Jump to content

User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6

Adamson Tannehill

Hi Gog the Mild, Could you please let me know what still needs to be completed to get my FAC, Adamson Tannehill, over the hump? I've got three supporting reviews, including yours. The spot-check reviewer has approved all my revisions based on his/her comments. Finally, after all the trying that seems appropriate, I cannot get Harrias to finish off his much-appreciated source review. Which leaves me where? Just curious. I appreciate all your help! Tfhentz (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I am recused, but I note that you seem to have put Harrias's user name in bold rather than pinging them when you commented that the spot check was complete. So they may not yet realise that the review is ready for them to comment on again. Or they may be busy preparing some maps. I understand that when a review is drawn out it can be frustrating waiting for other volunteer editors to get back on something - really I do, I have been there - but for a first nom this seems to be ticking along and I am quite sure that Harrias will be along in due course, despite their misfortune of possessing a real life. Get on with your RL and try not to worry about the FAC too much. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Sound advice...you're right. I just don't like things hanging, but I'll just be patient. Thanks again very much. 2603:8080:2A00:F05F:C583:9FAE:8D18:431C (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, Delaware BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  • Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  • Berkelland LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  • Ukraine Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Re: the certification title issue

Hey, do you really want me to start a discussion at the Songs wikiproject talk page? That often invites drama which I am desperately trying to avoid considering I am standing on wafer thin ice on here. The only reason I am unwilling to compromise on the capitalization issue is because this contradicts every song FA I have written. "Title" (song) and "The One" (Tamar Braxton song) which you also recused and reviewed have the capitalized certification titles so I am a bit lost why this becomes an issue now.--NØ 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

I probably didn't notice it before. It is one of those where once noticed it niggles; the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that it is correct. You didn't help yourself by pointing me to two discussions where the consensus was against capitalising in the situation where you did. You are correct that you are on thin ice, but I don't think a RfC on Songs would cut it anyway. A local consensus can't overrule the MoS, which - having had some time to chew it over - I now believe is clear on the matter. You would need a RfC on the MoS.
Just bite the bullet and lower case it. If you really care about consistency, change it in your other articles. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that consistency between - as opposed to within - articles is not required. (I once created articles on two battles in the same campaign, where the English were fighting in France. In one I had imperial as the primary units, in the other metric. I did it entirely to wind up a reviewer who was over-enamoured by consistency.)
"An issue now": it is surprising how often I look at something and suddenly see it in a different light. If I haven't picked this up before, you are right to chide me about it, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong now. Researching, I note that my fellow coordinator, FrB.TG, used lower case in their recently promoted Telephone (song). Perhaps they could opine on your use in My Little Love? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
From a grammatical perspective, the use of capital letters is typically reserved for proper nouns—specific names or titles. Music certifications, such as gold, platinum and diamond, are more akin to adjectives describing the degree of success a recording has achieved. I think employing lowercase letters maintains grammatical consistency, treating them as descriptors rather than unique entities. It reflects a linguistic choice that aligns with the functional role of these terms in describing, rather than naming, the level of accomplishment.
On the other hand, I notice that RIAA uses capital letters in their descriptions, but they are referring to the awards themselves, which are specific and tangible entities. The awards, such as Gold & Platinum Awards, are proper nouns because they represent physical accolades given to artists. In contrast, when discussing the certification levels (gold, platinum, etc.), which indicate the degree of success, maintaining lowercase letters aligns with the grammatical convention for common descriptors rather than specific titles or awards. FrB.TG (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Done now, albeit this is killing my OCD...--NØ 17:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

idea lab

Regarding this comment: perhaps you could consider a milder expression of disapproval? At the idea lab village pump, editors ought to be able to throw out ideas in order to spark discussion. I do agree that proposals that aren't based on a demonstrated problem aren't going to get far. Nonetheless, getting people to think freely about new approaches is hard, and thus I feel the community would benefit from not having its participants be ashamed of proposing an idea. (I appreciate there can be a fine line between encouraging someone to make a better proposal next time, and discouraging them about their current proposal.) isaacl (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your revision. I appreciate it! isaacl (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Piri

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piri/archive1, I probably bit off more than I could chew in nominating it. I can advise that the article went through Peer Review just before I nominated it and went unreviewed, so I probably won't send it there again any time soon. I do have two questions about the process though.

I notice that Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC#Reliability states that in certain circumstances primary sources are "entirely acceptable and even welcome". It was my understanding that anything that was only sourceable in primary sources would constitute undue weight. What are the circumstances in which I could use them? (An earlier version of the article used way too many of them, but it may contain useful things.)

Is there any chance at all you could provide some comments on this yourself? (I did mention that I would like to run it on her birthday, 14 March, but given that said date is only four months away, and her birthday is only available in AllMusic and her Twitter, I suspect this might not happen.) Thank you. Launchballer 11:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Primary sources: that is difficult to answer without re-litigating the FAC. WP:RSPRIMARY is the basic guidance, especially "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." FAC also requires sources to be "high quality". It can be difficult to measure primary sources against the criteria given and some judgements have a degree of subjectivity. Personally I avoid primary sources at virtually all costs, even for direct quotes.
You have picked a tricky article for your first FAC. It is notoriously difficult to do justice in BLPs to those whose careers are ongoing. Recently there was a fuss as to whether Liz Truss should be allowed on FAC, and she has been an MP for 13 years and has stood down as prime minister. That said, it can be done, eg Mckenna Grace. Plus such individuals usually have limited secondary sources. Skimming Piri, it does a bit give the impression of trying to stretch limited material into a decent article.
My serious advice, which you probably won't like, is to review 6 or 8 nominations at FAC, studying the comments of fellow reviewers as you do so. Critically reviewing other people's work will almost certainly have a beneficial impact on your own writing and and it will give you a better understanding of the FAC process. Also, take another 5 or 6 articles to GAN. Again, this will do wonders for your writing and your grasp of the MoS. (I took more than 40 articles to GAN before I nominated my first FAC, but that may have been excessive.)
I hope that at least some of this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for this. (Most of my articles are biographies; my autism means I write exclusively about special interests, and they are usually people.) There's a few B and C-class articles I've written I could send to GA, might nominate them.--Launchballer 20:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)
I've put in a GOCE request, might go editor to editor while I'm waiting. Would this Tweet be sufficient for a date request?--Launchballer 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
I am not on X, so I suspect that what I am seeing is not what you intended. Any chance of posting your proposed message here? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
That is an archived tweet from Piri posted on Saturday 11 March 2023, where she says "acc feels sick to be turning 24 on tuesday and being in the best physical condition i’ve ever been by far".--Launchballer 19:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Never mind, found a secondary source anyway.--Launchballer 00:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

In the Aeroplane Over the Sea

I was going to close the nomination earlier but I do appreciate the archive; I'm probably giving up on that article though because it took a toll on my mental health and the three supports followed by the immediate three opposes in one day felt like a bit of a punch in the gut. Darling (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

No problem. I am not a coordinator so that I can archive nominations, but IMO it needed doing and those suggesting that further work was needed were on the money. But I agree that FAC can be an emotional roller coaster. It gets to me sometimes, and you'd think I had enough under my belt to be over that. It is right that FAC is tough, but that does mean that it is often tough on nominators too, and I don't see an easy way around that. This article is most of the way to FA standard, so I really hoping we shall be seeing it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious though--would I have significant contributions enough by now or by that point to renominate it? I have sort of less faith with the other nominator due to my concerns that they'll go inactive again, something they seem to have done for every nomination on it. Darling (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: forgot to ping you for this, since it was an old discussion. Darling (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have picked it up anyway, but I have been away - see below - and missed it. This is just one editor's opinion, but if you sort out the issues identified in the review, and you invite Famous Hobo to co-nominate but they decline, then I would be content with you as the sole nominator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:43, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Neville's Cross

Grateful if you could not just delete something relevant without discussing. The edit had a source, and the age of the source is not a relevant matter as to whether you should delete it. You wouldn't delete citation to Bede's History of the English Church and People because it's 1300 years old! TheDunelmian (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

WP:BRD applies. You boldly inserted, I appropriately reverted, you may if you wish initiate a discussion on the talk page attempting to gain a consensus for the change. Note that as this is a featured article the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria apply as well as the usual Wikipedia criteria; and, possibly, WP:FAOWN. (And I may well delete Bede as a primary source, depending on what text was depending on it.) I note that you don't mention the uncited text, nor my points about the source used being neither Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor "high quality"; the emphasis is on the editor wishing to add material to establish that its sourcing clears both of these bars. If it does, I may then wish to look at it against other Wikipedia and FAC policies and criteria. But first things first and I look forward to discussing the merits of the sourcing of the proposed change on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
TheDunelmian, you now you seem to be edit warring, please don't, it rarely ends well. Read WP:BRD instead and follow it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

In the Scottish Highlands?

...Consider me suitably jealous. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Ah, but not yet jealous enough. Friday morning:
Well now, I am even more jealous then before! Sounds like a fantastic way to spend a week. I'm sure you become a much better person after taking time like that, puts things into perspective, doesn't it. And I'm sure the pictures don't begin to do it justice, though I'm glad you shared them. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
It wasn't all like that, but those sort of experiences are what one goes for. I had camped in the dark and with the entrance to the tent facing away from the hill, so when I emerged to start the morning's walk (an out and back from the tent) and looked around I was - very pleasantly - surprised by the view. And the weather.
If you think that could make a better person of me, you have yet to experience the depths of my intransience. More seriously, it left me noticeably chilled re just about everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Chill... Now that sound much closer to my experience of hiking, most of the time. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

In appreciation

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your dedicated stewardship of articles and communities on the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow! My first barnstar for being an FAC coordinator. I am touched and grateful, especially coming from an editor with your high standards. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Hussainiwala

Thank you for your contribution in the Battle of Hussainiwala article! This was the first Wikipedia article I have made and it means a lot. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 59

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

  • Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
  • Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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 {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Editor experience invitation

Hi Gog the Mild :) I'm looking for people to interview here. Feel free to pass if you're not interested. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:00, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:08, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2023 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December 2023 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. Don't forget that you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: The Guild needs coordinators! If you'd like to help out, you may nominate yourself or any suitable editor—with their permission—for the Election of Coordinators for the first half of 2024. Nominations will close at 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). Voting begins immediately after the close of nominations and closes at 23:59 on 31 December. All editors in good standing (not under current sanctions) are eligible, and self-nominations are welcome. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term that ends at 23:59 on 30 June.

Drive: Of the 69 editors who signed up for the September Backlog Elimination Drive, 40 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 661,214 words in 290 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Of the 22 editors who signed up for the October Copy Editing Blitz, 13 copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 109,327 words in 52 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Drive: During the November Backlog Elimination Drive, 38 of the 58 editors who signed up copy-edited at least one article. Between them, they copy-edited 458,620 words in 234 articles. Barnstars awarded are listed here.

Blitz: Our December Copy Editing Blitz will run from 10 to 16 December. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 20:33, 10 December 2023 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 344 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,191 articles.

Other news: Our Annual Report for 2023 is planned for release in the new year.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Zippybonzo.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:53, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm invisible?

Are you ghosting me because of my inability to curtsy? (Dammit, I knew that was gonna happen at some point, but seriously my balance would just make me fall over and formality is just not my style.) Or could it be that since my computer crashed and I have had to resort to my old one that the only email address I had for you in it is one you have abandoned? *sigh* I swear I'll try to dust off my kitten heels if it'll help. SusunW (talk) 15:18, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Kitten heels? That should do it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Having changed from my outdoor chunklas to my indoor chunklas to skate across the hazards of the freshly wet-mopped floor, I dug into the back of my closet and after much searching retrieved, dusted, and donned said heels. Now "proper" I kindly beg you to check your hotmail for my query of a week ago. (bows in lieu of a curtsy) SusunW (talk) 17:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
Irresistible! Consider it done. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 13 December 2023 (UTC)
So I saw that you fixed a pipe on García. Villain or victim? I honestly don't know and I hope that's clear, as I genuinely tried to balance the sources since there really weren't many that were neutral. I learned a whole lot writing it, but man was it hard trying to dig out the context to make what happened understandable. Wishing you and yours a happy holiday season. SusunW (talk) 13:12, 19 December 2023 (UTC)

Begotten

Hello Gog, just wanted to personally reach out and tell you I have yet to get a response from Ceoil which I believe is currently busy off Wikipiedia at the moment. I have addressed and completed all the issues that they have listed with the article, but am sort of frustrated with the prospect that the FAN might not pass because the reviewer is busy irl to complete the assessment. Stumped as to what should be done if we should wait or something cause the idea of going through another nomination of this article is something I want to avoid after putting so much time into it. Paleface Jack (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Well Ceoil is back, even if Wingwatcher's lack of activity continues. My fellow coordinators may well be considering archiving this, so @FAC coordinators: note that a review is ongoing at Talk:Begotten (film). I certainly understand your frustration, but all I can do s give my standard boilerplate - below - on attracting reviewers, although I suspect that you have seen most or all of it before.

Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process.

Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2024 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

TFA

December: story · music · places

Thank you today for Battle of the Trebia, introduced: "Another article on a battle from the Second Punic War. Yes, I am getting a bit fixated on these; I will probably get bored soon and do something different. Meanwhile, here is Hannibal's first pitched battle against the Romans. A mid-winter battle against an over-confident Roman general turned out about how you might expect." - Thank you also for all your FA work! - I rather manage the one-sentence stories, and liked yesterday's particularly. I wish you a good festive season and a peaceful New Year. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:28, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

==Merry Christmas!

~~~ Merry Christmas! ~~~
Joyeux Noël! ~ Buon Natale! ~ Vrolijk Kerstfeest! ~ Frohe Weihnachten!
¡Feliz Navidad! ~ Feliz Natal! ~ Καλά Χριστούγεννα! ~ Hyvää Joulua!
God Jul! ~ Glædelig Jul! ~ Linksmų Kalėdų! ~ Priecīgus Ziemassvētkus!
Häid Jõule! ~ Wesołych Świąt! ~ Boldog Karácsonyt! ~ Veselé Vánoce!
Veselé Vianoce! ~ Crăciun Fericit! ~ Sretan Božić! ~ С Рождеством!
শুভ বড়দিন! ~ 圣诞节快乐！~ メリークリスマス！~ 메리 크리스마스!
สุขสันต์วันคริสต์มาส! ~ Selamat Hari Natal! ~ Giáng sinh an lành!
Весела Коледа! ~ Meri Kirihimete!

Hello, Gog the Mild! Thank you for your work to maintain and improve Wikipedia! Wishing you a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year!
Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove and leave other users this message by adding {{subst:Multi-language Season's Greetings}}

==

Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:44, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Season's Greetings
Wishing everybody a Happy Holiday Season, and all best wishes for the New Year! The Nativity scene on the Pulpit in the Pisa Baptistery by Nicola Pisano is my Wiki-Christmas card to all for this year. Johnbod (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Gog the Mild! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Your featured article review work is invaluable. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!
Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} talk
Solstice Celebration for Gog the Mild, 2023, DALL·E 3. (View full series) Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.
Solstice Celebration for Gog the Mild, 2023, DALL·E 3.
Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:39, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Hello Gog the Mild: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, —Ganesha811 (talk) 06:59, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:57, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

10 Four Awards

Your trophy room looked a little empty. A year and a half later, congrats! Usernameunique (talk) 20:46, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

Wow! Better late than never. Many thanks Usernameunique, I'll jam it into the cabinet somehow. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:53, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
No problem, Gog. I noticed you didn't have the checkmark on the leaderboard, and figured it needed to be rectified. x25 ribbon in 2030? --Usernameunique (talk) 21:22, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's an aspiration. I tend to work in well-trodden fields, and opportunities to create new articles are infrequent. Ie, 11 out of 63 FAs so far. But I will see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Fair point. Focusing on obscure academics and archaeological artifacts seems to help... --Usernameunique (talk) 22:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
Wowee! That's a pretty one! Congrats, and thanks for all of your amazing work! – Reidgreg (talk) 14:03, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2023

The Silver Wiki
Congratulations! You have been selected in second place for the Military Historian of the Year for 2023 by a popular vote of your WikiProject Military history peers in recognition of your contributions to the English Wikipedia's coverage of military history. As lead coordinator, it is my pleasure to present the esteemed Silver Wiki. Hawkeye7 (discuss)

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Happy New Year!
Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:35, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, may Vesta smile on your year. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gog the Mild!

Happy New Year!

Gog the Mild,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
Abishe (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Abishe (talk) 20:26, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2024 WikiCup!

Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2024 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close on 31 January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email), Epicgenius (talk · contribs · email), and Frostly (talk · contribs · email). Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Annunciation

Is there a reason to run Memling's Annunciation on 13 February instead of 25 March, the day when the Feast of the Annunciation is celebrated (which was mentioned in previous nominations)? - Happy New Year! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I read further, and now understand that the feast is postponed to the next suitable in Eastertide when it falls in the Holy Week, which it does this year. But if that is a concern, we should perhaps move it the same way, not to February which would mean a very long pregnancy ;) - We could also just wait another year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:46, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

I tried to keep this question low-key but saw it mentioned on Victoria's talk. It's a question, including the question how far respect for principal editors' wishes goes. I have respect, but wonder what our readers would say if we - for example - presented a Christmas cantata in November. The article is in the pending list for 25 March, entered by Wehwalt, and that is where I come from. -Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez

Is there a reason to run Pierre Boulez in February 2024, when the centenary of his birth will be 26 March 2025? As the request on WP:TFARP has? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

No. Good spot. I shall swap it out. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:55, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

The term "sellout"

Are you certain? That catches me by surprise; I do have that substantiated in the body, and "compromising of a person's integrity, morality, authenticity, or principles by forgoing the long-term benefits of the collective or group in exchange for personal gain" was what I personally thought I was aiming for. The accusation comes from the classic "leave behind your independent roots to sign with big corporate company" school of thought. Am I wrong for attributing the term "sellout" or "sell-out" to that situation? This might help me going forward. dannymusiceditor oops 19:15, 2 January 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, revert me. Apologies, I was probably shooting from the hip. (A bit busy, busy right now.) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
No worries. Just making sure I didn't get something wrong on my end. Cheers. :) dannymusiceditor oops 19:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
Can I take a moment to express my appreciation at how hard you've been working on the project and how great of a team member you were about putting this on the front page? I came out in desperation scrambling to get this done for an anniversary, and you came through and found my work sufficient despite how close I cut it. I am so grateful for your efforts.
I see you just took up a position at good and featured topic series, and I can't wait to see what comes from your work there. dannymusiceditor oops 01:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 10 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Happy New Year, Gog the Mild!

Happy New Year!

Gog the Mild,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.
 — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

 — Amakuru (talk) 20:08, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Amakuru, and the same to you. I look forward to your nominating Spaghetti Junction at FAC in the coming year. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Ha, now there's an idea 😊  — Amakuru (talk) 22:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Guallatiri/archive1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 15:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Pierre Boulez

Hello Gog the Mild and Happy New Year to you! I've just seen that you've scheduled the Boulez article to be on the main page next month. That's very kind of you, but I was rather hoping that it could be TFA on the centenary of his birth next year, 26 March 2025. There's likely to be a fair amount of general marking of the occasion in terms of concerts and recordings. Any chance of changing the date? Thanks and best wishes. Dmass (talk) 15:52, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Hi Dmass and a merry Yuletide to you too. Yes, an excess of enthusiasm on my part. Looking for a last-minute filler for 29 February, Boulez seemed suitably quirky and I omitted to check TFAP. Apologies. I have already pulled it and am copying in Wehwalt, who will be scheduling March. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Perfect thanks! And just to be clear, it's 26 March 2025. I don't even know if things are scheduled that far in advance, are they? Dmass (talk) 16:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Currently the latest entry on Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/pending is 3 October 2025. M Boulez has already got his slot there booked. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Fantastic, thank you! Dmass (talk) 16:19, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
That sounds fine with me too. Wehwalt (talk) 17:27, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Next one?

Any objection to my making another nomination at FAC as I await the coin dropping?--Wehwalt (talk) 00:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Answered on FAC page for transparency and so the other coordinators know about it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:31, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

FTC

Hello, I had sent you a mail a while back. It would be a good idea for someone to start looking at clearing up the backlog at this point. Is there something specific we want to wait for?--NØ 17:18, 12 January 2024 (UTC) I sent an email back two days ago. I shall resend it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I sent an email reply two days ago. I shall resend it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Gog the Mild. I’d like to bring more automobile articles to FAs, as there’s only five. So I’m currently working on one based on the Chevrolet Volt. Can you check this draft to see if (so far) its prose satisfies FA standards. I’d just like some minor comments and possible feedback so that as I continue this draft, I know that I am doing the correct thing. Warm regards, 750h+ (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. In brief, the prose is impressively good, but not close to what you will need for FAC; see my more detailed comments on the draft's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Much thanks Gog the Mild for these suggestions. It may take a while but I hope to see myself at FAC in a few months or so. 750h+ (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Referencing notes

Hi Gog, thank you for your edit to Seven regarding the footnotes and for, in all the encounters I've had with you, being fair and even handed. I wanted to ask, is there a way to make the note "[note 1]" say something briefer? Like NB1 or something or roman numerals? Or does it have to say "note"? Thanks Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:48, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Flattery will get you everywhere. I ought to charge for this. Come to think of it, you will be amazed at how many detailed and critical reviews you now owe me. What do you think about what I have done? You can play yourself by referring to Template:Efn. Enjoy. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind doing reviews if asked, I don't tend to notice who has nominated because I only really look at ones in areas I'm interested in such as video games and films but I've done a couple for a... singer I think it was and a television star of some description. What you've changed it too is perfect, I just like to keep things neat and small so that works brilliantly. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:FAC advice?

Hi, Gog. As you've been both very active in the milhist domain, and have a whole bunch of FAs, I was hoping to pick your brain for a bit of advice. Totally understand if you don't have the time :)

I've managed to get a couple of articles to GA level (Einar Mäkinen, Finnish III Corps (Continuation War), Finnish VI Corps (Continuation War), Ryti–Ribbentrop Agreement, Polttoainehankinta), and was hoping for some feedback on whether any of them looked promising enough to push towards FA level. I appreciate that Milhist A-class review is the logical intermediate step and I'm not going to skip it, but I'd hate to spend lot of work on A-classing something that definitely lacks the wings for an eventual FA. If you have any tips or comments, they'd be greatly appreciated!

Thanks, Ljleppan (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 60

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 60, November – December 2023

  • Three new partners
  • Google Scholar integration
  • How to track partner suggestions

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --13:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

William Y. Slack

A draft blurb is here. Feel free to amend as needed; it came in at 998 characters per Google docs. Hog Farm Talk 13:49, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:54, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:13, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

Notice of neutral point of view noticeboard discussion

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Grant's canal

TFA blurb draft is at User:Hog Farm/Canal blurb. I need to work the same new source into Duckport Canal and Battle of Grand Gulf as well. It might not hurt to have someone look over the changes to the canal article to make sure I didn't add any spelling errors or "Missouri English". Hog Farm Talk 04:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Long time no see, old friend :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Why thank you. Good to see you too, and your random comma. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Second War of Scottish Independence, introduced (in 2022): "After six FACs (and three GANs) on episodes from Edward III's war against Scotland I now offer up the overview. This article attempts to summarise the 25 years of the Second War of Scottish Independence. Which probably caused the Hundred Years' War and even ground on for 11 years after Edward captured the Scottish king. What to include, what to leave out, what to summarise down? Oh me, oh my!" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the good placement of Nestor Makhno today! - Listen to music from Ukraine if you like, - I heard it in 2022, and the November concert (at a different church) raised a truckload of winter clothes. My story today is also from my life: I heard the singer in 3 of the 4 mentioned musical items. I sang in yesterday's. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

more music and flowers on Rossini's rare birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:40, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 February newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup is off to a flying start, with 135 participants. This is the largest number of participants we have seen since 2017.

Our current leader is newcomer Generalissima (submissions), who has one FA on John Littlejohn (preacher) and 10 GAs and 12 DYKs mostly on New Zealand coinage and Inuit figures. Here are some more noteworthy scorers:

As a reminder, competitors may submit work for the first round until 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February, and the second round starts 1 March. Remember that only the top 64 scoring competitors will make it through to the second round; currently, competitors need at least 15 points to progress. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. However, please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs which could otherwise be caused by the Cup. As ever, questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Questions about FA process

Hi! You seem like one of the most experienced editors involved in the FA process and I have quite literally no experience. I started Free and Candid Disquisitions last month with an eye towards putting it up as a FAC sometime this monthish. It passed something of an easy GAR, which leaves me with a couple questions: since I'm new to FAC, should I try my hand first at reviewing a couple FACs (or FA-minded peer reviews) before nominating my own work? Additionally, should I request a peer review before putting Free and Candid Disquisitions up as a FAC? No rush on reply! ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I am a strong believer that reviewing disparate FACs improves ones own writing. Plus a bit of name recognition at FAC helps persuade editors to put the work into PR and FAC to help an article over the line. A lot of first time noms time out for lack of reviewer interest. Taking articles through GAN is also good practice. My standard advice to inexperienced editors is to run 20 or 30 articles through GAN before thinking about FAC. (I did 42.) Meanwhile review 6 or 8 or 10 "straight forward" articles at FAC, staring with a couple of real gimmes. Then one may be ready to put a nomination through FAC. Of course, no one has ever been happy with this suggestions. Definitely it needs a PR. Consider asking people to have a look at it there, especially those whose FAC noms you have reviewed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

I have been doing lots and lots of research, and I think I now understand what you were all talking about. There's been a paradigm shift in the last twenty years in Middle Ages studies! I had no idea! All the material I referenced was from the old view. I am not a Middle Ages expert, indeed, it is no doubt my weakest area, but I am now learning more about the Middle Ages than I ever wanted to know! I am at the reading and gathering stage right now, but eventually I will throw out what's there and redo the entire section. It will be a better article as a result. It wasn't until you said something that I believed there was a genuine problem and went looking. That's ass backwards, and I just wanted you to know I'm sorry for being such a pain. Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fine Jen; none of us know what we don't know. Kudos to you for listening and taking the other views on board rather than doubling down. I think a problem with that article is that you are going to need to be moderately expert at quite a few areas, but I look forward to seeing the improved article. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I am discovering exactly that. I am moderately expert in about half of what I need, but then who is expert in all eras of history?! It's been very difficult to write. I appreciate your gracious response. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I think I have done everything that was asked by everyone in the peer review. At least, I have attempted to. I got about a dozen new broad "History of..." sources, though they had the same information, it is all now cited differently. I couldn't figure out exactly what kind of bias I was supposed to be indulging in, so I don't know if I fixed that, but I removed all mention of "corruption", leaving only one sentence on the "continued failings of a succession of popes" in hopes that fixed it. I removed the interpretation and evaluation you hated, beefed up the section on Antiquity, and completely rewrote Middle Ages dividing it into two sections instead of one. The article is now 1000 words longer than it was, but it is more comprehensive. I have been working on this article for 2 years now. I am not a Middle Ages scholar, so I am hoping you will be willing to offer some real help by taking a look at it and telling where it might still need improvement. Please. I'll try not to be argumentative. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Battle of La Haye-du-Puits

Gog, what happened to User talk:Gog the Mild/Battle of La Haye-du-Puits? Can it be released? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Hawkeye7, unfortunately it went onto my to do list and stayed there. My content creation has been poor recently - I haven't nominated a FAC for nine months. It is here - User:Gog the Mild/Battle of La Haye-du-Puits. Please feel free to publish it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

FA review

I have nominated Edward I of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Jim Killock (talk) 21:28, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to join New pages patrol

Hello Gog the Mild!

  • The New Pages Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles needing review. We could use a few extra hands to help.
  • We think that someone with your activity and experience is very likely to meet the guidelines for granting.
  • Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time, but it requires a strong understanding of Wikipedia’s CSD policy and notability guidelines.
  • Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision, and feel free to post on the project talk page with questions.
  • If patrolling new pages is something you'd be willing to help out with, please consider applying here.

Thank you for your consideration. We hope to see you around!

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive:
  • On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
  • Barnstars will be awarded.
  • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

FAC Supports

It has been more than a year since I last supported at FAC, but I might be able to make an exception at Capri-Sun -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:43, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Carpe diem! The coordinators appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 March newsletter

The first round of the 2024 WikiCup ended at 23:59 (UTC) on 27 February. Everyone with at least 30 points moved on to Round 2, the highest number of points required to advance to the second round since 2014. Due to a six-way tie for the 64th-place spot, 67 contestants have qualified for Round 2.

The following scorers in Round 1 all scored more than 300 points:

In this newsletter, the judges would like to pay a special tribute to Vami_IV (submissions), who unfortunately passed away this February. At the time of his death, he was the second-highest-scoring competitor. Outside the WikiCup, he had eight other featured articles, five A-class articles, eight other good articles, and two Four Awards. Vami also wrote an essay on completionism, a philosophy in which he deeply believed. If you can, please join us in honoring his memory by improving one of the articles on his to-do list.

Remember that any content promoted after 27 February but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Help?

Okay so what pray tell is St Mark, Granchester? See page 116 for 1976, Obioma Chebechi Okolo. A church?, a parish? something else entirely? Would a registry office have a saint name - possibly in the UK because there is a state religion? I only see a reference to a television show on the University of Cambridge page and in Tunnels in popular culture a reference to Granchester manor. Since you are my resident "British expert" I am positive that you know exactly what this is, because, because, because you're the expert. SusunW (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

It will be the church where the marriage ceremony took place. Ie, here. Where it says "St Mark’s a daughter church of St Andrew and St Mary, Grantchester". Although "Newnham became an independent parish" in 1918, it will have retained the 'Grantchester' to distinguish it from other St Mark's. That what you needed? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Er, why are you throwing in mention of a "registry office"? Do you know that they had a civil ceremony, or are you thrown by the mention of a "registrar"? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:19, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Soooo confusing. I would never have gotten there. And basically, it tells me that there isn't a WP article, but I'm confused how I should list it, as St Mark's Church, Granchester (per my source) or Grantchester (per your source) or St Mark's Church Gran(t)chester in Newnham? (And yes, I assumed it was a civil ceremony, which is irrelevant for my article about her. In the US, even if you marry in a church it is always a civil ceremony and the officiant says, by the authority vested in me by the state of X - no such thing as a religious marriage that isn't a civil partnership. I just thought that the registration office might be called St Mark's, like it would be if you married at the St. Louis County Courthouse in Missouri.) Despite that I am still confused about how to show it in the article, I truly appreciate you and your help. SusunW (talk) 18:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It is St Mark's Church, Newnham, a red link. Ignore the Grantchester stuff, that is an internal, ecclesiastical, historical holdover. I strongly assume they were married in the church. The fact that this ceremony was then recorded by the civil authorities - ie J B Gray, the local registrar - is something else again, all marriages would be. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
In passing, the Church of St Andrew and St Mary, Grantchester is the inspiration of the well known and famous poem The Old Vicarage, Grantchester, quoted by prime ministers; and the parish is supposed to have the world's highest concentration of Nobel Prize winners. The village inspired a Pink Floyd song. I shall now reread the poem, while sipping a tea. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I saw that you gave me a redlink. Appreciate it very much. So happy I could inspire your literary waltz down memory lane with your tea. Who knew my Nigerian parasitologist would have ties to the parish with the "world's highest concentration of Nobel Prize winners". Frankly, I was quite happy just to have found the marriage record which gave her maiden name and which was then confirmed in the records of the university. You're the best! SusunW (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Question

Please, could you take a minute and explain what bias you saw in History of Christianity? I am afraid my understanding might be wrong, and if it is, I might not have fixed it. Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:17, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jenhawk777 and I trust that things are going well in your world. I assume - and hope - that the above is a boilerplate query. I don't think that I ever suggested bias. From memory I did suggest that you may have been over generalising and over simplifying a complex issue (Christianity) over a wide area (Western Europe) and long period (several centuries) based on just one or two sources to the point where summary style became misleading. From your comments seven posts above you seem to broadly accept this. Is there some miscommunication? If so, perhaps you could elaborate and/or specify? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:16, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Question

My question was old enough I think it got archived. I saw you had responded in my notifications. Thank you. I know you're busy. If there is confusion, I'm sure it's mine. I posted on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see if others agreed with the assertion of bias, and I thought your response was "Of course it's biased." I think now - maybe - you meant a western bias, while I think - maybe - Borsoka meant an anti-Catholic bias. I probably do have the first one but not the second. I am trying to fix both. I am in the process of adding all I can find on the East. I've done Antiquity and am still working in my sandbox on Middle Ages but will have something there soon.

As to the second, in an effort to be concise, I see now that my summary was misleading. I have now divided the section most in question into two sections - High and Late Middle Ages - which shows the transition better and offers multiple causes for decline rather than making it seem as if there was one primary cause.

I am adding sources, but they all say basically the same things. I am including more explanation which hopefully will help with neutrality. At any rate, I wanted to be sure I had responded fully to where you noted the need for improvement. I tried to be sure I took out everything you objected to and anything I could find like it. If there is anything else you see that needs attention, I would be deeply grateful for any and all comments. Your input is invaluable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

I can only see CMT at NPV, which I managed to miss and didn't comment on at all. The only article of yours I recall commenting on was HoC at FAC, or maybe PR. So, absent specificity, I assumed you meant that.
No need to add lots of sources if they all say the same. But squirrel them away, so if challenged you can establish that what you are repeating the consensus of the HQ RSs, not some HQ outlier. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Hey if you could, would you go here Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Christianity/1 and make a comment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
[[1]] but as I look back, it does seem like a continuation of peer review more than a discussion of neutrality. It's moot now anyway. At the reassessment page someone suggested moving this article to History of western Christianity, so I did in hopes that would resolve the conflict over it being western biased. Thank you for all your help.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
@Jenhawk777: Can I go back to my suggestion at PR? "... run 20 or 30 articles through GAN before thinking about FAC. (I did 42.) Then nominate 6 or 8 or 10 "straight forward" articles at FAC, staring with a couple of real gimmes, ideally in the same broad subject area as the target "complex topic". Then one may be ready to put some real toughies through FAC. Of course, no one has ever been happy with these suggestions." The history of Christianity consists of hundreds, thousands, of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sub-sub-sub ... Why not pick one of these, whatever you feel you are strong on (History of Late Medieval Christianity in Western Europe, Nestorianism in south and east Asia during the twelve century, whatever) and work it up to GAN. Then do another. Then another. You will be playing to your strengths, any problems will be much more circumscribed, and you will be getting steady positive reinforcement rather than negative. Only when you are long past ready for it move up to meatier topics (The Reformation, the Coptic Church, dum diversas, whatever). Having done much work on some of the sub-articles you will be already broadly familiar with the sources, the scholarly consensuses and PoVs, and reader, editor and reviewer issues and objections; you should be able to do a fair bit of cut and pasting. Wa da ya think? The ultimate aim would be to come back to HoC with such a fund of knowledge and experience that putting it through FAC is feasible.
Another thought - there is no end to them - find a collaborator. Ideally one whose strengths match your weaknesses - which of course is frequently a recipe for not getting on . You seem to be well on top of the sources and thematic/historic development; there must be editors strong on the written and unwritten rules of Wikipedia re GAN (initially you don't need to think about FAC, get the GAs rolling out (an FAC collaborator would be a trickier ask)) whom you wouldn't find too objectionable and who would be willing to split the workload.
Any hoo, the best of luck with the Christianity articles, certainly many of them could do with improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
You suggested this some years ago, and while this particular article doesn't reflect that, I have actually tried to comply. While I don't think there are any in this topic area that would be "gimmes", I do acknowledge that there certainly are shorter ones. Perhaps the problem is that once I get ahold of them, they all become long articles...
I do not have anywhere near 30 GAs! I have 7. I have not been highly motivated to nominate others, but perhaps you're right and I should pursue that more. At any rate, this is the first article since Biblical criticism that I was willing to suffer through to get FA for it.
Fair enough. Stick with it.
Does the title change help?
Yep. Although it may raise new problems.
Apparently it has. It seems impossible to please everyone. Perhaps it is time for me to move on to something else. I have spent 2 years on this article. That's enough. No FA, but at least it is GA - if it survives the reassessment!
I am blessed and fortunate enough to have more than one collaborator. They are strong where I am not, and all that produces is a deep and abiding appreciation. Some of the best people I've ever met are on Wikipedia - you included - and they often help me! You are the only FA person I have any contact with though as far as I know. Somehow I doubt that makes you my collaborator however. But I appreciate the good wishes and the good advice. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
You have been fortunate. I have only had a collaborator for two GANs and 4 FACs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

You know what? You are pretty fun! I appreciate the chat. If you ever want me to collaborate on anything, let me know and I will make it first priority. The only thing that could prevent that would be something in real life. And I would explain hopefully... At any rate, I would love to collaborate with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 61

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024

  • Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
  • 1Lib1Ref results

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ojos del Salado/archive1.
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Jo-Jo, I always keep an eye on your articles and try to chip in a review if they look as if they need it. Mostly because I like to 'reward' nominators who are also frequent reviewers. I have been busy in RL recently and a number of my Wikipedia activities are in arrears. Looking at Ojos, I don't think it needs further general reviews - although the closing coordinator will no doubt give it a quick copy edit. What it needed was a source review. I was girding my loins to take this on, but note that the ever helpful Hawkeye has just jumped in. So, hopefully, you'll be wrapping this one up soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I

Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:

  • Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
  • Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
  • Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
  • Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
  • Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
  • Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
  • Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
  • Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
  • Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
  • Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
  • Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
  • Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
  • Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
  • Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
  • Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
  • Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
  • Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.

To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

FAC question

Since you were the FAC coordinator leaving queries on my FAC, I figured I'd ask you if there is anything else that I need to get done for it. There are multiple prose supports and now no opposes, although this is my first FAC, so I'm not sure if there is a set number of supports needed to pass. As for the image and source reviews, neither has been marked as passed or failed, but both reviewers have responded after I addressed their concerns. -- ZooBlazer 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi ZooBlazer, for future reference, this sort of query is better posed on the FAC page, but no big deal. Image and source reviews: yeah, sometimes they can be a bit laconic; I am taking both as passes. The standard reviewing is ticking along well, but is a little thin at the moment for a first time nomination. I've added it to urgents and will ask around for an additional experienced reviewer. The article also also needs a first-timer's source check and I have asked Jo-Jo if they will oblige. (You can pay them back by reviewing an article or two of theirs. Eg Mount Hudson.) So chill for now, you are probably on the home straight and there is nothing that you currently need to be doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Introduction
  • Membership news, obituary and election results
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes and the Requests page
  • Closing words
– Your Guild coordinators: Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Question re wikiproject status

Hi. do you wish to remain active, as one of the wikiproject coordinators at WikiProject History? Please advise. whatever you prefer is totally fine; I simply wanted to clarify. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

FAC apology

Hello. I wanted to apologize for my behavior during the FAC for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article. I should have taken a step back and a deep breath to clear my head and to try and engage with the conversation in a more productive manner. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, that is very good of you and I appreciate it. I would like to see BtVS:WotDK back at FAC; it was a solid article which seemed not far off passing to me. Take care and keep well. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind response. I hope you take care as well and have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 16:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Battle of New Carthage, introduced: "Another in the seemingly endless series of Second Punic War articles I have been nominating. This one sees a young Publius Cornelius Scipio demonstrating tactical innovation in his first full command – in Iberia. (Readers of my last FAC will recognise him as the man who was to eventually defeat Hannibal and win the war for the Romans.)" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Precious
Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Withdrawing FAR

Dearest editor,

I am inquiring on how to withdraw the FAR of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 14:05, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

DB9

Hi Gog the Mild. Hope I'm not bugging you or anything but could you possibly leave some comments on this peer review about the Aston Martin DB9 article? Thanks (and don't feel obliged to.) Best,  750h+ | Talk  18:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi 750h+. Cars aren't really my thing, and I note that it has just gone to FAC anyway. If approaching the three-week mark it is struggling to find reviewers, give me another ping and I may be able to have a look at it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh that's fine, this was for the peer review. Now its at FAC, it should attract more attention.  750h+ | Talk  14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There's optimism... or FAC  :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Big Raven Formation

Hey Gog, I would like your thoughts about nominating the Big Raven Formation article for FA. I'm not sure if it's too technical for the average reader to understand. Volcanoguy 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Volcanoguy, I see that you have nominated it anyway. I have a fair bit on, but I will try to fit a review in if I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I decided to nominate it because the GA reviewer (a non-geology expert) said the article was easy enough for them to understand. Volcanoguy 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Fine. Hopefully I will get to have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mentorship proposal

Dear Gog the Mild, I am writing after stumbling upon your message on the talk page of the article on Markos Botsaris. I am interested in finding a mentor to provide assistance towards my first nomination of an article for the status of Featured Article, namely the article on the battle of Meligalas. I know that you are not listed among those volunteering for the role, but I have already written a message to Peacemaker67 to no avail and I noticed you have successfully nominated numerous articles relating to military history, so I am wondering whether you would be interested in undertaking this role and providing your guidance. Regardless, I send you my regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing.

Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC).

Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here.

Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

WikiCup 2024 April newsletter

We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.

Our current top scorers are as follows:

Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Pre-FAC

Gog, do you think Battle of Poison Spring is close enough to FA standard to dispense with the A-Class review? Three of the major sources need to go back to the library by May 17 so I'm hoping to get the FAC started sooner rather than later. Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mount Hudson/archive1.
Message added 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Greetings, just pinging in case you have anything else to add to the comments there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 7 reviews between January and March 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Books & Bytes – Issue 62

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024

  • IEEE and Haaretz now available
  • Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
  • Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Eternal Blue

No offense taken, the notice was nice, but given I received the notice perhaps you would like to know who I am. I've been to FAC before, just not under my current username. I just changed my username a few weeks ago. I'm the same one who repaired Dookie and had it run on the front page a couple months ago. 😛 mftp dan oops 05:21, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 25 April 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:48, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 May newsletter

The second round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 April. This round was particularly competitive: each of the 32 contestants who advanced to Round 3 scored at least 141 points. This is the highest number of points required to advance to Round 3 since 2014.

The following scorers in Round 2 all scored more than 500 points:

The full scores for Round 2 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 18 featured articles, 22 featured lists, and 186 good articles, 76 in the news credits and at least 200 did you know credits. They have conducted 165 featured article reviews, as well as 399 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 21 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 April but before the start of Round 3 can be claimed during Round 3, which starts on 1 May at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:37, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Reminder to vote now to select members of the first U4C

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to other languages.

Dear Wikimedian,

You are receiving this message because you previously participated in the UCoC process.

This is a reminder that the voting period for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) ends on May 9, 2024. Read the information on the voting page on Meta-wiki to learn more about voting and voter eligibility.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members were invited to submit their applications for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

Please share this message with members of your community so they can participate as well.

On behalf of the UCoC project team,

RamzyM (WMF) 23:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)


RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Your EotW nomination

back in early March is finally working its way up to the top of the queue. I have recently started to award mid-week in addition to Sunday in order to speed up the process and get the awards where they belong--on the editors talk page. I am updating the nomination just a bit. Thanks for all you do! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Good idea. Nice to see the award so busy. It doesn't seem that long ago that we were scratching around trying to find worthy recipients. Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Agreed! A crowded Queue is a good problem to have. Don't hesitate to nominate is still the active thought. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
Welcome back. Just in time to congratulate your nominee. TRA Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal

Can you quickly read the lead section of narwhal and comment on the prose? Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 06:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments; I addressed them. So, what do you think of the article's state right now? Is it ready? Please let me know. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Rapide

hi gog, welcome back from the trip :). hope i’m not rushing you or anything but this FAC has three supports, and a source review and image review both completed (it’s been open for nearly a month). mind taking a look at it? thanks and best! 750h+ 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

How strange, that was literally the last thing I was looking at. And thinking that I agree with FrB.TG. Let's see if we can get another reviewer to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
Ok, i’ll see if i can get somebody. Editor PCN02WPS kindly decided to leave comments :). 750h+ 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
PCN finished his review, and it seems like he’ll be leaving a support :). 750h+ 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: little friendly ping 😬 (sorry it's been two days, probably just my impatience) 750h+ 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
As it happens, I have started looking at the article. Although I am now tempted to look at one which has been waiting longer instead. Pipe down and take a class in patience, or I shall ask Serial Number to have a little chat with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
whoops, understood 750h+ 14:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
(Non-gimme gimme gimme comment) This whole gimme gimme gimme approach is frankly disgusting. ——Serial Number 54129 15:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Input request @ Talk:Jinn

also Pre-RfC stage info:
  • Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thanks so much for all of your hard work and help with the Featured Article process! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Wow! No one ever gets thanked for that! I am touched, and your thoughtfulness is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Siege of Guînes (1352), introduced (in 2022): "Just when you thought it was safe to visit FAC after I had declared that there would be no more of my Edwardian Hundred Years' War articles, I find one down the back of the sofa. A fairly typical event from this conflict, of which enough has survived into the modern sources to reconstruct reasonably well." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Question about FAC process

First off, thank you for your pre-review comments here. I nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC early last month, with three full reviews resulting in three supports. An image review was completed at the outset and addressed a single concern. However, I am worried that three supports and a neutral image review might be interpreted as insufficient to establish a consensus for promotion. Is there an informal minimum number of supports necessary to establish a consensus? If so, do you have recommendations about next steps? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, I've noticed that FAC nominators have been burdening regulars with a lot of questions lately. I apologize if this sounds like just another squeaky wheel, and I fully understand if you'd rather not respond here. Thank you for your work as a coordinator. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Well spotted. No problem. If you become a nuisance I will either ignore you or, more likely, tell you so. I only count two general supports - from UC and SC. Am I missing something? The number, type and quality of supports needed for any given nomination is more of an art than a science. That said, 1. it needs more, 2. it is ticking along nicely, 3. I have nudged a couple of potential reviewers, and 4. I had been thinking of looking at that one myself, I am not sure why it dropped off my radar. I may be able to go through it tomorrow. First FACs are always a bit nerve wracking, but I see nothing that need alarm you so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Your coordinator comments are appreciated. To point 4, don't feel an impetus to rush a review, as I have limited availability tomorrow. To point 1, I think I must have not understood something correctly: is a pass on a source review like that performed by Dugan Murphy (with the caveat that, as a first-timer, I needed a more in-depth one) not interchangeable with a support? If not, I'm very appreciative that you clarified that point! Don't expect further pinging/talk page messages from me unless you make comments first or something goes horribly awry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Pbritti, generally FAC requirements are divided into a pass for each of images and sources, and general supports; with the supports seen as separate things. Each of the two former need one pass for each and a nomination a bare minimum of three of the latter, but usually more. Reviewers' nomenclature is not always clear to non-aficionados, and even when it is I realise that the whole of the FAC procedure can be a bit of a black box. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Your help through everything during the FAC was remarkably valuable. One of the most pleasant experiences thus far this year was telling my dad about the process this article underwent in order to reach FA status. Thanks for letting me know about the minimum character count for the TFA candidacy. There's a bit of a personal matter related to the TFA nom that I'd like to email you about, but only if you're open to receiving a message (something positive and not too serious). May I send an email to you via Wikipedia? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

~ Pbritti (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

FTC

Hey, just a heads up that I have sent an email regarding the FTC backlog. Cheers!—NØ 21:39, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

July TFAs

I'm looking for something Milhisty. Of yours, Battle of Zama looks tempting since it's a Vital Article. Is there another one you've nominated that hasn't run at TFA yet that you'd prefer? - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

While I'm here ... there are a couple of nominations I'm thinking of pushing into August, but before I do it I want to make sure that's okay by you: WP:Today's featured article/requests/Political history of medieval Karnataka and WP:Today's featured article/requests/Phoolan Devi. The first has failed a previous TFAR, but I don't know that Harizotoh9 (the TFAR nominator) is attached to this particular article, it might be that a rerun on Indian history would work for them. For the second, I'm always slightly worried that running a bio on the anniversary of the death might send a strange signal of some kind, so I don't think I can run this one in July. Also, it could really use an image. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi Dank, not really, Zama is fine. If you prefer another, maybe Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347? It is not a battle and took place 1,500 years after Zama, so there is little overlap. Neither are date specific. If one of them is scheduled, it would please me if could run on the 30th, but that should be a minor consideration.
I am happy to have both of those Indian-based articles in the August schedule. I can see why you wouldn't want to do anything which may be viewed as celebrating a person accused of multiple murders. I think we may struggle to find an image, but I will see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that too! Thanks much. I didn't have any problem with Zama, but now that you mention it, I'm a little more comfortable with the Hundred Years' War article. Although (my brain seems to be lagging behind my fingers) ... I'm not in a hurry to run either of these, if your preference is to run them on the anniversary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Neither have an anniversary as such, Zama in particular doesn't. (If that makes sense.) For me running either on whatever date you wish is fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Admin assistance

Hi Gog, if you have the time, we have an IP persistently disrupting an article with wrong-headed punctuation (latest example) -- been warned twice but I think it's time for admin intervention now, re. user or article or both... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Ian, some people need to get out more. I suspect that you may be confusing me with an admin. If I am wrong, please correct me; if I am not, perhaps David? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Ha, I could've sworn you went for it at some stage! Ah well, if I had a buck for each time I'd been mistaken for an admin I'd be able to retire now... Dan might also be interested...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Thx Ian, but it's been too long since I've reviewed the IP-blocking rules, I better not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I've watched the article, if there's another reversion I'll block. Sadly beyond being tendentious there's lots of chances IPs don't even see the talk page warnings these days so they're not as effective at deterrence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 12:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Tks guys. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
@David Fuchs: I reported it to WP:RFPP some while ago. Apparently we have to wait for Boston to wake up first though *shrug* ——Serial Number 54129 13:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I thought about it, a lot.

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.— SusunW (talk) 19:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

An officer at Lagos

Hi, I'm in the (slow) process of writing an article on Smith Callis, who commanded Culloden at Lagos. He was actually a rear-admiral at the time, but didn't know it yet! I wondered whether you remembered coming across any particular mentions on him while writing the FA? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:56, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

There is very little in the literature on Lagos, and running through it and a couple of other possible suspects I can find no mention of either Callis or Culloden. For all I can tell they were both still in Gibraltar trying to step masts by the time the battle ended. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Culloden took a hammering off Toulon in June 1759, reinforcing the theory that she may have been undergoing such extensive repairs when La Clue went by that she never got into the battle. Some ships sailed without their captains, some later caught up. There is a certain vagueness as to whether some didn't. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I won't be too worried if I can't dig up many detailed sources then (although in the Lagos article you do have Culloden engaging Centaur?). Re Toulon, that's what I'm tackling next for Callis. Might be worth a separate article; Culloden with 16 men killed and 26 wounded, having to be pulled out of battery range by the fleet boats! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Funnily enough I am currently rereading Hornblower, wasn't he in command of the fleet boats? Oops, well spotted; yes, Culloden was the first ship to engage - enraging Boscowen by not by passing Centaure and going for the main French fleet. That's in McLynn, which I have. Sadly that is about all he says on the Culloden. Which doesn't even make the index, hence my missing it first time through. I have to go to Troude - in French and from 1867 - to even confirm Callis as the captain of Culloden. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2024 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June 2024 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Wanted: new Guild coordinators! If you value and enjoy the GOCE, why not help out behind the scenes? Nominations for our mid-year coordinator election are now open until 23:59 on 15 June (UTC). Self-nominations are welcome. Voting commences at 00:01 on 16 June and continues until 23:50 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page.

Blitz: Nine of the fourteen editors who signed up for the April 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 55,853 words comprising twenty articles. Barnstars awarded are available here.

Drive: 58 editors signed up for our May 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive and 33 of those completed at least one copy edit. 251 articles and 475,952 words were copy edited. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: Our June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz will begin on 16 June and finish on 22 June. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 05:23, 8 June 2024 (UTC) , GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 2,779 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

The Signpost: 8 June 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:26, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Procedural question

On a recent FA review the nominator and I got stymied on whether or not sources that discuss "idealism", a philosophical set of theories, can be summarized as "idealists", a group of people, when there is no source that actually says idealists. Is that fair summarizing or is it OR?

Is the answer context sensitive? There are three main types of idealism, and while there are some things in common with them all - enabling one to speak of idealism as an umbrella term - I would guess there are no groups of people who support them all - or groups of people who just support the general commonalities and not specific views - or groups of people referenced in any source we could find.

To complicate things, the term 'idealists' also has broader connotations. It's often used to describe optimists and others who have no real connection to the philosophical view at all. But comparing theories without recognizing it's people that hold them is kind of silly, and those who uphold them are fairly described as 'idealists'.

I kind of made a big deal about removing idealists and changing it to idealism, with lesser claims about it, so I need to know if I was right or wrong, by FA standards. Just in case anyone ever has the balls to ask me to do an FA review ever again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

I am quite sure that I will be so asking. Reticence with regard to my balls when I do will be appreciated. Idealists: you were quite right IMHO. If it is not the consensus of the HQ RSs, then using "idealist" to describe one who supports, believes in or promotes "idealism" is OR. Without going back to the review, it seems like a good catch to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
I was going to send you the link to the section where we discussed it, but of course it's been archived now, and getting to it's a pain in the patootie. If you feel like going to the trouble, the discussion is under Types of existing entities in the Physical and Mental section. But this summarizes the issue fairly I think. The nominating editor Phlsph7|Phlsph7 cooperated even when he didn't really agree, and was generally very reasonable with my detailed review, so it became moot, but I still needed to know. I felt that erring on the side of caution for FA was right. If you agree, I don't really care what anyone else says... (I hope you understand I am incapable of communicating without emoticons). Thank you! You're the best! Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:04, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Anna Lee Fisher

This is a BLP article, and scheduling it for 24 August means that I will be travelling, and unable to watch it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

You supported the nomination for the 24th yourself, which is an appropriate date. I see no particular reason why you have to be able to watch it, and there is a co-nominator. So I am disinclined to move it or swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't want you to swap it, I just want you to watch it. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ah! Yes, happy to do that. Having had 50 or so of mine go through TFA I know the sort of nonsense that comes up. I'll try and stay on top of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 July newsletter

The third round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 28 June. As with Round 2, this round was competitive: each of the 16 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 256 points.

The following editors all scored more than 400 points in Round 3:

The full scores for round 3 can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 28 featured articles, 38 featured lists, 240 good articles, 92 in the news credits, and at least 285 did you know credits. They have conducted 279 featured article reviews, as well as 492 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 22 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed during Round 4, which starts on 1 July at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Leave

Hi, can I nominate narwhal for FAC? Thanks, Wolverine XI (talk to me) 07:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Not until 16:29 UTC. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 2 reviews between April and June 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Sher Shah Suri

As you might recall from my previous nomination, I'm trying to get Sher Shah Suri to FA status. You're clearly a much more experienced editor than me who has had a vast experience with FA articles. I've begun working on improving the prose, but do you have any possible tips to advise me, or even a guide? Thanks -- Noorullah (talk) 06:41, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC

Can you please tell me what went wrong at the Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex FAC? Was it something I said? If so don't take it personal; I was having not the greatest day when I was responding to your comments. I do, of course, appreciate the article problems you brought up at the FAC. Volcanoguy 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah. I felt a need to have a very slow count to ten, which is not something that happens often. I should have got back to the review - one way or another - before now. RL got in the way. I'll try, hard, to wrap up a review, as objectively as I can, today or tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. I shouldn't respond to anyone while I'm not in a good mood. Volcanoguy 15:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
I've renominated this article at FAC if you want to continue reviewing the article. Volcanoguy 20:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Barnstar of Diligence
Hey Gog, thanks again for stepping in as a temporary coordinator over at FGTC! My best wishes for what sounds like an exciting vacation. – Aza24 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Aza24, that's very generous of you. Especially considering how little work I ended up doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 63, May – June 2024

  • One new partner
  • 1Lib1Ref
  • Spotlight: References check

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 July 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

An apology

I apologize without qualification for snapping at you at FAC the other day. Life has been crazy for me lately, but that isn't your fault and you didn't do anything to deserve the rude tone I directed at you. I took the weekend off from Wikipedia to cool down. It's easy for me as a nominator to forget that the coords are a few brave souls handling a huge number of nominations at once, and I should have better communicated that while I had been inactive due to life circumstances, I was going to get to work on addressing the remaining comments. I really do appreciate how much work you put in at FAC, it's a thankless job and I personally couldn't handle it if I tried. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347, introduced (in 2021): "An overarching article for a period of the Hundred Years' War where a lot happened - little of it to French benefit. Much of it became known as the English King's annus mirabilis. Francophile readers may wish to look away. This article attempts to summarise a number other articles, set them in context and fill the gaps between them."! - Great! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:17, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks

Project Editor Retention

This editor was willing to lend a helping hand!
Thanks for all you do to acknowledge others at the Editor of the Week Awards

Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 11:36, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre

Hello, in the article Second Battle of Cape Finisterre, does the sentence "By summer Anson was based ashore, in London" refer to both Anson and his forces? Thank you. P. ĐĂNG (talk) 05:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Given that naval forces (ships) cannot be based ashore it would seem redundant to "clarify" this. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

ping pong

Sadly, our notification system apparently doesn't consider Special:Diff/1238953018 to be a nice enough rendition of "please let this guy know I'm talking about him" which is why it took me so long to respond :-) RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

PS: T371948 if you're into that sort of thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

A-Class nomination

@Gog the Mild: This is a request for help; hopefully, you'll have the time and inclination to throw me a lifeline. In any case, I've been trying to nominate SPARS for an A-class review, but I'm struggling with the process even tho I've nominated several before. I've added A-Class=current to milhist, but I am unable to unhide the additional information header in the milhist project banner so I can load the required info.? While I'm a bit embarrassed to ask, I do believe the article is a worthy candidate for A-Class status. I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 01:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: The last clause of my above post is apparently in need of clarification; it was meant to say that I was embarrassed to ask for help in nominating the SPARS article and that it was a worthy A-class candidate. In good faith, Pendright (talk) 18:06, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi Pickersgill-Cunliffe, as a friendly admin who knows something about these things. In trying to help I have managed to redirect Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS ! Note the extra Wikipedia at the start. D'oh! No, I have no idea what I was thinking either. What I think needs to happen is for the latter to be deleted, or marked for deletion, and the former to be "unredirected" and left as a standard page. I think one needs to be an admin to do that. Any chance you could help out? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS now exists as a blank page. I'll leave you to fill it out from there! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:58, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the rapid response Pickersgill-Cunliffe, much appreciated. Pendright, after you clicked on "currently undergoing", did you enter all of the requested information? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: My problem is how to unhide currently undergoing so I can click on it. Thanks! Pendright (talk) 19:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: When I click on currently undergoing, this is the result: A page with this title has previously been moved or deleted.
If you are creating a new page with different content, please continue. If you are recreating a page similar to the previously deleted page, or are unsure, please first contact the user(s) who performed the action(s) listed below.
18:56, 8 August 2024 Pickersgill-Cunliffe talk contribs deleted page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS/archive1 (G8: Redirect to deleted page "Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS") Tag: Twinkle (thank)
18:38, 8 August 2024 Gog the Mild talk contribs moved page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS/archive1 to Wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SPARS (Try again) (thank) Your help is appreciaed. Pendright (talk) 21:48, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 220, August 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 14 August 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:48, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

Question

I'm not sure how busy you are currently, but a few years back you GA reviewed Philip III of France for me. If you have time, would you be interested in GA reviewing Louis VIII of France for me? It is allowable to ask? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2024 (UTC)

Kansas Bear , i is certainly allowed. I am about to go away for the weekend. Remind me on Tuesday would you? This isn't a yes, but it does tickle my fancy. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:32, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
No problem! Thanks for considering it. Have a peaceful weekend. --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Hiking in the Scottish Highlands. Hopefully the weather will be a little better than on my user page. It's Scotland, so you never know. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hope your weekend went well. What are your thoughts concerning Louis VIII of France? --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:42, 21 August 2024 (UTC)

Troika

Hello Gog, just thought I would give you a heads up and let you know that some of your points of concern for Troika have been addressed and I managed to work on the article to (hopefully) fix those issues. Paleface Jack (talk) 01:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

TFA again

story · music · places

Thank you today for Battle of Winwick, introduced (in 2023): "Last month I was idly browsing the Historic England Register of Historic Battlefields, which only has 47 entries. As one does. I looked up on Wikipedia a couple which I didn't recognise immediately. Then ... drumroll ... I found one not on Wikipedia! The last battle of the English Civil Wars did not have an article." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Brighton hotel bombing/archive1

Hi there Gog the Mild. I noticed you had promoted this article although there were outstanding points of disagreement. Is this because you didn't think these points were actionable, or because you didn't notice? I was just standing up for the integrity of the FAC process on my user talk page, but this is making me wonder if I should reassess my view of it. Thanks for your consideration. John (talk) 11:12, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi John. I read through the whole review, and some sections several times. While it is always possible that there were actionable points of disagreement that I missed, I don't think that this was the case here. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2024 (UTC)

A drive-by review

Hey Gog, I dont want to bother you too much as you are busy. However, I recieved an unsigned review of my featured article nomination of Troika that is a little odd. Some of the user's critiques are very well founded, however some don't seem to line up with their criticism of it. I am not sure what to make of it and whatnot and I have made fixes to the ones that were legitimate. Just want your imput on that if you can. If not I completely understand, I am just thoroughly confused is all. Paleface Jack (talk) 20:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Hi PJ. If you mean the "Source and image review", that was by Jo-Jo Eumerus, a very experienced reviewer who has done a vast number of source reviews in particular. I think they simply forgot to sign it; unusual for them, but it happens.
I think Jo-Jo is forgetting that you are new and is rattling off their comments as if you were an FAC old hand who understood FAC-speak. (In some ways this is flattering.) You seem to be doing a perfectly good job of being assertive in response - where appropriate. Don't go too overboard on this, if Jo-Jo says something isn't covered by a source they are likely to have at least half a point. If necessary, quote the article text a cite supports, then quote the words in the cite(s) which support each part of the text. Does that make sense? Tedious I know, but sometimes it needs to be done.
Jo-Jo really does know what they are doing. Communicate with them. Agree where you can; where you can't, try to be clear what your differences are; and if necessary shout for me again.
That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It does a little. Was more confused with some of the citations they said did not have the info. Emailing a copy of the page is a bit difficult for me as I dont exactly have the faculties for that. Although I own a physical copy of the book whose pages he requested. Paleface Jack (talk) 21:06, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Can you scan or photograph the pages in question. With a smart phone you should be able to photograph and email a page in about 15 seconds.
"Was more confused with some of the citations they said did not have the info." Sometimes Wikipedia, and even more FAC, is just like that. AGF and hope that the scales of incomprehension will eventually fall from your interlocutor's eyes. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I understand. I don't exactly know where I would get his email. Paleface Jack (talk) 18:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page watcher) @Paleface Jack: It's in the sidebar on the left side of the page. Anyone who has an email activated on-wiki can be contacted via that link. As indeed can you  :) best, SerialNumber54129 19:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) No-one is safe...! (Unless you disable your wiki-mail, which you can do if you must)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:25, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 August newsletter

The fourth round of the 2024 WikiCup ended on 29 August. Each of the 8 contestants who advanced to Round 4 scored at least 472 points, and the following contestants scored more than 700 points:

Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated. Contestants put in extraordinary amounts of effort during this round, and their scores can be seen here. So far this year, competitors have gotten 36 featured articles, 55 featured lists, 15 good articles, 93 in the news credits, and at least 333 did you know credits. They have conducted 357 featured content reviews, as well as 553 good article reviews and peer reviews, and have added 30 articles to featured topics and good topics.

Any content promoted after 29 August but before the start of Round 5 can be claimed during Round 5, which starts on 1 September at 00:00 (UTC). Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. If two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether for a good article, featured content, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Remember to claim your points within 14 days of earning them, and importantly, before the deadline on 31 October.

If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please see this page. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:12, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Voting for coordinators is now open!

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:40, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Crecy location controversy

Hello!

You seem to be the guardian angel of the Battle of Crecy page, and I was wondering how you would feel about adding a section on the controversy over where the battle actually took place. Cards on the table, I think Livingston is wrong, but I think Wikipedia probably does need something on the issue given his recent book, his podcast appearances and its popularity. Hergrim (talk) 20:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since June. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election news: Project coordinators play an important role in our WikiProject. Following the mid-year Election of Coordinators, we welcomed Mox Eden to the coordinator team. Dhtwiki remains as Lead Coordinator, and Miniapolis and Wracking returned as assistant coordinators. If you'd like to help out behind the scenes, please consider taking part in our December election – watchlist our ombox for updates. Information about the role of coordinators can be found here.

Blitz: 13 of the 24 editors who signed up for the June 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 169,404 words comprising 41 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: 38 of the 59 editors who signed up for the July 2024 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 482,133 words comprising 293 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: 10 of the 15 editors who signed up for the August 2024 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited at least one article. Between them, they copy edited 71,294 words comprising 31 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: Sign up here to earn barnstars in our month-long, in-progress September Backlog Elimination Drive.

Progress report: As of 05:14, 11 September 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 233 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,824 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we do without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.

To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle gab1978 (talk) using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 64

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 64, July – August 2024

  • The Hindu Group joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Wikimania presentation
  • New user script for easily searching The Wikipedia Library

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:33, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 221, September 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open!

Voting for WikiProject Military history coordinators is now open! A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. Register your vote here by 23:59 UTC on 29 September! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Black carbon

An article that you have been involved in editing—Black carbon—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Chidgk1 (talk) 08:36, 22 September 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 September 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

RFA2024 update: Discussion-only period now open for review

Hi there! The trial of the RfA discussion-only period passed at WP:RFA2024 has concluded, and after open discussion, the RfC is now considering whether to retain, modify, or discontinue it. You are invited to participate at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase II/Discussion-only period. Cheers, and happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:38, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 The Coordinator stars 
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, in recognition of your election to the position of Coordinator, I take great pleasure in presenting you with the Coordinator's stars, and wish you the best of luck for the coming year! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Four Award

Hi Gog. I have a four award nom that's been sitting for a little over eight days now. Any chance you could take a look at it for me? If not, no worries; I can ask another coordinator on the list. Thanks in advance, ThaesOfereode (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity FA

I understand taking criticisms seriously, but I don't understand accepting them as accurate without a fact check. The swift archive prevented that. I'm deeply disappointed in how this was handled. Jenhawk777 (talk) 01:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Having reviewed every comment, what I see is that I was so concerned with being concise that I condensed to the point of leaving out critical information. None of what I said was wrong per sé, but it was incomplete enough to look like it was. So screw concise. That's somebody else's standard. What I am good at is thorough. I am reworking this and bringing it back. You're all going to get tired enough of me you will finally decide it's easier to work with me than run me off. Jenhawk777 (talk) 06:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 Military history reviewers' award 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between July and September 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Administrator Elections: Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates.

Here is the schedule:

  • October 8–14 - Candidate sign-up (we are here)
  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

  • The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
  • Prospective candidates are advised to become familar with the community's expectations of adminstrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
  • The process will have a one week call for candidates phase, a one week pause to set up SecurePoll, a three-day period of public discussion, followed by 7 days of no public discussion and a private vote using SecurePoll.
  • The outcomes of this process are identical to making requests for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA or administrator elections.
  • Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

To avoid sending too many messages, this will be the last mass message sent about administrator elections. If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:35, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Ouch

That sounds bad. Glad to hear you're recovering (or getting there). The rest of the coords also seemed to be having an off-week, hence my message above yours (the table might need quite a few updates). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:16, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

On another note, I don't believe I ever received the first-timer Featured Article Medal...I would be much obliged if you could do the honours? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Afternoon AJ, that's odd. I know I was involved in Ai-Khanoum's FAC. I shall pass your request on to the appropriate sub-committee for consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 October 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Discussion phase

Administrator Elections | Discussion phase

The discussion phase of the October 2024 administrator elections is officially open. As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 22–24 - Discussion phase
  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

During October 22–24, we will be in the discussion phase. The candidate subpages will open to questions and comments from everyone, in the same style as a request for adminship. You may discuss the candidates at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Discussion phase.

On October 25, we will start the voting phase. The candidate subpages will close again to public questions and discussion, and everyone will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Administrator Elections: Voting phase

Administrator Elections | Voting phase

The voting phase of the October 2024 administrator elections has started and continues until 23:59 31st October 2024 UTC. You can participate in the voting phase at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Voting phase.

As a reminder, the schedule of the election is:

  • October 25–31 - SecurePoll voting phase
  • November 1–? - Scrutineering phase

In the voting phase, the candidate subpages will close to public questions and discussion, and everyone who qualifies for a vote will have a week to use the SecurePoll software to vote, which uses a secret ballot. You can see who voted, but not who they voted for. Please note that the vote tallies cannot be made public until after voting has ended and as such, it will not be possible for you to see an individual candidate's tally during the election. The suffrage requirements are different from those at RFA.

Once voting concludes, we will begin the scrutineering phase, which will last for an indeterminate amount of time, perhaps a week or two. Once everything is certified, the results will be posted on the main election page. In order to be granted adminship, a candidate must have received at least 70.0% support, calculated as Support / (Support + Oppose). As this is a vote and not a consensus, there are no bureaucrat discussions ("crat chats").

Any questions or issues can be asked on the election talk page. Thank you for your participation. Happy electing.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Good advice

Hi Gog, long time no talk. Just a note to say that after my regrettable behaviour at the Tomb of Philip Pot FAC a few years ago, I took your advice and am now going the GA and full PR review route before nomination. And its much better! Anyways this is by way of thanks and sorry, having been too embarrassed to say anything until I could show that lessons were learned, esp considering the extensive reviews received from you over the years. Ceoil (talk) 16:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Aw, that is really good of you. You apologised handsomely at the time, but it has niggled me as to what I might have done differently to have avoided our falling out eighteen months ago. Nice to have it all definitively behind us. I'm pleased to hear that the GAN and PR route is working for you. If I get a chance I will drop by your recent nom. Take care.
PS, speaking of Philip Pot, a biography of John the Fearless, Duke of Burgundy, dropped through my letterbox this afternoon, so 15th-century Burgundians seem to be popular right now. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:08, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm interested in the Burgundian dukes as they were major patrons of the arts in the 14th and 15th centuries but frankly find them a bit fopish!
Foppish?! Definitely not John. Just skim the lead of John the Fearless.
Two articles which might be more up your street and have been thinking for working up to GAN are the tombs of the Black Prince and the Wolf of Badenoch; Edward especially was a hard man who dicated the details of his effigy and monument while dying in bed.
I agree re Edward, having taken three of his campaigns or battles through FAC and him having a major walk on role in several others. But his tomb, even though mentions of details crop up in modern descriptions of armour of the time (eg the gadlings ), is a bit specialist for me.
But nonetheless, glad very much that we are at peace,
Me too.
it was bugging me as I see you as having revitalised FAC quite a bit since you became co-ordinator.
Why, thank you kindly. Appreciated from such a long standing and accomplished FACer. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Ceoil (talk) 21:02, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
By the way have you seen the sub-genre of realistic medieval knight battles? I hadn't known it was all about the grapple. Frightening stuff. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
That looks like fun. And a reasonable re-enactment of the "axe on foot" part of late-Medieval jousts. Obviously real combat would bear little resemblance. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Documenting Warfare

Hope this finds you well Gog. Just noticed the above (Boydell, 2024: Ambühl & King) is open access from Boydell & Brewer, here, if you're interested. All the best! SerialNumber54129 11:13, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. Some very niche topics covered there. I do like the title of chapter three; I hope Anne chuckled. I need to get myself back into some decent content creation. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:34, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Tyla

Hello G, hope you are doing great. Sad for me to say this, but I think it's better if this FAC was archived. It is really not getting any attention whatsoever. Moving on, I'll try to participate more in the FAC and PR before renominating. Thank you. dxneo (talk) 19:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

dxneo, done. I think you are correct about doing some reviews at FAC and PR. If you were to resubmit it when you had 8 or 10 FAC reviews to your credit it would be much more likely to itself be reviewed. I would suggest also following all of the other reviews for any nomination you review. Note what each comment by a reviewer is and what response or change it elicits from the nominator, then consider whether anything similar applies to your article. I have an immediately pre-nom checklist - here - parts of which may apply to your article(s). Hopefully some of this is of some help and we will see you back at FAC before long. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 222, October 2024

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:02, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WikiCup 2024 November newsletter

The 2024 WikiCup has come to an end, with the final round being a very tight race. Our new champion is AirshipJungleman29 (submissions), who scored 2,283 points mainly through 3 high-multiplier FAs and 3 GAs on military history topics. By a 1% margin, Airship beat out last year's champion, Delaware BeanieFan11 (submissions), who scored second with 2,264 points, mainly from an impressive 58 GAs about athletes. In third place, Generalissima (submissions) scored 1,528 points, primarily from two FAs on U.S. Librarians of Congress and 20 GAs about various historical topics. Our other finalists are: Sammi Brie (submissions) with 879 points, Canada Hey man im josh (submissions) with 533 points, BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 432 points, Arconning (submissions) with 244 points, and Christmas Island AryKun (submissions) with 15 points. Congratulations to our finalists and all who participated!

The final round was very productive, and contestants had 7 FAs, 9 FLs, 94 GAs, 73 FAC reviews, and 79 GAN reviews and peer reviews. Altogether, Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors all through the contest. Well done everyone!

All those who reached the final will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation. So that the finalists do not have an undue advantage, these prizes are awarded to the competitor who scored the highest in any particular field in a single round, or in the event of a tie, to the overall leader in this field.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2025 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement!

If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2024 (UTC)


New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus

Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Jo-Jo Eumerus's talk page.
Message added 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:04, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gog_the_Mild/Archive_5&oldid=1256843751"