Trump administration political interference with science agenciesEdit

Would you be okay with this title: Trump administration politicization of science? Johncdraper (talk) 06:57, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

@Johncdraper: Nope. What is "politicization"? It implies something B-A-D. Scientific method itself is a process of dispute and debate. And the scientific process is not helped by injecting public opinion. Let's let the science stand on its own, without trying to bolster scientific results with non-scientific posturing. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking specifically of this reference, but there are any others. I mean, I could build a whole reflist demonstrating this if need be. Still no good? Johncdraper (talk) 07:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: Great source – thanks! And it reinforces my point. Take DDT for example – "many of the health concerns of DDT have shifted away from science ... to emotionalism [paraphrased]." We would not create an article titled Politization of malaria control or President X administration political interference with malaria control efforts. – S. Rich (talk) 16:25, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Srich32977: Something along the lines of science policy agenda? Johncdraper (talk) 17:22, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: There is only one item on Mr. Trump's agenda. "What? We Exclaim!" (Or "Who? We Exposit.") For a clearer answer we can look for articles on other presidents. Which of them are titled "President Q's policy agenda on RST"
@Srich32977: There is a long-established series of Foreign policy of the... administration, with the last iteration being Foreign policy of the Donald Trump administration. There is also a series of ... Policy of Donald Trump administration, e.g., Economic policy of Donald Trump administration. So, Science policy of the Trump administration would make sense, right? Johncdraper (talk) 20:36, 9 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johncdraper: I agree. It sets the stage for a NPOV exposition of what those policies are. And within the article the critics will have their say about how good or evil the policies have been. (So, let's cut & paste this discussion over to the article talk page. Then I think we could soon WP:BB and change the article title.) – S. Rich (talk) 17:36, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Please fix the part of your script or editing method that changes page ranges incorrectlyEdit

This edit changed page ranges incorrectly. See MOS:NUMRANGE, which explains that number ranges in general, such as page ranges, should state the full value of both the beginning and end of the range, with an en dash between, e.g. pp. 1902–1911 or entries 342–349. You have been asked multiple times to fix this error in your editing, but you continue to make this error.

I don't think any of us, including you, want to be involved in the drama that a proposed block would entail, so please just fix your script or editing method. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:52, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: You fail to note that WP:MOS favors consistency in citations. "MoS presents Wikipedia's house style to assist its volunteer editors write and maintain articles with precise and consistent language, layout, and formatting. ... Where more than one style or format is acceptable under MoS, one should be used consistently within an article and should not be changed without good reason." Also, the Chicago Manual of Style is an accepted MOS. Your roll-backs are disruptive in that they re-introduce errors. If you want to improve articles, simply fix the particular page range citations to suit your own favorite method. – S. Rich (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2020 (UTC) Also look at WP:CITEVAR. When I see a mix of page-range citations, I go (more or less) with the range style in the majority. When the pp. 123–45 style exists, I will go for it, and change pp. 123–4 cites to pp. 123–24. That method is a bit easier than doing pp. 123–124. In all such gnomish efforts, consistency is re result. – S. Rich (talk) 19:19, 18 October 2020 (UTC)!
CITEVAR appears to give deference to an originally-consistent style, from which later edits diverge. Sailing stones originally used full numbers. {{cite journal}} and friends do not appear to use the Chicago standard for field order, so using "Chicago page numbers in non-Chicago field order" is explicitly a mixed style. DMacks (talk) 19:38, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
@DMacks: I'm not clear on what you mean. The Sailing stones link you provided has hyphens and single "p."s for the page abbreviation. The current version does not use "p."s. (Except for the 1997 Messina cite.) Changing the page ranges from 123-124 to 123–124 was proper. The present Further reading section has 6 items. Three are done with templates, which omit the "p."s when rendered. If the 3 manual citations were converted to templates then the 1997 Messina cite would omit the "pp.". But that is an effort which demands more brain-power. Regarding, "Mommy, I have to ..." – did the child say "pee" or "pp."? I scanned WP:CS and I see "p. 123" is the only example. "p. 123–124" is not given, nor is "pp. 123–124". BUT in Template:Cite book we find that "p. x" is rendered when one page is given. And "pp. 12–13" is rendered when multiple pages are given. SO, AGAIN, my effort has been to provide a consistent page-range style. E.g., "p. 12" and "pp. 123–132" (or whatever) for the multi-page cites. Thanks. – S. Rich (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
Srich32977, your claims are arrant nonsense. Your edit to DDT made the page-numbering style less, not more, consistent, and contravened MOS:NUMRANGE. You have been asked by multiple editors to stop these disruptive edits. I have been on your side in the past, and even coached you and praised you for good edits, since many of your minor edits are improvements. Unfortunately, your page range and MOS:POSTADDR errors are simply that, errors, and you need to stop making them. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
"MOS:POSTADDR" what's that? – S. Rich (talk) 20:44, 18 October 2020 (UTC)
MOS:POSTABBR. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:20, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I just did an edit on United States raw milk debate. See: [1]. Some of the edits were done via the citation bot, some by auto-ed, and the rest were all on my own. Please look at the page-range changes. How well did the article comply with NUMRANGE before I did my edit? Was there consistency before my effort? And now how does "my version" compare? (I think I made improvements.) So I ask you – if I edited and achieved a consistent Chicago Manual of Style compliant layout, would you complain? And what would your complaint be? Thank you. – S. Rich (talk) 05:20, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

That article has a diverse mix of citation styles, including Vancouver, CS1, comma-separated elements, and probably other styles. Your edits appear to have improved the compliance of that article's citations with MOS:NUMRANGE, and you avoided messing with tricky possible false positives like "Number 404-228". – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:14, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

October harvestEdit

Dona nobis pacem 

Thank you for article work! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:56, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

David Ray GriffinEdit

  You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:David Ray Griffin § Description and interests. Thank you. Roy McCoy (talk) 01:44, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Take a lookEdit

at Leonard Leo. A lot of new content was just added and I'd appreciate your thoughts. Marquardtika (talk) 03:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Lauri Torni, German, American.Edit

I think we should add that out of respect for his service in the respective militaries regardless of birthplace, and previous service. The corroboration that is supporting him having a U.S citizen is his stature as an officer, Which can only be given to Citizens. And despite the S.S being controversial, Lauri Torni Did fought for Germany. I'm not adding German-American but German and American. I added different links to both words 'German' and 'American'. I'd appreciate if you'd do that as we've got to respect those who've fought for our country. They are who represent 'The U.S'. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 19:16, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Morales Garcia: Thank you Jack. I'll get back to you tomorrow. – S. Rich (talk) 23:22, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jack Morales Garcia: J. Michael Cleverly, in his A Scent of Glory says "Eventually, Slavs, Moslems, Indians, and other Asiatics joined those from all over Europe in the various units of the Waffen SS." (page 74. ISBN 9607663489. From this we can say these joiners did not become German-Slavs, German-Indians, German-Moslems, etc. In other words, they did not become "hyphenated Germans" simply because they signed up. Also we do not know what the citizenship requirements were to become an officer in the Waffen SS. Just because some armed forces require citizenship of their officers (like in the US), we cannot assume that other armed forces do the same. In Thorne's history we know he petitioned for US Citizenship on 1/27/1954 and started US Army basic training on 1/28/1954. He got his citizenship in 1955. He became a US Army officer in 1957 via OCS. I hope this history answers your concerns. Thank. – S. Rich (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Well at least add an 'American'term. Jack Morales Garcia (talk) 17:56, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

ISBN stuffEdit

Hey, I found your edit here to be somewhat odd; you added an equals sign to an ISBN making it incorrect, and you removed hyphenation from a correctly-hyphenated ISBN in the same edit. It's not a big deal, but I figured I'd flag those for you as undesirable changes. If that's part of a script you're using, you should double-check that script's output before submitting edits. {{Nihiltres |talk |edits}} 18:13, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Thanks. The = sign was a fat finger mistake. The hyphens in ISBNs really don't matter. When you look at WorldCat or Amazon you see books listed without hyphens. The magic ISBN template automatically links to a sources page. Hyphens in ISBNs were once useful for people using pen/pencil & paper to copy down ISBNs, but who uses those tools anymore? – S. Rich (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2020 (UTC) ALSO, one ISBN in the article was unhyphenated, the other not. I was doing a compromise with a hyphen in the ISBN-13 entry. 18:27, 15 November 2020 (UTC)



Thank you for article work in November! Look today at BB music, a little crusade of mine ;) - his birthday on St Cecilia's day, patron saint of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Your recent edits to the 'Deaths in [month] [year] list articlesEdit


I noticed that you recently made changes to 4 deaths lists using the 'AutoEd'-tool: 1, 2, 3, 4.
Is there a particular reason why you added spaces to the bullet list markup? ('* [[' instead of '*[[')
The reason I ask is I cannot find any standards about (bullet) list markup styles. Moreover it seriously interferes with my maintenance tooling I developed for this type of death lists. I manually need to remove those spaces from the articles for my tooling to work so I want to ask you to change your script or not to apply your script to the 'Deaths in [month] [year]-list articles (at least not to the ones up to Deaths in January 2006. Kind regards, Mill 1 (talk) 21:07, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

@Mill 1: the Autoed script adds the spaces to the bullets. Per WP:AutoEd#Basic the spaces "allow automated screen readers discern list markup". I'll avoid Autoed in such death list articles. My bigger objective is to get rid of links as they are SPS items with lots of WP:LINKVIO. Please look at the WP:RSNB for more info. – S. Rich (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Srich32977: Thank you for your reply. Mill 1 (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2020 (UTC)
@Srich32977: Just a quick update: I scanned all death list articles for '' references using this query. I found two (in September 2001 en December 2003) and have replaced them so you don't need to worry about the death list anymore. 1764 to go! Tip regarding insource queries: if you add a text (my example: "Deaths in ") to the insource query, the execution of it take a lot less time. Cheers, Mill 1 (talk) 09:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter messageEdit

 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) 01:44, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Tahquitz (disambiguation)Edit

Since you have previously updated a related article, you might be interested in knowing there is a discussion regarding the Tahquitz (disambiguation) page. The discussion is at Talk:Tahquitz (disambiguation). OvertAnalyzer (talk) 15:54, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


...for acknowledging my little communication. I was prepared to be all pissed off at you but for some reason I haven't the heart. But please do be more careful in future. When you see a well-developed article that consistently does something in a certain way, it's best to consider the possibility that it's that way for a reason, and think twice before changing it. EEng 18:42, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2020Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2020).

  Administrator changes


  Interface administrator changes


  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 December 2020 (UTC)