User talk:Gog the Mild

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins
Hi there! Phase I of the Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
 * Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
 * Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
 * Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
 * Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
 * Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
 * Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
 * Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

Your EotW nomination
back in early March is finally working its way up to the top of the queue. I have recently started to award mid-week in addition to Sunday in order to speed up the process and get the awards where they belong--on the editors talk page. I am updating the nomination just a bit. Thanks for all you do! Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 13:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Good idea. Nice to see the award so busy. It doesn't seem that long ago that we were scratching around trying to find worthy recipients. Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Agreed! A crowded Queue is a good problem to have. Don't hesitate to nominate is still the active thought. Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. Just in time to congratulate your nominee. TRA Buster Seven   Talk  (UTC) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Narwhal
Can you quickly read the lead section of narwhal and comment on the prose? Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI  ( talk to me ) 06:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments; I addressed them. So, what do you think of the article's state right now? Is it ready? Please let me know. Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Rapide
hi gog, welcome back from the trip :). hope i’m not rushing you or anything but this FAC has three supports, and a source review and image review both completed (it’s been open for nearly a month). mind taking a look at it? thanks and best! 750h+ 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * How strange, that was literally the last thing I was looking at. And thinking that I agree with FrB.TG. Let's see if we can get another reviewer to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Ok, i’ll see if i can get somebody. Editor PCN02WPS kindly decided to leave comments :). 750h+ 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * PCN finished his review, and it seems like he’ll be leaving a support :). 750h+ 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
 * little friendly ping 😬 (sorry it's been two days, probably just my impatience) 750h+ 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * As it happens, I have started looking at the article. Although I am now tempted to look at one which has been waiting longer instead. Pipe down and take a class in patience, or I shall ask Serial Number to have a little chat with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * whoops, understood 750h+ 14:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
 * This whole gimme gimme gimme approach is frankly disgusting.  ——Serial Number 54129  15:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Input request @ Talk:Jinn

 * An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn.
 * An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn.
 * Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

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

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool) or talk page there of. &#32;Bookku   (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Question about FAC process
First off, thank you for your pre-review comments here. I nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC early last month, with three full reviews resulting in three supports. An image review was completed at the outset and addressed a single concern. However, I am worried that three supports and a neutral image review might be interpreted as insufficient to establish a consensus for promotion. Is there an informal minimum number of supports necessary to establish a consensus? If so, do you have recommendations about next steps? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, I've noticed that FAC nominators have been burdening regulars with a lot of questions lately. I apologize if this sounds like just another squeaky wheel, and I fully understand if you'd rather not respond here. Thank you for your work as a coordinator. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Well spotted. No problem. If you become a nuisance I will either ignore you or, more likely, tell you so. I only count two general supports - from UC and SC. Am I missing something? The number, type and quality of supports needed for any given nomination is more of an art than a science. That said, 1. it needs more, 2. it is ticking along nicely, 3. I have nudged a couple of potential reviewers, and 4. I had been thinking of looking at that one myself, I am not sure why it dropped off my radar. I may be able to go through it tomorrow. First FACs are always a bit nerve wracking, but I see nothing that need alarm you so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Your coordinator comments are appreciated. To point 4, don't feel an impetus to rush a review, as I have limited availability tomorrow. To point 1, I think I must have not understood something correctly: is a pass on a source review like that performed by Dugan Murphy (with the caveat that, as a first-timer, I needed a more in-depth one) not interchangeable with a support? If not, I'm very appreciative that you clarified that point! Don't expect further pinging/talk page messages from me unless you make comments first or something goes horribly awry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
 * , generally FAC requirements are divided into a pass for each of images and sources, and general supports; with the supports seen as separate things. Each of the two former need one pass for each and a nomination a bare minimum of three of the latter, but usually more. Reviewers' nomenclature is not always clear to non-aficionados, and even when it is I realise that the whole of the FAC procedure can be a bit of a black box. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi! Your help through everything during the FAC was remarkably valuable. One of the most pleasant experiences thus far this year was telling my dad about the process this article underwent in order to reach FA status. Thanks for letting me know about the minimum character count for the TFA candidacy. There's a bit of a personal matter related to the TFA nom that I'd like to email you about, but only if you're open to receiving a message (something positive and not too serious). May I send an email to you via Wikipedia? ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
 * ~ Pbritti (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

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

July TFAs
I'm looking for something Milhisty. Of yours, Battle of Zama looks tempting since it's a Vital Article. Is there another one you've nominated that hasn't run at TFA yet that you'd prefer? - Dank (push to talk) 23:43, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
 * While I'm here ... there are a couple of nominations I'm thinking of pushing into August, but before I do it I want to make sure that's okay by you: WP:Today's featured article/requests/Political history of medieval Karnataka and WP:Today's featured article/requests/Phoolan Devi. The first has failed a previous TFAR, but I don't know that Harizotoh9 (the TFAR nominator) is attached to this particular article, it might be that a rerun on Indian history would work for them. For the second, I'm always slightly worried that running a bio on the anniversary of the death might send a strange signal of some kind, so I don't think I can run this one in July. Also, it could really use an image. - Dank (push to talk) 02:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi, not really, Zama is fine. If you prefer another, maybe Hundred Years' War, 1345–1347? It is not a battle and took place 1,500 years after Zama, so there is little overlap. Neither are date specific. If one of them is scheduled, it would please me if could run on the 30th, but that should be a minor consideration.


 * I am happy to have both of those Indian-based articles in the August schedule. I can see why you wouldn't want to do anything which may be viewed as celebrating a person accused of multiple murders. I think we may struggle to find an image, but I will see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that too! Thanks much. I didn't have any problem with Zama, but now that you mention it, I'm a little more comfortable with the Hundred Years' War article. Although (my brain seems to be lagging behind my fingers) ... I'm not in a hurry to run either of these, if your preference is to run them on the anniversary. - Dank (push to talk) 12:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Neither have an anniversary as such, Zama in particular doesn't. (If that makes sense.) For me running either on whatever date you wish is fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Admin assistance
Hi Gog, if you have the time, we have an IP persistently disrupting an article with wrong-headed punctuation (latest example) -- been warned twice but I think it's time for admin intervention now, re. user or article or both... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, some people need to get out more. I suspect that you may be confusing me with an admin. If I am wrong, please correct me; if I am not, perhaps David? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:33, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ha, I could've sworn you went for it at some stage! Ah well, if I had a buck for each time I'd been mistaken for an admin I'd be able to retire now... Dan might also be interested...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Thx Ian, but it's been too long since I've reviewed the IP-blocking rules, I better not. - Dank (push to talk) 12:45, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I've watched the article, if there's another reversion I'll block. Sadly beyond being tendentious there's lots of chances IPs don't even see the talk page warnings these days so they're not as effective at deterrence. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs  talk 12:50, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Tks guys. Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I reported it to WP:RFPP some while ago. Apparently we have to wait for Boston to wake up first though *shrug*   ——Serial Number 54129  13:07, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

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


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

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

The Bugle: Issue 218, June 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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


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

Anna Lee Fisher
This is a BLP article, and scheduling it for 24 August means that I will be travelling, and unable to watch it. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  19:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * You supported the nomination for the 24th yourself, which is an appropriate date. I see no particular reason why you have to be able to watch it, and there is a co-nominator. So I am disinclined to move it or swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to swap it, I just want you to watch it. Hawkeye7   (discuss)  19:53, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 * Ah! Yes, happy to do that. Having had 50 or so of mine go through TFA I know the sort of nonsense that comes up. I'll try and stay on top of that. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

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

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


 * with 1,059 points, mostly from 1 featured article on DeLancey W. Gill, 11 good articles, 18 did you know nominations, and dozens of reviews;
 * with 673 points, mostly from 2 featured articles on Worlds (Porter Robinson album) and I'm God, 5 good articles, and 2 did you know nominations;
 * with 557 points, mostly from 1 featured article on KNXV-TV, 5 good articles, and 8 did you know nominations; and
 * with 415 points, mostly from 1 featured article on Great cuckoo-dove, with a high number of bonus points from that article.

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

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

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

Leave
Hi, can I nominate narwhal for FAC? Thanks, Wolverine XI   ( talk to me ) 07:57, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Not until 16:29 UTC. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:51, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

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

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

The Bugle: Issue 219, July 2024
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

FAC
Can you please tell me what went wrong at the Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex FAC? Was it something I said? If so don't take it personal; I was having not the greatest day when I was responding to your comments. I do, of course, appreciate the article problems you brought up at the FAC. Volcanoguy</i> 17:00, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I felt a need to have a very slow count to ten, which is not something that happens often. I should have got back to the review - one way or another - before now. RL got in the way. I'll try, hard, to wrap up a review, as objectively as I can, today or tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
 * My apologies. I shouldn't respond to anyone while I'm not in a good mood. <i style="color: red;">Volcano</i><i style="color: black;">guy</i> 15:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 63
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 63, May – June 2024 <div style="margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em;"> Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
 * One new partner
 * 1Lib1Ref
 * Spotlight: References check