG ^talk 17:39, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just remember 낮말은 새가 듣고 밤말은 쥐가 듣는다, keep it on the down low. PackMecEng (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Funny - I had been planning to move this article today to remove the year, and when I went to remove it I discovered it's already gone - you beat me to it! Have you been reading my mind, or is it just a case of GMTA (great minds think alike)? --MelanieN (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In my interpretation, we are all meatware in service of the Mighty Wiki… — JFG ^talk 18:23, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All hail the great and powerful Wiki. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:28, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a native French speaker (which you are), your use of this word puzzles me. Tone is a word that we in English use to refer to music. Perhaps by analogy you could apply it to subjects other than music, but it still is not clear in what light you can do this. Is there an article on Wikipedia which discusses the standard of "encyclopedic tone", a term I believe to be best used by people who don't speak English natively? If it exists, this article would prove interesting reading material. DonaldGump (talk) 19:25, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, we have that. See WP:TONE about the writing style considered encyclopedic for the purposes of this project.

Encyclopedic writing has a fairly academic approach, while remaining clear and understandable. Formal tone means that the article should not be written using argot, slang, colloquialisms, doublespeak, legalese, or jargon that is unintelligible to an average reader; it means that the English language should be used in a businesslike manner.

The use of "quote unquote"[7] can be construed as "clever" or conversational tone, which is addressed in the guideline thus:

Just present the sourced information without embellishment, agenda, fanfare, cleverness, or conversational tone.

More generally, Wikipedia has a house style at WP:MOS. — JFG ^talk 19:30, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To help with longterm maintenence lets get the redirs and the annual subfolders deleted. The only downside is if the original path was referenced anywhere else and that's sufficiently rare if indeed it happens at all that its small potatoes comparerd to this sea (yuk yuk) of redirs sticking around NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Let me finish the merge and we'll get to that. In the meantime you might want to check the "What links here" for archived discussions by year, because there may be links to fix if we remove the redirects. — JFG ^talk 16:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. FYI, I'm tracking my work at my sandbox. If you think it helps you're welcome to comment at talk page there and we could pass the editing of the tables back and forth. I didn't write the text for others so if you have Qs ask! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 16:30, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going through the remaining year archives, consolidating them by groups of one or two years in Archive 1…n. Currently done up to 2011 and Archive 5. — JFG ^talk 16:34, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. All good up to 2014 and Archive 6. Bot reconfigured to take over from Archive 7. — JFG ^talk 16:58, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, thanks for your contributions. I am not sure if you are aware of WP:ANRFC and especially Point number 3. Can you explain why you chose to ignore Point#3 and when you had a chance here to discuss the closure statement you chose to discuss the editor instead of his edits. I just felt that you should know this if you are not aware. Cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 19:54, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the process, however my first issue with the close was that it was made by a non-admin in contradiction with the request that was specifically asking for an admin; that's why I focused on the process, not on the closing statement. I know that NACs are generally fine, however I also know that when editors request an admin close, non-admins should refrain from closing. In fairness, WBG may have closed this RfC without seeing the close request, because he also did not mark it done at ANRFC. I was expecting that WBG would say "oops, had not seen the close request, sorry", and retract his close, I've seen that happen in other cases. If you read the thread I opened on WBG's talk page, you'll notice that I was starting the dialogue and waiting for his second answer, when he went offline. Other editors commented there, and I told everyone I wanted to hear from WBG first before taking further action. Only after getting no response for a week did I open the AN request for a close review. There, more people are asking for an explanation of WBG's reading of the discussion, and given that he's apparently away, it looks pointless to wait further. The simplest thing in my opinion would be for an admin to step in and make their own evaluation of the discussion, although I'm not sure that would be the proper process at this point. I have experience with the move review process, where a close can be formally challenged, but I am not aware of a similar process to dispute an RfC close, except posting a request at AN and letting the free flow of comments do its thing. We'll see what happens, thanks for your comments there. — JFG ^talk 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just a little BTW, you should notify them on their talk page when posting on a notice board like that. If you do not mind I took the liberty of doing so here. PackMecEng (talk) 19:56, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. I did ping the editor when opening the AN thread, so I think he was made aware. He's just been mostly offline. — JFG ^talk 03:01, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah they do not seem around much, especially lately... But on those admin boards there is a warning at the top saying "When you start a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on the editor's talk page. The use of ping or the notification system is not sufficient for this purpose." Better safe than sorry. PackMecEng (talk) 03:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		For turning talk page archives at Sea level rise into something actually useful, and enable easy longterm maintenence. A typically thankless task.... so thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Any comments about Draft:Active Measures (2018 film)? 69.181.23.220 (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re this, "apparently resolved" is not "closed", which is what #13 says. I've treated "answered" edit requests as "closed" but otherwise applied a bright line that has worked just fine up to now. It wouldn't have hurt anything to keep that around for another 5 days—even if there were four times as many threads in the TOC—and I can safely predict that a blurred line will create problems with premature archival. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:40, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; I had wondered why you archived one thread and not the other. I saw the second one as a distraction, and a continuation of the same editor's misplaced questioning. No biggie. I'm not going to attract attention to this by un-archiving it now. — JFG ^talk 09:47, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't either. How many non-Americans say "no biggie"? I've often felt you don't talk much like a ferner. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:55, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ouch, you blew my cover! — JFG ^talk 10:01, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to hear that my flowchart dissuaded you from joining all those months back. A while back I changed the caption of the flowchart indicating that it is best used for difficult cases when a reviewer doesn't know how to proceed. And as you said, the basic flow chart was also re-added.

I have had a lot of positive feedback from reviewers that it helped them learn all the various steps when they first started out, so I know that it is quite useful to at least some of them, but I definitely don't wan't to be pushing away potential applicants with it. Is there anything else you think could be done to not scare people off with it? — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 22:56, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I think both the simple and the detailed flowcharts have their uses. I would definitely want to be able to refer to the detailed version when assessing delicate cases, so don't ditch it. The simpler, color-coded version, is a great intro. The incentive that prompted me to apply today was the backlog chart. This needs to be included in any further invitations you launch, while still stressing that any work is voluntary and that (presumably) habits are quickly formed, so that page patrolling can become an enjoyable "daily breakfast" task for experienced editors. — JFG ^talk 23:09, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for these suggestions, I'll certainly take them on. Always a joy working with you. Cheers and good luck at PERM, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 23:13, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Minor user rights can now be accorded on a time limited or probationary period, do check back at WP:PERM in case this concerns your application. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encylopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance. so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page. Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term non use, (it is a 'use-it-or-lose-it' access) the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. Alex Shih (talk) 04:22, 3 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFG. COuld you maybe take a look at the Raptor engine article and see what you think. Has been a bit of two editors seeing things a bit differently for a bit, and now, although a (not full) bare link citation was added to a primary source, the previous source was secondary, and may differ from the (hour-long) video source the editor left. Need some fresh eyes. Cheers. N2e (talk) 01:27, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

My eyes are far from fresh tonight, but I'll keep your request in mind for another day. As the saying goes, there is no deadline. — JFG ^talk 01:34, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to share a list of useful scripts for New Page Reviewing with you that I have been drafting for the next newsletter, as you can probably make use of them straight away:

• WP:Twinkle provides a lot of the same functionality as the page curation tools, and some reviewers prefer to use the Twinkle tools for some/all tasks. It can be activated simply in the gadgets section of 'preferences'. There are also a lot of options available at the Twinkle preferences panel after you install the gadget.
• User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js^(info): Installing scripts doesn't have to be complicated. Go to User:JFG/common.js and copy importScript( 'User:Equazcion/ScriptInstaller.js' ); into an empty line, now you can install all other scripts with the click of a button from the script page! (Note you need to be at the ".js" page for the script for the install button to appear, not the information page)
• User:TheJosh/Scripts/NewPagePatrol.js^(info): Creates a scrolling new pages list at the left side of the page. You can change the number of pages shown by adding the following to the next line on your common.js page (immediately after the line importing this script): npp_num_pages=20; (I recommend 20, but you can use any number from 1 to 50).
• User:Primefac/revdel.js^(info): Is revdel annoying and time consuming? Install this script and deal with copyvios in the blink of an eye. Just have the Copyvio source URL and go to the history page and collect your Diff Ids and you can drop them into the script Popups.
• User:Lourdes/PageCuration.js^(info): Creates a "Page Curation" link to Special:NewPagesFeed up near your sandbox link.
• User:Writ Keeper/Scripts/deletionFinder.js: Creates links next to the title of each page which show up if it has been previously deleted or nominated for deletion.
• User:Evad37/rater.js^(info): A fantastic tool for adding WikiProject templates to article talk pages. If you add: rater_autostartNamespaces = 0; to the next line on your common.js, the prompt will pop up automatically if a page has no Wikiproject templates on the talk page (note: this can be a bit annoying if you review redirects or dab pages commonly).

Welcome to the team. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all this. I've been using Twinkle before, and it really helps a lot: copyvio reporting took all of 30 seconds. I've also been using HotCat to help with assigning categories; you should add it to your list of recommendations. I installed a script to facilitate stub-sorting, but it's quite frustrating because it only drops you into the super-long list of stub tags, and you still have to manually find the best one. Is there a better tool for that? Regarding the revdel script, what us can it be to a non-admin? Does it have an option to ask an admin to process the revdels on your behalf? Thanks! — JFG ^talk 03:03, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The revdel tool is for helping to add a revdel tag to an article (i.e. requesting revdel), it isn't super easy, you still have to get the diffs, but its better than nothing. I'll clarify this for the newsletter. Unfortunately I haven't found a better script for stub tagging. Hot Cat is awesome, I forgot that you have to opt in, I'll add it to my list. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:26, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another gadget I forgot about: MoreMenu is extremely useful and I use it all the time. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 03:36, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 on MoreMenu, I use that all the time. PackMecEng (talk) 03:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alrght, I installed More Menu, thx. If you're going to suggest scripts, I'd strongly recommend Disambiguation Assistant:

importScript('User:Qwertyytrewqqwerty/DisamAssist.js');

We've got a great toolsets all around, except for stubbing. Oh well… — JFG ^talk 04:19, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, I have archiv-phobia. None of my attempts to set up archives have gone well and I seem unable to learn how. If you have time, could I trouble you to set up archiving for Talk:Atmospheric methane ? Thanks for any help you can give over there! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:13, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Given low traffic, I set the archive at 6 months. The bot should do its job tonight; otherwise ping me again. — JFG ^talk 12:24, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:52, 4 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I noticed there are 3 companies by the name i-Space, and 2 have their articles in WP:

• ISpace Foundation
• i-Space (Chinese company)
• ispace (Japanese company), an aerospace company that will operate the Hakuto rover on the Moon.

The I-Space disambiguation page is at [8], but when typing Ispace in the search function, it redirects to ISpace Foundation instead of to the disambiguation page. The difference may be the hyphen or the use of caps, but I think it should redirect all variants to the same redirect page. Can you please help me fix that? Redirects are a black box to me. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 23:48, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All settled. It would be nice if you could start an article about the Japanese Moon exploration company. I left a red link for them in the dab page. — JFG ^talk 10:08, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there seems to be no need for a separate article. I have redirect the Japanese company entry to our article on Hakuto. You could expand that with basic info on the company, based on the SpaceNews article from December 2017. — JFG ^talk 10:12, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the help. I'll start digging info on the Japanese company. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk)

		The Space Barnstar
		For your everlasting endurance in maintaining space articles Hadron137 (talk) 16:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SPAaaaaace! (seriously this is all I can think about whenever I see the space barnstar). In all seriousness though, thanks for all your work on Wikipedia. Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 21:41, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just beware of the Space Force.  — Amakuru (talk) 21:44, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Indeed. Thank you. Rowan Forest (talk) 13:35, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

User:JFG, shalom. As for the article, List of military occupations, can you please tell me why 2,000 US troops, along with their Kurdish allies, who are currently stationed in the eastern banks of the Euphrates River in eastern Syria and who hold that territory against the solemn wishes of the sovereign government of Bashar al-Assad is not listed there as a "US military occupation"? Just curious.Davidbena (talk) 11:34, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Dear @Davidbena:, you raise an interesting question. If you can provide sources calling this situation a military occupation, there would be no problem adding it to the article. Personal opinions of editors don't count, no matter how well-founded. But please let's move this to the article's talk page. Kind regards, — JFG ^talk 20:06, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The word "occupation" was thrown around, here and there, in various foreign news media reports, mostly of Russian origin. I'm not sure just how credible these reports are, since the argument from the US side is that the American presence in Syria is based on a UN resolution to defeat ISIS, and that the US has no wish to permanently stay there. It's complicated. Be well.Davidbena (talk) 21:40, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I noticed you've combined Template:Asteroid spacecraft with Template:Comet spacecraft, and I would like to first express gratitude for it, as I long felt those two template were redundant, and many pages displayed both of them. The reason why I'm writing here is I would like to hear your opinion on two questions I haven't settled with in regards of this template.

The first question is, how to classify Deep Impact's extended mission to asteroid (163249) 2002 GT. This flyby was to happen in 2020, but unfortunately it couldn't be realized as contact with the spacecraft was lost while en route. As 2002 GT was to be the first asteroid Deep Impact would visit, I originally put the probe in the Failed section of Template:Asteroid spacecraft. However, as the template now includes Deep Impact's nominal mission to comets, I'm not sure whether it should be labeled with a ^† mark, as its comet mission was a complete success. The second question is, how much the scope of this template should be expanded. For example, in the French version of this template, which is phrased as 'spacecraft missions to minor objects', it includes not only asteroid and comet probes, but missions to such destinations like Phobos. I am aware that the distinctions between asteroids and comets are now pretty vague with the discoveries of centaurs and main-belt comets, but not sure that means that the category should include every type of similar objects. Kind regards, Hms1103 (talk) 08:06, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Hms1103. First of all, thanks for your appreciation. Indeed those redundant templates were crying for a merger. I can't make sense of the French version: it purports to list missions to "minor objects" but it includes dwarf planets, and on the other hand it omits a number of missions to comets and asteroids that are well-documented in the English version. I think the template is clearer for readers when specifying "dwarf planets, asteroids and comets" in the title, rather than "Small Solar System objects", a technical description whose scope lay readers cannot easily grasp.

Regarding Deep Impact, I would agree that we should only list the successful parts of the mission at Tempel 1 and 103P/Hartley. The template currently reflects this, unless I'm missing some detail. — JFG ^talk 09:56, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for sharing your view. I concur with your view that the current template is the optimal solution to meet the demand of of most readers. Regards, Hms1103 (talk) 10:31, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I am missing something, but was there any discussion before you started Ziff brothers and changed the existing articles, Daniel M. Ziff, Robert D. Ziff, and Dirk Edward Ziff into redirects to this new article? All three articles had been around since 2012. Edwardx (talk) 12:20, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings Edwardx. There was no discussion. The three articles were practically carbon copies of one another, and we had red links elsewhere pointing to Ziff Brothers Investments. Rather than creating an article about their investment fund that would essentially be a fourth copy of the same material, I figured that a joint biography would make more sense. Feel free to improve, as some statements I copied from the original articles were not verified in the given sources. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re: this, I had increased the archive size to 350 because of stuff like Archive 88 which contains only two level-2 headers (one an RfC granted). It makes it harder to follow the history and find specific things when you have a hundred archives each containing only a couple sections. I much prefer reviewing one big archive instead of hopping around between smaller ones. ~Awilley (talk) 23:16, 25 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same way. My talk page archives often have 50 or so sections. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 05:33, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the feeling, however Archive 88 was exceptional in that it stored two very long-winded discussions. Most archives of the Trump talk page include a dozen threads. I find that navigating 200-250K of wikitext is long enough. The one archive that followed Awilley's switch to 350K felt very long. Obviously that's subjective, however I have rarely or never seen talk page auto-archives for articles set to more than 250K. Also, chatter on this particular talk page has slowed down, so that we will have a lower volume to wade through going forward (unless some super dramatic stuff happens again…) — JFG ^talk 08:24, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really understand the objection about navigating wikitext. The amount of wikitext is the same no matter how you divide it up, and dividing it into separate pages actually makes it harder to navigate (hopping tabs and scrolling up and down, instead of just scrolling). Let me put it another way. If I wanted to see what happened between the months of June 2018 to July 2018, I would have to navigate through seven(!) different pages. Archive 83 contains about 8 threads closed on June 5, and archive 90 contains the second half of July into the beginning of August. (I increased the archive size in late July.) Does it really make sense to split two months into seven different archives? What if I wanted to track the number of times people proposed inserting variants of "racially charged" into the Lead during that period? Should I really need to hop between seven tabs to do that? Archive 91, which you thought was too long, contains less than a month of material. Responding to your last point, I wouldn't put too much stock into people spontaneously deciding to talk less about Trump. ~Awilley (talk) 12:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't use autoarchiving, so I don't understand the settings or exactly how it works. Is it possible to set it to trigger only for a size limit, and not for any time periods? -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:17, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG, would this be an acceptable compromise for now?

@BullRangifer, that's what we are talking about. The 150k, 200k, 300k, and 350k are the size limits for the archive. When the page reaches the limit the bot creates a new archive. ~Awilley (talk) 01:40, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awilley, sorry for my late reply. I'd be happy with settling on 250K, as a middle ground between the original 150K and your initial update to 350. OK with 4 threads minimum as you recently updated as well. Regards, — JFG ^talk 09:08, 1 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFG! I see that we were both working on the Religion section of the Trump article. I'm wondering, why did you make this edit? I had deliberately moved the the word "is" inside the quote (and yes, it is part of the quote), because I felt "was" was kind of ambivalent - did the past tense come from the statement itself, or it was Wikipedia's voice meaning at the time of the statement but maybe not now, or what. I thought that quoting the statement saying he "is not a member" was clearer. (A minor point, I know, but hey, copy editing is all about minor points!) --MelanieN (talk) 21:25, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The statement dates back to 2015, so past tense seemed more appropriate: we are reporting what the church said at the time. Appreciate the collegial work on detail with you as usual. — JFG ^talk 00:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed in these talkpage comments [9] [10] that you were complaining about editors arguing UNDUE when material is "positive" and then switching sides when material is "negative". The reverse is happening as well, albeit with different editors, and I wanted to point out you seem to take part in that yourself. For example, in Archive 81 you argued pretty strongly for including in the Lead that Trump had "pressured" North Korea to denuclearize. (See for instance the comment beginning with "I strongly object to calling the North Korea situation 'undue for the lead'" and the quasi-RfC you started in the following section.) But on the subject of the detention and separation of migrant children from their families, (archive 91) you argued that it was "UNDUE" and that it had "no lasting significance". ~Awilley (talk) 18:36, 13 October 2018 (UTC) I'm not criticizing your opinions on those two issues, just pushing back a bit on the concerns you expressed yesterday. ~Awilley (talk) 04:46, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Awilley, thanks for stopping by and voicing your concern. I believe that my assessment was correct, as to the eventual long-lasting significance of a local US law enforcement issue vs a geopolitical shift in the Korean Peninsula. As a foreigner, I readily admit that I tend to sit away from the daily partisanship in American politics, and I pay more attention to policy shifts in international relations. Eventually, DUE and UNDUE elements of an eventful biography such as Trump's must take into account sound editorial judgment about the actual impact of events, and not blindly parrot what journalists get excited about today. Was the child-separation policy a disgrace? Certainly, and I said as much in the debates about it. Was the North Korean threat to regional and world peace worth worrying about? Absolutely. Did Trump play a key role in changing the tone and setting up meaningful dialogue towards a halt of NoKo's nuclear and missile programs? Definitely. Which one of these events should be mentioned in the lede section of Trump's biography? You be the judge. I agreed that it was too early to tell whether the Trump-Kim summit would have real consequences, however the summit itself was a significant geopolitical event, more so than the one with Putin, therefore I believed it should have remained in the lede. We shall surely revisit the issue when the next steps unfold. — JFG ^talk 10:39, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On your general pointing out that I may weigh things differently than some other editors, I agree, and I sometimes see my own contributions as simply trying to provide some balance. Of course I feel more strongly about some issues and I'm more inclined to let go of others. Generally, I dislike one-sided pile-ons about anybody, be they Trump, Hillary, Brett Kavanaugh or Sarah Jeong. In any case, I respect the eventual consensus of editors, whenever we can reach it. — JFG ^talk 10:54, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly hindsight will prove us all wrong. At the time, and now, I personally saw both as being about equally notable. (I would note that the children separation thing is also still an issue, with over 100 children who still haven't been reunited, and a giant tent city for new children being captured while crossing the border without parents. [11]) I don't think either deserves more than a single clause of a few words in the Lead, as things currently stand.

I definitely get that it's important to have voices of dissent, and I appreciate the respectful way in which you approach it. On providing "balance", the issue I have with that is most people interpret "balance" as opposing one non-neutral POV by pushing the opposite non-neutral POV, turning things in to a partisan tug-of-war. I see very few editors who are able to sidestep the tug-of-war and start from a position of "How do reliable sources treat this, and how can I make the article reflect that?". ~Awilley (talk) 14:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JFG, I just wanted to let you know that I have added the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Wikipedia:Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! GAB^gab 16:32, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks GAB! — JFG ^talk 18:43, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You say McAulliffe and Omalley dont have any new refs so therefore cannot appear on the page. That is not true they have sources from late september, early october of them expressing interest. Same with Williamson mid october 2018 ref.

Gillibrand has said she is not running, can't emphasize that enough. If you are upset with old refs, why the hell are you removing Bullock and Blumenthal, but not Emmanuel and Raimondo? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhian2040 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rhian2040: Per recent sources, I have moved Williamson to the "interested" section, and Gillibrand to the "declined" section. I have not seen any recent sources about McAuliffe and O'Malley, but feel free to show what you have. However, please take further discussion to the article's talk page, so that everybody can participate. — JFG ^talk 20:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mcaulliffe: https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/Former-Virginia-Gov-McAuliffe-says-hes-not-ruling-out-2020-campaign-493689191.html

O'Malley: https://www.tampabay.com/florida-politics/buzz/2018/06/05/martin-omalley-looks-to-reboot-democrats-and-possibly-his-presidential-hopes-in-florida/

Good morning. I think that you should change the name of: Ixquick by StartPage. Since the name of: Ixquick is out of date. The updated name is: StartPage. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notewiki2000 (talk • contribs) 04:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Notewiki2000: Thanks for your note. I have never been involved with the article you just mentioned; perhaps you are confusing me with somebody else? If you'd like to suggest a title change for the article, the correct process is explained at WP:Requested moves. Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 11:03, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I noticed you recently picked up editing on this weeks Top 25 report. I was wondering: do you mind collaborating for this week? I already have entries 1-8 done, but am newish to Wikipedia and could use some help with formatting, etc. Rogerknots (talk)

Sure, let's do that. I'd be super happy if you could pick up the articles about American TV series and wrestling events, because I'm neither familiar with them nor motivated to learn… Do you have a draft? — JFG ^talk 22:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've got a draft going in a google doc, because spell check and portability. Heres the link: https://docs.google.com/document/d/11iScywB86wlUMUDcKhr27B4svwiefQwrJDihY7B4SoA/edit?usp=sharing Rogerknots (talk)

Hope you end the report soon. (and wonder whether Rogerknots will ever appear again) igordebraga ≠ 17:51, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"03:01, 7 November 2018‎ 240f:76:59d:1:c459:db33:dc51:dd07 (talk)‎ . . (87,235 bytes) (+671)‎ . . (Leadsom did not respond to requests for comment on suspected COI edit of wikipedia page.) (undo)"

The place to discuss contents is Talk:Andrea Leadsom. I have copied your comments there, and replied. — JFG ^talk 11:22, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 240F:76:59D:1:AC5D:AB2D:EC84:E6CA (talk) 14:22, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be some confusion here: I don't work for you, nor am required to fit the convenience of your schedule. It's certainly not my job to help you obscure the obvious because it clashes with your political agenda.

I'll note your frequent appearances at WP:AE, and I'll also note your sudden respect for a hardline view of "consensus required" seems at odds with what you said last year: which seems, overall, to suggest that you view WP:AE as just another tool in getting your way on political articles. Calton | Talk 13:53, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Try AGF next time. It's true that I don't like the "consensus required" mechanism very much, but it's the rule, and we must all abide by its terms. — JFG ^talk 15:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved with (Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court nomination) has content that is proposed to be removed and move to another article (Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegations). If you are interested, please visit the discussion at the article's talk page. Thank you. Quidster4040 (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect 2017 Special Counsel investigation (restoring last discussed title). Since you had some involvement with the 2017 Special Counsel investigation (restoring last discussed title) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. {{3x|p}}ery (talk) 04:55, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please always do correct my typos anywhere DGG ( talk ) 19:16, 13 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months.

Hello JFG,

Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW

• Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.

If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.

We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.

With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, JFG. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe as some do that everyone who reaches 110 deserves their own article. But anyone who becomes world's oldest person should be guaranteed an article. Why do you see it as in any way helpful to remove them? LE (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nice WP:SPA with wonderful edit summaries. Legacypac (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

One spate of edits on this topic today provoked by a mass attempt to delete articles, after plenty of edits on other topics. LE (talk) 23:25, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is tons of precident to roll up these pages on superold ppl. You are fighting a losing battle. Legacypac (talk) 23:28, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There is a great need to defend such pages from those attacks. LE (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@LE: I don't see why the world's oldest known person between time X and time Y should be guaranteed an article on Wikipedia. As always, notability needs to be assessed based on the breadth of coverage, and independently of a single event. People whose record-setting age is the only claim to notability are best documented as an entry in a list, where their vital statistics are easily accessed and compared with their fellow supercentenarians. We have numerous such lists, typically including the oldest (known) people in country X, and global lists of the 100 oldest-ever men and women. I am nominating for deletion articles that consist fully of longevity statistics and routine coverage of a person's life triggered by her being the oldest. That kind of article typically reads like this: "Jane Smith was born in 1899, married John Taylor, worked a farm, begot 5 children, moved to a retirement home in 1988, where she died in 2011, having lived 112 years and 58 days. Up until her last days, she had been in good health, quickly recovering from a broken hip when she was 103. She attributed her longevity to sleeping soundly and drinking three cups of coffee a day. Smith was the world's oldest known person for 3 months, following the death of Kyoko Miyake of Japan; she was succeeded by Martina Cabreras of Spain." Her age is notable, not her life and deeds. This situation is best handled by a list entry. — JFG ^talk 00:29, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If a person's age is so extreme as to be of historic importance, a list entry is not enough. LE (talk) 00:57, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's an WP:ILIKEIT argument. We do have people with "historic importance" among supercentenarians: last veterans of World War I, psychologists, mathematicians, chess players, etc. Those people are notable for their life and deeds, as documented by several independent sources, not just routine obituaries or Guinness World Records. We also have a few supercentenarians who were world famous because of their age, and received extensive coverage over several years: that qualifies too. The most notorious example is Jeanne Calment, who remains to this day the only proven person to have lived beyond 120 years. — JFG ^talk 01:37, 21 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You evidently like to slow down the Wikimedia servers, wasting computing cycles and as much electrical energy as possible by employing horrifically inefficient code. — Quicksilver (Hydrargyrum)^{T @} 06:43, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

?? — JFG ^talk 09:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That was weird. You know, someday I'll find that useful idiot research. It's here somewhere. EEng 04:22, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's hope: the most acrimonious propagandists on this article have disappeared: one was banned as long-term sock, one rage-quit after being placed under neighbourhood watch. — JFG ^talk 08:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Let me suggest that in future nominations you not offer notability as a deletion argument (unless there really are essentially no GNG-qualifying sources) but simply go with WP:NOPAGE: "Whether he/she is notable or not, per NOPAGE he/she would be best presented in a list alongside [etc] [etc]." Bringing in notability just muddies the discussion. EEng 04:21, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Usually, when such articles are obvious NOPAGE cases, I just change them into a redirect. Nobody complained yet. (Actually, some people complained on three Japanese ladies, but they were later all removed post AfD.) Let the Australians have their hero… Cleanup is otherwise almost complete. — JFG ^talk 08:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking more about it, I would seriously suggest using something like this on any nomination that fits the NOPAGE criterion i.e. when what little is known about the subject can be best presented as a list entry or list entry + minibio:

Propose merging to List of Ruritanian supercentenarians per WP:NOPAGE, which provides: When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics ... as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic ... Do related topics provide needed context? Sometimes, several related topics, each of them similarly notable, can be collected into a single page, where the relationships between them can be better appreciated than if they were each a separate page ...

Note that this proposal has nothing to do with the subject's notability or lack of notability.

Just to repeat, where NOPAGE is a strong basis for nomination it's best to say nothing about notability, since that just confuses the discussion. EEng 06:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC) (Text revised 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC))[reply]

This should be placed at WP:LONGEVITY for reuse. Excellent Legacypac (talk) 08:12, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Don't you think it somewhat immodest to sign your post "Excellent Legacypac"? Not that I disagree with the sentiment, of course. EEng 09:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC) P.S. I've reworked the text above. Also pinging The Blade of the Northern Lights to be sure he sees this too.[reply]

• I've been thinking about this even more (always dangerous) and I'm beginning to wonder whether the way to handle future NOPAGE cases -- which might be most of them -- is to simply go ahead and do the merge to the appropriate list. The heavyweight AfD process isn't required for that. EEng 01:44, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Funny EEng. Redirection is easy to undo. Deletion harder to undo. A very good precident has been established now with all the NOPAGE deletions, although saying NOPAGE when the name will not be on any list is a little weird. Perhaps the answer is to dona mix of deletion/redirection. Legacypac (talk) 03:14, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I guess if the current strategy of using AfD has been successful we should stay with it, though I still suggest pasting the text above straight into new noms which take the NOPAGE route. However, NOPAGE only makes sense where the name will redirect somewhere. The whole point of NOPAGE is we don't have to argue about notability anymore. EEng 05:59, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @EEng: Note that WP:NOPAGE has a less-aggressive synonymous WP:PAGEDECIDE, which may gather more sympathy from fellow editors. I have started using this shortcut instead, see Talk:Marie-Louise Meilleur#Merge. — JFG ^talk 06:59, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  You have learned well, Grasshopper. EEng 07:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty happy with the progress being made on cleanup. Thanks to the users who have taken the lead on it. Legacypac (talk) 06:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng and Legacypac: Indeed we are making good progress. AfD outcomes have been pretty consistent, and they now constitute a rather compelling body of "legal precedent" to write down some consensus-inspired guidelines for our coverage of supercentenarians. At long last! Let's start suggestions on the project's talk page. Note that I often create redirects from deleted names, including basic birth/date/nationality categories, with the dual purpose of facilitating search and discouraging re-creation of permastubs. A template for such redirects is published at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Longevity#Consistency in redirects and categories — JFG ^talk 09:58, 5 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for calculation the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG. Your account has been granted the "filemover" user right, either following a request for it or due to a clear need for the ability to move files. Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:File mover for more information on this user right and under what circumstances it is okay to move files. When you move a file please remember to update any links to the new name as well! If you do not want the file mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing!  Swarm  {talk}  01:30, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG, can you give a source for the retirement of the SPARK rocket? There is no information on that in the article. --PM3 (talk) 14:25, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was an experimental project that failed its first launch in 2015 and was apparently not further funded. Before marking it retired, I have looked for sources and found nothing new in the three years since the 2015 test flight. If news emerge, we can re-instate it "under development", but for now it's dead. — JFG ^talk 06:11, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I also couldn't find any indication that the project was continued after the failed launch. --PM3 (talk) 17:09, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Z33

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have recently shown interest in post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect: any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or any page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.  Bishonen | talk 17:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

Template:Z33

@Bishonen: I'm well aware of all this. What's the matter? — JFG ^talk 17:44, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JFG. I thought you probably were aware of it, but, as you probably also know, as long as you haven't received these alerts in the past 12 months, you aren't officially aware. Nothing's exactly the matter, but I thought your demand here for consensus before adding what you called 'a long tirade' (actually 52 words plus footnote) to the lede was a little unexpected. Compare Wiktionary tirade: "A long, angry or violent speech; a diatribe". I'd say your edit summary was a good deal angrier than the text you removed, which btw came from an editor who had not edited the article before. Let's say I didn't think you very welcoming. That's all. Bishonen | talk 18:07, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

I get it. I was just applying the usual "consensus required" process in place at the Trump bio, especially for the lede section. I also remarked that two of the four people indicted were not mentioned in the body text, which violates WP:LEAD as cited by the inserting editor. Finally, there may be some cultural difference at work, as in my native language "tirade"[13] is not generally a negative descriptor. — JFG ^talk 18:26, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What "consensus required process" is that? All I see on the talkpage and in the edit notice is the (common enough) page sanction that consensus is required "before reinstating any edits that have been challenged (via reversion)". Italics in the original. Are you saying that's what MastCell did — reinsert an edit that had been challenged? How do you figure? Why would he need consensus? Note, I was objecting to the first part of your edit summary — the middle sentence — that's why I quoted it. Not the second part (the third sentence). Bishonen | talk 18:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC). P. S. Does "long" also mean something else in French? Bishonen | talk 18:47, 12 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]

My reversion was a "challenge" in DS/CR parlance; I did not allege the editor did anything wrong. S/he is invited to make his/her case on the talk page and obtain consensus; you could do that as well if you feel strongly about this content. And yes, the proposed text was quite long proportionately to the lead. — JFG ^talk 18:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think in their comment above JFG meant something along the lines of "invoking consensus required" when they said "applying the usual consensus required process". Also, per WP:AC/DS#Awareness I think JFG was "officially" aware of the AP2 sanctions per their November 2018 report of User:Calton at WP:AE. In any case, no harm done. ~Awilley (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello JFG,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Good day, JFG. I observed that the launch market comparison graphic you assembled to compare annual launches by the various large launch service providers has not been updated since September, at least in this article: Space launch market competition SpaceX have a launch slated to go off an hour from now, that if I have it right, will be their 21st launch of the year. 21! Your graphic has been one of the ways for the global Wikipedia reader to most easily see the impact that the lower-cost of economically-incented space launch services have done to shift from the old way of government funding rocket development responding primarily to political incentives.

So I was just wondering if you are intending to continue to update the templates, graphs and what not that present the data graphically. I know how hard it can be to keep things rolling that require manual editing, so no pressure if the answer is "no." I just want to get a read on it. N2e (talk) 13:08, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Glad you appreciate the effort. Yes, I intend to update this overview after the year is over, so that we know exactly what has been launched. Note that Falcon launches, as well as other rockets for the purpose of this article, exclude "demo flights, CRS, and U.S. military payloads", so we only count commercial satellites and space probes. On the other hand, we count multiple satellites, so the market effect can be correctly compared to Ariane with their dual payloads. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@JFG:, I just realized today that your table wikitext was totally bottom-up and unique to that one article. I had previously thought that you had those graphs in several spaceflight-related articles, and had thought you were doing it based on a template you might have been building once, and then including in a couple of articles. I guess I just never looked at the wikisource before today.

Well, independently from that thought, I did have a thought or two about the meta requirements that might be useful for those tables and charts, and was going to write you to discuss. So where's the best place to do that? Here, on your Talk page? ... or on the article page? ... or is there some other meta place for the discussion, since you do have original wikisource on several articles (like Space launch market competition, and List of Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy launches, and possibly others, and my guess is that my thoughts would have some meta-requirements ideaz for more than one article where such data and charts show up. Even Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight might be a good place if the comments apply to more than just a couple of articles. So, where should we discuss this? Others might have thoughts as well. Thoughts? Cheers. N2e (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@N2e: Happy to discuss here at first. We can invite other editors' feedback as soon as we reach some mutual understanding of what would be the desirable improvements. — JFG ^talk 08:44, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I'll add some thoughts below. N2e (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey JFG. I think that the graphs and such in the overview add to the article, and can help illustrate for the casual reader things that a lot of text may not do as well. I have a few thoughts on how that section might be improved:

• it seems that working into your overview the "last edited" or "last updated" time context is and will be often important given the graphs become instantly out of date each time a launch occurs, 60+ times a year. Could be be a useful thing. Maybe something like just a simple {{asof|yyyy|mm|lc=y}} in there somewhere; maybe some other/better way. Without something like this, the graph is simply wrong, but does not leave a hint to the reader that the information may not be current in this encyclopedic explication.
• you mentioned that you "exclude demo flights, CRS, and U.S. military payloads"; seems perfectly sensible for this particular article about "market competition". But I think what is included and excluded from the graphical and table data needs to be explicit in the graphs/table section.
• I had thought this was a template, since I had noticed your work appear in several articles. Looking more closely recently, I see it is custom wikisyntax for this article, which means that the other articles where your graphs occur are also (often?) custom wikisyntax. Seems to me like this would be a maintenance nightmare, as many many chunks of complex wikisyntax in many articles would be constantly in need of updating. I don't know the solution; but it seems like creating a graph template, and also a (or including the) table template, would simplify things by leaving just one place on wiki to update with all the new launches (several per month, all year, every year).
• a template would also facilitate other editors helping you to maintain the graphs/tables over time. ... and would also provide a Schelling point for where such topics might be discussed, improving the material over time, etc.
• finally, there is the nasty matter of sourcing. A {citation needed} tag has been on the table for a while. I don't know "the" fix here, but it seems to me that taking a template approach might allow it to be sourced in the template, and then whenever the template is picked up and used in an article, it would include the citations that support the statements being made in the graphs/tables. If we don't get this problem addressed, we'll never be able to improve this article (or any that use your graphs/tables) to good article status, and maybe not even to "B" level.

So those are some thoughts on what might be thought of (in my industry, anyway, software development) as some initial raw "requirements" that might usefully guide improvement going forward. HOpe they are helpful. Cheers. N2e (talk) 11:30, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aaagh! I just blocked your account by mistake, when I intended to block another editor. I've unblocked you a few seconds after realising my mistake. Many apologies, The Anome (talk) 11:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I didn't even notice. No worries; just please could you clarify whether this error will create a permanent record in my heretofore spotless block log? — JFG ^talk 11:57, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, yes, it will. However, I don't think anyone will think any the less of you for having it; I've had it done to me (see my block log), and it hasn't caused any problems. Note also the unblock message making it very clear that you were blocked in error. Again, apologies... -- The Anome (talk) 12:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. — JFG ^talk 12:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually considered blocking myself in the past, just to make the point that a non-empty block log is no big deal. ~Awilley (talk) 14:43, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I've been building my block log for years just to make the same point. EEng 15:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

	The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
	Better than the vast majority of editors on this website, you are able to remain composed, find peaceful resolutions and not blow your stack when dealing with blatant partisan POV pushers and haters. Thank you! MONGO (talk) 14:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply] Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

I agree! Best wishes to you JFG and thanks for your many contributions to making Wikipedia such a great compendium of knowledge for the world! N2e (talk) 22:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas! A Christmas cookie for you. Thanks for all your volunteer work. All the best Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 17:57, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

While you don't return to writing the weekly report, just found out the bottom two comments here with "kind" words about one of your entries in the 2017 annual one... (here are some more positive ones) igordebraga ≠ 00:45, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an incel at rButtcoin? My new business card. — JFG ^talk 09:05, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Igor, I'll be happy to participate in the 2018 roundup. — JFG ^talk 09:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Though for that, you'd better contribute at least one week of the normal thing. Maybe not the latest one (Stormy clouds might be finishing it, and of course, don't know if you care enough about football), but hope you can help us sometime. igordebraga ≠ 02:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you can (preferrably before January starts! Which is two days from now, so we're in a bit of a hurry), contribute your write-ups to the yearly 50. igordebraga ≠ 00:59, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, kept this as my final wikitreat of the year… — JFG ^talk 19:03, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So, bring us your gift ASAP. igordebraga ≠ 22:14, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Great write-up on Musk and Trump. Just the king of Queen, India and the guy who starved it to go, and then we can publish. Thanks, Stormy clouds (talk) 13:41, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liked your write-ups so far. So please, just deliver your words on Churchill to let us complete (and to think last year's was done by January 1st). igordebraga ≠ 00:17, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Just to get the report as a whole to a point where we can publish and begin belatedly promoting it, I have taken the liberty of writing a quick entry on Churchill. I know that you have one in the works yourself, so feel absolutely free to replace mine whenever it is complete and ready, as mine is merely intended as a stop-gap. Stormy clouds (talk) 00:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OMG I left this hanging, sorry guys! @Stormy clouds: Your entry is brilliant, I would not dare supersede it. Well done, and thanks! — JFG ^talk 15:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 10:43, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

Never mind it is already covered.[14][15] PackMecEng (talk) 19:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello, JFG. You have new messages at Talk:Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections.
Message added 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Qzekrom (talk) 21:13, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello JFG,

News

• The WMF has announced that Google Translate is now available for translating articles through the content translation tool. This may result in an increase in machine translated articles in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to use the {{rough translation}} tag and gently remind (or inform) editors that translations from other language Wikipedia pages still require attribution per WP:TFOLWP.

Discussions of interest

• Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
• {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
• A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
• There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.

Reminders

• NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.

NPP Tools Report

• Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
• copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
• The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

---

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

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Stephen 06:38, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for correcting my error on 2019 in spaceflight a few hours ago, meant to put the "3 May 2019" not "11 May 2019". 19:23, 30 April 2019 (UTC)