User talk:Garzfoth

Welcome!

More information Getting Started, Getting Help ...

Hello, Garzfoth! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Randykitty (talk) 07:10, 9 June 2015 (UTC) Getting Started Contributing to Wikipedia The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump IRC channels • Mailing lists Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community (The Signpost) Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Close

Thanks for the welcome! I'll go through all that and see if I overlooked anything previously. Garzfoth (talk) 23:53, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Just a friendly suggestion; I think that lots of WP users find red usernames annoying to look at. If you make any kind of edit to your user page, even a more or less empty one, that awful hue will change to awesome blue. Centrify (f / k / a Factchecker_has_annoying_username) (talk) (contribs) 01:01, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Done, thanks! Garzfoth (talk) 01:44, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

I left a comment at Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/InfoboxBot that you may find helpful. Enterprisey (talk!) 13:41, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you! Garzfoth (talk) 03:20, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Your recent bot approvals request has been approved. Please see the request page for details. When the bot flag is set it will show up in this log. — xaosflux ^Talk 16:59, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Unless you will carefully monitor it, I suggest you redirect User talk:InfoboxBot to here. — xaosflux ^Talk 18:28, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I've redirected the bot's user talk page to this one, updated its user page a bit, and have rewritten large portions of my scraping and parsing scripts to make good use of the additional capabilities made available by the bot flag (scraping and parsing operations are now dramatically faster to run and they also have a vastly-reduced impact on Wikipedia's servers as well). I think I'll likely start putting the bot to work on some of the most pressing issues within the next few days to a week. Garzfoth (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I recently come across your css file(User:Garzfoth/common.js) from the category Pages using invalid self-closed HTML tags. I don't know what that specific error which needs to be corrected so that page can be removed from that category. Currently, I am posting this message to point out a small error which I have come across when I visited that page. In that, in line 1473 ie. date = new Date(year, month, day, hours, minutes); please confirm whether the variable 'day' will be accessible from there. Because if you need to use that variable, I think you need to define that variable out of the if condition block. Adithyak1997 (talk) 14:04, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect AFCR. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 23#AFCR until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:59, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi Garzfoth, thanks so very much for your help on items 1, 2, and 4 of my talkpage edit request at Talk:Illumina,_Inc.#Corrections_to_text_requested. You didn't happen to comment on or implement item 3 (adding the fact that the new CEO was already the president), so I'm wondering if that was just an oversight and whether you could look at it. It's a quick fix, and I made it quicker here . If you can help, many thanks and you can close out the edit-request thread. TM.at.illumina (talk) 05:07, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I see that you’re an active member of the Internet WikiProject and I was wondering if you might be willing to have a look at a proposal (I have a COI as a Temu employee and am trying to adhere strictly to the rules, which is why I’ve made a proposal instead of editing the page myself.) As you might know, Temu’s app has been the most downloaded iPhone app in the United States over the last few months , so I hope that you might find the subject matter intriguing given your interest in Internet subjects. Thanks very much for your time! Snowy2000 (talk) 08:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Hello everyone, and welcome to the 24th issue of the Wikipedia Scripts++ Newsletter, covering all our favorite new and updated user scripts since 24 December 2021. Uh-huh, we're finally covering the good ones among the rest! Aren't you excited? Remember to include a link in double brackets to the script's .js page when you install the script, so that we can see who uses the script in WhatLinksHere! The ScriptInstaller gadget automatically does this. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:00, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Got anything good? Tell us about your new, improved, old, or messed-up script here!

Featured script

Making user scripts load faster by SD0001 is this month's featured script, which caches userscripts every day to eliminate the overhead caused by force-downloading the newest version of scripts every time you open a Wikipedia page. Despite being released in April 2021, our best script scouters have failed to locate it due to its omission from the US of L. For security reasons, the script only supports loading JavaScript pages.

Newly maintained scripts

After earthly attempts at improving the original have failed...

• Aaron Liu has created What redirects here from Guarapiranga/WhatRedirectsHere; his fork includes support for every MediaWiki wiki, corrected link positions, an access key, and some rudimentary translation.
• Ahecht has created a fork of SiBr4/TemplateSearch, which adds the "TP:" shortcut for "Template:" in the search box, and updated it to be compatible with Vector 2022.
• AquilaFasciata/goToTopFast is a much faster fork of the classic goToTop script that also adds compatibility for Minerva and Vector 2022.
• Mesidast/Tidy citations is a fork of Meteor sandwich yum/Tidy citations is a fork of Waldyrious/formatcitations. It configurably harmonizes whitespace and cleans up parameters in citation templates, descriptive edit summary included.

Improve a script

Unfortunately, this section has remained nearly identical. Help us out here!

• Many of our favorite scripts such as Fred Gandt/userResourceManager, Guarapiranga/search-shortcuts and Bradv/Superlinks haven't been updated for Vector 2022. You could be the one to change that!
• Elominius/media timer works, but its UI looks alien. Someone could improve it...
• To a lesser extent, the same goes for PrimeHunter/Search sort. I wish someone would integrate the sorts into the sort menu instead of adding 11 portlet links.
• We want...

• ...a mark-as-read button and watchlist notices support for Aaron Liu/Watchlyst Greybar Unsin
• ...a tool to automatically fix CAT:BROKENREFs, preferably a fork/addition to TheJJJunk/ARA
• ...a fix/fork of DannyS712/SectionRemover to make it work

Requested scripts

• A simple script to second or archive proposed deletions
• A script to auto-expand V22 ToC sections like this demo
• A WP:3O response tool that can automatically remove the relevant request from the 3O dashboard
• A byte filter to be split from Nux/LongTableFilters
• ...and many more, all available at Wikipedia:User scripts/Requests

New scripts

• DannyS712/AbuseFilterMessageLinks add links to the "warn" and "disallow" messages in edit filters.
• Diegodlh/Web2Cit/script adds an option to use m:Web2Cit (which WP:ProveIt also uses) instead of mw:Citoid to generate citations in the Visual Editor.
• Dragoniez/SuppressEnterInForm stops you from accidentally submitting anything due to pressing enter while in the smaller box, and works on almost anything... except the InputBox element itself, used in subscription lists and the Signpost Crossword! Oh, the humanity!

• 

  Doǵu/Adiutor (pictured) provides a nice, integrated interface to do some twinkley tasks such as copyvio detection, CSD tagging, and viewing the most recent diff.

• 

  Eejit43 has quite the aesthetically pleasing scripts, all made in TypeScript.
  • /afcrc-helper is a replacement for the unmaintained Enterprisey/AFCRHS and processes Redirects for Creation and Categories for Creation requests.
  • /ajax-undo stops the "undo" button from taking you to another page while providing a text box to provide a reason for the revert.
  • /redirect-helper (pictured) adds a much better interface for editing and redirects, including categorization, for which valid categories are dictated by /redirect-helper.json.
  • /rmtr-helper helps process technical requested moves without being able to actually move them.

• 

  Guycn2/UserInfoPopup (pictured) adds a flyout after the watchlist star on userspace pages that displays the common information you might use about a user.
• Jeeputer/editCounter, under userspace, adds a portlet link to count your edits by namespace, put them in a table, and put that table in a hardcoded subpage, all in the background.
• Hilst/Scripts/sectionLinks converts all section links to use the § sign, which are known to be preferred over the ugly # by 99% of the devils I've met.
• Moonythedwarf/extra-unreliable highlights phrases commonly used in spammed and POV'd paragraphs.

• 

  NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/FormattedEditRequest (pictured) generates a wikitext-formatted diff view of any changes you've made that you can copy and paste anywhere.
• PrimeHunter/Category source.js adds portlet links to tell you where a category for an article comes from and supports those from template transclusions.
• Qwerfjkl/massCFD creates mass WP:CfD nominations.
• Rublov/refspace highlights footnote spacing errors in red.
• Sophivorus's MiniEdit adds some nice, li'l buttons next to paragraphs to edit their wikitext with a minimal interface.

Edit-listings

• Dragoniez/ToollinkTweaks adds more and customizable links next to users in page history, logs, watchlist, recent changes, etc.
• Firefly/more-block-info optimizes the display of rangeblocks in contribution pages. Doesn't work outside the English locale of any wiki, unfortunately.
• Ingenuity/AbuseFilterContribs adds the edit filters that an edit tripped (if any) to a user's contributions page.
  • Nardog/ExamineMore makes it so the paging at Special:AbuseFilter/examine actually works, pending a fix to T292764.
• NguoiDungKhongDinhDanh/AjaxLoader makes paging links (e.g. older 50, 500, newest) load without refreshing and makes you realize how slow your internet actually is.

Appearance-ricing

• Ahecht/RedirectID adds the redirect target to all redirects. For all the WP:NAVPOPS haters. (Do these exist?)
• Dragoniez/MarkBLockedGlobal: Remember the "strike blocked usernames" gadget? Now you can use a red, dotted line to highlight rangeblocks and global locks!
• GhostInTheMachine/GraphicReplyLink replaces the [ reply ] link with 💬, which is some sort of rainy cloud I guess?^[Joke]

• 

  Jonesey/common (pictured) has some styles to overhaul your Vector 2022 experience. It reduces padding everywhere, and makes the top bar animation faster.
  • Aaron Liu/V22 is a fork that narrows the sidebars instead of upheaving them, reverts the January 2024 dropdown changes, and restores the old page-link color for links that don't go outside the current wiki.
• Nardog: SmartDiff is a spiritual successor to Enterprisey/fancy-diffs. It makes the page title part of links in diffs clickable, along with template and parser function calls. Unnamed parameters can be configured per template to also be linked. All links are styled based on the normal CSS classes of rendered links.
• Phlsph7/ClassicalTOC (Vector 2022) reinserts the inline table of contents to pages under Vector 2022.
• For the paranoid: Rublov/anonymize replaces your username at the top of the screen with the generic "User page" text. Remember, it is your duty to persuade everyone that editing is an honor.
• Sideswipe9th/Vector 2022 Floating Tools Menu moves the Page Tools menu to the left and makes it float along with the table of contents.
• Sm8ps/SectionEditing makes pressing Tab ↹ toggle the visibility of the tiny [ edit ] links next to section headings.. Not a great name, eh?
• The wub/tocExpandAll adds a button on top of the floating ToC to expand or collapse subheadings.

Permissions required!

• Ahecht/potd-helper: A script to post the picture of the day. A powerful upgrade for your mop.

• 

  Dragoniez
  • /AjaxBlock provides a dialog box for easy input of reasons while blocking users.
  • /Selective Rollback (pictured) provides a dialog box to customize rollback edit summaries and does them without reloading the page. Seriously, why doesn't MediaWiki already do this?
• Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter automates (nearly) all the work needed to post a DYK hook.

QOL shortcuts

• BrandonXLF/SVGEditor lets you edit any file that is an SVG, straight from the file page.
• DanCherek/UAABotRemover adds a portlet link to enable a removal shortcut of faulty reports from Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention.
• DreamRimmer/BlankUserPage helps you destroy webhost-ers' hopes and dreams with a user-friendly dialog box.
• ESanders (WMF)/commentlinks.js adds a "link" button right after the "reply" button while the WMF struggles to reach feature parity with Convenient Discussions.
• Isaacl/copy-comment-link-to-clipboard does exactly what you'd think it does, but in Wikitext.
• FenrisAureus/SimpleStatus adds a shortcut at the top to edit your /Status subpage while providing a pre-made template.
• Fred Gandt/addCloneClearButtonAboveScributoConsole: What a mouthful! Yet all it does (no offense) is add another Clear button on top of the Lua module debug console.
• Guarapiranga/GlobalWatchlistLink adds a link to metawiki:Special:GlobalWatchlist next to the normal watchlist.
• Nardog
  • PasteToCommons adds a paste handler to upload the pasted image to Wikimedia Commons.
  • Unpipe tries to detect violations of WP:NOPIPE and fix them as much as possible.
• Ohconfucius/tometricunits automatically adds unit conversions of imperial units in brackets after their uses per MOS:UNITS.
• Suntooooth
  • /flickrsearch adds a portlet link to search for uploadable flickr images about the subject.
  • /randomincategory adds a portlet link when on Category pages to go to a random page in the current category.
• Vghfr/EasyTemplates adds a portlet link to automatically insert some of the most common inline {{fix}} templates.

Yes, we're just doing 'em as we go now. Thanks for reading through this looong issue, if you did! I'm sure this'll send a record for the longest issue ev-ah. You may need to wait even longer for the last issue, as our reserve of old-y and goodie scripts have ran out... We encourage you to try and do some of the requests or improvement tasks. See you in Summer, hopefully!

---

• About the newsletter
• Archive
• Subscription options
• Discuss this issue

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Garzfoth,

You recently gave me praise on talk:methylphenidate for fixing the lead. I'm currently dedicating my time to a rewrite of the clonidine article in order to get it up to a similar standard. However, this task has made me relatively uncertain about the quality of the content given the template provided by the current reviison.

Although I've been on wikipedia for nearly two years, the only major article content rewrite that I've taken part in is for amphetamine (i.e., adding coverage on binge eating disorder, narcolepsy, sex-dependent differences in pharmacodyanmics, a large rewrite of the pharmacodynamics section after a massive content discussion at wikiproject pharmacology, among other additions. Unlike clonidine, it was fairly straightforward for me to integrate new content into that article given that fantastic template Seppi produced in getting it up to featured article standard.

Given that, I would like to get an opinion from somebody who has written content on ADHD pharmacotherapies for wikipedia before. Seppi is one of only a few wiki users I've previously talked to directly, but they're largely off-wiki so I'm likely not going to ask for their opinion on my Clonidine rewrite. So, I figured I'd ask you. Even if you're not familiar with clonidine specifically, I'd appreciate getting your opinion on the flow and language I've used to write the medical uses section draft before I move on to drafting the adverse effects and pharmacodynamics sections in my sandbox.

It's drafted in this sandbox

Thanks, Professional Crastination (talk) 03:04, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

@Professional Crastination: I looked at your draft. It looks very good to me. The content, flow, languages, and references are a good fit with the preferred standards for medical articles.

The only thing in it that might be worth adjusting is that it seems to omit the mention that the IR form is not FDA approved for use in treating ADHD (ie that only the XR form is approved for that indication in the US). I think preserving that is worthwhile, since that is notable information that does not appear to be mentioned elsewhere in the article.

Outside of that minor quibble, I think it's ready to be merged into the main article. If you are planning on following the same general format and style for rewriting the rest of the article, then I'd encourage you to go ahead with rewriting it, as this is exactly the format, tone, and style that's preferred.

Hope my feedback helps! Garzfoth (talk) 23:33, 16 December 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback - I appreciate getting your 2¢ on the content.

I am definitely going to add a statement about extended-release approval in the United States. Not only does that compliment the what the sources stay alongside what is cited in the content already written Re: "...the addition of clonidine extended-release produced greater reductions in ADHD symptom scores than continuing stimulant monotherapy" and the statements about IR clonidine for sleep, which is an example of why IR isn't FDA approved because it's an example of an adverse effect of core ADHD symptoms turning into a therapeutic effect for a technically different medical use (i.e., insomnia).

I will eventually merge the content once I write a pharmacodynamics section. The current revision of the article (NB: Clonidine#Mechanism_of_action) has a mechanism of action section with subsections of various health conditions, but rendering the content through that condition-MOA lens has been made largely redundant by the way I've written the medical use subsections (i.e., those subsections provide a brief description of the understood MOA). I also don't like that it is done that way. I much prefer the standard PD subsection delivery a la amphetamine, where it states broad pharmacodynamic actions that are expected - based on the current evidence - to happen with sufficient exposure regardless of who takes the drug. The current MOA might give an impression to the general readership that those biomolecular drug effects only happen in the population with that diagnosis, which obviously isn't true. Case in point: although I take dextroamphetamine for ADHD and don't meet the criteria for a narcolepsy or excessive daytime sleepiness diagnosis, on the days I am acutely sleep deprived I still benefit from its direct pharmacodynamic effects in the ascending reticular activating system that inhibit the onset of sleep and lead to improved performance on tasks that would otherwise suffer from being in a low state of arousal. Plus, the clonidine MOA subsections essentially restate "activates alpha-2 receptors in brain or brainstem, inhibits norepinephrine, [miscellaneous info] causes therapeutic effect."

Thanks again, Professional Crastination (talk) 02:13, 18 December 2025 (UTC)

Hey mate, regarding the edit on Tier 2 you did. I modified the old source because for me at least it returns HTTP 522.

See url: https://imgur.com/a/Ak0gPaG

Is it only a issue on my end?

Thanks! Lungu Ștefan-Gabriel (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2026 (UTC)

Hello! I noticed you're a bot operator, so I thought you might be interested in a hackathon we're organizing: the Wikimedia Hackathon Northwestern Europe 2026, on 13–14 March in Arnhem, Netherlands.

It's a two-day, technically oriented hackathon bringing together Wikimedians from the region. Whether you want to work on bot frameworks, tools, or other technical projects, this could be a great opportunity to collaborate with fellow developers. Registration closes mid-January or when full. Let me know if there are any questions. Hope to see you there! Daanvr (talk) 08:58, 12 January 2026 (UTC)

Эти книги изданы российскими разработчиками ядерного оружия. НА КАКОМ ОСНОВАНИИ ТЫ ГОВОРИШЬ, ЧТО ИСТОЧНИК СОМНИТЕЛЬНЫЙ???

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermonuclear_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=1348465201 Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

These books were published by Russian nuclear weapons developers. On what basis do you consider these sources to be iffy?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Thermonuclear_weapon&diff=prev&oldid=1348465201 Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 00:26, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

These books are available on the Rosatom library website that Alex Wellerstein mentioned. WHO ARE YOU TO SAY THAT THIS IS IFFY SOURCES?

https://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2021/10/29/the-possibility-of-bigger-bangs/ Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vladislav Demchenko: You appear to have catastrophically misunderstood the sources you are using.

The source talks about the difficulty with modeling radiation flow between the primary and the secondary in Teller-Ulam TN designs, how this more complicated type of non-spherical compressive force within the Teller-Ulam interstage and secondary differs from the approach used when modeling older fission bombs and Sloika layer cake TN bombs, and the benefits of using Teller-Ulam TN designs over fission or Sloika layer cake TN bombs.

I don't understand how you managed to misinterpret it so badly, but it simply does not say what you claim it does.

I'm leaning towards removing the whole paragraph entirely now, as I hadn't realized at the time of my original edits just how badly you had misinterpreted it (or just exactly what they were actually trying to allude to).

It was only when I re-read the sources again earlier today that I finally realized they were obviously describing the issues associated with radiation compression in Teller-Ulam TN designs and the benefits of using Teller-Ulam TN designs.

In that light, given how said section already explains the Soviet Union's transition to Teller-Ulam TN designs, I don't see how your text or your refs have any place in the section to begin with. The existing text is totally useless as it completely misrepresents what the cited refs say to an absurdly egregious extent. The refs I suppose could possibly be salvaged if you wanted to completely rewrite your descriptions from scratch, but are otherwise totally useless.

So yeah, I'm not seeing the issue with my maintenance tags on that text. If anything, I drastically underestimated how severe the issue was, and drastically under reacted. Garzfoth (talk) 07:04, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's about primaries and secondaries. NO Sloika. Cylindrical implosion in primaries and secondaries. Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 09:37, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Russian is my native language. If you don't understand Russian, if you can't translate the text, that's your problem. THESE ARE BOOKS BY RUSSIAN NUCLEAR WEAPONS DEVELOPERS. SHOW ME SIMILAR BOOKS FROM LLNL, LANL. Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 09:57, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not just about understanding Russian, plenty of native English speakers don't understand the technical details in academic works that are not in their area of expertise and misunderstand highly technical subjects. Terminology is often subject-specific. ---Avatar317^(talk) 23:11, 19 May 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, this is precisely the issue here. I don't know how much background Vladislav Demchenko has in this subject area. I suspect based off of their editing behavior that their knowledge is fairly shallow. That's not a bad thing, but it becomes a problem when they start making edits that push inappropriate and inaccurate interpretations of sources based on their own lack of knowledge.

I can kind of see how someone with minimal knowledge of the subject area could read the source that this editor cited and erroneously conclude that the "non-sphericity" being talked about must be a reference to the physical geometry of the nuclear secondary, rather than the actual correct reason (which is that it refers to the shape of the flow of radiation flux from the primary to the secondary in a Teller-Ulam design).

The problem here is that this editor has completely overlooked the contextual clues provided in the source they are citing. This is a primary source from someone who is involved in nuclear code R&D. If you ignore this context, you are bound to misinterpret the source.

Yet another problem is that if this editor had read more background research in this subject area, they would be aware that secondaries with a spherical geometry have immense advantages over secondaries with a cylindrical geometry (or really any other non-spherical geometry) in terms of the maximum compression density that can be achieved, which leads to tremendous gains in efficiency, and therefore in yield to weight and yield to volume. If you read the cited source with this knowledge in mind, then an interpretation of it claiming that it says non-spherical secondary geometry is superior is obviously baldly inaccurate, since we know with certainty that this is a false statement.

Anyways, since this has become a debate over interpretation of a non-English language source, the onus is now on Vladislav Demchenko to provide specific quotations from said source to support their claims. They are also required to provide English translations for each quotation. This is required under WP:NOTENG.

I have already read the entirety of the cited sources via machine translation several times now, but as Vladislav Demchenko has been persistently vague as to which specific sections they believe support their interpretation, I am now formally requesting that @Vladislav Demchenko provide me with on-wiki text quotes for each portion of the cited source(s) that they believe support their interpretation. These must be verbatim quotes from the original Cyrillic source. An English translation should also be provided for each verbatim quote. As a reminder, you are required by WP:NOTENG, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS to provide these verbatim quotations. I would like to request that you also explain in your own words what your understanding of each verbatim quote's meaning is, how it supports/proves your claims, and why you believe that this is the case. This will make it easier for us to have a productive discussion over this issue.

I have several other further separate major issues to raise here, but I will hold off on all of that for now until those quotes can be provided, as it is clear that we will need to also have a more detailed discussion over those as well in order to fully settle this issue. Garzfoth (talk) 21:01, 20 May 2026 (UTC)

Where is the source that the B-21 Raider will be the carrier of the B83?

Is this your original research?

IS THIS YOUR ORIGINAL RESEARCH?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=B83_nuclear_bomb&diff=prev&oldid=1343352371 Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 00:30, 11 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vladislav Demchenko: The source has now been added. Please see my recent edits to the B83 page. Garzfoth (talk) 04:05, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

This is not in the source. Provide a specific quote. Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 04:19, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

@Vladislav Demchenko: From the ref I used:

"The B-2 can carry B61 and B83 nuclear gravity bombs, but it is not equipped to carry cruise missiles."

"The Air Force says the B-21 will be able to 'employ a broad mix of stand-off and direct-attack munitions.' The B-21 is expected to carry the LRSO and gravity bombs."

The report unambiguously establishes that the gravity bombs in the arsenal are the B61 and the B83, then unambiguously establishes that the B-21 is expected to be able to carry both the LRSO and gravity bombs. This is clear confirmation from an official source that the B-21 can carry nuclear gravity bombs.

No mention is made of any restriction on which specific sub-types of gravity bombs it can carry. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be made based on the available evidence is that it can carry the same gravity bombs as the B-2, which were just specified directly prior to this section.

At the moment, we cannot expect clearer proof than this to be made available. The B-21 is still a highly classified program, and as such, precise details regarding its exact nuclear loadouts are considered restricted national security information and are not made available to the public.

I'm not sure why you're arguing over this so vehemently to begin with given what we know about the B-21's payload capabilities. It's not as if the claim was anywhere close to implausible to begin with – we already knew that the B-21 is basically just a scaled down B-2 with only a single munitions bay and exactly half the payload capacity.

That's more than enough information on its own to infer that the B-21 can carry the same types of nuclear gravity bomb munitions as the B-2 if you pay attention to how the B-2's nuclear payload capacity was originally established (it was literally based directly off of the weight of the B83 bomb!).

Anyways, there's the proof you asked for. Hopefully that can put this petty argument to bed for good. Garzfoth (talk) 06:14, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Is this an original research? Where are the authoritative sources?

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Operation_Anvil_(nuclear_test)&diff=prev&oldid=1338343015 Vladislav Demchenko (talk) 04:32, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

None of the device claims were sourced directly. Even now, only two have semi-clear indirect sourcing, and zero have clear direct sourcing.

The W78 claim was baldly inaccurate. We know from Swords and the NWA that the secondary design used in the W87 and W88 (which was originally the same design with roughly the same nominal yield) was proof tested at full yield prior to the implementation of the TTBT. This means that any test with a yield around 450–500 kt is effectively certain to be associated with those devices.

We know alternative designs were considered, but that they had either 600 kt or 800 kt yields. It is possible for a 500 kt test to be a failed B77/B83 test, but that can be disproven by examining sourcing on nuclear laboratory attribution per test, since we know LLNL was responsible for the entire B77/B83 program from the beginning.

I did my best to correct the error within the bounds of the level of sourcing that was in current use on the article for that column. In hindsight, it would probably have been better to simply blank the entire devices column outside of the B77/B83 entries, slap CN tags on those entries so someone can add direct sources on each of them, and call it a day. But it's usually better to add information rather than removing it, even if direct sourcing is currently unavailable. And for informal information, it's often better to make a good faith effort to correct egregious errors rather than to simply delete them entirely.

At any rate, I don't see how this is relevant. I did not contest your subsequent tagging of those (and many other) device entries with maintenance tags, nor did I contest your later removal of all of the tagged device entries.

The only one of your edits that I ever contested on that page was your absurd initial revert done on the basis of your confusingly incoherent claim that TN weapons with HEU secondaries cannot be tested in shafts at full yield, which is plainly inaccurate in too many ways to count, and didn't even make coherent sense given how the device entry you reverted to was also a TN weapon with a HEU secondary.

I fail to see why this is an issue requiring continued discussion. Garzfoth (talk) 06:39, 16 May 2026 (UTC)

Hi, there is a move review underway relevant to a discussion you were recently involved in. Link above. Thanks. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 19:59, 27 May 2026 (UTC)