Archives: | |
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)
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)
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)
Category:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page
Hello JFG,
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.
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.
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Do you know how talk pages work? 2600:1002:B12B:A46B:FDC6:A409:4468:F76 (talk) 14:56, 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)
[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)
![]() | |
Three years! |
---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)
... four years now --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Hello JFG,
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.
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.
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)
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)
Do you know why this edit didn't trigger the long list of my DS awareness? Atsme Talk 📧 16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)
![]() |
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. |
|
--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
Mythical concept? see the refs for FDRs. DGG ( talk ) 05:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
Hello JFG,
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 |
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.
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)