JFG

Pending changes reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "pending changes reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on pages protected by pending changes. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges, while the list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on is located at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:

• Wikipedia:Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
• Wikipedia:Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
• Wikipedia:Protection policy#Pending changes protection, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:37, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Well, that was quick; thanks! — JFG ^talk 03:06, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

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 ^talk 11:21, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate total on Republican primaries

Hi, in reference to the delegate total—in the edit you undid I just added the 42 delegates from Wisconsin. I just had a look at the total again and did a sum over all the delegates that have been allocated so far, which now comes out as 1,689. The reason the column in the table doesn't sum to the total is that there are uncommitted delegates, but I take it the "Total" there is supposed to be "total delegates allocated so far" rather than "total delegates pledged to a particular candidate". —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:37, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Nizolan:, yes this total should mean "Total delegates allocated so far", however the Wisconsin delegates were already in there (36 for Trump and 6 for Cruz). Not sure if we should add the uncommitted delegates in there, and from which source(s)... Anyway, back to fighting over-enthusiastic editors who keep changing numbers after a glance at their TV screen. — JFG ^talk 22:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, I was sure it had been the same before Wisconsin, that's why I updated. Thanks for checking. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:06, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

(on some election page)

Why isn't NC colored gold? Hillary won that state Todd4069 (talk) 04:50, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Hello @Todd4069: I don't see such a problem. which page are you talking about? — JFG ^talk 05:16, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

On the Dem map NC should already be colored gold for Hillary Todd4069 (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Just looked at Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 again, I see all maps colored correctly. Anyway, that would be a question for the map's author, not me. Click on the map you want to get changed, look at the file details then contact the uploader. Cheers! — JFG ^talk 16:53, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry lol apparently i don't know my states I was looking at KY. The dems haven't had the primary yet Todd4069 (talk) 00:08, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Hah! Back to school I guess ;) — JFG ^talk 00:13, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Ha thanks for your diligence! Todd4069 (talk) 02:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

redirect v article

Hi. Just wanted to let you know I reverted your change back to a redirect because I feel like having a dedicated article for launch and payload is important for these very significant launches. For the past three launches, much coverage (enough to meet WP:GNG) on the launch itself rather than the payload has come up, somewhat of a shift from the past. Because of that, articles started being made for launches as well as payloads such as Falcon 9 Flight 20, Falcon 9 Flight 21, and Falcon 9 Flight 22. I see Falcon 9 Flight 23 as the continuation of that and far more notable than Falcon 9 Flight 22 because it actually worked and therefore is getting a lot more coverage in the news. It's a stub right now so it doesn't add much over the main article, but I think it's a good idea to keep the clearly notable subject on its own article so that it can be expanded in the future. Appable (talk) 07:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree so I'll revert you a second time and invite you to take this discussion to the talk page. I'll list my arguments there. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Republican 2016 Primary Race

Thanks for the correction and your work on the important WP article: Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016. You are entirely correct as I read:
https://prod-static-ngop-pbl.s3.amazonaws.com/docs/2012_RULES_Adopted.pdf
"THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL COMMITTEE RULE NO. 1: Organization of the Republican National Committee
(b) For the purposes of this rule and all other rules, "state" or "states" shall be taken to include American Samoa, the District of Columbia, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, except in Rule No. 14, and unless the context in which the word "state" or "states" is used clearly makes such inclusion inappropriate."

Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:21, 11 April 2016 (UTC) -- We live in interesting times.

You're welcome. I learn something new every day. — JFG ^talk 05:04, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Rollback granted

Hi JFG. After reviewing your request for "rollbacker", I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback should be used to revert clear cases of vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback should never be used to edit war.
• If abused, rollback rights can be revoked.
• Use common sense.

If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Widr (talk) 12:45, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks! I'll be sure to use the privilege wisely. — JFG ^talk 13:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

File:U.S. States by Vote Distribution, 2016 (Republican Party).svg

Hi just wanted to notice I updated the map. The size of each pie chart is propotional to its state delegates. Although it took some time, but it is finally done!;) Ali Zifan 03:30, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks! — JFG ^talk 14:25, 1 May 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 Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. When you move a page, please remember to correct any double-redirects and make link corrections where necessary. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

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

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

• 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 ^talk 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 ^Talk 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 ^talk 10:54, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Timeline of spaceflight/WIP

Hello JFG,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Timeline of spaceflight/WIP for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Tpdwkouaa (talk) 23:06, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

@Tpdwkouaa: As Anthony Appleyard noted, this was a temporary page to work on a new graph; this work is done now, feel free to delete the page. — JFG ^talk 18:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

No problem, in the future though, please try to keep test and WIP edits in either your sandbox, or a draft. The graph looks really good though! Thank you, Tpdwkouaa (talk) 19:06, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

You're right, I should have used the Draft namespace. — JFG ^talk 19:11, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

•  Done I now have deleted Timeline of spaceflight/WIP. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

2016 Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Community Survey

The Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has appointed a committee to lead the search for the foundation’s next Executive Director. One of our first tasks is to write the job description of the executive director position, and we are asking for input from the Wikimedia community. Please take a few minutes and complete this survey to help us better understand community and staff expectations for the Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director.

• Survey, (hosted by Qualtrics)

Thank you, The Wikimedia Foundation Executive Director Search Steering Committee via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:37, 8 June 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)

Round-robin

Hi JFG, this is about a round-robin move you performed recently. FYI, see Talk:Women's Laser Radial World Championship and Talk:Article 50. I made these redirects from the old page to the new one for the sake of completeness to avoid breaking incoming talk page links to the old page. Jenks24 recently pinged me about this issue about not breaking incoming talk page links, and I thought I'd share this with you as well.

For example, if page A had a talk page, 3 archives, and a good article nomination, swapping A and its subpages with B without the talk/subpages will turn the former A 's pages into redlinks. See WP:PMVR#rr for the details. Hope this only helps! Thanks — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 19:54, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

@Andy M. Wang: Thanks for the note. In the case of Article 50, I didn't perform a full 3-step swap and I skipped re-creating the Talk page when I made the new redirect of Article 50 to Withdrawal from the European Union. In the case of Women's Laser Radial World Championship(s) I'm not sure why the talk page wasn't swapped properly; good on you catching the error! — JFG ^talk 05:27, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi JFG, looks like you forgot to round-robin the subpages. See Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Syrian Civil War vs Special:PrefixIndex/Talk:Syrian civil war. Also, make sure you also update the bot archiving, e.g. Special:Diff/728327326. I'll get to this now — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 17:42, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Andy! Strange... the move tool should have taken care of all the talk subpages. I'll triple-check next time. — JFG ^talk 18:00, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

I've missed the "Move subpages" button or redirect button once or twice but cleanup wasn't too bad. I somehow think they should make move subpages default to users who have it to keep everything together, you know what I mean? Anyway, no problem :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 18:04, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes Andy I just suggested this on Wikipedia talk:Page mover#Moving subpages should be the default action. — JFG ^talk 09:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline of spaceflight changes

I love your changes to the 2016 in spaceflight article! I suggest you also update Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Timeline of spaceflight working group to document the new sections and formats. --IanOsgood (talk) 16:06, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

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 ^talk 07:34, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

??

Please see User_talk:Vkumar1216#spelling --S Philbrick(Talk) 00:12, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

You mean Calcutta High Court → Kolkata High Court? :Sure, I fixed the spelling for him. — JFG ^talk 05:27, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

OK, thanks, but it wasn't fixed when I posted.--S Philbrick(Talk) 10:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Irina Yarovaya

How do you know the article does not mention Yarovaya if you do not speak Russian? Are you searching for "Яровая"? You know, in Russian we have declinations. Try seraching for "Яров".--Ymblanter (talk) 05:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I can read it very well, thank you. The article only mentions the Пакет Яровой which bears Yarovaya's name, it doesn't say anything about her, and although it criticizes the contents of this legislative packet and the manner in which it was passed, it certainly doesn't support the libelous wording that was inserted into the article earlier by an IP editor (and that version was unsourced). Besides, this is just an opinion piece which probably wouldn't hold up to scrutiny as a reliable source. Please find better sources and stick to facts if you wish to expand the article. — JFG ^talk 07:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. You will probably not like it in the end, but I do not care.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:17, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Quite the opposite, thanks for improving the wording and the sourcing! — JFG ^talk 07:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but I am not done yet. Finding reliable sources that she is hated by her colleagues and called "slut" in the media will be tougher, but I hope still possible. Just can not do it full time.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:58, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

I don't think that would be appropriate for a WP:BLP. — JFG ^talk 08:09, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

It would be appropriate if this is properly reflected in reliable sources. Obviously I am not going to add this material unsourced.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:13, 7 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 Wikipedia:Template editor and make sure you understand its contents. In particular, you should read the section on wise template editing and the criteria for revocation.

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

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

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

Useful links

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

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

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

Request for closing panel

Hi JFG, I've created a discussion for finding editors for the closing panel, at the Administrator's noticeboard. The discussion is here, so this is just courtesy notice. Thanks, Kylo Ren (talk) 23:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:20160720 - Searching New York on Google.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:20160720 - Searching New York on Google.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, this sounds silly as the image was used in a Talk page to illustrate a debate about the naming of our New York article, which is arguably a vastly more limited and justified fair use case than publishing it in an article. But who am I to argue with robots? — JFG ^talk 09:03, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Move review for 2016 NFL Draft

An editor has asked for a Move review of 2016 NFL Draft. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

I know it's late. If there's any way you can resolve this, I'd be happy to back out the review. Dicklyon (talk) 01:57, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Not sure what you are hinting at for me to resolve. I just posted a comprehensive answer to the move review. Let the chips fall where they may — JFG ^talk 15:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I was hoping you might say that you stand by the consensus but regret applying to a ton of pages where the issue was not advertised. Dicklyon (talk) 23:20, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

For the record (mostly towards my own potentially lapsing memory), the move decision was endorsed. — JFG ^talk 09:27, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to move the section

Hi JFG, saw your note at Talk:New York/July 2016 move request#Post-discussion potential move considerations. My intent was to mention that editnotices, archiving, template-namespace links, etc. would be uncontroversial and can (should) be done quickly. Didn't intend for the section to be a link/grace period discussion (which is more situation-specific). Per WP:MULTI, feel free to move that section to another page or let me know if you want me to do it (though I think you have more context). — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 14:38, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

 Done – See Talk:New York/July 2016 move consequences. — JFG ^talk 17:51, 28 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 ^talk 21:13, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Closed RfM on Queen Anne of Romania

Hello, I politely ask you to reconsider your decision to close the RfM, as consensus had formed towards moving the page. Furthermore, in your decision you cite guidelines while claiming to cite policies (see WP:POLICY), so I strongly recommend you ammend your comment. I'm going to wait one more day before starting a formal move review. Thank you.Anonimu (talk) 08:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

I stand by my detailed close statement. I understand your position but my decision accurately reflects Wikipedian consensus (which, as nominator, it is not your job to judge). WP:COMMONNAME is part of WP:AT which is indeed policy, and has higher standing than the supporters' arguments in this case. I also cited WP:OFFICIAL which is a guideline against giving undue weight to the official standing of a name, and WP:RGW which is an essay explaining that Wikipedia is not the place to advocate for what is right and wrong, but rather to neutrally report real-world usage. Kindest regards, — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment. As I consider your decision specious, I'll proceed with the move review.Anonimu (talk) 09:04, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Enjoy! — JFG ^talk 09:05, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Hello again. I didn't really follow the discussion on Queen Margarita of Bulgaria. However in that case it seems pretty clear that WP:COMMONNAME goes against your decision, so your rationale doesn't hold, see my comment at Talk:Queen_Margarita_of_Bulgaria#Requested_move_16_August_2016. I'm inclined to open another review on that close. Please comment. Anonimu (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Common name or not, there was no consensus for the proposed change, and a new move request is already in progress with another potential title. I have no further comments on that case. — JFG ^talk 13:43, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Move review for Queen Anne of Romania

An editor has asked for a Move review of Queen Anne of Romania. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. Anonimu (talk) 09:13, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

RfC structure

Re: [1], please see Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Statement should be neutral and brief. The question should be the first part of the text, followed immediately by your first signature. If you click through to one of the listing pages, e.g. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology, you'll see that the question does not appear there. It should not only appear there, but it should be the only thing that appears there. (You'll also see that a lot of other editors are doing it wrong, too.) If you fix the RfC, the listing pages will be automatically updated before long. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

@Mandruss: Thanks for the note. I have amended the RFC listing accordingly. — JFG ^talk 10:19, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

pageswap script for convenience

Hi JFG, hope everything's going well. Thought I'd share a script here (js) that semi-automates round-robin page swaps for convenience, and thought you may want to try it out. You'd simply click "Swap" and enter a page destination, the script performs the 3 moves as necessary (saves time having to manually go through the move form 3 times). (It doesn't correct redirects afterwards, that's still manual)

Anyway feel free to adapt this script as you see fit, cheers :) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 02:29, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll be sure to try it! — JFG ^talk 06:02, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

New York

Is New York State the primary topic for the term "New York"?

• No, but the page's owner will stonewall any attempt to fix it, so it's time for me to move on to an area of Wikipedia that I can actually improve without getting reverted. Thanks for trying, and for preventing that filibuster from being too one-sided. Certes (talk) 12:03, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

I understand your frustration. I just want to illuminate the issue from yet another angle, for the benefit of all readers. Please state your opinion in the RFC. Any WP:OWNership or WP:BATTLEfield issues should be dealt with separately. Don't let anyone stonewall your voice! — JFG ^talk 16:49, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Notification about new RFC

Because you have participated in a previous RFC on a closely related topic, I thought you might be interested in participating in this new RFC regarding Donald Trump.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:54, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Comment

Thanks for your comment on Talk:Free trade zone#Requested move 28 August 2016. For your information, see also Talk:List of Special Economic Zones in India#Requested move 28 August 2016.
128.179.146.139 (talk) 11:07, 1 September 2016 (UTC).

See also Talk:Free trade area#Requested move 3 September 2016.
Juliet Jolly (talk) 12:23, 4 September 2016 (UTC).

ANI notice

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gaming the system?. Thank you. Guy Macon (talk) 04:46, 3 September 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 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 ^talk 05:13, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Helpful hint

Extradition is state-level law, so if someone has been extradited to New York, they have been extradited to the state (even if they are physically moved to the city, extradition subjects them to the laws of the state). In case it comes up, by the way, all New York laws are state laws. The city only has ordinances. bd2412 T 16:25, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

@BD2412: Thanks, good to know if such cases come up again. Which article was this about? — JFG ^talk 21:06, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC close

I see that a bot has removed the RfC notice concerning PT of NY [2] but I don't see any closure... you srer more experienced in RfCs I gather, what happens next? Andrewa (talk) 11:19, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Bots automatically expire pending RFCs after 30 days. In normal circumstances, anyone could close this one with an obvious-looking consensus, however given the sensitive nature of the discussions I have requested a formal close at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure. It may yet take a few days or weeks until an admin volunteers. WP:No deadline. — JFG ^talk 11:56, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Understood thank you ... you are 'way ahead of me. I was actually wondering about ANRFC but hadn't checked there to see whether it had already happened... should have done so. Andrewa (talk) 20:17, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

And I see we have a volunteer. Better than weeks or months. (:-> Andrewa (talk) 20:50, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 October

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) 00:15, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JFG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Oxford University Press.
Message added 04:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

You've been Approved for Journals & Scholarship. Please check your e-mail for the next step. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 04:14, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello JFP I'm close to sending out a batch of accounts for creation but I still need you to respond to the e-mail I sent you so I can continue. Thanks! --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 08:35, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Cameron11598: Thanks for the reminder. I just filled the form. — JFG ^talk 09:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, JFG. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is The Wikipedia Library - Oxford University Press Scholarships Stream.
Message added 06:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Your account details are in the e-mail. Please note Journals stream may take an additional 2 to 4 weeks. --Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:30, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Got it, thanks Cameron! — JFG ^talk 07:16, 11 October 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 ^talk 15:50, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Deplorables

I just wanted to offer my support for this edit, which seems broadly in line with the language we worked out together a few days ago. If you find yourself getting push back on the article talk page, let me know and I will go to bat for you on this issue. -- Scjessey (talk) 15:06, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

@Scjessey: Will keep watching this. Thanks for the emotional relief! — JFG ^talk 15:15, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

When archiving...

A "live" discussion that was still ongoing has been returned to the New York talk page. Please be more careful when you manually archive.  Paine  ^u/c 05:42, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Paine Ellsworth: I archived this recent thread on purpose with the rest, feeling that we all need a bit of fresh air. Of course it's your prerogative to restore it, no harm done either way. Doesn't mean that I consider the case closed, I sure don't… Now see my edits to the Talk:New York/FAQ for some humorous assessment of the 2016 saga. — JFG ^talk 05:46, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Fresh air's nice; however, I doubt that all of our involvement with this requested move has slowed any of us up with our other tasks. I could be wrong. In any case, that particular discussion puts us on the verge of a resolution. And it all rests with whatever Newyorkbrad decides to do. If that editor decides to withdraw their singleton close, then we can perhaps decide on a new closing panel. And if the decision is not to withdraw, either explicitly or tacitly, then we will be compelled to open a move review. Either way, we will be brought nearer to true closure.  Paine  ^u/c 07:06, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather leave this episode to rest and get ready to craft a fresh move request taking into account events and new information since the non-closure of the previous one. But I'm watching your efforts with interest. — JFG ^talk 07:36, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and I like the FAQ page, especially the handy history links for this ongoing saga!  Paine  ^u/c 08:41, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I repaired (I hope!) your signature at WP:HIGHBEAM

At WP:HIGHBEAM, it appeared to me that your signature had become detached from your subscription request and has been moving down the page; I have moved it back to where I assume it was supposed to be. [3] If I have guessed wrong, please feel free to revert my change, and my apologies in advance for any misunderstanding. Best--Arxiloxos (talk) 17:05, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

@Arxiloxos: Oh yes, thanks! Looks like Lingzhi made a typo when approving me. And that reminds me of completing my registration… — JFG ^talk 19:20, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:DATERANGE

Hi JFG. Just wondering how you managed to convert the year ranges with Thatcher. Did you use a script? (If you did, I'd like to know which.) Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 08:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: No, I went through them manually. — JFG ^talk 14:01, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Reply

Responding here since you pinged my name... I saw your AE comment and do not think it was fair. There are some differences between AYW and me. First, unlike him, I respected 1RR rule on the page. Second, if you look at my last edit on the page, it is essentially the same as the edit by AYW who was allegedly on the "opposite side" of the dispute. So here we go: my edit actually reflected WP:Consensus, when "partisans" from the opposite sides had happen to agree about something. Not mentioning that many other contributors made the same edit, and the content still remains on the page, meaning it does reflect a de facto consensus on the page. Third, unlike AYW, I did not WP:BATTLE by reporting other users on WP:AE, only to withdraw the request when it came to the "boomerang" action. Finally, unlike AYW, I am not an SPA focused on editing US politics from a certain POV perspective. My very best wishes (talk) 21:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

@My very best wishes: Thanks for your comments. I take good note of your defense and I believe it belongs in the AE discussion. I wouldn't describe Anythingyouwant as an SPA, I've seen his name appear in many subject areas; it's true that your areas of interest do overlap quite a bit so I understand how you might have formed this impression of him/her. — JFG ^talk 21:20, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's take another example. There is another contributor who was brought on WP:AE in relation to the same page [4], and he is also different. First, unlike me, she/he blatantly violated 1RR rule on the page and advocated that their 1RR violation was proper in AE statement [5]. Second, they just came back to the page after topic ban from the very same page [6]. And finally, look at their block log. This is a "serial violator". I would not be surprised if they were sanctioned. My very best wishes (talk) 21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. — JFG ^talk 21:45, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JFG. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

--Cameron₁₁₅₉₈ ^(Talk) 06:47, 9 November 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 ^talk 01:43, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

List of Presidents of the United States

See my comment on that article's talk page. MB298 (talk) 05:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: Thanks, I answered at length there. — JFG ^talk 06:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Concerning Presidential & Vice President related articles. Please be patient & wait until Trump & Pence have taken office :) GoodDay (talk) 08:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait until January 20, 2017, PLEASE. There's not need to rush things along. GoodDay (talk) 08:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: It's not a question of being impatient; it's a question of reporting facts. DT is President-elect. Barring exceptional events, he will take office and the country will move on. For the record, I would defend the same position if Hillary Clinton had been elected. — JFG ^talk 08:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

He' not the U.S. President yet, though. At the very least, his name there should be hidden, until inauguration day. One wouldn't make such edits in the infobox at Donald Trump, because one would be reverted by many. Again, be patient. GoodDay (talk) 08:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have added a footnote to clarify the situation. Hope this meets your agreement. — JFG ^talk 09:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. GoodDay (talk) 09:02, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Compound adjective (hyphenation)

For your information, see Talk:Fossil fuel phase-out#Requested move 17 November 2016.
Kalimera Pouliths (talk) 08:12, 18 November 2016 (UTC).

RFC Closure

Hi JFG. Regarding your recent closure at Talk:Amouli, could you describe why it was closed as not moved (other than the !vote spread)? Your closing comment didn't elaborate. I was just curious because the request was consistent with established guidelines, deferred to reliable sources, sought consistency with like articles, etc., so I wanted to try to better understand what the stronger argument was that you saw on the other side. Thank you for any clarification! ╠╣uw [talk] 19:08, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure. Per WP:RMCI the closer must weigh the arguments presented in light of policy, and avoid injecting their personal opinion (luckily I have none on this subject). Supporters essentially backed your proposal to apply the WP:USPLACE guideline to article titles for Samoan localities. Opponents argued that USPLACE shouldn't apply the same way to Samoa as it applies to US states, and that WP:CONCISE and WP:COMMONNAME were stronger criteria. Potential exceptions were mentioned for ambiguous names but there was no support for blanket renamings, despite the WP:CONSISTENCY argument. Article titles are ultimately governed by the five WP:NAMINGCRITERIA, and absent any assertion that such criteria would justify the proposed long names for every Samoan locality, I had to deny the global move while leaving the door open for individual title changes. Finally, a WP:WIKILAWYER may assert that WP:AT is policy while WP:USPLACE is a guideline, so the former should carry more weight (but I didn't even consider this minor detail as relevant before being asked to justify my close). — JFG ^talk 21:08, 19 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)