User talk:JFG

GAR

SpaceX reusable launch system development program, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kees08 (talk) 18:03, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

List of executive actions by Donald Trump

Hi. Now all the sections are uneven. Why do that? The layout does not look improved. It looks staggered. It should look consistent. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

@Kiraroshi1976: It's not good practice to force column widths. Layout now adapts better to each reader's screen. And it doesn't looked jagged to me; what do you mean by that? — JFG ^talk 22:38, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess my screen looks at it differently, but some sections seem shorter in width and others longer. - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 22:46, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

How wide is your screen roughly? It looks pretty good on a typical laptop screen around 1200 to 1500 px wide. — JFG ^talk 23:14, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

15.6" wide - Kiraroshi1976 (talk) 02:58, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

What happens when you reduce the width of your browser window? — JFG ^talk 16:47, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Motor vehicle ranking

In the spirit of WP:BRD, can we all agree to stop editing/reverting articles concerning the ranking of motor vehicle production and to try to discuss it instead. After we have some form of resolution from the discussion (or at least an edict from the administrators), then we can make the articles match to whatever the discussion resolved.

Furthermore, a discussion spread out over many talk pages is hard to follow and mostly results in the same arguments being repeated for no benefit. If it failed to convince anyone at one talk page then why would it convince the same people at another page?

I suggest we put the majority of our discussion at Talk:List of manufacturers by motor vehicle production.

This message has also been placed on the talk page of the other editors involved.  Stepho  talk  01:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the note; I have replied at the relevant talk page. — JFG ^talk 16:46, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

UK Prime Ministers sidebar cont.

Forgive me for being impatient JFG, but do you have a specific timeframe in mind regarding the implementation? Regards.--Nevé–selbert 10:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Neve-selbert: I looked into it but it wasn't straightforward to implement properly. I'll give it another go later this week. — JFG ^talk 10:16, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

OK, that's fine. Thank-you.--Nevé–selbert 10:18, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 20:52, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, JFG. Any way you can make the border colour a lighter grey? Great job, anyway.--Nevé–selbert 13:57, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

 Sure. Can't make it much lighter though, it would look washed out. — JFG ^talk 14:04, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Template editor

Hi JFG, I see that you have template editor. Would you please consider editing the list of Trump consensuses to reflect "Many of his public statements were controversial or false". I am hesitant to implement the consensus before it is documented in the list.Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:12, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

No time right now; I'll take a look a bit later today. — JFG ^talk 17:36, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

 Done — JFG ^talk 20:03, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Trump

I have added a new Option C to the most recent survey at the Trump talk page. I think everyone will find it appealing, so please comment about it and we can be done with this. Thanks. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:56, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Nah, I think it's worse, so I won't comment. Let's see how the survey plays out over the next few days. — JFG ^talk 05:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay, I think it's fine to leave as-is anyway, because saying he was a businessman during one time period is vague about whether he was (or is) a businessman in another time period, and because "entering politics" is an appropriately vague statement too. Although it might be best to simply change the word "politics" to "government" which would (maybe) address objections by some other editors. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

"Activities beyond New York" would require us to move lots of stuff into that section. The golf courses, for example are beyond New York. So is Mar-a-Lago. And, removing the word "Business" from header suggests he personally went bankrupt multiple times which he never did. Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:21, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Right, "Activities" can be confusing. Earlier, the section was called "Hotels beyond New York", I think that was a better summary of the contents. "Bankruptcies" is in the "Real estate business" section, so we don't have to repeat "Business", it's a harmless simplification which makes the TOC more palatable. Incidentally, we should be discussing this on Talk:Donald Trump, not here. — JFG ^talk 21:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

[1] Anythingyouwant (talk) 21:56, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Should we explicitly invite active / all partisans to 'is confident that' proposal …

given the intensity of ongoing discussion below? Note that I also spoke in strong terms in my discussion with Geogene here. I'm considering removing the last sentence of my initial statement there prior to any such invite. Thoughts? Humanengr (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, that would be canvassing. — JFG ^talk 13:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Thx. Humanengr (talk) 14:38, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

@Humanengr: Would you care to mention whether you support the rest of the proposed lead section besides the first paragraph? — JFG ^talk 15:43, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Done. On another issue, did you see what SPECIFICO said on my talk page, including this: "JFG has given you the same advice I articulated above."? Humanengr (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

No, I hadn't been watching. And I have no comment except that you probably noticed that SPECIFICO loves handing out litigation threats. — JFG ^talk 22:01, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Would you consider rewording?

This runs close to a personal attack, as I read it. Would you consider rewording? - Bri (talk) 23:31, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: Yeah it may sound a bit harsh, however I am criticizing the editor's behaviour, not his character. I refrained from filing a complaint for disruptive editing because I thought he would WP:LISTEN to what policies and other editors have been telling him over several weeks. Note that I defended his work in other cases, so it's nothing personal. — JFG ^talk 23:42, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

@Bri: I have reached out to Another Believer and we're good, we just happen to disagree on content. — JFG ^talk 14:57, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Close at Alternative for Germany

About your close here. I do not see any consensus in the discussion about what should be in the infobox about ideology. Would you please revise your close and remove that claim? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 21:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Greetings Jytdog! Towards the end of the discussion, I see consensus among Joobo, L.R. Wormwood and Helper201 about 5 items which should remain in the "Ideology" field, where Checco would keep just 4, Autospark just 3, Pincrete was neutral and you didn't voice an opinion. Anyway, as noted in my close, the RfC question addressed only the removal of "climate change denialism" but a rough consensus happened to be hashed out about other "ideologies", so I felt obliged to mention it, for the sake of consensual article improvement. If you want clarification on the question, please take it up with those other editors. — JFG ^talk 21:58, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Those are three editors who are all on one side of the issues. One of them already took action based on that part of your close, diff. Their discussion is miles from any kind of real consensus. If you will not change your close I will go to AN and I am pretty confident that it will be overturned. Please do change it yourself and save us all drama. This is just about that part of your close. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I think you can include User:Kamalthebest and User:Sigehelmus in the consensus too, given their comments in the survey. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There's definitely a consensus to remove the material that has already been removed, though some editors would apparently like to remove more. I don't know why you're determined to die on this hill. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:15, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This is not true. The RfC was not focused on cleansing the infobox, just removing one thing. Am awaiting JFG's response. Jytdog (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There would still appear to be a consensus to remove those items from the infobox, regardless of the parameters of the RfC. If you want us to do this for each item, I'm sure we can all find better things to do with our time. L.R. Wormwood (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is only one thing that matters in this discussion, and that is whether JFG will remove that part of the close or not. Please do not clutter this discussion. Jytdog (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I stand by my close and I note that the article has been updated accordingly without triggering a backlash. @Jytdog: I would advise you to open another discussion if you feel that some of the removed items should be added back to the "Ideology" field. — JFG ^talk 22:30, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. Jytdog (talk) 22:32, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I edited User:JFG/sandbox/Launching

I edited a page in your userspace, User:JFG/sandbox/Launching. See the changes I made to what appears to be a template draft.--— Mr. Guye (talk) (My aftermath) 18:18, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mr. Guye: Thanks for your edit. I created this draft to salvage a deleted template, in case we want to use it again at some later date. Doesn't look likely in the near future, though. — JFG ^talk 18:54, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "America First (policy)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 17 May 2017.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 23:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

perezhilton.com and Daily Mail used in any BLP

I would like to note sans any other comment that using Daily Mail and Perez Hilton for any claims of fact in any BLP is contrary to WP:RSN discussions as far as I know, in and of themselves. This applies to just about any BLP on the face of the earth - or Wikipedia, and I trust you agree. Collect (talk) 12:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Collect: I most certainly agree. Have I done that??? — JFG ^talk 13:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Nope. But you may have noted articles and BLPs which have done that, and I think at AfD that you might reasonably note that such sources have been used when you propose deletion. <g>. Collect (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

I might indeed. Were you alluding to the Tim Nolan (Trump campaign official) article, which has one Daily Mail cite among other gossip rags? And regarding Perez Hilton, I had never even heard of him before you mentioned his name here. The beauty of Wikipedia: you never know what you're going to learn today… — JFG ^talk 14:11, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Russian intervention

This edit of yours [2] changes the meaning of the text and changes it in a way that at least one editor @BullRangifer: is currently disputing/rejecting on Talk [3]. You marked the edit summary "copy edit" but because of the change of meaning, the ongoing Talk page discussion, and your previous removal of the same relevant text, it appears to be more than that. It's also your second revert in less than 24 hours. Please undo this edit. SPECIFICO talk 14:07, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Listen, SPECIFICO, I'm rather tired of your acting as a policeman on this article, and I suspect I'm not the only one. This is not my second revert, and it cannot even be called a revert. It also does not change the meaning. If you disagree you know the process. Meanwhile, please stay off my talk page. — JFG ^talk 14:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Please explain why this is not a revert. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:56, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Before my edit, the article said:

In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].^[78] In January 2016, according to The Daily Beast, the report […some other stuff].^[101]

After my edit, it said:

In January 2017, former hacker Kevin Poulsen, writing for The Daily Beast, stated that […some stuff].^[78] Another Daily Beast article stated that the report […some other stuff].^[101]

My edit did two little things in one shot: correcting a false date (2016 instead of 2017) and removing a repetition (same date as previous sentence + same Daily Beast publication). I correctly labeled this a copyedit and contrary to Specifico's assertion, I did not change the meaning. — JFG ^talk 15:08, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:19, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for that explanation. A better edit summary could have prevented this. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:38, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JFG. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/Friedrich Wilhelm von Seydlitz.
Message added 22:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:21, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Re

to this. Yes, certainly, just as they now collaborate with Taliban. For example, it was suggested that the whole story with Palmyra offensives was about letting ISIL "to take over" all weapons and ammunition left by Russian forces in Palmyra. This is nothing new. There were similar agreements during Soviet war in Afghanistan (that man was responsible for some negotiations of this nature, there was a documentary movie). But I do not have time for collecting sources about it, sorry. My very best wishes (talk) 00:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. This Palmyra story sounds really weird though: Russians were rather proud of helping take the city back from ISIS, they even sent an orchestra to play there for show. Then several months later, ISIS briefly took it back for just a few weeks. Not credible that Russia would have masterminded all this as a false flag with a goal of delivering supplies to the Islamist commanders; there would be a myriad easier ways to accomplish that. Also, you may take note that geopolitical considerations have evolved quite a bit since Soviet times… — JFG ^talk 08:35, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and the orchestra was led by Sergei Roldugin who prominently appears in Panama papers. Yes, perhaps that claim was wrong, it was probably an "opinion piece" somewhere. The relationships between Russia and ISIL is a big subject that I would rather not discuss here. Regards, My very best wishes (talk) 15:58, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Ah, the guy with an expensive cello? Big subject indeed. Thanks for the discussion, always a pleasure! — JFG ^talk 16:01, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning America First (policy), to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, TransporterMan (TALK) 03:34, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Good Humor
	Hi JFG. Thank you for working collaboratively to help build Wikipedia and ensuring that our content is faithful to our sources. I particularly appreciate your diplomatic and inclusive approach to building consensus, as well as your good humor. Best wishes! - MrX 13:37, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks MrX, I appreciate your level-headed approach to discussions as well. — JFG ^talk 20:08, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

May 2017

A ridiculous cat

Please excuse my erroneous edit, likely a mistaken rollback or revert caused by my fat fingers, hypnagogia, or one of my ridiculous cats. I have likely self reverted or noticed the mistake after you corrected it. Again, my apologies. Thank you. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:43, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I need an IRL kitten right about now! — JFG ^talk 22:50, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Greg Gianforte

Do you think a block is still needed for the three users in question? El_C 04:15, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

That would have been my judgment, yes. I have rarely seen an edit war with ~30 edits per warrior over a couple hours. Unless they have since calmed down, apologized to each other and resolved the dispute on talk… (I don't know, I haven't followed this article, just stumbled upon the edit war at ANEW.) — JFG ^talk 04:30, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, JFG. You have new messages at Talk:Republican Party (United States).
Message added 01:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 01:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

DYK for The Visionary

Mifter (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to move it

I moved the page.

Feel free to move it to another title, just please leave a redirect behind as you go.

Thanks for your sub article efforts !

Sagecandor (talk) 20:57, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

 Done, and thank you as well! — JFG ^talk 21:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Cool, good job so far ! The tougher part is trimming down size of parent article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:10, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm on it. — JFG ^talk 21:12, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I also am doing for to having trim article. Sagecandor (talk) 21:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Links between Trump associates and Russian officials for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Links between Trump associates and Russian officials is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Links between Trump associates and Russian officials until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. TFD (talk) 02:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections

Having fun with Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections? Man, what a mess! Ethanbas ^(talk) 03:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Ethanbas: You bet! While I was away, all the fluff since 1979 was deleted: good riddance!!! Back to the routine daily innuendo from anonymous sources… — JFG ^talk 12:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Why did you intetentionally restore a WP:COPYVIO?

This is an unambiguous WP:COPYVIO. BU Rob13 has verified that it is an improperly licensed non-free image. Please self-revert.- MrX 00:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: I wouldn't recommend bothering with trying to move an immovable object by trying to replace this image throughout enwiki. People will figure it out when the image is deleted in about seven days. If the Commons community doesn't delete it, the WMF is highly likely to delete it via office action. Legal is aware of the situation. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:41, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry BU Rob13, I'm done bothering with this, but it should be removed if what you and other OTRS volunteers report is true. Restoring the image to the article under such circumstances is irresponsible and contrary to policy.- MrX 01:53, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX: Well, Commons discussion now closed as delete, image to be imminently deleted. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:17, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

@MrX and BU Rob13: As soon as the notice of copyvio came to the talk page, one editor replaced the official portrait with a picture that was poor quality, distorted and unflattering (yeah, we know from past experience it's hard to find a flattering one, but still we should at least aim for a neutral image). A discussion ensued, where on the one hand some people expressed doubt about the exact copyright status, and some people scrambled to suggest an appropriate picture. I arranged the proposed images in a gallery to facilitate choice, and I figured that the discussion should have a chance to unfold until the copyvio situation was confirmed by the specialists at Common. It turned out that the community managed to decide on an acceptable replacement fairly quickly (while I was sleeping) and the official portraits were first deleted, then temporarily restored to allow some time to replace them everywhere.

I remember being involved in a similar situation when the Steele dossier was uploaded in full and the Commons discussion deemed it a clear copyright violation but the offending file was still displayed in articles until it was actually deleted, although I was of the opinion it should not have stayed due to its libelous potential. Then it was replaced by a low-resolution picture of its first page. Two wrongs don't make a right, but I think if Wikipedia has lived with Trump's official portrait during four months, a few hours or even a few days to handle the copyvio situation is not too much trouble. — JFG ^talk 05:35, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

Setting aside policy and with a big caveat that I am not a lawyer, there's very strong reason for an individual not to restore a copyright violation regardless of whether it's "not too much trouble" etc. An editor who actively adds a copyright violation to a live page where one did not exist in the previous revision could be individually sued for damages, if any apply, or statutory damages, if the work was registered with the US Copyright Office. Again, not a lawyer, but it's not a good idea, especially with an image this prominent. Our policy is of course clear that copyright violations must be immediately removed regardless of how long they've been there. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:20, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm well aware of Wikipedia's bright-line copyright policies. This particular case was resolved swiftly as soon as editors were notified. Case closed. — JFG ^talk 12:39, 3 June 2017 (UTC)

2017 in Spaceflight Main Image

Hi JFG, Since you're a frequent contributor to the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page, I thought I would get your opinion on something. Since Falcon Heavy hasn't flown yet, would replacing the info-box image on the 2017 in spaceflight Wiki page with an image of the SES-10 mission be better? SES-10 was quite historical as the first orbital-class first-stage core to re-fly from CRS-8. Phillipsturtles (talk) 23:44, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

@Phillipsturtles: Yes, the hero image was Dragon 2 for many months, then when this mission was pushed to 2018, it was replaced with Falcon Heavy, but that is a bad choice because the rocket hasn't flown yet and the picture is just a rendering. I don't think we should replace it with CRS-10 because the 2016 article already includes the first booster landing on a drone ship. We would be giving too much prominence to SpaceX. A few days ago, I replaced FH with the new Indian rocket GSLV Mk III which had just made its maiden flight, however the picture was soon deleted as a copyvio We could use the rendering of it but that's not very satisfactory. Another option (my favorite) would be to illustrate the 786th and last flight of Soyuz-U that took place in February. I have found several nice pictures of the launch but their copyright status is unclear at the moment. Tell me what you think. — JFG ^talk 06:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@JFG: Using an image of the last Soyuz-U flight would work great. Seeing how many times this launch vehicle flew is definitely significant towards it's retirement and deserves being shown. Another idea would be something like the 2016 in spaceflight photo collage. By using this, we could include Soyuz-U, China's lunar return mission Chang'e 5, and even an image of Cassini–Huygens. How do you feel about this? Phillipsturtles (talk) 16:09, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

@Phillipsturtles: My personal taste goes to having a single image for the year. In the 2016 mosaïc, none of the pictures really makes an impression on the reader; I would rather keep just the Falcon landing there. Compare for example with 2011 and the last Shuttle landing, or 2015 with the first close-up view of Pluto. Some older pages like 2008 and 2009 have longer prose to summarize the year, and that gives enough space to illustrate with several pictures. That would be my suggestion. First, choose a "hero image" for the infobox, then expand the text and add a couple extra pictures. One of the recent views of Jupiter by Cassini would be great indeed; I also like the Juno pictures of Jupiter's poles. — JFG ^talk 17:30, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

"Slide" music genre

Hi User:JFG, asking you this because you're a very responsible editor btw. I sourced all the genres on Slide (Calvin Harris song) myself a while back, but knowing what I know now I'm not sure whether they're directly calling this song these genres or the production/or sections of the song. Can you please take a close look at these sources ([4], [5], [6]) and let me know if you think they're worded in a way that makes it appropriate to be used as genres on page? Thanks.--Theo Mandela (talk) 07:26, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

@Theo Mandela: Thanks for your kind words. I checked your sources, and I'm pretty sure that Pitchfork is authoritative. The Forbes thing is more of an individual opinion, less notable to include. "FACT Mag" looks like just some random dudes trying to sound clever – I'd pass. If other editors disagree with the sourced genres, try adding the relevant quote from the source in the citation with "|quote=blah blah blah". Don't assign 5 genres to the same song, though… Also, instead of cramming genres into the infobox, you can add a writer's opinion in the prose, e.g. Hugh McIntyre said the song "blends R&B, pop and even elements of hip-hop into something difficult to label". — JFG ^talk 20:58, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

The Trumps and user Klaus Frisch

I appreciate very much what you are doing here, and I am happy that you (and others like user:Anythingyouwant) respect me and ask me for advice, even though I am from Germany. ;) In de.WP, I am busy since 2006, and I avoided any engagement in political lemmata since I have clear and strong political opinions outside of the mainstream and don't want to subordinate to "neutral" POVs in this case. The Trumps were initially just a side trip when I became aware that this somehow crazy guy who seemingly had no chance to become President had grandparents in Kallstadt, a village not far from my own village where they speak the same dialect as here.

So I bought The Trumps and wrote de:Fredrick Trump which is now – honestly ;) – much better than the English counterpart. I found it fascinating how different the worlds were where young Friedrich came from and where he made his way. (He also 'made' a fortune, as is stated in several articles, but this was almost irrelevant after the post-war inflation. He died in 1918.) And it is also fascinating how politics influenced the lives of Friedrich and his son Fred who is the topic of the maybe last article I will complete in the German Trump realm. To me, this has been a fascinating journey in strange worlds, but in the end I am a European who never had the opportunity to travel to other continents. It is not my mission to save the world from the ignorance about the familiar background of The Donald. I saved the German-speaking world, and I deserve an award for this! ;) --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:35, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

@Klaus Frisch: Very informative article on Friedrich in German, thanks! Funny that the Blair book had to go through German Wikipedia to perhaps then inspire edits in the English one. — JFG ^talk 04:42, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

It has been fun to me and very informative with respect to the history of the US and the reality and consequences of untamed capitalism which has never existed in Europe. To the contrary, Roosevelt is said to have saved the States from the fate of Germany and other European countries through his Keynesian New Deal. Which was, BTW, the source of the wealth of Fred Trump and eventually also of his famous son.

As to the usage or non-usage of serious sources other than newspapers especially in en.WP in the Trump realm, I don't think this is funny. In face of the incredible efforts of two obvious Trump fans in Talk:Melania Trump to discredit the one serious and very informative Melania biography that exists (and me as the one who called attention to it), I wonder: Why is the DT biography by the renowned journalist and author Michael D'Antonio not even mentioned or listed in Donald Trump? And why is there no article on this person? Confused and worried, --Klaus Frisch (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Even worse: There is no mention of Trump's visit in Saudi-Arabia, the first foreign country that he visited as President and where he stayed for three days, while the rest of his tour in Europe was just a series of brief encounters. Is en.WP on the way to become a Minitrue (Orwell, 1984)? (1984 was, BTW, when I received my degree in biology.) If I look at these giant deficits and, on the other hand, at the discussions about MT's failing at the beginning of her academic education and about her totally irrelevant language skills, I feel very much to be in the wrong film here. Ping me or mail me if you want to tell me something. Ich bin hier raus. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please read WP:SUBTITLES

To be discussed on the article talk page

Please don't make unilateral page moves against consensus, as you did, at Trump Tower: A Novel. Please read WP:SUBTITLES. Specifically the express mention of short titles. WP:SUBTITLES expressly says we should keep the page at full title Trump Tower: A Novel for short titles, per: The only exception to that is short article titles, for disambiguation purposes. Please also don't unilaterally change the article information which is sourced to multiple sources, against talk page comments by myself and Drmies, thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2017 (UTC) JFG, it is true that there is what one might call self-imposed unclarity in regard to authorship; I didn't look at all the sources but it seemed clear that obviously both authorship options were sort of left open, and "ghostwriter" was used in one of the articles. Drmies (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2017 (UTC) @Drmies: This has nothing to do on my talk page; please discuss at the article talk page; I just commented there after reading all the journalistic sources quoted: they all call it just Trump Tower and the stories clarify the authorship. — JFG talk 20:50, 20 June 2017 (UTC) No need to patronize, JFG. Drmies (talk) 21:02, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Sorry for the tone, Drmies, I didn't mean to be patronizing. — JFG talk 21:05, 20 June 2017 (UTC) Thanks--and sorry for biting at you. Drmies (talk) 21:08, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop making changes against cited sources and without consensus

To be discussed on article talk page (bis)

Please stop the changes made to Trump Tower: A Novel against cited sources and without consensus. Please instead discuss on the article's talk page. Thank you ! Sagecandor (talk) 02:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: The first changes I made were WP:BOLD, then when you reverted I discussed. I have clarified my position about the article title and book authorship on the talk page. I also opened a formal move request after you reverted the title change. Authorship of the book by Robinson alone is made clear by numerous sources that you yourself discovered; Trump was apparently only named co-author in a marketing plan and an unpublished "first edition", so that naming him as the author in the first sentence and infobox is a misrepresentation of facts and sources. This is why I replaced "a book by Donald Trump, with ghostwriter Jeffrey Robinson" by "a book by Jeffrey Robinson, originally credited to Donald Trump";[7] I don't see why this simple fact is causing you headaches. Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books, but please don't fall into an WP:OWNERSHIP trap. — JFG talk 02:46, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Please don't fall into an making-stuff-up trap. That's not what the sources say. We don't write wiki articles about 2nd editions of books. We focus on first editions. Sagecandor (talk) 02:48, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the "Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books"

You said:

Congrats for building this article and several others about Trump books

Thank you very much for your congratulations for my article writing efforts and new page creation !

I appreciate your taking the time to compose some compliments about articles I created !

Sagecandor (talk) 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

My pleasure. I know it's hard work. — JFG ^talk 02:57, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Yes it is. I've written several Wikipedia articles recently. From scratch. A few about books critical of Trump. And more about books authored by Trump. About an even balance so far, of new articles added to Wikipedia. Probably in the course of all of those new articles put together, gone through several hundred sources on the subject matter. Sagecandor (talk) 03:05, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

A year ago ...

bold mettā
... you were recipient no. 1415 of Precious, a prize of QAI!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks, Gerda Arendt, your precious token of appreciation made my day! Have a great summer… — JFG ^talk 07:55, 21 June 2017 (UTC)

Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about BLPs

Circular discussion
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please do not add unsourced additions to Wikipedia articles, especially about WP:BLPs, as you did, here [8]. Please make sure all additions to Wikipedia have cited sources. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2017 (UTC) This has obviously been a short summary of the indicated main article. --Klaus Frisch (talk) 20:34, 21 June 2017 (UTC) Yes, that's what it was. — JFG talk 03:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: Please stop making comments about contents on my talk page. Such issue must be debated on the talk pages for relevant articles; I have replied there. If you need my attention, you can use {{ping}}. — JFG talk 03:57, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Please stop adding unsourced content to Wikipedia, and I will gladly do so. Sagecandor (talk) 03:58, 22 June 2017 (UTC) WP:LEAD sections usually do not quote sources. As Klaus Frisch pointed out, the material was a summary of the well-sourced Filmography of Donald Trump. But I agree it has no place in a bilbiography, and I removed the films about Trump accordingly as well. Generally, it's better practice to raise any such content issues on the article talk page. Personal talk pages are meant for personal communications. — JFG talk 04:01, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Please don't add unsourced content to Wikipedia in the future. Regardless of sourcing on other Wikipedia articles. This is not a WP:LEAD section, but an entirely different article. Sagecandor (talk) 04:04, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I'm glad you brought up circular. You can't cite other Wikipedia articles as an excuse to add content to different Wikipedia articles with no sources. This violates site policy. Per WP:CIRCULAR. It becomes a WP:REFLOOP. Please, read those. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 04:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC) I know, and this was not the issue in this particular case. The content is gone now anyway; please drop it. — JFG talk 04:18, 22 June 2017 (UTC) Wrong, it was the issue. But okay, I hope you read the links above, and find them helpful education for you. Sagecandor (talk) 04:22, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party

More pointless drama
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please stop unilateral page moves and closing move processes as an involved party. Please start talk page discussions before you move pages of book articles, especially on controversial topics. Please do not close discussions to which you were an involved party, on controversial topics. Thanks! Sagecandor (talk) 04:33, 23 June 2017 (UTC) In the future, please don't close discussions to which you were an involved party. And please stop with all the unilateral page moves on controversial topics with zero discussion. It's just so darned disruptive. All of a sudden a ton of subpages have to get moved, de-watchlisted, re-watchlisted, with no discussion at all. Please, discuss on the talk page and propose such pages moves in the future. Thanks. Sagecandor (talk) 04:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC) @Sagecandor: I'm flabbergasted why you would nitpick on a move you yourself agreed to. Besides, it's OK for an involved party to close a move request when there is clear unanimity. Even more so when the only person who contested the BOLD move in the first place has changed their mind. Relax, my friend! — JFG talk 04:40, 23 June 2017 (UTC) No. Please stop. Please stop all the unilateral actions. It is wrong. It is disruptive. It is non-neutral. These are controversial topics. Please change your behavior. Sagecandor (talk) 04:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC) My editing is well within best practices. If you have a behavioural issue to complain about, please take it to some drama board. You are hereby banned from my talk page. — JFG talk 04:45, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Draft:Template:Major US Cities

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created, Draft:Template:Major US Cities, was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Legacypac (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

@Legacypac: Thanks for the notice; I had totally forgotten about this. Looks like I created this draft to WP:PRESERVE the contents of Template:Major US Cities which was slated for deletion at the time. Reading the deletion discussion, that was a draft of a more compact look that I was proposing as an alternative to deletion. As the discussion closed to delete, this draft became moot; I'm happy to let it go. Can I move it to my user space for future reference? — JFG ^talk 07:59, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

I assumed it was just a test edit of something that existed elsewhere and had been copied away again. Thanks for the your comments. Of course you can move it or copy it, just tag the redirect or draft page for deletion. Legacypac (talk) 08:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Moved to private draft space with no redirect. It's gone! — JFG ^talk 11:56, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Falcon 9 booster B1029) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Falcon 9 booster B1029, JFG!

Wikipedia editor Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Nice article. Many thanks!

To reply, leave a comment on Fortuna Imperatrix Mundi's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

— O Fortuna semper crescis, aut decrescis 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Dragon C106

Hello, JFG. You have new messages at Draft talk:SpaceX Dragon C106.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- 65.94.42.131 (talk) 05:36, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Consensus update services needed

Trump consensus 19 links 1 and 2 need to be retargeted to archive. Also "lede section rewrite" in 15, 16, and 17. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 06:39, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

@Mandruss:  Done. Page protection has been lowered, you should be able to edit it yourself. Cheers, — JFG ^talk 07:37, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

Added item #20 about protests while I was there. — JFG ^talk 08:03, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

I am concerned about your editing

Your constant editing, relating to articles about Russia, like removing the Flynn photo (bizarre explanation -- it was totally suited there), or the changing of a lot of details in the meddling article that confused me, do give me a pause w/ a great cause of concern, about possible political bias & motive (hope to be wrong). I hope to get clarification re your intent & motives; I don't want people to corruptly influence articles for their own political agenda -- nobody should welcome that no matter which side they are -- & I hope you could make it clear. I didn't mean to be 'rude', but I finally decided to ask you after seeing a lot of edits. I am, of course, not going to edit or reverse the -- I just want to know & I certainly hope to be wrong. Tיhanks. Archway (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)