User talk:JFG

Thank you for your work in Project Spaceflight

 * Many thanks, much appreciated! Happy to help document the new space age as it unfolds! — JFG talk 16:01, 1 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Have you any interest in the early days of the Space Race? Sputnik, Mariner, Gemini, and all that? We have a working group that is busily filling in the gaps. We even have our own Discord chat going. --Neopeius (talk) 23:10, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm interested, although I lack time to edit and research these days. Happy to keep abreast of progress, and I may dive in occasionally. — JFG talk 12:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:POVFIGHTER. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 23 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Crossroads -talk- 05:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Mrs Calment and Mrs Calment
Hi JFG,

I have seen your important activity on Jeanne Calment's article and talk page (now archives 1-4). You did a very good job in enhancing the quality of the debate and article, but for some reason your effort waned after January 2020, which gave the opportunity for some POV-pusher to get his edit lasting one whole year. He removed key references. I tried to bring them back, but so is he (back). I am defending myself in the talk page but I will need support. The "conspiracy" bots don't seem to care about rational arguments.

Kahlores (talk) 05:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your note. My editing activity is only occasional now. I have taken a brief look at the ongoing discussion and the current state of the article, and I have no time to contribute productively there. All I can say is that the disputed section currently looks too long. I see that some people are drafting a separate article about the controversy, which may be warranted. Whatever the outcome of that effort, I would prefer keeping things short on the main page, either by cutting tit-for-tat events as the controversy unfolded, or by writing a summary after such a page is forked out. I may help with that after the dust settles. — JFG talk 15:59, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – April 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:16, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – May 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:51, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – June 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:37, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft launched by Saturn rockets has been nominated for deletion
Category:Spacecraft launched by Saturn rockets has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 19:15, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Category:Spacecraft launched by Electron rockets has been nominated for deletion
Category:Spacecraft launched by Electron rockets has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. fgnievinski (talk) 19:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your continued kindness and spirit, <3 — JFG talk 12:46, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:02, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – August 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:07, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – August 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:42, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – September 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:31, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

The Downlink – October 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:28, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

"Template:FL" listed at Redirects for discussion
A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Template:FL. The discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 December 20 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 00:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

"No earlier than" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect No earlier than and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 April 1 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Renerpho (talk) 21:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.26, September 2021), the backlog was 'only' just over 6,000 articles. In the past six months, the backlog has reached nearly 16,000, a staggering level not seen in several years. A very small number of users had been doing the vast majority of the reviews. Due to "burn-out", we have recently lost most of this effort. Furthermore, several reviewers have been stripped of the user right for abuse of privilege and the articles they patrolled were put back in the queue.

Several discussions on the state of the process have taken place on the talk page, but there has been no action to make any changes. The project also lacks coordination since the "position" is vacant.

In the last 30 days, only 100 reviewers have made more than 8 patrols and only 50 have averaged one review a day. There are currently Special:ListUsers/patroller New Page Reviewers, but about a third have not had any activity in the past month. All administrators have this permission, but only about a dozen significantly contribute to NPP.

This means we have an active pool of about 450 to address the backlog. We cannot rely on a few to do most of the work as that inevitably leads to burnout. A fairly experienced reviewer can usually do a review in a few minutes. If every active reviewer would patrol just one article per day, the backlog would very quickly disappear.

If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, do suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent 05:17, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you ! Sorry I'm not as active now as a few years ago… Long live the 'pedia! — JFG talk 08:04, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
 * no need to change a thing, precious is for ever, and I so at 10 ;) - reminders go to everybody who helped during the last year. Check out my talk for music and more. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:02, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

At the time of the last newsletter (No.27, May 2022), the backlog was approaching 16,000, having shot up rapidly from 6,000 over the prior two months. The attention the newsletter brought to the backlog sparked a flurry of activity. There was new discussion on process improvements, efforts to invite new editors to participate in NPP increased and more editors requested the NPP user right so they could help, and most importantly, the number of reviews picked up and the backlog decreased, dipping below 14,000 at the end of May.
 * Backlog status

Since then, the news has not been so good. The backlog is basically flat, hovering around 14,200. I wish I could report the number of reviews done and the number of new articles added to the queue. But the available statistics we have are woefully inadequate. The only real number we have is the net queue size.

In the last 30 days, the top 100 reviewers have all made more than 16 patrols (up from 8 last month), and about 70 have averaged one review a day (up from 50 last month).

While there are more people doing more reviews, many of the ~730 with the NPP right are doing little. Most of the reviews are being done by the top 50 or 100 reviewers. They need your help. We appreciate every review done, but please aim to do one a day (on average, or 30 a month).

A backlog reduction drive, coordinated by buidhe and Zippybonzo, will be held from July 1 to July 31. Sign up here. Barnstars will be awarded.
 * Backlog drive

Many new articles on schools are being created by new users in developing and/or non-English-speaking countries. The authors are probably not even aware of Wikipedia's projects and policy pages. WP:WPSCH/AG has some excellent advice and resources specifically written for these users. Reviewers could consider providing such first-time article creators with a link to it while also mentioning that not all schools pass the GNG and that elementary schools are almost certainly not notable.
 * TIP – New school articles

There is a new template available,, to show the current backlog. You can place it on your user or talk page as a reminder:
 * Misc

There has been significant discussion at WP:VPP recently on NPP-related matters (Draftification, Deletion, Notability, Verifiability, Burden). Proposals that would somewhat ease the burden on NPP aren't gaining much traction, although there are suggestions that the role of NPP be fundamentally changed to focus only on major CSD-type issues.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.
 * Notes

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

NPP July 2022 backlog drive is on!
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

You made the same point 3 years ago very ellequently
And since you lost that discussion or gave up I just feel Ive wasted a full day of my vacation on something pointless as if your argument didn´t convince people I don´t know what will. "Thanks Onceinawhile for adding a column showing whether any claim of sovereignty by an occupying power is recognized internationally. It proves the point that occupations and subsequent annexations are almost never recognized internationally, at least not before decades, and sometimes never until the territory acquires stateship itself (see Baltic states under the Soviet Union or East Timor under Indonesia). Accordingly, international recognition cannot be a criterion to determine whether an occupied territory has been annexed or not. — JFG talk 10:15, 14 July 2018 (UTC)" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_military_occupations/Archive_5

What makes you still motivated to edit Wikipedia and why do you think that people didn´t accept this argument? A quote that comes by is that most people don´t listen to hear and understand but to reply. I.e. they are set to reply and argue even before they hear the other side. If that is the case, whats the point of even having Wikipedia articles for politicized sections?83.252.116.25 (talk) 09:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi there, not sure you'll see this as I'm replying late and you may not be monitoring my talk page. To your point, it is well known that reaching consensus on Wikipedia is a tiresome endeavour. When a discussion about a longstanding issue has stalled, you can take a step back, reframe your arguments in a concise fashion, and launch an RfC. Then, people interested in the subject matter, beyond the article's regulars, have 30 days to discuss the specific proposal made in the RfC, and an uninvolved editor will assess the consensus reached or lack thereof. It's not just a numbers game, as RfCs are evaluated on the strength of arguments presented and compliance with Wikipedia content policies, not just on how many people say yes or no. Hence the RfC process is not a vote. I do have some expertise in conducting RfC on complex subjects, so I'd be happy to help draft the question appropriately, and get the process rolling. Have a great day, and don't quit the 'pedia! — JFG talk 09:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Side note: you should really create an account: it facilitates discussion with your fellow editors, and it actually gives you *more* privacy than exposing your IP address as is the case with your contributions so far. — JFG talk 09:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi. I wasn´t monitoring this page, no! As I gave up.
 * But thanks for the encouraging words anyway.
 * I was considering starting a RfC and ask about how best to approach it (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2022_July_27#How_do_I_start_a_proposal?) but couldn´t be bothered in the end.
 * On the topic I found an interesting short note from the EU that I think ultimately covers what the opposing side may have been trying to argue, under all the source pushing (which as you correctly reflected on earlier, could be done in either direction). https://www.europarl.europa.eu/thinktank/en/document/EXPO_STU(2015)534995
 * ..."in particular if the occupied territory is also illegally annexed. Legally speaking, an illegally annexed territory is occupied."
 * This ties in with articles such as these: https://www.justsecurity.org/83365/stop-saying-annexed-territories-altern
 * The guy had me all the way to the bottom of the article rooting for him, until it felt like he pulled the rug under my feet.
 * Even in a situation where the person, an academic, understands that the "situation on the ground" is equivalent to something (in this case annexation) they would rather sacrifice language on the altar of orwellian thought than give any kind of ammunition to a bully, invader, occupier, etc as per the article. That position denies people their reality, it creates a sort of collective cognitive dissonance which can´t be helpful to anyone but an outsider.
 * I feel, as it seems you do, that the word itself has meaning, and that it then in this case can be illegal or not. Ultimately its just one more pair of words being fought over in the age of the information war. A war I feel has no victors as it just makes fools out of us all.
 * I stumbled over this by the way, because I was so annoyed at a small detail in a page I happened to visit that I had to comment on it, and then clicked on my IP again. Apparently the Wikiepdia page for the Fall of Mosul has a very poorly photoshopped picture of Mosul during its fall as the one and only descriptive image in it. I do wonder what happened to the original. I tried reverse image searching but can´t find it. I wonder if it had something gruesome on it, or why else would it be photoshopped? But ultimately I was just curious as to how it happened to have been selected at all! :)
 * 83.252.116.25 (talk) 03:54, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

July thanks
Thank you for the Hannover thanks! - I'm doing many things besides Wikipedia and have pics from vacation days to offer Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter August 2022
Hello ,

After the last newsletter (No.28, June 2022), the backlog declined another 1,000 to 13,000 in the last week of June. Then the July backlog drive began, during which 9,900 articles were reviewed and the backlog fell by 4,500 to just under 8,500 (these numbers illustrate how many new articles regularly flow into the queue). Thanks go to the coordinators and, as well as all the nearly 100 participants. Congratulations to who led with 880 points. See this page for further details.
 * Backlog status

Unfortunately, most of the decline happened in the first half of the month, and the backlog has already risen to 9,600. Understandably, it seems many backlog drive participants are taking a break from reviewing and unfortunately, we are not even keeping up with the inflow let alone driving it lower. We need the other 600 reviewers to do more! Please try to do at least one a day.


 * Coordination: and  have taken on some of the coordination tasks. Please let them know if you are interested in helping out.  will be handling recognition, and will be retroactively awarding the annual barnstars that have not been issued for a few years.


 * Open letter to the WMF: The Page Curation software needs urgent attention. There are dozens of bug fixes and enhancements that are stalled (listed at Suggested improvements). We have written a letter to be sent to the WMF and we encourage as many patrollers as possible to sign it here. We are also in negotiation with the Board of Trustees to press for assistance. Better software will make the active reviewers we have more productive.


 * TIP - Reviewing by subject: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages by their most familiar subjects can do so from the regularly updated sorted topic list.


 * New reviewers: The NPP School is being underused. The learning curve for NPP is quite steep, but a detailed and easy-to-read tutorial exists, and the Curation Tool's many features are fully described and illustrated on the updated page here.


 * Reminders
 * Consider staying informed on project issues by putting the project discussion page on your watchlist.
 * If you have noticed a user with a good understanding of Wikipedia notability and deletion, suggest they help the effort by placing on their talk page.
 * If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process and its software.
 * To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

NPP message
Hi ,

For those who may have missed it in our last newsletter, here's a quick reminder to see the letter we have drafted, and if you support it, do please go ahead and sign it. If you already signed, thanks. Also, if you haven't noticed, the backlog has been trending up lately; all reviews are greatly appreciated.
 * Invitation

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:PETTIFOGGING" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Wikipedia:PETTIFOGGING and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 30 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. FMecha (to talk&#124;to see log) 16:30, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Board of Trustees election
Thank you for supporting the NPP initiative to improve WMF support of the Page Curation tools. Another way you can help is by voting in the Board of Trustees election. The next Board composition might be giving attention to software development. The election closes on 6 September at 23:59 UTC. View candidate statement videos and Vote Here. MB 03:32, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

"Trump endorsements" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Trump endorsements and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 November 4 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:39, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2022 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Transclude births
Template:Transclude births has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Frietjes (talk) 20:48, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Manned/Human Spaceflight;
Hi there, I was going through the archives related to Manned/Human spaceflight entries on Wikipedia and I saw your entry from 2018 "I understand the motivation, however I think we shouldn't retroactively change vocabulary. "Manned spaceflight" or "human spaceflight" has been a cultural symbol for decades; suddenly calling it "crewed spaceflight" because 21st-century polite society is wary of any gendered word would be anachronistic. We should rather follow the vocabulary used by contemporary sources: for those events where most WP:RS refer to "crewed" flights, then we can use that word, otherwise keep them "manned". — JFG talk 22:54, 19 February 2018 (UTC)" In any case, I wanted to commend you for making that argument and tell you I feel similarly. This new language that NASA is using seems to be coming from the right place, but may not end up leading us somewhere better down the road. I'm happy to talk more about my thoughts on this and hear what else you might say.

Thanks, Wiscipidier (talk) 17:25, 13 July 2023 (UTC)Wiscipidier
 * Hello and thanks for your comment. I haven't been active on Wikipedia for a couple years, so I'm not aware of recent editorial trends about human spaceflight. I do hope that the thought police has refrained from rewriting history in light of present-day sensitivity. In this domain and many others, I have come to believe that Wikipedia is hopeless, and the world needs an improved alternative. — JFG talk 02:41, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § RfC on the "Airlines and destinations" tables in airport articles. &#x0020;I saw that you participated in a previous discussion on this topic. Sunnya343 (talk) 17:45, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. 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 2023 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 to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Pronunciation of "www" for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Pronunciation of "www" is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Pronunciation of "www" until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Chiyono Hasegawa September 2010.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Chiyono Hasegawa September 2010.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

SES satellites
So I was digging through some history and trying to figure out why the SES satellite template includes "Yahsat 1A" and I saw that you added it: As far as I can tell SES satellites only ever formed a joint venture for doing some broadcasting on the satellite and I wouldn't count that as an operator. How do you define satellite operator? Does it count if they're only using it as a distribution point? I would assume you need to have actual control of the satellite. Ergzay (talk) 21:55, 1 July 2024 (UTC)