User talk:JFG/Archive 2020

Timeline articles

JFG, I saw that you commented on a series of timeline articles here [[1]]. Have you seen this as a problem over a number of articles? Springee (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

I am also interested in your response, JFG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:51, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Yes, a few editors have "promoted" the Russia–Trump investigation timelines into the "See also" sections of dozens of articles, even when such investigations found nothing relevant about the article subject. That was the case for Steve Bannon, as referenced in the talk page comment you cited, and certainly for many others that I occasionally noticed but did not investigate fully. My comment about those timelines having become unfortunate "kitchen sinks" is still relevant as well, as editors are keen to preserve the smallest minutiae of detective work and daily reporting, even sometimes admitting they use Wikipedia as a repository for personal research. Attempts at bringing some clarity to readers have been repeatedly squashed. My largest effort was to sort the timeline by subject matter, but that remained largely ignored. I see now that the timelines have been split into half-year chunks, which in my opinion does nothing to help readers parse and understand the subject matter. — JFG ^talk 06:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Also, I just commented on the Talk:Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections#Requested move 23 December 2019, which may help you understand where I'm coming from. — JFG ^talk 07:07, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Washington Times

Hi JFG. I hope you're prospering in the new year. I wanted to let you know that The Washington Times is not considered a good source for Wikipedia's purposes, and that "There is consensus that The Washington Times is marginally reliable, and should be avoided when more reliable sources are available. The Washington Times is considered partisan for US politics, especially with regard to climate change and US race relations." More information can be found at WP:RSP#The Washington Times. - MrX 🖋 12:22, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Sure, and I did check RSP before adding it. Even if partisan, it's reliable for citing facts, and that's how it's used in my edit, quoting a statement by Trump. — JFG ^talk 12:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not aware that there is a consensus that The Washington Times is reliable for facts, or that that would negate the advice to avoid it for US race relations and US politics. If there is such a consensus, it should recorded at RSP. Nonetheless, the fact reported in The Washington Times was that Trump "defended" his remarks, not "clarified" them as you wrote.[2] "Although" also added a bit of WP:EDITORIALIZING. - MrX 🖋 12:42, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for finding other RS. Prior to my edit, the statement was not supported by any citation at all. I suppose it was initially added with an even-worse source, that later got removed. Agree with you on neutral tone, simply "said". — JFG ^talk 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Regarding partisanship of sources, that would cut both ways, imagine for example we removed Mother Jones or Vox from this article because they are partisan. Not a great outcome, I suppose. — JFG ^talk 12:47, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Not exactly. Both are considered generally reliable. While I personally would usually avoid Mother Jones for anything controversial, Vox is a reputable source, albeit left leaning. - MrX 🖋 12:56, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi, JFG - do you have any idea who decides the final rating of a RS at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources? I just reviewed the basis for the rating that was given to WT and it is not only questionable, it is based on the opinions of a few. If we applied the same process to other sources that we applied to WT, we wouldn't have much to choose from. It is no longer a secret that over the past 2 or 3 years, politically-based news media has been widely criticized for inaccuracies, opinion journalism, propaganda and sensationalism throughout the echo chamber. We should approach all political news sources with caution, regardless of their political slant (and they all tend to slant). The following articles support my position: AP News, Nieman, Harvard, CJR, API. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 10:22, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello JFG,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Sparked

Re this, if you want to claim a consensus in that discussion and nobody objects, go for it. I don't care, but I do care about maintaining the integrity of the list, which you didn't do. ―Mandruss ☎ 10:53, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

My bad, I misread item #20, which happens to have been amended a couple years ago while I was on wikibreak. New discussion needs more participation before we can change the text – and I'm involved, so can't judge consensus. — JFG ^talk 18:39, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

#42

This is problematic. One way or another, the article must agree with any specific text specified in the consensus item, and they have already diverged. If we say that the consensus was really only for the period/full stop, not specific text, then the consensus item should not specify specific text. And there's a self-evident formatting problem. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:12, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, somebody already applied a copyedit to the talk page phrasing, which is fine in my opinion because the core of the discussion deals with the conjunction to use between House and Senate processes, so that exact text should not be set in stone. But if we remove the text entirely, the consensus item may be wrongly interpreted. To clarify this, I'll add "For example" before the sentences. — JFG ^talk 09:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Works for me. Thanks. ―Mandruss ☎ 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Arbitration case opened

In 2018, you offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has now accepted that request for arbitration, and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Evidence. Please add your evidence by March 23, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Jytdog/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration.

All content, links, and diffs from the original ARC and the latest ARC are being read into the evidence for this case.

The secondary mailing list is in use for this case: arbcom-en-b@wikimedia.org

For the Arbitration Committee, CThomas³ (talk) 17:37, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

"President T" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect President T. Since you had some involvement with the President T redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. TheAwesomeHwyh 19:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice!

JFG, thank you for the advice on leaving shorter rationales for my edits. I will save my longer explanations for the talk page for now. There is an interesting rfc at the bottom of the talk page for Donald Trump regarding new proposed text that is more encyclopedic and less sensationalized. Perhaps you would like to weigh in! Cheers Bsubprime7 (talk) 16:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

Must look biased

Re this, it's hard to dispute that it must look biased to some Trump supporters who don't understand Wikipedia policy. It will never stop looking biased to some, nor should it. Can't (won't) speak for BR/Valjean's essay, but there is exactly nothing in my page that suggests that article couldn't stand improvement in Trump's favor.

Roughly the second half of it is devoted to a brief explanation of how to go about advocating such changes in a way that doesn't waste their time and ours, followed by a few pointers to resources for learning how to do that, which they may (1) use or (2) ignore because they are just ways for evil Trump-hating Wikipedia editors to impose their biased views on Wikipedia articles. It stands to reason that many Trump supporters will view Wikipedia policy as "fake policy" – even if they actually read any of it – much like their leader's "fake news". ―Mandruss ☎ 11:28, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

It occurs to me that these comments always start with an assumption of bad faith, which is always forgiven because they are not from actual editors. Their ignorance earns them a pass on one of the most essential principles of editing. I say competence is required. ―Mandruss ☎ 14:37, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Talk Pages

Do you know how talk pages work? 2600:1002:B12B:A46B:FDC6:A409:4468:F76 (talk) 14:56, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Sure; you can read all about them at Help:Talk pages. Welcome to Wikipedia! — JFG ^talk 16:12, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Thank you User:JFG! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8A:4102:B3A0:342A:145A:11B2:5EA9 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Lead immigration

[3] - JFG, I've been waiting for your input in your absence. I'm itching to start the RfC. The body already supports the text. starship.paint (talk) 11:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, it feels good to see you around at least once a year. — JFG ^talk 22:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello JFG,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources

• A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
• Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
• A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
• Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

"Template:International Space Station" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:International Space Station. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 29#Template:International Space Station until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Soumya-8974 ^talk _contribs ^subpages 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Question about DS aware

Do you know why this edit didn't trigger the long list of my DS awareness? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Fro the diff you point to, it ooks like the poster first tried the normal "subst:alert" way to notify you, and seeing that it triggered the "I'm aware" reply, proceeded to copy/paste the full wikicode of the alert, to make damn sure you've taken notice. — JFG ^talk 18:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Really? Hmmmm. Is it also a possibility that he never used the DS alert template and simply went with the copy/paste as his first edit? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No. Check the two diffs in sequence. — JFG ^talk 18:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I see that now. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 18:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Time interval

Template:Time interval has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 21:45, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

Hello, JFG. I hope you are keeping well. I was wondering if you could please take a look at my latest post at Talk:List of the oldest living people? I'm hoping to add someone to the article, but I can't read Japanese, so could you please read the attached source to see if the woman's name and full date of birth are included? Katsue Kurimoto should be 113 and the oldest in Nara Prefecture if that helps. Thank you for any help that can be provided. Sincerely, Newshunter12 (talk) 04:23, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

On Ruth Apilado, I came to the same result when I looked, which you likely already guessed. Statistics show that at her current alleged age of 112 years and 174 days, over 80% of supercentenarians have already died, and there's no reliable proof she even made it that far. In any event, no one should agonize over this case... but it does bring up the Wikipedia flaw of repeatedly creating Sogen Kato's in article space and portal space. I've seen it too many times to recount. Perhaps there should be a notability clause that if we don't reliably hear about your death/disappearance, your personal article is speedily deleted. Some deletions would be counter-productive to creating an encyclopedia, but most would probably be for the best. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:58, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Spaceflight newsletter notification

	The Downlink	The WikiProject Spaceflight Newsletter
		WikiProject Notification

This is a one-time notification to all active WikiProject Spaceflight members.
The Downlink project page
I am notifying you, that thep The Downlink newsletter is starting up again, the first new issue will be published on the 1 November 2020.
If you have any suggestions on what to add to the newsletter please leave a note at the newsletter discussion here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink. If you wish to have the newsletter added to your talk page on release then please add your name to here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spaceflight/Downlink/Recipients. Thanks, Terasail [Talk]

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

100 days.

Mythical concept? see the refs for FDRs. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Only made sense for FDR. And Napoleon's return. — JFG ^talk 11:55, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:20, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello JFG,

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	DannyS712 bot III (talk)	67,552	Patrol Page Curation
2	Rosguill (talk)	63,821	Patrol Page Curation
3	John B123 (talk)	21,697	Patrol Page Curation
4	Onel5969 (talk)	19,879	Patrol Page Curation
5	JTtheOG (talk)	12,901	Patrol Page Curation
6	Mcampany (talk)	9,103	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	6,401	Patrol Page Curation
8	Mccapra (talk)	4,918	Patrol Page Curation
9	Hughesdarren (talk)	4,520	Patrol Page Curation
10	Utopes (talk)	3,958	Patrol Page Curation

Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)