User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cape Ecnomus

The article Battle of Cape Ecnomus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cape Ecnomus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 GOCE blitz bling

The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
A small token of appreciation for your outstanding work on this place. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louis. That is extremely generous of you. I am not sure what I have done that is so outstanding, but the barnstar is much appreciated nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Following on from the above, I see Battle of Auberoche is the TFA of Wikipedia for today, well done! I really have to step up and take some of the articles I work on to FA. Zawed (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Zawed. Thanks. Yes, my first TFA. Tomorrow I am going to have to go through it sifting all the edits generated by the increase in views. Many helpful, some not so - see the thread above this one.
I was startled, having just checked your user page, to see that you had no FAs. Given the quality of your articles, this baffles me. Skimming your 18[!] A class, I think that all of them are ready for ACR. If I were you I would nominate one, say Kippenberger, and get my feet wet. I don't see that much, if any, further work is needed to prepare it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
  • I have been a bit wary of putting an article through the FA wringer, but really should pluck up the courage to get on with it. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Zawed, well yes. I was wetting myself the first time I put something in for ACR, and highly nervous about my first FAC. For what it's worth I have found ACR a more testing stage than FAC. I don't thing that most articles have gone through ACR before FAC, so ours will look relatively polished and have far fewer glaring errors. There will be the usual irritating personal opinions and odd interpretations of the MoS, but if push comes to shove the FAC coordinators are more than ready to overrule or ignore that sort of input. Just nominate one. I'll review it straight away, so you will be off to a flying start. Or if you want, I'll give one a GOCE type copy edit plus comments on where it might be picked at at FAC; there are a couple of experienced editors I do this for. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Lets see:
  • Kind
  • Cooperative
  • Gives proper feedback
  • GA's
  • FA's
  • DYK's
  • Does maintenance work and performs copy edits as well.
Yep, pretty "outstanding" in my books. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
OK, OK. Enough already. I'm blushing. I get your point. And thank you. @LouisAragon: BTW, that was a good little article I just looked at; not a lot for me to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
You're welcome Gog.
Thanks for checking the article, appreciate it. Keep up the great work!
Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Aiguillon scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Siege of Aiguillon article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 1, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

April
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you, and all who helped, for "a turning point in the Hundred Years' War which has been almost completely ignored by historians. In 1346 Prince John, the French King's son and heir, marched a "huge" army into Gascony, supported by a large siege train, five cutting edge gunpowder cannon and every military officer in the royal court. They besieged Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony". The English commander, the Earl of Lancaster, adroitly avoided battle, harassed the French communications, and repeatedly ran supplies through to the besieged town. After more than five months John abandoned the siege under direct orders from his father, who needed all the troops he could muster to face an unexpected invasion in the north by Edward III. John's army arrived two weeks after the French army of the north had been crushingly defeated at the Battle of Crecy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Gascon campaign of 1345. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Help in Spaceflight

Good day to you, sir! WP Spaceflight is undergoing a bit of a renaissance with more articles spawning these days. We're overtaxing our few qualified editors, however. Would you be able to assist with our FAC and GAC backlog and/or perhaps get the assistance of some of your colleagues in milhist?

Much obliged for any help you can render (and I'd leave mine alone until I can update the refs with the complete ones now updates for Solrad 1).

--Neopeius (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Neopeius, good to hear from you. Manned spaceflight isn't really something that interests me. (I have been keeping an eye on Solrad, but I thought that I would let things die down a bit before stepping in.) That said, always happy to lend a hand, other commitments permitting. Did you have anything specific in mind, article wise?
You could try asking on the MilHist Talk Page. If you do I would suggest that you specify two or three articles WP SpFl would like a hand with, and/or suggest that there may be some pay back at some time in the future. I suspect that many members are likely to be inward looking, note that there are already a good number of WP Sp Fl articles in their queue (see the top of the talk page) and that WP MH is already overloaded, and so be less than sympathetic. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
Hello, Gog! I replied, but it didn't take. I also am not much interested in human spaceflight, although I do plan to work on Gemini a bit. In a few days, I plan to update the citations for the SOLRAD series, once I'm done upgrading SOLRAD 1 for the featured review. Once that happens, I'd appreciate help with GAs, if you can spare any time. And, of course, I'm always happy to return favors. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
@Neopeius: That sounds good to me. Let me know when Solrad 1 is done and I'll do a review. When you have anything else ready, give me a shout. If I need a hand with something I'll let you know. Obviously, we won't be making it easy on each other re the content of those reviews. I think that you got a feel for how I review with SolRad 1. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I am looking forward to it. I wrote the others with that experience in mind! --Neopeius (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
SOLRAD 2 and SOLRAD 3 are ready for G.A. review. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
@Neopeius: I will assess SOLRAD 2. IMO it would be helpful to you to get input from another assessor, so I will leave SOLRAD 3. (At least for now.) It may take me a few days to get it under weigh. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
It's all much of a muchness. SOLRADS 1-4B were part of the same program, and I've build their pages modularly with the same citations. (i.e. if one is a GA, they probably all are now, barring minor prose quibbles). --Neopeius (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Yep. I noticed. That is why it will be interesting to see how different assessors pick up on different issues - or don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Marcus Aurelius

G'day Gog, I appreciate that the ACR source review of this article has been a bit of a "hospital pass", but am wondering if you could take another look and decide about whether to support or oppose on sourcing. The referencing is rather non-standard, there are some MOS issues, and there looks to be a few things outstanding, but I'm not sure whether you consider them to be major or minor, or even how many of them are outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67: Well, if I didn't have a sense of humour, I shouldn't have volunteered. I have been keeping an eye on this, hoping that it would improve. I would appreciate someone glancing over my shoulder on this and will have no qualms about being contradicted on anything I write. Now done. I have tried to keep it short, I don't see that there is much to be gained by rehearsing each and every problem I have noticed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: You may be interested in this related thread - User talk:Cplakidas#Input appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1

Hi Gog the Mild. Just checking to see if you have seen the comments at Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1. It looks like it is close to passing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn: Oops. You know, I had completely forgotten about it. I will try to wrap it up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. Just trying to keep these things moving. It is great when editors can get back to them, a lot seem to get abandoned. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Really. I am amazed. I haven't abandoned one yet. I got bogged down in ACRs and FACs and lost track of it. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I understand that. I have done the same when real life suddenly gets in the way or you get a surprise early review of a GA. To be fair most abandoned ones are from the same reviewers. It seems they take a few on and then suddenly stop editing. I have just taken over seven and marked another three that I will get onto in the next little while if no one beats me to it. Another editor claimed 11 and then disappeared (they were eventually deleted) Maybe "a lot" is an exaggeration, but either way it is great to see quick responses to my queries. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 2019

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Citation Barnstar
58 sources whew lad puggo (talk) 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Why, thankee kindly puggo. Much appreciated. I try to keep Wikipedia neat and tidy. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Another B-star for you

The Original Barnstar, for good deed #1 The Original Barnstar
This barnstar is for Wiki-gnoming it all over the place! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

@GenQuest: What a pleasant surprise. It seems to be my day for barnstars. Many thanks. I do like to do a bit of Wiki-gnoming of an evening. It is nice that it is appreciated.

PS. Any reason for it being 50px rather than the more normal 100px? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe

Hi, I stumbled across what I think was one of the books I had in the back of my mind in the Razing of Friesoythe article's ACR today. I've added material from it discussing Allied retaliation policies, which form part of its brief discussion of Friesoythe. The book is slightly frustrating in that it's vague about the frequency of such retaliations, noting that they were uncommon but then focusing on those which occurred (something I find is a frequent problem in this kind of revisionist work by academics, especially during the 1990s when they were rather naive about how their work would be used by the far right). Let me know what you think. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nick and apologies for the late response; with one thing and another I missed this. The Briddiscombe source is excellent and is just what the article was missing. On a first skim it seems to sit well within the article - thank you. I well remember your comment that some contextualisation would be helpful, and my frustration as to whether such a thing even existed in a RS. This was my first A class article and I think that the nagging thought that I hadn't put the event in a proper context was what stopped me from ever nominating it for FA.
I shall copy edit, read Briddiscombe and have a look as to whether the whole article needs reorganising in the light of the new material. It may yet make it to FA. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cape Ecnomus

On 12 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Cape Ecnomus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of Cape Ecnomus in 256 BC was probably the largest naval battle ever? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Cape Ecnomus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Cape Ecnomus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles.

March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here!

Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)

For your help with SOLRADS 1 and 2...

The Vanstar
Please accept this Vanstar for conspicuous gallantry in the field of Spaceflight! --Neopeius (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

A-class of the Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Hey Gog I don't wanna disturb you but I just realised that your A-class of the Battle of Cape Ecnomus nomination is already a month dead. Just curious when you will continue the nomination? If I disturb you then sorry for disturbing you just curious when you will response. Cheers mate. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Thanks for the reminder. I think that I have got involved with other things and taken my eye off that. I will get onto it over the next few days. ( I am away at the moment, so there may be a delay.) Thanks again for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Great to hear, in the meantime (when you are gone) I will have a review in the article. And don't worry I know some people are busy with other articles like an example I reviewed an article about the French Bretagne ship by Sturm and PB in end December but one of them reponse at the end of January this year I waited more than a month just for one response. Ah but if you are busy then you'd forgot some articles anyway have a nice day. Cheers mate. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333)

Congratulations on the articles promotion. You will see I have finished off my review. You appear to have missed my last (much earlier) comment per:

By this time Douglas had marched south to Bamburgh, perhaps hoping for a repeat of the events of 1319, when Edward II had broken off a siege of Berwick after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying, and devastated Yorkshire. Whatever concerns Edward III had for his queen, he knew that Bamburgh could easily withstand a siege. The Scots did not have the time to construct the kind of equipment that would be necessary to take the fortress by assault. The Scots devastated the countryside but Edward III ignored this.

I have broken this sentence down but still have some concerns that I can't resolve myself. "Perhaps hoping" is speculative and comes under words-to-watch unless it is attributed? That "he knew" is opinion expressed in a wiki voice. Again, I think it should be attributed. That Edward "ignored this", is similar but not of the same import (ie of marginal concern).

English casualties were reported as fourteen; some chronicles give a lower figure of seven.[59][60] Two sources are cited but "some" is both imprecise and more than one, and there are guidelines re words-to-watch, imprecision in writing and being specific in attribution. There are lots of ways to address this (including a footnote) but it depends on who said what - who says fourteen and who says some chronicles? With this info, I could be more forward with a course.

Hope these points are sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, good to hear from you again. Apologies for missing one of your suggestions, it wasn't deliberate. If I hadn't liked it I would have said so. I have rewritten to try and clarify things and have attempted to cite each sentence rather than group the cites at the end of the paragraph. "hoped" is the word used in the source (a very reliable one).
"he knew": there is a source which explicitly says this, and it is implicit in all accounts, but I agree that it reads as unencyclopdic, so have reworded.
"ignored": I have referenced the sentence directly to two sources. One uses "ignored", the other "refused to be drawn".
"some chronicles": Nicholson, the only specific treatment of the siege, and to whom I have cited the statement states "some chroniclers thought …". He does not specify the number nor directly cite it. I could rephrase it as "one chronicle give a lower figure of seven and another nine", citing to Nicholson's footnotes; but IMO that would be OR - the source just states "some". ("If English chroniclers were to be believed … the loss reputedly limited to one knight, one esquire and twelve footman. But some chroniclers thought these English casualties excessively large and pruned them to seven footmen...") Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Looking at that, I suggest: English casualties were reported as fourteen;[61][62] however, Nicholson, observes that some chronicles have given lesser figures as low as seven.[62] Note, Nicholson has already been introduced more fully.
I am not happy with the proposed wording and do not see the point. I am not starting the sentence with "Nicholson observes that English casualties were reported as fourteen", which seems to me to be directly comparable.
On "perhaps hoped", the issue is with "perhaps" if the author being cited did not say as much. I think, in such a case of "He knew" and "hoped", it is better to more directly attribute these to Nicholson as an indirect quote. I suggest:
By this time Douglas had marched south to Bamburgh. Nicholson, suggests [concudes/reports - your choice] that Douglas hoped for a repeat of the events of 1319.[ref] In that year, Edward II had broken off a siege of Berwick after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying, and devastated Yorkshire. Whatever concerns Edward III had for his queen, Nicholson observes that Edward knew that Bamburgh could easily withstand a siege.[ref] [While] The Scots did not have the time to construct the kind of equipment that would be necessary to take the fortress by assault. The Scots devastated the countryside but Edward III ignored [was not diverted by] this.
Er, given your first sentence and that I removed "perhaps", I am not sure why you feel that further amendments are necessary. (I assume that that is your position, as opposed to their being aesthetically or stylistically desirable.) See my response above. Is it Wikipedia policy that whenever text is drawn from a source that the author(s) be mentioned in line?
Underlined text has possible variations. I prefer our earlier version (I only cut the long sentence in two) to your recent edit. The more recent edit seems "clunky". As I said before, any issue with "ignored" is marginal. I only raised it because it fell with the rest but it can, itself, be ignored. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi again Cinderella157. I have held off on your points immediately above, which I am minded to agree with, until we have thrashed out the attribution issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
My turn to miss your last post but one - apologies. :) "Hoped" and "knew" are opinion. They fall close to editorialising - which was my original comment. It is acceptable to use editorial phrases/words to watch if it is clear that they are attributed to another and not being used in the wiki voice. Indirectly quoting and attributing this to Nicholson inline makes it clear that this is Nicholson's opinion and not wiki synthesis - that any speculation/mind reading is not wiki's. You might also see Template:Attribution needed. Alternatively, substitute "hoped": Douglas intended to repeat the events ... Similarly, remove "knew": Bamburgh was well fortified and provisioned. (If this was indeed the case and the reason for Edwards confidence). But I am trying to propose only minimal changes. Hope this clarifies the rationale for my concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)

The article Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

March 2019 GOCE drive bling!

The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 5th Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 21 articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting three long articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 2019

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) 21:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, Battle of Bergerac, and Battle of Caen (1346) Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)


Civility Barnstar

You may have to take it away from me... :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

Coast Guard barnstar

The Coast Guard Star
I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your rescue of dead links in the Wikipedia article United States Coast Guard. These links were lost as a result of the Coast Guard Historian's Office conversion to Department of Defense website protocols. I also wish recognize your efforts in rescuing dead links in the Wikipedia article United States Armed Forces that you edited the same day. For your exceptional efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cuprum17, that is extremely kind of you. It is pleasing that my humble Wiki-gnome efforts have received some recognition. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

As a fellow Wiki-Gnome I understand completely! It can be a largely unappreciated effort at times...Cuprum17 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

SMS Lothringen

See Gog the ship SMS Lothringen got promoted. I told you everything would be fine. As long you believe in your felow wikipedians then everything would be okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: You are, as usual, quite right. I should trust more. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Well Gog it wasn't really a wrong decision of yours. It was more an instinct feeling than a choice of the brain. It thanks to you that the article got promoted. So I'd say good job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

April blitz bling

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 April 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 May newsletter

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

  • Scotland Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
  • Wales Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
  • Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
  • Kingdom of Prussia Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Chicago Barkeep49 with six GAs, United States Ceranthor, England Lee Vilenski, and Saskatchewan Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and Denmark MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:46, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Rhine Campaign of 1795 Reply Comment

Hi Gog, would you take a look at Rhine_Campaign_of_1795 again before I nominate for A-class? Thank you! Cheers, auntieruth (talk) 13:31, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

For your steady production of quality content

The Feather Barnstar
As a small token of appreciation for your continued work on this encyclopedia, particularly expanding our One Hundred Years' War coverage, I grant you the Feather Barnstar. May it give you a small burst of inspiration to carry on slaying the beast. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: This is extremely kind of you. It is always good to have one's input appreciated, and this does, indeed, inspire me to step once more into the breach. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Do

NOT run IABot with the option Archive non-dead sources (or some option like that) checked on. ∯WBGconverse 10:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Muhammad VII of Granada

Thanks for reviewing article. If you're ready to pass the article, don't forget to update the talk page according to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Passing, so that the bots will trigger the formalities. Just a reminder so that it won't slip your attention. Thank you! HaEr48 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

@HaEr48: I am quite certain that I did that. But you are correct, it's not showing; I must have forgotten to click "Publish" , so thanks for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I understand, that has happened to me a few times too HaEr48 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Donner Party

Hello Gog:

I've finished the copy edit you requested of the article Donner Party. I think it's ready for its appearance as TFY.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist and thanks. I am not sure how I got talked into pre-checking the TFAs, but it is good to know that a safe pair of hands is available when I get out of my depth. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Happy to help! Cheers - Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

A-Class review

Hey Gog. Is there anything left for me to do at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Safavid occupation of Basra (1697–1701)? Its been some days so I was wondering. - LouisAragon (talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Louis. So far as I can see, no. You are just waiting for two more reviewers and a source review. If needed I shall do one of them.
No pressure, but if you fancy reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cape Ecnomus I would be grateful.
Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Sure thing.[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Chevauchée of Edward III

Hi Gog, just picked up that there is a discrepancy in dates in the article. 3 August is listed in text in lead as end of Chevauchée, however in infobox 28 September is shown. Can you check which is correct? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)3 August 1347

@Newm30: Well spotted. Thank you. One is the date Calais fell; the other the date of the truce which ended hostilities. I have gone with the first of these. Does that seem reasonable? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
The 3 August would be the appropriate date used as the capitulation of Calais effectively ended the campaign from an English perspective I assume. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Calais (1346–1347) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

The article Siege of Calais (1346–1347) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Draft:Priyamvada (magazine)

Hi Gog. Hope, all is well. If you are fine, can you copy edit this stub-sized draft.? (Especially 'Content and Style' section needs paraphrasing for style). Feel free to trim anything. --Gazal world (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gog. FYI, I requested on GOCE for copy editing. --Gazal world (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy

Hi Gog, I am just reading while in hospital (routine surgery) and found on via article Genoese crossbowmen that the French lines of Genoese crossbowmen mercenaries at the Battle of Crécy were led by Ottone Doria and Carlo Grimaldi. Not sure if that is shown in article? Regards Newm30 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

No. (I deleted it from the infobox as unsourced.) What is the source?

I hope that everything runs smoothly while you are in. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Gog, the following seems to identify him https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qIMlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Ottone+Doria&source=bl&ots=1CfAwXgIGA&sig=ACfU3U2DYoox2nCTHHbeoTFmfmF3YN1ZKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvu_bK7I7iAhVm73MBHeY_A4QQ6AEwD3oECAUQAQ, I just can't read page number as phone won't let me zoom in. Surgery went well and feel better than previous. Regards Newm30 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. I have found a RS to support that, and it also gave some other useful information.
Trying to spend today fielding comments on the various articles I have in for assessment, but dealing with the image queries is frustrating.
I hope that you are out of there and back on form soon.
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333)

G’day Gog, feeling a bit sore after the surgery but will keep plugging away. Was just wondering whether Edward Balliol should be listed as a commander in the English column either under English banner or Disinherited banner? I’m not sure what arms (heraldry) he would hold as the “alternate” King of Scotland. I will check if McAndrew says anything about his seal during this time. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Expected soreness? Or anything to worry about?
Very good point. He was in sole charge of the siege for a couple of months, so he should.
So far as he was concerned, he was the legitimate king, so I imagine that his arms should be the normal Scottish ones.
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
Expected pain after repairs to hernia. Better though than repair done 15 years ago where large incision was made rather than key hole.
Balliol’s 1333 seal has him seated with the arms of King of Scotland on the left and Balliol arms on the right. So I would agree that the arms of king of Scotland to be used. This then brings about whether arms of Scots commanders should be changed to their personal arms. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my opinion would be not. They weren't fighting in a personal capacity, but as representatives of the Scottish Crown. It would have been a Scottish standard flying over Berwick. And having the same arms on both sides of an infobox is not unusual - eg civil wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Constantine V

Thanks for reviewing the article, unfortunately I have leaking roof problem, amongst other things, so cannot invest the time to address the points. Urselius (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Urselius. Not to worry, I hope that you get your roof sorted out. As and when you are able to repost the nomination give me a ping and if I can I will relook at it. Obviously, if by then you had had a look at my previous comments it would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

The article Siege of Calais (1346–1347) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:22, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLVII, May 2019

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) 11:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present)

Hello Gog:

The copy edit your requested for History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) before its TFA appearance has been completed.

I had to expand the lede as almost a decade of the team's history was not mentioned in it. I also got rid of all the citations in the lede and made sure all of its the text was also in the body of the article.

It seems in good shape to me at this point, but I welcome any comments.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TfT, much appreciated. I shall run an eye over it. At first glance it looks like your usual sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Hi TfT. I have just been through properly. A very impressive job. I trimmed the lead a little, but found nothing else to do. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
It was stupid of me not to check the names of the two current owners! Lesson learned. :-) Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
User:Twofingered Typist, it helps if you live in the UK, less that 50 miles from Villa's ground. The names aren't exactly household, but they rang bells. Anyway, it made my day, picking up something that you had missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Chevauchée of Edward III (1346), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Somme (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

WikiJournal

Aha, that makes sense. I'd wanted to make sure that I contacted all the high-contribution editors for the article so as not to exclude anyone who did a lot of work on it. Now that I double-check with the whocolor tool I see what you're saying. Rather an oversight on my part given the array of FAs and GAs you've worked on in a far more extensive manner, and are within-scope of what the WikiJournal of Humanities tackles. Do you have any favourites that you've worked on? The articles on the Siege of Berwick (1333), Battle of Neville's Cross, Battle of Auberoche, or Battle of Bergerac are possibilities, but that's only based on articles that you've already worked on extensively, rather than new ones you might be interested in doing, so it's certainly only a suggestion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

@Evolution and evolvability: I hope that you will bear with me if I am overquestioning. If I become tiresome, please don't hesitate to say. Is there any reason why you picked those four articles? My preference would be for one of Gascon campaign of 1345, Siege of Aiguillon or Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346; ideally the first or the last. There is very little on any in the literature, so they would hopefully actually add some utility by being more widely published. (My hesitation over Siege of Aiguillon is due to its rather heavy reliance on a single source - Sumption.) Each would need some further work, but not, I think, too much. All three were created in the past seven months; each has been nominated by me for GA, AC, and FA; each achieved FA in the past three months; my "authorship" for two is over 97% and for the third is 89%.
If none of these is suitable then Razing of Friesoythe which I created 15 months ago has been an A class for a while and would need little work to get it ready for FAC. The most serious war crime committed by the Canadian army during WW2, it has had, so far as I can discover, no seperate treatment in the literature. Or currently coming up through ACR is Battle of Cape Ecnomus from 256 BC, it should be a FA before too long. By some accounts the largest naval battle of all time by the number of combatants involved. The only seperate treatment it has received during the past century is this from 1985.
If you feel that one of these might be suitable then I suspect that I may have some follow up questions, but for now I will leave things with you.
Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)

The article Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Award deserved

The Writer's Barnstar
Gog, I hereby grant you this award for your efforts in expanding the articles for the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360). Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Thank you very much. It may be a little immature of me, but I find these tokens of appreciation from other editors very motivating. I now feel inspired to crack on with Battle of Crecy.

And thank you for your contributions to Chevauchée of Edward III (1346), very much a team effort. Don't forget that you are now entitled to a good article infobox  :


This user helped promote Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) to good article status.




PS I hope that you are keeping well(er than when last we communicated).

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks and yes I am now recovering well after surgery. Appreciation should always be given when deserved. As an editor it is appreciated when we do get awards or a simple thanks for the efforts we put in to improve the knowledge base on Wikipedia. I look forward to your future endeavours. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Your edit

Hi
You did an edit on this file I created. How can you change the information I have put there as you don't know what I have used or who has helped me.
Please revert that edit and then please confirm that to me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Goran tek-en. Reverted. Under "Information from" you had listed User:Newm30 (as well as themaparchive.com) and linked to their user page. I asked them where they had obtained their supplementary information and added it, at the request of an A class reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks but you also removed that I used OSM and I got information from Newm30. That was my concern. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Ah. Understood. Relooking at the diff I seem to have made a right Horlicks of things, no wonder you were annoyed. If you look at the thread immediately above this one you will see that I get on well with Newm30, and the last think I would deliberately do is remove a mention of him from a map which he was basically commissioning for my articles.
Please accept my humble apologies for inadvertently winding you up. As this map is a key part of articles which I have so far nominated for four GAs, four A classes and three FAs; and hope to include in six FAs in total, I owe you a lot of thanks and am annoyed with myself that instead I have given you the impression that I am a vandal. I shall be more careful in future. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, all is well, we are all humans. So many of you article writers have incredible knowledge of subjects I didn't even knew existed. Creating maps for you guys is great, glad I can help with my part. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
@Goran tek-en: Thanks for that, and thanks for the forgiving attitude; appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 33

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Trachodon mummy

Dear Gog the Mild, I was wondering if your generous offer to review or copy edit an article of mine still stands? In case you are interested, I just nominated Trachodon mummy at GAN, the plan is to eventually bring it to FAC. I think this is a fun and varied piece! Thanks, --Jens Lallensack (talk) 18:48, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jens. Of course. A couple of queries:
1. Do you mind if I copy edit it first? I do a fair bit of this for GOCE, including for pre-FA checks, so I do know what I am doing.
2. Do you what me to simply assess this against the GA standards? Or for GA plus pointers for FA? Or, more or less, give it a FA level going over during my GA assessment?
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Yes, a copy edit would be more than welcome if you have the time (I am not a native speaker). And well, a FA level going over with GA assessment would for sure be the best – but again, it depends on your time! Thanks again, I really appreciate this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Jens, no problem. It is actually easier for me to copy edit as I go, rather than flag every minor thing up in writing at GAN. Assessing at a higher standard now will save me time when I go through it again at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
Sounds great! Looking forward to your improvements/comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Constantine V

Having addressed most if not all of your recommendations, and added some new material, I have re-nominated the article. Urselius (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

@Urselius: Hi, I was going to have a look at this, but note that you have made nearly 100 edits in the 10 days since you nominated it. Once the article stabilises give me a ping, and if I have the time I will look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: Hi, I think I have exhausted my sources now. Any further edits will just be minor stylistic tinkerings. Cheers, Urselius (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Image reviewing

Good afternoon, Gog. When reviewing an FAC recently (can't recall which) I noticed that you had done the image review. I am short of one for my current FAC, despite a request through the usual channels, and if you are free and disposed to do the review I should be most grateful. Quite understand if not, of course. Tim riley talk 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I am usually extremely picky what I image review, and at that frequently give up part way through. My knowledge of both the PD requirements and the wiki-procedures is shaky. That said, I think that I can navigate my way around your FAC. Done. Only one issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)
I say! That was quick. Thank you so much! I do the occasional source review but have never tried my hand at image reviewing: too hard for me! I thought that Swedish image looked suspect, but one is always reluctant to blitz images posted by earlier editors. Now gone. Warmest thanks, Tim riley talk 18:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For writing and copyediting Gujarati literature related articles such as Mansukhram Tripathi. Nizil (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Nizil, thank you very much, I am honoured. I just do a bit of polishing for the editors who do the hard work, but nevertheless, it always gives me a warm glow when this is appreciated. So please accept my appreciation for your thoughtfulness. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Crécy

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Crécy you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:11, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Review request

I humbly ask if you would consider reviewing one of my two GANs? My DYK target date is July 1, and I'd like to have one of the GANs pass before I make the DYK nom. Not that I'm asking you to pass a GAN, but to give it an honest review. No doubt I will need all manner of help to get things ready. (Of the other articles for a six-hook DYK, three have expansions prepped and another I need to assemble.) The GANs are Poutine (food and drink GAN, has been copy edited) and Made in Canada (tv show, has not been copy edited). If you don't have time next week, please let me know and I'll pester someone else. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:31, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

I will make the time. Assessment of Poutine is underway. It sounds like an improved version of one of my favourite treats, although I have not read it properly yet. I am a little hesitant about the other - I normally stay away from anything involving moving pictures, as I don't really have a grasp of the specialist requirements. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

History of aluminium

Hello:

I've finished my copy edit of the upcoming TFA History of aluminium.

Please let me know if you have any concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you. That is excellent. There was less work needed on the TFAs for this month, but I wanted a quality scrutiny for this one. Which is what it got. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

May 2019 GOCE drive bling

The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 4 long articles during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 10,858 words – during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Discussion on your edits

Just to let you know your adding of archived sources is being discussed here. You may want to join us and explain your reasoning. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Burnt Candlemas

G'day Gog. Just wondering if Sumption goes into any detail in relation to the "chevauchée" by Edward III into Scotland, known as Burnt Candlemas in Lothian, Scotland in 1356. This was undertaken after the sacking of Berwick and unsuccessful siege of Berwick Castle by the Scottish in 1355. Edward III demanded that Edward Balliol renounce his right to the Scottish kingship before the chevauchée. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. I noticed that red link on my to do list go blue a few weeks ago. Yes, he does. Would you like me to expand the article? There is also a (very) little in Ormrod's Edward III. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, if you could expand Burnt Candlemas article that would be great, as my computer and books are packed up due to house renovations. I was disappointed with move of Chevauchee of Edward III that you are in middle of working on too. I was looking at starting basic level article for 1339 chevauchee, as well as dab article for Edward”s chevauchees. Might bring laptop home from work and have a crack at it tonight. Regards Newm30 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Four Records

Hey Gog, just a reminder when you add new entries to Wikipedia:Four Award/Records to put them in alphabetical order. The last 3 you added weren't in alphabetical order (I moved them to the right spot). Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Whoops. Thank you. Will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Chevauchée of Edward III

On 9 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chevauchée of Edward III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the English army invaded France in 1346 they burnt a 40-mile-wide (64 km) swath of destruction to within 2 miles (3 km) of Paris? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chevauchée of Edward III), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Crécy

The article Battle of Crécy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Crécy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

This one was really close to a Quarter-Million Award. BTW, and I realize this hasn't come up in the FA review, is there a reason this article doesn't have an In culture section? There must be a number of notable works (literature, poems, films, etc) which use the battle as a setting (though the only one I spotted with an article is Crécy (comics), which I quite liked when I read it some years ago). Perhaps a See also at the end. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:49, 12 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Reidgreg. Yes, it did. I was surprised that it wasn't over. Feel free to give it a few more views.
Popular culture. Well personally I'm, surprisingly, unaware of any works of note which use it significantly. When I picked it up, it had a "Fictional accounts" section, all but reference free, copied below. After this brief exchange on the talk page I removed it. I am not a fan of Pop Cult sections, partly because they too easily become a sprawling rag bag of loosely connected works. I am prepared to be persuaded that this is an exception (as I was with Battle of Neville's Cross), but to my surprise, over the 17 years of its existence, no one has attached a notable work to it. (Obviously, "notable" is a subjective concept.) If you are aware of any, do please suggest them.
I note in passing that in the extract below Shakespeare mangles Crécy and Poitiers, fought 10 years apart, together.
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Fictional accounts

Crécy village sign.

A fictional portrayal of the Battle of Crécy is included in the Ken Follett novel World Without End. The book describes the battle from an English knight's perspective, that of an archer, and from that of a neutral observer. This novel was made into a telefilm in 2012 and the Battle of Crécy is included, albeit in a very summarized form.

Another depiction can be found in Warren Ellis' and Raulo Caceres' graphic novel Crécy, which frames the battle as a narration by a Suffolk archer; or in Bernard Cornwell's fictional account of an archer in the Hundred Years' War, Harlequin (UK title), part of the Grail Quest novel series, or The Archer's Tale (US title). The lead character Thomas of Hookton, is an English archer who fights in the battle.

The battle appears in "The campaign of 1346, as an historical drama" by Christopher Godmond.

It is also portrayed in Ronald Welch's Bowman of Crécy and in David Gilman's Master of War.

The protagonist of P.C. Doherty's The Death of a King (1985) is present at the battle and describes it from the perspective of a bowman on the right flank near the village of Crécy.

In G. A. Henty's historical fiction book St. George for England, the main character is present at the battles of Cressy and Poitiers.[1]

The battle is a crucial episode in the life of the hero Hugh de Cressi (his name is apparently a coincidence), in the H. Rider Haggard novel Red Eve. The battle is described in some detail, including, for example the failure of the Genoese bowmen, attributed in the book, as above, to wet strings; and also the merciless treatment of the French wounded.[2]

In Michael Jecks 2014 book Fields of Glory, the entire campaign is viewed from the point of view of a vintaine of archers under the command of the non fictional Sir John de Sully commencing with the landing in Normandy and terminating with a detailed description of the eventual final battle at Crecy.[3] It highlights the devastating effects of the chevauchée as the English laid waste to the countryside in an attempt to bring the French army into the field to protect its inhabitants.[citation needed]

The battle features at the climax of another 2014 novel, Son of the Morning, by Mark Barrowcliffe writing as Mark Alder. A fantasy take on the Hundred Years' War, the novel depicts English and French forces as being supported by devils and angels.[4]

The battle is referred to several times – though never seen directly – in Michael Crichton's 1999 science-fiction novel Timeline, in which a group of archaeologists are transported back in time to fourteenth-century France. Crichton gives credit to the English for winning the battle in the face of vastly superior forces, citing the English willingness to adopt a less ceremonial style of battle and instead using what he calls "shock troops" – mercenary archers who were paid a wage for their services, trained on a daily basis much like modern soldiers, and were deadly accurate in their ability to make enemy kills from a distance of what would today be the equivalent of two or more football fields, something that would have been impossible for the French chevaliers with their short-range style of fighting.

In Shakespeare's play Henry V (act II scene IV) the King of France refers to the battle when he warns his noblemen not to underestimate Henry, who is:

...bred out of that bloody strain

That haunted us in our familiar paths:

Witness our too much memorable shame

When Cressy battle fatally was struck,

And all our princes captiv'd by the hand

Of that black name, Edward, Black Prince of Wales;

Whiles that his mountain sire, on mountain standing,

Up in the air, crown'd with the golden sun,

Saw his heroical seed, and smiled to see him,

Mangle the work of nature and deface

The patterns that by God and by French fathers

Had twenty years been made. This is a stem

Of that victorious stock; and let us fear

The native mightiness and fate of him.

References

  1. ^ "Saint George for England". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016. Retrieved 1 August 2014. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  2. ^ Red Eve. 6 April 2006. Archived from the original on 23 March 2015. Retrieved 29 March 2015. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
  3. ^ "Fields of Glory – Kindle edition by Michael Jecks. Literature & Fiction Kindle eBooks @ Amazon.com".
  4. ^ Orion Books publisher page for Son of the Morning. Archived from the original on 25 April 2016. Retrieved 21 February 2015. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

Request for map request assistance

Hi Goran tek-en. I wonder if you can help me in formatting a request for a map for a FAC properly? (I had the same request up previously, but made such a mess of it that no one at Maps could understand what I was asking for.) The "standard" map[s] for the Battle of Cape Ecnomus is this:

However it is inaccurate. I could describe the changes needed, or the three maps above could be replaced with the three similar ones on this web site.

My problem is that I do not know how to get the first map to show on the map requests page, and so I can't make clear what I would like. I imagine that it is simple once you know how, but I don't. If you could share with me how to do this, I would be grateful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below.

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests.

March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles.

May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk.

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Battle of Blanchetaque, Siege of Calais (1346–1347), and Battle of Cape Ecnomus Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue CLVIII, June 2019

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) 13:07, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Possible confusion on Featured topic candidacy?

Hi there, Gog. I think it is possible you made some kind of confusion when submiting your latest topic for consideration. So. You created a featured topic proposal, but submitted under "Good Topics" here and then put notices on the articles' talk pages saying it's a good topic candidate. But it was submited as featured, that why the link is red on the talk pages. I would fix it myself, but I didn't want to overstep. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

@RetiredDuke: Hi. I am very far from expert at this, so any and all advice is welcome. However, the topic, while down as {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346 /archive1}} is exactly the same as all other GTCs. So I am stumped. I would be grateful if you could fix it and point me towards the diff, so that I will know for next time. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Hey; I'm also not knowledgeable about WP Topics, I think I just stumbled across a small inconsistency in the template in that it doesn't link directly to the nomination when said nomination is occurring. I thought you might had made a small mistake but now I see that when the topic is promoted as featured the delegate eventually solves the issue, archiving the discussion in the process. Sorry to bother you with the issue, I was just curious. Good luck with the nomination, it's some impressive work. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
@RetiredDuke: Thanks. And while checking everything I did discover that I had missed tagging the main GT article, so it was as well you had me checking things; so thanks for that too. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Calais (1346–1347)

On 15 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the largest English army to serve overseas prior to 1600 was gathered at the Siege of Calais in 1347? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Calais (1346–1347). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Calais (1346–1347)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Could you help with archiving?

I was wondering if you could run your archiving bot on the Kingston Fossil Plant coal fly ash slurry spill article. I'm currently reviewing it for GAN and a large percentage of links have unfortunately died, making it difficult to assess them. Thanks! Femke Nijsse (talk) 08:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Femke Nijsse. The bot seems to be down. As soon as it is working again I will do that. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, thanks :). Femke Nijsse (talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
I see you so far managed to rescue one dead link (which has been undone after a subsequent copyright violation reversal :( ). Most of the Knoxville News Sentinel sources point get redirected towards the home page for me. Do you know whether it's possible to get archived pages for those? Femke Nijsse (talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Femke Nijsse The bot has finally, finally been debugged and I have turned it loose on your article. Has it done what you wanted it to? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:49, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
That will be enough for a proper review if the article is renominated, thanks :). If you feel like improving it further: the bot indicated that many links are not dead, while they in fact are (leading to main page of news website). This is for instance the case with citation 9. Citation 8 has not been archived, but is tagged with dead-link tag. Femke Nijsse (talk) 06:33, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Femke Nijsse So far as I can see, all of the cites are now backed up, except for 8, 41 and 43, which are correctly tagged as dead. Unfortunately there is a lot that I can do about them - my skill set is limited in this respect. They are probably still in the Tennessean or AP somewhere. If you do find them and relink them, ping me straight away and I'll back them up now that the bot is working. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333) scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Siege of Berwick (1333) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 20, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 20, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA.

I'm unlikely to run your Caen TFARP for 26 July this time. Although we have recently relaxed the rules to allow two TFAs in a month by the same FA nominator, they need to be on unrelated topics, such as a bird and a constellation (to give a recent example). Two medieval battles in a week is too much, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Jimfbleak Thanks for that. I will run an eye over it, although I have unofficial responsibility to check all TFAs copy edit-wise.
I hadn't realised that it was even theoretically possible to have too many medieval battles. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the "examination of a siege which led to a catastrophe for Scottish arms and England becoming once again embroiled in the running sore of the Scottish wars"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Editor of the Week

Editor of the Week
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)
The elusive & bashful WikiGnome
Gog the Mild
 
Editor of the Week
for the week beginning June 23, 2019
Guild of Copy Editors member, a WikiGnome, and a WikiProject Military History member. 55% of 20.000 edits are to mainspace. Kind and cooperative cohort that gives proper feedback. Outstanding maintenance work and copy editing.
Recognized for
keeping Wikipedia neat and tidy by rescuing sources and tagging dead links
Notable work(s)
Chevauchée of Edward III (1346), Gascon campaign of 1345, Siege of Aiguillon, Siege of Berwick (1333)
Submit a nomination

User:Buster7 submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

Gog the Mild displays his multi-faceted nature as a Guild of Copy Editors member, a WikiGnome, and a WikiProject Military History member. He has been a Wikipedian for 5 years and one month but most recently has accelerated his editing activity (JAN2018). 55% of his 20.000 edits are to mainspace. Gog is considered by many as a kind and cooperative cohort that gives proper feedback. His many GA's, FA's and DYK's display "outstanding" maintenance work and copy editing (See Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) (GA), Gascon campaign of 1345 (FA), Battle of Bergerac (FA) or Siege of Berwick (1333) (FA). In his effort "...to keep Wikipedia neat and tidy" Gog often rescues sources and tags dead links within Wikipedia articles. He considers himself a blunt talker but only so that he can "move on" to the next task.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week: 

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Well deserved! Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:07, 22 June 2019 (UTC)
Wow. Belated congratulation Gog. --Gazal world (talk) 10:05, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Featured topic

As much as I appreciate the extra vote, I saw you accidentally voted twice on Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Mercury Seven/archive1. You may want to remove the most recent one. Thanks! Kees08 (Talk) 23:43, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

June 2019 blitz bling!

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work in the blitz, and thanks also for voting in the elections! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:19, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Chevauchée of the Black Prince in 1355

Hi Gog and thanks for creating the article. It has been on my interest list. I was reading online that the chevauchée was led through the lands of John I, Count of Armagnac, during initial part, as he had reverted allegiance back to France. Does Sumption mention this? Juillac was hard to find initially but will need to look at former province further. Anyway will await your expansion and I will always fill red links if I can. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:51, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. Yes, the raid initially headed straight for Armagnac and "Burned a broad path across the province". As ever, it is more complicated, and John's role will feature greatly in the prelude when I get round to writing out the article properly - hopefully in the next week or so. He was, of course, the main French commander in the region. Your red link filling is much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:37, 26 June 2019 (UTC)
Hi Newm30. Most of the body of the article is going to be replaced as I remove material from the 130 year old source, so it would make sense for you not to do too much work on it just yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:02, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog. Was just linking a few things. Look forward to your rewrite. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:10, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Gog, was wondering if Scottish raids in 1355, battle of Nesbit Moor, sacking of Berwick and Burnt Candlemas could be written into prelude? Regards Newm30 (talk) 17:48, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: Definitely not, IMO. They are separate articles and had little to do with and little effect on what happened in the south of France. Feel free to differ, but I don't see how the Scottish border raids had anything to do with what the Black Prince was up to. He didn't even know about them. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
It probably all belongs in Burnt Candlemas. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking of whether the above should be added because of the following section in prelude The French hoped to distract Edward with an attack from Scotland and, despite being chronically short of money, spent a large amount encouraging the Scottish nobles. The English allocated only a modest force to guard their northern border, and much of this was withdrawn after a truce was agreed in September? The raids, battle, sacking and Edward II’s response may tie in here, but will leave it up to you. Maybe an article on Edward III’s chevauchée in Picardy in 1355 could be the place for it? Regards Newm30 (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
I was thinking that it all belonged in your Burnt Candlemas, but let's see. Sometimes as you research an article links come out you hadn't expected, and vice versa. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:54, 3 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newm30: Hi, I think that this article could do with a map. There are few on the net and no good ones. You seem to be the expert at commissioning maps, and I wonder if you might be able to commission one for this article?
The best would be Sumption's. (PS I am listening to a podcast of his Reith Lectures while I write this - very interesting.) It would need a little tweaking, but I could scan and email it to you. Or the map from page viii of this could be tweaked. Anything you could do to help this would be much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I have been able to obtain from a map illustrator a draft map for review and suggested improvements. Please respond here so I can transfer feedback to the map illustrator. They will be unavailable for a few weeks as well. Regards Newm30 (talk) 11:17, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@Newm30: That looks great. Some minor suggestions:

  • Only one arrow to the left of Narbonne.
  • Is it possible to label the rivers Garonne and Ariège? The Garonne is the one that that flows through Carbonne and the Ariège is the next right.
  • Importantly, the green arrow to the left of Narbonne: it should not cut across the outward route where it does; from where it meets the outward path it should follow the same route almost to the gates of Carcassone then turn sharply south to Limoux.

Otherwise it looks great. And thank you very much. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The June 2019 Signpost is out!

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

18th Infantry Division

Following up on the 18th Div article. Two editors went over the article and made quite a few changes. In your opinion, is it now ready to meet FAC 1a, or would you suggest additional work?EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:21, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Hi EnigmaMcmxc. I really want to be sympathetic to this. You are asking for about 90 minutes of my time. I am, or was, prepared to give it. When I commented on this article's last FAC I made 12 suggestions regarding the lead. Only two of them have been addressed. A couple may be debatable, but others, while you may (or may not) consider them picky, seem to me to be areas where changes need to be made. Given that changes haven't been made where I have flagged up precisely what my concerns are, what incentive can you provide for me to invest a further 80 minutes hoping that the rest is better? (Apologies if this seems blunt; you may wish to refer to the second paragraph of my user page.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:13, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Blunt is perfectly fine. You heavily recommended a GOCE work over the article with FAC 1a in mind. This was requested. Afterwards, a GOCE editor did so (another editor also made changes). Per your comments at review, I left the issue of prose to the copyeditor. Based off the above, you feel that specific issues were not addressed by the GOCE. With that in mind, I have revisited the article and made changes to the lede as you specified at review. It is not about being picky or not, my only purpose is to create a informative article for the readers.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
@EnigmaMcmxc: I try to be solicitous of people's potential feelings. You have clearly put an enormous amount of work into this and I don't know if you have skin like a rhino or are a delicate blossom. I haven't reread the lead; I am happy to take your word. Yes, IMO the article is in an appropriate state to go for FAC in terms of 1a. I don't mean that that there are not areas for improvement - although there are precious few pieces of English that pass that! - but that it now reads pretty well, and that many of the issues are on military terminology or technical areas. Broadly it looks pretty good. Best of luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your time and thoughts. I shall re-nominate, and see where things go.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 July newsletter

The third round of the 2019 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round needed to score at least 68 points, which is substantially lower than last year's 227 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • Norfolk Island Cas Liber, our winner in 2016, with 500 points derived mainly from a featured article and two GAs on natural history topics
  • South Carolina Adam Cuerden, with 480 points, a tally built on 16 featured pictures, the result of meticulous restoration work
  • Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce, a finalist in the last two years, with 306 points from a variety of submissions, mostly related to sport or the State of Washington
  • United States Usernameunique, with 305 points derived from a featured article and two GAs on archaeology and related topics

Contestants managed 4 (5) featured articles, 4 featured lists, 18 featured pictures, 29 good articles, 50 DYK entries, 9 ITN entries, and 39 good article reviews. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them, and it is imperative to claim them in the correct round; one FA claim had to be rejected because it was incorrectly submitted (claimed in Round 3 when it qualified for Round 2), so be warned! When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Nudge

G'day Gog, just a nudge that you can nominate Battle of Blanchetaque for TFA now as noms are open for August. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:31, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 52 reviews between April and June 2019 Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 03:07, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Indeed, congratulations for your WikiChevrons. Thank you for your help in 52 reviews between those months and thank you for making Wikipedia a better place. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:55, 4 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Why thank you CPA-5, I appreciate that. And thank you for your 64 reviews. I knew that you did a lot of reviews, but I didn't realise that you were that busy. That is very impressive, and I for one certainly appreciate your insightful and, yes, eagle eyed reviews. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Well, I couldn't believe that after I got my WikiChevrons. PM has 80 reviews so I guess I'm doing fine in those reviews in the last few months. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Are these numbers right? Because I thought I was granted more reviews than I thought I performed as well. Wonder if it is counting number of signatures total instead of number of reviews with your signatures? That would match closer to the number I received. Kees08 (Talk) 18:54, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: I am pretty sure that it counts the number of articles where you leave a signature, not those that you do a full review at. So it includes "drive by comments". For more see comments at end of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Awards#Quarterly reviewing awards; you may want to add a comment. That said, I keep a separate tally of mine (here) and the MilHist tally seems about right. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Ah, for some reason I thought this was for A-class reviews only. The numbers make more sense now. Kees08 (Talk) 19:15, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
The entry requirement is that you have assessed one ACR which was closed during the period. Once that is met, all MilHist article reviews are counted. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

Article preparation

A couple of people have been working on articles that will be featured on the main page during the 50th anniversary of the Apollo 11 mission. I was wondering if you would be interested in looking at the articles sometime between now and then (couple weeks from now) for copy editing and to see if there are any glaring problems. Trying to minimize the number of complaints, since a couple of complaints on a few articles would add up to a lot on one day. Let me know and I can give you a list; I am doing one last check of the easier ones myself right now. Kees08 (Talk) 18:57, 6 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kees08: Sure. Could you do me a favour and post one of them - maybe the longest, or the trickiest - on the GOCE request page and ping me here. It is GoCE drive month, and that way I get brownie points for doing my bit for GoCE. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Sure. I can post two requests at a time right? I can request two if that works better. Kees08 (Talk) 19:09, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
No. You're allowed to post two, but I am only allowed to pick up one at a time. If you want me to work on them, only post one at a time; if you are happy with any GoCE review, then by all means post two. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Doesn't matter to me who picks it up; I doubt anyone would grab anything that low in the queue anyways. I am finalizing another article I will post there. If you need any of the offline sources for Felicette let me know. Kees08 (Talk) 19:48, 6 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi Kees08, Félicette completed. Let me know what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:04, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
Wow, that was a lot of work! I think you found every sentence I hated. I made one minor change, and other than that it looks great. If you end up taking Zond 5 on, I think it will be more work. I read through it and was a little disappointed. I think it is choppy and is missing some gaps that help bridge events. I was hoping someone not familiar with the event could let me know if I need to spend a lot more time on it. No worries if you don't work on it though. Thanks for the Félicette edit, hope you found it interesting! Kees08 (Talk) 16:25, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Kees08, fascinating. I have finished a first run through Zond 5. Obviously, feel free to revert or query anything I have got wrong or which you don't understand. There are some queries on the articles talk page. If you could respond to them I will have a second, more detailed, run through. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

Interested in copy editing more articles? I have enough lined up for the main page in the next week I doubt you could get to them all, but would appreciate any that you have time for! Kees08 (Talk) 16:42, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
To be more specific, these articles will be on the main page during the anniversary of the Apollo 11 flight: Maspalomas Station, Roger B. Chaffee, NASA Astronaut Group 2, NASA Astronaut Group 3, Michael Collins, Sputnik 1, Felicette, Luna 2, Mae Jemison, Valentina Tereshkova, Yuri Gagarin, David Scott, Zond 5, Charles Bassett, SOLRAD 2, Tundra orbit, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Apollo 11, Parkes Observatory, Mary Jackson, and Margaret Hamilton. Of those, David Scott, Michael Collins, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin, Roger B. Chaffee, and Apollo 11 are featured articles so should be in decent shape. Yuri Gagarin has an ongoing A-class review, NASA Astronaut Group 2 and NASA Astronaut Group 3 have open GA nominations if you want to contribute by reviewing. If you are interested in copy editing more I can request them at GOCE. Thanks for your help so far, and if you do not have time no worries! Kees08 (Talk) 17:24, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division‎

Hello Gog:

I notice you have a working tag beside 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division as well as more recently Zond 5. Is 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division‎ completed and ready for archiving?

Thanks,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Apologies. I wanted to have a last skim of the notes of 59th (Staffordshire) Infantry Division before signing off on it, but for some reason included it as completed in my article list, and then lost track of it when the request in the thread above came in. Thank you for prompting me to wrap it up - it did need a couple of further tweaks - and I am glad that someone is keeping a proper track of things.
As it happens, Zond 5 is also now complete, and so marked on the requests page - just flagging this up here for clarity. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:03, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: No worries, thanks for the clarification. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 17:54, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes Issue 34, May – June 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 34, May – June 2019

  • Partnerships
  • #1Lib1Ref
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • Global branches update
  • Bytes in brief

French version of Books & Bytes is now available on meta!
Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Question

In approximately six weeks, we will open nominations for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections. Have you given any consideration to running? You'd make a good coordinator, I think, and Lord knows we could use some new blood in the team. Think it over, and if you have any questions you can ask me or check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Becoming a coordinator. Sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 07:43, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I second that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Thirded by another talk page stalker - I've been meaning to suggest you consider a crack at it. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:17, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
@TomStar81: No; thank you (nicely qualified ); I shall. @Peacemaker67 and Zawed: The encouragement is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:58, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Damn you have a lot of talk page stalkers here. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:32, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
Fourthed by another who respects your wisdom and editorial expertise. (Nudging you firmly, but gently to raise your hand and step forward.) 47thPennVols (talk) 20:37, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
@47thPennVols: Darn! When you suggest, I am just going to have to do it. Thank you for the vote of confidence. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
  • My pleasure. Glad the collective nudges worked. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
A nudge from you is all but irresistible. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIX, July 2019

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) 12:00, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

The article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:22, 17 July 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

Hello! Your submission of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Constantine ✍ 19:40, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

Review and roll back

Hi Gog, can you review edits to Alexander Seton (died 1332) on 23 July by 31.48.73.180 and rollback if you think it’s warranted? Newm30 (talk) 04:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. I have made some changes and added some sources. Likewise to Battle of Kinghorn. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)
Thank you. Newm30 (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail! The subject is Perhaps of use.
Message added 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC). 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.

——SerialNumber54129 12:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: Exceedingly useful. I only have half a dozen of those, so that is going to keep me out of trouble for a while. What an unexpected pleasure. Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Blanchetaque scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Battle of Blanchetaque has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 24 August 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 24, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about a "battle from the Hundred Years' War. The English army was trapped by the French in an area stripped of food. At Blanchtaque the English escaped by fighting their way across a tidal ford of the River Somme, against a French blocking force. Two days later the English fought and heavily defeated the main French army at the Battle of Crecy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:57, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Calais (1349)

G’day Gog, I was curious whether you had any insight as to why Walter Manny’s banner (Or, three chevrons sable - Gold three chevrons black) is shown in the picture in the infobox? I couldn’t see any mention of Manny in the text. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:47, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

In the article on Walter it mentions that Edward III, according to Froissart, fought incognito under Manny’s banner. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:54, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

According to Froissart, Manny was the hero of every episode of this phase of the war. Hence the illustration in his Chronicles shows Edward (figuratively) under Manny. No other source supports this and several, and all the modern sources I have accessed, state that Edward fought anonymously and under no banner; which is why Manny is not mentioned in the article.
The image made a change from the style of the one later in the article, which I have been using a lot in infoboxes. I didn't think that anyone would notice the minor inconsistency. I should have guessed that you would be on the ball. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
@Newm30: I have to go back on the above. I have found a modern RS who backs Froissart, so I have amended the text accordingly. And specifically mentioned the banner. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:17, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for that and noticed page was moved today. Will try to work on a couple of the captured French knights articles soon. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:09, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 July 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the July 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest with 56 points from 5 articles. Congratulations, Kges1901 (talk) 13:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

July 2019 GOCE drive bling

The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting three long articles during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 1st Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 11,853 words – during the GOCE July 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad that you finished that long article on time! The drive had the highest editor participation since May 2015, and brought the copy editing backlog to a record low of 585 articles! Much thanks for taking part! – Reidgreg (talk) 22:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Thankee kindly Reidgreg. It was a bit of a struggle to get it done in time. Other Wikipedia activities and RL conspired. And the article was a real pig. Not helped I think by it being a topic I know a little about; I kept finding more details I wanted to tweak.
GOCE is ticking along very nicely. Oh that all of Wikipedia ran as smoothly. Flirting with a backlog of only 500 seems ridiculous. There seem to be two or three very active new copy editors. At least, new to me. I also note quite a bit of reviewing going on, which is good to see.
How are you, and how are you finding the brave new world of proper internet connections?
I intend to throw a couple of ideas into the MilHist discussion about involving GOCE in March. Feel free to poke holes in them.
On this, how would you feel about "advertising" the Requests service a little? For example, there are a lot of MilHist related articles that have been at GAN for many months. I suspect, without proof, that the level of prose (and, to a lesser extent, MoS compliance) puts many potential reviewers off: they can see that the article has issues which prevent it from being promoted, but lack the knowledge and/or motivation to address them. I similarly suspect that most of the nominators are unaware of the Requests service, and possibly unaware that their articles may benefit from it. Maybe a templated suggestion on the talk page of selected nominators that they list the article on Requests? Followed by flagging up on the MilHist Project talk page that the article now has the GOCE stamp of approval, to remind potential reviewers? Just a thought. (I have some others up my sleeve, but am running this one past you by way of a test.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
The new Internet connection is still overwhelming. I've been visiting Proquest archives quite a bit for source material. Unfortunately, my reading and writing speed haven't experienced a corresponding increase, so I've got a bit of information overload. I've also discovered this website called YouTube. I try not to spend too much time there, but they do have some useful information (like police press conferences and some of the comedy awards ceremonies which weren't telecast). One other thing: I was gifted an Apple watch and now my second-favourite game is this thing called "exercising" which awards something very much like barnstars for various fitness activities. Wikipedia remains my favourite game.
GOCE was a well-oiled machine before I joined, I'm just minding the store. Legend has it that there was once a "league of copy editors" that didn't fare so well. It disbanded and the GOCE was formed with the structures developed at Milhist. Eager to see how the proposed collaborative drive will work.
Advertising is good. I'd note that we do have a fairly steady stream of requests, it's the low-assessment backlog articles we're depleting. Targeting GANs could skew the distribution of available articles for our copy editors, but I suppose some advertising could also be done at DYK. We don't seem to have an existing template to invite requests. I'd recommend caution with a templated message so that it isn't perceived as a big stamp saying "your writing sucks!". Because, you know, the truth hurts. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
There is probably a movie script in there - a sudden and overwhelming introduction to the 21st century. Enjoy.
Ah. So GOCE is not really looking for more quality articles to fine tune, more for stubs and starts that the newer and/or less experienced members can work on? Is that about right? If so, I had best back off on thoughts of how some GOCE input may improve the throughput of GA and GAs; with MilHist as a bit of a laboratory to test ideas in. But as was pointed out, GOCE has 6,123 articles tagged as needing work on grammar - did you work on some as part of last year's Drive? So there is plenty to go at. (I am a little surprised that no one has ever mass-tagged them with "Needs Copy Edit".)
Template. I was thinking more of "Hi. Your well sourced and presented GAN has been unfairly overlooked for assessment by the Cabal. Despair not, GOCE can give it a quick wash and scrub up, tweaking it in ways to make it more palatable to the Cabal's obscure prejudices; and then advertise it for you on MilHist's talk page for a discerning assessor. Wadayathink?" GOCE can regulate the flow by placing as few or as many templates as they wish. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
(laughing aloud) Nice. The worst that could happen is that the Requests list gets a little longer. The backlog has about 300 tags added per month, which isn't likely to stop. There have been discussions about how to best target our efforts toward the articles in most need of copy editing, and this seems like a good idea. A thought: if you put the template on the article talk page, there could be a category associated with the template to track the article; if the GOCE copyeditor places a copyedit tag on the article talk page, you could then cross-reference the categories to check which articles are copy edited and ready for review. Otherwise, there could maybe be a parameter like the B-class checklist (I think that's for grammar). Or maybe this could be integrated into the way Milhist already tracks assessment. Or you could manually keep a list while we see how viable this is.
Ah. Category:Military history articles needing attention to grammar has 6,000+ members and Category:Military history articles needing attention only to grammar has 41 members. Quite the difference. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: Yes. GOCE could sort out the grammar of 6,123 articles and it would only result in 41 getting promoted a grade.
I like that thought. Are you OK with me loosely suggesting this to the MilHist coordinators, along the lines discussed above, and caveated?
I assume that it is obvious that the reason I am pushing on this is because I am one of the few editors involved in both GOCE and MilHist and I would like to see my two sets of Wikifriends getting on together. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course if one were to have a GOCE MilHist Drive Month (if) then the 41 Grammar Only articles would add a bit of variety. If one wanted a few more, I suspect that I could find a few dozen where I could readily fix say Structure, thus converting them to Grammar Only.
Nor would it be difficult to find some B Class in need of attention. The Grammar Section of the B Class assessment criteria will make you smile. Or possibly weep. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, got a little busy. I'm not sure that I want to propose anything new that might take energy/focus away from the proposed March GOCE–MilHist Drive. Although this could certainly be an option for targeting articles in need of attention. Maybe this could be brought up in that context, or as a trial? If you want to do small-scale referrals to WP:GOCER, you can just go ahead and do that. GA and DYK reviewers often make such suggestions to nominators, and maybe try to track it to see how it turns out (how many do it, time to completion, whether the copy edit was sufficient, and whether the article passes review). If you want to do more than, say, 20 referrals at once, I'd like to see the proposal taken to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Coordinators, to see if those with more experience might have some thoughts about it. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:39, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I had meant all of my suggestions to be as part of the proposed March GOCE–MilHist Drive. But as I seem to be mostly muddying the waters I shall back off and see how things develop. I like your idea for a personal micro-trial around GANs to gather data. If I do this, I will certainly come back to the coordinators well before I get to 20. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:04, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Coxton Tower

Hi - thanks for volunteering to look at this. I confess that when I got up this morning I was considering withdrawing the GA nom, as I'm not sure that the history section is really detailed enough - none of the refs I've found give any detail about its usage since the 17th C. I'll quite understand if you think it fails because of that, but would be very grateful for any other suggestions you could give me for improvements. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 17:25, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. On a quick skim it seemed reasonable to me. Let's see how far we can take it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bernard Fanning

Hello:

The copy edit you requested from the GOCE of the article Bernard Fanning has been completed. It's good to go for the front page.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:16, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Wow! That was quick. Thanks. You've done a good job there. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
I appreciate your contributions to articles. Thanks for copyediting articles and being a valuable member of Guild of copy editors. :) Masum Reza📞 20:55, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Masumrezarock100. That is very touching of you and much appreciated. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

ACR

G'day, Gog, hope you are well. Taking you up on your offer here: [2] Just letting you know PM and I have nominated the 10th Battalion for ACR as conom. If you are free to review, that would be fantastic. Thanks for your time. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:50, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi AR. Oh, that's a nice one. I have made a start. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:56, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton

Hello:

I've had a run through Hillary Clinton as requested, and I think it's in good shape for its TFA appearance.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:48, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks TfT. much appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

GA review

Hope you are doing well. I am thinking about nominating Weathering with You for GA review. I've checked the article, and I think it needs to be improved a little to meet the GA criteria. Unfortunately I don't have keen eyes, so I am unable to see what's needs to be improved. If you could suggest some improvements, I'd appreciate that. Or do you think I should nominate it now? Masum Reza📞 17:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)


Hi Masumrezarock100. Completely outside anything I have ever experienced in RL or edited on Wikipedia. (I mostly edit history articles). That said, I picked up a couple of things:
  • The "Reception" section seems thin for a supposedly notable film. Maybe have a look at this section in some films that have passed GAN - Wikipedia:Good articles/Media and drama?
  • Some statements don't make sense, I assume because of lack of context. Eg "SoftBank and Weathering with You were seen to promote each other in various TV clips." I have no idea what this means. (See two points down.)
  • A number of additional Wikilinks could usefully be used. (Eg Encore Films.)
  • Try to read it as if it was written for someone who knows nothing about the topic, after all Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Then add in, succinctly, the information needed to understand.
  • Having glanced at some other film articles, there seems to be less information than one would expect at GAN in every section other than "Plot". Eg, the two main characters each have only two short sentences of description. Compare with [[3]]. (Just a random example I found.)
  • The titles of all films should be in italics - as in the tile of the article: Weathering with You.

All of that said, there is little to fault with what is there. It is good, clear, well written and solidly referenced. (Except for "The other songs include "Voice of Wind" (風たちの声 "Kaze-tachi no Koe"), "Celebration" (祝祭 "Shukusai") and "We'll Be Alright (大丈夫 "Daijōbu").) So I suspect that it could be worked up into a GAN, but I don't think that it is there yet.

As I said, this is completely outside my area, so treat everything I say with care. Let me know if you do want to work Weathering with You towards GAN and I will keep an eye on it and perhaps offer occasional advice. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I will work on the things you pointed above. About the songs it is mentioned here. Would you mind if I copy your suggestions to the talk page, so that every one can see it? I want to work on this article to make it a GA. Masum Reza📞 19:21, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Of course not - transfer away. Include the bits where I say that I know nothing about film articles.
Use that link as the cite, if you think that it is a reliable source. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Done copypasted to the talk page. So you mean that link isn't a reliable source? I asked on #wikipedia-en IRC channel and one editor said that it could be reliable. It's basically like a online label, he/she said. I am not sure if it's a officially added by Radwimps. Or shall I cite iTunes or Spotify source instead? Masum Reza📞 23:00, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
I just realized that the website has it's Wikipedia page. It looks like it's a reliable source. Masum Reza📞 23:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Also I requested for copyediting on GOCE requests page per the automatic peer reviewer. I don't know how many time it will take since there is already a bunch of requests. Would you mind copyediting? I don't know how to do it. Or I'll just have to wait. Masum Reza📞 23:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Masumrezarock100. I do some copy editing for GOCE, although not usually films. I would be happy to pick this up, but given the rate at which you are expanding it, are you sure that you wouldn't prefer me to wait until it stabilises? Your call, but to me it doesn't make a lot of sense for me to copy edit it and for you to add more material straight afterwards. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You have a point. I was stupid enough not to think about that. I will ask you to take a look at the article once I finish fixing the issues you addressed. Thanks. Masum Reza📞 23:57, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
You were just enthusiastic. We've all been there; certainly including me. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

9th (Highland)

" I will post any thoughts re improvements for ACR or FAC on the talk page."

Much obliged, A-Class review will be my next step for this article. Not sure, with it being such a short one, if it would be a good candidate for a FA review though. With the shorter divisional articles, I have usually stopped at A-Class.EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:35, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

@EnigmaMcmxc: I have had a run through (doing a little copy editing as I went) and it seems ACR ready to me. It seems more or less FAC ready too. ",200 words is a long way from being too short for FAC; it just needs to be comprehensive, which, IMO, this is. If you have a spare FAC slot, I would put it in.
I am certain that reviewers will find many things to comment on - I may even find some myself - but the only non-picky thing I spotted was "As a result of the loss, Cunningham agitated for the division to be renamed to re-create the 51st." needing a cite.
Also, you don't need cites 2, 3 and 4 in the infobox. Like the lead, information in the infobox should be duplicated in the main article, and so doesn't need separately referencing.
Get it nominated for ACR! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
The smallest ever Featured Article was 639 words. No need to worry about length. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLX, August 2019

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) 09:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Fabian Ware

How does this article look as far as taking it to the next quality level? Eddie891 Talk Work 14:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

I can add much more about his journalism, see here, but it seems very trivial. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:49, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi Eddie891. I have done some superficial copy editing and put some thoughts on the article's talk page. IMO there is sufficient on his journalism, which is not what he was notable for. I have seen worse nominated at ACR, and I think that if most of the issues I have flagged up were addressed it should have few problems. (I haven't looked at the sourcing.) Gog the Mild (talk) 14:17, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Image copyright

Hi Gog - I hope you don't mind me reaching out to you for a bit of help here, but you seemed to know what you were doing with regards to image copyright during our recent GAN, and I thought you might be able to help me out. While digging around for sources for another listed building I am writing an article about, I came across this - the genuinely fascinating story of the benefactor who paid for its construction. There's obviously an article in it (indeed, there's probably a novel in it, if I had the time/talent), but I'm thinking about images. The subject died in the second half of the nineteenth century, so I'm thinking that any images of her I can get would be copyright free (?). Can I simply copy the picture from this blog and stick it on Commons with a generic 'old image' tag, or is it more complicated than that?

Apologies for what is probably a dumb question, but I've never actually been through the process of uploading an image before - I've always used ones that were already on Commons, and I'm wary of breaching copyright by just grabbing stuff off the internet. I'd be entirely satisfied (and very grateful) if you just want to just point me at a relevant guideline page rather than typing out an answer, if that's possible. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. That's fascinating stuff, with several articles in it. Not a dumb question at all. Copyright is insanely complicated. And I am, honestly, relatively ignorant on it. That said, my understanding is that for an image in the US to be PD, which is the key point, you need to declare that it was published in the US by the end of 1923 (you may be asked to evidence this, evidence of publication outside the US prior to 1924 may or may not be accepted in lieu) or 70 years after the death of the photographer, or artist, or whatever. Note that this has nothing to do with when the picture was taken. If you don't know the date of the death of the photographer this can be frustrating. (I once had to scrap a nice image from 1879 because there was a (slim) possibility that it may not have met that criteria.) For anonymous and pseudonymous works, the duration of copyright is 95 years from first publication or 120 years from creation, whichever is shorter. Fair use is another issue, but I don't think that it needs to apply here; but bear it in mind in case you get stuck. Once you fins an image, if you are unsure, feel free to ping me: "Ignorance shared is ignorance doubled." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
PS I have never uploaded an image either, so I am sure that assisting you would be educational. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks - so far, the only image I've found is this one - do you have an opinion on that? GirthSummit (blether) 19:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
(Repeated edit conflict .) Girth Summit I am just getting the image at that link, with no background info nor context. As an image it looks fine. Could perhaps do with a little more contrast, but that's what Photoshop is for. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
If you're not confident giving an opinion, I might drop a note to Diannaa - she seems to be the guru on these matters? GirthSummit (blether) 19:44, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Always a good idea to go direct to the experts. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Sorry, scratch that - I reread what you said, you're saying that it's the date of publication, not the date the picture was taken, that matters - so, I need to try to find out when that picture was first published. Ouch - you're right, this is insanely complicated! I'll do some more digging - I might be able to find a picture published in one of the newspapers referenced in that blog, which would have a publication date. Otherwise - an article without an image isn't the end of the world... Thanks GirthSummit (blether) 19:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. Policy suggests that an article ideally should have an image or an infobox. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again, and sorry for the edit conflicts - I think I got a bit over-excited there! I'll see if I can find any more, and consult with Diannaa before publishing anything. I'll let you know the outcome... Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:55, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
Hi there - just in case you were interested, see Margaret Macpherson Grant. Diannaa seemed happy that the photograph would have been out of copyright, and I worked up the article with help from SusunW on the content. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 18:12, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
@Girth Summit:. That looks really well written. On first glance GAN ready, apart from being a little image short. Maybe the one from St Margaret's Church, Aberlour and one of Aberlour House, perhaps a cropped version of File:The Gate House at Aberlour House - geograph.org.uk - 1149702.jpg? Nice job of uploading; I now know where to come when I need help with that. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 21 August 2019 (UTC)
Ha! I just followed the wizard's instructions (saying that makes me feel like a hobbit), but if I can ever be of any assistance of course I'd be happy to help. I totally agree with you about the pictures - I was thinking about where to insert the image of St Margaret's, but what I really want is a proper one of Aberlour House, rather than the gatehouse. Our article on it is totally outdated by the way - the school closed in 2004, it's currently the head office of Walkers Shortbread, who apparently did a pretty good job of renovating and restoring it - that's my next project. I was thinking about writing to walkers and asking if they'd be willing to donate a couple of pictures to commons - thought it would be worth a punt, and probably easier than a 16-hour round trip to take pics myself! Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 19:37, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea. Surely Walkers will want to keep on the right side of the person writing the Wikipedia article on their head office? And you seem to be in full steam ahead mode. Good for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Hello:

My copy edit of Taylor Swift is finished. It's good to go on the front page on the 23rd.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:18, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Wonderful. Thanks again for the work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
You're very welcome. Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:26, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Access dates

In this edit you added access dates to a bunch of references that had not had them previously - why? The article was consistently not using access dates for refs that had set publication dates. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:36, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: My understanding was that it is better to include access dates than not, on an individual cite basis, as any access date adds to the information available. Are you saying that policy requires that information be removed in the interests of consistency? WP:CITEWEB suggests "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the web page (required if the publication date is unknown)." Given the nature of the web, it will be a rare article where the publication date of every page is known; which to me makes it unlikely that one could not use access dates at all for an article of any size. (And stay within policy.) I cannot find mention of skipping either the option or the requirement because previous cites have. I am, obviously, happy to be corrected. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:53, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
As per Template:Cite_news#URL links with a set publication date don't require them but those for dynamic sites or an unknown date do - if the division is done that way consistently across an article it shouldn't be amended without discussion. It's particularly pointless to add access date for GBooks links - I complain when I see that done at an FAC ;-). If the tool you're using doesn't have the potential to accommodate that variation then that's a problem with the tool that should be reported. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:08, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
Personally I would follow a content guideline over a template instruction, but happy to bow to your preference. I have rolled back my edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:06, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 22

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Karbala, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Muster (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Backlog Banzai

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

[[ Image:Symbol question.svg|25px]] Hello! Your submission of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! MX (✉ • ✎) 18:13, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

August 2019 blitz bling

The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:09, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

On 29 August 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1355, the English marched 675 miles (1,100 km) through French territory and took so much booty that they discarded silver objects to be better able to carry off gold and jewellery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:03, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC). 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 16:16, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
I see you have 6 GAs reviews on your list to do in one day. :O I'm impressed with your enthusiasm to take all of them at the same time. I've only ever had at maximum 2 at one time LOL. keep up the good work! Maybe i'll see you at the backlog drive? ;) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 23:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)


Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Congrats! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 August 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next 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 doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 September newsletter

The fourth round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 454 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants with over 400 points being eliminated, and all but two of the finalists having achieved an FA during the round. Casliber, our 2016 winner, was the highest point-scorer, followed by Enwebb and Lee Vilenski, who are both new to the competition. In fourth place was SounderBruce, a finalist last year. But all those points are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 11 featured articles. In addition, Adam Cuerden scored with 18 FPs, Lee Vilenski led the GA score with 8 GAs while Kosack performed 15 GA reviews. There were around 40 DYKs, 40 GARs and 31 GAs overall during round 4. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:44, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Neville's Cross scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Battle of Neville's Cross article has been scheduled as today's featured article for October 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 17, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:52, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

October
... with thanks from QAI

Thank you for the article! Nice to see your first FAC today, "about a battle from Edward III's annus mirabilis of 1346. During it the English defeated the French dauphin at the siege of Aiguillon, the French king at the Battle of Crécy, and the Scottish king at Neville's Cross. By the end of the year they were besieging Calais, which they were to take and hold for two hundred years. A large and well equipped Scottish army marched into England, spurred by Philip VI of France to intervene under the terms of the Auld Alliance in order to take pressure off northern France. Little opposition was expected, but the English marcher lords raised an army half the size of the Scots, marched rapidly north and met them on the edge of the northern English city of Durham. - The Scots mishandled their army, they were goaded by longbow fire into attacking across broken ground, part of their force fled without engaging and they were routed with heavy loss. The Scottish king was taken prisoner; he was to be held for eleven years. The battle was part of the Second War of Scottish Independence, which continued, bloodily, but strategically the English had cleared their rear and were able to concentrate on the war with France." - I will open a peer review tomorrow for Clara Schumann, - informal checking, copy-editing and comments welcome for a recent GA of which I wrote almost nothing ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Today, I am proud of a great woman on the Main page, Márta Kurtág, finally! - Here's my ideal candidate for arbcom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for what you did for Odaenathus, "king of Palmyra, king of kings of the East, saviour of Rome (at least in the minds of Roman writers), and the actual reason for Palmyra's rise! His wars against Persia healed the wounded pride of Rome which was shattered by the capture of emperor Valerian, the first Roman emperor to be captured by an enemy! But Odaenathus is overshadowed by his wife, Zenobia, and thats why not a lot of people know his story even though Zenobia contributed nothing to the power of Palmyra; she merely used what her husband built, including his army, generals and resources. Yet, she gets all the glory; the idea of a warrior queen is more attractive for people."! - I have a FAC open, did you know? And - shocking contrast - had nominated a sad DYK which appears today: Hevrin Khalaf - protest! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:50, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: Thanks for the sentiment, but the editor who saw this fine article through FAC was the estimable Attar-Aram syria. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
... whom I didn't fail to thank first, but who was polite enough to mention you in the nomination ;) - comments in mine - however few - most welcome, it's for Christmas, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:55, 19 November 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355, - "The heir to the English throne leads his first independent command 600 miles through enemy territory; aforesaid enemy's stronger force cowers in its fortresses; leaving a trail of fire and pillage the English swagger back to base, allegedly so laden with loot that silver is discarded in favour of gold. Clearly a made-for-the-chronicles script."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

archive-URL

I see that you've done something of value on the India page, but can't figure out what. What is archive-URL? If you could explain in a few lines, I'd be delighted. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 16:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

@Fowler&fowler: I am a little vague on the detailed workings, but as I understand it, it archives a copy of cited web pages as a prophylactic against link rot, more details here. I tend to do it with any "more serious" article I come across as a part of my Wikignoming. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for taking the time to write about our experiences together at my RfA. I really appreciate your unflagging reviews of GANs. Considering our perpetual backlog it's so appreciated. One final thanks for your understanding of my being a little slow with A Big Mooncake for Little Star. As I am able to resume normal activities I look forward to getting that up to GA standard with you. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 00:43, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: No problem, RfA has always struck me as something of a circus, but I was happy to be able to accurately retail my interactions with you. I try to assess two GANs for every one I put through; having had 50 successful and 3 not I am about keeping up. And I am always happy to give time for editors to sort out actions at their own pace; I see no need to invent deadlines for the sake of it. Less so when this might or would deter the improvement of an article. Congratulations on sailing through RfA. To write "Use the tools wisely" would be insultingly redundant, so instead: "Enjoy!" Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, of "Hundred Years' War. The war in Gascony was crucial to the events of the war in 1346, but was overshadowed by the English victory at Crécy in August. The Earl of Lancaster had successfully kept the cream of the French army away from Crecy by holding out at the Siege of Aiguillon before south west France was stripped of troops to face Edward III in north east France. Lancaster then took 2,000 men and cut a swathe through French territory on a mounted raid lasting seven weeks, covering 350 miles, capturing numerous French towns and castles, and sacking the provincial capital ..."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:54, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Digital media use and mental health FA nom

Hello! Thanks for your help with this article. I was hoping you might kindly take a look at the FA review if you have time. With many kind thanks --[E.3][chat2][me] 15:21, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXI, September 2019

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) 09:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

A Request

Hi thank for archiving those referneces, and rescuing them at the India team. Can you please do it for the India FT at Olympics. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry I disn't realise that you already did that for the article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 20:31, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dey subrata. As a Wikignome I aim to please; and hopefully I can't do better than anticipating your requests by an hour . (I routinely archive the links of all articles on the GoCE Requests page.) If you have any others, let me know. I have run the tool over a few possible, similar articles already. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
Sure, I am tagging you at the articles which ever need such treatment. Dey subrata (talk) 20:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

India

Hello:

I have finished a copy edit of the upcoming TFY article India. Fowler&fowler who has done a lot of work recently on the article was in touch with me and I have given him a couple of suggestions to improve the article.

In any event, it is in good shape for its TFY appearance.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist That is a fine job of work. Thanks.
You will be pleased, I assume, to hear that the last eleven TFAs for October seemed straight forward and that I have done the necessary. So no more big asks until the first batch from November is posted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: You're welcome. No problem with posting them. They're a welcome break from articles on albums and video games and I enjoy working on them. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Cheeky queue-jumping request dressed as an 'offer'

Hi again - you were good enough to offer me advice (and to put up with my excitedness) when I was working on Margaret Macpherson Grant recently. I was able to convince Walkers Shortbread to donate some images (no free shortbread, unfortunately), and have now nominated it for GA. If you're interested, I'd love to work with you on a review - only if you fancy it though of course, if you're busy or not that fussed I will of course wait my turn in the queue. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 21:42, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! GirthSummit (blether) 22:07, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election half-way mark

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors September 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the September newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since June 2019.

June election: Reidgreg was chosen as lead coordinator, and is being assisted by Baffle gab1978, Miniapolis, Tdslk, and first-time coordinator Twofingered Typist. Jonesey95 took a respite after serving for six years. Thanks to everyone who participated!

June Blitz: From 16 to 22 June, we copy edited articles on the themes of nature and the environment along with requests. 12 participating editors completed 35 copy edits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

July Drive: The year's fourth backlog-elimination drive was a great success, clearing all articles tagged in January and February, and bringing the copy-editing backlog to a low of five months and a record low of 585 articles while also completing 48 requests. Of the 30 people who signed up, 29 copyedited at least one article, a participation level last matched in May 2015. Final results and awards are listed here.

August Blitz: From 18 to 24 August, we copy edited articles tagged in March 2019 and requests. 12 participating editors completed 26 copy edits on the blitz. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Progress report: As of 03:00, 23 September 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors had processed 413 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stood at 599 articles, close to our record month-end low of 585.

Requests page: We are experimenting with automated archiving of copy edit requests; a discussion on REQ Talk (permalinked) initiated by Bobbychan193 has resulted in Zhuyifei1999 writing a bot script for the Guild. Testing is now underway and is expected to be completed by 3 October; for this reason, no manual archiving of requests should be done until the testing period is over. We will then assess the bot's performance and discuss whether to make this arrangement permanent.

September Drive: Our current backlog-elimination drive is open until 23:59 on 30 September (UTC) and is open to all copy editors. Sign up today!

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

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:58, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Some shortbread for you

As promised, some well-earned tasty nibbles.
There's more where this came from... GirthSummit (blether) 15:45, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Will work for shortbread. @Girth Summit: Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Chartwell

Thanks for your comments. Absolutely understand that my style will never be to all tastes. But I very much appreciate your broad view. KJP1 (talk) 23:22, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 35, July – August 2019

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 35, July – August 2019

  • Wikimania
  • We're building something great, but..
  • Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
  • A Wikibrarian's story
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:58, 27 September 2019 (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 luck in the coming year! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:42, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Still feeling "...a little precocious in making this nomination"? :) I had a feeling you'd be a prime candidate for coordinatorship if you stepped forward, and I'm glad to see you did.
@TomStar81: Yes. I am still very new round here, and the fact that I now have a grip on a small corner of Wikipedia has illuminated just how much darkness surrounds it. And thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:32, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Great to work with you in the same team. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:57, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
@CPA-5: Yes. Congratulations on your elevation too. It will be good to work together on something different. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
Another feather in your cap, Gog. Bravo. 47thPennVols (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Whom or who

May I ask you a question? I struggle to master the word whom, but I do not know when you have to use? I asked numerous people like Americans and my English teacher in the past but they do not know how to explain to me or they've never mastered it at all. I know you can say the word if it is about a lot of people like this example "The attack took place who killed 200 people whom of which 50 were British, 50 were American and rest were other groups and nationalities"? But could you kindly explain to me how to master the word? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:24, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Try reading the usage notes at the bottom of here. Any clearer? When in doubt use "who"; most people do, even when, technically, it's wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • English is a really complicated language in cases of its exceptions like I know some people to whom struggle the usages of "its" and "it's", "your" and "you're", "who's" and "whose", "affect" and "effect", "here", "hear" and even "hair", "their", "they're", "there" and "there're" and others. I think I know when to use the word "whom". You say it after the preposition or as in who is an object of a verb case. Example in a question of identity or a name like "To whom are you chatting with?" or "My friend's cat just died, he was a great cat to whom was loved by my friend." right? Or "The King of Belgium arrived in the City of London, with whom he took his son with him."? Am I wrong in these example sentences (I made themself up not had stolen from a dictionary)? Urban dictionary helped me a lot "if they're correct" with trying to explain it to me. I had to think like really deep to understand the usage. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
The majority of native speakers get most of those wrong. IMO non-native speakers don't have a chance. Let's not even think about pronunciation. "Though the tough cough and hiccough, plough him through." Though is pronounced as slow, tough as huff, and cough rhymes with off. Hiccough is pronounced as hick-cup, plough rhymes with how, and through with you. Six uses of "ough", each pronounced differently.
I am not a good person to ask. I don't actually 'know' most of the rules, I just have a good sense from experience as to what sounds correct.
Your examples. One would say, or write - written English is more formal than spoken:
  1. Either "Who are you chatting with?" OR "With whom are you chatting?"
  2. "a great cat who was loved" In this sentence the cat is he or she and "if you use he or she, then you use the subject pronoun who".
  3. Your sentence is grammatically incorrect and I struggle to see how it can be recast to include either who or whom. Maybe 'The King of Belgium, who was accompanied by his son, arrived in the City of London"?
Who (pronoun)#Usage of whom may, or may not, help.
Possibly one of my more erudite talk page stalkers will come along to help you out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I know "whom" is probably one of the hardest words with one of the hardest grammatical rules in the English language but probably when I master the rule/word it already would be dated. Because first, no one knows how to use it and second non- or native speakers already use who instead. It's already archaic in English colloquial, so it wouldn't surprise me to see it dying off in the coming decades. But do not worry I will search until I find the answer to master it. BTW the first example was so close just a one-word difference was so close oh well. I'm still young and I learn every day about the English language. Hopefully, you do too? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:17, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
I agree - whom is not an important word to get right, the vast majority of English speakers allready never use it. I think that if one is aware of one's inadequacies and immersed in the language, one is bound to improve. Certainly my English has broadened since I have been busy on Wikipedia - the constant feedback helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:55, 29 September 2019 (UTC)
  • I finally got it. Yes my suborn never leave me behind but I finally understand the word whom and when to use it. It even makes sense is some sentences. It just took me two full days to try to understand the concept. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:25, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
Good. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

FYI

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) 21:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar

El Jefe
I congratulate you on your elevation to the ruling junta of Milhist. Chetsford (talk) 00:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Chetsford: Now then, is that any way to address a superior officer? The beatings shall continue until morale improves. He, he; seriously, many thanks. I shall endeavour to continue the standards of my illustrious predecessors. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:56, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:06, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Barnstar for you

The Reviewer Barnstar
To be honest, you seem to have accumulated more than enough of these things in the relatively short time that you've been here, but I guess that's what good old hard work will do... Thanks for your diligent reviews of Capture of Wakefield, helping refine that article, and hopefully help me build a blueprint for future related articles. Your advice is sound, but also your willingness to engage and explain your reasoning when required. Mostly, thank you for helping this user, who has a tendency to waffle, to "put it more shortly"! Harrias talk 12:25, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

@Harrias: One can never have too much appreciation. I am pleased that you found my input into the article useful. I look forward to seeing it at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Favour to ask

G'day Gog, as you are a newly-minted coord, would you mind verifying my personal tally for Backlog Banzai? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Even my maths can handle that. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:19, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
It has been a challenge for me, I can tell you... Thanks. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:47, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Should have asked me. I like playing with numbers. Would you like me to do the placings? Gog the Mild (talk) 08:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Still waiting on GELongstreet, who apparently was keeping entries off the page then pasting them in, and still has more to add according to their last edit summary. I've pinged them. I wouldn't mind a hand with handing out the gongs though. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
I'm also giving everyone a day or so to repechage my tallying before handing out the gongs, in case I mucked it up. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: No problem with handing out the awards. Just point me at the wording; or should I just copy last year's?
I make Vami IV's total 7,231, not 7,021. Do you want to double check? Would you like me to check the others?
I assume that we are doing no quality control on the adequacy of the work, especially the assessing?
Yes, GELongstreet has tagged articles they haven't yet put on the worklist.
It got pretty competitive this year. Clearly got the juices going. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:36, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Feel free to check and modify my terrible maths. I've done no quality control, as I am AGF on things being done properly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:39, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67: Done. Other than Vami IV I have only changed Penny Richards', as most of their new articles had been assessed as being B class but not noted as such on the worklist. Separately, and between you and me, some of the assessing by some assessors seems so random that I wonder if they have even looked at the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that. That's one of the issues with drives, it's impossible to ensure quality due to the volume. I'll let you know when we can start handing out the gongs. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

We're on. Could you please hand out the one, two and three stripes, the WikiChevrons and my Barnstar? The templates are in the Military history awards section of the Coords Handbook page except for the Barnstar, for that the template is on the Barnstars page. I'll do the rest. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:32, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Cape Ecnomus maps

Do you still want maps for the articles, as requested here last February? Happy to help if you're interested in me sorting out the request. Amitchell125 (talk) 21:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Amitchell125, that would be wonderful. The article is, IMO, more or less ready for FAC, but for want of a map. I am not sure how clear I was in my original request. The map to the right - File:CapeEcnomus.png - is almost what I would like, but sadly is inaccurate. Possibly you could use it as the base for a revised version - yes. If so, I could list the changes I would like, and/or provide links to more accurate, but copyrighted, maps. Does that make sense? I am about to go to bed, but will now do so with a smile on my face.
Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
The map shown here is here is easy to produce as an svg file, which can be amended in any way you see fit. I'll get back to you. Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 05:14, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
I have made an SVG copy of the file (see it here), as a start. Let me know where you want to go with it, and I'll start work on it (even starting from scratch is OK, as it currently looks rather unlike the source it was derived from). Amitchell125 (talk) 07:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

@Amitchell125: That looks fine. Can we start with just the top sub-map.

  1. The Carthaginian navy was in total slightly more numerous that the Roman. I think that the best way to address this is to lengthen the lines representing their wings, to match the length of their centre. (See the Goldsworthy source that you refer to for how they outflanked the Romans.
  2. The Carthaginians only had three squadrons, so could you move the "3" to where the "4" is, and scrap the 4.
  3. The Roman squadrons were all approximately the same size. So could the line currently labeled III be shrunk to about the same size as I and II.
  4. The Romans had four squadrons. So could "III" be replaced by "IV" and a new line be introduced immediately to the left of the horse transports and be labeled III. (At this point this squadron was towing the transports.)
  5. Could the legend be changed to "I, II, III, IV Roman squadrons" and "1, 2, 3 Carthaginian squadrons">

Does that all make sense and is it doable?

Many thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! Much appreciated. Amitchell125 (talk) 11:04, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Featured list nomination

Hi, I am bringing to your notice that, I have nominated the article of "List of international goals scored by Sunil Chhetri", where you also helped me to rescue those citation for the article. Though almost reviewed substatially by editors, but still would like if you leave a comment at my 1st FLC nomination. And also my 2nd FLC nomination, its the "List of highest individual scores in ODIs" where you helped in copyediting and also archived the citations. I will truly appreciate your words in both of these nominations. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Balkan taskforce

Hi, Gog the Mild. When you reverted my changes you mentioned that "the countries included in the Balkans region for the purposes of this [Military History Project] task force are Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Croatia, Greece, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Serbia, Moldova, Romania, Slovenia and Turkey.". Just wanted to ask you which criteria apply when deciding whether a military history article belongs to a country's area of interest: the battle site (whether it is currently included within the borders of the respective state or was part of that respective country), the belligerents? Many thanks in advance. Mentatus (talk) 21:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mentatus The situation is not intuitively clear, and I am too close to it. Apologies, I could probably have given a better edit summary. For MilHist purposes, only, an article is tagged as "Balkan" if it has sufficient connection with one of the countries listed, which don't have separate MilHist task forces. So if, for example, Romanian troops were involved, then it would be so tagged. To pick a random example, Romanian armies in the Battle of Stalingrad is so tagged despite Stalingrad being some way from the Balkans. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
OK, thanks for clearing that up. This means that other articles (such as Battle of Kőhalom or Petrozsény Campaign) must be also included in the area of interest of the Balkan task force. Mentatus (talk) 22:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
@Mentatus: Yes please. That would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations!

The Silver Wiki
For placing second in the WikiProject Military history September 2019 edit-a-thon Backlog Banzai, I hereby award you the Silver Wiki on behalf of the project coordinators. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:23, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


A Barnstar for you!

The WikiProject Barnstar
For scoring an amazing 5,816 points in the WikiProject Military history September 2019 edit-a-thon Backlog Banzai, I hereby award you the WikiProject Barnstar. Well done! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:26, 2 October 2019 (UTC)


Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355

G'day Gog, I have been working through the creation of the map for this chevauchée. Can you review proposed map here and provide any comments. I know that Foix county name and Tarn river identifiers need moving. Are there any additional towns or regions to be shown on the map? I am looking forward to the next work of yours. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, that looks excellent. I am very happy with it and very appreciative of the work that has gone into it. If "Armagnac" could be moved down and right a little - perhaps to be centred on the River Gors, perhaps just above Mirande - that would be a little more accurate. But that is a minor detail; I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

September 2019 GOCE drive bling

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting two long articles during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 11,684 words – during the GOCE September 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the drive, and congrats on your Milhist Coordinatorship. I'll try to review the TFA copyedit situation and see if the GOCE coordinators can take some of that off of your hands. –  Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg and thanks for the bling. Nice to see the backlog at an all-time low. I did a couple myself on the 30th hoping that we might get under 500, but I expect that we will in November. A little help with TFAs would be appreciated. Mostly it is going through FAs which passed more than 8 or 9 years ago, when standards were different. There is rarely very much to do. Those which I think may be problematic I either do myself or put on Requests. The MilHist thing promises to be a steep learning curve and a heap of work, but you would know all about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
That sounds like a job for me (finding work for other editors to do). I muddled through some of the talk pages and then watchlisted Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 1, 2019, so hopefully I'll notice when the next batch are ready. Do they usually get queued about a month in advance? I can look at the next batch or split them with you. I just don't want you to suffer burnout, with everything else on top of your new coordinator duties. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:57, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Reidgreg: I was going to argue, but then thought that indeed, it is a job for the GoCE lead coordinator. But I worry about you burning out. Perhaps we can agree a staged transfer of responsibility to GoCE? I don't really know how the TFA process works behind the scenes; my liaison is Dank. He seems to feel that I do a competent job, so given that you taught me three quarters of what I know about copy editing for Wikipedia I imagine that he will approve of your work too.
I do not fully read every article – I triage out the more recent FACs, especially ones which I have personally read or commented on while they were at FAC (or earlier); FAs by frequent FA nominators which have been maintained or have received few edits since FAC; FACs from the past five or six years where the combined edit history since promotion shows few changes, and those mostly improvements. Any which will be obviously popular among the more "drive-by" of editors - India, Hillary Clinton, Taylor Swift, to take some recent examples - I either give the full treatment myself or post on Requests. This usually leaves a bulky residue for a more detailed look. I don't worry about trying to bring every TFA from 10 or 12 years ago up to what would currently be considered an acceptable level of prose and MoS-compliance – I rather try to remove any more obvious "errors". To a large extent this applies to all TFAs, but if more eyes were available, perhaps more could be done in this respect. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
That all sounds right. Two or three people looking at them would be great ... 10 or 20 would not. - Dank (push to talk) 16:31, 3 October 2019 (UTC)
@Dank: It'll probably end up being two or three doing the checking, and possibly passing individual articles to others if substantial work is needed. We currently have five GOCE coordinators (including myself as lead), plus a number of other helpful volunteers such as our esteemed Gog. After I read up a bit more, I'll poll them about taking over this task and ping you in on the discussion. I expect to be busy toward the end of this month, for example, and I don't feel that I can commit myself to checking all of them in a timely manner. We'll find a way to split up the articles; more hands make lighter work.
Thanks for offering, and thanks in advance for the ping. - Dank (push to talk) 10:14, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: I wouldn't take it all on, and have honestly been feeling guilty that you got stuck with it. I'll find some way to share the work at GOCE. I've been prepping my annual work for WP:CAN10K and am hoping to contribute to a Women in Red stubathon, so trying to schedule these around the hard deadlines. Since you've checked October, we should have some time to figure things out. – Reidgreg (talk) 04:25, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 42 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 October 2019 (UTC)


Six-day war

If you search "Iran six day war", you see there are not so many sources about this. So I don't think this is possible to find a RS. However, this article (in Persian) only says "Iran provided oil for Israel during Arab-Israeli wars." I know Wikipedia is not a reliable source, but this article says: "During the 1967 Six-Day War, Iran supplied Israel with essential oil and petroleum."

Please comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit

Hi... Could you please so kind to participate in request for comment on Template talk:Infobox military unit. Thanks.(Ckfasdf (talk) 01:32, 8 October 2019 (UTC))

Disambiguation link notification for October 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Alvor Agreement, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cabinda (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 07:05, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXII, October 2019

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) 12:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. This article is too long, need to omit some unnecessary paragraphs, help summarize this article (and copy edit). Thanks you. Olascf (talk) 13:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

@Olascf: It may well be, why are you sharing this with me? Can I suggest posting your request at GoCE? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:12, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes.Olascf (talk) 14:13, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
@Olascf: For clarity, I mean that if you post your request at GoCE it is likely that one of their editors will be able to help you. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:15, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
But it takes time. Olascf (talk) 14:17, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes. We're volunteers. We do this for fun. You just have to wait. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Neville's Cross

Hi Gog, a couple of questions if you have a minute pls:

@JennyOz:
  • Aftermath "In early 1346 two English forces..." - is 1346 the right year?
Doh! No. Should be 1347. Thanks.
  • Black Rood, I was going to link it to Black Rood of Scotland but that redirects to Holyrood dab page. The redirect was done back in Nov 2009. I think the redirect should change to Holyrood (cross), which was created Dec 2009. It already has a bold "Black Rood of Scotland" and section. What you think?
Yes, it's Holyrood (cross). And I don't think that it should be in italics.

Regards, JennyOz (talk) 15:02, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping an eye on this Jenny. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
OK thanks, tweaks now done, JennyOz (talk) 17:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Good Article Backlog Drive Barnstar

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar

Thanks for your participation in the September 2019 GA Backlog drive. Your 6+ reviews made a difference. The work of editors like you helped bring down the unreviewed backlog by over 35%. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:37, 16 October 2019 (UTC)


Request for help with a potential FAC

Hello. I hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Thank you for your input at the Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Deactivators/archive3. I must admit that I have a lot to learn about becoming a better reviewer, and I find it helpful to see how other editors respond to different types of review. If you have the time or interest, I was wondering if you could do a cursory glace through the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article. I am interested in putting it up for an FAC sometime in the future, but I am unfamiliar with video game articles. I thought asking for second opinions would be beneficial to avoid nominating something that is potentially unprepared for the FAC space . Apologies for the complete randomness of the request. Aoba47 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47. I have no experience of reviewing video game articles whatsoever. This is the first I have ever so much as read. Given your illustrious history with FAs I am not sure what I can offer. That said, I would be happy to go through article, posting any suggestions to the talk page and copy editing as required. I'll get round to this over the next day or two, unless you ask me not to; if you do, I won't be the slightest offended. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for the response! Upon further reflection, I think it would be better to wait as I am currently on a wikibreak to focus on more off-Wikipedia activities and I am trying to limit my time on here lol. Thank you again. Aoba47 (talk) 21:04, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Rancagua conurbation (talk) Add sources
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Greater Iquique (talk) Add sources
2,058 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Karate (talk) Add sources
422 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Philip VI of France (talk) Add sources
1,350 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Frankfurt Airport (talk) Add sources
13 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Greater La Serena (talk) Add sources
729 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Mexico City International Airport (talk) Cleanup
140 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Manizales (talk) Cleanup
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Bando Osmeña – Pundok Kauswagan (talk) Cleanup
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Madoka Kitao (talk) Expand
149 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Cúcuta (talk) Expand
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Jacqueline de Bueil (talk) Expand
594 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B English longbow (talk) Unencyclopaedic
160 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Sinodonty and Sundadonty (talk) Unencyclopaedic
304 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Football in India (talk) Unencyclopaedic
542 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Internet addiction disorder (talk) Merge
137 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Computer addiction (talk) Merge
17 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Electronic media and sleep (talk) Merge
12 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Battle of Mauron (talk) Wikify
31 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Galley tactics (talk) Wikify
180 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Tiger-class cruiser (talk) Wikify
18 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Hugo Aguilar (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Zindagi Rocks (talk) Orphan
39 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Ewa Kurek (talk) Orphan
20 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Sergio Castel (talk) Stub
7 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Chillán conurbation (talk) Stub
151 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Calcutta Football League (talk) Stub
78 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: C Challenge (2009 film) (talk) Stub
276 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Jalfrezi (talk) Stub
9 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Greater Temuco (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 18:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
26 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: GA Counter-recruitment (talk) Add sources
441 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Cataphract (talk) Add sources
545 Quality: High, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: FA History of the firearm (talk) Add sources
69 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Saturation attack (talk) Add sources
448 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B War elephant (talk) Add sources
87 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Desert warfare (talk) Add sources
260 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Early modern warfare (talk) Cleanup
223 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Heavy cavalry (talk) Cleanup
247 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Principles of war (talk) Cleanup
299 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B History of weapons (talk) Expand
173 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Jungle warfare (talk) Expand
684 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Spear (talk) Expand
156 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cavalry tactics (talk) Unencyclopaedic
249 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: B Space warfare (talk) Unencyclopaedic
62 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Gothic and Vandal warfare (talk) Unencyclopaedic
155 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Science studies (talk) Merge
263 Quality: High, Assessed class: FA, Predicted class: FA Roman–Persian Wars (talk) Merge
30 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: C Christianization of the Rus' Khaganate (talk) Merge
334 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Modern warfare (talk) Wikify
15 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Military history of Ireland (talk) Wikify
679 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Proxy war (talk) Wikify
2 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Bachar Village (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Low, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: Stub Amatori Alghero (talk) Orphan
4 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Asma Khalifa (talk) Orphan
51 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Underwater warfare (talk) Stub
44 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Military specialism (talk) Stub
58 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Tactical objective (talk) Stub
88 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Military theory (talk) Stub
56 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Operational manoeuvre group (talk) Stub
76 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Cover (military) (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:46, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Views/Day Quality Title Tagged with…
160 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Defeat in detail (talk) Add sources
121 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Endemic warfare (talk) Add sources
145 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: B, Predicted class: B Military history of China before 1911 (talk) Add sources
126 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Infantry tactics (talk) Add sources
794 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Cavalry (talk) Add sources
320 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Fabian strategy (talk) Add sources
209 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Mountain warfare (talk) Cleanup
302 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Grand strategy (talk) Cleanup
28 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Military history of Hungary (talk) Cleanup
598 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: B Weapon (talk) Expand
135 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: B Outline of social science (talk) Expand
105 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Cyberweapon (talk) Expand
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start Military history of Nepal (talk) Unencyclopaedic
30 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Close order formation (talk) Unencyclopaedic
106 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: B Battle of annihilation (talk) Unencyclopaedic
94 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Fall of the Sasanian Empire (talk) Merge
65 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Nationalist historiography (talk) Merge
103 Quality: High, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: FA Byzantine–Sasanian wars (talk) Merge
5 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Military history of Chad (talk) Wikify
251 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: C, Predicted class: C Rural sociology (talk) Wikify
125 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Start First Empire of Haiti (talk) Wikify
7 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: NA, Predicted class: C Accidental Adversaries (talk) Orphan
1 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Andrei Smorkalov (talk) Orphan
3 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Alphamay (talk) Orphan
77 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Counter-offensive (talk) Stub
6 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Military history of the United Arab Emirates (talk) Stub
26 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: Stub Kepoi (talk) Stub
254 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Start Private law (talk) Stub
8 Quality: Low, Assessed class: Stub, Predicted class: Stub Military history of Syria (talk) Stub
40 Quality: Medium, Assessed class: Start, Predicted class: C Phasis (town) (talk) Stub

Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information. For more information about the columns and categories, please consult the documentation and please get in touch on SuggestBot's talk page with any questions you might have.

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:01, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

A pie for you!

Thanks for this edit [4] The Bot has been complaining about it all weekend and I had just gotten around to looking for the problem when you found it for, Thx. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Why Hawkeye7, thank you. I didn't know you cared. There seemed to be a similar issue with Talk:Yugoslav destroyer Ljubljana, fixed by this. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I can't see any problem with that one, but I'll run a test to be sure. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7: They both showed up in "Need project tag fixed" and they both went away after I made the identical rearrangement of the order of "A Class=current" and "Class=GA". So I would have expected them both to cause the bot a similar issue. (Or both to cause none. One irritating the bot and one not seems odd.) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
There was a newline after the pipe. This is valid, but the Bot thought there was no parameter there, so it couldn't find the A-Class parameter. I made a small change to tell it that this is valid, and it will accept this form now. What you did to fix my problem was remove the newline. This saved me from having to figure out what was wrong. The Bot can process the original now, sop the problem will not recur. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:21, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks Hawkeye, and happy that I was able to help. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:25, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Baker Street

Hi Gog, I hope all is well. You were kind enough to provide some comments at the Baker Street robbery PR; this has now moved on to FAC. If you have sufficient time or inclination, I'd be most grateful to hear any further comments. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 15:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

On it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019 GOCE blitz bling

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE October 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 11:02, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

A cookie for you

for expanding Battle of Lagos‎. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Why thank you Eastfarthingan, that is appreciated. I have noticed you keeping an eye on my progress. I hope that you like the end result. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

You're welcome - it's spot on. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
@Eastfarthingan: Good. I have an eye on Battle of Quiberon Bay - a more complex article - as a target sometime soonish. I don't know if that is also one you are keeping an eye on. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Excellent.. I'll be rubbing my hands with glee. Eastfarthingan (talk) 22:54, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355

Gog, you've got this at WP:TFAP for October 2020. Ealdgyth has this on her tentative list for next month ... does that work for you? - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

@Dank: That works fine, thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I made it so. - Dank (push to talk) 19:55, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Well done

Well done, reverting all the mischief, by our anonymous, IP-hopping, citevar troll. Thanks! Mathglot (talk) 05:50, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Can you block this guy?

User:IWannaBeTheVeryWorst is persistently vandalizing pages. Could you please block him, and maybe perform an IP check?

(Sorry if you're not the one to contact for this, I'm new here. I just know you're an admin.)

Thanks. Aven13 —Preceding undated comment added 11:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi Aven13, I'm not an administrator, so I can't block users. The page to notify vandalism on is Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. I suspect that another warning or two on their talk page will be needed first. I will try to keep an eye on them, but if you notice them vandalising again, could you let me know. And thanks a lot for flagging up the issue rather than just letting it go. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly Adam Cuerden (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 91 featured pictures, including 32 in the final round. Our finalists this year were:

  1. Better far to live and die / Under the brave black flag I fly Adam Cuerden (submissions) with 964 points
  2. England Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 899 points
  3. Norfolk Island Casliber (submissions) with 817 points
  4. Wales Kosack (submissions) with 691 points
  5. Washington (state) SounderBruce (submissions) with 388 points
  6. Antarctica Enwebb (submissions) with 146 points
  7. United States Usernameunique (submissions) with 145 points
  8. Indonesia HaEr48 (submissions) with 74 points

All those who reached the final will win awards. 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. Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

We have opened a scoring discussion on whether the rules and scoring need adjustment. Please have your say. 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 2020 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. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66, Vanamonde and Cwmhiraeth 14:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your hard work on military history and featured content and contribution to the 10,000 Challenge. Much appreciated! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Why Dr. Blofeld, how generous of you. That is most unexpected and much appreciated. Depending on the answer to my queries here, I may be able to add some more to the challenge. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
For your hard work on military history and featured content and contribution to the 10,000 Challenge. Much appreciated! ♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Obstructing edit by a thick skin

Check the history of the 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup article. He/She has done it previously at 2020 ICC Men's T20 World Cup and at ICC Men's T20 World Cup there were dead links too where the editor reverted the archiving. At 2020 ICC Women's T20 World Cup I can't revert again, as that user is trying to get a chance of edit war to bring AIV against me. The user is kind of dispalying as if he/she owns the articles. He/She previously too did not allow me to edit in those articles and accuse me of following the editor which I have no interest in. Please address and revert his edits at the article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 11:44, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Dey subrata: I have no desire either to get into an edit war. Especially not with a very experienced editor and especially not on an article about which I know little. I suspect that it may be helpful to take an administrator's view. I don't know of one who is knowledgeable in this area, although Ahunt might [?] Alternatively you could post the issue here - Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Er, at the risk of stating the obvious and not wishing to be condescending, I assume that you have already discussed the issue with lugnuts in similar terms to those above without a satisfactory outcome? Just checking. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
You might bring this to User:CambridgeBayWeather, he is an admin with some experience in these sorts of things and I find he is quite judicious in his decision. - Ahunt (talk) 13:51, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
@Ahunt: Thank for the suggestion, I will surely ask him. Gog, I will try out that too. Dey subrata (talk) 14:38, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIII, November 2019

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) 21:44, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

ACR 'fix'

Can I ask what you fixed with this diff: [5]? The ACR instructions say to "Add A-Class=current to the {{WPMILHIST}} project banner at the top of the article's talk page (this should be added immediately after the class= or list= field, see the project banner instructions for more details on the exact syntax)." As far as I can tell I correctly inserted the A-class= field after the class= field, and the diff doesn't appear to make any technical difference to the banner. If it is breaking something doing it this way around, then we should change the ACR instructions. Harrias talk 21:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Harrias. That explains where they keep coming from. This causes them to show up in "Need project tag fixed" here. Moving the "A-Class=current" removes them. I have no idea why. Peacekeeper and I take turns at housekeeping. I shall ask them about changing the ACR instructions. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I did wonder if it was something like that. The best solution would probably be to fix the script that populates that category so that it reads the template correctly, but short of that, changing the ACR instructions might be the easiest fix. Harrias talk 21:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Or stop having it reported as needing fixing when the "fix" seems to make no functional difference. I'll kick it upstairs and see what they make of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:09, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Fall of Phnom Penh

Hi Gog, if you have time to take a look at Fall of Phnom Penh I'd appreciate it. Unfortunately there are no free use photos available. thanks Mztourist (talk) 06:22, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist: what a wonderful piece of work. I assume that you mean could I assess it against the B class criteria? All fine except the very last sentence. The whole world knows it, but it needs a cite.
Can I strongly urge you to submit this for GAN? Liaise with me and I'll pick it up myself - a, relatively, painfree experience guaranteed. This is an important topic, and with what you have done so far FA is within reach; GA should be the minimum, especially as it is virtually there. And, no offence intended, it would be good for you to have your prose and MoS-compliance poked at; I know that I write better for the regular kickings my articles get at FAC. I have resisted the impulse to copy edit, but I will tidy it up for you if you submit it for GAN. Deal?
Gog the Mild (talk) 07:08, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, I've added the ref. B class review is fine. regards Mztourist (talk) 07:35, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Mztourist, you are an excellent but exasperating editor. I suspect that you have been told this before . Think on't. (A joint nom? Hmm?) Gog the Mild (talk) 07:50, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
I've gone through the hoops of GA before and while its nice to have hard work recognized I can't really be bothered with it. Mztourist (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair nuff. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:26, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 08:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC). 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.

Vanamonde (Talk) 08:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 15

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Pontvallain, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breton (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:27, 15 November 2019 (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.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:50, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. 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 2019 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) 00:17, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 36

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 36, September – October 2019

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:20, 21 November 2019 (UTC)


A barnstar for you!

The Copyeditor's Barnstar
Thank you very much for your extensive copyediting of the Fortification of Frankfurt article, and thank you very much for adding the beautiful infobox as well. Your work gave me the enthusiasm to do a re-verification of the historic sources and to buy the book the original author had mainly used for creating the article.

I'll happily take the kind GAN mentoring offer. It may take a while until I feel ready for that, but I'll definitely do so. 🙂
~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

ToBeFree FWIW, I heartily endorse Gog's mentoring skills - he's been a great tutor for me, you won't be disappointed! (Gush, gush. I hope you're suitably embarrassed Gog...) GirthSummit (blether) 22:42, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@ToBeFree and Girth Summit: Aw shucks guys. You're making me so embarrassed that I have had to turn the heating down. TBF: many thanks for the barnstar. I have a rather childish weakness for them and appreciate the gesture. Re a GAN, you are a lot closer than you think. Follow my suggestions on the article talk page and then ping me: you will probably be nominating within a week of that. Every new admin is required to submit a GAN within 3 months, didn't you know? And GS, shouldn't you be working you know which article up to FAC status, rather than stalking the talk pages of innocent editors? Well, innocentish. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:19, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
😄💚 ~ ToBeFree (talk) 23:34, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
Fair comment Gog - I am justly rebuked. I've been reading the (lengthy) sources that SusunW found, I'll get onto changing the content soon, I promise! GirthSummit (blether) 15:37, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Now I feel like the snappy teacher everyone dislikes. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations on upgrading from the standard Triple Crown to the Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown in under a year. An outstanding achievement! Damien Linnane (talk) 11:31, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

2005 ACC Championship Game

Hello:

Just a quick note to say I went through 2005 ACC Championship Game and fixed a number of issues. I think it's now good to go as a TFA.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:03, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Hi Twofingered Typist. Thank you for that. I wasn't entirely sure if you would still be up for this after last month's slightly bruising experience. For your information, the coordination of each month's TFA copy editing takes place on that month's talk page: ie Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/December 2019. If you would like to drop in, please feel free. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
Water off a duck's back! Somebody had a bad day, that's all. Apart from a few tweaks the article is untouched since my work on it**, so I guess I didn't do too badly after all. I do like your idea of adding a note to the Talk Page to head off possible trouble. I will check out the TFA page, thanks for pointing me to it. Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:41, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 •  • 26/11 Correction. It's obviously just appeared on the page and now has dozens of edits! I spoke too soon. Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
@Twofingered Typist: That's because it's on the main page today. TFAs always get lots of edits, most of which are reverted once the dust dies down. One of my FAs was up yesterday, it got 54,000 views (up from an average of 30 a day) and look at the edit history. I'll give it another couple of days then revert virtually everything; so far the only beneficial edit I have seen is the addition of a single comma. SN will no doubt do the same with today's offering. All of that said, the main page gang have a rapid reaction unit, which squelches the more obvious nonsense pretty quickly. So your edits will survive, but most of the current chaff won't. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm sure some of the edits will improve the article which is what we're all about. It's gratifying to see we don't work in a vacuum and that people do pay attention to what we've done - 54,000 views is remarkable! Cheers Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:08, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Usually there is a helpful residue. Indeed. This article was on the most minor of events. I only created it in June, and there is little of any significance in military history which doesn't already have at least a stub. Last month the better known Battle of Neville's Cross got over 150,000 views in three days. Taylor Swift and Hillary Clinton, articles you copy edited, got over 400,000 views in four days and 80,000 in two days respectively. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:50, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:23, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A favour

G'day Gog, I am going to be effectively incommunicado 8-18 December, so am wondering if you would mind starting the voting phase of MHOTY and MHNOTY on 15 December? A quick look at last year's archives [6] will show you what to do, which is basically adding a subsection for voting and spots for the votes for each nominee. I'll be back for the end of voting and am happy to tidy up at the end. Let me know? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:05, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67. Of course, not a problem. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355

Hi Gog, the image en:File:Map of route of Black Prince chevauchée of 1355.svg is ready for use if you wish to use. If you need references on image, let me know and I will add. This will prevent any problems with creator. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. It looks superb. Thank you very much, and please pass these on to whoever created the map. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for Battle of Sluys, Battle of Calais (1349), and Battle of Lagos. CPA-5 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

"as if anyone cares"

Just noticed this message in an edit summary so I dropped in to say "I Care". Your nominations and Seconds and comments and involvement at EotW have been outstanding and valuable to the lifeblood of the project. Your participation is very much appreciated and, hopefully, will continue into the new year. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:50, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

@Buster7: Oh dear. That sounds as if I was off my medication, doesn't it? We were discussing when a second nomination was acceptable, and my edit was largely a response to Serial Number 54129 - a reprobate page stalker with whom I get on well - and I suspect that my tone of mock-abjectivity was aimed at them. That said, many thanks for the sentiment; it is good to know that there are those on Wikipedia alive to such nuances.
My participation will certainly continue. One can hardly move on Wikipedia without encountering worthy recipients, so I endeavour to restrict my nominations to a variety of editing backgrounds and types of editing. Plus two of the next three EotWs are my noms, so it seemed becoming to hold off for a while.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

You Only Move Twice

Hello:

I've finished a run-through of You Only Move Twice before its TFA appearance.

The length of the plot section was a huge issue with the article. (Most of the edits since it passed FA seem to have been to the plot.) I found a version shortly after July 2007 and worked on it; the plot now falls below the 500 word threshold. I've also tweaked the rest of the article.

Cheers,

Twofingered Typist (talk)

TfT, you are a star. This one was well out of my skill set and I appreciate the application of your expertise. I shall update the coordination page. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:34, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Concerning your email

...to me sometime back: have you given any further thought on the matter? TomStar81 (Talk) 01:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

November 2019 GOCE drive bling

The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 3 long articles during the GOCE November 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 12,970 words – during the GOCE November 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 03:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Revolting students: a medieval riot over bad wine...

If this sounds interesting to you, I'd be most grateful for any comments you may care to make at the peer review. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 16:57, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

GOCE December 2019 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2019 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the December 2019 GOCE newsletter, an update of Guild happenings since the September edition. Our Annual Report should be ready in late January.

Election time: Nominations for the election of a new tranche of Guild coordinators to serve for the first half of 2020 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself!

September Drive: Of the thirty-two editors who signed up, twenty-three editors copy edited at least one article; they completed 39 requests and removed 138 articles from the backlog, bringing the backlog to a low of 519 articles.

October Blitz: This event ran from 13 to 19 October, with themes of science, technology and transport articles tagged for copy edit, and Requests. Sixteen editors helped remove 29 articles from the backlog and completed 23 requests.

November Drive: Of the twenty-eight editors who signed up for this event, twenty editors completed at least one copy edit; they completed 29 requests and removed 133 articles from the backlog.

Our December Blitz will run from 15 to 21 December. Sign up now!

Progress report: From September to November 2019, GOCE copy editors processed 154 requests. Over the same period, the backlog of articles tagged for copy editing was reduced by 41% to an all-time low of 479 articles.

Request archiving: The archiving of completed requests has now been automated. Thanks to Zhuyifei1999 and Bobbychan193, YiFeiBot is now archiving the Requests page. Archiving occurs around 24 hours after a user's signature and one of the templates {{Done}}, {{Withdrawn}} or {{Declined}} are placed below the request. The bot uses the Guild's standard "purpose codes" to determine the way it should archive each request so it's important to use the correct codes and templates.

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

>>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<<
>>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<<
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster

Your edits to Henry of Grosmont, 1st Duke of Lancaster have created duplicate lists of sources and notes. If you intend to fix this, please put a suitable template at the top of the article indicating it is under construction, and then fix it. A suitable template would be {{Under construction}}.

Unless I see an indication that the duplication problem will soon be fixed, I will revert all your edits to the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

@Jc3s5h: Apologies. I paused for lunch and then didn't scroll down far enough to spot the duplicates. Now resolved. Thank you for pointing this out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Brothers Poem

Hello:

I've now finished running through Brothers Poem an upcoming TFA posted on the GOCE Requests page. As the subject area is way out of my wheelhouse you might want to give it a quick look to make sure I haven't stepped in it somewhere. Thanks. BTW, I've updated the TFA page.

Cheers,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 15:20, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Twofingered Typist
It looks as if it needed someone with your skills. So far as my shaky knowledge of the period and the genre goes, I can't see that you have changed any meaning; just made it rather more accessible.
Cheers
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:35, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Battle of Calais scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Battle of Calais article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 1, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 1, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted on or after October 1, 2018, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:17, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Jimfbleak Thanks for that. As the editor who coordinates the pre-TFA copy editing of articles (examples: December and January) can I express my appreciation for how early you are posting these. It gives the copy editors a fair chance to have a look at the articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

GAs

Hi Gog, I was thinking of putting up Battle of Huế and Mayaguez incident, both of which I've worked on extensively over the past few years, for GA. Would you mind taking a look at them and giving some initial thoughts before I do so? I put Mayaguez Incident up for GA back in 2011: Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA1 and believe that most of the outstanding issues identified then have been addressed, together with making further improvements to the page. thanks Mztourist (talk) 14:18, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist: Good to hear from you, and good to hear that you are considering sticking your toe back in the GAN water. I have skimmed, no more at this stage, both articles and first thoughts are:
  • They are long. I would - obviously - need to read fully to form an opinion as to whether this was unduly so. (A couple of spot checks suggests not.)
  • Both have at least a couple of cases of missing cites. Each paragraph really needs to end with a cite.
  • Huế rather overuses quotes, at first glance probably in breach of MOS:QUOTE.
I would be happy to be more specific, and/or copy edit them (I do a lot of that for GOCE and TFA), and/or more-or-less pre-GAN assess them. But, a suggestion: Why don't I pick them both up for GAN. I won't give you any easier a time than I would any other editor in terms of content, and I doubt that we will be in agreement on everything; but I won't mess you around over things which aren't needed for GA, I promise to give as much weight as I can to your preferences, and criticism may be easier to assimilate if it is coming from an overt admirer of your work. What do you think?
PS Fall of Phnom Penh is also ripe for GAN .
Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Gog, thanks for your response and support. OK I've put all three up for GAN over to you to pick them up! I'm off on holiday for the next week so won't be able to action anything until after then. thanks Mztourist (talk) 03:34, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Peace Dove

Peace is a state of balance and understanding in yourself and between others, where respect is gained by the acceptance of differences, tolerance persists, conflicts are resolved through dialog, peoples rights are respected and their voices are heard, and everyone is at their highest point of serenity without social tension.
Happy Holidays ―Buster7 ☎ 14:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)


Thanks

Hi Buster7 and thank you. And may you have an appropriately enjoyable festive season too.


Re EotW, I am aware that the next two up are my noms, so I have been holding off putting up any others. There also seem to be several in the pipeline. But if you start to get short let me know as I can think of several worthy recipients whom I would be happy to nominate. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:15, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Gog. 6 are in the Queue. 3 this year. Then 3 in Jan2020. 6 in the queue at any time is a happy medium for us to not stress about a "blank" week. Maybe wait till the new year and then load it up. Your high quality noms are always welcome...one at a time or a dozen at a time. MC&HNY ―Buster7 ☎ 16:21, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I just now handed out one of your noms and noticed he is Belgian. Big Smile!!!for me. ―Buster7 ☎ 14:25, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
I didn't know that you were Belgian Buster. CPA-5 is a very good guy. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Reason for rescuing 137 sources, none of which were dead

This edit to the article for Perth Amboy, New Jersey has an edit summary saying that it was "Rescuing 137 sources and tagging 0 as dead." If none of them were dead why did they need to be rescued? Why should the article be inflated by more than 20% with webarchive links that serve no purpose? As much as I appreciate my local fire department, I'd prefer that they only rescued me when I was in some sort of danger, not just because they had a habit of performing unnecessary rescues at their whim. Am I missing something? Alansohn (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Alansohn: possibly. I am not technical, but as I understand it, what I have just done is proprelactically back up those 137 links with Waybackmachine. So if any of them were to suffer link rot or otherwise die, the link could readily be restored, to just as they were before. And one day, many of those links are going to rot. Ever since I had to find alternate sources for a couple of links I didn't back up I have Wikignomed a mass-back up for the occasional article. Think of it as your fire department sneaking into your house and fitting smoke detectors. Little of the additional size shows, so virtually no one sees a downside. That said, if you don't like it for any reason, or for none, feel entirely free to revert it; it is not something I feel strongly about or will even notice.
And thanks for querying what it was all about, and doing so politely; I appreciate that. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Gascon campaign of 1345, introduced: "The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War"! - I have a FAC in need open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Arthur Gilligan

Hello:

Just wanted to let you know the "primary" editor of Arthur Gilligan found that I introduced three unintentional factual errors to the article which were the result of minor word changes resulting from my limited understanding of cricket. My apologies! I gather this is to be added to a list of other pre-TFA copy edited articles where errors occurred to be presented to you at some future date. Oh, thanks for the recent TFA article view stats. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIV, December 2019

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) 12:47, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit comments

The comments you added here look like they belong to a specific FAC, but they've ended up on the general talk page for all FACs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

@RL0919: Gah! How embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know. Fixed. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Looks fine now, and in the annals of WP's worst mistakes, I don't think this one will rate. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Thanks RL0919. It was aimed at a couple of editors whose article I am mentoring - ineptly, clearly - towards FAC. Don't tell them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus!

All the best

Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

55th West Lancs FAC

Hi Gog I was a little testy when I responded about the footnote, and although I hope that did not come through in the response, I fear it may have. If so, please accept my apologies. I know that you are somewhat embroiled in issues of copy editing right now, and it's not my intention to add to that. I will say, though, that with WP's requirement for summary style and concision, it's often not possible to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of any given subject. I always strive to convey nuances I don't feel able to expand upon fully in very carefully chosen words, and it can be quite frustrating when a well-intentioned copy editor comes along and, for the laudable sake of clarity of prose, effectively strips the narrative of that nuance. It doesn't help that the 55th (West Lancashire) Division article is missing a significant chunk of context about the difficulties both the TF and the military authorities faced before and on the outbreak of WWI, which is why I've unfortunately felt it necessary to oppose at FAC (and that's a shame, because I know from long ago how diligent an editor the nom is). Anyways, Merry Christmas, or whatever well-wishing phrase is appropriate for you at this time of year. Factotem (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi Factotem: No need to apologise. You did come across as a little irritated, but it was fair enough - you were right and I was wrong. Simples. I don't have your depth of knowledge of the pre-WWI period, but you can probably tell from my FAC comments - and my copy edit comments and the fact that I ducked the ACR - that I have concerns about the article. I am going to recommend that they take it away and rework it. I am happy to input into this, and I shall recommend that they seek your contributions.
Copy editing - as a copy editor that is just the sort of unintentional loss of nuance I dread. Hopefully I do it rarely.
And the most Christmasy of Christmases to you too.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Well no, my challenge was fair but not fairly made, and there's no excuse for that. I shall try and do better in future. Have a good 'un. Factotem (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Help

There is a discussion going on at the Easter Rising talk page about whether the rising should be considered part of the Great War in the infobox because it was significantly influenced by it. Can you please contribute? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

You are autopatrolled!

Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)

Replying here since the threads seem to have disappeared ... Harry (HJ) hasn't been active (or wasn't till my ping ... actually, several inactive people have become semi-active again after getting my pings for these older blurbs!) Carcharoth saw that and stepped in to help with several of Harry's war memorial blurbs, and he and Harry were happy with the results. It's fine that you did the blurb, they'll probably like it, but it's best to ping both of them to look at it, I think.
Good Topics: It's probably GAN-discrimination, but for the 16 years that TFA has been going on, we haven't mentioned Good Topics. (Of course, a Good Topic can change to a Featured Topic.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi Dank. The threads have reappeared. Thanks for the responses. Both make sense. Harry seemed active enough when I was reviewing his Midland Railway War Memorial for ACR. I ended up taking a tape measure down to do some OR and he still owes me a pint. I'll ping Carcharoth in.
Fine. I had a momentary panic. Are we happy flagging up FTs and not GTs? (I note that this GT is 8/12ths of the way to an FT.)
Probably best to continue this on the blurb page. Apologies for the hiatus. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)

December blitz bling

The Modest Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE December 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Hello Gog the Mild: Enjoy the holiday season, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, DBigXrayᗙ Happy Holidays! 18:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

You've Got Mail from TfT

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.

Yes my brother happy Christmas and boxing day may we see more of it. Tbiw (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Feliz Navidad!

Merry Christmas! Hope yours is joyful. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:00, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year Gog the Mild!

Happy New Year!
Hello Gog the Mild:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)



Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

The Signpost: 27 December 2019

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:37, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy Christmas

Let sing or form a Christmas song Tbiw (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

The Golden Wiki
As voted by the members of the project, please accept this Golden Wiki as the Military Historian of the Year for 2019. Well done on your back to back wins! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Congratulation Gog, mightily well deserved! Harrias talk 08:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Congratulations from me, also, Gog. Thanks for your efforts throughout 2019 and all the best for 2020. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
@Peacemaker67, AustralianRupert, and Harrias: Thanks guys. Congratulations from veterans like you three is especially appreciated. You all have happy new years. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you today for Battle of Calais, "an everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment."! Wishing vision for 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Four Award

Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Razing of Friesoythe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 31 December 2019 (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.
Eddie891 Talk Work 17:12, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Thanks Eddie: A happy and productive new year to you too. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year! Hope yours is a good one. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Also, you've got (e)mail :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2020 WikiCup!

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. 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. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Hey, I just came across Wikipedia talk:Good articles § 2019 Good article reviews statistics where you are tied at 5th place for GA reviews in 2019. More than one per week, a considerable service! Well done! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)
Wow. I keep track of my reviews and thought that I had done more. But I picked up at least five GANs which had been opened and abandoned by other reviewers and I assume that these didn't get counted. Plus I have five currently open, so that probably explains it. What I hadn't realised was how well that compared with other reviewers, so thanks for that. I am a little shocked. Interesting to see so many active MilHist members in the top slots. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

GA Review mentoring

Hi Gog - I read through this discussion about the GA review backlog with interest yesterday, and have been mulling it over. I've long been against the idea of QPQ for GA reviews, believing that each of us should do what we are good at and enjoy doing - as you know, I spend much of my time removing vandalism and spam, and doing new page reviews, and I'd like to think that I earn enough brownie points that way to justify asking for the occasional GA review from an experienced editor, but I've never felt quite confident enough to attempt a GA review myself. However, I appreciate the frustration that a big backlog can cause (nobody has picked up St Rufus Church yet, it's been almost a week!), so perhaps it's time I dipped my toe in that particular pool. In that discussion, an editor mentions the idea of mentoring GA reviewers - is this something that you would consider doing for me (or can you point me in the direction of someone who does GA review mentoring)? GirthSummit (blether) 10:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Girth Summit. I have always tried to review two GANs for each one I ran. When I was generating two or three a week I struggled; since concentrating on FAs I have a few "in the bank". See comment immediately above. I have discovered this - Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor - to which I have just added my name, and I would be happy to talk you through a couple. Do you have a potential target?
A week, ha! I assume that you have looked at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, ah - yes, I probably should have been able to find that myself if I'd searched a bit harder. (I hadn't looked at the Report page, but I was joking about the week, honest!). Thanks for your offer - much appreciated. Thinking that I should maybe start out with a subject that's within my comfort zone - what about St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)? GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Looks good. Put a brief holding comment on the GAN page to "reserve" it. I suggest not mentioning that you are a first timer. Cut and paste this table in. Run the article through Earwig, click "Turnitin". If there is nothing alarming there, put 'y' after "copyright and plagiarism". Check the article history and decide whether you can put a 'y' after "stable". Click on each image, then on "More details": check that "Source" is "own work" or gives you a valid copy of the image; check that "Licensing" gives free use or PD in both the country of origin and the US; check that nothing seems obviously odd or suspicious about this last claim. If all images are fine for all of this. put 'y' after "freeortaggedpics".
Report back here, flagging up any issues or queries. Note that at this point there is no necessity for you to have read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, so...
  • The article is stable, no problems there.
  • Earwig was a bit grumpy. There are a few sentences that will need to be paraphrased as they appear to have been copy/pasted more or less verbatim from online sources, and there is a substantial quote (attributed) from the National Register of Historic Places - I'm not sure if that really needs to be there.
Bearing in mind Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing I agree. Specifically: "The parish of St. Peter's was formed in 1765, and the chapel constructed soon thereafter was the third permanent mission established"; "The enlarged 1877 structure is a good example of Victorian-Gothic church architecture"; and "The interior is virtually intact from the Victorian construction period, and contains all of the 1877 stained glass and altar furniture" need rephrasing IMO. Write an action point on the GAN stating so, including the link to Earwig.
  • The photographs are all 'own work', no worries there. The published image of Cecil Calvert has a happy green tick from FlickrevieweR, so I assume it's legit. The map I'm not quite 100% about - it's old (18th C), but was produced in the UK rather than the US - seems to have been copied from here - does it need any additional copyright tags?
It does. Well spotted. It needs a tag for its home country, as well as the existing US one. Happily, as we know that it was published before 1923 and can assume that its creator has been dead for at least a century, I stuck in the all purpose {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} for you.
GirthSummit (blether) 14:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

One action for you above.

Now read the article. If you are happy with "broadness", "focus", "neutral" and "originalresearch", indicate so on the checklist. If not, let me know. Does it comply with the MoS for the four areas in the checklist? You can't downcheck it for other MoS non-compliances, although you may wish to mention them, making it clear that they will not effect your GAN judgement. Was "the prose ... clear and concise ... and the spelling and grammar ... correct"? If not, either copy edit it yourself, or flag up each case on the GAN page. Then report back here again. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild, thanks - I've got to go out now, but I'll get onto this later this evening or tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog, I've read through the article to get an overview. There are some small points, which I haven't listed yet (places where the prose could be improved, a couple of not-quite-neutral statements, that sort of thing) but I've got a broader concern. A large part of the article (I haven't done a precise word count, but I think it's probably the majority of the verbiage) isn't actually about the church itself - it's about the historical background of Catholics in Maryland. That makes me unsure whether I could tick the 'focus' box without either a significant expansion of the discussion of the church, or a significant trimming of the historical background. Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think before I start getting into making lists of words I think should be changed? GirthSummit (blether) 11:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Thinking about this a bit further, I'm not quite sure about the 'neutral' box either, on account of the historical stuff. There's quite a lot of mateerial along the lines of 'Catholics were oppressed', 'Catholics were not treated well', about Claireborne's deep hatred of Catholics (even though he doesn't seem to have had any direct involvement in the establishment of this church), and about the treatment of Catholics during the Plundering Time - none of this is really contextualised, and I come away with a slight sense of... I'm not sure what exactly. Partisanship? Advocacy? Perhaps not quite, but it doesn't quite feel right for an article that should be focussed on a particular church. The stuff about the building itself looks fine - one or two phrases that could be toned down or attributed perhaps (e.g. who says it's a good example of Victorian Gothic?), but nothing that couldn't be addressed with a bit of light copy editing. My feeling is that if the history section was significantly trimmed, enough to give context for the foundation of the church itself but leaving out stuff that would be better addressed in an article about the history of Catholicism in the early American colonies, we might be back into neutral territory. GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Spot on. And good prioritising. IMO most of the first paragraph of Geography and all of History needs to go or be drastically slimmed. And while this is only GA, the description of the church as it is today seems thin to me. So personally I definitely wouldn't tick focus, and probably not broadness. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Oops - edit conflict there. If the history section is trimmed, that would probably address the neutrality concerns, so I'll try to put something tactful along those lines on the GA review page and ping the proposer. GirthSummit (blether) 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog - so, I made some comments and the author has done a lot of work to the text now. How to you feel about the text now? I think that the focus is much tighter, and the content somewhat broader - would you tick those boxes now if you were in my shoes? GirthSummit (blether) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Girth. If it were me, and it isn't, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. It is still heavy on the history side, but most of the trivia has gone. It covers enough description to get a tick on that from me. It's not how I would write it, but that's not the point. IMO it meets 3a and 3b. (Several sections could do with retitling though.) If you felt the it was unfocused, then I think that would be a defensible position. That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, yep, thanks - just wanted a second opinion, since it's my first time and these criteria are a bit subjective. I agree on the titling, I'll probably make some suggestions along those lines. GirthSummit (blether) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi again - the author has reorganised the structure a bit (moved things around) and changed one or two of the section titles. I'd be content to tick 1a, 1b and 2c, but I wouldn't mind a steer on whether the citations are properly formatted - I'm not intimately familiar with the Harvard style, it looks alright to me but you might spot something I've missed. Any other concerns? GirthSummit (blether) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit:
  • Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. I have fixed that using a tool. For some reason cite 29 is still a problem.
  • US Post Office abbreviations should not be used to identify states; so in "Baltimore, MD" MD needs either expanding, or scrapping. (Given that most people could be expected to have a rough idea where Baltimore is, I would go for b.)
  • There is something wrong with cite 35. It is not a web link, so should be in Harvard style for consistency. But checking I see that the url is there but blanked. Unblanking it should resolve the issue.
Overall the citations are in pretty good order. Better than I usually manage.
Skimming, I can't see anything else to alarm me.
Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Cool - looks like SN fixed the issue with ref 29, I've unblanked that URL and removed the post code. What's the next step - tick all the boxes and give it a GA logo, or is there more work to do? GirthSummit (blether) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Girth Summit: Your call.. Personally I see no reason why you shouldn't promote it, per 2.4.1 of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Since you asked

...and because I get the feeling that its important to others here too I've decided to do a run for the 2019 year. Its gonna be a little more difficult this year though since my primary source for the material to be checked is missing, but I'll figure something out. For now though I need to get back to work on my day job stuff; I'll get started on the project this evening if there is time. If you'd like to help your welcome to, I'll tell you what I do and where I go to cross check for stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

TomStar81 Happy to help. Just point me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
The first power outage of the new year. Unexpected, but it happens. (That god for mobile devices) Anyway... To compile the list for the awards we'll need to check the featured articles, lists, and pictures, and since the post didn't run any featured content stories past April the last four moths will need to be accounted for manually through the records - I guess from FAC, FLC, and FPC pages (i've actually never tried that before). We'll build the list at User:TomStar81/2019, keeping in mid the following guidelines for the end of the year awards:
  • Be Generous. By default anyone whose done work within the Military history WikiProject over the last year is at a minimum eligible for the WikiChevrons for Milhist work and the Epic Barnstar for work within the field of history. There are four tabs I keep open that track awards for this, the pages are Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards (partuclarly the bottom of the page which lists general awards), Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject, and Wikipedia:Other awards, and I do my best to account for all possible awards that editors in a given year could receive, so to the extent that the awards description permits it pile it on. Additionally, be on the look out for extraordinary contributions, as those who have done truly remarkable things last year may meet the requirements for a Chevrons w/ Oak Leaves nomination (assuming they are not disqualified by the nomination criteria).
  • Don't link to user names while compiling the list, and use nowiki tags for the awards sections while building them. Otherwise, the ping system may inadvertently alert users of the awards we're putting to gather for them, and we don't want people to be spoiled by seeing it coming, its better they get to experience it first hand.
  • Do a thorough content check. Some FA and FL class articles (such as biography articles) may not be geared specifically toward milhist but may include in the article mentions or applications for or related to military service - Elvis Presley, for example, is famous for his music, but did put two years in the army as an enlisted guy, so work on an Elvis Presley article could qualify an editor for shout out. Same goes for Featured Pictures, sometimes you think a picture has nothing to do with milhist and when you check the articles the image appears in you'll find a military application. You'll need to use a degree of discretion here, sometimes the difference between awarding and not award comes down to a difference of opinions, but as noted above being generous is part of this process.
  • Watch for barnstar free zones. Once or twice when I've gotten to the handing out the awards phase I've found a barnstar free zone. If it happens exchange the bling for a thanks and move on.
I figure we can split the work and each get two months from the signpost and four months of candidate checking, if that is agreeable to you. If you like, I can reinstate my 2018 award page and you can look at that to see what I did there to get a sense for how the 2019 page should look as it gets built. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Tom. Are we just looking for featured content? If so, a large part of it could be picked up from The Bugle. (Also all of the new A class if needed.) Given my reviewing, blurb writing and copy editing activities around FAC I would be happy to take on all of the FAs. (Listed here.) I know nothing about FPs and only a little more about FLs, so maybe they are for you. There are also, IMO, some barnstar-worthy achievements in Gt and FT - I would be happy to dig these out.
Yes please, a look at last year's would be handy; I am feeling vague as to what the finished product should look like. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I've restored my 2018 list, its here if you want to look at it. Note that this is from the tail end of the tabulation, the start of it looks very different. Also note that this is what works best for me, you will undoubtedly figure out something that will work best for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019 Bungle

Hey mate I saw you are working with the Military History Article Writing Contest in last month's Bungle edition. I've moved the text to the January edition because I believe it summarises more the recent news from December and the last month's edition summarises more the November news. Or is this a mistake? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

No, that's good CPA-5. Thanks for having my back. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

December 2019 Military History Writers' Contest

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the December 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 40 points from three articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

FAC

I saw you did the source review on Teriitaria II before the article was promoted to A-class. It is now an FAC so feel free to look at the nomination. Векочел (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 44 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)


Need Archiving

Please can you do it for the 2020 JNU Attack article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Dey subrata, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
Dey subrata, please see SerTanmay#Misc_fixes --DBigXrayᗙ 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

The WikiCup

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted this rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement to your review of Randall Davidson, and any other reviews of FACs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Cwmhiraeth, a little oddly, I spotted the rule and added a statement five minutes before you posted this. Is the wording satisfactory? Apologies for having been unaware of this when I completed the review, and thanks for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
The wording is fine. Hopefully, doing a FAR will be a step towards contestants attempting to achieve featured status for their own projects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)
Hi Cwmhiraeth: a query. "My" article Battle of Lagos has just been promoted to FA. Am I in order to score it in the WikiCup? Thanks. Relatively limited work carried out on it this year - see here and here. (Rather more on the last day of 2019 - [7] .) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Yes, you can score for that, because we have relaxed the rule that previously said you must have done substantial work on the article during the contest, and now it is merely that you must have done substantial work at some time.
You claimed for the GAR of History of Filipino Americans - what is the status of that review? It appears to be incomplete. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth: Thank you. Claimed. It is incomplete. I have no idea what I was thinking. (I had possibly just been scoring at GoCE, which works differently.) Anyway, apologies and removed. Although I hope that it will be back before the end of the round. Are all newbies this difficult? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That's OK! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

two minor mistakes in reference archival

This archival cleanup by you seems mostly OK, but you marked two refs with url-status=dead which I've switched back to live, since for me they're live.

Assuming that I'm correct :), this is only a minor bug, since the only "bad" effect is that readers will be more likely to go to the archive than the live source.

Hope this feedback is useful - overall, this sort of bot-aided archiving is a critically important long-term task for Wikipedia's verifiability, so thanks for doing the work! Boud (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Boud. It is indeed. I'll try to see if I can track down the cause. I reckon that if everyone did a bit of Wiki-gnome archiving things would be a lot sounder. So I do what I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
Interestingly, when I run the bot again, it now agrees that they are indeed live. Sorry 'bout that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXV, January 2020

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) 12:56, 19 January 2020 (UTC)


Collaboration

Sir, I apologize for delay in responding. If the offer on the collaboration on the Battle of Phintias is still valid, I would like to seek your guidance. Regards, Maglorbd (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi Maglorbd, good to hear from you. Yes, it is open, so long as you don't mind it being a bit of a slow burner - I have rather a lot of open commitments at the moment, and seem to be getting through them slowly.
I have hard copies of Goldsworthy, Bagnall and Miles. Lazenby of course is available on line. I have recently taken Battle of Cape Ecnomus through FAC and put Battle of the Aegates up for GAN. Reading through them will give you an idea of what I have in mind for Battle of Phintias. If you are OK with my general approach let me know and I propose to then add some of the "standard" bits from the other two articles and give Battle of Phintias a good copy edit. (I do some work for GoCE.) We can then discuss which of my changes you do and don't like, and how to move it further forward. Rereading it I think that A class should be achievable and it may be reasonable to aspire higher.
What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)

As a favor...

Can I get you to cast your eyes over Reginald de Warenne with an eye to an FAC reasonably soon? Yes, that means I'll be doing reviews more also. I'm going to ask @SandyGeorgia: to look it over also... anyone else watching this page or his is welcome to copyedit, with the understanding that I'll be watching like a hawk for any distortions of the sourcing.... I realize he's a bit before your time but ... it can't be THAT difficult! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Aegates

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Aegates you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 January 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 37

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Aegates

The article Battle of the Aegates you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Aegates for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2

Gog the Mild, I think, since your GA review was opened but never started in earnest, the best thing to do would be for you to request a G7 speedy deletion of the page. If you'd prefer, I can do a G6. I'll adjust the GA nominee template so that it uses page 2 again rather than page 3. Thanks, and sorry this one didn't work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

BlueMoonset. If you could point me towards a "How to do a G7" page I will do it, or if it is easier all round for you to do a G6, that is fine by me. If you are suspecting that I haven't a Scooby what either of those are, you are correct. Yes, I picked up three GANs from the same nominator; two have gone through fine, this one we have a perfectly friendly difference of opinion over, so I threw it back for another reviewer's opinion. More detail is on the nominator's talk page. And thanks for keeping an eye on this sort of thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, what you need to do is put the following line at the top of the page you want deleted (though the G7 can only be used when you're the sole editor of the page, as in this case): <noinclude>{{Db-g7}}</noinclude>
The instructions around speedy deletions in general are at WP:SPEEDY, with the key paragraph on how to place such a nomination being the second in the Introduction to criteria section. (You will want to use the noinclude tags regardless of what it says.) There's also the WP:G7 section much lower on the page, which explains this particular request. However, if you don't want to get into all this, I'm happy to take care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
BlueMoonset Sadly, the instructions (like so much of Wikipedia) make absolutely no sense to me. However, I can cut and paste to the top of a page. As Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 no longer seems to exist - which I assume is the issue - I have put it at the top of Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3. I assume that the main editor will then need to renominate? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. It looks like you created the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3 page and asked for it to be deleted at the same time. That can stand, since the page will need to be deleted now that you've created it. However, what you need to do now is also put the request at the top of the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 page, which does still exist—just click on the link in this sentence and you're there. Then add the deletion request on that page. The editor does not need to renominate, and I'll take care of all the changes to the Talk:Mayaguez incident page. Thanks—and next time (or still, if you'd prefer), I'll take care of it entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset. It would seem that one of my over-eager minions has already done this. Clearly I need to give them some content creation to do. And thanks for sorting out the renomination side. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

FAC

Thanks for your image and source review at the Marshall's Elm FAC, but you might want to pop back and add your signature! Harrias talk 20:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Ah yes, helpful that. More haste less speed. I thought that I would cut and paste my ACR reviews while in the midst of something else, remembered to delete the old signatures, but forgot what that implied! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Eh, it happens. I have a worrying number of minor edits with summaries such as "ce, fix" or "oops, fix", which are just going back and sorting stupid stuff I've done. Anyway, I think I might be spending more of the next week or so reading rather than writing, as I'm getting my hands on some books to tackle one of the biggies. (User:Harrias/Edgehill). Harrias talk 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Exciting. Which one? Nick-D once claimed that "I'm pretty sure that my most common edit summary is 'fix' (referring to fixing stuff I just added!)". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm having a bad day, aren't I. I should have guessed - the shambolic one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
Let's be honest, they were pretty much all shambolic for the first 18 months. Each engagement was simply win by the least incompetent. Even Fairfax, for all his relative excellence, was pretty idiotic at times. Harrias talk 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
So true. I love the neat little rectangles in dead straight lines on the map. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for for the barnstar a while back by the time. It seems to have mostly passed me by at the time, and I apparently didn't say anything! I genuinely enjoy reviewing articles, but I can get a bit carried away with it at times, so it is nice to know that it is appreciated nonetheless. Harrias talk 11:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy GAN

Hi Gog, I've nominated Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, if you could please pick it up. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report
Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review.

Highlights:

  • Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!);
  • Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page;
  • Automated archiving of requests;
  • Membership news and results of elections;
  • Annual leaderboard;
  • Plans for 2020.
– Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

Thankseverso

Thank yooooooou
You're awesome for taking on the "pre-review" of Bath School disaster. Muchly appreciated. Shearonink (talk) 23:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

No problem. And thank you; it's nice to be appreciated. Another couple of sessions and we should be able to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Aegates

On 9 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Aegates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC ended the First Punic War after 23 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Aegates. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Aegates), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Idea for new community workspace

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are a coordinator at one of the most active WikiProkjects, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Bloating articles

Your adding of archive links where they are not needed adds lots of bloat and endangers the status of articles because they can be considered too large. It also makes them harder to edit. Please set the bot to only do this to deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Bullrangifer. I am not sure what you mean by "bloat", but the only "danger" to an article is if it becomes too big, and this is measured by "readable prose size" per WP:LENGTH. Adding, or removing, archive links does not effect this either way: eg, John Bolton was 54kB after I had archived the links - in the middle of the "May need to be divided" range - and after you reverted it was, of course, still 54kB.
Archiving the web links of an article saves a copy of cited web pages as a prophylactic against link rot, more details here. I tend to do it with, among others, the "more serious" articles I come across as a part of my Wikignoming. When the links to, eg John Bolton, start to rot, which, eventually, they will, and "link permanently dead" tags start appearing, it may well be too late to recover them if they were not archived while in good health.
I do quite a bit of this sort of archiving, and if you were to look at my thanks log you would see that a lot of editors appreciate it.
Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Wait...do you really mean that adding links to existing content at the Internet Archive somehow "creates" a link there? How does that work?
BTW, I get "thanks" from editors after I remove the additions of unnecessary archive links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
BullRangifer, I am not technical, so rather than my understanding, note that it says here "each URL is saved along with details with, and archive snapshots, either queried from the Wayback Machine, or collected elsewhere on Wikipedia." I dunno how it does it: black magic; herding the electrons with very small cowboys; quantum?
Sounds like that mythical beast, the average editor, doesn't know what they want. I guess we knew that. I do occasionally get reverted, from 5,273 over the past year or so; I just let it lie. (5,000+ IABot edits! Golly gosh, I need to get out more.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm not super technical either, so don't feel bad. I'm trying to learn this. I don't use the bot, and what I know is from talking to editors who do use it.
I don't think the bot actually "archives" anything, but the words you quote indicate that it saves the results of its own use in its own database of links. That way it won't search elsewhere for those links again. It searches the Internet Archive and other databases for archived pages of the links in the Wikipedia article. If they don't exist, it does nothing. It doesn't enter any links into the database at the Internet Archive. That can be done manually by anyone. I do that occasionally when I am searching the Internet Archive and find it doesn't have any saved links for the website I'm looking at. It actually offers me the option to then save the link.
If you don't force the bot to only "fix dead links", it will replace as many links here as it can find out there, including for links here that are not dead, and that's what I have reverted. Notice the wording here:
"You can use this bot yourself by browsing the history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page."
My understanding is that the bot should be used to "Fix dead links", so make sure you use the bot's setting to do just that, and only that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
BTW, how do I download/install the bot so I can use it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

End of year awards

I haven't forgotten about this, but due to scheduling conflicts I think the earliest I'm gonna have any appreciable amount of time to work on it won't be until March. January and February have been rather challenging for me from a time management perspective, so much so that I haven't really had a chance to get enough sleep between jobs and hospital visits and jury duty. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom, it sounds as if you are having a rough time of things. No worries from my end - obviously real life comes first. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

January 2020 GOCE drive bling

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Aegates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Drepana

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Drepana you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Drepana

The article Battle of Drepana you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of Drepana for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Drepana

The article Battle of Drepana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Drepana for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Gog the Mild,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Valentine's Day thanks

Heartfelt thanks
... for your considerable help to make
Tourette syndrome the best it can be.
Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours!

Sandy (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

Siege of Hull (1642)

I'm just starting to go through this prior to an A-class nomination, but I've got stuck at the first sentence, "The first Siege of Hull was the first major action of the First English Civil War." The repetition of "first" is winding me up, but each seems important and irreplaceable to me, having written those words. I wonder if without a set of new eyes, you could suggest any alternatives? Harrias talk 18:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Replace with dates? Work in more explanation? A bit of both? Eg 'The 1642 Siege of Hull marked a major escalation in the level of conflict during the early period of the First English Civil War.'? 'The 1642 Siege of Hull marked a major escalation in the conflict between Charles I and his Parliamentarian opponents during the early period of the First English Civil War.'? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
PS Good luck with the second sentence. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm happy enough with the second sentence, but the third... boy. Do you ever re-read stuff you've written and just wonder what you were thinking? Harrias talk 19:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Oh yes. It usually means that I have been channeling a 14th-century chronicler. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:12, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Mostly, I'm just rubbish at writing leads. But yes, also 17th-century, not-at-all-biased writers... Harrias talk 20:15, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
At the risk of asking an obvious question: I am assuming that you leave the lead writing until last, after the main article is finished? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Raymond W. Bliss

That was a great idea you had to suggest to the Promoters that the DYK be run on March 4 (anniversary of the event). It is in the special holding area now to be run on that date. If it is in the #1 slot position with the picture I suspect it will get a lot of views. I plan on making that a Good Article in the future and have submitted it to the Guild of Copy Editors to look over before I do the nomination for GA.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell: All part of the service. Thanks for letting me know, made my evening. I do GoCE requests: I'll pick it up myself if it is still open once I have finished the 10,000+ word monster I am currently doing (Crusades). If I don't, ping me when you nominate and I'll assess it. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have recently nominated Raymond W. Bliss and William Morrison (chemist) as Good Article nominees. --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:31, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell, I'll do Bliss; you're on your own with Morrison. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Great Thanks.... --Doug Coldwell (talk) 20:46, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Doug Coldwell, if you find yourself with time on your hands, feel free to have a look at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Drepana/archive1 Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: IssueICLXVI, February 2020

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) 13:04, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Bergerac

Hello Gog:
It’s been a month, now, and there’s no sign of any movement on this, so I’ve gone with Plan B and fixed it, per the guidelines I quoted. There's an explanation on the talk page. If any of the FAC reviewers feel I have acted precipitately, I’m open to challenge, but a flat-out IDONTLIKEIT isn’t going to cut it any more. Regards, Moonraker12 (talk) 23:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Drepana

On 23 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Drepana, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of Drepana was ill-fated for the Romans because their sacred chickens refused to eat? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Drepana. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Drepana), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Wug·a·po·des​ 03:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC) 00:02, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

_Where_ are the Aegates Islands? Shenme (talk) 02:32, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

February 2020 GOCE blitz bling

The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:36, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A request

Hi!

I've recently nominated an article about a type of home garden as an FA; this is my first attempt to do so. I've noticed that you're among the recently frequent reviewers of FA noms, so I wonder if it's okay to ask you to review it. If you can and have spare time, a review would be appreciated. Thank you! Dhio-270599 07:52, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

March Madness 2020

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team

WikiCup 2020 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2, with 57 contestants qualifying. We have abolished the groups this year, so to qualify for Round 3 you will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with a featured article, five good articles and an assortment of other submissions, specialising on buildings and locations in New York, for a total of 895 points.
  • England Gog the Mild came next with 464 points, from a featured article, two good articles and a number of reviews, the main theme being naval warfare.
  • United States Raymie was in third place with 419 points, garnered from one good article and an impressive 34 DYKs on radio and TV stations in the United States.
  • Somerset Harrias came next at 414, with a featured article and three good articles, an English civil war battle specialist.
  • Pirate flag CaptainEek was in fifth place with 405 points, mostly garnered from bringing Cactus wren to featured article status.
  • The top ten contestants at the end of Round 1 all scored over 200 points; they also included United States L293D, Venezuela Kingsif, Antarctica Enwebb, England Lee Vilenski and Nepal CAPTAIN MEDUSA. Seven of the top ten contestants in Round 1 are new to the WikiCup.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. In Round 1 there were four featured articles, one featured list and two featured pictures, as well as around two hundred DYKs and twenty-seven ITNs. Between them, contestants completed 127 good article reviews, nearly a hundred more than the 43 good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Contestants also claimed for 40 featured article / featured list reviews, and most even remembered to mention their WikiCup participation in their reviews (a requirement).

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Some contestants made claims before the new submissions pages were set up, and they will need to resubmit them. 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.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Your Signpost essay

I enjoyed your opinion piece in the Signpost greatly, and it made me reflect further on the huge activation energy it now takes to get involved in Wikipedia. Thanks for sharing. Kevin (alt of L235 · t · c) 22:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin, appreciated. Yeah, the barriers to entry only ever seem to ratchet one way. (The original director's cut, before being slightly slimmed for The Signpost, is here, just in case you are interested.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Cheers, Gog! Thanks for your help with my forays into MilHist territory; I dearly wish we had half so good a community going at any of the other projects I've worked in here. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 16:10, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup newsletter correction

There was an error in the WikiCup 2020 March newsletter; United States L293D should not have been included in the list of top ten scorers in Round 1 (they led the list last year), instead, United States Dunkleosteus77 should have been included, having garnered 334 points from five good articles on animals, living or extinct, and various reviews. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Razing of Friesoythe article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 14, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 14, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:19, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Midland Railway War Memorial/archive1

You asked me to let you know when this went to FAC. I didn't expect it to take me 14 months, but here I am! :) HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:58, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Ha! Hi Harry, sometimes that's the way of things. I have put down a marker, will flag up some trivia, and get a proper review done over the next couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:07, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

New message from Shearonink

Hello, Gog the Mild. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Bath School disaster/archive1.
Message added 15:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Just wanted to let you know I put Bath School disaster up for FAC. Thank you for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 15:19, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink: thanks. As I have contributed quite a bit up to this point the degree to which I can overtly support the nomination is limited. But I have put the FAC on my watch list and will chip in on areas where I think that I can be helpful. You did right to flag up the extended discussion on the article's talk page and you can expect the coordinators to take that into account when the time comes. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
I figured that might be the case but I also wanted you to know that it had been submitted to FAC. Thanks for all your help. Shearonink (talk) 02:01, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Second copy edit request

Can I request a second copy edit from the GOCE after an article has been expanded and changed considerably from when I received a first copy edit from User:A21sauce? The article I have in mind is William Morrison (chemist). I did a lot of additional copy editing and updating getting it prepared for a GAN in the near future.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 16:23, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell: Hi Doug, I'm not sure why you are asking me, but FWIW I don't foresee a problem. Put it on GoCE's request page with the same explanation as above and someone - possibly me - should pick it up for you. Copying Reidgreg in as a GoCE coordinator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I knew you would give me a good answer. I'll explain above as reasoning for second request.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 18:54, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
Although it's only been a month since its last GOCE copy edit, there has been substantial work done and you are going for GAN. It's also welcome as we're a little short on requests at the moment. So no problem with listing it at WP:GOCER again (which I see you've done). – Reidgreg (talk) 19:24, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Punic War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Punic War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:20, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

If you can

I have looked-over the refs for the FAC of Barren Island, Brooklyn. If you have any time would you mind doing a spot-check of the refs? Everything seems fine - I think I checked all of them but refs to the FA degree aren't necessarily one of my specialities & I'd appreciate if you could maybe just do a spot-check. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 22:13, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Shearonink, I am about to go to bed, and am busy tomorrow, but should be able to get something sorted on Tuesday. If I don't, feel free to nag me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
That sounds great. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 23:29, 8 March 2020 (UTC)
Here's to getting something sorted on Tuesday! Yay! Shearonink (talk) 03:39, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
It's Tuuuuuuuuuesday. And I'm not nagging, I'm just excited. Yeah. Shearonink (talk) 21:26, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Happy hot fudge Tuesdae. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:50, 10 March 2020 (UTC)
Have any time today to maybe do a reference spot-check or whatever? Thx, Shearonink (talk) 15:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shearonink. Are we talking about a spot check of the references of Barren Island, Brooklyn? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I am trying my best to at least help out a little at FAC. Looked around for an article that hadn't gotten any comments & found Barren Island, Brooklyn - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barren Island, Brooklyn/archive1. I just wanted another set of eyes to check my work so to speak. FAC is a new venture for me, I want to make sure I'm doing things right. Shearonink (talk) 15:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi Shearonink: Yep. I've done that and signed off on it. So far as I can see, you can now pass the source review.
It is good of you both to want to help out and to want to stretch your skill set. Too many people tend to stay in just those areas of Wikipedia where they are comfortable. (Which I am all for much of the time, but I like a bit of a challenge.) Shout if you hit any problems that Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC doesn't answer, or if you would like a second opinion.
In case they help, some FAC source reviews by me are at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of the Defile/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Henry Clifford, 10th Baron Clifford/archive1, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horologium (constellation)/archive1 and Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Inter-Allied Women's Conference/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for all that :). Shearonink (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I'm not seeing your ref sign-off/spot-check for Barren Island, Brooklyn at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Barren Island, Brooklyn/archive1... Shearonink (talk) 16:39, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Nevermind, you did pass it. Not enough coffee in the world today. Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Some baklava for you

Thanks for your contribution to The Signpost in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2020-03-01/Opinion. ↠Pine (✉) 04:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Punic War

The article First Punic War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:First Punic War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of First Punic War

The article First Punic War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Punic War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:22, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Mil hist locator maps

If you look at pl:Obrona Helu it does exactly what you want. But I don't think our template has this functionality. Something to bring to milhist general talk? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVII, March 2020

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) 01:51, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Naravas or Navaras

Hi, are Naravas and Navaras (Numidian) the same? Just noticed. --Hanberke (talk) 15:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Likewise, Mathos or Matho (Numidian)?--Hanberke (talk) 15:26, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Hanberke, they are. Many thanks. I got weird redirects. That saves me a lot of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 18

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Crusader states, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Christian (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 15:46, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

GOCE March newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors March 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2019. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2020, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below.

Election results: There was little changeover in the roster of Guild Coordinators, with Miniapolis stepping down with distinction as a coordinator emeritus while Jonesey95 returned as lead coordinator. The next election is scheduled for June 2020 and all Wikipedians in good standing may participate.

January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work, completing 215 copy edits including 56 articles from the Requests page and 116 backlog articles from the target months of June to August 2019. At the conclusion of the drive there was a record low of 323 articles in the copy editing backlog. Of the 27 editors who signed up for the drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

February Blitz: Of the 15 editors who signed up for this one-week blitz, 13 completed at least one copy edit. A total of 32 articles were copy edited, evenly split between the twin goals of requests and the oldest articles from the copy-editing backlog. Full results are here.

March Drive: Currently underway, this event is targeting requests and backlog articles from September to November 2019. As of 18 March, the backlog stands at a record low of 253 articles and is expected to drop further as the drive progresses. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Help set a new record and sign up now!

Progress report: As of 18 March, GOCE copyeditors have completed 161 requests in 2020 and there was a net reduction of 385 articles from the copy-editing backlog – a 60% decrease from the beginning of the year. Well done and thank you everyone!

Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist

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

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Lipari Islands

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Lipari Islands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 22:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Pdfs of Walbank

Hi, do you need the pdfs of Walbank's Commentary on Polybius? The Cambridge Ancient History for the first part of the Roman Republic is downloadable here. T8612 (talk) 20:29, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

T8612, woo hoo. I didn't know that, even though I use Academia all the time. Thank you. Saved and squirreled away. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Hi, you have the first tome of Walbank's Commentary on Polybius here. Regarding the Treaty of Lutatius, I wrote something here, which should be in the text. It comes from a theory by Adam Ziolkowski (his book here). I can add it to the article if you want. T8612 (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
T8612, I think that we may be getting a bit tangential, so I would rather leave it as it is. However, there is probably a separate article in this, just on this issue- Sacred chickens and the Battle of Drepana. Would you fancy collaborating on it? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
I think it's preferable to add a section in the article on Publius Claudius Pulcher, because this is not the only controversial thing he did (see the story of his freedman Glicia). I've been considering writing an article on the Black legend of the Claudii or something similar, but I never had the time to do it. T8612 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, are you sure abbout the language "Latin" in the infobox of Treaty of Lutatius? I would have thought they used Greek as both parties used the language. Both sources on the treaty (Polybius and Zonaras) used Greek too, but I don't think the language was stated anywhere. T8612 (talk) 16:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
Well I have a source which gives Latin, but I find your logic compelling. I don't mention it in the text either, so it shouldn't really be there. Good catch. Removed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Lipari Islands

The article Battle of the Lipari Islands you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Battle of the Lipari Islands for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Lipari Islands

The article Battle of the Lipari Islands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Lipari Islands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Netherlands Fractal Pattern

Left a message for ya a few hours ago. Ominae (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Ominae (talk) 13:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Tempate woes

How does one make {{CongBio|M000797}} render as an inline ref? See Patsy Mink and why would anyone "program" (not sure if that is even the right word) a template to render something like this as an external link rather than a ref? Perhaps as it is a US template, you don't know, but you have far more technical skill than me. Maybe Vanamonde93 who does lots of political articles knows if you do not. Trying to get this one up to GA so we can do FA for Asian-Pacific American month in May. Thus, any help would be fabulous. SusunW (talk) 17:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to display fine to me, SusunW; what am I missing? Vanamonde (Talk) 17:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
As an inline ref, I would treat it like any other web site used as a cite. Would you like me to have a go? Where would you like it? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Vanamonde93 and Gog the Mild:, I see "United States Congress & M000797. sfn error: no target: CITEREFUnited_States_CongressM000797 (help)" I have no idea how to fix it so yes Gog, because the help page is Greek to me. SusunW (talk) 17:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Oh I see. I think I can fix that, yes. GIve me a minute. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Gracias mi amigos. I really appreciate the help. SusunW (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
De nada. I managed to do it, but had to dispose of the Congbio template, which I think is the source of the trouble. I've formatted it like a regular web citation, which ought to be fine. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:14, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
Which I am quite happy about, Vanamonde93. I didn't like that it rendered as an external source to begin with. will have to remember to just format like any other web cite if I run across other articles using that template. Thank you so much! SusunW (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild, Vanamonde93, and Girth Summit: I have been holding off nominating Mink for GA because I had so many reviews pending. Now that the drive has whittled those down, and I have 3 that should pass this week, I have nominated Mink. The issue is that we need it approved ASAP. (Okay, there is also an issue with images, which is clearly spelled out on the talk page). Though I feel bad about bumping others that have waited longer for review, Asian-Pacific American month is in May and that would be an ideal time for her to appear on the front page. Would one of y'all be willing to do the review? Thanks very much for your consideration. SusunW (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm incredibly busy in RL for another few days; if no one has picked it up by then, I'd be willing. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Gracias! Appreciate the consideration. Stay safe, all of you. SusunW (talk) 15:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Hi SusunW. I should be able to do another of your GANs over the weekend. Mink isn't the one I would have chosen, but if it is still urgent and still unspoken for I could do it. Let me know? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
You are wonderful Gog the Mild! It's still not been picked up and yes, I still need it done ASAP. Thank you so much. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mercenary War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Mercenary War you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 10:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 March 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

COVID and GAs

Hi Gog, I hope you're keeping well as this coronavirus sweeps the world. If you're up for doing any GA reviews please let me know. best regards Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist, sure. So long as there is no time pressure I will pick some up, one at a time. What have you got? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Gog, no time pressure at all. I just nominated Operation Starlite if you could pick that up. thanks Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mercenary War

The article Mercenary War you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Mercenary War for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 13:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Mercenary War

The article Mercenary War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Mercenary War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog Drive

Harrias talk 06:47, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 13:40, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Adys

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Adys you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 14:20, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

The article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 20:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

March Madness write-up

Hi Gog, thanks for doing all the heavy lifting with the drive. Could you pen something for the April Bugle about the results, number of articles tagged, GANs done etc as well as the winners? Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Peacemaker67, a draft is at the bottom of User:Gog the Mild/sandbox for you to review. There is my score left to check, me to barnstar, and the three cups to award. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Spiel looks good, I'll sort out the rest later today. But given you ran it, it is probably appropriate that you hand out the other two cups. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Adys

The article Battle of Adys you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Adys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catlemur -- Catlemur (talk) 16:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 39 reviews between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


Congratulations!

The WikiProject Barnstar
For scoring 2,573 points in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


And there's more!

The Silver Wiki
For scoring your outstanding effort in coming second in the WikiProject Military history 2020 edit-a-thon March Madness, I am pleased to award you this Silver Wiki as a token of appreciation from the Project. Thank you, and well done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:19, 3 April 2020 (UTC)


A Barnstar for you

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
For you many contributions to military history articles, to the Wikproject Military History and to coming in second in the 2020 March Madness backlog reduction edit-a-thon, I award you this barnstar. Donner60 (talk) 04:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious
Two years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you today for Razing of Friesoythe, saying: "In mid-April 1945 in NW Europe, the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division burnt down the small German town of Friesoythe on the orders of the divisional commander. A minor war crime in a conflict thick with them. Surprisingly (to me) it seems to have hidden in plain sight for 75 years. There has been little attempt to cover it up, bar some fudging in the official history, but this article is the only specific treatment of it of which I am aware."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Nice job, Gog! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

March 2020 GOCE drive bling

The Cleanup Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 12,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Here's another for the collection! Thanks for helping to reduce the copy-editing backlog by 75% in one month! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)

The article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 22:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

hard-fought battle of the Battle

Hi, it seems there is a duplicate in First Punic War: ...hard-fought battle of the Battle.... Hanberke (talk) 11:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Hanberke, fixed. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXVIII, April 2020

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) 05:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe TFA

I'm very pleased to see that this is today's TFA - it really is a very good article, and a reminder that the "good war" was actually pretty ugly. Nick-D (talk) 11:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Nick, and I can't thank you enough for digging out Biddiscombe - I would never have thought of looking there for information tying in the underlying behaviours. Are you the reader who currently has him out of the Open Library? Yeah - no such thing as a "good war"; as every generation seems to need to relearn. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Judging from my talk page, Ian Rose might be the person with the book out :) I consulted a hard copy at a university library. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I just wanted to check things before I reverted something that Nick beat me to anyway -- you can have it back now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Guidance page

I was just updating {{Fallacies}} on various pages due to the merge of several templates into it, and I noticed that User:Gog the Mild/Guidance and Wikipedia:Guidance appear to be a content fork. What's going on there? Biogeographist (talk) 23:14, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Biogeographist, I have no idea. I am but a simple content creator, and such things are beyond me. As User:Gog the Mild/Guidance was created when I was only very sluggish active, I assume that I fouled something up. Possibly I intended to cut and paste part of Wikipedia:Guidance to a user page and I got it wrong? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
OK, so you wouldn't mind if I nominate Wikipedia:Guidance for deletion then, since you have an updated version of the same thing at User:Gog the Mild/Guidance? Biogeographist (talk) 02:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Biogeographist, absolutely not. I note that I am down as the page creator, but I am pretty certain that I am not. Any hoo, feel free to tidy it away. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of the Aegates, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

GA reassessment

Outremer, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 GOCE blitz bling

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2020 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 20:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Lutatius

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Treaty of Lutatius you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 19:40, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gisco (died 239 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gisco (died 239 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Lipari Islands

On 22 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Lipari Islands, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the initial naval battle of the First Punic War, the Roman sailors fled, with their commander and the entire fleet captured by the Carthaginians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Lipari Islands. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Lipari Islands), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (Talk) 12:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Treaty of Lutatius

The article Treaty of Lutatius you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Treaty of Lutatius for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Usernameunique -- Usernameunique (talk) 16:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Lutatius at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:16, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Panormus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Panormus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 00:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

On 26 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a Roman army in Africa was wiped out by a Carthaginian attack led by an elephant charge in 255 BC? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 26

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Mercenary War, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hanno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 13:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Panormus

The article Battle of Panormus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Panormus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Naming of war

Hi Gog, saw you are active in ancient/medieval war articles. Any advice how to name an article about a war that's not known by any specific name? Specifically, in the history of the Emirate of Granada there were a lot of wars which involve multiple states on each side (so they can't be just A-B war), and with multiple geographic areas (so it can't just be War in [Someplace]). For example, the war described in the early part of Nasr_of_Granada#Reign involves Granada vs an alliance of the Marinids, Castile, Aragon, and locations include Ceuta in North Africa as well as several towns on the Spanish coast. Any idea? HaEr48 (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi HaEr48, I am not sure that I am the best person to ask, as I don't much care what articles are called. I once had an article name changed twice while I was taking it through FAC without getting involved. For the example you give, how about Granadian War of 1309? For all against all wars maybe Iberian War of XXX-XXX? It seems to me that a combination of a location and a date ought to uniquely identify a war reasonably succinctly. If anyone has a better idea, let them move the page. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @HaEr48: Second woot The Gog says. The trick with page titles, and the easiest way of conforming to the guides, is to establish the lowest common denominator, e.g. place/date. ——SN54129 17:47, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Mercenary War

On 27 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Mercenary War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Mercenary War, Carthaginian rebels killed 700 prisoners by cutting off their hands, castrating them, breaking their legs, and throwing them into a pit to be buried alive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Mercenary War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Mercenary War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For the joy of seeing an article on an ancient Roman subject (Mercenary War) that doesn't rely on primary sources. Thank you. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ealdgyth: A barnstar from a FAC coordinator! For a FAC in progress!! My cup runneth over. Thank you.

Yeah. Someone had fun with their copy of Polybius, back in the day. If Mercenary War were to be promoted it would be my fourth FA on a First Punic War topic. (Speaking loosely.) And not a primary source between them. I am hoping that there will be another half dozen to come, including First Punic War itself. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Panormus at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gisco (died 239 BC)

The article Gisco (died 239 BC) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Gisco (died 239 BC) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 08:21, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Issue 38, January – April 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 38, January – April 2020

  • New partnership
  • Global roundup

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

dyk

Hey, Gog! You asked at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor about tasks at DYK. One common task is setting preps -- pulling approved hooks into a prep set -- which is a bit like putting together a complicated puzzle. For instance, we alternate within a prep set the bio and non-bio hooks. We don't want more than a certain number of US hooks or military hooks or music hooks. We need a quirky in the last slot. We can't use all long hooks, or all short ones. And if today's set has a bio hook in the image slot, tomorrow's set get a non-bio image. We need a new set every day, and it's often best if a single editor tries to do a full set, or at least to do most of the hooks in that set, just to prevent working at cross-purposes. If the MPE proposal eventually passes, it's quite likely multiple of our current prep setters will apply for the right, which means they won't have as much time to set preps (plus they probably shouldn't move preps they've set to queue), which means we'll need more prep setters. If you're interested, I can show you how to start. Ping me if you respond here, real life is keeping me from maintaining good control over my watch list right now. --valereee (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

@Valereee: That sounds like the sort of thing which might interest me. I hung around DYK a fair bit when I was putting my noms in frequently. (They were all GAs, apart from one FA, so I anticipate having to crank my standards down.) I am expecting being busy IRL for the next 48 hours. But if you would care to give pointers as to the first lesson, I will work through it when I can and get back to you. Or should I ping again when I am more available? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
Whenever you have time is great! The first thing I would do is read Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Rules_of_thumb_for_preparing_updates. Realize that when you move a hook to prep, you are basically saying, "I agree with the reviewer that this hook satisfies DYK rules." The reviewer is supposed to have checked that all the rules were indeed followed. But I find issues, and I'm actually the third check. Prep setters provide what is basically the second check. For your first lesson: What change do new GAs often require, and why does DYK need stricter requirements in that area?
Second lesson: promote some hooks into a prep. Instructions for promoting a hook are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook. It involves having multiple pages open at a time. I would start with the lowest empty set, even if there are empty ones above it, as this gives you the most time to set the prep while receiving input from other experienced prep setters like Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth, who will likely be here to comment on your work soon after you start setting. :) --valereee (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes tell me more Tbiw (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)


FA mentoring for Lockheed F-104 Starfighter

Greetings Gog the Mild,

Having not been through the FA process before, I was wondering if perhaps you might be willing to mentor me through it for the Lockheed F-104 Starfighter. I think the article is in pretty reasonable shape, but I would welcome your feedback and advice. Thank you! CThomas3 (talk) 16:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi Cthomas3, sure, I'm willing to give it a go. I am a little busy at the moment - I have two FACs on the go, among other things - but should be able to allocate some time to this. I note that there is a FAC nom on the talk page all set to go. Do you really think nomination is that imminent?
I would normally suggest that I trawl through the article - probably in stages, probably over several days - copy editing fairly freely as I go (you can always revert anything you don't like) and throwing out queries as if I were a FAC reviewer. Is this OK with you? I would then give an opinion on how FAC-ready I thought it was. And whether I thought it should go through A class review first. I would normally strongly recommend this, but I haven't read the article yet.
Note that I know next to nothing about the topic - my knowledge of fighter technology gives out around when Spitfires were equipped with variable speed propellers.
Let me know if I have your permission to start into it.
Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
Greetings Gog, I put that notice up prior to posting here; it was the fist step in the nomination process, but I thought it might be best for a mentor instead, so I didn't complete the application. I'm certainly happy for the notice to be taken down if there's work to be done first. Of course you are welcome to either make changes yourself or have me do them; I'm perfectly okay with any way you would like to do this. And an A-class review would be welcome! I'm not in any hurry, so I'd prefer to do this the right way. Thank you! CThomas3 (talk) 23:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Adys

On 30 April 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Adys, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after the Battle of Adys, the peace terms offered to the defeated Carthaginians were so harsh that they decided to fight on? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Adys. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Adys), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gisco (died 239 BC)

The article Gisco (died 239 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gisco (died 239 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 May newsletter

The second round of the 2020 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 75 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top ten contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 186 good articles achieved in total by contestants, and the 355 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with 2333 points from one featured article, forty-five good articles, fourteen DYKs and plenty of bonus points
  • England Gog the Mild, with 1784 points from three featured articles, eight good articles, a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews and lots of bonus points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man, with 1262 points from two featured articles, eight good articles and a hundred good article reviews
  • Somerset Harrias, with 1141 points from two featured articles, three featured lists, ten good articles, nine DYKs and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews
  • England Lee Vilenski with 869 points, Gondor Hog Farm with 801, Venezuela Kingsif with 719, Cascadia (independence movement) SounderBruce with 710, United States Dunkleosteus77 with 608 and Mexico MX with 515.

The rules for featured article reviews have been adjusted; reviews may cover three aspects of the article, content, images and sources, and contestants may receive points for each of these three types of review. Please also remember the requirement to mention the WikiCup when undertaking an FAR for which you intend to claim points. Remember also that DYKs cannot be claimed until they have appeared on the main page. As we enter the third round, any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed now, and anything you forgot to claim in round 2 cannot! Remember too, that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth. - MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cape Hermaeum

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Cape Hermaeum you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 18:22, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)

On 3 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Romans besieged Lilybaeum for nine years without capturing the Carthaginian city? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Lilybaeum (250–241 BC)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War Featured Article Nomination

I responded to your FAC comments on the Hyborian War article here, but the more I think about them more I think the article would benefit from including all of them.

I'm open to withdrawing the nomination and reworking as recommended if you're open to reviewing it before I repost. I'm on no schedule, so the timeline would be up to you.

Alternatively, since it would likely take me less than a week to rewrite as you note, I can rework while the nomination is open (I'm already underway). I'd defer to your knowledge there as I'm not familiar with nomination timelines. Airborne84 (talk) 01:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Airborne84, normally one would withdraw to do this sort of work, even if resubmitting a few days later. However, if you can add what you feel is needed both quickly and to a high quality, that should be OK. And impressive. I assume that you have a friendly editor or three lined up to review this? If not, I can't see a specialist topic like that attracting enough passing reviewers for a consensus for promotion. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any editors lined up. Any recommendations on how to do that? Airborne84 (talk) 17:27, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
1. Be shameless. 2. Ask anyone whose article you have ever reviewed at any level, reminding them of that review. 3. Ask any one who has ever seemed "friendly" towards you on Wikipedia. 4. See who has edited similar articles and ask them. 5. Ask anyone who has ever nominated or reviewed anything even vaguely similar at GAN or FAC. 6. See who has done a lot of reviews for the WikiCup and ask them.
But hang on, it's not actually ready for external scrutiny yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:40, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, not ready yet. Just wasn't sure if there were any rules against seeking out editors. Appreciate the guidance. Airborne84 (talk) 20:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild, am moving at a rapid pace on this and RSI has tentatively agreed to provide images (have to talk them through the upload/licensing process). Question: can I rewrite the description paragraph for the FAC nomination? The more I look at the nomination, the more I think it might be better to pull it for a week and come back strong. I just came in all wrong. Nomination with no editors lined up. Bland, dry, description of a gaming topic that has Conan the Barbarian in it for Pete's sake! I did try to get an FAC mentor to review before the nom, but he didn't respond, so I just went for it. If I can rewrite the nomination for more interest, I'd lean toward finishing with the current nom, but if that's bad form, I'd prefer pulling it and coming back ready with "guns blazing" so to speak. Airborne84 (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Airborne84, you can go either way, but insofar as they care the coordinators and the regular reviewers are likely to look slightly more favourably on it if you prominently post an explanation similar to above and then withdrew. There is a school of thought that "FAC is for a final polish, not for rewriting inadequate articles". (Ouch!) If you are asking my advice, I would go that way, even if you are renom'ing two days later. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild, I'm good with that. I don't feel the need to force anything through and I'm happy to set conditions and do it right. Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Gog the Mild I've made the updates you recommended. I couldn't get the company to upload high-res images under a free license, so I had to make do with lower-res fair use images. If you think a different direction is needed with images, can do. Would greatly appreciate your review before renominating. At your convenience, of course. Airborne84 (talk) 06:33, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Airborne84, I have a few things on. Happy to look it over but it may take a couple of days. If I haven't responded by Tuesday, feel free to give me a nudge. Meanwhile, maybe check the six tips for finding reviewers above? (My latest FAC was posted on 18 May and already has 4 supports and has passed both image and source reviews.)
Some people - not all - find that reviewing an article or three gives them a feel for what a reviewer may be looking for in their articles and for the process as a whole. If you fancy trying this, then looking at some MilHist A class noms may help. Just a thought. (Personally I am always aware that whenever I nominate a FAC I am asking six or more editors to review it, so try to do six or more FAC reviews myself for each one.) Gog the Mild (talk) Gog the Mild (talk) 09:32, 24 May 2020 (UTC)
Will do Gog the Mild. Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 16:54, 24 May 2020 (UTC)

April 2020 Military History Writers' Contest

The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the April 2020 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 98 points from 10 articles. Congratulations, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:39, 5 May 2020 (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.Ján Kepler (talk) 12:20, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cape Hermaeum

The article Battle of Cape Hermaeum you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cape Hermaeum for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 14:01, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

FAC assist

Hello, Gog to Mild! I was wondering if you could provide feedback for my FAC MAX Yellow Line. It's a fairly short article and I would really appreciate it. I was hoping to pay it back with a review of one of your existing FACs, but all of them looked way too intimidating for me. I'm sure you'll have plenty more future FACs that I'll have better knowledge of. Anyway, hoping to hear from you. Thanks! --truflip99 (talk) 22:09, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Truflip99, OK. Probably do me good to do something different. I'm not sure that 3,200 words is "short". I suspect that my current FAC is about as unintimidating as I do. If you find it confusing, or exceptionally difficult to follow, then saying so - and why and where - would be helpful. But don't feel (too ) pressured. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

TFA nom

Hi Gog, were you going to nom Battle of Sluys for TFA? June is open now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:31, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Mysterious rebel group

Hi mate, it's been awhile right? I hope you're and your family is pretty good; don't worry mine are as well (for now at least). Anyway I just expanded and cited an article called "National Liberation Front of Provence" which is the most mysterious rebel group in France. There is not a lot of known about them and I believe it's a B (for sure) but it's too small for a GA (I believe). It so mysterious, there are baraly English sources about it so everything is from French newspapers. Of course I need an outsider as reviewer to confirm it meets the criteria. My idea was if you are intrested I can add it into the WP:GOCE Requests to copy-edit it? Both you get points or how it works over there plus you can correct my poor English grammer and it's in a great shape even it's a B. Are you interested it's not that long though?~Because I know if I put it over there I need to wait probaly weeks before they'll edit it. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Thinks are good here thanks. About to attend a socially distanced street party to celebrate VE Day. Of course I will look it over for you - I owe you plenty of favours for all of the reviews you have done. SN(or whatever they are calling themselves this week)'s suggestions are good ones and I recommend that you put something along those lines in before I review it. Once you are happy with it, put it on GoCE - so I can earn points towards a barnstar (I am a sucker for barnstars) - and ping me.
These may be useful for background: List of active separatist movements in Europe#France; List of historical separatist movements. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Hi, I'm pretty happy with SN's edits on the lead and look a lot better than mine. Unless I've forgot one of your replies, I've putten it in WP:GOCE; I'd say it's yours if you want to. Oh and happy Europe Day we don't really celebrate VE-Day sadly. ;) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:11, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Gisco (died 239 BC)

On 13 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gisco (died 239 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Carthaginian general Gisco was taken prisoner by mutinous soldiers while issuing their pay? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gisco (died 239 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gisco (died 239 BC)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

MAN 630 assessment

Hello Gog the Mild,

I have seen that you've done the MAN 630 article's assessment. Apparently, you believe that both the referencing and citation, and the coverage and accuracy criterions are not met. I wonder why; the article has proper inline citations, and the technical description section reasonably covers the vehicle's basic design. Where exactly does the article contain inaccuracies, and where does it lack inline citations? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 12:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) The first (single-sentence) paragraph of Technical Description (L2AE) has no inline citation, neither do most of the bullet points in Types and Models. Regarding the coverage, the article has little to no information about the usage of the MAN 630 in the body. The infobox has some additional information, but from reading the main body of the article, I don't even know if these were built in the Middle Ages, the 1920, or present day. Harrias talk 12:51, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Hi Johannes, m'learned friend has summarised the situation better and more succinctly than I could have. I will add that various parts of the lead - which is supposed to summarise the article - are not mentioned again. I was going to give examples, but I can't find anything from the lead which is expanded in the article. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for the replies. I don't think that it's reasonable to place the same reference in the same section over and over again, if the section in question just contains bullet points. Everything that can be found in the Types and Models section can also be found in the given reference (Graf von Seherr-Thoß p. 321). I wouldn't call that "no inline citation". I also don't think that describing the "usage" is reasonable: The Bundeswehr and Landcomponent had many MAN 630s (so I've aded a section called "Military users", listing these two users), but the MAN 630 was a lorry anyone could purchase. How would I know what people do with their lorries? And why would that be relevant for Wikipedia? Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 16:13, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Johannes Maximilian:
  • B1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. I consider "The MAN 630 was primarily prodced in the military L2 variants, therefore, the description focuses on the these variants, especially the L2AE model." to be a major point and it lacks an inline citation.
  • B2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. The article does not mention the years of manufacture, the place(s) of manufacture, the number manufactured nor the vehicle's capacity. I consider each of these to be an "obvious omission".
Neither of the points above is exhaustive. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that what you call "the description focuses on the these variants, especially the L2AE model" requires an inline citation. It basically says that the description focusses on a specific model, in this case, the most common model that was made. I would consider that a disclaimer, and it cannot be referenced. I mean, a motor vehicle type/model doesn't stay the same forever; it's virtually like describing a certain model year – you wouldn't want to describe every single change, unless it's both complete, and reasonably structured. In this case, I chose to describe the model that the books "told" me was the most common model. That is the most reasonable way of doing it, I reckon. The article includes the years of manufacture for each model, the place of manufacture, and at least the number purchased by the Bundeswehr. It is difficult to determine the exact number built, since MAN is known for their licence contracts, and it cannot be said for sure that not some plant in some country built the MAN 630 under licence. For example, in Hungary, MAN engines were made, and in India, some MAN lorries were built. I don't know what exactly you mean by "the vehicle's capacity" (I guess you mean payload); the payload-class is also included in the article. Best regards, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:03, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Johannes Maximilian, you could always put the article up at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests for a third opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, I shall not bother you anymore! Goodnight, --Johannes (Talk) (Contribs) (Articles) 20:30, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXIX, May 2020

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) 15:03, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Dunbar

Can't believe I got the term dates mixed up! It's the head's fault - she gave me a maths planning document which had the wrong dates on it - I've been working from that rather than the official school calendar, I didn't even think to check it myself. I only realised the dates were mixed up on Friday morning - my weekend was a very different shape from what I'd been hoping for! Nevertheless, I've taken a quick look at what's in your sandbox, and I like the structure of it. I'll try to find some time this week, but will definitely have more next week, to see what I can add in from whatever sources we've got at home; should we set up a talk page at your sandbox for discussion? GirthSummit (blether) 07:46, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Lilybaeum

Propagandist! You need to turn your mind towards more worthy topics! etc... I hope all is well otherwise. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:43, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

@SchroCat: Good to hear from you. "Propagandist"! Me? My seconds shall call on the morrow. Things are good here thanks, apart from a mild case of stir craziness. Although, as has been pointed out to me, how does one tell the difference? As you can see from immediately above, I am commencing a collaboration on an article from the English Civil Wars; any more worthy? And how are things with you. Your off beat nominations to FAC are missed, although I do enjoy your occasional and magisterial appearances at FAC talk. They have given me a couple of belly laughs. How are things with you in lock down land? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
All is good here, thanks, although it is getting increasingly tiresome. Still, getting bored at home beats catching this flaming thing and clogging up the hospitals - and there are many worse things that we could be doing instead. I've had to put writing 'big' articles on hold until things like the British Library open up again, so I'm pottering around writing some new articles on cookery book writers who deserve to have something written about them (Lady Fettiplace is the latest one to be given the treatment. It's a nice brain exercise, trying to track down the widest possible range of the strongest sources from nothing but the internet, but even this is starting to wear a bit thin! I should try and avoid posting at FAC Talk, but there are times when the level of blind (and wilful) ignorance just gets too much. Hey ho – some things never change I guess, but it always seems to be idiocy from same source. Cheers – I look forward to reading the Civil War articles when they inevitably hit the main page. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
SchroCat And signs of life from Mr Riley, how pleasant. As you say, there are infinitely many ways things could be worse.
Oh you Londoners are spoilt! Most of us have to write all of our articles using nothing but the net.
"Lady Fettiplace"! Sounds like a character from Round the Horne. Possibly played by Julian.
Dunbar - I don't see this making its 370th anniversary on 3 September, so maybe 2021.
I shouldn't read FAC talk, but it has a horrid fascination. Your occasional appearances do give me a good chortle, so I hope they continue.
Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Fettiplace was a bit of a hoot: I don't know there are too many other articles that make can make legitimate reference to Dick Whittington, Little Jack Horner, Sir Walter Raleigh, Longleat, a recipe for tobacco syrup (good for the lungs, don'tcha know) and a Spanish marmalade whose ingredients include powdered pearls and gold! How these Elizabethans lived. Still powdered pearls and gold is all standard fare for us Londoners – work's canteen stuff, really! – SchroCat (talk) 10:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cape Hermaeum

On 19 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Cape Hermaeum, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that shortly after the Battle of Cape Hermaeum, most of the victorious Roman fleet was destroyed in a storm, with the loss of over 100,000 lives? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Cape Hermaeum. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Cape Hermaeum), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)

Dimple Kapadia

Hi there,

I've noticed that you are quite a prolific reviewer on FAC. I started this nomination almost a month ago, and sadly it has been quite overlooked and not generating enough interest. I'm writing to you hoping you could consider reviewing it, or maybe invite other serious reviewers you know to have a look at it. Any comments for improvement will be greatly appreciated. If you have no time or interest in it, then ignore this message. Shahid • Talk2me 18:24, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Shshshsh, I shall put it on my "maybe" list, but it is a long article and not one on a topic I find inherently interesting. Not Bollywood, so much as film in particular and popular culture in general. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your candid reply. Are you by chance acquainted with other reviewers who might be interested? Shahid • Talk2me 20:13, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Shshshsh: Sorry, but no. All of my FACs have been on military conflicts. And while I review more widely, that tends to be in the science, history or feminism areas. So I have no idea who normally reviews in the film area. Try looking at past successful, and - especially - unsuccessful, film nominations. Gog the Mild (talk)

Editcountitis

Hey, I noticed that you recently broke into the top 2,500 Wikipedians by edit count. A meaningless milestone, but congrats nonetheless and thanks for your many contributions!

Keeping busy as a Milhist coordinator? Still working on blurbs and FAs? I'm finishing my 15th review for the GA drive, and seem to have found my stride there. After that, probably back to copy editing, see if we can get the backlog to one month. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:38, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg, good to hear from you and that's very observant. I note that your claim to be "hovering at the bottom of the list of top-10,000 Wikipedians by edit count" is increasingly out of date. Yes, meaningless, but a reminder that I am not really a newbie any more and should behave like a responsible Wikipedian.
MH coordination takes very little effort. Most of my work these days is in reviewing, across the board but a lot of FAC, and content creation. I had a frenzy of creativity when I got my teeth into the First Punic War, with 13 GAs so far. But as these feed through into ACRs and FACs I am finding that spirit difficult to recapture. Still it should be enough to ensure that I am again Wikipedia's most prolific FAC nominator; another meaningless milestone, but I don't see that we need to take our hobby too seriously. I am (over)due to get on with Battle of Dunbar and a medieval biography. Both collaborations, if my would be collaborators have not lost interest due to my tardiness.
I feel slightly bad about how little I contribute to GoCE these days, but it seems to cope. Even over the past 30 months the reduction in articles outstanding is outstanding. A 1,200 backlog at the start of January 2018, and we knocked all of 53 off it. Having had a good go at it myself I find the consistent effort of the regulars, such as yourself, just this side of awe inspiring - very impressive. "get the backlog to one month" .
Goodness knows GAN could do with more good regular reviewers.
Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The last time I remember checking that list I was in the high 7,000s, so I guess it'd been a while. I think I'll update my user page after breaking 5,000 since it's pretty close. Don't worry about GOCE, I'm sure you're doing more than enough through your own quality writing. We're honestly scraping the bottom of the barrel at this point, the backlog being so short that we run into just-created articles with myriad problems – I've seen more than one go the way of deletion, which is not a great use of copy-editor resources.
WP:GA also seems to be clearing its backlog, having a two-month drive coinciding with quarantine. Hopefully the quality of reviews hasn't dropped, though I don't know how some editors are turning them in so quickly. It seems to take me about 3 days to complete a GA review, and I think I've been working entirely on small to mid-sized articles (less than 3,000 words). The more time I spend with an article, the most "invested" I get and push for it pass: copy editing, suggesting paraphrases, finding new sources and suggesting expansions, in one case providing a new image (and it's rare for me to do anything with images). It's nice, though, to work on reasonably important, recognizable subjects. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Reidgreg, I am probably well out of it then. And some of the enthusiastic newcomers look to be almost as much as of a handful as I was, back in the day.
I think that your list of what you do for a GAN answers your own query about the speediness of reviews. You are just far nicer and more helpful than most reviewers, certainly then me.
And yes, once I had a decent grip on how the place worked, it was nice to move away from the very mixed quality of the GoCE backlog to more focused articles. I had forgotten that aspect. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
The 'leader' has just over 100 reviews, and there are a half-dozen with more than 50. My level of concentration isn't good enough for that; I was reviewing a flag article and Red Ensign was starting to look an awful lot like redesign – had to take a break. Maybe enjoy the weather now and get some cautious exercise amidst the mask-wearing public. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:23, 21 May 2020 (UTC)
Reidgreg, the weather is great here. I am having a day off tomorrow and getting out for a day's walking in the Derbyshire countryside. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Need a help

Hello mate, WBM is unable to archive this web page. Can you archive this one at WBM, or anyother way if possible?? Let me know, or archive and ping me. Drat8sub (talk) 23:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)@Drat8sub: will this http://archive.is/Gpzgr do? – Reidgreg (talk) 04:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
Thank you, more than enough. Drat8sub (talk) 07:46, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Treaty of Lutatius

On 22 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Treaty of Lutatius, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a draft condition of the Treaty of Lutatius to end the First Punic War, stipulating that Carthage pay Rome 57,000 kg (126,000 lb) of silver, was rejected as insufficient? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Treaty of Lutatius. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Treaty of Lutatius), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Panormus

On 27 May 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Panormus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Roman army repelled an elephant charge at the Battle of Panormus by throwing javelins? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Panormus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Panormus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:01, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

50 DYK medal

The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
It gives me great pleasure to give thanks for your 50 contributions to the Did you know? section of the Main Page, many on military history, bringing interest to the subject by reminding Wikipedia's readership of some exceptional facts. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:36, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

LOL. Lor' bless you sir. Most kind. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 May 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
For all of the help you have given to me and others, for writing great articles, and for (perhaps the hardest thing to do on-wiki) being unfailingly kind and helpful. A long overdue award for a very deserving editor. Keep up the good work. Best wishes, Eddie891 Talk Work 17:21, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Wow! Eddie, you are making me blush. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

FAC...

No worries...I’m not that cranky...just tired. I want to point out that I’m not ignoring it..but the desktop DID die and while I have a new one ordered, it may be mid month before I get it much less get migrated to it. Don’t want you thinking that I’m ignoring your comments, I’m just a lot restricted at the moment in my editing...I have the tablet (which is what I’m using for this post) and a very very very very slow laptop that is ...less than ideal. To put it mildly. And what time I can deal with it needs to be reserved for the paying stuff...I am not upset and I figure we can get the article up to snuff ...but it might take a bit because of the aforementioned dead desktop...notm through any lack of goodwill on either of our sides. --Ealdgyth (talk) 19:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Ealdgyth, not a problem. Sounds frustrating. Time is not an issue so far as I am concerned. Let's have a proper look at it when you have the time and kit to do so in a relatively stress free way. Of course, the FAC coordinators may have a different view; I hear that the new one is a bit of a dragon. Whenever you're ready. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:54, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 4

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Treaty of Lutatius, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Codicil (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:38, 4 June 2020 (UTC)

May 2020 GOCE drive bling

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 05:41, 5 June 2020 (UTC)

GOCE June newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2020 Newsletter

Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2020. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. All times and dates stated are in UTC.

Current events

Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 00:01 on 16 June. GOCE coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought about helping out at the Guild, or you know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here.

June Blitz: This blitz begins at 00:01 on 14 June and ends at 23:59 on 20 June, with themes of articles tagged for copyedit in May 2020 and requests.

Drive and blitz reports

March Drive: Self-isolation from coronavirus may have played a hand in making this one of our most successful backlog elimination drives. The copy-editing backlog was reduced from 477 to a record low of 118 articles, a 75% reduction. The last four months of 2019 were cleared, reducing the backlog to three months. Fifty requests were also completed, and the total word count of copy-edited articles was 759,945. Of the 29 editors who signed up, 22 completed at least one copy edit. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

April Blitz: This blitz ran from 12 to 18 April with a theme of Indian military history. Of the 18 people who signed up, 14 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed a total of 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

May Drive: This event marked the 10th anniversary of the GOCE's copy-editing drives, and set a goal of diminishing the backlog to just one month of articles, as close to zero articles as possible. We achieved the goal of eliminating all articles that had been tagged prior to the start of the drive, for the first time in our history! Of the 51 editors who signed up, 43 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here.

Other news

Progress report: as of 2 June, GOCE participants had processed 328 requests since 1 January, which puts us on pace to exceed any previous year's number of requests. As of the end of the May drive, the backlog stood at just 156 articles, all tagged in May 2020.

Outreach: To mark the 10th anniversary of our first Backlog Elimination Drive, The Signpost contributor and GOCE participant Puddleglum2.0 interviewed project coordinators and copy-editors for the journal's April WikiProject Report. The Drive and the current Election of Coordinators have also been covered in The Signpost's May News and Notes page.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist.

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

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 15:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC).

Sophia Sturge

I see you have tagged this article with MilHist. Checking the topics the project covers

  • Military operations, battles, campaigns, and wars.
  • Military personnel, including both leaders and common soldiers, as well as other people involved in military affairs.[Note 3]
  • Military units and formations, ranging from small units to national armed forces.
  • Military equipment and technology, weapons, armour, and vehicles.
  • Military facilities and structures, such as fortifications, bases, test sites, and memorials.
  • Military historiography, publications, and historians.
  • Types and periods of warfare, the military histories of particular nations and groups, and general military science and doctrine.
  • Depictions of military history in all media, such as video games, painting, sculpture, music, film, poetry, and prose.

it does seem strange to me that you would include an article about a Pacifist in the Project. Seems more appropriate to tag it WikiProject Anti-war, which I have now done. Roundtheworld (talk) 10:41, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Need help on a technical thingy

I wrote an article on Nesta Obermer and though I figured out how to convert past $ to current $, I have zero clue how to convert $ to ₤. Since she is British (okay legally since she married a foreigner in 1925 she lost her British citizenship, but that's a technicality) it seems logical to me that it should show both currencies, but then is there a template that not only shows x $ = x ₤ and currently is y? You know all the technical stuff baffles me and if you can help, that'd be great. If not, no worries. Hope all is wonderful in your world. We survived tropical storm Cristobal with only minimal damage, not true for many of our neighbors. But, today the sun is shining and my roof is drying out. Hopefully the plasterers will be able to start weatherizing tomorrow. SusunW (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Susun. I'm pleased that both you and the house survived. I have been feeling guilty because a lot of RL things and a few Wiki things have prevented me from delivering the offered help on Patsy Mink. Regarding your query, at Template:Inflation#Tips & tricks#Currency conversion it says

This template is currency agnostic, which means it doesn't convert between different currencies. Thus, if you wanted to know how much DM 1,000.00 marks in 1960 are worth nowadays, entering 2441.35 would provide a result (2069.05) still in marks, not in euros. Consequently, if you need a result in another currency than the one in which the original value is stated, for now you must do the conversion manually.

So the best we can do is pick a conversion rate, say 0.78, calculate manually and insert a bracketed or footnoted "Equivalent to £XX,000 in 2020." Let me know if you would like me to do this. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
You lost me at the template doesn't convert, so yes, please, please, please just do it. No worries, about Mink, we'll get there eventually. We spent 10 days mostly bailing water and moving buckets from leak to leak. Then when the neighbor's tree caused my kitchen wall to crumble (its roots grew up through my plaster and rock ancient wall and then it got wet and expanded, so the wall exploded, or something like that), well, let's just say it wasn't pretty. Even if you can't read the Spanish, the picture speaks volumes. SusunW (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
SusunW: Ah. That does not look good. Sounds like you got off lightly, exploding walls and all.
Pounds inserted. Just check that it is what you wanted. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
We really were lucky. That photo was taken about 4 blocks from my house. Our street did not flood, so ours was mostly water from above, except for the wall. Whole villages had water up to 4 ft. deep and were evacuated. Worst storm since 2002 and the first time in our 12 years of being here that anything like this happened. Rainy season usually means about an hour of rain every day. This was 24/7 for 10 straight days. But, now we are back to sunshine. Yay! And yes, thank you, that is exactly what I wanted, but had no idea how to do. SusunW (talk) 21:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 39, May – June 2020

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 39, May – June 2020

  • Library Card Platform
  • New partnerships
    • ProQuest
    • Springer Nature
    • BioOne
    • CEEOL
    • IWA Publishing
    • ICE Publishing
  • Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

Reginald...

I just archived Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Reginald de Warenne/archive1 because it's obvious I'm going to need to take FAC under some more intense management for a bit, but I'd like to get Reginald into shape ... so can we work together on the talk page to get your concerns dealt with? --Ealdgyth (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Sure. I shall move the conversation, assuming that you have read and understood - but not necessarily agreed to - the FAC comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXX, June 2020

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) 04:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Note re editing history topics and WikiProjects

Hi. I am writing to intrioduce myself, and to ask your help with a currrent effort that I am working on. I am currently the Lead Coordinator for WikiProject History. I am trying to get this WikiProject to be somewhat active, in some role that could serve the general Wikipedia community positively.

I would like to ask for your help and for you to perhaps take on a role there. I am trying to provide some support to restore the function of article assessment and article review for WikiProject History as a whole. My best method for doing so is simply to find editors who are experienced at these functions at active Wikiprojects in the field of history, and add their names to the working groups at WP:History; that way, I can help visitors to our WikiProject history with finding an experienced editor who can help them with these processes.

Please note, my overall long-term goal is not to reinvent the wheel; ie, I do not plan to try to make this WikiProject into the dominant WikiProject for all history articles. There is a simple reason for this; the primary support by WikiProjects for editing history articles at Wikipedia is currently provided by a large number of highly-active WikiProjects, each of which covers a specific topic or sub-topic within the overall area of history as a whole. In the aggregate, these existing active WikiProjects are all highly effective, and together they suffice to fully cover the whole field of history.

So therefore, my goal with WP:History is to serve as an information resource and clearinghouse of sorts, to help new or inexperienced editors to find helpful information and resources to enable them to get familiar with the topics of history as a whole, and to find their way to information, resources, active historical WikiProjects, and experienced editors who can help with promoting active editing in relevant topics.

In my opinion, the most comprehensive and active WikiProject for historical topics is WP:Milhist. this is because by its very nature, military history intrisically includes all eras, all societies, all cultural levels, and all groupings within human society and world history as a whole. for this reason, I consider experienced coordinators like yourself at WP:Milhist to be one of the best possible sources for experience and advice, for those seeking to play a greater role in editing this area.

Could you please let me know any thoughts you may have? Would it be okay for me to add you in some role at WP:History? I am open of course to any feedback or comments that you may have. Please feel free to comment. I appreciate your help. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Sm8900, I am not at all sure what you are proposing the function of WP:History be - this is not an issue nor a request for information, but an observation. For myself, I try to concentrate on content generation, although I frequently get sucked into other things. I may well be willing to take on some role at WP:History, it would depend on the details of what it involved. Perhaps you would care to run something specific past me? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
thanks for your reply! well, I can try to put this more simply. I would like to make WikiProject History into a general resource, i.e. for new editors who are generally interested in history topics, and who might like to learn about various ways to edit history in the specific topics they find interesting. so therefore, i am not going to try to make it into a full-sledged wikiproject, since it is currently inactive; rather,. I will use it to help new editors learn more about the history areas of wikipedia in general.
in order to do so, I would like to try to recruit at least a few experienced editors such as yourself, such as in the roles of article review, improvement, etc or else simply just to make their input available to anyone whom might visit this wikiproject. I appreciate it if you might be willing to help there at all. please feel free to let me know. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
@Sm8900: The reviewing of articles; article improvement; and the advising of editors on how to develop specific articles, including up to GA or FA, are things which I would be tentatively be prepared to commit to for a renascent History Project. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
ok, well that sounds terrific. if you wish, you can add your name on our main page under any working group or task force that you wish. I would suggest you add your name under the working groups for :"article Improvement" and "Article Review." So far, the only member there is Iazyges, whom I am sure you know from WP:Milhist. Also, sometime in the future I hope form a new task force called "Project Team for Editor Advice, Article Review and Assistance." this task force will be a place for any highly-experienced editors like yourself who express a desire to join in order to take an active role in helping others, and helping with our core processes.
my main reason for creating this new task force, is that I want to provide some practical method to give experienced editors some visibility to anyone who visits our project, so it will be clear that we do have active members who have actual experience with some of the usual core functions of a Wikiproject. thanks! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
Sm8900, I am possibly being rather slow, but I can't find anywhere to add my name in Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Review and I can't find the working group for :"article Improvement" at all. Possibly you could provide Wikilinks? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)
No problem at all! just go to the section below, and add your name to the two lists where Iazyges is already listed. I appreciate your help. let me know any other questions. thanks!!
thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
also, to view the section for Assessment, please click the tab labeled "Assessment," at the top of the page. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 20:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Sm8900, done. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
that's terrific. thanks! welcome! also, if you want, feel free to post on the talk page to introduce yourself. and of course, feel free to comment on any other topics there. thanks!! --Sm8900 (talk) 21:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Pictures of ram for Battle of the Aegates

Hi, I found two pictures of a rostrum on Commons (here and here). This ram was found on the spot of the Battle of the Aegates and therefore would fit nicely in the article. I don't know the copyright status of the pictures though. Caption should be something like "Rostrum found on the site of the battle, with the names of the quaestors C. Papirius and M. Publicius Malleolus, who built the ship. Malleolus later became consul in 232 BC." Reference is Jonathan Prag, "Bronze rostra from the Egadi Islands off NW Sicily: the Latin inscriptions", in Journal of Roman Archaeology 27 (2014): 33-59. T8612 (talk) 15:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

T8612: Do you mean as well as or instead of the current photograph of a ram in the article. I quite like the battle damage visible on the current image. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
In addition, it's nice to have the pictures of rams from both sides. T8612 (talk) 21:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
T8612, do you know if the inscription makes it clear that it was one of those built specifically for this campaign? As opposed to possibly being one captured at Drepana and being operated by the Carthaginians at the Aegates? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
No, Prag says they were likely ships captured at Drepana. Then perhaps you can post a picture in the Battle of Drepana article. T8612 (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I suspected as much. My memory was that Tusa and Royal though that most of the Roman rams were probably Carthaginian prizes. Battle of Drepana is a good thought. In the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
@T8612: done. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Gog the Mild,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Could someone help me with my article Laura Harrier?

It's a Good Article and a current Featured Article nominee. It's been reviewed and edited significantly and three editors told me to look for other editors to review it. Here's the featured article page: Laura Harrier FAC. Please help. Thanks. Factfanatic1 (talk) 07:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Asakai

When you're up for a diversion, the article Battle of Asakai went through GOCER for DYK. I thought it was kindof hilarious, and was wondering how a Milhist vet would appraise it. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)

Reidgreg, . It's very good. Nice piece of prose. I do like the way it is told almost entirely in-universe. As it were. Ready to go straight to GAN IMO. I would love to see it at FAC.
I am currently mentoring Hyborian Age through FAC, which may also amuse you - it reminds me of my misspent youth. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

wrong namespace?

I'm not sure where you meant to create EditBattle of Lagos but I don't think it should be in mainspace... Schazjmd (talk) 16:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

G6ed it as a wrong namespace duplicate of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Battle of Lagos. Harrias talk 16:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Oops! Apologies. That is odd. Thanks for fixing it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

TFA

Thank you today for Battle of Sluys, about the "first significant clash of the Hundred Years' War was this naval battle. It was a disaster for the French, who lost 90% of their ships captured and 90% of their men killed, including the two senior military officers of the realm. Illustrating why the war was to last so long, it had virtually no operational or strategic effect."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 June 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Hyborian War FAC Nomination

It took a lot of nudging, but I was finally able to get SandyGeorgia over there to review the Hyborian War nomination. Good and bad. She took a wire brush to it. :) In the end, good though—if it gets by her, I'm guessing it'll be meaningful to the FAC coordinators. You probably know more about her than I do, but it looks like she's experienced and well known on Wikipedia. And fantastically busy. Was happy she took the time to review it, even if just in part so far. I'll dig in and respond. Let me know if I'm off on anything and once it looks good, I'll let her know on her talk page. She apparently hates the ping tool. Airborne84 (talk) 23:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. I'm just about done making the edits that SandyGeorgia wanted. I still need to go through and check the non-breaking spaces, as well as the WP:MOSNUM and MOS:HASH formatting that she mentioned. If you see anything off, please advise. I did want to ask you though: I updated the Road of Kings references which didn't have an author before. It's hard to see, but the author is the site's top staff member—no real name, it's his username of "Crom". When you pull up his user page, it says "staff member." He's the site admin as well. So, that's how I listed it. It's reference #3 and 4 on the list. But seems a strange way to list an author for a reference on Wikipedia. Is that ok? If not, I can just go with no author since I don't know his real name. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 04:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, assuming that you mean references no. 17-22 (it took me a while to work that out) then it seems fine. It is not unknown to cite uncredited newspaper or website articles to "staff reporter" or similar. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, sorry for the confusion. My fault. Based on your response, I just updated two of the refs to now begin with author "Road of Kings Staff Member (Crom)". Before they had no author. My rationale was that since I only knew the username and not the real name, I didn't have the authorname. If this looks reasonable, great. If this looks strange, please advise. Thanks. Airborne84 (talk) 02:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I'll read through one more time in a few hours and then wait for your go-ahead before advising SandyGeorgia. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, I went back through the Hyborian War article. Do you want to look at it again, or should I advise SandyGeorgia to go ahead? Not sure what your schedule is like IRL. Mine gets tight in the next couple of weeks, after which I turn into a pumpkin for a while, unfortunately. Airborne84 (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
Mine is a bit hectic right at the moment. I meant to look at this today, but it just didn't happen. Could you hold off and I'll try and run through it tomorrow? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)
You bet. Much appreciated, and standing by. Airborne84 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, apologies for the delay. You seem to have responded well to everything. I have made a couple of tweaks, but otherwise I think that it is ready for SG to look at.
I am surprised that as a totally new type of article it is not getting a harder time. I think that reviewers are being quite sensible, helped by the good shape you have it in. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I suspect it's in large part because of your assistance. Really appreciate the help. Airborne84 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

SG's comments look fairly harmless. Let me know if you feel I am incorrect in that regarding any of them. You could really do with at least one more comprehensive review - ie, more like Ichthyovenator's than Hurricane Noah's. Possibly BOZ may be persuaded to offer one? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:09, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

I have to admit that I have a rather uncritical eye when it comes to things like a FAC - I could offer another "moral" support like I did in the first one, if that would help at all? BOZ (talk) 12:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
BOZ, not really. You would need to point out some specific areas that you thought could be tweaked/expanded/added or that you thought were particularly good, even if you caveated them with your uncriticalness. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
I doubt I could help much then, but I will continue to be a "thanks" cheerleader. :) BOZ (talk) 12:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Gog the Mild. Based on Ruhrfisch's review, I wrote another paragraph at the end of the History section, and the start of the Setting section for Hyborian War. Can you give them a quick once-over? Would like to get a second check on them.
I pinged Ruhrfisch back to the review, so we'll see what he says. He'll probably have one or two more questions since I wasn't able to address everything he wanted. We'll see. Airborne84 (talk) 06:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, looks good. I have given a mild tweak. Revert anything you don't like - you did a good job. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Ruhrfisch supported the Hyborian War FAC nomination. What's your sense on the next step Gog the Mild? This will be a challenging week for me, but if you think another review is needed I can try shaking some more trees. I don't know what's needed for the FAC coordinators to be happy with a nomination. Airborne84 (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
No need to shake any trees! You have the minimum needed bar a source review and a citation spot check - both of which I will do over the next few days; no great rush to respond to any points I raise on either if it is a busy week. The coordinators may leave the nom for a week or two to see if it attracts any further comments, but unless my work throws up any nasty surprises you can relax. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. I'll note for the source review, that "Grimfinger" is Charles Mosteller, the editor in chief of today's PBM Suspense and Decision magazine and the admin for PlayByMail.net. He also curates the Grimfinger.net website which is cited.
I'll check in during the evenings to answer questions as needed. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 15:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm a rookie at the Today's Featured Article Request process. When you get the chance, would you check out the Hyborian War nomination there to see if the blurb and notes are to standard? Would greatly appreciate it. Airborne84 (talk) 00:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84, it looks fine, apart from being a little too long. I have tweaked it a little, but revert anything you don't like. IMO, from your limited choice, the map would be a better image that the order sheet, but that is subjective and your call. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Much appreciated Gog the Mild! I'd like to use the map, but it has a fair use license and I think those aren't allowed for TFAs. Please advise if I'm missing something. Thanks again. Airborne84 (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84: Ah! You are correct. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Gog the Mild. Hyborian War's day at TFA is Wednesday, August 19. I tried looking it up—do you know what time of the day TFA's hit the main page? Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 16:15, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Airborne84: I believe, but am not certain, that it is 00:01 UTC.
Strong advice, to avoid shredded nerves: take this off your watchlist on Tuesday for four days. When you go back, get all the changes up in one big diff and hand-revert all of those you don't like, citing WP:FAOWN. I have an FA up tomorrow - Battle of Lagos - if you have a look at the edit history in a few days you will see what I mean. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Makes sense. I saw that the one TFA that was late had discussion start right after 00:01 UTC.
Good advice on the watchlist. I recall now the Sentence spacing TFA I had about ten years ago. Some people came in with WP:IDONTLIKEIT bulldozers on that one! Even though people probably have stronger feelings about English language usage than play-by-mail games, I'm going to do just like you said. Thanks! Airborne84 (talk) 17:38, 17 August 2020 (UTC)
Airborne84: 60,000 views, that's a lot of interest - I hope that you are on commission from Reality Sim. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 20 August 2020 (UTC)
Ha! No. This was just an interesting diversion for me. However, it turned into an opportunity to provide some data to the PBM community on what's possible by having some PBM articles achieve some milestones and appear on the main page here (I got a few PBM articles on DYK). The article on Play-by-mail game also got a bump to over 12,600 views and the list of play-by mail games went up to about 2,700 as well. The "PBM" genre has been in decline, but it may revive under the name "turn-based games" at some point. Anyway, I passed the info on. I won't be able to continue in the same manner for some time, but I think it was a good test run for some others to work with. Appreciate your help! Airborne84 (talk) 00:35, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

WikiCup 2020 July newsletter

The third round of the 2020 WikiCup has now come to an end. The 16 users who made it into the fourth round each had at least 353 points (compared to 68 in 2019). It was a highly competitive round, and a number of contestants were eliminated who would have moved on in earlier years. Our top scorers in round 3 were:

  • New York (state) Epicgenius, with one featured article, 28 good articles and 17 DYKs, amassing 1836 points
  • Botswana The Rambling Man , with 1672 points gained from four featured articles and seventeen good articles, plus reviews of a large number of FACs and GAs
  • England Gog the Mild, a first time contestant, with 1540 points, a tally built largely on 4 featured articles and related bonus points.

Between them, contestants managed 14 featured articles, 9 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 152 good articles, 136 DYK entries, 55 ITN entries, 65 featured article candidate reviews and 221 good article reviews. Additionally, Denmark MPJ-DK added 3 items to featured topics and 44 to good topics. Over the course of the competition, contestants have completed 710 good article reviews, in comparison to 387 good articles submitted for review and promoted. These large numbers are probably linked to a GAN backlog drive in April and May, and the changed patterns of editing during the COVID-19 pandemic. As we enter the fourth round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Please also remember that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them. When doing GARs, please make sure that you check that all the GA criteria are fully met. Please also remember that all submissions must meet core Wikipedia policies, regardless of the review process.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by 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. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk), Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for First Punic War, Battle of the Lipari Islands, and Treaty of Lutatius. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

 The WikiChevrons 
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 22 reviews between April and June 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Fresh Darjeeling tea for you

Drat8sub (talk) has asked you to join them for a nice cup of tea and sit down here.

Well, if you remember, we were struggling with some FIFA links, guess what !! Those links were properly archived actually. I don't know why those were not displaying that time as acting as dead link. But yesterday when I was checking it was showing archived though with some different structures. So thanks for those archives and being there to help, were important links. Let's have a fresh cup of tea, hope you will enjoy it.

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thank you for your contribution to the WikiProject Military history related articles. ❯❯❯Praveg A=9.8 19:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Pravega, that is exceedingly good of you. Thank you very much. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Archiving Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC

Hi, you may have seen my message to the editor who archived the Cymmer Colliery explosion FAC. Given I had responded to all of the items you raised and that our discussion was ongoing, I hope you might withdraw your initial oppose recommendation and suggest to Ealdgyth that we continue our discussion within the previous FAC framework.  ~ RLO1729💬 20:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

RLO1729, that ship, as they say, has sailed. I am happy to work with you outside of FAC, and have made a suggestion on your talk page. See what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Your offer of help is appreciated. Unfortunately, the speed at which you opposed on the basis of items which included a number later shown to be incorrect, and the abrupt termination of our discussion by an editor who seems only to have engaged with the last paragraph of your initial response, is extremely frustrating. I will need time to consider my ongoing involvement.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Understood. If you do decide that you would like my assistance, let me know. In terms of my experience at working with first time FACers, you may wish to consult Girth Summit, SusunW, Shearonink or Airborne84; the last of whom pulled their first FAC nomination after receiving one review - mine - but who doesn't - now - seem to regret it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Echoing that Shearonink could be quite helpful here because of the similarities with Bath School disaster— They might help deal with the hidden list of victims, for example. Willing to help if it’s a go ... pls keep me posted. RLO I just had a glance and it looks intriguing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the votes of confidence Gog the Mild & SandyGeorgia. Your extensive help on getting Bath School disaster to FA was invaluable and muchly appreciated. Sandy, I especially appreciate your standing up for Bath School disaster during the Commenting. For my convenience, I'm linking both the article Cymmer Colliery explosion and the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cymmer Colliery explosion/archive1 here. Atm I am in the middle of an FLC - Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death/archive2 for List of racing cyclists and pacemakers with a cycling-related death + I have some personal stuff I need to attend to over the next several days. RLO1729 if you like I'd be happy to take a look within the next week or so and give you my thoughts, maybe work with you on the article a bit. Ping me to your user talk if you're interested. If you're not, and want to take a breather for a while that's cool.
As an aside: Frankly?...sometimes the Featured candidate processes around here can kind of suck for the nominators. We all work so hard on these articles and lists, so very hard, and going through a FAC/FLC can be such an excruciating and somewhat bruising undertaking, especially for editors who are going through this all for the first time. Again, RLO1729, if you decide to move forward and submit Cymmer Colliery explosion again for FLC I'm game for working with you on it. Shearonink (talk) 02:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Shearonink, appreciated. As discussed on the article's talk page, I am very happy to work constructively with other editors (and accept the bruises as they come). My concern, and surprise, in this case is that the FAC review process has not been conducted according to standards that might reasonably be expected at this level.   ~ RLO1729💬 03:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
RLO1729, I haven't read through the now-archived discussion, so don't know the background here, but I will say that if Gog has offered to work with you on this, you should take him up on it. I can say from personal experience that he is knowledgeable, supportive and responsive, I would not have got Margaret Macpherson Grant through FAC without his guidance. GirthSummit (blether) 03:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I second what both Shearonink and Girth Summit have said. Gog is very helpful and his insight is invaluable in navigate through the difficult process of FA. He has a broad perspective and often brings to light things that would not have been evident to you because of your familiarity with the topic. More than that, he isn't one to impose a "my way or the highway" view. In reviewing articles, we often discuss in-depth, and there has never been any issue if our opinions on how something should be presented diverge. I guess what I mean is he is flexible, which is far more helpful than rigid reviewers, who are unable to change their opinions or want to control the outcome. I wish you luck. SusunW (talk) 14:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Can you all stop, his head will literally explode. Honestly, as if all the FAs, MilHist gongs, and barnstars weren't enough... Harrias talk 15:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I have been busy today and have only just caught up with this. When, lateish last night, I wrote "you may wish to consult", it didn't occur to me that you might want to post your opinion of the experience here. It should have. Thank you all. Pay no attention to Harrias, they are only jealous. I am actually counting on my head exploding, as it is currently so swollen that there is no other way for me to get it through the door. And I am a firm believer in it not being possible for an editor to have too many barnstars. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

RLO1729, sorry to arrive late to the game. I too, have not read the archived discussion, but if Gog the Mild has offered his assistance in this area, I recommend jumping on it. Gog has a wealth of experience and is a tremendous resource. Hope that helps. Airborne84 (talk) 20:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks all for your comments, the issue is not offers of future help, which are appreciated, it is the editorial and admin conduct of the now archived FAC nomination that is the proverbial straw for me. If you have the energy, please read my two comments at the top of this thread, the article's FAC nomination page and talk page, and my comment on the talk page of the admin who closed the FAC nomination in the middle of what I believed to be a constructive, ongoing discussion working with Gog to improve the article.  ~ RLO1729💬 22:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
@RLO1729: your discouragement is apparent, and unfortunate. I am a long-time former FAC delegate (we call them Coordinators rather than Delegates these days). Being a Coord is a time-consuming and thankless task. I resigned so I could carve out time for my own editing, but Mama Bear still comes out whenever I see unhappy people in the FA process. That includes nominators, reviewers, and the Coords, because issues and time factors must be balanced among all of them to assure the best functioning of the overall process. If nominators feel the process is unfair, they stop submitting FACs. If Coords feel constantly beaten up on, they may resign. The process will survive either of those, because we aren't short on nominators, and we can always find Coords (albeit not as well prepared, diligent and experienced as Ealdgyth—but I will take that up on her talk page, where I hope you will join me).
But if reviewers feel intimidated or beaten up on, FAC becomes meaningless and useless—for you, for articles, for everyone involved. FAs are only as good as the Supports that brought them to promotion. For a period, FAC reviews were deficient because of the very serious shortage of experienced reviewers. An FA depends more than anything else on the willingness of independent editors to selflessly review someone's else's work. Without rigorous review, we have no (meaningful) FAs; it behooves none of us, or articles, for that to become an entrenched problem because of a reviewer shortage and declining reviewer standards. It's hard to undo a faulty promotion, while any FAC archived can be re-nominated in two weeks, to get a quicker, stronger pass based on improvements in the interim. This is far superior to the incredible wait times for re-listing at GAN, where one receives only the opinion of one editor. I hope you'll see the two weeks for improvements not as a strike against an article, but nothing more than a faster way forward.
What you asked Gog to do here ("suggest to Ealdgyth that we continue our discussion within the previous FAC framework") is not within Gog's remit when the FAC has been closed. Having been involved in probably around 5,000 FACs or FARs, I can say that I have never seen Gog be overly harsh in his application of the FA standards; he is a good and helpful reviewer. I have seen indications in the past where Gog was a bit too quick to Support; standards had declined for a period of a few years during the time when Gog was a new-ish reviewer, and many articles became FAs without sufficient review. Now we see such articles appearing at FAR—taking up reviewer resources that could be better employed at FAC. I have observed that Gog has recently slowed down his Support declarations until others have weighed in; different reviewers have different strengths and weaknesses, and it can be best to hold off on Supporting until others have been through. For example, my own prose is far from stellar, so I am loathe to support until a copyeditor I trust has been through. But experienced reviewers know when an Oppose and withdrawal suggestion will help you earn the star FASTER. Gog's suggestion to withdraw and get the work done off-FAC was in your best interest, and the article's best interest, as the fastest way forward. Better result for the article, for you, and for the overall process, which is quite more seriously backlogged than I have ever seen it, and needing to use limited resources optimally.
I've looked at your fine work on a very interesting article, and remain committed to helping you should you decide to move forward, but the amount of questions and issues I would raise are much better done off-FAC than taking up space on a FAC. Lengthy commentary on FAC is discouraging and can be off-putting to subsequent reviewers, and ends up slowing down your FAC, slowing down the overall process, and consuming more resources than optimal, with the result that your FAC could sit there for MUCH longer than the two weeks you could take off-FAC to fully tune it up and bring it back quickly.
I've seen your frustration and discouragement now at four pages: here, Ealdgyth's talk, Nikkimaria's talk, and article talk. Discussions of the FAC process don't really belong on article talk, and I've weighed in here at Gog's place as I'd hope to avoid seeing a good reviewer feel discouraged. But ... in the FAC process—about which I hope to give you a better understanding—the buck stops with the Coordinator (Ealdgyth), so I am going to take this discussion back to her talk page, where I hope you will join me so that we can get a star on the Cymmer Colliery explosion and end up with a happy nominator, reviewers who aren't intimidated into not opposing, and Coords who don't feel beaten up on after spending hours daily reviewing other people's work. If you remain interested, I will meet you there! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC Mentor

I am seeking a FAC mentor. I saw you listed your name at Wikipedia:Mentoring for FAC. Can you help me with What's a Nice Girl Like You Doing in a Place Like This? it has been archived twice. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

CAPTAIN MEDUSA, sadly I am going to have to decline. As it says against my listing " I don't do most things which could even loosely be described as culture or sport, especially popular". I would almost certainly do more harm than good on an article like yours. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback

Thanks for your feedback on the Landis Battery. Sometimes you just need told something isn't at the state you thought is was. Saved me embarrassment a botched FAC would have brought (my first ACR attempt, First Battle of Newtonia was only not a total disaster because Kges1901 was willing to work with me on the article instead of quick-opposing).

I no longer think anything I've worked on is near FA-level yet, the three I view as the best all have glaring issues. Landis Battery has prose issues, Newtonia has two weaker sources (O'Flaherty has at best average credentials, same with Wood) and the 5th Missouri Infantry Regiment (Confederate) relies heavily on two books by Tucker, which is probably unavoidable. You saved me some embarrassing nominations and lack of preparation. Hog Farm Bacon 03:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, is there a reason why you have disabled "receive emails"? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
No real reason. I just never connected an email to the account, it's something I've been planning on doing but never got around to it. Hog Farm Bacon 17:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Should work now. I'll probably lock myself out of my account at some point, so that way I have a fix. Hog Farm Bacon 19:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

You and ....

@The Rambling Man: do like to ... be pro-active ... about your noms. Yeah, that's the ticket/wording. If you guys ever get too over-eager, I will do more than make a snide comment in an FAC close... you'll know you've been hit with an anvil. --Ealdgyth (talk) 14:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Time is of the essence when you have a queue of literally 20 good-to-go candidates!! The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 14:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for completing 6 reviews in the April–May 2020 GAN Backlog drive. Your work helped us to reduce the backlog by over 60%. Regards, Harrias talk 08:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)


The Bugle: Issue CLXXI, July 2020

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) 11:45, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

FAC mentor

Based on some conversation I've had with the source reviewer for the First Battle of Newtonia ACR review, that ACR looks rather likely to pass very soon. I'd be interested in taking that article forward to FAC. Would you be willing to serve as a FAC mentor for me, since it would be my first nomination? Hog Farm Bacon 04:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hog Farm, in principle, sure. I am a bit busy both in RL and on Wikipedia, so bear with me. I will move the conversation to your talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires attribution

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Punic Wars into Battle of Dertosa. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 23:39, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Diannaa, thanks for the message; I am aware of this. When I copy large chunks of an article I attribute using the copy template, as here and here. When I move content from one of my user pages where other editors have had input, I attribute in the edit summary, as here or here. When I copy prose which only I have contributed to from a sandbox (eg) or an off-Wiki Word document - as I did in the case you refer to - I do not attribute at all, even if I have used the same or similar prose multiple times before. Eg the "Primary sources" section from the example you quote can be found in very similar form in all of my Punic War articles. "Opposing forces" in six of them, including the two you mention. The "Background" section I wrote from a blank screen earlier that day in my sandbox and subsequently copied into both articles; this should be easy to establish from the time stamps.
If any of this is not in line with policy I am always happy to be told what I should be doing differently.
Gog the Mild (talk) 12:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi and thanks for the reply. The talk page templates are optional, but an edit summary at the destination article is mandatory when copying from one Wikipedia article to another. See for example this edit and this edit. Both of these edits included text that appears to be copied from Third Punic War. If you are the author of the prose that was copied, attribution is not required, and this report is a false positive. — Diannaa (talk) 12:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Diannaa, you are correct. I think that I had a mental blank because they are intended as placeholders - it is unsourced text which I put there to remind me to write some "proper" text for both articles. My bad. Thanks for helping to keep me on the straight and narrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Lagos scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Battle of Lagos has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 18, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about "a naval battle from the age of sail. One where Clausewitz's friction was working overtime and few things went right for either side."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Battle of Crécy scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that Battle of Crécy has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 26 August 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 26, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the article about the "The 14th-century battle in which Edward III, leading an Anglo-Welsh army across northern France, brought the much larger French army under Philip VI to battle. Famously the French suffered a humiliating defeat, largely due to the English use of longbows. A contemporary described the hand-to-hand combat which ensued as "murderous, without pity, cruel, and very horrible"."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

EditBattle of the Bagradas River (255 BC)

Not sure exactly what you were trying to do here, but you seem to have accidentally put a TFA nomination in the article namespace. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Vahurzpu, gah! My knowledge of how Wikipedia actually works is close to non-existent. I did manage to get the nomination done at about the third attempt; this must be one of the failures. How do I undo it? Do I need to undo it? Or can it be left as a piece of harmless chaff? Thanks for flagging it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
No worries; I just marked it for deletion with {{Db-error}}. If you ever accidentally create a page, you can put that at the top or {{Db-author}} for a page you created yourself. Soon enough an administrator will come around and delete it; there's nothing further you need to do. I just notified you to make sure you weren't wondering why nothing was happening to your nomination. Vahurzpu (talk) 15:55, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
Vahurzpu, I could well have been doing . Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 August 2020

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:25, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you

The Original Barnstar
Many thanks for your help in preparing First Battle of Newtonia for it's FAC. Hog Farm Bacon 16:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Hog Farm, you are most welcome. And thanks for the barnstar, appreciated. I confess, that while you were getting a hard time from PM67 I was wondering if I had given you naff advice, but you came through it admirably. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXII, August 2020

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) 14:29, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Page mover rights

Hello, Gog the Mild. Your account has been granted the "extendedmover" user right, either following a request for it or demonstrating familiarity with working with article names and moving pages. You are now able to rename pages without leaving behind a redirect, move subpages when moving the parent page(s), and move category pages.

Please take a moment to review Wikipedia:Page mover for more information on this user right, especially the criteria for moving pages without leaving redirect. Please remember to follow post-move cleanup procedures and make link corrections where necessary, including broken double-redirects when suppressredirect is used. This can be done using Special:WhatLinksHere. It is also very important that no one else be allowed to access your account, so you should consider taking a few moments to secure your password. As with all user rights, be aware that if abused, or used in controversial ways without consensus, your page mover status can be revoked.

Useful links:

If you do not want the page mover right anymore, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Thank you, and happy editing! Harrias talk 14:54, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Another map

Punic stuff.

Here you go. Harrias talk 10:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias: I do like a good map, but how they are produced is just magic to me. So your wizardly skill and willingness to share it is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:35, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
Mercenary War playing.

I've been playing around, trying to learn a new skill: SVG maps. I was looking at Mercenary War, and wanted to see if I could improve the "manoeuvres" map (File:Guerra mercenaria (cropped).png). How is this SVG? It is very editable, that's part of the joy of SVGs... Harrias talk 20:54, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias, That's very good. Do you want me to give feedback to make it "real", or is it just a practice piece? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
If you want to use it, then let's get it as accurate as possible; otherwise, it was good exercise in working out the tools of a new piece of software. Harrias talk 21:29, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias Well I am currently working on creating two new articles where it would be useful, so thank you.

  • Amilcar should be Hamilcar in the key
  • Hannon and Anibal should be Hanno in the key
    • Quick clarification on this point; do you want "and Anibal" removing? Harrias talk 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
      Harrias: yes. "Hannon and Anibal" -> 'Hanno'. Ta. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
  • The black line from Tunis to Leptis Parva should be red.
  • The purple line #9 should go all of the way to Leptis Parva.
  • Could we add a second, black, line from Carthage to Leptis Parva; to represent Hanno and Hamilcar's armies marching together.

Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Harrias: Oops; black lines 6-7-8 should be purple. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
I see what happened there, I flipped the colours by mistake. Have changed the key instead of the map. Reading the articles, I think it makes sense now. Also, having reviewed all these articles, I'm pretty irritated at not noticing the 'Hamilcar/Amilcar' and 'Hannon/Hanno' thing. But it's easy to just blindly copy... If you do a hard refresh, the image should be right now? Harrias talk 22:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, yeah, that looks good. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

July 2020 GOCE drive bling

The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 18:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Quick skim?

Hi - if you have a moment, would you be willing to give Rusco Tower a quick once-over? I'm planning to put it forward for GA; given the impending Dunbar review (when do you want to push the button on that by the way?) I might hold off for a bit, but a second pair of eyes would be appreciated if yours are free. GirthSummit (blether) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Saw this, left some comments. Harrias talk 20:56, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
On a glance it seemed only a historical background section off being FACable. I shall have a proper look once you have gone through Harrias's comments.
Saturday? Feel free to press the button yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Gog the Mild, looking forward to anything you have to say too. Saturday works for me, I'll set the wheels in motion in the morning before buggering off on holiday. (I understand the flat has WiFi, and I'll take my books!) GirthSummit (blether) 22:28, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
Harrias, that is very generous of you - thanks, I'll look through your comnents in the morning. GirthSummit (blether) 22:26, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

F-104 Starfighter A-class review

Looks like this review is going to fail, but I wanted to thank you for your help. Regardless of its rating, I think the article is significantly improved from where it was when we started, and your assistance in getting it to that point is greatly appreciated. CThomas3 (talk) 18:15, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Weird issue

Hope all is well on your side of the pond. Things have been stressful, but I think are finally sorting themselves out. I've never had this happen before, but I am sure it must happen. On the article for LaNada War Jack, I get the same ISBN number for two of her books.Colonization Battlefield... and Native Resistance.... Not sure what to do about it, as one is clearly wrong, but how would I know? Ideas on how to fix it? SusunW (talk) 19:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

SusunW: hi. Good thanks. Pleased to hear that you are getting sorted. WorldCat is only as good as the librarians inputting the data; mistakes happen. For the first book, Google give the ISBN of the 2014 edition. Not sure if that is helpful. While this uggests that the ISBN for Native Resistance is 9781578648757.
If these don't work let me know and I'll try something else. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:41, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I've been looking into this for the last hour or so. I'm pretty convinced that they are the same book. Her website talks about Colonization Battlefield coming out "soon" in 2019, and her shop only lists Native Resistance. Similarly, Goodreads only has a proper entry for Native Resistance, with a ghost entry for Colonization Battlefield. You are more likely to know than I, but if I had to guess, I would say that the book was originally meant to be published in 2014, under the name Colonization Battlefield, and got delayed and delayed, until it was eventually released under the Native Resistance title in 2019. Every online entry has the same ISBN for the pair though... Harrias talk 21:44, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
During all this searching, I've not found a single photo or cover image for Colonization Battlefield; if it existed at all, I can only imagine that it was an advance copy? Harrias talk 21:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to help. As I said, it's really weird. But, you just hit the nail on the head. Looks like from this they are the same..."Note: this product's updated title is Native Resistance: An Intergenerational Fight For Survival And Life, published 2019". You're a genius!SusunW (talk) 21:54, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
They are, aren't they. Good thinking Harrias. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Leptis Parva

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Leptis Parva you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 16:22, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Leptis Parva

The article Battle of Leptis Parva you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Leptis Parva for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 11:41, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gog_the_Mild/Archive_2&oldid=1089165403"