User talk:Jerome Frank Disciple/Archive 1

Your GA nomination of 1984 New York City Subway shooting
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1984 New York City Subway shooting you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 18:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1984 New York City Subway shooting, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page New Yorker. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:04, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Bernhard Goetz.jpeg


A tag has been placed on File:Bernhard Goetz.jpeg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a non-free file from a commercial source (e.g. Associated Press, Getty Images), where the file itself is not the subject of sourced commentary. If you can explain why the file can be used under the non-free content guidelines, please add the appropriate non-free use tag and rationale.

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 deleted 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. : 3 F4U (they/it) 16:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! I added an argument for why this photo of Goetz, would, relative to a modern photo, be uniquely appropriate for the article. (The photo captures Goetz at resentencing, a topic covered in the article. Further, in a modern photo of Goetz, he would be nearly double in age.) Hope that helps.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 16:15, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * As a free content encyclopedia, the use of non-free content must meet all of the non-free content criteria. This image has multiple issues which I touched upon in the FFD.  This image is from Getty Images, a commercial photo agency.  Such images are licensed by Getty for use to illustrate news articles, and magazines, etc.  That's how they make their money.  As such, the use of a Getty image fails to meet WP:NFCC, the criterion about respect for commercial opportunity.  The only exception would be if the photograph itself were the subject of significant sourced commentary.  As well, to meet WP:NFCC, significant context needs to be established.  This is usually shown with significant sourced commentary about the subject of the photo that establishes that the photo is needed to enhance a reader's understanding, and that its removal would be detrimental to that understanding.  Copyright, and non-free content policy can be confusing.  If you have questions about it, you can ask at Media Copyright Questions. -- Whpq (talk) 19:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't realize commercial photo agencies are given special treatment relative to other non-free content. Thanks for the explainer!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:16, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for taking so much time with your third-opinions on Talk:Sword of the Spirit. I've asked some follow-up questions, but overall, am grateful.  Arbitrarily0  ( talk ) 18:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Absolutely—I endeavored to respond to the follow-up—I had meant to address that in my original reply, but some last-minute rearrangement must have led me to accidentally remove it. I also responded to your other Q on the size of SoS. Hope that's helpful!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:34, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Jodi Arias Case
I would like your advice before i make edits in the Travis Alexander page, if that is ok with you ? Jodiariasproject (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! So, I'm absolutely happy to provide any helpful guidance or tips that I can. Still, I don't want to encourage you not to be bold—you have just as much of a right to edit the page as anyone else! And, of course, relative to you and other editors—I don't own the page; even if you and I think an edit is worth including, we might ultimately be overruled by a consensus of editors who conclude the opposite. (I should also say that I'm going on a little trip this weekend, so I won't be on Wikipedia much until next week.) But yes, I'm happy to give advice if you need any. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 13:21, 22 April 2023 (UTC)
 * thanks Jerome Jodiariasproject (talk) 02:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 1984 New York City Subway shooting
The article 1984 New York City Subway shooting you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting for comments about the article, and Talk:1984 New York City Subway shooting/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Freedom4U -- Freedom4U (talk) 19:23, 23 April 2023 (UTC)


 * That's such great news! Thank you so much for the tireless work you put in to both (1) improving the article and (2) improving my understanding of Wikipedia policy and how a Good article should look/be.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:00, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

2023 Nashville school shooting
As far as I can see, you made a change here, which was challenged by reversion here. You seem to misunderstand the consensus required sanction. Any change from the status quo that has been challenged requires affirmative consensus to reinstitute. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * This edit has been challenged by reversion. Please self-revert and wait for affirmative consensus before making the edit. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:53, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for the delay here. That "smaller" edit (combined with the one I made after it) was a reversion of an edit made earlier today. Here is the diff. So I was challenging a change the status quo. Agree I shouldn't have reverted as to the other two—I was thrown by the reverter's (1) revert of my revert (which shouldn't have happened) + (2) the mere invocation of a lack of consensus as the basis. (I followed up with the reverter, who said, amongst other issues, that I removed the "number of shots fired"—which ... unless I'm missing something, I definitely didn't. Regardless, if that reverter is actually challenging the edits I did make (except, of course, for the reversion), I'm happy to hold off!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 17:56, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for the clarification. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:03, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem! And my fault entirely on the initial too-wide reversion; I should've just reverted the last edit.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Quick support offer
I'm inches away from raising an ANI on the editor on the SpaceX discussion who you're trying to explain RS to. I'm fed up with their behavior and don't have the patience anymore. If you want help on sourcing for the article or anything, please let me know, but I'd advise you not to waste your time one someone who refuses to get it. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:14, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! So first, thanks for reaching out! And sorry it's been rough. Unfortunately, I'm also sorry to disappoint: since (1) this article has a lot of users editing it, and (2) the subject matter is about as far away from my comfort zone as Earth and the sun ... I really think jumping in myself wouldn't be any help to anyone. I wish I could be of use! I tried to list a few POV concerns and pair them with reliable sources, but that's really as far as I think I should go for now. When there are more secondary sources on the subject and if the activity level dies down, I might be able to jump in.--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok. I didn't mean to ask for anything from you, just to inform you that the editors on that talk were, to put it mildly, difficult. It's not my subject matter expertise, either, for what it's worth. I was very glad to see you sticking up for policy and doing your best to edit. Thank you. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Pshh—I got edit conflicted when I first tried to respond, and I didn't take enough notice of the fact that you changed the section title from "input request" to "support offer". My fault! Thanks again, I hope the difficulty eases soon--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 01:30, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness I'm sorry haha! Hey, thanks again. ~ Pbritti (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for summary and closure of discussion
Many thanks for your efforts in summarising the discussion on the Australia talk page about the term Anglophone. Meticulo (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Of course! Sorry I couldn't find a consensus—I just didn't think WP policy clearly favored one side's positions, but I suppose it's usually better to err on the side of no consensus.. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Please
Please revert your comment at ORN. I only linked to that discussion to make a side-comment about policy (trouts on me, it was completely off-topic w/r/t article improvement), not to "win" a dispute where I agree with you (that Ergzay didn't convince me yet). The "real" reason I asked you not to participate despite linking you to it, was because you'd already expressed very clear views on the subject, that SpaceX dispute between you and Ergzay was "front of mind", and it would inevitably lead to assimilation and "blurring the specifics" between both cases. It's improper to bring up that SpaceX dispute on an unrelated topic (yes, even hatted), and is bound to give off heat, rather than light, when it's one of the most nuanced issues I've seen at ORN (unlike that SpaceX "dispute", which again, we agree on). DFlhb (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Hello! I'm sure it was a ton to get through, so no worries if you didn't!, but the last paragraph I wrote was very much tailored to the U.S. Grant discussion, and I think the question of OR-re:accuracy should be considered across contexts, but I see your point as to "heat" :) —I removed the hatted discussion entirely. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 18:50, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Would you consider removing the first paragraph too? Stuff like the context of that discussion made me feel like weighing in here was appropriate is what I mean about assimilation, priming and "blurring the specifics". The paragraph "tailored to the U.S. Grant discussion" is the only one that really belongs in the Grant discussion. It was improper of me to link you there asking not to participate (I shouldn't have linked in the first place), but the right thing to do would still be not to participate. Again though, the full responsibility is on me. — DFlhb (talk) 19:11, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * So, I've tried to reach a compromise that I hope is suitable to you. I do think the appropriateness of OR is worth addressing, since that's a subject raised by several editors (both on that page and in the Grant and DYK item). And I think other contexts do show the potential issues with such an allowance. But I deleted enough info—including portion about you mentioning the debate to me on a different page—that I think no one would stumble upon the SpaceX page based on my comment, and I also tried to shorten the paragraph. (I think, in total, I halved it?)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 19:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Just some general, respectful feedback: I was never worried about "being accused of canvassing"; that was me being self-deprecating. I was trying to hint at the fact that participating at all, regardless of hatting or trimming, was dragging one dispute between you and another editor, into a different, nuanced discussion that needed uninvolved fresh minds. The point of WP:CAN is to make sure discussion aren't contaminated by other discussions, and your disclaimer that I shouldn't be accused of canvassing missed that point (which I should have made explicit, but "hinting" was my dumb way of being polite). Please, the next time someone links you to a discussion and asks you not to participate, don't. I assumed, incorrectly, that this would be obvious. Learning experience for all, I guess. DFlhb (talk) 20:08, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I feel like you've alternated between "the full responsibility is on me" and "I assumed ... this would be obvious"! And, let's just be clear, the point of WP:CAN is that it's am improper way to influence the outcome of a discussion. If contamination were the concern, then bringing up that discussion on the SpaceX page would be a CAN issue from the perspective of the SpaceX page!
 * Listen, there are plenty of discussions and debates happening on Wikipedia, and people stumble upon ones that they're interested in in all sorts of different ways—sometimes it's through a general dispute page (which I do, actually look at, and you'll notice I've posted to that noticeboard before), sometimes it's far, far more random. I wasn't at first planning to participate in the discussion (although I am separately interested in historical study of presidents!), but, as my concerns with OR re: accuracy became more pronounced, I took more interest and took a deeper look, and I found I had something to contribute.
 * If you do take this as a learning experience, I hope you take away that it's not your job nor your place to police what people enter what discussions. And if you, for whatever reason, can't stop yourself from thinking that you do have a responsibility to police discussions that people might find through you, then you should probably just not mention those discussions, because, "Hey! Here's a debate you might be interested in and have thoughts on! ... Now, don't participate because I don't trust you to have thoughts on this specific debate!" is a pretty weird thing to say. --Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I wish I'd have paid no mind to it. Consider this section null. Cheers, and my apologies. — DFlhb (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

Use of Good-faith edit label
I'm not a super experienced Wikipedia editor, but in previous encounters with the Good faith edit label I noticed it was given for obviously-incorrect edits that were done in good faith. Because this does not seem to be the case for the SpaceX Starship incident I suggest you edit your post, so as not give a false impression to other editors.--Gciriani (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Really? I've always seen it as an acknowledgment that the other editor was editing in good faith even though you're considering a reversion. If you take offense to it, I'll absolutely remove it!--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 12:25, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Repeating my similar comments in several discussions
Hi. I come in peace. I just wanted to say that I have been writing articles at WP since 2006 -- hundreds of new articles, and thousands of greatly expanded articles, many of which became GAs, FAs, or maybe just B or C class. In many (most?) of them, I added infoboxes! When I have decided that an article should *not* have an infobox, it is usually for the reasons that I have stated previously: that an proposed infobox would be repetitive, misleading, distracting, etc. Over the years, quite a few of those articles have been the subject of infobox discussions. Since my reasons for not including IBs in the first place were usually similar, when an infobox discussion has arisen, my arguments against them have been similar. I'm not sure what is wrong with that. In every case where I have opposed adding an infobox, it is because I do not think it helps the article, or actively hurts the article. All the best, -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:46, 2 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! Yeah I've seen a lot of your work—I meant to give you a shoutout in one of my replies; sorry if I neglected to do that! I definitely know you're a great writer and contributor—my point about the repetition wasn't that what you were saying wasn't accurate or fair, it was only that I don't think the article-by-article approach is really working (and your critique is far more substantive and tailored than most)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 00:35, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I don't want any shout-outs, but I think that most people reading what you wrote would interpret it as saying that what I wrote was not valid because it was similar from one discussion to the next. That's what I thought you meant. Regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:23, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Reagan AIDS section
I think your reverted edits to the AIDS section on the Reagan article would be great to put on the article on his presidency. Jaydenwithay (talk) 21:16, 3 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Thanks for alerting me! You're definitely welcome to add it. I had missed that that was reverted, but I've now re-added most of it. The criticism—that Reagan admin officials shouldn't be attributed to Reagan, really only applies to the press secretary story. (Reagan, himself, didn't mention AIDS for a long period of time, and he did propose the budget, even if someone else drafted it ... that's not a real distinction to draw)--Jerome Frank Disciple (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

1RR violation at Libs of TikTok
Libs of TikTok is under a 1 revert per 24 hour restriction. You reverted here, here, and here. Your last edit also removed and changed a significant amount of material that was the topic of those reverts. You need to self-revert and discuss this on the talk page. There is WP:NODEADLINE, so you can wait until there is consensus on the talk page for rewrites and reverts. Making four changes away from the status quo in under 24 hours is not acceptable. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:21, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm sorry—did you miss the many messages on the talk page I started? Currently, there are four sections on the talk page ... all of which were started by me. The trim to the hospital section was discussed in Talk:Libs of TikTok/Archive 8, and the only responding user said, "I would support reducing the hospital section of redundancy while being careful not to remove relevant information". It seems a little strange to ignore the many, many messages I've left and then say I haven't gotten consensus ... because I didn't get approval from the editors not participating? Either way, I understand many feel passionate about LibsofTikTok even if they're not closely watching the talk page; I've self reverted and pinged all the most recent editors to hopefully allow input and improve the article.
 * Also, in terms of the status quo and the reverts—I did challenge a change to the status quo and brought it up on the talk page. That second edit might be a reversion in the technical sense, though I admit I didn't think of it as one: the prior editor moved the content to the first paragraph, said the edit summary it should be in the first paragraph, and also made one wording change ... I kept the content in the first paragraph, added other content to that first paragraph and undid the wording change. That said, you're certainly right about the 1R rule—I missed that, and next time I'll ask them to self revert.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:27, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * It's good that you had started discussions on the talk page, however you need to wait for consensus rather than trying another edit on the same material after it was reverted back to the status quo. Also, after multiple reverts in 24 hours is not the time to try a radical overhaul of the same material. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:45, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! Apologies—I had mentioned overhauling that material on the talk page a few times, and it had been on my to-do list for a few days (just waiting till I had the motivation to follow through with it)—I figured if there was a dispute about the content (which, based on the tag and the response on the talk page, I assumed everyone agreed was over detailed), it would make more sense to have that discussion after the trim rather than before.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:47, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * A handy way to present large changes like that for discussion is to make the edit, then revert with an edit summary stating that you made the edit to provide an example for what you think should be done. That allows others to view the diff and review the exact changes. That is functionally what happened in this situation as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll definitely keep that in mind! I was probably a bit too emboldened by my prior edits, which I was sure to very carefully detail on the talk page (and I was trying not to do too much in a single day, hence the many sections I started being like "here's what I did today") and which didn't get a negative response (should I go back and revert those edits as well? absolutely fine doing that if you think it's called for)-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:53, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You can leave them, I'm just trying to warn you that you're editing near quicksand so you need to be aware of the restrictions. You've been editing in WP:CTOP areas, so you need to be very careful. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair warning! Noted.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:42, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

Infoboxes
Something to keep in mind if we ever have to revisit infobxes in the future (hopefully not).... I had hoped to avoid this in the current discussion, but there's an element of flooding the zone that can discourage participation. I had hoped to avoid that in the setup, but unfortunately there was a rush to get it posted. This isn't singling out anyone (there were more than a few editors willing to arguing anything). If there is a next time it might be helpful just to have survey and let people air their grievances in discussion. Nemov (talk) 17:15, 5 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah that's fair. Looking back—I sort-of rushed reading Nythar's comment when I asked if he wanted the alternatives add—I saw that he said go ahead, but it was actually a far more tepid response, and at the time I figured I was just doing what Nythar wanted to do with his/her RFC. That said, based on how it was going even before then, I'm doubtful we're close to the stage that a consensus could be reached. A few of the no votes seemed, to me, to be specifically tailored to dissatisfaction with the info-beyond-the-first-paragraph option, but none of those votes switched when new options were presented. Now, perhaps that means that there's still an option out there they'd agree to ... but my suspicion is that there's no option they'd agree to.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:19, 5 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Please note WP:3RR; you've reverted three times. BilledMammal (talk) 13:17, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

"[T]he words are too many"
Please don't take what you quoted me saying on VPP as a criticism of any of your and Sideswipe9th's proposals 🙏🏽 I'm on mobile so I'm not able to view multiple information streams at once, and as alluded to my brain is no longer a good tool for remembering one thing while reading another. The words being too many applies mostly to the discussion as a whole, and its fragmentation across three questions each with an attached discussion section, not any policy language yall have drafted. Best wishes, Folly Mox (talk) 02:39, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

In this vein, though, having seen two trans people banned recently for talking too much, I would like to gently suggest that you consider not replying to so many comments, lest you too get accused of bludgeoning. -sche (talk) 17:32, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Fair enough! I don't personally think I'm in bludgeon territory, but I'll keep that in mind!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:42, 9 May 2023 (UTC)


 * I should've been less oblique before, and pointed you directly towards this: "in addition to the meaning of "bludgeoning" delineated at WP:BLUDGEON as an approach to disputes, editors also mean several other things by "bludgeoning", including something like saying too much about a topic and offering unwelcome replies to the comments of others". I gather you have by now figured that out, since a few editors are now calling for you too [in addition to the two editors I mentioned earlier] to be topic-banned from all American politics articles for editing one of them too much. -sche (talk) 02:08, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh I'm sorry, I didn't realize I had misunderstood bludgeoning in general. To be honest, even now, I thought it mostly referred to when users respond to almost every disagreement. (FTR, I think I did lay off after you posted this? I genuinely tried to take it to heart—although I know if you look now you might think I didn't, because I—semi recently—pinged a bajillion editors, but that was after a request!). I realize it may not seem like it, but I am always trying to be productive and also, of course, follow WP guidelines (even the ones I disagree with ... damn you, MOS:LOGICAL!!!!!!!).
 * The vast majority of work that I've done has been on articles with, at most, one or two active editors, which I have to admit I prefer (it can feel much more like a mini team working on a project), but I have definitely realized that the approach I take to those discussions shouldn't be the approach I take to a discussion involving more editors.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:16, 18 May 2023 (UTC)
 * ... I also realize the obvious response to that comment is "you also shouldn't bludgeon even only one or two other editors to death" ... I'm hoping you know that's not what I meant :) -- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:17, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Input required at Talk:SpaceX Starship orbital test flight
@Jerome Frank Disciple (sorry for mention, this is urgent)

Hello! Your input is needed here as I am concerned that a certain individual is making disruptive edits to the article by disregarding what reliable sources say. As an inexperienced editor, I feel that a more competent editor should provide some input to aid in discussion. Thank you! Yasslaywikia (talk) 21:05, 10 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi! I'm so sorry—I'm actually not that experienced of an editor. If you're concerned about disruptive edits, I would head over to WP:ANI. Wish I could help more!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:06, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

RfC
There is currently a discussion at Talk:SpaceX Starship regarding a note that a user is repeatedly trying to insert into the "failures" section. The thread is RfC on "clarifying failure in infobox". Thank you. DASL51984 (Speak to me!) 19:19, 12 May 2023 (UTC)

Hello
Hey, I would just like to thank you for your contributions on the Donald Trump talk page. Please keep sharing; you have valuable things to say and you say them well. We need more editors like you there. Cessaune  [ talk ]   17:32, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Aw shucks! I appreciate that a lot! To be honest, I probably overshared a bit—I reigned it in a bit after I became concerned I was approaching WP:BLUDGEON (though a few editors ended up far exceeding my output), but I think in the new discussion I've hit a good balance.
 * Side note: for the most part, I think the article itself is quite strong. (I understand a few people occasionally complain about an anti-Trump bias ... which, admittedly, I would share, but I like to think my commitment to NPOV negates that.) It's actually somewhat encouraging to see that highly trafficked articles on polarizing subjects can adhere to NPOV.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 17:44, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Fantastic Adventures
Hi, and thanks for helping to improve this article. I'm in the process of reconciling my unpublished edit to the article section starting with "In 2017, one of the children". The first paragraph I will claim for my version, then go back and change sprinting to running. I've read a lot about maternal abuse cases, and, based on the fact that abused kids who possess language will be coached by the mother to lie to investigators, I believe "could be obtained" covers the verbal concealment of abuse on the part of the kids better than "found", which seems to imply police observations only. I trust you see what I mean here. The rest of the section goes to Team JFD.

I'm still not done here, as the conversational shorthand style is pretty thick in the remainder. Would you mind waiting until I am done, to avoid more edit conflicts? Thanks.-- Quisqualis (talk) 21:39, 14 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, what you're suggesting is, unfortunately, original research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia. We have to go by what the source said, and the source said evidence of abuse wasn't found. To say that it "couldn't be obtained" is to imply new facts—do you actually mean to suggest that it was impossible for the investigators to find the evidence of abuse? How do you know? Or, more pertinently, what source has said that? Sorry—just noticed you request to lay off the page—another user edited it in the interim, so you might be stuck with an edit conflict regardless, but I'll happily lay off and give you some time to make your edits!-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:43, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly what this user was working on but you are correct in pointing out that all that sounds like original research. In the meantime, you saw what I did, and I saw what you did, and I'm glad we got to it. I'm very surprised that we had that content in one of our articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello! A lot of that was—sort-of—my fault. I edited that page soon after I joined Wikipedia, and while I stand by most the edits I made, I missed a lot of content that clearly should have been removed (including, most egregiously, the names of all of the kids—to be clear, I didn't add that content, but I failed to remove it—I had chanced upon the page via the Random article link, and I just hadn't worked on that type of article before). Sorry about that, and great work.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:49, 14 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll give you a chance to self-revert on certain parts, but the "could be found" line should be reverted absent a different secondary source, and the streaking and Instagram links should be removed per Drmies's edit summaries.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your encyclopedic corrections. That's three hours I'll never have back.-- Quisqualis (talk) 21:58, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Collapse
Hi, Just to fill you in on something. I went to O3000's talk page to see if it was OK to collapse the off topic discussion. Then I noticed your new section that referred to the uncollapsed version and I thought my collapse message might complicate things, so I reverted it. Later when I looked back I noticed that my original message inadvertently included collapsing your new section, which I hadn't intended. Then I noticed that you removed your new section. Anyhow, I hope this clears up any misunderstanding that may have occurred. Bob K31416 (talk) 12:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)


 * It's all good! I know that's not your fault–I probably should've just let the false accusation go, but there was already at least one false accusation against me on that page (where the writer admitted it was false), and I would argue there's quite a few more (including every time one of the two users most vocally opposing inclusion says I'm violating OR and then runs away when I ask how). Oh well. Hopefully we'll get it all straightened out soon.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 12:30, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Violation of 24-hour BRD at Donald Trump
Your reinstatement of the run-on sentence about John Barron without prior talk page discussion is a violation of the Contentious Topics page restriction. Kindly self-revert to avoid an enforcement action. SPECIFICO talk 14:41, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay! But, as I said, I would have reverted the combination (which would not be a contentious-topic restriction). My edit was an effort to find a compromise. So I'll revert, but I'm reverting to before the combination.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:43, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I strongly suggest you stand back from that article, where you appear to be obsessively and uncontrollably flooding the article and talk page in ways that require way too much time and attention from other editors there. SPECIFICO talk 14:47, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You do not WP:OWN the page. If you feel like you do, you should take a break from it. I had to flood the talk page after you, after first telling me to stay off the page, baselessly reverted several of my edits, almost all of which were reinserted when another editor agreed your reverts were baseless.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:48, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You did not self-revert. You made an entirely different edit that took the page back to before much collaboration and discussion. You need simply to restore the text to its version prior to your violation. That would cure the violation and spare us all an enforcement action. Please just do that. That does not limit your ability to raise any points on the talk page. in case they care. SPECIFICO talk 14:54, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've documented my reasoning on the talk page—feel free to respond there. As I expressed at the time, I would have reverted the edits, but I thought a compromise could be reached. Since you have disagreed with the compromise, I'm allowed to go back to the last stable version.
 * Also, I was a bit baffled by your invocation of collaboration and discussion. I reverted to a version that another user wrote based on the collaboration between three editors (Shibbolethink, Space, and myself) that occurred on the article talk page. I didn't see the edits you're referring to discussed there. But then I happened upon your talk page, and now I see what happened. After that discussion was started and had been going, and despite the fact that, when you were involved, only four editors were involved in it, you and Space and a conversation on your talk page, apparently to avoid discussing proposed changes with Shibbolethink and me. (Bringing this here because taking it to the DT talk page is an exercise in futility at the moment.") You two decided to collaborate in secret and now you're saying that collaboration is sacrosanct? Again, feel free to discuss this on the talk page or whatever other forum.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:01, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

May 2023
 You have been blocked from editing from certain namespaces ((Article)) for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text at the bottom of your talk page:. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:37, 17 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Quick (potentially final) update: I just want to emphasize, outside of the appeal, the version of the article that I proposed is still on the page. I assume if the argument is that I was edit warring, then that version shouldn't be on the page. (I assume the version that the editors who agree I was edit warring think should be there is SPECIFICO's last version; i.e. before my edits.) Before being blocked, I altered the reverting user, but that user then blanked my alert to him off the user talk page.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:11, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * We've even got a somewhat humorous essay about this: WP:THEWRONGVERSION. The real point is that edit warring per se is harmful; if you're blocked just for edit warring, you can assume that we thought you were acting in good faith. So a good, easy to accept unblock request would simply be "Oh, you're right. I was edit warring, and I understand how it was disruptive. I will carefully avoid this in the future." --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 18:08, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fair enough! I was taking it as a given that I wouldn't intentionally edit war—merely trying to explain why I didn't think I was edit warring and show it wasn't volitional (to reiterate very briefly, the last two edits I made before I was blocked were edits alerting people that my preferred version was accidentally put into the article). I absolutely don't want to edit war, even in the face of disagreements, and I fully acknowledge doing so is disruptive—that's why I'm involved in a few discussions about the substantive content of that page (and not just putting in my preferred versions).-- Jerome Frank Disciple 18:15, 17 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Kind of reminds me of the rules of some sports. In hockey, for example, high-sticking is a dangerous action that is penalized whether or not it is intentional; the penalty is for not carefully enough avoiding the action. Seems to me you get the point. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106;&#x1D110;&#x1d107; 01:42, 18 May 2023 (UTC)

Starship failed engines
Thanks for your contribution to the Starship article. I suggest instead of just reverting a contribution https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SpaceX_Starship_orbital_test_flight&diff=prev&oldid=1155969184 I suggest to fix it instead. Also note that I addressed the OR conern of the previous editor, so a undo because of the contribution being "challenged" makes no sense anymore. Thank you! All best! Zae8 (talk) 15:55, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * No, sorry. You need to discuss the change on the talk page, thanks.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:56, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Why is it controversal? The concern was OR, and I added a reference. Isn't this fully resolved? Zae8 (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've pinged you to the appropriate section of the talk page; you should comment there rather than here.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 15:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Asking for retraction of wrong accusations on Starship talk pages
On you have written:
 * You claim: "you've been repeatedly told that your proposal was challenged and that a discussion concerning its inclusion needed to happen before it was reinserted into the article." Since I am not aware of these multiple messages before I stopped editing but may have missed them, please point out them out to me, or retract that claim otherwise.
 * You claim: "The thing to do when you realize you've violated WP:3RR is self revert immediately, not say "no but wait can you explain more about why I was reverted?" However, the revert messages of the other users were fully clear about why they reverted, and I addressed them fully. Therefore your accusation is wrong. Please retract it.

Thank you. Zae8 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2023 (UTC)


 * This was our very first interaction: After you made this edit, I reverted and said in the edit summary: revert—this has been challenged. It should now be discussed on the talk page—not in comments in the article text—before being re-added (emphasis added). I also started a talk page section in which I said, Rather than revert back and forth or leaving comments for each other on the article page, please discuss the proposed text here before inserting it (emphasis added). You responded by reinserting the material, but removing the comment you had left. Diff. We then had a conversation in which I repeatedly said wait for a consensus to reinsert the text: The appropriate thing to do is discuss the changes here and then, once a consensus is reached, act accordingly. And, later: And, yes, obviously we should give Foonix0 (and other editors) time to see this section and respond. I think this has been resolved now, and the only thing to do is discuss on the article talk page.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:55, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Hai!!!
Tysm for ur help on Ted Stevens, I really appreciate it <3

Wanna be friends? ^_^

~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 19:06, 25 May 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey no problem! Best of luck with the nomination!! I'll be keeping an eye on it but as I'm going to be on Wikipedia quite a bit less going forward, let me know how it goes.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 19:30, 25 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, will do! ^^ <3 ~ AlaskaGal~ ^_^ 23:11, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

user harassment
Yes, the IP you reverted is one of many IP socks of Defeedme, a user that was blocked after I reported his abuse. He pops up from time to time stalking my edits, thanks for reverting him. Wes sideman (talk) 14:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey—absolutely. I'm so sorry you have to deal with that.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 14:24, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * It's really not a problem for me. :) Wes sideman (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Impressive commitment to WP:BRD
JFD, I'd like to say that I'm really impressed overall with your handling of matters on the Trump article, particularly in the way you apply BRD. I realize that it's enforced on that page, but you seem to smartly pick your battles on which discussions to actually open a thread for - you've made tons of changes to that article that have been reverted, and by my count, you've not opened talk threads for all of them. You do open a lot of talk page threads, as others have noticed, but that is decidedly NOT your fault - rather, it's a consequence of the level of page protection.

I've experienced a bit of being reverted for seemingly straightforward improvements (improvements backed later by consensus) before, so I know how it can feel. I just wanted to say you're doing an admirable job in a difficult topic area, and on a particularly difficult article. Please keep it up, as much as you're able to! PhotogenicScientist (talk) 15:58, 1 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Hey, I really appreciate you saying that. I'm generally quite conscious about the battles I pick and I'm actively trying to improve on that front. To be totally honest, the Trump article was probably the first article I worked on where I ran into a lot of editors with very strong opinions. (I'm definitely more comfortable working on articles either solo or, ideally, with 2-3 other editors who, with me, have a "I care, but I don't care THAT much" relationship to the subject.) When I started there, I got too frustrated at what I felt were reflexive (and baseless) reverts—which I felt created a "we don't want you here" vibe. I didn't go to the talk page to discuss all of them, but I did go a few times too often, in part because I was trying to illustrate the overall issue. Since then, I've been more comfortable advocating for edits suggested by other editors (to try to encourage a "we want you here!" vibe) and more willing to just let edits I propose go. I personally think I've made lots of progress, but it means a lot for another editor to say so.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 16:15, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Well said, mate - I've learned much the same things. From one new-ish editor to another, I think you've got a great attitude toward editing. PhotogenicScientist (talk) 16:23, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

 * Yeah that’s fair—I’m letting that discussion run its course; only made the last response since I was quoted. By the way I think all of your thoughts on that page have been great!— Jerome Frank Disciple 02:08, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Aw why thank you, but that was your proposal! I just worked on some of the set up. Sorry it went the way it did, probably, overall, a good indicator of where the community's at. In hindsight, I wish we had said "support some change to favor infobox inclusion" and "oppose change" ... but I don't actually think it would have made a difference.-- Jerome Frank Disciple 13:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Improvements might have affected the outcome, but regardless of this, your drafting did help a lot and I'm thankful for that. Nythar  (💬-🍀) 14:29, 3 June 2023 (UTC)