Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SPECIFICO (talk | contribs) at 19:31, 19 February 2017 (→DS violation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Soyuz-U retired?

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

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

MEO/MTO

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

Page mover granted

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

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

Useful links:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Precious

bold mettā

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Template editor granted

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

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

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

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

Useful links

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

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

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

On MUOS-5

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

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

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

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

1 to 100

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

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

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

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

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

Dabbling

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

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

International reactions to the United States presidential election, 2016

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

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

Falcon reentry burns

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

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

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

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

SES S.A. - Future satellite launches

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

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

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

A barnstar for you!

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

I cannot stand saying LOL, but this time I actually did laugh out loud

...the article should mention the issue of other than from a sensationalist angle… Good luck with that :) — JFG, 23:24, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

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

Glad to make your day! — JFG 21:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

A 2016 election barnstar

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

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

Yo Ho Ho

Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec16a}} to your friends' talk pages.

RfC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Reference errors on 9 January

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

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

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

List of state leaders in 100 to List of state leaders in AD 100 ‎(Rename per RfC Talk:AD 1)

Please stop and change these back.

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

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

Modification of Trump consensus

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

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

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

You've got mail from the Misplaced Pages Library

Reference errors on 14 January

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

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

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

 Fixed — JFG 13:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Sock drama, promptly resolved

Restructuring

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trump consensuses list 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

no blind trust

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good. Enjoy! — JFG 16:11, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Oh really

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

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

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

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

Trump article

Reference errors on 24 January

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

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

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

 Done — JFG 07:04, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Social policy of Donald Trump) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Social policy of Donald Trump, JFG!

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

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

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

Learn more about page curation.

 InsertCleverPhraseHere  11:40, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

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

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

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

2017 United States Presidential Inauguration riots article - still exists?

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

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

Improper removal of transclusions

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

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

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

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

'former xyz' versus 'outgoing xyz'

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

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

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

Presidency of Donald Trump

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

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

Time for an RfA?

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

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

List of lawsuits involving Donald Trump

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

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

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

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

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

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

RfC on 5% threshold

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

Reference errors on 4 February

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

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

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

 Fixed — JFG 20:56, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Are you tired of winning yet?

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

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

Governmental service

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

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

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

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

Awkward?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ridiculous stuff happens all the time, my friend.

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

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

Branch lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DS violation

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

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

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

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

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

I will take it to AE if you refuse to follow up. Your edit summary is as I described it, but as long as you don't try to introduce that into article text, it is moot. Meanwhile, you are free to review the definitions of revert at 3RR and 1RR guideline pages on edit warring. "Explain on the talk page" and "Complex cleanup" don't appear there. And there's also your reinsertion of the Clapper smear in a new version, against consensus. SPECIFICO talk 17:36, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

As you wish. Enjoy. — JFG 17:40, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I see that you've capitulated on Clapper. Good. Please consider wrapping up the other matter as well. SPECIFICO talk 18:04, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

I have not "capitulated" on Clapper, I reverted this in the interest of pursuing the dialogue. See my new comments on the Talk page. I won't restore your Gessen statement. — JFG 18:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

You would have been blocked for the reinsertion, but sorry to have misinterpreted your actions. SPECIFICO talk 19:31, 19 February 2017 (UTC)