User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 4

Pinprick
Loved your metaphor, "Each one a pinprick, but cumulatively sucking a lot of time out of the project" (here). Just letting you know that I'm going to shamelessly steal it from now on (and have already started). If you sue me one day for royalties and win, I'll probably go broke. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:18, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Four Award for Battle of Oroscopa

 * Thanks for sorting that out Epicgenius. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXV, October 2021
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) 12:51, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Your comments on the Battle of the Granicus
Hello, some time ago you commented on Featured article candidates/Battle of the Granicus/archive1. I didn't have to time to respond before the discussion there closed and took a break from Wikipedia afterwards, so I'm responding on your talk page now. I had some questions and comments. 1) Regarding widespread use of primary sources, do I understand correctly that you are specifically referring to WP:RSPRIMARY? I don't think I violated this directive in my contributions to this article. As far as I can tell I've only used ancient historians as a source when I've summarized their accounts of the battle. I've taken care to keep any interpretation and analysis of the ancient historians by modern scholarship separate and think I've made it clear with the way I've used references. If you think otherwise, can you please point to the specific place in the article text where this goes wrong? 2) Will work on the lead section for a better summary before renominating. 3) Can you be more specific about what's missing in the background section regarding "setting the scene"? 4) Will do more work on copy editing and ask for GoCER review. 5) Will expand Aftermath section to mention how the war ended. 6) I agree that a map would be nice to have, but I don't see how that is easy. Do you have any recommendations on how to start? 7) Your suggestion to discuss weapons, equipment, tactics and doctrines of the armies makes it seem to be rather extensive, but I think I get what you mean when I read Battle of the Bagradas River (255 BC) where this is discussed briefly in two paragraphs. I'll try to replicate this for the Granicus article. 7) I will read ancient battle articles which are already featured articles more closely and compare them with my article to see where it is lacking. --AlexanderVanLoon (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Hundred Years' War article titles
Hello Gog the Mild,

A fairly low-priority question, but I was curious if you had any opinion on my old comment at Talk:Hundred_Years%27_War_(1345–1347). I'd be happy to file a multi-RM, or even a WP:RM/TR, to move the articles over, because I think the complaints about the current title suggesting multiple wars called "Hundred Years War" rather than slices of the same war is valid. However, I also think the main article maintainer(s) should be given a wide degree of deference on matters of style, and no point in suggesting a move if you'd hate the titles. Did you have any thoughts on my suggestion of using a comma, so Hundred Years' War, 13XX–13XX style? I think that makes it fairly clear that this is a specific time period of a larger conflict. My only worry with 1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War is that since the dates are semi-arbitrary, it's a little tricky to find via autocompletion - i.e. someone typing in "Hundred Years' War" in the search box will see the "child" articles, but you'd have to guess the right starting date to see the autocompletion if the year is up front, yet the years are semi-arbitrary in this case. That said, I'd still personally prefer "13XX-13XX during the Hundred Years' War over the status quo, so I think some sort of move should be done! Any opinion yourself?  SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, that is thoughtful of you. My preference is Hundred Years' War, 13XX–13XX style. It would certainly improve the current situation, and I am against the 1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War for the reasons you lay out, plus the aesthetic unpleasantness of starting a title with a string of numbers - I can't think off hand of any RS which does that. They do use the other, eg see under "Hundred Years' War, Phases of" here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Works for me! I moved the articles and updated the template links.  SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks SnowFire, good work. Do you have any view on supporting, or otherwise, the featured topic nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Not really? Looks like the promotion is going to uncontroversially succeed, so congratulations on your good work.  Maybe you could merge the subtopics into the main topic, though?  Not sure they're really needed as separate templates anymore.  Unsure if there's a procedure for that.  SnowFire (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I hope so. The other nom I posted on the same day has just been promoted after seven enthusiastic supports and no quibbles, so it is looking like a tough bar to get over. Merging, there is a policy somewhere stressing the hierarchical nature of Wikipedia articles, which I read as suggesting that they shouldn't be. I could probably hunt it down if you want. And other G&FTs retain their sub-topics - see for example Featured topics/Battleships of Japan and Featured topics/God of War franchise. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Turtle for TFA
I listed Turtle as TFA for May 23, 2022 which is World Turtle Day. Can you make sure it doesn't get nominated before then? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
 * I can try. I am not the only scheduler. As you have listed it in potentials it should be off the usual list. If it gets scheduled in error, give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

What is your process when promoting an article?
Hi Gog, now that I am a FAC coordinator I'd like to get started at promoting articles. I thought I would start with black-and-red broadbill since it seems to be fairly straightforward. I was just wondering what process is used to decide whether to promote an article? I assume it's just a matter of reading through the nomination and checking that all criteria have been assessed, but is there a checklist or guide anywhere to help me figure it out? Thanks in advance (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Geez you don't want much do you? Everyone knows that all the juicy FAC rules are unwritten...!  Seriously I coulda sworn Gog sent you and HF something but now of course I can't spot it anywhere.  Gog, perhaps try again (unless I dreamt it all, nothing is impossible)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Ian is possibly referring to this, which is more a checklist of what to do after you have decided to promote. I am unaware of any formalised guidance, outside the FAC page header. As to my process when deciding whether to promote, it is so nomination-specific that I hesitate to generalise from it. Have a go, bear the FAC page instructions in mind, be aware of but not bound by precedent, and email your fellow coordinators as a group with any specific queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, tks, that checklist of the mechanics is very good to have around. As to guidance on when to promote, I couldn't put it better than Gog did just now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 November newsletter
The WikiCup is over for another year and the finalists can relax! Our Champion this year is, who amassed over 5000 points in the final round, achieving 8 featured articles and almost 500 reviews. It was a very competitive round; seven of the finalists achieved over 1000 points in the round (enough to win the 2019 contest), and three scored over 3000 (enough to win the 2020 event). Our 2021 finalists and their scores were:


 * 1) with 5072 points
 * 2) with 3276 points
 * 3) with 3197 points
 * 4) with 1611 points
 * 5) with 1571 points
 * 6) with 1420 points
 * 7) with 1043 points
 * 8) with 528 points

All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.


 * wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
 * wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
 * wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
 * wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
 * wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
 * wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
 * wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
 * wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition, not forgetting User:Jarry1250, who runs the scoring bot.

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. 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 2022 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Great work, Gog! How you managed to get this much work through, and still co-ordinate at FAC is amazing to me. The Featured Topic you made is a great piece of work! Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lee, especially given your stunning efforts. In 2019 you just missed out on first place with 899 points, in 2021 more than three times as many leaves you still second. I don't know how you manage it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup awards


Congratulations on both these awards! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Panormus
The above article will be put through trial by ordeal as TFA on 26 December 2021. Be there or be square.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Wehwalt, can we use this as the standard talk page alert for TFAs? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Truce of Calais map
Hello Gog, Looking at the map in the article, I'm not sure it can be verified as being accurate, as the Wikicommons page says the sources used were OSM (that's clearly OK), themaparchive.com (this appears to be a dead link), and Newm30 (not a reliable source). Is there a problem, or am I being thick? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I reckon this map (registration to the Internet Archive required) is the nearest to the one in your article. Happy to produce an svg version if you think it a good idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
 * If you look at the history of that Commons page you will see that I added the actual sources, but that the map maker,, removed them. consulted with me re the details and sourcing of the map and I am happy that the map accurately reflects HQ RSs. Goren tek-en is an excellent map maker and is usually careful about attribution, see this map -File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg - which they recently produced for a different FA of mine.
 * I have the Burne in the dead tree version, but prefer to use the more up to date and, I strongly suspect, thorough sources, which vary in some minor details. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Amitchell125, Gog the Mild
 * I have now updated the themaparchive link
 * Regarding Newm30, I have no knowledge, possibility or wish to check if a requester is a reliable source (what ever that is) or not, I check the sources to the best of my ability.
 * In the history I can't see what I should have removed, please link directly to that version as I don't remember this. If I did wrong I will of course change it. As you say, I'm a graphic worker and I depend on the knowledge of the requester and others. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * By the way Gog the Mild the map File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg (look down on the page) has become a Valued image. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that there was confusion between you, me and when the map was discussed. Newm30 did a fine job of communicating with you over generating the map. But they didn't let you know which sources they had used to pass information to you. Trying to be helpful, and knowing what they were from consultation with Newm30 during the process, I added them. But I messed the process up, which led to this exchange. We never did get round to adding back the actual high quality, reliable sources which I added then removed. I imagine that Amitchell125 is concerned about this lack of clear sourcing because the map now features in six featured articles - which makes it one of Wikipedia's highest profile maps, so a hearty well done to you there. I don't think it is anyone's "fault", and certainly not yours; it is just one of those things.
 * Would you be ok with my adding the sourcing in and your checking that I have not disturbed anything, which means that it then meets the FA criteria?
 * File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg - whew! I am not over-surprised, it was high quality work, but I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild Please add the sources but as I didn't know about them at the time of the creation I'm not sure where to put them. It would kind of be included in the knowledge passed on by to me so I changed some stuff there and where I put "xxxx" seems fine to me. See if that works for you too and ping me when done, thanks.
 * I see on that map that I do the "information" part better now so I will check that and the file itself as I evolved there too.
 * I'm thinking of nominating this map for QI and maybe VI maybe I could need some help then.
 * This file Map of route of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is about the same stuff, I can see that also needs updated (I'm actually doing that to most of my old stuff, but it takes time). Is there also lack of sources?
 * Can I ask both of you to check them when I'm done? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild I saw your adding of sources, but shouldn't you (maybe more users) also be added as contributor with information and knowledge? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think that I communicated with you over the map, only Newm30. So from your point of view as the map maker the attribution would seem correct to me. But you are the expert on Commons, so feel free to amend. From an enWikipedia PoV all it needs is the HQ RS(s) on which the map is based and there is no interest in how, or via who, the information was communicated to you.
 * This - File:Battle of Dunbar, battlefield map, 0530.jpg - is an example of a map produced by an enWikipedia editor at my request and based on information (mostly) provided by me. Note that my name doesn't feature at all. This may be "wrong" from a Commons PoV, but is fine from an end-user's. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild At commons (there are some differences towards wikipedia) you should always state if a media is derived from somewhere or where you got the information from, source. Just as you in wikipedia give references we give sources. In this case I stand as the creator but that is for the graphic work really, the knowledge and information comes from somewhere else and it should be stated. It might be from some text, image etc or from a user. It's not unusual I'm being contacted and a user wants to discuss the correctness of something in a media. I have really no idea, so for me as a graphic worker it helps a lot if all of the information and knowledge is very clear on a medias page. Then the user who wants to change something can easily see who to discuss with, or for me it's so much easier to direct the question to someone with the knowledge. So I will add you if that's fine with you. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Goran tek-en, that makes sense, and I (obviously) have no issues with your attaching my name. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Truce of Calais
I've listed this one under history, rather than warfare, based on the example of the Treaty of Guines. Any objections to this? Hog Farm Talk 02:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm I don't pay much more attention to categorisation than I do to article titles, but seeing as you asked, it seems to me that a treaty which ends a military conflict is MilHist, not Hist, per my Treaty of Lutatius. I can see that this would have the effect of separating these from other types of treaty (eg trade) which may offend some "lumpers", but IMO thems the breaks. In particular it seems to me that a truce is an entirely MilHist topic and should not be put into the general history group. But I have no intention of making a fuss about any of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Moved to warfare Hog Farm Talk 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Ancient Carthage music?
Hey, I've been looking around for information on non-Egyptian Ancient African music (for my long haul at the History of music article). This is probably a stretch but I thought I'd check, as I know you frequently write about Carthaginian topics, albeit warfare ones. Do you know if there are any good sources on the music of Ancient Carthage?—or perhaps Carthaginian culture in general, where I would hope musical information would be included? Grove, oxford bibliographies, JSTOR and my normal methods have led to pretty much nothing. Best – Aza24 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, the standard general text on the history of Carthage is
 * It has a fair bit on culture, religion and ritual, although a skim of the index doesn't give anything on music.
 * may be worth a skim, but a quick look only yields some Numidian interest in Greek music: "such details as Masinissa being a lover of Greek music are reported" (p. 397); "We also hear that Masinissa liked to invite Greek musicians and dancers to his court to provide entertainment for him and his guests." (p. 403) I did find this, which seems to be all there is. More generally, have you seen this? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Well Numidian is not the route I thought to go, but those anecdotes look useful!—a similar connection between Ancient Greek and Persian music exists. I had not heard of that source on Coroplastic sculptures though, which seems particularly valuable. I will say, it is extremely unusual of how broad of a range that source covers—geographically. The issue I've found is that there are basically no substantive modern general histories of music in a global sense, so this seems to be something of an exception for the Ancient period. So thanks! By the way, if I can spare your time for a further question, every couple of weeks I add more references and such to the List of medieval composers article. I've been including rows between composers to mark the emergence of certain musical periods, e.g. "(9th century) The Abbey of Saint Gall becomes a musical and literary center of Europe". I'm considering including more historical (non-musical) markers; currently I only really have "The Western Roman Empire falls in 476, ushering in the Middle Ages". What would you think about this?—would it be too much information and is there any small list of major medieval European events you would think to include? I'm thinking maybe the beginning and end of the Hundred Years' War, a few crusades and the East–West Schism? I guess some of it depends on how the events affected music (e.g. I know the Albigensian Crusade basically ended the troubadour and similar movements) but I feel like some events are too big to exclude, even if their actual (observable, at least) effect was minimal. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that putting in some non-musical markers for general guidance is a good idea. Unless you have a good grip on the general history of the period be cautious though. So, off hand, yes to Fall of Rome/Jerusalem/Constantinople, Arab conquests, Columbus's voyage; no to the Hundred Years' War - definitely not notable in this context (much as I submerge myself in it)- nor, IMO, most crusades (unless they have a specific musical effect). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also and . Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , I think that putting in some non-musical markers for general guidance is a good idea. Unless you have a good grip on the general history of the period be cautious though. So, off hand, yes to Fall of Rome/Jerusalem/Constantinople, Arab conquests, Columbus's voyage; no to the Hundred Years' War - definitely not notable in this context (much as I submerge myself in it)- nor, IMO, most crusades (unless they have a specific musical effect). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Also and . Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Upload image
Hi Gog, I tried to upload the image as you recommended, but it removed all the details and links to creative commons, and therefore the attribution to Goran. I think I'm doing it wrong. What are the steps that you would use to upload it? All the best

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue, which article would you like the map to be in? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2021 (UTC)


 * This one > Dinogad's smock Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue Sorry to step in, have you checked this post and other help elsewhere or on this page, FAQ/Editing --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks Goran tek-en. Boynamedsue, I have inserted the image. No doubt you will wish to change everything about it, that's fine. If you click on the image, you get a different version with Goran tek-en's name bottom left; click on "More details" to get the full attribution, plus other interesting stuff. How it is now, is how it is supposed to be. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

Thank you so much Gog and Goran, both of your help is very much appreciated.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue, Gog the Mild I'm that type of person who try to search for knowledge when I don't have it and don't understand what is explained to me. So Gog the Mild it is not out of respect but to me it seemed strange that you would have to download-upload an image to insert it for an article at wikipedia, or did I misunderstand you.
 * Look at this page w:User:Goran_tek-en/sandbox where I try to explain what I have found and know about this subject. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boynamedsue I updated that sandbox page, look at UPDATE close to the end. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Goran tek-en Ahhh, now I see! Thank you very much for the information, I will be able to use this feature in the future. It has been a pleasure to meet you, thank you for all your time and hard work. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 47
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 47, September – October 2021 
 * On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
 * Search tool deployed
 * New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

FAC urgents list
What exactly are the criteria for adding to/maintaining the urgents listing? Pinging and  as well. Hog Farm Talk 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)


 * In general I've been told that these are usually articles nearing the three-week mark which already have at least one or two supports, but need more to be promoted. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I use it, and have so used it since before I was a coordinator, to list nominations which have two general supports and need a third to reach the potential minimum number for a promotion to be considered. And for Sports and MilHist nominations which have three, or more, general supports from Sports-orientated or MilHist regular editors as a way of seeking a non-specialist check; potentially for similar in other areas, but I can't recall that ever happening. I am not saying that these are exact criteria or anything, just explaining how I use it. I think that has a broadly similar approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Dundee
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Dundee 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Bayou Meto
Would you be willing to give this one a quick skim to make sure there are no major flaws? It was passed for GA by a newer user, who left no comments on it. It's pretty short and won't be advancing above GA. Hog Farm Talk 14:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks pretty good to me. I have made a couple of minor changes, revert at will. Query:
 * "The Union force had lost either seven men killed and 38 wounded or a total of 46 men during the battle. Full Confederate losses are not known, but at least two men were killed, in addition to several wounded." You have this reversed in the infobox.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it! Yep, that's an error - corrected. Hog Farm Talk 16:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

ISBN fixer
Hello Dear! Been a minute, huh? Back in the wayback you used some bot of some kind to insert dashes into isbn's on Biblical criticism. Can you tell me what it is, where to find it, how to use it? I would be very grateful for any help you can offer. I know you're terribly busy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Jenhawk777, I hope that you are both busy and well. Here you go: hyphenator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Bless you yes, I am staying busy, there is always more to do than time to do it - which I know you are familiar with. Thank you so much for this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Play-by-mail game GA nominee
Hi. I hope you've been well. I have failed to stay away, no matter how busy I remain IRL. I've rationalized that I have to have a hobby....

I imagine at some point someone will take up my GA nomination of Play-by-mail game. But they likely won't know much about the topic. I've improved it somewhat from this version in 2019, although it's certainly no Featured Article yet. If you have some time, perhaps you'd like to review it (and I think there's no rush). I don't mind asking since I know you don't give out free passes, and I know how much you know about the topic. If your workload precludes, I know you copyedit and that's also welcome.

If not, that's fine as well. In any case, I hope you are well this holiday season. Airborne84 (talk) 23:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Will wind power cites get fixed automatically do you know?
Hello Gog the Mild,

Thanks for fixing some cites. After I pruned the article drastically there were a lot of cite errors. They didn't get fixed automatically after a few hours, so I deleted all the refs in the hope I could run a bot to fix. But when I run citation bot to try and fix them I get error 502. Will some scheduled bot eventually come round and fix the errors do you know? Chidgk1 (talk) 08:29, 24 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Ah, hi Chidgk1, good question. Unfortunately I am not a good person to ask. I know little about bots and on my articles always insert all of them "by hand". It looks as if a bot sorted things out one minute after you posted this . The referencing looks to be in decent shape to me, bar the statements that aren't cited. Are you still spotting ant issues? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * No ants! Thanks Chidgk1 (talk) 10:28, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

InternetArchiveBot
Hi Gog (love the name!) I see you have been using to archive the refs on lots of articles. This is great work, but there is one problem: the bot has a bug, documented at T291704.

The problem is that the bot does not recognise the unhyphenated form of the cite parameters access-date, archive-date, and archive-url. So if it encounters an unhyphenated parameter, it adds the hyphenated version. For example, if the cite uses accessdate, the bot will add access-date.

This happened in your bot edit to Fuel poverty, where the bot archived the ref to https://www.theguardian.com/business/2008/jan/20/utilities.householdbills, and added  even though the ref already had. That caused the cite templates to display an error message, and also to categorise the article in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter.

I reverted the bot edit, added dashes to the relevant parameters, and ran the bot again.. So the refs are now archived, but the page is no longer in Category:CS1 errors: redundant parameter.

Please can you try to avoid this in future?

There are several ways of avoiding it: e.g. not using the bot until the bug is fixed, or checking the bot's edits an cleaning up after them. My own preferred solution is to use a script to add the dashes before I invoke the bot. My script is at User:BrownHairedGirl/CiteParamDashes.js, and you are welcome to use it if you want. Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:45, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks User:BrownHairedGirl, will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Can I just say I appreciate that you are archiving links. (I do it manually, because otherwise it's too technical for me.) It is so frustrating to try to access a link from Mexico only to get a message that I either have to pay to access or that you can't get there from here. (NY Times and the Independent are the worst about that.) If someone who can see the whole article archives it, it is a huge help to those of us who cannot. Thank you! SusunW (talk) 18:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 November 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVI, November 2021
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) 11:25, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Dundee
The article Siege of Dundee you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Dundee 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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:21, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

December 2021 GOCE Newsletter
Distributed via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion of Hamilcar's victory with Naravas
Congratulations, and thank you today for Battle of Panormus, introduced: "The next gripping instalment in "Battles of the First Punic War". The last of the only four land battles of the 23-year-long war. There are elephants!"! - We have the second day of Christmas, card 3 for you if you like. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Survey about History on Wikipedia
I am Petros Apostolopoulos, a Ph.D. candidate in Public History at North Carolina State University. My Ph.D. project examines how historical knowledge is produced on Wikipedia. You must be 18 years of age or older, reside in the United States to participate in this study. If you are interested in participating in my research study by offering your own experience of writing about history on Wikipedia, you can click on this link https://ncsu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9z4wmR1cIp0qBH8. There are minimal risks involved in this research.

If you have any questions, please let me know. Petros Apostolopoulos, paposto@ncsu.edu Apolo1991 (talk) 17:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Apolo1991, I don't reside in the US, which I assume makes me ineligible? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * @Gog the Mild That's correct. Apolo1991 (talk) 21:19, 14 December 2021 (UTC)


 * It has been politely suggested on your talk page that you should begin these contacts with "If you are resident in the United States...". You would save many of us from frustration and wasted efforts if you could adopt this simple change.--Ipigott (talk) 21:40, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Dundee
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Truce of Calais
Hi Gog Very nice page, congrats. My only true frustration is I couldnt find a proper list of the agreed conditions or signatories or allies affected by the the truce. Personally I like lists, I dont like huge bulky paragraphs. If you can direct me where I can find a proper list of agreed conditions or names of affected allies I will be very grateful. Kind regards. Caracal Rooikat
 * Hi . I too like lists and bullet points, I find them more accessible than prose. Sadly Wikipedia disagrees, for its own ineffable reasons. If I had included the terms of the treaty as a list, the article would not have passed FAC. As so often with Wikipedia, thy or my personal preferences count for little.
 * Further, as a tertiary source editors are expected to write in a summary style; ie, including every jot and tittle of the details of the truce and the numerous amendments agreed during its various extensions is just what I am not supposed to do. This is an encyclopedia, if you are after "a proper list of agreed conditions" - "proper" of course being a subjective matter - perhaps you should be looking for the original text of the various agreements?
 * The main points of these agreements and any restrictions on interactions with allies are summarised in the text. Eg "the English [were] confirmed [in] their possession of all their territorial conquests in France and Scotland; the Flemish were confirmed in their de facto independence from France; and Philip was prevented from punishing those French nobles who had conspired, or even fought, against him" etc. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
Hello Gog the Mild, I wanted to wish you and your loved ones a merry Christmas! Thank you for helping me navigate the FAC process for the first time this year. I hope you'll have a blessed holiday period. All the best, Modussiccandi (talk) 09:57, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 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) 14:21, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Subsidies in Iran needs update to remain good
Subsidies in Iran has been nominated for an individual 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 17:06, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 December 2021
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356
The article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 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:Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356
The article Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Review
Hi, many thanks for your review of Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). I'm going to give ACR a punt as you suggest, but am awaiting the arrival of another Walcheren source first. On a completely different note, I believe you're the only editor I've seen recently to have worked on English Civil War articles, and I wondered if you might be kind enough to have a read through of the Storming of Shelford House? I've already got it to GA but am in no way an expert on the period, and have my doubts that I've accurately explained the wider picture surrounding the event. I'd appreciate any comments, or suggestions for better sources, that you might have. Thanks again, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Pickersgill-Cunliffe, I would like to respond via email, but you have disabled this feature. Would it be possible to, at least temporarily, enable it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware that it was an option! I've changed it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, December 2021
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) 13:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

A quick follow up
Hey! I'm going back to the List of medieval composers and trying to implement some of your suggestions on what general time periods to include. You mentioned the Fall of Jerusalem, but I wasn't sure which one you were referring to? Best – Aza24 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Siege of Jerusalem (1099). It seems to me to be the sort of event that even people who don't do history may have a vague awareness of. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gog the Mild!


Happy New Year! Gog the Mild, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.

Abishe (talk) 12:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

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

GAN Backlog Drive – January 2022
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Good articles at 21:18, 31 December 2021 (UTC).

Some advice
Hey, I hope you and yours are well and enjoyed your holidays. I know it's been a minute since we talked, but I am in need of some advice, and I thought you would give the best advice in an honest straightforward manner. No flattery, just my honest opinion. I hope that's okay. I have another article Christianization of the Roman Empire that I have nominated for GA, but that I think really needs to be FA. Its content is important. But it's very very long, and while I don't mean to be annoyingly timid, I am afraid to go through what I did last time only to fail. It truly broke my heart. I know, I was way too invested. I am trying to be more distant on this one, but, well, let's just say I'm concerned about the response to it because of its length.

So I had this idea. What if I request a team of reviewers who each do different sections of the article instead of the whole thing? Taking a bite of elephant isn't as overwhelming as trying to eat the whole thing. :-) Could that work? It's an article on a single idea, so it isn't readily divisible, or I would learn from my previous mistake and divide it; instead this is actually a merge of what were previously two separate articles. They didn't make sense separated, but they do in combination. But it is really long. I have done all the prep work I didn't know to do before, and I have even had an FA mentor go through it. He advised me not to shoot myself in the foot by mentioning length ahead of time, and to wait and see what the response was, and I will follow his advice with everyone else, but you I wanted to ask up front: is it too long to even consider really? I don't want to begin the process if my chances are slim to none. I'll just stick with GA and be thankful for it. You don't have to read the whole thing, just if you would please, take a quick look and tell me if you think I am better off leaving FA alone. Or just tell me you're too busy. At any rate, Thank you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 22:41, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Response emailed. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Got it! Thank you so very much. You are both helpful and kind and I am grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:36, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2022 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2022 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Any questions on the rules or on anything else 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:02, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

ACR
Hi, per your wishes, just butting in to say that I bravely put Charles Richardson up for ACR today. Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

feedback request
I've been asking for feedback for 6 months. Given that you shut off such feedback, it seems ridiculous to go to yet a 6th place to get feedback. This is a frustrating, unnecessarily circuitous process. Buffs (talk) 00:42, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

TFA-related question
Hello again! I hope you are doing well. I have a quick TFA-related question. I was thinking doing a TFA request for "No Panties" for the July 16 slot later this year. It would be the 20th anniversary of the song's release so I thought it would be an appropriate time to feature a more obscure song. However, I was uncertain if the article would be considered appropriate for the main page given the rather explicit title. What are your thoughts about it? If it is not appropriate, that is completely okay with me as I am just grateful to get the article to the FA level. Aoba47 (talk) 01:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

burnt candlemas
Gog, i had a question regarding this article. do you know what the basis is for the statement that the truce of the 1357 treaty of berwick lasted for four decades? presumably, the statement is referencing the 1400 english invasion of scotland as the conflict that broke the four-decade truce. however, the anglo-scottish wars campaignbox lists three incidents, the 1372 battle of duns, the 1385 english invasion of scotland, and the 1388 battle of otterburn, that occur within those four decades, and without knowing further what is meant by "truce" in the statement, they all ostensibly appear to break it. dying (talk) 20:36, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for that, very helpful. It has retaught me a lesson I thought I had learned - never, ever trust anyone else's referencing. It turns out that I have been accepting this statement in good faith from another editor. Goodness knows why, as, as you point out, it is clearly not correct! It is cited to the impeccable Given-Wilson and Bériac, but seems to have hiccupped in the paraphrasing. The original is here and references the four decades back to the Battle of Neville's Cross. Which figures - the "battle" of Duns involved no fighting and the English intruders withdrew after penetrating just 10 miles - so I assume they date the end of the truce to Richard's invasion. I have tweaked the phrasing to better reflect the source and changed four to three. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for Burnt Candlemas, introduced: "The 1356 English invasion of Scotland is little discussed. It gets little mention in English sources because it failed. Perhaps not surprisingly when they depended on resupply by 14th-century sailing ships in the dead of winter. And little in the Scottish sources because they provoked it by breaking a truce and weren't proud of their strategy of destroying their own crops, livestock and buildings and then running away. I believe that I have extracted pretty much all there is in the sources and that it is ready for FAC. Doubtless I am as wrong on the latter as I usually am, so have at it."! - Quite a brutal affair, - my "Candlemas" article, TFA in 2018, was softer ;) - It had its DYK exactly 10 years ago - as I just saw checking the wording ;) - 2022 began with vacation, check out "songs" - I took the pic in memory --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, January 2022
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) 09:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 January 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Poitiers
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Poitiers 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) 06:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Poitiers
The article Battle of Poitiers 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 Poitiers for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 21:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Poitiers
The article Battle of Poitiers you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Poitiers 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 05:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 1
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Poitiers, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Breteuil.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 48
 The Wikipedia Library Books & Bytes

Issue 48, November – December 2021 
 * 1Lib1Ref 2022
 * Wikipedia Library notifications deployed

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --15:12, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

help?
I know you have missed me. I have finished Africa and am rewarding myself by doing a woman. But, of course, that means that I need help. So, in 1973, she earned £130 per month. I am not so sure that converting that to current wages is helpful. But doing a context search, I discovered that the minimum wage in 1980 was Z$1,200 and in 1990 the average earnings were Z$8,000. That seems to give better context, but is it possible to convert those to £s? The Zimbabwean dollar (ZWD) was created in 1980 and was replaced in 2006 by the 2nd Zimbabwean dollar (ZWN), so the good news is we are only dealing with converting one currency to another currency. Can you help and would you just insert the conversion in the note? SusunW (talk) 20:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall research and report back. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you. You know I appreciate and rely on your help and skills. Hope all is well. SusunW (talk) 21:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Wikipedean article seems well sourced and states "At the time of its introduction, the Zimbabwean dollar was worth more than the US dollar in the official exchange market, with 1 ZWD = US$1.47, although this did not reflect the actual purchasing power it held." Although the source says "Zimbabwe's currency - worth $2 when Mugabe came to power at independence in 1980" - here under "New taxes, tolls for Zim - and a little tax relief". Meanwhile this, which seems more reliable, says "When this conversion occurred, a Zimbabwe Dollar was valued at 1.47 United States Dollars, but because Zimbabwe had higher inflation than the United States, the Zimbabwe Dollar steadily depreciated against the U.S. Dollar."
 * Also "Over time, hyperinflation in Zimbabwe reduced the Zimbabwe dollar to one of the lowest valued currency units in the world. It was redenominated three times (in 2006, 2008 and 2009), with denominations up to a $100 trillion banknote issued." So the 1990 figure should be used with extreme care. (Or not used at all.)
 * So you could cite wherever that minimum wage number, citing where it comes from plus the second one above to say something like 'The official minimum wage in Zimbabwe in 1980 was Z$1,200, or USD1,764, per year.' footnoting some or all of that. I would include "official" as I gravely doubt that this number bore any relationship to actual wages.
 * Was this what you were after? If not, do say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes and no? (It's helpful to me, as I know what I earned in the 1970s in the US). But, I think it would be confusing to readers to reference dollars as opposed to pounds, since her salary was given in pounds (It's pretty confusing to me, anyway.) So can you tell me in pounds? We can leave out the 1990 figures all together, since it seems that the hyperinflation tanked it. Also, can you Britishise the draft? I think I am pretty much done short of trying to find a photo, damn near impossible, and expanding the lede. SusunW (talk) 22:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
 * According to this, not the most RS I have ever seen, a pound GB purchased an average of USD2.33 in 1980. So Z$1,200 = £757 in 1980, a bit rough and ready plus caveats. I'll do a copy edit over the next few days. If I don't please nag me. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi SusunW: Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I am giving the article a very light copy edit. Revert anything you don't like.
 * Nice article. Give me a ping when it goes to GA.
 * I am having my doubts about that 1980 comparison. There was a lot of inflation between 1973 and 1980. To the extent that a British pound of 1980 was only worth 35% of its 1973 value in terms of purchasing power. By and large wages were going up commensurately.
 * Thank you so much, I really appreciate the help. Gotta work out the pictures first. I found some, just not sure about copyright and stuff. Waiting on GRuban to weigh in. I'll let you know. As for the wages, I'll try searching again, would be lovely to find some government report from Rhodesia, but so far no luck. I tried and tried to find something about nurses wages specifically but no go. We'll see. Perhaps on your side of the pond the search would be different as Rhodesia was a British colony, albeit a recalcitrant one? SusunW (talk) 15:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, well lots of research later, maybe this is more helpful? If we look at the chart on page 587 There were approximately 26,180 Africans employed in the "official" labor market in 1972 in Rhodesia (counting the approximately 1000 self-employed persons based on "local knowledge"). If as this says the Rhodesian dollar was pegged at the South African Rand, her earnings of £130 were equal to Rh$239.09? (I am totally assuming he is using Rh$ and not US as he is a Rhodesian scholar and it was published by the Cambridge University Press.) If that is correct, she was clearly in the top bracket of Black workers. Then there is this see "ANNEX 15 page 20 of 48" that talks about African vs. European incomes and food expenditures. Is any of this a better comparison? SusunW (talk) 20:28, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's better. I found a couple of reports giving data from 1969-1974. SusunW (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Definitely Rh$ in the first article, he says so. Photos done, nominated because it's a short time before March 8th and I hope she'll be reviewed by then. Again, I thank you for your help. SusunW (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I went to earmark this for review but have been beaten to it by 40 minutes. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your diligence. Did you read the last note? Is it better? SusunW (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did and yes. Looking forward to seeing it at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Just wondering
Hey Gog, long time no speak. Hope you and yours are doing well! Just wondering. I recently added some information about the long-standing and rather well-known campaign of revisionism/negationism by the government of the Azerbaijan Republic. Would you be willing to copy-edit this section I just added? I know it might sound like a rather off-beat request, but I would like an experienced editor who's not too heavily involved in this topic area to give it a look. Would appreciate it. If you're uncomfortable with making copy-edits in such articles, please don't hesitate to let me know, and I will try to find someone else. - LouisAragon (talk) 00:11, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi LouisAragon, it has indeed been a while. I am happy to copy edit, I copy edit anything. Would you like a light touch or the works, including MoS compliance? The latter will be cognizant of "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
 * When are you going to grace FAC with another nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Awesome Gog, thanks. Although we didn't communicate for some time, I did keep an eye on ya through The Bugle. As far as I could see, you were quite busy producing work of good quality (as usual). As for the quotes and my request; sure, that wouldn't be a problem I think. by all means, go ahead and feel free to rephrase them in order to get rid of the quotes. The most important thing for me is that the original message of the source is carried forth, which in this particular situation is pretty important. Readers should know that even a seemingly simple carpet museum is basically solely being used as a tool to spread historical negationism and irredentist nonsense. For more background info: - LouisAragon (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * "When are you going to grace FAC with another nomination?"
 * I think I would like to raise a few more articles to GA first before I get to that. Speaking of, I think the Azar Bigdeli article, which I brought to GA recently, could be a decent candidate (?). - LouisAragon (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mmm. I have started this and have a first draft. I don't think you are going to be happy, as I have trimmed it down to what I see as relevant to this article and then "summary styled" it. I have set it up in a sand box so feel free to say "thanks, but no thanks" and not use it. If you do want to use it I'll fine tune it and check the citing. See here. Let me know your thoughts.
 * So nominate it!! Or tell me that you are definitely going to nominate it and I'll copy edit. Not that it needs much. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That looks like a good concept. However if you wish to elaborate about the long-standing relevant attempts of Azerbaijani historical negationism, one would definitely need to integrate the "in relation to Iran" section into it as well (please scroll a bit down). I believe the concept, at the moment, only mentions the material from the "in relation to Armenia" section?
 * Personally, I'd vote for just including the relevant information from the 2021 carpet source, whilst maintaining the "see also: Historical negationism#Azerbaijan" link at the top of the section. Azerbaijani negationism stretches far and wide; we'd have to introduce the history of such attempts on every single article. IMO, we should keep it as concise as possible so that people can have 1 "main" page where they can see the large history of such attempts. Lemme know what you think. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I said I'd need to tweak it. I didn't want to put serious work in if you were going to veto the concept. My first thought on looking at what you had done was WP:UNDUE - a lot of weight on a single article in a single source. Plus no context. Putting the article in some sort of context makes its claims more difficult to refute I thought. If you agree I'll amend the draft in a serious way. I disagree BTW, that this should be "as concise as possible"; a brief context and an example or two seems reasonable. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Got ya. Sure, go ahead! - LouisAragon (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Any updates? :-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to discussion: FAC 4 nomination of nonmetal
Please accept this note as an invitation to participate in the discussion of this latest FAC nomination for the nonmetal article.

The context is that you were involved in the FAC 3 discussion for the article (which was not prompted) or you are an editor who made a recent edit to the nonmetal article.

Thank you. Sandbh (talk) 07:11, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Childhood of Henry V
Morning Gog,

By a very roundabout route, I have become interested in who raised Henry V after the death of his mother. The articles that we have seem to be confused as to whether it was Maud Francis, Countess of Salisbury, or Margaret de Monthermer, 3rd Baroness Monthermer. Were they the first and second wives of John Montagu, 3rd Earl of Salisbury? The article on Henry V doesn’t mention it at all. I am way out of my historical period here! Do you happen to know, have a good source on this? Hope you’re well. KJP1 (talk) 10:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Morning . That is outside my period too. But I think I have a source which may help. I am away from home at the moment, but should be able to check it next week. If I don't get back to you, could you give me a nudge? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That would be very kind. I shall nudge you in the latter part of next week. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 10:51, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Morning all. the first thing to remember is that the children of the aristocracy often had as peripatetic lives as their parents, so they didn't necessarily "grow up" in one place as we might do today. Secondly, bear in mind that since Henry was not born to be king, precise records are sparse and to some extent, speculation must be inevitable (as, indeed, our two articles you reference show). However, the two vital historians of the reign—and biographers of the man—Christopher Allmand and Anne Curry both agree on what broad facts are known. Henry had a wet nurse, Joan Waryn, to whom in recognition, etc., in 1415 he granted an annuity of £20 p.a; he also had a governess, Mary Hervy. He seems to have spent much of his youth in the care of his maternal grandmother Joan, Countess of Hereford at Bytham Castle, Lincs. But he—and his brothers—also spent time at Tutbury, Leicester and Kenilworth, for example, which were duchy of Lancaster lands. (Ref: Allmand, C. Henry V (Berkeley, 1992), 9—10.)Not a Montacute to be seen, in fact! Hope this helps. Cheers,   SN54129  12:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - Very interesting, although not altogether helpful for the article! There is certainly a strong local tradition that Henry was brought up at Courtfield e.g., . And it's all over our related articles. Historic England mention it in their Courtfield listing, although they equivocate over who was actually doing the bringing up, . And this entry on the notorious fake nevertheless suggests he was raised at Courtfield, . Is it actually the case that none of the vital historians mention Courtfield at all? KJP1 (talk) 12:49, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm afraid it looks like it. It's the sort of thing that would have a strong local tradition, isn't it? By the way, the Forest of Dean hist. soc. says he was there from 1287 to 1394: see the significance of the date?  SN54129  13:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * - Yes, I noticed that. So our articles, e.g. Welsh Bicknor, which state he was raised at Courtfield after the death of his mother can’t be right, as she didn’t die until 1394. How very disappointing! I shall just have to fall back on the old saw, “local tradition asserts….” Ah well. Many thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 13:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * (what a lot of lovely pings we're generating for Gog when his hangover clears up!) To me, it's actually the one thing that makes it likely. After all, we know he was born in Monmouth, so it's quite probable—and certainly possible—that he stayed with his mother there until she died, and only after that did he get shunted out to Joan of Hereford. That would square the circle. Just change the after, to before...?  SN54129  13:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * With sincere apologies for all the pings, and for filling up your Talkpage, I’ve made a Start for Courtfield, Welsh Bicknor. It’s a house with quite a story and I’d still be very interested if you, or Serial, or any other of your TPSs, could dig up anything in offline sources that mentions it. I’ve Googled it to death, and can’t find anything else online. Thanks again. KJP1 (talk) 16:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't do houses, but it is possible that may be interested. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I shall make enquiries and report back... Girth Summit  (blether)  22:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid my enquiries were fruitless. This is too early for L's bookshelf, and too un-Scottish for mine. I'll check back in if I come across anything - might be having a drink with some mediaevalists next week. I'll ping, he has been very helpful in the past when I've been looking for sources for buildings, he might have something to add? Girth Summit  (blether)  16:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The Woolhope Naturalists' Field Club have a couple of bits and pieces from their print publications (hosted on their website): 1, 2, 3. I've only briefly skimmed them, but there look to be some interesting bits about maps, the gardens, and the chapel. You may already have come across them, but local history and archaeology group websites aren't always well indexed by search engines. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:25, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For what it is worth, Desmond Seward writes "He shared a bedroom and a governess with his brothers. He had a nurse to whom he was devoted ..." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Many thanks all for looking. Much appreciated. And no, Richard, I’d not seen all of those, so I shall burrow through to see what I might glean. Best regards. KJP1 (talk) 06:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

tfa
Thank you for promoting and scheduling my joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Battle of Drepana, introduced: "When I nominated an article on a naval battle from the First Punic War - Battle of Cape Ecnomus - FunkMonk commented "hope it becomes a series!" And so, specially for them, this account of Carthage's only naval victory of the 23-year-long war."! - adding to yesterday's (which was a bit cryptic perhaps but I was dead tired): I clarified that I'll expand Prayer for Ukraine, and translate to German, and look for others for other languages, and an extra brave one for Russian. How about a series of peace? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Canaanites
Anything you would like to say or add to the discussion on the Talk page? Editor2020 (talk) 23:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Donough is promoted
Good Day, Gog the Mild (not calling wikipedians "Dear" any more). I woke up this morning (in the UK) to find that Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty has been promoted to A-Class overnight. User:Hawkeye7 took that initiative. Many thanks to him! Many thanks to you, who has mentored me so patiently. Thanks to all the other reviewers, drivers-by, and coordinators:
 * User:AustralianRupert
 * User:Buidhe
 * User:CPA-5
 * User:Hog Farm
 * User:Ian Rose
 * User:Nikkimaria
 * User:Peacemaker67
 * User:Serial Number 54129
 * User:Vami IV

Eleven eminent wikipedians have therefore been involved in various capacities. Thanks to them all for having pushed this heavy load forward and kept it afloat to the eventual promotion; – and for teaching me many lessons. The review started on 27 February 2021 and was closed 19 days short of its anniversary. I think I will give Donough a long rest. I will go on with the 12 apprentice-reviewer exercises You recommended. I am at number three:
 * WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege_of_Breteuil
 * WP:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Gallic_Wars
 * Talk:Gaius Marius/GA2

I still admire your user-page photo of leather boots in the snow on top of Stob Coire Easain, Scotland. Nobody there to hold the camera. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Shadow magazine source review
Re this, did you miss Nikki's source review? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 04:34, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I did. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Easter egg
Thanks for the thanks! I'm inordinately proud of that little thing, probably because I was waiting some years before there was a Larry to join the others (I couldn't quite come up with anything to fill that spot myself).

I'm lead coordinator at GOCE again, with another blitz ready to kick off in a few ticks. Got myself up to 'senior editor' in the service awards and had a few small DYKs (the latest being La Poutine Week) but nothing major article-wise since last Canada Day. A bit difficult finding the time lately.

You're still busy on the FA front and with Milhist? Yeeps, 10 coordinators, how do you keep that organized? – Reidgreg (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I stumbled across it and loved it. Good to see your humour getting ever drier.
 * Really? Good. I keep thinking I'd like to do a little work there, but I'm so busy with other things, not to even mention real life, that it will never happen. I get a steady flow of requests to copy edit anyway.
 * I remember well your poutine article. Made me hungry every time I looked at it.
 * I am now an FAC coordinator and a TFA scheduler. And closing in on 50 FAs and 100 GAs. As well as a MilHist coordinator: we don't even try, we just mill around and try not to let anyone realise what goes on below the surface.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 00:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

user:Cavalierfawkes
I noticed that you have also reverted edits by this user. Their edits in general seem to have been regularly reverted by other editors, might be useful to keep an eye on them. They are currently edit warring with me on Battle of the Spurs. Urselius (talk) 12:38, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, many of the reverts of ' edits have been made by me. They have made some useful edits, but many show a not uncommon pattern of being unaware of many of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. A little discussion of their edits has taken place here. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the link. They do seem to be something of a petty nuisance. Lots of small edits, pushing a POV agenda. Urselius (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

TPS alert!
My latest FAC - here - has been open for four weeks and is struggling a little to attract attention. If one or two of my talk page stalkers would care to look over it I would be most grateful. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Now that dyk has finally gone back to one set a day, I'll add some (non-milhist) comments, JennyOz (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Face-kiss.svg

Saline Valley salt tram
Hi How goes it? I was wondering, can anybody talk at a FAC review. Thanks.  scope_creep Talk  14:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, It goes well thanks. Yep. At FAC anyone "can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard", as they say elsewhere. So get in there! Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That is the first full belly laugh I've had all week. :)   scope_creep Talk  14:54, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Another satisfied customer. Good. Gratuities are optional. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:56, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Nine Four Awards in only three years—and only one left to hit the leaderboard. Very impressive! --Usernameunique (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Wierd that no-one can see it though :p    SN54129  17:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Apologies, just realised that the talk page coding is purely for categorisation purposes. Shame though; what's the point of jewellery if you can't rattle it in the front seats :)    SN54129  18:15, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, yeah, but as my collection is reaching Evitan proportions even I tend to come over all becomingly modest about it. Difficult as that may be to believe. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Talking of your modesty, is it worth mentioning de Umfraville to User:Usernameunique do you think?  SN54129  12:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In hope of a review? Why not? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * How goes Poitiers, by the way?  SN54129  15:09, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Why do you keep reverting my changes? You know very little about what you are editing Cavalierfawkes (talk) 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that gave me a good laugh. For several reasons: Partly because I know a lot about what I am choosing to revert; partly because many of your edits result in wildly inconsistent articles, I assume from an ignorance of the basics of how Wikipedia works; even more because I have yet to find an edit by you with a source to support it; because despite several people pressing you to read and then act on it you have repeatedly ignored WP:BRD (let us not even mention WP:FAOWN); but especially because many of your more recent edits have been, or have been indistinguishable from, pure vandalism. If you believe that I am out of order with my reverts the place to report me is possibly WP:ANI. The administrator has taken an interest in your edits and may wish to have a look at my reversions.


 * Seriously, I suggest you calm down, read the policies that have been pointed out to you, and stop trying to WP:RGW. And then, when you do do edit, do not just edit the infobox, leaving the article and/or the lead contradicting it, and support every change you make with a cite to a WP:RS. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with what Gog says here. Gog knows very much about the subject matter involved, although as an Ozarks farmer's son, I do not.  But what I can tell from this, Cavalierfawkes, is that quite a few of our edits introduce errors/inconsistencies/etc without providing sources. For instance this ends up having the "Kingdom of England" on both sides of the battle.  That doesn't follow Wikipedia conventions even in civil war situations; only one side would truly represent the "Kingdom of England". This results in internal inconsistencies between Anglo-Saxon and Kingdom of England, and this is poorly advised given the distinction between the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire at this point.  Cavalierfawkes, slow down and make sure everything is sourced, accurate, and consistent. Hog Farm Talk 21:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Query...
Josef Glazman - under MilHist or not? Going to nominate for GA and not sure whether to stick him in a milhist category or not... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 23:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, good to hear from you. Yeah, as a partisan leader he should be MilHist tagged - he is now. Ping if you would like me to assess the GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you thought Manasser was short...
Check out Feologild - it's about the shortest I'd ever consider nominating for GA. THAT is making bricks without straw! Ealdgyth (talk) 15:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I saw that one, noted "was probably a medieval English Archbishop of Canterbury" and decided to leave it for some other mug. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * a partner for the shortest FA...also your own work :)    SN54129  16:33, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * And I thought I was pushing GA length with CSS Tuscarora ... Hog Farm Talk 20:02, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha! I get roped into a lot of formal minute taking IRL. My all-purpose minutes read "Foolish things were said. Poor decisions were made. All men are idiots." I have yet to minute a meeting to which they did not apply. I have no idea why I ever write more. There will be a prize for anyone who knows where I stole that from. We can probably come up with something not much longer to cover all military conflicts. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In my "computer gaming day-ish job" (its a very small niche game - no I don't work for Blizzard) I get to run monthly meetings of the development staff. The shortest meeting we've ever had was "Ya'll did good last month, I don't got anything. You guys got anything?" (silence) "Okay, we're done! See you next month!".
 * As for Feologild - if he didn't have an ODNB entry, I'd probably not have nominated him for GA but... -- Ealdgyth (talk) 20:42, 19 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Did you read Walter Farquhar Hook's Lives of the Archbishops of Canterbury or William Stubbs' Registrum Sacrum Anglicanum (page 9)? They cover some of what the doubts are. Uncle G (talk) 03:29, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry if I seem grumpy...
Been dealing with a recalcitrant trough heater for the herd for the last 2.5 days. Yes, it involved me hauling 75 gallons of hot water across the Wisconsin landscape to unfreeze some of the trough-shaped-ice-block I developed. No, it wasn't fun. Yes, its fixed now, after too much hauling and stuff. (grumps some more). Ealdgyth (talk) 20:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I hadn't noticed your grumpiness rising above the background level. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh goodness. And I thought it was onerous when I was growing up to chop ice with an axe on the ponds in the cattle pastures in the much-milder Missouri winters (between breaking ice, taking down small trees/brush, and killing snakes, if you had to break the axe out, it was guaranteed not fun). Hog Farm Talk 21:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Clan Cameron Clan Donald allies
The Battle of Milroy 1688. Clan MacDonald of Clanranald fought side by side against government troops. THAT'S why they are allies. Stupid prat Cavalierfawkes (talk) 22:51, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Gog the Mild
Also Clan Donald and Clan MacDonald are the same Clan. Learn your stuff before reverting my changes Cavalierfawkes (talk) 22:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for editing your comment to remove the direct insult. The one you have replaced it with is not much of an improvement. If they are the same, why have you twice changed the latter to the former in Clan Cameron? Edit warring to do so. What is the evidence for either usage? If we have only your opinion that one should be preferred above the other your change is liable to be reverted. Do you have any sort of source backing either usage? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:02, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * PS This sort of edit will ensure that your experience of Wikipedia is short and not sweet. Desist. But well done for correctly using the edit summary. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:06, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like Cavalierfawkes is now marching the high road away from glory 😀  SN54129  13:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

What...
You don't want to review an article about a doomed Jewish resistance leader in the Holocaust? Like you think it'll be depressing or something... (I have a whole pile of the victims of the Holocaust that need to be memorialized properly but .. dang, it's depressing and I can only do so much before I just ... can't... read... any more about the subject for a while. ) Ealdgyth (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you dind't have to! I was just teasing... Ealdgyth (talk) 00:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, yeah. Have look at my recent FAC nomination. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:01, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll look later. I did Robert de Umfraville also on top of the transport one you asked about. I've wasted enough time on Wiki today ... off to "real work" Ealdgyth (talk) 16:33, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers
I promise I will look at it. Probably early next week. My husband's birthday is this week and his older brother and wife flew in from the frigid north. I owe you so many and truly appreciate you. SusunW (talk) 15:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Your 50th FAC! Impressive. - Dank (push to talk) 16:03, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * All MilHist, in fact all military conflicts (bar the 49th, also nominated yesterday), but I like to think that I have a decent spread, from 264 BC to 1945. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * There's some wisdom in focusing on the things that work, on WP and in general. - Dank (push to talk) 19:43, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

New book on the chevauchée
See this review:
 * Thanks, appreciated. That is on the chevauchée of 1355, not 1356, and I used it heavily in the FA Black Prince's chevauchée of 1355. It gets some use in my two current FAs Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 and Battle of Poitiers - feel free to look in on the latter . Madden is an excellent writer and historian IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You're using her thesis, which probably formed the basis for the subsequent book. But I'd be curious to see what the difference is between the two. In my experience the book is usually somewhat rewritten for a more general audience, but sometimes new data is incorporated.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
 * You are of course quite right. I have got hold of a copy of the book and look forward to investigating. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Any chance I could get a B-class review?
For WP:MILCON purposes - I recognize as we are very close for 1st/2nd you may have a conflict of interest here, but I just wrote CSS Pamlico last night and would like to avoid the awkward spot of something being written in one month, but not actually assessed until the next. Only about 1,000 words. Not as cruddy of a vessel as the one the Confederates let rot apart, or the one the Confederates sunk on the eve of a naval battle because it was more useful as a obstacle than a warship, but still not a great ship. There is a zero percent chance that this ever goes further than GA. Hog Farm Talk 17:34, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The same offer also applies to Squib-class torpedo boat, if you would prefer to read about vessels a little further down the quality scale. Hog Farm Talk 06:25, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, once RL quietens down a bit. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Pamlico is B, but has already been done. I'll look at Squib. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Done. I seems strange to me that three ships completely different in specifications from the lead boat are included in its class. Ah well.
 * You may be overanalysing. While it is called a "contest", it is meant to be a bit of fun. If I ever care about it enough to start gaming it, it will be long past time for me to take a Wikibreak! Gog the Mild (talk) 16:28, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 20:11, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 February 2022
 * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:19, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Battle of Kowang-san


A tag has been placed on Battle of Kowang-san requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, a group of people, an individual animal, an organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content, or an organized event that does not credibly indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the. Wendylove (talk) 11:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Help?
We both know I am a bit (okay probably a lot) OCD, so for a FAN is there a rule about use of e-books? MOS says "If there are no page numbers, whether in ebooks or print materials, then you can use other means of identifying the relevant section of a lengthy work, such as the chapter number or the section title." That seems confusing to me and like how would you do that, in page put the chapter name, like sfn|Doe|2010|p=chapter on X? Methinks I would just try to find one with page numbers, but it is a real question. I am working with Mujinga to prepare their first nomination here. (No, not mentoring because I just don't think I've done enough FA to actually do that, but I am trying to help.) How would you handle it? SusunW (talk) 18:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * SusunW, sfn|Smith|2002| and in the source template use the |loc= parameter; this will allow either a hyperlink to a page (if available), or a searchable term for the reader to ctrl+f within the document. Or, and less to my liking, use  or a variant thereof. Does that make sense? Was it what you were after? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I've linked this discussion so that Mujinga can follow it. Truly appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 19:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's helpful, many thanks! Mujinga (talk) 21:05, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Mujinga has nominated this, as a first-time submitter for FAR. I hope we've done okay in preparing it — they did all the heavy lifting, I merely guided them based on my limited knowledge of the process and extensive background in women's/Caribbean history. I looked at every single source during the peer review. Not sure if I did it right in my comments, seems weird to call it a "spot check", but if I did it wrong, I trust that you'll fix it for me. SusunW (talk) 15:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at every single source most definitely counts as a "spot check", an exceedingly thorough one. Thank you for that. As an FAC coordinator I am always grateful for every review, (almost) no matter how it is formatted, and yours are always clear and to the point. I have played around a little with the section headings: the changes make your comments a little more user friendly for the coordinators and follow the FAC instructions a little more closely. But if you object to the change, feel free to revert it. And thanks for your involvement in this article. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I really am trying to learn the process. It's hard for me. I didn't actually check formatting and that stuff, because you know I am terrible at technical stuff. But I asked Mujinga to do title case, 13 digit isbns, and add links where possible, which was done. There are some blogs I probably wouldn't have used, but most are from libaries, archives, or university personnel, so I kinda doubt that they are unreliable — such hosts are unlikely to damage their reputations by publishing "junk". Obviously, if someone else thinks otherwise, they are free to note that. I find it incredibly hard to read "around" refs in the body, but Mujinga likes that style, so after checking all 18 of the noms pending on the day I checked and finding they used varying styles, I said do what you are comfortable with. I appreciate you! SusunW (talk) 22:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I have given it a very brief skim and added a couple of things which jumped out. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:22, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

FAC close, vague title here
Apologies to bother you with this, but the nominator at Featured article candidates/He-Man as a gay icon/archive1, which you (rightfully) closed earlier today, is being quite rude with me. I do not wish to intervene more, considering the content of the most recent message, and could use a neutral party. I may not be responsive throughout the evening, as my real-life job also decided to be stressful today, and I am either going to spend the evening finishing some content work or playing video games to decompress. —  Ghost River  22:54, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the nominator's talk page. My usual TPSs have no doubt taken note. I am off to bed, but let me know if the inappropriateness continues and we will see if we wish to call in the cavalry. Have a good evening. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your services, and I apologize for the inconvenience. Rest well. —  Ghost River  00:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

You accidentally promoted Featured article candidates/He-Man as a gay icon/archive1
(t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:20, 1 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I've tried to fix it but I'm not 100% sure what the bot does so you should double check tomorrow. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I know how to fix all the pieces. I will re-close the FAC, make sure it's in the right archive, and re-do the articlehistory, so theoretically, neither Gog nor FACbot should have to do anything.  Stand by, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Sandy, you're a lifesaver! (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:37, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In the Days of the Dinosaurs, we had to do this stuff manually.
 * It was already in the correct archive.
 * On the FAC page, I just re-added the FACbot close that Buidhe had reverted, and then edited to correct it:
 * Removed the star:
 * And then I built the article history, incorporating the previous GA (which FACbot missed): (That's why I run through everything post-bot :)
 * That should be everything, but it is concerning that there was a GA nom last month; some sort of adminly action may be needed wrt the editor:  Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  00:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, this, too (something new to me, so only saw it when I went to check user talk for behavioral messages). Sandy Georgia (Talk)  01:00, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

A PS on this to Buidhe, Gog and, lest you ever get pushback on something like this. What makes an article an FA is being added to WP:FA by a Coord (just as what makes an FA demoted is being removed from there by a FAR Coord--that's why we take such care to make sure the number is spot on). If Gog had added the article to FA in error, I would not have felt comfortable undoing it; waiting for him would be better because that is the "official" Coord action, while the FACbot, articlehistory, etc edits are just bookkeeping. That Gog did not add it to FA is what made it definitively fine for a lowly ex-delegate to fix the bookkeeping. It was never promoted. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:56, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
 * So it's true. If you sleep through your mistakes, brownies will clear them all up in the night. Thank you Sandy, thank you ; sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Glazman...
There's some background I can fill in... do you think it's worth trying for FA with him? I'm a bit frightened that you didn't find much more to complain about.... my prose usually isn't THAT good... Ealdgyth (talk) 15:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 March newsletter
And so ends the first round of the WikiCup. Last year anyone who scored more than zero points moved on to Round 2, but this was not the case this year, and a score of 13 or more was required to proceed. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Epicgenius, a finalist last year, who led the field with 1906 points, gained from 32 GAs and 19 DYKs, all on the topic of New York buildings.
 * 🇨🇽 AryKun, new to the contest, was second with 1588 points, having achieved 2 FAs, 11 GAs and various other submissions, mostly on the subject of birds.
 * Bloom6132, a WikiCup veteran, was in third place with 682 points, garnered from 51 In the news items and several DYKs.
 * GhostRiver was close behind with 679 points, gained from achieving 12 GAs, mostly on ice hockey players, and 35 GARs.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh was in fifth place with 551 points, with an FA, a FL, and many reviews.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce was next with 454 points, gained from an FA and various other submissions, mostly on United States highways.
 * 🇺🇳 Ktin, another WikiCup veteran, was in seventh place with 412 points, mostly gained from In the news items.

These contestants, like all the others who qualified for Round 2, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews of a large number of good articles as the contest ran concurrently with a GAN backlog drive. Well done all! To qualify for Round 3, contestants will need to finish Round 2 among the top thirty-two participants.

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Anything that should have been claimed for in Round 1 is no longer eligible for points. 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 WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:07, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Treaty of Guînes scheduled for TFA
The Treaty of Guînes article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 6... Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?  11:52, 4 March 2022 (UTC)


 * and the Battle of Oroscopa on April 29,

<b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  16:05, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Thirty Years War
I'm not clear why this was failed or what constitutes a "consensus", given I have answered all the queries and the only person so far to make an assessment has supported it.

If I go back to the editors who bothered to comment and ask if they support or oppose, would that work? I know (from other conversations) at least two would, which would make three out of four. It seems odd to simply fail it without even asking this fairly simple question. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:42, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I have reopened the nomination. No edit of any sort for over five months would meet most definitions of "no consensus to promote seems to be forming". Also, it is for the nominator to chase tardy reviewers, not me nor anyone else. Good luck with it, an important topic like this could do with some TLC. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 5 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Also, it is for the nominator to chase tardy reviewers, not me nor anyone else. I wasn't previously aware of this so thank you.


 * Apologies for bothering you once again but the MILHIST bot has just failed it again even though all three editors who had queries support it. I'm assuming this is some sort of automatic thing but what is it? Robinvp11 (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - I think I know what it is, will check ... Hog Farm Talk 15:46, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * - this is fixed - when the ACR was reopened, the |A-Class= parameter in the article history should have been resent from =fail to =current. This has been done now, so you should be good to re-transclude onto the ACR page.  If you'd like, I can also remove the March 20th ACR fail from the article history as not a fail, although it doesn't hurt anything to keep it around. Hog Farm Talk 15:49, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that :) Can it now be deemed to have passed A class review? I'm assuming that has to be done by someone that isn't me. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:13, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It'll need at a minimum three supports and passed image and source reviews. Once it meets these, it can be closed by one of the MILHIST project coordinators who has not recused from the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It has all of these. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, I realise I don't understand what "re-transclude" means or what it involves. I'm assuming it has something to do with restating it onto the Assessment list but I don't know how to do that. Robinvp11 (talk) 09:41, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

First featured article
Hello there,

I would like to bring the article archive.today and/or Internet Archive to Featured Article status. I think it would be a good place for me to begin writing about. In your opinion, do you think it is possible that any of these articles can be brought to FA status? In particular, is there a length requirement for FA articles? I am relatively new to the FA program so any tips are appreciated. Rlink2 (talk) 18:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Way outside my area of knowledge. But in principle I would have thought either could, almost certainly the latter. Length: More than 10,000 words may be frowned upon and require justifying. There is no minimum requirement, so long as "it neglects no major facts or details and places the subject in context". Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Sourcing question
Hi there! I'm trying to bring C. J. Cregg up to GA (and eventually FA), and I'm iffy on this source's reliability. Brill's Content was only around for a few years, so it never had time to build up a reputation (or notability), but it does seem to be a legit magazine. I'm leaning toward now, but I'm interested to hear what you think? Thanks in advance, cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:39, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for your efforts

 * Can you imagine Edward III bare-chested at Crecy?! Must've been the diazipan :)  SN54129  23:51, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Question
I've already asked this on WT:FTC, but I thought I'd ask you since you've added the templates on the Preity Zinta pages. Did you notice the template you've added does not direct to the nomination but produces a red link? Shahid •  Talk 2 me  19:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah. I see what you mean. I can't see how to fix that without going against one of the how to nominate instructions, so I have left a note. Let's see what comes of it. Meanwhile, you have done what the instructions require, so far as I can see. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second War of Scottish Independence
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second War of Scottish Independence 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

about AGF
I come from San Marco, where I read your request for a deep breath and AGF. "15,000+ words. You have to be kidding." - imho - is not the way to begin a serious conversation, and I understand a nominator's - well, how should I say it, not being the one. I read the article, every word, and don't see a natural way of a split, without forcing a future reader back and forth between articles again and again, from a history to how that influenced the art. I don't want to clog up the FAC. - I remember Messiah, and I do feel that there's way too little about structure and music left in the main article, but who was I to say so when the giants of FA felt differently? I wrote He was despised. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:30, 17

Thank you for your help making Bach's No. 1 a FA! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second War of Scottish Independence
The article Second War of Scottish Independence 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:Second War of Scottish Independence for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I did two...
Someone else can do that thing. Heh. And I got your Scots reviewed... (pokepokepoke). Ealdgyth (talk) 22:00, 18 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Go on - it's made for you!
 * I know. Thanks. RL and Wikipedia have been busy, so I haven't even looked at it yet. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope my review hasn't upset you? I figured it was heading to FAC so I would review it at GA and then be able to just say "support, I did the GA review to FA standards" when it shows up at FAC (well, mostly, I"m sure I'd find some stuff, but...) Ealdgyth (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Upset me? Good grief no. I am grateful for the thorough review. And I do, as you surmised, have FAC in mind, so anything along those lines is a bonus. I reserve the right to ask that specific areas be assessed as GAN, as with the, allegedly, choppy prose, but take your comment on board and understand that you will be repeating it at FAC unless I sort it out. Other than that, for the stuff I have looked at so far, by all means let get the FAC stuff previewed.
 * Finding more stuff. I am sure you will. I have reviewed at least three of Hog Farm's offerings at ACR thinking that I had done them to FAC standard; but when it was FAC for real, I found plenty more each time. I am sure you will too. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * In my "real" job(s) I do a lot of working with words, and if there's one thing I've learned... you're never done finding ways to tinker/improve/tweak words. Heh. The only things that HAVE to be done at GA are where I mention that something is unclear ... that would be a problem with the prose that needs fixing for GAN. You can expect me to bring up the source stuff at FAC though ... heh. (Well, except Weir - we're stuck with her until someone does a decent academic bio of Isabella ... I don't see Doherty's bio as much better than Weir's... honestly.) The 3D image too will need sorting before GA, but much of the rest is dealable at GA easily. Ealdgyth (talk) 22:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Words: oh yeah, tell me about it.
 * The rest: I think you misunderstand. I would like like to get it sorted for FAC level right now. So when I say that I feel that Oman is ok for what I use him for I am doing so with my FAC hat on and feel free to respond similarly. If I want to cop out on a specific issue, I shall make it clear, as with the prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:44, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

Himilco
I guess Himilco (commander of Lilybaeum) is distinct from Himilco (fl. 3rd century BC) (about 30 years between the latter's death and the fall of Lilybaeum)? At any rate, the dab on the second one seems problematic given the existence of Mr. Lilybaeum. The Carthaginians should have really used more distinct given names. Hog Farm Talk 18:27, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, he is. I think the Carthaginians only had four given names, and they all began with H. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

The second FAC nomination?
I always thought that three supports was enough to grant a request for another nomination. Are there other requirements? If there should be any, I'd say it would be reviewing other articles. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:32, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * I had always understood that the requirement was three supports - if applicable one from a non-specialist - source and image passes, having been open at least 14 days and no obvious, glaring open issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 49
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 49, January – February 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New library collections
 * Blog post published detailing technical improvements

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:06, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 27 March 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:50, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022
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) 09:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second War of Scottish Independence
The article Second War of Scottish Independence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second War of Scottish Independence 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 Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Clonmacnoise Crozier
I think I owe you an explanation, or something, for my techiness towards the end of this. It became wrapped up with the FAC "Oppose and recommend withdrawal" of St Mark's Basilica, within 7 minutes, were I and others were floored that such an obv high quality page was voted quick fail by a co-ord on length (with no actionable suggestions). It was the second nomination by Venicescapes, who is HIGHLY thought of indeed within the arts and archecture projects, and who took hours and hours to school me personally in the lead up to the Honan Chapel FAC a few years ago, but now seems to have lost faith in BOTH the fa process and Wiki generally. Then you followed up with basically the same, equally brief approach. Discouraging; there could have been a lot more noms for them if more tact from the (seemingly ganging up) powers that be, but it is what it is. Ceoil (talk) 00:53, 1 April 2022 (UTC)


 * When I oppose an article it has nothing to do with my opinion of the nominator, the only thing I am evaluating is the article's compatibility with the FA criteria. One of the requirements is length and summary style; contrary to your suggestions it is both possible and desirable to cover important topics concisely and at an appropriate level of detail. If Venicescapes, like most wiki editors, wants to write content that does not match the standards of the FAC process, they are better off not nominating their articles at FAC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  19:38, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * "they are better off not nominating their articles at FAC" is pretty bloody harsh not to mention subjective, given that length is not mentioned in the criteria. Conciseness is a different thing. Ceoil (talk) 22:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, wtf with " like most wiki editors" - thats some fantastical hubris, but as a reminder you dont exist in a gilded tower, and your own FACs dont exactly sail through. I am seriously considering your recall as a co-ord, as this is not an isolated incident and my impression over months is that you, via lack of tact or grounding on actual criteria, are alienating / putting off a lot of people. The grounds would be...subjective (and given the 7 minutes) and without due care in opposing, using status as a bullying pulpit. Ceoil (talk) 00:09, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Have you checked the actual WP:FA criteria? #4 is "Length. It stays focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail and uses summary style." Unless they are changed by consensus, the existing criteria that I seek to uphold as a reviewer and a coord. I think that there are a lot of valid and helpful ways to contribute to Wikipedia content besides FAC. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I have, thank you, and have been engaged with the FAC process since 2006. Again I find statements like "I think that there are a lot of valid and helpful ways to contribute to Wikipedia content besides FAC" extremely reflexive, offensive, obnoxious and conceited, and reinforce my lack of confidence in you, and more generally at mil-hist people taking over the process. At a fundamental level, this is BITE, while Gog backing you was how cabals work at their worst. To note, I find Gog very impressive otherwise. Ceoil (talk) 02:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi, apologies for the delayed response; RL has been frantic. A few things: Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 2 April 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been no on nor off Wiki communication between myself and regarding this nomination. I picked it up as over long independently. I have form for this and have opposed several other nominations on similar grounds over the past year or two, including at least one oppose I subsequently withdrew.
 * FAC criterion 2 is "It follows the style guidelines". Note that "style guidelines" is Wikilinked to the MoS to remove any doubt as to what is meant and so includes WP:LENGTH. This is in addition to criterion 4.
 * FAC involves getting over a number of hurdles, all of which are independent. No matter how well most of the criteria, which include all of the MoS, are met, if one is not met a nomination will fail. An appeal to some criteria being met superlatively will not count in a decision as to whether another has been met or not.
 * Re Clonmacnoise Crozier, it seemed a little undercooked compared with your usual nominations but I don't recall having any particular issues with it or your responses other than being baffled by what seemed to me the random application of three different terms for what I thought was the same thing. I assumed that I was explaining myself poorly, but I agree that it was becoming frustrating. Once Johnbod stepped in this difficulty largely disappeared.
 * With St Mark's Basilica the nominator seems to be accepting that the article does not meet criteria 2 nor 4 but arguing that this article should be excused from them. This is not an impossible case to make, but I am not, personally, subjectively convinced. Hence my oppose remains. Some of the arguments used - "is a level-5 vital article in Art ... a world-renowned monument, it would certainly be included as a subject in a printed encyclopedia. It would be a sad commentary ..." seem to me to be a poor basis for ignoring FAC criteria in favour of WP:IAR, which in full reads "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." No case for how this applies to the points being debated seems to have been made. There seems to me to be a little of "I don't like it" about the case being made. The balance of these arguments is something for the closing coordinator to weigh.
 * Gog am thinking the above trough, which given my brain may take some time as its very emotive. I can see + and - on both sides, but the handling was poor, and disasterous for retention in this case. I'll set a response target for picking up in the next week, when I have again become calm and reasoned, and have mulled ways to avoid this again. One thing I worry about is precedence, as some of my articles, eg Early Netherlandish painting are now - seemingly- outside the criteria, but will be more constructive about how we deal with this. I do respect buidhe as an editor, but lest strive to formalise areas where we have differences of openion. Ceoil (talk) 22:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:55, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for Treaty of Guînes, introduced: "Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. 17 years after the outbreak of the Hundred Years' War a draft treaty to end it was signed. This was supposed to be finalised and ratified in front of the Pope six months later. But by then the French King had changed his mind, hostilities were renewed and the war lasted a further 101 years." - On the same Main page as Maks Levin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:05, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Charles Richardson
Hi, thanks again for your assistance with Charles Richardson (Royal Navy officer). I certainly wouldn't have put it up for ACR if you hadn't suggested it! I know you vaguely mentioned FAC too, but I worry that my sources are perhaps a little old for what might be acceptable there. Thanks again anyhow, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Weeell, possibly. You might look at who has been doing source reviews recently at FAC and ask one of them their opinion? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 11 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Struggled to find someone doing source reviews (doesn't seem like anyone's kind of fun!), but received some reassuring comments from someone much more experienced in writing articles relating to the Napoleonic period than I. Have thus nominated the article at FAC..! Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

50th FA
Warmest congrats: fifty FAs – that's some achievement! I look forward to plenty more from you: they are always a pleasure to read and review.  Tim riley  talk   08:59, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of Poitiers
Congratulations! - Thank you today for Battle of Oroscopa, "on a brief conflict from 2,172 years ago ... An inconsequential conflict in itself, it is much commented on as the event which sparked the Third Punic War and the destruction of Carthage."! - Heard what they called "the voice of Ukraine" yesterday (pictured, more than once), and the violinist played a piece he heard in Russia for his encore. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:36, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

GOCE April 2022 newsletter
Sent via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:42, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Request
Hi, I am grateful for the corrections you made in the article Timișoara Fortress. Could I ask you to correct the article Timișoara Palace of Culture as well? It would be a support for Timișoara, which will be the European Capital of Culture in 2023. Thanks for any answer. --Turbojet (talk) 07:23, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again . That was four years ago, when I did a lot of work for GoCE. If you would like, I could give it a quick rum through, do a quick and dirty copy edit and flag up any issues I notice as I go on the talk page. I wouldn't have the time to really get into the detail of bringing it up to scratch, but once I had finished and you had addressed anything I pointed out, you could then put it to GoCE for a polish. How does that sound? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds great. Of course, everyone only does what they have time for. I turned to you because I didn't know about GoCE, thanks for the info. I will do what I can do. Thank you. --Turbojet (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Mentor
Hello @Gog the Mild! In the past I got a few articles promoted to GA status, but this time I'd like to get one to FA status. Would you like to mentor me in the process with the NSA ANT catalog article? Please also see Peer_review/NSA_ANT_catalog/archive1. Thanks in advance. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, if you have ambitions to take an article to Featured status - which is a tough row to hoe, albeit very satisfying - can I earnestly recommend that you chose a different one. NSA ANT catalog is a long way from the standard required, I am not even sure if it would be possible to get it there; perhaps consider it for Featured lists? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply @Gog the Mild. Since a significant part of the article are tables, I think going for WP:FL makes a lot of sense. Would you still be willing to mentor me in the process of getting this article to FL, or would you prefer me to look for a different mentor since there is apparently still a lot of work to be done? If this article is a long way of meeting the FA criteria, then all my GA articles probably are and I would like to work on one of the articles that I promoted to GA status since I would then already be familiar with the subject and its sources. Thanks for your advice in any case. PhotographyEdits (talk) 14:19, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I don't think that I would be doing you any favours, trying to mentor you towards an FL. I have never nominated one myself; I assessed a couple two years ago, but decided that I would never wrap my head around their criteria. However, articles such as IBM Palm Top PC 110 and Android Debug Bridge may have the potential to go through FAC. I would recommend starting with one of Gorbachev Pizza Hut commercial or The Epic Split which seem to need, relatively, less work. I would be prepared to assist on working up one of those two, with a view to getting it to FAC standard. (Note the very recently promoted Daisy (advertisement).) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi @Gog the Mild. That makes sense. I already got a peer review on The Epic Split, which I forgot about. I will work through the feedback of the review and will come back to you later, to get it up to WP:FAC. PhotographyEdits (talk) 09:31, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Standard advise to editors considering their first FACs: 1. Read any other similar FAs, especially those from the past five or six years. See what themes or sections they have that you don't. Read their FACs. See what similar issues are likely to be picked up in your nomination and address them. 2. Review eight or ten FACs yourself. Firstly there is nothing better to give you a real grip on what the criteria need than trying to apply them to another article. And reading other reviewers' comments on an article you have just assessed means more than just reading them in isolation. Secondly, getting your name recognised as someone who is generous with FAC reviews may mean that when you nominate the "regulars" are more likely to reciprocate with reviews for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:47, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your advice! PhotographyEdits (talk) 10:53, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

ACR
Hi, If you have the time and inclination, I'd be grateful if you look in on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Foreign volunteers in the Rhodesian Security Forces. It's a bit outside your area of focus/expertise, but you have familiarity with working on articles covering the particularly ugly side of warfare so I'd really appreciate your thoughts on the article. No worries at all if you aren't able to review though! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Started. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Things
In case it was missed, the reply here can be taken as an apology of sorts. Ceoil (talk) 10:24, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did miss that, and thank you. I dislike opposing nominations, I got and get involved at FAC to help get articles over the line. Sometimes one can have an honest disagreement and/or misunderstanding. (Eg, just exactly how to describe the covering of a crosier.) Hopefully they can be sorted out in a friendly way. (My iffy prose means that I am on the receiving end of a lot of that sort of thing.) But if an article just doesn't IMO comply with the MoS, even if just in one particular, I need to oppose. No matter how high quality I may feel all of the rest of it is. As a FAC coordinator I don't really even have the option of just sitting out a nomination I am uncomfortable with, as most regular reviewers do. Given that this is a volunteer thing, which I do for "fun", that can sometimes leave me wondering why I bother. Hopefully, at the end of the day we all want the same things and can live with honest disagreements over boderline cases.


 * More than 25 years of war in less than 5,000 words. You sure you wouldn't like me to add another bushel or two of prose? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if I can write 700 words on a 2 inch bronze knob, you can surely knock out a few hundred on describing eg the battlefield shrubbery!! But agree with all you said above. Peace be with us and talk later. Ceoil (talk) 18:18, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

On a currently scheduled TFA
I noticed that pronunciation of GIF is currently scheduled to be the TFA on May 7. However, the 35th anniversary of the GIF's creation is on June 15. There are currently no requests for that day. I was wondering if it is possible to reschedule the TFA's date? Painting17 (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure. The usual way of indicating that you want a FA to run on some specific future date is to list it here Today's featured article/requests/pending. Which "reserves" the slot and warns of schedulers from running it earlier. I'll swap it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
 * looks like it never made it to its destination...? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:01, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we might just notify Wehwalt who will schedule June --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:57, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * It doesn't look like it will be a problem.--Wehwalt (talk) 09:20, 26 April 2022 (UTC)


 * Or Painting17 could go the conventional route and post a nomination here using the existing blurb. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah, Wehwalt is on it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:22, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 April 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

A favour
Hey my dear fellow. Long time no see! I've recenyly made a review for the Battle of Utica and I'm looking forward for the Siege of Dundee. But another thing it suprises me that the Battle of Raymond is still up. Can you give it a try and then I'll give the Siege of Dundee a try. If you have the time and motivation of course. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:33, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, although it will take me a day or two to work round to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Petroleum industry in Iran
Petroleum industry in Iran has been nominated for an individual 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. Chidgk1 (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Update
So I have decided to give myself a birthday present. I am sort of abandoning "the project". I had hoped others would help with the legal reviews, but they haven't; I am tired of conflict with POV editors who don't understand that nationality is a legal designation; and after doing women's studies scholars and doing the reviews on Tendeloo and Morris last month, I realize my time is better spent working on women and I enjoy it more. I think I have enough background now to actually write the article I want to write. (Missing perspective on China and Japan, but I think I can work the situation on those two in.) The work on all the others has given background on how colonization impacted most of the globe and though I haven't written Europe, as they were the colonizers their role is clear. That said, today I shall actually start the one on women's nationality and see how it goes. I imagine the sister article about what activists did to fix the nationality problem will simultaneously develop, but it may ultimately follow. I do appreciate you and thank you for your steady guidance. SusunW (talk) 15:27, 1 May 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 May newsletter
The second round of the 2022 WikiCup has now finished. It was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 115 points to advance to round 3. There were some very impressive efforts in round 2, with the top seven contestants all scoring more than 500 points. A large number of the points came from the 11 featured articles and the 79 good articles achieved in total by contestants.

Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 1) Epicgenius, with 1264 points from 2 featured article, 4 good articles and 18 DYKs. Epicgenius was a finalist last year but has now withdrawn from the contest as he pursues a new career path.
 * 2) 🇨🇽 AryKun, with 1172 points from two featured articles, one good article and a substantial number of featured article and good article reviews.
 * 3) Bloom6132, with 605 points from 44 in the news items and 4 DYKs.
 * 4) Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 573 points from 8 GAs and 21 DYKs.
 * 5) Vexilloid of the Roman Empire.svg Ealdgyth, with 567 points from 11 GAs and 34 good and featured article reviews.
 * 6) Panini!, with 549 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and several other sources.
 * 7) 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 545 points from 1 FA, 4 GAs and a number of reviews.

The rules for featured and good article reviews require the review to be of sufficient length; brief quick fails and very short reviews will generally not be awarded 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:39, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

Lumines: Puzzle Fusion
I'm planning on nominating the article into Featured-class again. I know criteria 1a was the one and only thing stopping the article. So far, not many edits were made since Jonesey took on the copy-edit. I wanted to know your thoughts, do you think it still fails 1a?Blue Pumpkin Pie (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC
Hello GTM! I was wondering if given the progress at my current FAC, would it be okay for me to start another one very soon (maybe within the next 1-2 days)? Sorry for bothering but it's just that I want the next one I'm going to nominate to appear on the main page in June, so I really need to hurry.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 10:11, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, go ahead. For future reference, such requests are usually made on the current FAC page, in a separate section, for transparency, so you get four chances of a rapid response, not just one, and in case a coordinator disagrees. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Second War of Scottish Independence
Conggratulations! - Thank you today for Battle of Heraklion, introduced: "Crete, 1941; a brigade/regimental level combat. Fiercely fought, although ultimately it effected nothing. Both sides achieved/suffered Pyrrhic victories."! - Can you perhaps look at the proposed TFA, with the questions if a summary (about women not ornaments and property) is too freely worded, and if yes, how to repair? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:39, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Fine, first enjoy vacation. - I like my talk today (actually mostly from 29 May - I took the title pic), enjoy the music, two related videos worth watching! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Georges Feydeau
Pray consider yourself nudged, as requested. Hope to see you at the FAC page. Heaven only knows what you can find down the back of a sofa in a Feydeau farce.  Tim riley  talk   15:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Probably a cuckolded husband hiding from his debtors. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hey mate
Hey mate I wondered what your new projects are? I found this "Sieges of Berwick (1355 and 1356)" so I assume you're now into the "Wars of Scottish Independence"? I just finished "CSS Baltic" and "Battle of the Blacks", if you want, I could give you a review, especially now the nom is inactive for almost a month! However, like most things, I have a small request. I was hoping you could review the "List of British deception formations in World War II" while I review your nom. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi . That is the last of my planned Scottish independence articles. See the "Anglo-Scottish Wars" box here. (I may come back to do Second English Civil War and Battle of Preston (1648) at some point.) My immediate plan is to take a break: on Saturday I shall be off to the Scottish Highlands to do nine days walking (hiking) and wild camping. More medium term I hope to take Second Punic War and Punic Wars to FA followed by 10 or 12 2PW battles.
 * So I would like to see Berwick getting a review, but I won't be able to respond to any comments until well into June. Similarly, I would be happy to review Deception, but not until June. Perhaps you could remind me around the 7th if I haven't started by then?
 * Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:22, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, interesting plan you have. I'll also take a break or become semi-active at end of May/begin June until the end of June due exams. I'll see what I can do! Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Would you consider becoming a New Page Reviewer?
Hi Gog the Mild,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join the new page reviewing team, and after reviewing your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; the new page reviewing team needs help from experienced users like yourself.

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Kindly read the tutorial before making your decision (if it looks daunting, don't worry, most pages are easy to review, and habits are quick to develop). If this looks like something that you can do, please consider joining us. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR. If you have questions, please feel free to drop a message on my talk page or at the reviewer's discussion board.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, (t &#183; c)  buidhe  20:25, 27 May 2022 (UTC)
 * }

The Bugle: Issue CXCIII, May 2022
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) 15:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 29 May 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:46, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 50
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 50, March – April 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New library partner - SPIE
 * 1Lib1Ref May 2022 underway

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:52, 1 June 2022 (UTC) (UTC)

Welcome back

 * Welcome back mate! Hopefully, you enjoyed your holiday in the Scottish highlands. :) CPA-5 (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, it's good to be back. Although I pretty much wore myself out, so I am taking it steady here for a while. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Psst
You made a few logged-out edits at Vami's FA and the FAC. I've hidden the IP address preemptively in case it's important to you; feel free to unhide when you log back in :) &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 12:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Cheers. I had half an hour and access to a random PC so I thought I'd wrap up a couple of reviews. I couldn't remember my password, but carried on anyway. What is the down side of leaving the IP address visible? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:26, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * (I got curious when I saw those scary [REDACTED] tags in my Watchlist) They can be tracked and reveal your location; this is one reason VPNs are a big deal, in addition to keeping information out of the hands of your internet service provider. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  19:28, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I redacted another one over at the Van Buren ACR just in case. Hog Farm Talk 20:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's mostly just a privacy thing - most people don't like their IP to be visible. I figured better to grab it preemptively just in case and then you could unhide it if you'd prefer. &spades;PMC&spades; (talk) 03:50, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks guys. While I am not that bothered about the security of a random PC I agree that the less information I put out there the better. I have attempted to memorise my password. With my memory a night's sleep should auto-wipe it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:44, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

ACR for possible removal?
I was looking at User:Hog Farm/ACR refresh and noted First Macedonian War, which doesn't look in good shape, with uncited bits and a heavy reliance on Livy/Polybius. Do you think anyone would have any objections to me listing this one for possible removal of A-Class status? It's also a GA. Hog Farm Talk 04:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh dear. Huge direct quotations, almost entirely cited to primary sources. Beyond hope really, I think it needs starting again with a blank page. I doubt there would be any objections, and if there were there shouldn't be. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That huge quote from Polybius that fills an entire section is quite something. T8612  (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Four Award
Congratulations, and thank you today for Lancaster's Normandy chevauchée of 1356, introduced "My first Hundred Years' War FAC for over a year - how time flies. A brief campaign typical of those of this phase of the war and for which there are unusually detailed records"! Looking forward to the next (below), - just amazing! - I keep posting "Peace will conquer war", from a Ukrainian symphony of 1951. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Halidon Hill scheduled for TFA
Battle of Halidon Hill has been scheduled as today's featured article for  July 19, cheers <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  12:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you today for the article, introduced: We are back in the 14th-century again. Once more the Scots decide to risk an open battle. Once more they get hammered by the English. Even more badly than usual. The English king orders "No prisoners!" and executes those who are taken. One RS is titled War Cruel and Sharp. Indeed."! Thank you also for promoting and scheduling, one even first scheduled. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * and Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) on July 22 <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> -  talk to me?  13:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you today for that one, introduced: "Another joint venture from the itinerant repeat nominator Gog the Mild and the Scottish history expert Girth Summit. Charles I was king of England and Scotland, as two entirely separate matters. When the English chopped his head off they didn't consult the Scots. So when the Scots crowned Charles II it was as king of Britain (not Scotland). Which, with massive understatement, could be described as a provocation. In short order Oliver Cromwell was leading an English army across the border. The campaign was hard fought, but ended with the whole of Scotland subjugated. OK, in some ways it ended with Charles and the Scots' army going down to defeat in Worcester. Which part of Scotland is Worcester in, you ask? Read the article. Lovingly crafted and fresh from a rigorous GAN courtesy of Tayi Arajakate we believe this is ready for the exigencies of a FAC." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:10, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * more July songs, from Swiss Alps and a funeral --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Image review
You listed Featured article candidates/Daglish railway station/archive1 as needing an image review when it already had one, so now it has 2 image reviews. My method is to search "source review" and "image review" before listing to make sure the FAC doesn't have one already. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:22, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

June GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

"Dear Future Husband" FAC
Hi, can you promote this FAC? I am sorry I know you discouraged me from contacting you personally the last time, but I figured the FAC ping might be broken (after two failed attempts to get a notice). I'd also prefer it be you since I got some copy-edits from another coord during my last nomination which really isn't my thing. [Please reply here and kindly do not copy-paste this message to the FAC page.]--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 04:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, please let me know if my pinging has been upsetting to you guys (the coords) and I'll try to tone it down. It would be good to know for future nominations. Best.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 15:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think you're upsetting any of us. You're allowed to be enthusiastic. But all of us have lives, and limited time for Wikipedia, and even within FAC may have other priorities. And going through an entire article to check it for promotion takes a certain amount of time, which we may wish to use on a nom other than one which has only been open 22 days. All of that said, having gone through the article and the FAC discussion I don't see any particular reason why it shouldn't be promoted - although see my recent comments.
 * If you are waiting to nominate another one, I assume that you are aware that you can request permission for this seperately from having an existing nomination promoted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Duly noted, and I have addressed your drive-by comments. I will maybe take a short break prior to my next nomination this time, though.--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 18:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 June 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:30, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Pit of iniquity
Actually, if you have any way to download the images at https://www.hokusai-katsushika.org/young-pines-vol-three.html ? Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 14:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Briscoe & Hornblower - Livy book 22
Hi Gog, here is Briscoe & Hornblower - Livy book 22. I just copied the introduction (the rest is the text in Latin and a mostly grammatical commentary). Pages 74-84 are especially interesting—about political factions in Rome, and Roman manpower. I can (partially) rewrite the sources section if you want. T8612 (talk) 01:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIV, June 2022
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) 11:42, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 July newsletter
The third round of the 2022 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 180 points, which is a lower figure than last year when 294 points were needed to progress to round 4. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, with 746 points, a tally built both on snooker and other sports topics, and on more general subjects.
 * Bloom6132, with 683 points, garnered mostly from "In the news" items and related DYKs.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 527, from a variety of submissions related to radio and television stations.

Between them contestants achieved 5 featured articles, 4 featured lists, 51 good articles, 149 DYK entries, 68 ITN entries, and 109 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. 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 a good article nomination, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. WikiCup judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!
<sub style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">📝see my work 13:05, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Pfff. Your wit knows no bounds, Gog. /lh <b style="font-family:Georgia;border-radius:3em;padding:4px;background:#962c2e;color:white;">‍ ‍ elias. 🧣 ‍ </b> ‍ <span style="display:inline-block;margin-bottom:-0.3em;vertical-align:-0.4em;line-height:1.2em;font-size:80%;text-align:left"><sup style="font-size:inherit;line-height:inherit;vertical-align:baseline">💬reach out to me

Betsey Bakker-Nort
So I really am trying to push myself out of my comfort zone and do more reviews. Just wanted to say you are in my head every time I do a review, encouraging me to be more bold. I appreciate your gentle nudging. While I recognize that I will never be as active in reviews as in writing, I do learn a new perspective from doing them. Hope all is well. SusunW (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandrill
Why did you schedule Mandrill for August 7? I listed it for December 14 for Monkey Day! I even PM you about it and mentioned it here. LittleJerry (talk) 21:47, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I have swapped it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank. Sorry if I jumped the gun too early. LittleJerry (talk) 21:14, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Happened to look at the main page today
Thought I recognised your handiwork. Very nice. Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether) 09:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank'ee kindly good sir. Generous of you to say so. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I assume you got a notification that Anglo-Scottish war (1650–1652) is the TFA on Friday? A bad month for the Scots. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:36, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooh - I did get it, then I forgot. That'll be something to look forward to - I might raise a wee glass... Girth Summit <sub style="font-family:Segoe print;color:blue;"> (blether)  21:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh Foote!
Ironies upon top of ironies. Reed got picked up... SusunW (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Face-surprise.svg Should I earmark Foote? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:32, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Please, please. And thank you so very much. SusunW (talk) 13:39, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVI, July 2022
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) 20:28, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 51
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 51, May – June 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New library partners
 * SAGE Journals
 * Elsevier ScienceDirect
 * University of Chicago Press
 * Information Processing Society of Japan
 * Feedback requested on this newsletter
 * 1Lib1Ref May 2022

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Second Punic War and Macedonian–Carthaginian Treaty
Hey Gog the Mild,

Just wanted to drop a note as I've just seen it while blatantly stealing borrowing context from Second Punic War for the Senate project, but while your text (and presumably Bagnell that is cited for it) give a date of 216 for the treaty between Carthage and Macedon, it seems that Miles (p.243) and presumably the three sources on Macedonian–Carthaginian Treaty give the date as 215. Not sure if you had a reason to exclude the 215 dating and go with 216, but wanted to let you know in case it was just missed. -- Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  05:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , good spot! Rereading Bagnall what he writes is ambiguous, and he doesn't specifically date the treaty. Looks like I misinterpreted him, so I have changed the date to 215 and cited to Miles. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Coordination 2022
Did you intend to speak for Hawkeye? I'm trying to keep an eye on who's returning to see how many new candidates we may need to drum up. Hog Farm Talk 15:01, 2 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Whoops. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:16, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

TFA
thank you today for Siege of Calais (1346–1347), introduced: "After his great victory at the Battle of Crécy in 1346, English king Edward III laid siege to Calais. The French king Philip VI had lost too many men and too much prestige at Crécy to be able to relieve the town and Edward succeeded in cutting it off from seaborne supply. After eleven months the town fell, and was subsequently held by the English for 211 years."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

OCLC of Battles & Leaders
Thank you very much for B class reviewing three of my American Civil War military unit articles. One article had been sitting unreviewed since July 16. I often B class review other people's articles, hoping that someone will return the favor and review mine. QUESTION: Where does one find the OCLC number of a book? I have 1987 versions of volumes 1, 3, and 4 of Battles and Leaders of the CW, but my volume 2 was published by Castle in 1956 before ISBN numbers. I went to worldcat.org and it gave OCLC = 28754892. I noticed that you suggested a different number (995143744). How do I find the correct number? Thanks. Djmaschek (talk) 18:59, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I got it from here . But checking properly I note that this is a different publisher, so I am sure you are right. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:39, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Truce of Calais
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 September 2022. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/September 2022, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2022. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 22:01, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Ontario Highway 403 picture
Hey, was just wondering how come the picture wasn't included with the TFA? I would have trimmed the blurb more had I known it wasn't included. - Floydian τ ¢ 03:46, 14 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Floydian. I am just back from a no/low internet break. It looks as if the day after I went there were some queries about the image and it was removed. I was pinged about it, but am only just catching up with my backlog. See here. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

4th Pa
Were you wanting a review, or someone to try to address Mike Christie's unanswered comments? Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well both would be handy, but the latter is the priority, if it isn't going to time out. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That was both presumptive and curt of me; apologies, I should have explained more fully. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think I can take care of the comments, although I'd rather not review since I've already reviewed it for multiple levels of the assessment system. Hog Farm Talk 18:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Sexual harassment in the military
Hi Gog. Would you be up for casting your beady eye over the above page? I've just overhauled it quite a bit and I'm wondering whether it's ripe for B status, or if not, what would still needs to be changed. You did wonders for the 'Children in the military' page a while back and I'm hoping you can give a bit of advice again, if you're willing? Thank you! Fugitivedave (talk) 18:15, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVII, August 2022
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) 08:58, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations opening soon
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are opening in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 1 September). A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:51, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 September newsletter
The fourth round of the WikiCup has now finished. 383 points were required to reach the final, and the new round has got off to a flying start with all finalists already scoring. In round 4, Bloom6132 with 939 points was the highest points-scorer, with a combination of DYKs and In the news items, followed by BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie and Lee Vilenski. The points of all contestants are swept away as we start afresh for the final round.

At this stage, 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. For the remaining competitors, 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, and importantly, before the deadline on October 31st!

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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. The judges are Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Duckport
No objections if you think it ought to be archived, and no need to give me the customary several-day warning. Not asking for it to be archived per se, but I'm starting to doubt that it'll pick up reviews in a timely manner. Hog Farm Talk 16:42, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, we currently have FACs which have been open for over ten weeks. This one has been open for less than four and has no outstanding comments, so I see no need to be hasty. Would you like me to review it, but copy edit in all my usual minor niggles? (Assuming I have any.) Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 9 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Either way's fine with me; whichever is your preference. I've had a busy month or so, but I'm hoping to finally make a coordinator pass over the list this weekend; I've been rather neglectful in my coordinator tasks. Hog Farm Talk 16:58, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers
Just letting you know I'm removing this as TFA so we can run Elizabeth II. Thanks for your understanding. Wehwalt (talk) 17:05, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Second Punic War scheduled for TFA
But you can have this one instead, Second Punic War on October 15, 2022 Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  12:51, 11 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The schedulers giveth, the schedulers taketh away. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2022 (UTC)
 * They won't be blessing the names of the schedulers anytime soon.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:36, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Second Battle of Cape Finisterre scheduled for TFA
More largesse! Second Battle of Cape Finisterre article has been scheduled for October 25, 2022, Thanks! <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  15:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting opening soon!
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election opens in a few hours (00:01 UTC on 15 September) and will last through 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Correction to previous election announcement
Just a quick correction to the prior message about the 2022 MILHIST coordinator election! I didn't proofread the message well enough and left out a link to the election page itself in this message. The voting will occur here; sorry about the need for a second message and the inadvertent omission from the prior one. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:41, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Coord vote
I'd vote for you in a heartbeat, Gog, but your Shermanesque assertion about lead coord means I would not want to make it more likely you had to abdicate. I'd rather give someone else a better chance at a clear majority. I'm voting for you in spirit though. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Peer review of Eunice Foote
I followed with interest your GA review of Eunice Foote and the many useful suggestions you made. Given your wide experience of FAs, I think it would be helpful if you could take on the peer review or at least indicate any important issues you think need to be addressed. Given the increasing interest in Foote (e.g. the BBC's "A forgotten founder of climate science: Eunice Newton Foote"), it would be good if the article could be promoted fairly soon. In my opinion, it is very close to FA requirements at the moment.--Ipigott (talk) 09:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Ipigott. I will try to look at it, but I am really struggling to find much Wikipedia time at the moment. However, when I reviewed it at GAN it seemed close to being FAC ready. I would suggest just nominating it as is. As and when it is at FAC ping me and I will somehow make time to review it. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:12, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you both. I have people in from Belize this week and Les has doctor's appointments, so it'll probably be next week before I can get to nominating it and have time to respond properly other than in spurts when I can shake free of real life. SusunW (talk) 14:11, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like an interesting article, I'd be happy to review it at FAC or PR too; ping me, if you would! Vanamonde (Talk) 16:00, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have just switched on the BBC World Service to listen to while I prepared lunch, and guess what was on? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, Ian gave me the link. I listened late last night when my visitors were sleeping. I was happy to hear that we didn't miss much in our article, except the legal case over which Eunice and Elisha met, but since that isn't in print anywhere we couldn't have used it. I was also happy to hear that they included Sally Gregory Kohlstedt on the panel acknowledging for the first time (that I have seen or heard anywhere) that women's studies scholars had found her before Sorenson, but disheartened that they continue to ignore that Reed first wrote about Foote's climate research. I guess since they first heard of her through Sorenson, in their minds, he is who counts? I don't discount his recognition that she preceded Tyndall at all, but it makes me so angry that the women who uncovered Foote's work continue to be omitted. SusunW (talk) 15:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I have nominated it and I think? I did it properly, but am never sure. if you are game, I would appreciate your review. SusunW (talk) 14:04, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Susun, I'll do my best to take a look! Vanamonde (Talk) 15:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election voting closing soon
Voting for the upcoming project coordinator election closes soon, at 23:59 on 28 September. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. Voting is conducted using simple approval voting and questions for the candidates are welcome. The voting itself is occurring here If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:13, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, September 2022
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) 21:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

FAC review
A couple weeks ago, I decided to review the nonmetal FAC since I have a lot of technical experience in this area. (I'm a mechanical engineer, in contrast to the majority of editors here who are journalists, teachers, librarians or other literary experts.) Accordinfly, I focused my review around subject matter accuracy, subject matter completeness, and reliable sourcing. I avoided most prose issues, since I'm not an expert in that area. Obviously, the article still did not pass.

Is this form of review useful at all for FAC, or should I leave it more for the prose experts and just stick to reviewing good article nominees? Cheers! Reaper Eternal (talk) 19:16, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Reaper Eternal. That sort of review is absolutely invaluable. While FAC needs more reviewers generally, it especially needs specialist reviewers. A coordinator's nightmare is that some technical article be, probably in all good faith, incomplete or slanted or partially sourced and get promoted. Because it is essentially one person's work and no one knows enough to challenge it. The prose might be immaculate and it may adhere to the MoS, but that is not really what FAC, or Wikipedia, is about. So, please keep an eye on FAC and chip in when you think something falls, however broadly, within your areas of expertise. How you approached reviewing nonmetal was spot on.


 * And I know it can feel disappointing when one puts a lot of effort into a review and it is archived. But the article is much improved, it is well set up to be promoted at its next attempt (I hope) and you have established yourself as a very capable reviewer. So there are pluses. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'll definitely keep an eye out for future FACs that fall in my area of knowledge. Reaper Eternal (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Reviewer's Awards
I hope you can find the time to help me with a problem. For some reason, I've yet to receive any acknowledgement for the reviews I've completed in 2022. Whie they are few in number, I'm puzzled as to why. Anyway, here are those that I can document:
 * (FAR) 1/8/22 Battle of St. Charles
 * (FAR) 2/3/22 The Shadow (magazine)

I look forward to your reply. Pendright (talk) 21:28, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * (FAR) 3/31/22 Tom Eastick
 * (FAR) 6/1/22 Battle of Raymond
 * Problem solved - sorry for the ping! Pendright (talk) 19:29, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of Ticinus
Congratulations, and thank you today for Truce of Calais, introduced (in 2021): "Another in my occasional series of treaties and truces. The Truce of Calais was agreed between France and England eight years into the Hundred Years' War. It was intended to last nine months but eventually ran, not quite continuously, for eight years. It never halted all conflict, but it did punctuate two periods of major campaigning by the two royal armies."! - I have a Ukrainian singer on the same page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:07, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

GA questions/help
Hello! I’ve been on Wikipedia for a bit, and now I’ve decided I want try and help out with some GA reviews. I’ve started my first review on the Bugs Bunny article, but I noticed the nominator doesn’t edit the article and it seems they’re currently not active on Wikipedia due to school. So I wanted to ask advice on what I should do, is it allowed for me to ping some editors who frequently edit the Bugs bunny article for them to possibly fix the few issues I found? Also, I’m really wanting to try and help out with GA reviews but it seems very overwhelming so I might need a “mentor” so to speak, I look forward to hearing back from you. Thanks!  Orson12345 (Talk • Contribs) 17:26, 28 September 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 52
<div style = "color: #936c29; font-size: 4em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif"> The Wikipedia Library <span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">Books & Bytes

Issue 52, July – August 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New instant-access collections:
 * SpringerLink and Springer Nature
 * Project MUSE
 * Taylor & Francis
 * ASHA
 * Loeb
 * Feedback requested on this newsletter

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 September 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:01, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Reign of Cleopatra
Hi, @Gog the Mild. Thank you for your advice regarding the FA nomination of Reign of Cleopatra. I have gone ahead and began implementing the suggestions you and other users suggested. If you have time to spare, would you please take a look at the new lead and give me some feedback? I have reduced it to a mere three paragraphs and I think it's pretty good, but of course, I'd like to get a sense of how the community feels about it, too. Thanks, Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:09, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Er, the lead is what a reviewer usually reads last (and what as an editor I usually write last) as it is "a summary of [the article's] most important contents". I would need to read the whole, very long, article before I even started on the lead. And whatever I thought, as there seems to be agreement that the main article needs substantial changes, I would need to do it all again later.
 * A comment which may or may not be helpful. Usually when articles are split off from a "mother" article this results in a shortening of the mother, as only a summary and a reference to the "progeny article" is needed. So if the Cleopatra article were reduced by 3-4,000 words and these topped and tailed and moderately expanded to give a 5-6,000 word progeny you would meet much less resistance. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Ancient stuff
I'm always in awe that there's really anything to speak of that can be said about those ancient battles. It's sketchy detail most of the time, but when that's been passed down over millennia and just 160 years later we can't figure out what the Confederates named a fort or where they got a boat. I'm working on a draft right now that's going to be thin on detail in one section because 2 out of 15 Missouri units filed reports, and the brigade and divisional commanders largely ignored one of the more important stages of the battle. My favorite vagueness is the tendency of commanders of USS Curlew (1862) to get arrested or killed for unexplainable reasons. I feel like if the Romans had applied the Confederate standards of record keeping, there'd be a lot less that could be written. Hog Farm Talk 03:46, 8 October 2022 (UTC) This includes strong suspicions of confusing accounts by two Roman generals of a battle as two separate encounters and vice versa. And there are no accounts from the Carthaginian side. I could go on ... Gog the Mild (talk) 12:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Wah ha ha ha! That's a good one!. From my FA on the Second Punic War "the main source for much of the war is the account written by the Roman historian Livy – commonly used by modern historians where Polybius's account is not extant ... he was also openly pro-Roman. His accounts of military encounters are often demonstrably inaccurate; the classicist Adrian Goldsworthy says Livy's "reliability is often suspect", and the historian Phillip Sabin refers to Livy's "military ignorance"."

Second Punic War
Thank you today for Second Punic War, introduced: "After a 20-month break from the Punic Wars I am returning, with elephants, Hannibal, Cannae, crossing the Alps, elephants, 17 years of slaughter, Scipio Africanus, Zama, and yet more elephants."! - Congratulation to Coordinator, and thank you for scheduling November! - Did you know that I was asked if my next specialty were power stations? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:01, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

Week extension
Hi, would it be possible to reopen Featured article candidates/Growing Up Absurd/archive1 for another week, given the comments at Talk:Growing Up Absurd? And if that isn't reasonable, is this subject to the two-week wait before renomination or can it be relisted as having low/minimal activity? It had no comments for its first three weeks, so getting comments in its last week, while appreciated, puts it in a weird state with respect to "timing out". czar 22:03, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, a week is too much. While I appreciate that it had a slow start, it is now more than five weeks in. Yesterday I archived a nomination with an actual support which had "only" been open for 25 days. You need a minimum of two good quality general supports by noon UTC 13 October. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' October 2022 newsletter
 Baffle☿gab  03:07, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

Request
Hi Gog, as a fellow history orientated person, and given you are battle hardened at FAC and have been eagle-eyed for me before, would you be up for a peer review of Corp Naomh maybe towards the end of next weekend, after I add a bit or two? Its in a sorry state as it stands but have a rough idea what needs fixing, although no map. Also, just to note its a dry run for tara brooch which I'm hoping might be eventually be one of my better, longer, and more substantial pages. Would very much appreciate your usual jaundice eye, on this and eventually the brooch (see what I did there haha; yes I have that much neck when it comes to getting top-notch peps on board). Ceoil (talk) 08:53, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi necky . I am a bit up to my neck with RL, never mind three sets of WP coordinatorship. You may have noted that for pretty much the first time in the past four years there isn't a Gog article or two at FAC! Nevertheless, ping me towards the end of your fixing and I'll try to give it a copy edit. I don't promise my full, enhanced, pre-FAC version, but I'll see what I can do. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. Ceoil (talk) 16:08, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Of interest
Hey @Gog the Mild, I know you have quite an interest in Byzantine history and have reviewed a large amount of articles relating to that topic. I was wondering if you would be interested in reviewing the article Apion (family)? It concerns one of the most influential families in Byzantine Egypt and can be found as a good article nominee for Royalty, nobility and heraldry. I nominated it in 2 October of this year and have been looking for a reviewer; I think you would be interested. GuardianH (talk) 04:41, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCVIII, October 2022
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) 15:37, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

TFA alteration request for November
I saw that the TFA nomination is only currently accepting requests for dates after December 1, but that exceptions can be made under exceptional circumstances if it is discussed with TFA coordinators. I was wondering of the TFA for November 15th can be changed to E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (album) for the 40th anniversary of its release. I do not believe the current planned TFA has any significant anniversaries, and this album was rather significant. Thanks! T1980 (talk) 20:12, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I may be able to accommodate you. It is more complicated than just substituting as there is the question of a balanced variety through the month. Does the article have a blurb? If not, could one be put at the top of this page. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * There is not blurb that I know of, so I made one and posted it at the location you requested. Please read and suggest any changes.  Also, I'm not aware of any relevant free images that could be used, but perhaps there is something else that work. T1980 (talk) 23:02, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I've formatted and trimmed the blurb to 1024 and added an image of Jacko <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - talk to me?  06:18, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jim, that's good of you. T1980, done; but fyi it was an hour's work and included my informing an editor who I had told two weeks ago that they had a TFA that it had been pulled. So could you and any talk page stalkers be aware that this is very much an exception and that such changes are entirely at the discretion of the schedulers. There is clearly a good case for it running on 15 November, which is why I went to the trouble. But if you or any other readers of this would like an FA to run on a particular date then listing it on Today's featured article/requests/pending and nominating it at Today's featured article/requests at the appropriate time, would help things run smoothly. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I only actually learned that the anniversary recently, and probably would not have even noticed had the album not been on a list I saw last week.
 * I haven't been very active on wikipedia for a while, and this is my first TFA nomination since 2009 when Raul was still in charge, and my nomination of John Calvin for he 500th anniversary of his birth was well planned before it even became a featured article. Back then the nomination process was a bit different too. T1980 (talk) 12:41, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, and happy to help. Mostly I didn't want TPSs thinking that this was a routine activity. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Draft:Battle of Galatas
Hello, Gog the Mild,

I just postponed deleting this draft as a CSD G13 (which I've done before) because, unlike most expiring drafts we see, it actually looks like an article. Do you think you'll return to working on it or submit it to AFC for review? I see so many bad, self-promotional drafts, it was nice to actually see a referenced article in Draft space. Thanks. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:32, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, and bless you for your thoughtfulness. I am not sure how the "article" ever escaped into main space - I took my eye off it for a moment and it was gone, long gone. Sad.png When it was recaptured and released - quite appropriately - in draftland I thought that that was the last I would see of it. If I had realised that it was still pining I would have collected it - I think that the unilateral and unnotified renaming threw me off its trail. It has now rejoined the flock at User:Gog the Mild/Battle of Prison Valley. Having been prompted I may jump this up the list of "drafts" to prepare for FAC, but you know how it is: So many potential FAs, so little time.
 * In fine feel free to put the orphaned draft out of its misery and thank you for pausing on the "Delete" button and checking with me. I won't than you for saying nice things about the draft, as actually being referenced seems a low bar.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

weardale campaign
Gog, i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. does the image used in the blurb depict a scene from the weardale campaign? admittedly, i could not find anything noting that it was, and the inclusion of the depiction of the battle of la roche-derrien in the article made me wonder if this image was also not necessarily of the weardale campaign. if this is the case, i was contemplating adding "during the Anglo-Scottish Wars" at the end of the caption in the blurb to make this more clear. dying (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi dying. Yes, it is a representation of an event in the Weardale campaign. From the article "They occupied rocky heights immediately overlooking the fast-flowing river ... The English then sent heralds, inviting the Scots to abandon their positions and engage in a fair and open battle."
 * As it is an image of an event in the TFA it didn't seem necessary to spell out for a reader that the image and the article were related. If you feel it is necessary, then perhaps add "during the campaign". But, please, not "during the Anglo-Scottish Wars".
 * Battle of la Roche-Derrien image - fair point. Even approximately contemporary images are hard to come by, so I tend to use what is available and use a vague caption, so I can see how it is left open to doubt the images which do directly elate to the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * oh, sorry, Gog! my question was whether the image from froissart's chronicles depicts a scene from the weardale campaign rather than whether the english sent a herald to the scots during the weardale campaign, since i had trouble determining the former, and the latter is clearly mentioned in the article.  however, if the illustration is indeed of the weardale campaign, then my suggestion to amend the caption is obviously moot.  the reference to the anglo-scottish wars was based on the caption in the herald article, though the caption in the kingdom of scotland article, which states "in the period of the Hundred Years' War", made me wonder if the depicted incident occurred after the weardale campaign.i share your frustration at often being unable to find contemporary images to illustrate an article, though after an editor made a valid point that some of my captions could be misleading, i personally try to be more explicit with my captions to avoid misleading anyone.  (a particularly extreme example can be found here.)  although i generally don't hold anyone else to that standard, i think tfa blurbs tend to be a bit stricter, which is why i thought i might raise the point with you here.  in any case, thanks for addressing the issue!  dying (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "Another of Edward III's military campaigns, his first. One which left him weeping with frustration." - great introduction. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

... and today for Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747), introduced last year: "A typical naval battle from the age of sail. It was of some importance at the time, but seems to have been largely escaped detailed scholarly scrutiny. Which means that the article is short, but that I believe that it contains pretty much all there is to be said about the battle."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:27, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Good morning sunshine.
SusunW (talk) 15:30, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 October 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

WikiCup 2022 November newsletter
The 2022 WikiCup has drawn to a close with the final round going down to the wire. The 2022 champion is
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski (1752 points), who won in 2020 and was runner up in both 2019 and last year. In the final round he achieved 3 FAs and 15 GAs, mostly on cue sports. He was closely followed by
 * Bloom6132 (1732), who specialised in "In the news" items and DYKs, and who has reached the final round of the Cup for the past three years. Next was
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose (1238), another cue sports enthusiast, also interested in songs, followed by
 * Muboshgu (1082), an "In the news" contributor, a seasoned contestant who first took part in the Cup ten years ago. Other finalists were
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie (930), who scored with a featured article, good articles and DYKs on TV and radio stations,
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh (370), who created various articles on famous Americans, including an FA on Louis H. Bean, famed for his prediction of election outcomes. Next was
 * PCN02WPS (292), who scored with good articles and DYKs on sporting and other topics and
 * Z1720 (25) who had DYKs on various topics including historic Canadians.

During the WikiCup, contestants achieved 37 featured articles, 349 good articles, 360 featured article reviews, 683 good article reviews and 480 In the news items, so Wikipedia has benefited greatly from the activities of WikiCup competitors. Well done everyone! All those who reached the final round will receive awards and the following special awards will be made, based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. 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 the overall leader in this field.


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the featured article prize, for a total of 6 FAs during the course of the competition and 3 in the final round.
 * 🇺🇳 Kavyansh.Singh wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 2.
 * Pirate Flag of Jack Rackham.svg Adam Cuerden wins the featured picture prize, for 39 FPs during the competition.
 * Z1720 wins the featured article reviewer prize, for 35 FARs in round 4.
 * Epicgenius wins the good article prize, for 32 GAs in round 1.
 * Flag of Provo, Utah (1989–2015).svg SounderBruce wins the featured topic prize, for 4 FT articles in round 1.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski wins the good topic prize, for 34 GT articles in round 5.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the good article reviewer prize, for 71 GARs overall.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie wins the Did you know prize, for 30 DYKs in round 3 and 106 overall.
 * Bloom6132 wins the In the news prize, for 106 ITNs in round 5 and 289 overall.

Next year's competition will begin on 1 January and possible changes to the rules and scoring are being discussed on the discussion page. You are invited to sign up to take part in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to have a good turnout for the 2023 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners and finalists, 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXCIX, November 2022
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) 10:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Help and advice
Hi Gog,

I need some help with an article of mine and remembering the exchange we had I thought I'd come to you for some for advice. Back in August, after a many, many number of edits, I finally completed this article that I had created. However, since then, I've felt that there was a few things that need improving, and seeing that you are a more experienced editor than me, especially with articles about military history, I thought you'd be the best person to ask. I was intending to ask you around the same time I completed the article, but until recently I have been largely inactive on Wikipedia and didn't get around to doing it. Now that I'm getting back into the swing of things, I decided to return to my article and fix a few things.

I want the article to be in the best it can, so I was wondering what things you'd recommend changing – like what parts you think I should rewrite and things like that.

I also wanted to ask about citation style. When writing the article, I looked at the citation style of some featured articles and I took a leaf out of this article and placed a citation at the end of each sentence. However, I looked at the article about the Battle of Leuthen and noticed the citations in the battle section were more sporadic. Am I doing something wrong. Earle Bartibus Huxley (talk) 23:26, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Catching up on rather old stuff
I also had to hand out Sturmvogel 66's from 2020, as it looks like that got forgotten, too. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks . But, er: User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 4 Gog the Mild (talk) 09:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 53
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 53, September – October 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New collections:
 * Edward Elgar
 * E-Yearbook
 * Corriere della Serra
 * Wikilala
 * Collections moved to Library Bundle:
 * Ancestry
 * New feature: Outage notification
 * Spotlight: Collections indexed in EDS

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Script edit
Thank you for promoting Ulf Merbold and for the final dash and nbsp fixes! Just one slight oddity: Special:Diff/1122760798 turned " " into " . Does the script think the sentence ends here or do you know why it would do that? (The article uses "a.m.", not "am" for time, after I just fixed the last inconsistency). Anyway, just something to keep an eye out for I guess. Thanks again, —Kusma (talk) 21:38, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That it is odd. The non-breaking space needs to be there per MOS:AMPM, but I am unsure why or how the script mangled the rest. Thank you for picking it up and correcting it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

The Signpost: 28 November 2022
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:27, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Trouted
You have been trouted for: Because it's funny :P Maxime12346 (talk) 09:35, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CC, December 2022
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) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors December 2022 Newsletter error
The GOCE December 2022 newsletter, as sent on 9 December, contains an erroneous start date for our December Blitz. The Blitz will start on 11 December rather than on 17 December, as stated in the newsletter. I'm sorry for the mistake and for disrupting your talk page; thanks for your understanding. Sent by Baffle gab1978 via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Third Punic War scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Third Punic War article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 9, 2023 ... <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - <i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i> 15:25, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Peace Dove Christmas
Happy Holidays. &#8213; Buster7 &#9742;   04:08, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Paid editing offer.
Greetings ! I am impressed by your work and I was wondering if you were open to the offer of me paying you to work on specific Wikipedia articles. You would just have to disclose some informations as shown in Paid-contribution disclosure. Hit me up if you're interested ! Maxime12346 (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi Maxime12346 and thank you. I don't do paid editing. If you are after something straight forward I may be able to help you on a non-paid basis. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ah well it's alright I understand. Seeing your work on the Punic Wars, I would appreciate if you worked on the Gallic Wars next. Have a nice day (: Maxime12346 (talk) 13:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Battle of Adys. introduced (in 2020): "Nine years into the First Punic War and the Romans carried the war to the Carthaginians by invading Africa. They established a foothold which the Roman commander Regulus was left to hold over the winter. He pushed inland and was confronted by the Carthaginians. He defeated their incompetently-generalled army at Adys. He then marched to within sight of the city of Carthage and the despairing Carthaginians sued for peace. "Wait!" you cry - the First Punic War lasted another fourteen years. Indeed, read the article to find out what happened." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:29, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Happy holidays!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:red; background-color:#fff; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

Unlimitedlead (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Happy holidays}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:25, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty
Dear Gog the Mild I think you still remember Donough MacCarty, 1st Earl of Clancarty. I wish you all the best and season's greetings. Thanks again for your patience and all the things you taught me. I have postponed A-Class and FA work until I come a bit nearer to those levels but am active at GA where I am busy with my 20th review ([Lucien Brouha], nominated by User:Schwede66) and have nominated one GA Charles MacCarthy, 1st Viscount Muskerry, which was reviewed and promoted by User:Edwininlondon. One of those things I learned from you was not to translate Roman volume numbers into Arabic ones in Cite book, which I had always done before. The documentation of Cite book gives examples of volumes called with Roman numbers and also in words (examples among sources I used: volume=First, volume=Achter Band, or volume=Deuxième partie). The ones in foreign language might cause problems. I made this error in many places (about 3000?) and am still busy fixing after about a year now, I think. I want to comply with template documentation, but I think they are not enforceable in GA or even in FA. If an editor decides to misuse a template I cannot withhold a GA for this reason. It is not in the criteria.
 * Well, GA criterion 2a says (in part) "presented in accordance with the layout style guideline"

I am also updating citations of Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage to the 77th edition (1915). That seems to be the latest one available on line. Is it worthwhile? Many citations need to be updated because in the meantime somebody has created an article about the author, e.g. Fryde et al. 1986 Handbook of British Chronology. I also have problems with titles: should subtitles be included and must they also have title casing or not? For example just "title=Alumni Dublinenses" or (with subtitle) "title=Alumni Dublinenses. A Register of the Students, Graduates, Professors and Provosts of Trinity College in the University of Dublin (1593–1860)" or (with subtitle but sentence case in the subtitle) "title=Alumni Dublinenses. A register of the students, graduates, professors and provosts of Trinity College in the University of Dublin (1593–1860)"? There are still many other possible problems with correct citation. With many thanks and best regards Johannes Schade (talk) 21:23, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would give the full title, including any sub-title. (Unless it was one of those silly ones which runs to half a page.) Either way, I would always use title case for whatever parts of a title I chose to give. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Dear Gog, thanks for you prompt reply. I will do as you suggest. Best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 16:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

New Year's Wishes!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:black; background-color:gold; border-width:2px; text-align:left; padding:7px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);;" class="plainlinks"> Happy New Year, Gog the Mild! Thanks for your continued vital work at FAC this year. Your good judgment and eye for quality is something that particularly deserves praise, and contributes to furthering Wikipedia's reputation as a well-written and trustworthy encyclopaedia. I hope that Wikipedia will continue to see more of your fantastic work this forthcoming year. Yours truly,  𓃦 LunaEatsTuna  (💬) 00:31, 1 January 2023 (UTC) (It is now New Year's Day in UTC)

The Signpost: 1 January 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2023 WikiCup!
Happy New Year and Happy New WikiCup! The 2023 competition has just begun and all article creators, expanders, improvers and reviewers are welcome to take part. Even if you are a novice editor you should be able to advance to at least the second round, improving your editing skills as you go. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page ready for you to take part. Any questions on the scoring, rules or anything else should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close 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. The judges for the WikiCup this year are: and. Good luck! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:URFA/2020
Happy New Year, Gog! Thanks for pitching in with strenuous reviews on very (very) old FAs via WP:URFA/2020. I have adjusted your commentary, eg here, to conform with the instructions for URFA/2020. The issue is that, with so many articles needing review, we have to keep the page size manageable and help assure that commentary is lodged at article talk pages for posterity and (hopefully) better visibility. We only link to the comments from talk, with date, at URFA, to keep the page size manageable and to keep the charts sortable for those who track such things ... Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I also took note of your comments relative to those of Tony1 at Featured article candidates/Edward III of England ... FAC is less without Tony. Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers Sandy. If my Edward III comments constitute a FAR step 1 official notice, then I should think those at Battle of Schellenberg would too. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, Schellenberg is also at WP:FARGIVEN; I will probably put it up next (we are limited to one per week), as we would love to get 2004 thru 2006 wrapped up! At this point, anything still straggling from the 2004 to 2006 period is fair game for FAR, as we have been knocking on doors for over two years now ... Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  17:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS, I've started a chart at User:SandyGeorgia/sandbox8 in preparation for our year-end report, which will be an attempt to get more editors to engage to help finish up reviews on 2004 to 2007 promotions ... if you are looking for any more very old MilHist FAs to review, you can locate them by sorting on that final column ... your help would be wonderful! Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:54, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Gog the Mild!
<div style="border: 3px solid #FFD700; background-color: #FFFAF0; padding:0.2em 0.4em; height:auto; min-height:173px; border-radius:1em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75);" class="plainlinks">

Happy New Year! Gog the Mild, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. See this for background context.

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

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

— Moops  ⋠ T ⋡ 18:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year, 2022

 * Congratulations Gog, well deserved! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Congratulations! - Thank you today also for Third Punic War, introduced (in 2020): "After the long-drawn-out bloodbaths of the first two Punic wars the Romano-Carthaginian conflict ended with this war and the complete destruction of the city of Carthage and the death of most of its population; the survivors were enslaved. For what it was worth, they went down hard." - Singing of peace ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Military history/Assessment Erwin Böhme
Hello,

I believe I have addressed your concerns about this assessment. Please review my changes, add your further observations, etc. I value your insights.Georgejdorner (talk) 07:53, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 201, January 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:45, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Map stuff
I'm sort of vaguely around at the moment, ping me if there's anything I can do re: the issues raised with File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War 2.svg. Harrias (he/him) • talk 16:53, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * That would be wonderful. Firstly though, could you bung me what you have on Battle of the Trebia. It was really good and I need to make an effort to get it finished, hopefully at the same standard, as this battle is next up for FAC. (Actually I am also working on Battle of Preston, so I may throw that in first for variety. Which could also do with a map. Sigh.)


 * Re your actual query, what I would really like is this map File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War.svg, which seems to avoid the various failings of the other, apart perhaps from MOS:COLOUR; although no matter how often I read that I struggle to see how it applies, if at all, to the maps I use. But with the extent of Carthage's North African possessions as in File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War 2.svg. Roughly, the Carthaginian territory has a lot of "slop" in it. Ditto re Syracuse. Is that something which could be readily done? And, optionally, if it could be done without getting too messy, add the locations - in preference order - of the battles of Lake Trasimene, the Trebia, and Ticinus. What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 9 January 2023 (UTC)


 * ok, so why not push my luck. As well as the above I like this map File:Hannibal route of invasion-en.svg, but it is being picked at for inaccessible sources - half way fair comment - and for not having the two loops and the zigzag in southern Italy shown in this one File:Hannibal route of invasion.gif, and so having Hannibal "teleporting". Would it be possible to straight forwardly add the squiggles in B to A to create a new map which I can provide the sources for? If this is a lot of work, please feel free to say "No". Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 9 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As a first pass, how is File:Map of Rome and Carthage at the start of the Second Punic War Modified.svg for the first? I'll need a source for the trimming of territory compared to the original source material (File:Rome carthage 218.jpg). I'll look at the Hannibal route later, and will sift through the Trebia stuff at the weekend, I seem to have a mess of different drafts and edits! Harrias  (he/him) • talk 22:22, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * , that's grand. The source is Moore, R. L. (1981). The Hamlyn Historical Atlas London: Hamlyn. ISBN 0-600-30361-6 p. 22. I should have copies of at least what you sent me but I can't find a thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * PS That source is just for the change in North Africa and northern Italy. You will need to retain the original source for the rest. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Okay, I've added all the source information and stuff onto Commons, so that version should be fine to use, unless you want any further modifications? Harrias  (he/him) • talk 22:48, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

History Article Assessment
Hello Gog The Mild, I appreciate your sincere efforts in helping to assess articles related to history. I am a new member in Wikiproject History's assessment task force so I wanted to ask about this. In the WikiProject History Assessment page, there is no information about who can and how to grade C-class articles. Could you please send some information related to that? Thank You PrathuCoder (talk) 11:58, 10 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi there and welcome. The general guide to assessing MilHist articles is here. These are the criteria for assessing articles at start, C and B class. Each criterion is assessed in a template which looks like those found here. Some helpful FAQs can be found here. Feel free to self assess articles as start or C, but if you think they are B class submit them here for a straight forword peer review.


 * So looking at the talk page of an article I created, Talk:Lancaster's Loire campaign of 1356, we see (the relevant bit is ) giving C class. Note that this is in spite of the "|class=Start" entry. If b2 were to be changed to "yes" (or "y") then the article would automatically reassess itself as B class - but this should only be done via peer review. Does that help? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks a lot, but is this policy the same for all articles under Wikiproject History or only for Military History? And could you please share the templates for Wikiproject History and not military history? Thanks PrathuCoder (talk) 12:20, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, apologies. The history project works in a broadly similar way. The criteria can be found here. Note that the class needs to be manually entered and that one can self assess at B class. If you have queries or doubts about assessing a specific article feel free to query me or to post on the project's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * This is what I needed, Thank you for helping me as a new member to WP History. I'll inform you if I get any difficulty while assessing. By the way, I also reassessed a stub article, Battle of Pratapgarh to C-class. Could you please see if that was ok? Again, thanks. PrathuCoder (talk) 12:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * That looks fair to me. Clearly it is in need of referencing, and IMO it has been expanded beyond what I would consider stub status. By the way, do you know if the source "Major Joshi Mukund – Pratapgad campaign – a new perspective" is the same as "Mukunda Jośī, Pratapgad Campaign, 2005" or a different work? If you want to work on this article further, "Jeneet Sorokhaibam Chhatrapati Shivaji: the Maratha Warrior and His Campaign, 2013" may also be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks but could you please inform me about how to get those sources? no link has been provided, do I have to purchase a book or anything related to that? PrathuCoder (talk) 12:56, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , I am probably not the best person to ask that. They may be available at the WikiLibrary, but these days I find that so difficult to access that I have given up. Or try your local library, or Reference desk if you just want sections. Or try the Internet Archive. Or, if pressed, yes, purchase them. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:08, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I am not a wikipedian serious enough to go to a library or even purchase a book just for the sake of expanding 1 article. There are many articles which would need sources from the web and I would just expand those. Thanks for the info though. PrathuCoder (talk) 14:28, 10 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, I found this article, Achaemenid Empire. I would likely think that is would meet the B-class criteria. Could you please check it? Thanks for spending your time for this. PrathuCoder (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * , nope. It fails B1, having a lot of uncited text. See all those .[citation needed] tags. Plus there are a lot of cites direct to Herodotus, a primary source, see WP:PRIMARY; all or most of these would need to be replaced with secondary RSs for B class. To me it looks C class. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that was the major point of confusion, the grammar and text is in a very good condition and the article is well-illustrated. I have pointed out the same issue on the article's talk page. PrathuCoder (talk) 12:07, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Italian Army regiments
Hello As you might have noticed I am doing articles for all the Italian Army regiments/units active after 1945 (some 300 in total). Right now I am working on 63rd Infantry Regiment "Cagliari", 66th Airmobile Infantry Regiment "Trieste", 67th Infantry Regiment "Legnano", and 68th Infantry Regiment "Legnano". Three of those I intended to finish today, but work keeps me from doing that. Just for your information I will finish them asap. Best regards, noclador (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * No rush. They are fine articles. If you were to expand the leads in line with the MoS "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" most of them would be B class and, IMHO, be worthy of trying at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Thank you, and thank you for the tip. Will devise an expansion of the leads to summarize the key points of the article. 20:57, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Always a good idea to look at how other people do a similar thing and steal it. Random examples: 1st Swiss Regiment (France); 23rd Battalion (Australia). Pulled from . Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Battle of Schellenberg
I have nominated Battle of Schellenberg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  02:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Italian Army regiments intros
Hello

As suggested I created short summaries of the regimental histories for five infantry regiments:


 * 63rd Infantry Regiment "Cagliari"
 * 66th Airmobile Infantry Regiment "Trieste"
 * 67th Infantry Regiment "Legnano"
 * 68th Infantry Regiment "Legnano"
 * 72nd Infantry Regiment "Puglie"

Please have a look. The added summary is the second paragraph in all five articles. If the summary is adequate I will add similar summaries to all the articles created so far. Thank you, and with best regards noclador (talk) 22:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)


 * On a skim, they look pretty good to me. Can I suggest that you run two or three through WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests to get a broader range of opinions? If the feedback is positive, you might consider trialling one at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, will do. noclador (talk) 23:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Backgrounds
Is the background at 9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion of a more reasonable length than the 8th Mo.? That one's at ACR and will probably go to FAC once is passes a-class. Hog Farm Talk 17:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * On a skim, it looks much better. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Erwin Böhme
Hello, I have addressed the issues you raised in your A Class review of the above. Please review my changes. If you should happen to spot more issues, or have further questions, please note them. Your incisive comments are appreciated.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again I have come to a stop in my editing because I think I have addressed your concerns. Please take another look.09:23, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

It looks as though we have come to review's end.Georgejdorner (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 January 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winwick
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Winwick 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 08:40, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Action at Sihayo's Kraal
Hi Gog. Sorry to trouble you, I know you are busy so please feel free to ignore this! I am considering dipping my toe back into the FA system, probably with a few Anglo-Zulu War articles. As a starter I thought I might take the above to A-class review. It's been a little while since I've done so so not sure if what I've written is up to scratch. If you are able to I would really appreciate a quick look to see if it's worth taking there or if I should send it through WP:GOCE first. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 11:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Dumelow. It could do with a bit of tidying up. But not, IMO, enough to warrant a trip to GoCE. I don't feel it's quite up to FAC nomination standard yet - although I have seen worse-prepared articles nominated and promoted - but ACR should knock the rough edges off. I say crack on with it, it's a nice piece of work. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Gog, much appreciated. I'll give it a shot - Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winwick
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Winwick 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 19:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi, Gog, I saw you reverted the transclusion of the GA review -- is there some reason the bot shouldn't be transcluding it? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What! Sounds like iPhone thumb fingers to me. How do I mend it? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No problem, already fixed. Been there done that myself. Mike Christie (talk - contribs -  library) 21:58, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. Harrias will be telling me that I can run but not hide! Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 54
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 54, November – December 2022 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New collections:
 * British Newspaper Archive
 * Findmypast
 * University of Michigan Press
 * ACLS
 * Duke University Press
 * 1Lib1Ref 2023
 * Spotlight: EDS Refine Results

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:14, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Utica (203 BC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Utica (203 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:21, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Great Plains
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Great Plains 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Great Plains
The article Battle of the Great Plains 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 Great Plains and Talk:Battle of the Great Plains/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 03:01, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of the Great Plains
The article Battle of the Great Plains you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Great Plains for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of the Great Plains/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Utica (203 BC)
The article Battle of Utica (203 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Utica (203 BC) for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Utica (203 BC)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 19:42, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constans II (son of Constantine III)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constans II (son of Constantine III) 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:40, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Missing citations
Hi, I've been making some minor tweaks to Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10), & noticed two citations with incomplete information that I believe you added -- or the first citations that provided the information got lost. Could you complete them? They are: Thanks. -- llywrch (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Seager, Tiberius
 * Barrett, Agrippina: Sex, Power, and Politics in the Early Empire


 * Oof. That was a while ago. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 February 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:44, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winwick
The article Battle of Winwick you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Winwick for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Winwick/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 20:02, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constans II (son of Constantine III)
The article Constans II (son of Constantine III) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constans II (son of Constantine III) for comments about the article, and Talk:Constans II (son of Constantine III)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors 2022 Annual Report
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 202, February 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Historiography of the Christianization of the Roman Empire
Hey dude! Hawahya? I wanted to say thank you for trying to help me on this article. I had to rewrite it 3 times, and retitle it, but it finally got GA! Thought you might be happy for me. Just goes to show - stubbornness is actually a virtue... Take care! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whoa!, that's awesome. What a huge article. I have just dipped in and out of it. Fascinating and classy. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:43, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You so rock! Thank you for the compliment. I really value your opinion. I just finished another one that took six months but at least I didn't have to redo it 3 times! I'm so glad you found it interesting. I was fascinated by the changes in the scholarship that have taken place and thought it should be on WP somewhere - they're HUGE! But you have no idea how much abuse I took over it for awhile. People do not like change apparently! But all the opposition made it better in the end. That's the way WP works right? I love it! And you! Thank you again! Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:52, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
 * People dislike change. No! Who knew? Face-surprise.svg It's one of the many periods I'm interested in. I learnt some interesting bits and pieces from the article to flesh out my understanding of it. I have just wrapped up some work on Constantine III - emperor 407-411 - which I hope to run through FAC. Apparently he was selected to be emperor purely because he shared a name with Constantine the Great. He renamed his two sons Constans - fair enough - and Julian; one guesses that the latter was named for his military feats against Germanic invaders rather than his attempts to roll back Christianisation.
 * A bit surprised at "It is generally accepted that slavery began a decline in the second century which became more decisive as time passed". I note the 34-year-old source. You sure that's the modern consensus? It may be, but I know that a military success in 406 took so many captives that the slave market in Italy temporarily collapsed; you literally couldn't give them away. Moving forward (and from memory), the Scots were conducting large-scale slave raids into England in the 12th century, 10-20 mn Africans were captured as slaves by Islamic traders into the 20th century, Scottish military prisoners were sold into slavery by the English military junta in 1648 and 1650, as late as 1917 non-Muslims were being seized in the Ottoman Empire and sold at the Alexandria slave market, Saudi Arabia had over 300,000 slaves in 1960 etc etc. You got ongoing numbers or a graph? (Not important, I am just interested.)
 * Any hoo, a magnificent job. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Copyright contributor investigation and Good article reassessment
You are receiving this message because you were a Good article reviewer on at least one article that is part of Contributor copyright investigations/20210315 or you signed up for messages. An AN discussion closed with consensus to delist this group of Good articles for copyright and other problems, unless a reviewer opens an independent Good article reassessment and can vouch for/verify content of all sources. Please review Good article reassessment/February 2023 for further information. A list of the GA reviewers can be found here. Questions or comments can be made at the project talk page. You can opt in or out of further messages at this page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Second nom?
Hi Gog (or any FAC co-ords knocking about), Any chance of being allowed a second nom? I have Featured article candidates/Death of Kevin Gately/archive1 ongoing, with the following stats: 2 weeks old; Inactive for 1 week; 1 nominator; 9 participants; 7 supports, image and source reviews both completed), and I'd like to put up a second one. No problems if it's a 'no': I can always wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 10:54, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi SchroCat, a lovely article. I have moved your request to the FAC discussion so others can track what is happening a little more readily. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:33, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Miscellany
It was great to see an article closer to my area of expertise :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * What is that? (AtG sounds close enough to the Punic Wars.) Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's English history, which is why I am taking up Edward I and Henry II for FA. I do occasionally dabble in the Hellenistic and Byzantine worlds, though. It's my guilty pleasure. LOL. Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:32, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yes. Four of my first six GANs were Byzantine bios. Zoë Porphyrogenita: makes Game of Thrones seem unimaginative. I ended up with a dozen plus Typos of Constans before moving on to FACs. (The Typos, if you invented it it would fail suspension of disbelief.) I must do some more some time.
 * I tend to find most English royalty deadly boring. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:49, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It is quite boring, which is why I enjoy doing it. In all seriousness though, many of my fellow Americans are hardcore fanboys/fangals of the British monarchy, so I must attain glory and honor by bringing said articles to FA. Unlimitedlead (talk) 23:02, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
 * , continued here, as it was getting pretty off topic, even for one of my FACs. Hmm, I can only see being bored in a classroom as an enjoyable activity if the rest of the time you're a rodeo cowboy or similar. The only British monarchs I could help on are Ed III, which is already a FAC, and peripherally Ch I and II - both ditto - so I am safe. I could contribute to a couple of French kings I suppose. Sneak preview - the bio of the last Roman emperor to be proclaimed in England coming soon to an FAC near you. User:Gog the Mild/Constantine III. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 12 February 2023 (UTC) Now at Constantine III (Western Roman emperor).
 * It strikes me that the British monarchy is like Wikipedia in that it only works in practice, in theory it is doomed to failure. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:10, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Indeed, good sir. I rather enjoy experiencing the downward spiral that is this site, as it is the only place I can express by geeky historical interests without looking weird. As for Constantine III, I have been following it for a while and am glad to see its expansion. I look forward to finding it at FA soon. Oh, who am I kidding: I always seem to show up whenever you nominate something. It's eerie.
 * Wishing you an excessive amount of commas, Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * By the way Gog, citation 1 on Constantine's article is not . I was going to fix it myself, but confusingly, there are two authors by the last name of Jones in the sources. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Thought I'd already fixed that. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:40, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

FAC Leonard W. Murray
Very sorry to trouble you but I am stuck. I tried to nominate L W Murray for FAC and I did my best to follow the described process (possibly with some errors) but it seems that the nomination has all stopped. I was listed as a candidate yesterday but today all that has been rolled back. I am not sure what I did wrong but I have also opened up the article for peer review, and could it be that an open peer review cancels nominations for FAC? I have done more work and I do believe that the article is ready for FAC and I am keen to get into the queue - any advice you can offer (on process especially) would be much appreciated. Thanks. Friendofleonard (talk) 23:21, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * - - per the header at the top of WP:FAC, An article should not be on Featured article candidates and Peer review or Good article nominations at the same time, which is why I closed it.  The idea is that peer review is for additional work to be done with the article, while articles at FAC should be close enough to the standard that not much additional work is needed.  For that reason, only one should be open at a given time. Hog Farm Talk 00:09, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * OK. Then let me see if I can some peer review going before it gets nominated again.  I do think it is ready for FAC but there is also no super rush. Friendofleonard (talk) 02:16, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The FAC here suggests that there are some issues which need resolving before it is renominated. On a rapid skim I am inclined to agree that the article is not yet ready for FAC. Hopefully a stay at PR will resolve all or many of the problems. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:43, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cirta
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Cirta 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Constans II (son of Constantine III)
BorgQueen (talk) 00:03, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

Leonard W. Murray will soon be back as a FAC
I have put quite a bit more work into Leonard W. Murray (removed as a FAC because it was also labeled for peer review) including new info from Canadian Government archives. And I have got three official Canadian Naval Historians to review the content and provide their suggestions. They were very favourable and I have included all their suggestions, although comments from two of the three were provided by e-mail offline. In the next couple of days I plan to resubmit it for FAC assessment. If you recall, I was aiming for an FA target date of 8 May, the anniversary of the Battle of the Atlantic. Please let me know if that target date is still in the calendar. Many thanks, and talk to you soon (after I have the article into the FAC queue - which I found difficult to navigate last time ....). Friendofleonard (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

I have made edits as recommended by Hawkeye, Nikkimaria and SchroCat, and submitted the article with a specific proposed date 8 May in the FA queue. I hope this has all been done correctly.

In appreciation

 * Good to hear. I'll try to wear my reviewer hat as often as possible. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That would be good - you do high quality reviews. Hopefully you have another FAC wannabe in progress as well. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:46, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Very early days yet, but yes. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Siege of Bukhara I hope. It looks to be in good shape. And I can't believe there wasn't an article on it until last year! Gog the Mild (talk) 00:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you may have missed the link in my earlier comment ;) AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I did. My, that's a biggy. Good luck with it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:54, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It'll be a slog, but it's been fun so far. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On a related note, I do currently have an article at FLC; I think it might be slightly outside the areas you specialise in, but I'd welcome your comments if you're willing to give them. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It seems to have closed before I could get there. Would you still like me to look at it, or can I stand down? Gog the Mild (talk) 17:50, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be fine, thanks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be fine, thanks. AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 February 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cirta
The article Battle of Cirta you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cirta for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Cirta/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

February songs
Thank you for scheduling Artemy Vedel for TFA for today! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:26, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

today: two women whose birthday we celebrate today, 99 and 90! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Filet-O-Fish
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:9px;" class="plainlinks">

Unlimitedlead has given you a McDonald's Filet-O-Fish sandwich! Filet-O-Fish sandwiches are very popular during Lent and promote WikiLove. Hopefully, this one has added flavor to your day! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a Filet-O-Fish sandwich, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

Spread the fishy, gooey goodness of Filet-O-Fish sandwiches by adding {{subst:Filet-O-Fish}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message!

Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

A bit random, but
I was not expecting your username to pop up for this particular page in my watchlist. Hog Farm Talk 01:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)


 * You mentioned it in a post, and as my playlist includes a number of bands on the lyric-heavy, Americana end of country I followed the link to have a look. And as a Wiki-gnome at heart I frequently archive links in articles as I pass them by, and this one seemed to be in need. I am working through a sample of their oeuvre, and haven't yet made up my mind.


 * On a separate note, you may, or may not, care to have a look at Featured article candidates/Tomb of Philippe Pot/archive1] where I now regret not following my initial gut feel and opposing on first reading as not being adequately prepared. But we are where we are. I am fully recused, so if you feel that some level of rapping my knuckles is appropriate there is no need to hold back. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Still mulling over what the best course of action with that FAC is ... will try to make a general pass over the list tonight. Hog Farm Talk 14:30, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm, I've just had a pass myself. Promoted two, archived two, left various nudges and added some to reviews needed. Everything seems to be ticking along. Note SC's oppose at Diprotodon and that both Ian and I are recused at Badge Man - a review is ongoing, so no need to rush there. Utica (my nom) and Glycerius are two which may be ready for closing. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Page move after FAC
Sorry to pester you about this again but I just want to make sure I don't screw anything up. I am prepping a move from John C. Young (college president) to John C. Young (pastor) per Ceoil's comments at the FAC, now that it has finished up and the bot has done its job. Should I leave the FAC page as is with the old title or move it to match the new title but leave the page itself the same? PCN02WPS ( talk  &#124;  contribs ) 15:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. Leave the FAC page as it is please. The redirect should pick it up. And congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 March newsletter
So ends the first round of the 2023 WikiCup. Everyone with a positive score moved on to Round 2, with 54 contestants qualifying. The top scorers in Round 1 were:


 * Unlimitedlead with 1205 points, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with two featured articles on historical figures and several featured article candidate reviews.
 * Epicgenius was in second place with 789 points; a seasoned WikiCup competitor he specialises in buildings and locations in New York.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG was in third place with 625 points, garnered from a featured article on a filmmaker which qualified for an impressive number of bonus points.
 * 🇺🇸 TheJoebro64, another WikiCup newcomer, came next with 600 points gained from two featured articles on video games.
 * Iazyges was in fifth place with 532 points, from two featured articles on classical history.

The top sixteen contestants at the end of Round 1 had all scored over 300 points; these included LunaEatsTuna,  Thebiguglyalien,  Sammi Brie,  Trainsandotherthings,  🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, 🇮🇩 Juxlos,  Unexpectedlydian,  SounderBruce, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 Kosack,  BennyOnTheLoose and  PCN02WPS. It was a high-scoring start to the competition.

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start again from scratch. The first round finished on February 26. Remember that any content promoted after that date 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 WikiCup/Reviews Needed.

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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Gog, I just realized we have the same flag! It was purely a coincidence: I'm just a Hundred Years War nerd. LOL. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * #stalker Harrias  (he/him) • talk 20:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL. Good luck with it. I hope that you're saving three 600 pointers for the final round. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I come, I wink, I leave... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * You see, I haven't really thought this whole WikiCup thing through. I'm sure a plan will formulate itself as I go on??? Unlimitedlead (talk) 22:54, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Plenty of time to strategize!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:18, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of the Great Plains
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review for Quneitra
I have nominated Quneitra for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 March 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:41, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 203, March 2023
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) 21:29, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke article has been scheduled as today's featured article on April 16, 2023... <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - <i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i> 11:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bronkhorstspruit
If you get a chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this one, before I push on too far with the rest of the articles for the conflict. Harrias (he/him) • talk 21:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Already noted for future attention. Prod me if I don't start on it within a couple of days. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:07, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Cheers. FYI, I've finally uploaded File:Hannibal's Travels during the Second Punic War.png. (I meant to upload the svg, but whatever. Clicked the wrong file.) Harrias  (he/him) • talk 22:16, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Thank you. It looks good. Added in several places. And no doubt in several others as I work round to them. You are probably aware of the traditional reward for a good job well done? So how are the Trebia maps coming? They are all the article needs to go to FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Winwick
BorgQueen (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC
Hi Gog, FYI. Best wishes, Graham Beards (talk) 19:18, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Graham. Dealt with. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

Phrasing suggestions
Trying to throw together a TFA blurb at User:Hog Farm/sandbox for Battle of Raymond, but am having problems trimming down the last 200 characters to get into the character count. Any ideas? Hog Farm Talk 03:01, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * HF, if you change overestimated Confederate strength and responded cautiously to did the opposite, that'll trim it down by about 60 characters. Changing Early on, the battle was relatively evenly matched. McPherson brought up reinforcements and the weight of superior Union numbers cracked the Confederate line. to The battle was relatively evenly matched until McPherson brought up reinforcements and cracked the Confederate line. will net you another 40-ish. The last 100 might have to be detail removal. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  03:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have put a draft at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates/Battle of Raymond/archive1. See what you think. It'll never be accepted though, the TFA scheduler for May is a right tyrant. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:39, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 55
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 55, January – February 2023 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New bundle partners:
 * Newspapers.com
 * Fold3
 * 1Lib1Ref January report
 * Spotlight: EDS SmartText Searching

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)

Of
"All of your comments addressed", chez Battle of the Great Plains FAC: do not imagine I missed your subtle twisting of my tail. It is a constant pleasure to work with editors who relish good English and take a phrase up, play with it, and put it elegantly into their prose, as you do.  Tim riley  talk   16:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think Tim, that you may be mistaking me for someone who has an understanding of the English language. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with Tim. Despite your questionable comma usage, your articles are always exemplary in terms of prose and grammar. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:43, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Trebia images
Let me know if you want/need anything else amending on them. I had to upload them as png files again, as the text went crazy when I uploaded as svg files. I need to look into that. Meanwhile, I spent most of the day writing 1866 Helston by-election, because why not, huh? Harrias (he/him) • talk 15:01, 17 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Woo hoo! They look great. I am extremely grateful. Added. Well, why not indeed. Who am I to judge? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 March 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:16, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Mail
&#8213; Buster7  &#9742;   19:19, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

FAC needing reviews
I saw your comment at the FAC page for Interstate 40 in Tennessee. I would like to know more about what I can do to get reviews. I did post about this at WT:USRD and WT:TN when I nominated, but that doesn't seem to have done any good. Bneu2013 (talk) 21:11, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


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


 * Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed to the article, or a PR on it, or assessed it at GAN. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Cirta
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Hundred Years War
Hey, Gog. I was wondering if you were aware of any top-shelf authoritative sources about the Hundred Years War, specifically in regards to Philip VI of France. I have a feeling that the light readings I do for fun are not going to be enough for a featured article... Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Sumption, Jonathan (1990). Trial by Battle. London: Faber and Faber, ISBN 978-0-571-20095-5 is your go to book for Philip and the 100YW. Plus the first section of volume 2, Trial by Fire, for his final years. Unfortunately I have not come across anything specific to Philip in by browsing. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Image delivery
Sorry, got distracted by other stuff (a load of sports articles), and forgot about this. Send me more details of what you want for Cannae, and I'll see what I can do. Harrias (he/him) • talk 11:21, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 03 April 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:45, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 204, April 2023
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) 21:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

apologies
I missed seeing this go by on my watchlist. I'll try to keep more on top of things. Valereee (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. You caught it eventually. No need for apologies, it's not exactly earth shattering. I hope that it helped somewhat. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It definitely did, I feel like that was the answer I needed. Valereee (talk) 19:36, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Good. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Wales on Wikipedia-FYI
https://futurism.com/the-byte/founder-wikipedia-ai?utm_source=GetTheElevatordotcom Pendright (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Zama
The article Battle of Zama you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Zama for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Zama/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Harrias -- Harrias (talk) 15:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers reversion
What's the problem? FAOWN hardly applies, as these are not "significant changes"; no information is added or deleted. The sentences just logically belong together, not apart. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * You are doing a major rewrite, much of which consists of applying your personal preferences. IMO FAOWN very much applies. If it doesn't, BRD does. Besides, this is possibly the most reviewed FA on Wikipedia. More than 100 editors were invited to comment and twelve did, giving the existing article a strong consensus. Obviously I am happy to discuss individual changes to the facts, or tweaks to the prose which may improve it, but not to see a wholesale imposition of personal preferences. So perhaps if we could take them one at a time on the talk page? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:37, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Major rewrite??? Seriously? Give me an example. Clarityfiend (talk) 12:48, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Give you an example? Look at the diffs. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:55, 12 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Can't point one out? Not surprising, because there are none. When I made actual major changes to Battle of Britain and Battle of Midway, were there any complaints? Nary a peep. Yet, when I moved a few sentences around to make the text flow better and more logically, you complain that the sky is falling. Okay *blanking WP:PA* what you've reverted to isn't so much worse that it's worth wasting my time arguing about. Clarityfiend (talk) 10:56, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Carthago Nova (209 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Ifly6 -- Ifly6 (talk) 00:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Material of medieval European crossbow strings in the Battle of Crecy
The current article claims the crossbow strings are made of leather, but this is incorrect and contradicts its own source. The source does NOT say the bowstrings are made of leather, but actually says the bowstrings were made of hemp and they had leather coverings. Intranetusa (talk) 02:54, 15 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Continued at Talk:Battle of Crécy. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of the Trebia

 * @Gog the Mild You've done it again! Cheers to another year full of FAs. Do you have plans to expand the scope of your FA nominations? Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:01, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations to the new one, and thank you today for collaboration John Hastings, 2nd Earl of Pembroke, introduced: "A joint nomination between myself and Gog on one of the many curious individuals populating late-medieval England. This chap starts off as a bit of an arse, frankly—a plutocrat forced to work with men of greater ability though less lineage, and who clearly can't decide whether he prefers fighting the French or cutting off relatives, as he spends his time doing both in almost equal portions. But—but—whose story ends with, really, some poignancy. This started off with me piling in my editorial size nine boots some years ago, throwing in everything I had on him, following which it was reviewed for GA by Iazyges of this parish (shout out!). More recently Gog has shown me how it's done—as usual—with a fantastic copy edit."! - My stories on the Main page today are about Johanna Geisler and Huub Oosterhuis. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:03, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Your draft article, Draft:Battle of Galatas


Hello, Gog the Mild. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Battle of Galatas".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been deleted. When you plan on working on it further and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz <sup style="font-family: Times New Roman; color: #006400;">Read! Talk! 03:29, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC)
The article Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC) for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Carthago Nova (209 BC)/GA1 for the nomination. 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Ifly6 -- Ifly6 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Zama
BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
You are invited to join the discussion at User talk:Jo-Jo Eumerus § TRAPPIST-1. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:14, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 26 April 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Battle of the Trebia
Hello, why you canceled my last edit there? The Battle of Trebbia (1799) does not belong to the Napoleonic era and to Napoleon Bonaparte too. Enfeed (talk) 16:09, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Dear Gog, I must say I am quite pleased to see one of your articles that I reviewed on the Main Page as TFA, but I am even more please to see that the hook is loaded with commas. Some of them are actually quite excessive, methinks, but whatever: another win for me. Unlimitedlead (talk) 03:09, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Evening Unlimitedlead. Oh dear. I had hoped that using average dice to determine how many commas to randomly insert in a blurb would generate text indistinguishable from regular US prose. Clearly not. Perhaps if I removed one of the dice? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:23, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Fear not, Gog. I'd rather you use too many commas than not enough commas :) Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:30, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Then let commas abound. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hey, I like commas too, and I'm writing UK prose. Harrias  (he/him) • talk 20:31, 2 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you have a RS to support that? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you today for Constantine III (Western Roman emperor), introduced: "Many people are vaguely aware that the Roman army left Britain around 400 (February 407) and never returned, ushering the Dark Ages into Britain. Have you ever wondered why? Or who ordered it? Or what happened to them, and why they never returned?"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 May newsletter
The second round of the 2023 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to have scored 60 points to advance into round 3. Our top five scorers in round 2 all included a featured article among their submissions and each scored over 500 points. They were:


 * Iazyges (1040) with three FAs on Byzantine emperors, and lots of bonus points.
 * Unlimitedlead (847), with three FAs on ancient history, one GA and nine reviews.
 * Epicgenius (636), a WikiCup veteran, with one FA on the New Amsterdam Theatre, four GAs and eleven DYKs
 * BennyOnTheLoose (553), a seasoned competitor, with one FA on snooker, six GAs and seven reviews.
 * 🇩🇪 FrB.TG (525), with one FA, a Lady Gaga song and a mass of bonus points.

Other notable performances were put in by Sammi Brie,  Thebiguglyalien,  MyCatIsAChonk,  PCN02WPS, and  AirshipJungleman29.

So far contestants have achieved thirteen featured articles between them, one being a joint effort, and forty-nine good articles. The judges are pleased with the thorough reviews 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

TRAPPIST-1
Greetings, is this offer still on the table? Sandbh is currently editing the article, but if I may, I'd like to see another pair of eyes on it afterwards. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:11, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Boop. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 11:34, 7 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 8 May 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:24, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 205, May 2023
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) 08:04, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Mahilpur
Hey i noticed that the military checklist for the battle of mahilpur got changed because the structure of the article is not correct as seen here.Is there any solutions or tips that you can give me to improve the lead of the article? Twarikh e Khalsa (talk) 04:34, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Twarikh e Khalsa. MOS:LEAD contains all the detail. The five MilHist class B criteria are here. The FAQs at MHA may help. Once you think it is up to scratch, post it at MHAR for a third party opinion. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:28, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

Joseph Smith article - upcoming nomination at FAC
Hi Gog the Mild! I am here to let you (as well as the other FAC coordinators on their talk pages) know that User:P-Makoto and I intend to nominate the Joseph Smith article for Featured Article status within the next few weeks. After spending some time lurking at WP:FA and WP:FAC though, I notice that this article is lengthier and more complex than most of the articles that are nominated. I think the length is justified: Smith was and remains a very complex and controversial figure. And of course, just being complex and controversial with a long article doesn't necessarily disqualify a topic from FA status (for example, see Jesus).

That said, I'm wondering if you have any specific thoughts, questions, or comments before we jump into things? I think the length and complexity of the material has turned off some reviewers from doing a deep dive into it in the past. For example, a 2013 PR request failed to attract a single reviewer or even a comment. Is there anything you recommend to offset this a little bit?

Thanks in advance! Trevdna (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2023 (UTC)


 * You have done really good work there, I am impressed. I can't speak as a FAC coordinator, but as an ordinary editor who has taken some articles through FAC a total of 14,248 words (text plus notes, excludes captions) rings serious alarm bells. On a skim there are areas where there is a good use of summary style, but others where a lot of "background" information is included as you attempt to explain the nuances of and reasons for events. In particular it seems to being trying to include a full "Early history of Mormonism" in Smith's biography, which bloats the article.
 * What to do next? You may wish to consider GoCER. (I note that this was recommended in the last FAC.) Re PR, I am not surprised that reviewers are put off by c. 15,000 words of text. Possibly you could ask for comments on just parts of the article at a time? And could I urge you to give serious consideration to essentially ending the article at the bottom of section 1 - this is a biography so why do you need more than "Life"? Cut that right down using summary style and then add, in very summary style, anything you feel essential to understanding Smith's life from the next four sections. You should end with a 5-6,000 word article with a decent chance of getting through FAC, and well-organised material for several further articles.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 11:47, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice to perhaps request comments and feedback on specific parts of the articles at a time; that might help with receiving peer review feedback.
 * As the co-nominator, I confess I'm a little unsure about what to make of the suggestion to "cut that right down" and relegate much of the article's material to "several further articles." As one who has contributed to some subsections, earlier forms did not come across as more summarized but as simply less consistent with academic historical consensus, leaving confused or even erroneous impressions in their exclusion or obfuscation of context and up-to-date research. Rather than provide a "full 'Early history of Mormonism'" (key unmentioned elements for such an early history include proselytization in England, healing practices of the Relief Society, theological poetry in the denomination's periodicals, "spiritual gift meetings" among the laity, physical contestation over the Kirtland temple by schismatic elements of the movement, etc., to name only a few topics), the article hones in on events or phenomena which Smith participated in or contributed to. Second, Mormon studies subjects on Wikipedia seem to already experience "forking" in which otherwise concrete subjects are shattered and scattered into numerous articles. I cannot quite help but hesitate at a suggestion that would seem to participate in further fragmentation. As for why this article has more than "life," the description of Smith's corpus is akin to a section like "style and works" on the Vincent van Gogh page, elaborating on family is similar to the "personal life" given for W. E. B. DuBois, and "legacy" appears in the featured articles for Andrew Jackson and W. E. B. DuBois.
 * I think some further concision would be possible (the Salem, Massachusetts treasure hunt is not terribly relevant to the rest of the article), but I would hesitate to outright excise sections. That is my thinking. Trevdna may have different thoughts which I would be grateful to hear. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Edward III of England Featured article review
I have nominated Edward III of England for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:12, 14 May 2023 (UTC)

Opposed Hamilton
I'm just putting this here for the record. Cheers. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 02:50, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Retracted, with apologies. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 13:06, 16 May 2023 (UTC)

New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus
Since I don't know if you follow pings. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:49, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

Hey, it's no big deal, but aren't articles added to the list by bot? Just a little surprising to see a mistaken date when you're used to bots doing it. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 16:57, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nope, they are added by hand. Hence you get occasional human error. Sorry about that. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:02, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, it just confused me. Thought there were scripts at least. It wasn't so much annoyance at it happening as confusion as to how it could happen. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 8.3% of all FPs. Currently celebrating his 600th FP! 17:20, 15 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 22 May 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:38, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 56
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 56, March – April 2023 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New partner:
 * Perlego
 * Library access tips and tricks
 * Spotlight: EveryBookItsReader

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --10:03, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

FAC hasn't been fully closed and bot processed
On Featured article candidates/Koryo Ilbo/archive1, one that you closed. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  09:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks Buidhe. Now sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

Greetings and...
Greetings Gog the Mild! Never manage to get round to thanking you for keeping an eye out for mis pages. But as they say, ain't no time like the present! BTW, love that lunch break of yours! Wish I were there... Cheers!--Technopat (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I appreciate that. But I have to ask - what is a mis page? Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Got me there! Possibly meant to be something like "mistakes on my pages"? But your guess is as good as mine... probably better! Mis fingertips sometimes get the better of me. Regrads (sic), --Technopat (talk) 11:58, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors June 2023 Newsletter
Sent by Baffle gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 206, June 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 18:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Mick Jagger TFA
Hi Gog the Mild! You helped me out with Paint It Black's TFA, which I am forever grateful for. I was wondering if you could help me write the blurb etc. for Mick Jagger? I think his 80th birthday on July 26th would be a good date? The SandDoctor Talk 18:39, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Done. A tricky one. I have had to trim out a bit more than I would have preferred to get under the limit, but see what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! The difficulty with this one is simply the fact that he has done so much stuff. It would be a much easier TFA nomination statement if Wikipedia were around in the '60s... The SandDoctor  Talk 23:52, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Inverkeithing scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that the Battle of Inverkeithing article has been scheduled for July 20, 2023. Thanks <b style="font-family:Lucida;color:red">Jimfbleak</b> - <i style="font-family:arial;color:green">talk to me?</i> 13:29, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of New Carthage
Congratulations, and thank you today for Battle of Lake Trasimene, introduced: "The latest in my series of nominations of articles from the Punic Wars. In this battle, Hannibal arrives in Roman Italy and inflicts 100% casualties on a Roman army in a single day. A defeat simply begging for an adjective."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

FACs that could use a look over from a coord?
Gog (and and ) - I regret that my work life becoming very busy lately has meant that it's probably been over a month since I've looked over the whole FAC list. Please email or ping me or whatever if there's something where some limited time to look over would be helpful. Things will probably get even busier for me in July, but I'm hoping in mid-August or early September things will lighten up. Hog Farm Talk 21:22, 24 June 2023 (UTC)


 * No problem mate, tks for the heads-up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:01, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Now I have covid
hi, now I have covid, presumably caught during 16 hour layover at airport. I'm burning up and weak.please just archive the nom. I genuinely appreciate your time and trouble. I will probably try again in a few weeks. maybe. Also for Dudley Miles, thank you for your kind efforts. &sect; Lingzhi (talk&#124;check refs) 21:25, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
 * See above. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of New Carthage
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Image caption detail
Can you please motivate your auto-revert here? Peter Isotalo 14:50, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Could you unpack that a bit for me. What do you mean by "motivate", and what is an "auto revert"? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What do you have against a slightly more detailed infobox image caption in Weardale campaign? Peter Isotalo 14:59, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it's something to do with this guy. After all, he liked to Move It Move ItHe liked to Move it Move ItHe liked toMove It. SN54129  15:01, 8 July 2023 (UTC)


 * The infobox is meant to be a bare bones summary.
 * If a reader is interested in the background detail, they can always click on the image to get it.
 * Adding the detail in line is like citing in line, we demonstrate out erudition, but it gets in the way of flow and reader comprehension.
 * FAs have been through a fairly rigorous process, including a dedicated image review, and so have formed a fairly strong consensus around their present form. Hence I tend to be disinclined to change them significantly change them without good reason. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:08, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
 * None of these are in any way "significant changes of text or images". Considering that you've more or less invoked a "right to refuse" here, I see no point in taking this to article talk. But I really do think you should consider being more careful about how you invoke WP:FAOWN. At the very least, if someone bothers to write out their motivation in an edit summary, so you should you. Peter Isotalo 23:14, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 July newsletter
The third round of the 2023 WikiCup has come to an end. The 16 users who made it to the fourth round had at least 175 points. Our top scorers in round 3 were:


 * Thebiguglyalien, with 919 points from a featured article on Frances Cleveland as well as five good articles and many reviews,
 * Unlimitedlead, with 862 points from a high-scoring featured articles on Henry II of England and numerous reviews,
 * Iazyges, with 560 points from a high-scoring featured article on Tiberius III.

Contestants achieved 11 featured articles, 2 featured lists, 47 good articles, 72 featured or good article reviews, over 100 DYKs and 40 ITN appearances. As always, 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 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 WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:18, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

FAC review
Sorry, I just happened to notice this. What might I do to convince you to do this review? I was really excited about it. It's kind of hard not to get in my head about being the only music FAC contributor not getting reviewed by you at the moment...--<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b> 17:22, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:00, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 57
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 57, May – June 2023 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * Suggestion improvements
 * Favorite collections tips
 * Spotlight: Promoting Nigerian Books and Authors

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:22, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Featured article stuff
Hi. I've never done a featured article review or anything of that sort. Do you think Marian reforms might be suitable for something like that? Ifly6 (talk) 19:18, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
 * (watching:) Any user can make comments in any FAC, - it doesn't even have to be a review of the complete article, just anything to improve it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . I assume that you mean "Is Marian reforms anywhere near ready for FAC?" If I am mistaken, please let me know. I glanced at this when it came up at MilHist recently and again just, and the answer is "No". It needs, IMHO, quite a lot of work. It is entirely doable (I gave a little thought to having a crack at it myself), and what there is is a decent start, but I am mildly surprised that it is considered to meet the GAN criteria and it is some way off FAC. Does that answer your question.?


 * That said, given your knowledge of and enthusiasm for the topic I would encourage you to take on getting it through FAC as a medium-term project. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Battle of Inverkeithing, introduced (in 2021): "A battle from the misnamed Third English Civil War with which the English finally broke the Scots defences and subsequently overran Scotland. There was a ridiculous brew of politics and religion behind the scenes for both sides, especially the Scottish, which I have attempted to capture." - I am happy to have a German democrat on the Main page on 20 July plot day, even if for the sad reason that she died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:19, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Today we thank you for Battle of Dupplin Moor, itroduced (in 2021): "In 1332 a claimant to the Scottish throne, Edward Balliol, landed on the north shore of the Firth of Forth with 1,500 mostly English adventurers. Astonishingly, within a week they had defeated the Scottish army - at least ten times stronger, and possibly more than 25 times - with great slaughter. Balliol was crowned king of Scotland and the Second War of Scottish Independence began. This is an account of that battle."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Second nomination of Grand Theft Auto V for a TFA
Hi Gog the Mild, I was thinking about nominating the featured article Grand Theft Auto V for a TFA for its 10th anniversary. However, it's already been done. I was wondering if Grand Theft Auto V could qualify for a second TFA run. Heythereimaguy (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * is scheduling September. They have already posted a draft and may or may not be able to swap GTA in. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I'll insert it. It would be good if you would write a blurb and insert it here. I'll polish it but it would save time to have something to work with--Wehwalt (talk) 17:06, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, if there's another TFA request for a video game that hasn't run on the main page yet, or a subject that has a more significant connection to that date, I may reconsider.--Wehwalt (talk) 17:17, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Alright, thank you. I'll get working on the blurb now. Heythereimaguy (talk) 21:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I've finished the blurb for it. Heythereimaguy (talk) 23:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:37, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Poitiers
This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 19 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 01:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you today for your 50th FA, introduced: "Well, here we are. 38 months after my first FAC was promoted (Battle of Neville's Cross) I am nominating my 50th. It has been quite a journey. The company has been excellent and the learning curve has been discombobulating. I offer here another, and my final, Hundred Years' War battle. Described as the most important battle of the war, the French snatched defeat from the jaws of victory. Unfurling his sacred standard to indicate that no prisoners would be taken, the French King was himself captured. This, and the resultant collapse of the French government, led to a comprehensive peace four years later on English terms: the war was over. We know a lot about this battle, but the sources contain irritating contradictions and lacunae. I hope that I have done a passable job of leading a reader through these. No doubt you will let me know where I haven't."! - Thank you also for the nice list of contributors per reviewing, especially the bow to Brianboulton. (I'll check if they all received Precious. Looked like it at a glance.) - Did you meet Raymond Arritt, another of my "heroes" here? - He still helps me, five years after he died, per what he said in my darkest time on Wikipedia (placed in my edit-notice as a reminder). And by teh rulez, #2 "Choose your battles." - which brings us back to the beginning. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023
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) 11:28, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

October TFAs
Gog, for Milhist articles where the blurbs are already written, I'm thinking of William Edward Sanders and Battle of Settepozzi for October. These were promoted at FAC before 2021. Do you have any recommendations for one Milhist article promoted 2021–2023, and would you be willing to write the blurbs for this one and Second Battle of Independence (now at TFAP)? - Dank (push to talk) 23:48, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Writing the blurb - of course, you don't need to ask. Let's see, you already have a military person, a land battle, and a naval battle. For something different. perhaps the Baljuna Covenant or British logistics in the Western Allied invasion of Germany, both from last month? Or Chilean cruiser Esmeralda (1883) from April or Hrabri-class submarine from August 2022? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:26, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Of those, Baljuna Covenant makes sense because it's already at TFAR (I hadn't considered that because it's not tagged by Milhist, but I agree with you, it feels like military history to me). Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Now tagged. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Tolui/archive1
Can I interest you in an article about an amazingly prolific and rather savage 13th century military commander? It's right up your alley, or rather it would be if your alley was a few thousand miles eastwards... AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:53, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Inquiry about FAC discussion
Hello, I was wondering if you have the time to take a short look at the FAC discussion on logic. My FAC experience is still rather limited so wanted to ask you about how you think the discussion is progressing. If you have suggestions on what I could do to increase its prospects, I would be happy to hear them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It was going badly, and I was pushing things by not at least giving you a time out warning. But it is an important topic and I was giving it a bit of slack. I have just posted a few queries on its FAC page and hopefully it will shortly be on the road to promotion. My boilerplate for getting reviewers is: "Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process."

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * "Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue."
 * Thanks for the useful suggestions, I'll try to implement them. I guess mobilizing reviewers and prompting them during the review are among the weak points I need to work on. I appreciate your queries on the FAC page to keep the process going. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC
Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the |discussion page. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Louisa Briggs
Hello dearest. Been a while since I came here and bugged you for something and you certainly can say no. I've written the above article and must say, it was one of the hardest biographies I have ever written. My issue is of course that my natural tendency is to go academic and I could not figure out how to write it with sensitivity without explaining all the confusion of her origins. I also avoided the whole federal court case in the lede mainly because the newspaper coverage of it says the people disputing her heritage admit that she is Victorian and the Victorian Aboriginal Heritage Council has said that they are unlikely to change their position. To me, it seemed "worthy of mention" but not at this point worth more than that. If you have the time or inclination, could you give it a look, edit it however you see fit and weigh in on how I could improve it? I'm working on photos. SusunW (talk) 18:07, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Ay up me duck, as we say round here - honestly. Good to hear from you. No objections in principle, but on Monday morning I am off for a week's walking and wild camping in Scotland. I am currently triple checking my food and kit; standing on a rain-swept hillside while realising that my tent pegs are in my other pack would not be a good thing . Once I am back and my backlog dealt with I shall have a look at it, assuming that it will wait that long? If I haven't started by, say, the 5th, please give me a nudge.
 * At a glance, without actually reading it, it seems looong. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. It isn't going anywhere, but obviously "we" are. Enjoy your trip. By the time you are back, I shall be preparing to go the the US for the first time in like 8 years. It's my mom's 90th birthday in the last week of the month and we're having a "do" as we would say in Southernese. No camping and nothing wild, except perhaps some of the people who'll be there. Have fun. SusunW (talk) 13:56, 26 August 2023 (UTC)t
 * You, for starters! Enjoy. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:59, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * It does look long; but according to the thing, it's well less than 5,000 words, which I don't think is considered outrageous these days (well, not by everyone). But I think the impression of length is emphasised by the first section which, not being broken up by images or subsections, does make it look kinda... dense? Solid is perhaps a better word. Can it be broken up at all, without artificiality?  SN54129  13:58, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that . I'm still working on photos. (Totally chuffed yesterday to find a photo of Munro's place on Preservation Island.) Perhaps I can make 3 subsections in it: Background, versions, and analysis? Is that better? SusunW (talk) 14:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that works nicely SusanW. They seem natural break points, the lengths aren't too long or short, and if you've found another illustration, great!We have "dos" here too. But in Easternese, it's a right old knees up :D Enjopy yours!   SN54129  15:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)   SN54129  15:21, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias, mi amigo. That knees up made me laugh. Here, it's a gran fiesta de cumpleaños, but that's way too many words. Do is so much simpler. I appreciate your help. SusunW (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Dark Archives
Re : I believe it has already undergone a source review by PMC. — Golden  talk 13:48, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Quite right, thank you. I mistook it for just a general review. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:55, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Request
Hello mate, I don't know whether you remember me or not but you helped me with archiving in countless articles related to Indian football when I was just new to wikipedia. Thanks for those times. But this time need another help, rather a request. I just created an article India national football team at the Asian Games. I am planning to take this article for either GAN or FA and surely for DYK. But the article needs copyedit. Kindly and please keep this request, please do a copyedit in the article, I know you are busy, you can take time. I will again be a lot thankful to you. :) Drat8sub (talk) 16:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

WikiCup 2023 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished, with anyone scoring less than 673 points being eliminated. It was a high scoring round with all but one of the contestants who progressed to the final having achieved an FA during the round. The highest scorers were


 * Epicgenius, with 2173 points topping the scores, gained mainly from a featured article, 38 good articles and 9 DYKs. He was followed by
 * Sammi Brie, with 1575 points, gained mainly from a featured article, 28 good articles and 50 good article reviews. Close behind was
 * Thebiguglyalien, with 1535 points mainly gained from a featured article, 15 good articles, 26 good article reviews and lots of bonus points.

Between them during round 4, contestants achieved 12 featured articles, 3 featured lists, 3 featured pictures, 126 good articles, 46 DYK entries, 14 ITN entries, 67 featured article candidate reviews and 147 good article reviews. Congratulations to our eight finalists and all who participated! It was a generally high-scoring and productive round and I think we can expect a highly competitive finish to the competition.

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 10 days of "earning" them and within 24 hours of the end of the final. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.

I will be standing down as a judge after the end of the contest. I think the Cup encourages productive editors to improve their contributions to Wikipedia and I hope that someone else will step up to take over the running of the Cup. Sturmvogel 66 (talk), and Cwmhiraeth (talk)

The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023
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) 21:36, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Septermber GOCE newsletter
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2023 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 58
<span style="font-size: 2em; font-family: Copperplate, 'Copperplate Gothic Light', serif">The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes

Issue 58, July – August 2023 <div style = "margin-top: 1.5em; border: 3px solid #ae8c55; border-radius: .5em; padding: 1em 1.5em; font-size: 1.2em">
 * New partners - De Standaard and Duncker & Humblot
 * Tech tip: Filters
 * Wikimania presentation

Read the full newsletter Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --14:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Eunice Foote
Sorry. As I said earlier, I leave tomorrow at 4 AM and won't return until the 26th, so I wanted eyes-on so to speak. Thank you. SusunW (talk) 15:32, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. I am just back from a break myself. Have fun. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Muchas gracias mi amigo. That is the plan, but I rather think it will be more stressful than fun. At least until the party itself . Shopping sucks and I usually avoid it like the plague. I prefer to be the planner and leave the other activities to my siblings, but they insist that I must do it this time. Arg. SusunW (talk) 18:14, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh dear, oh dear. Perhaps do it so badly that they never insist again? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I promise, I will do it badly. They already know that. Usually they just take my husband with them, but because it is my mom's birthday... My patience for shopping is 10 minutes or less, thus my husband has forbidden me from shopping for anything that requires "consideration", you know like cars, houses, etc. with the exception of books. I can shop for books for hours without any frustration. They will rue the day they insisted and I won't even try to make them rue it. I have been telling myself I can do this for almost a year, and even tried "mini-shopping" excursions. Managed a maximum of 12 minutes before I was done and wanting to escape. Just not my thing. Whoever said women love shopping never met me. SusunW (talk) 20:10, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

Food desert
Hi! Thanks so much for your comment on my topic on the Food Deserts talk page. I look forward to asking for your insights and feedback as I begin editing the page. Cd631874 (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

"they are relatively new to Wikipedia"
I gotta admit, sometimes it does indeed feel that way :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
 * LOL! Obviously I meant to write 'to FAC'. And I think I know just what you mean. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Article review
Hi Gog the Mild, I've noticed that reviewers have been strangely quiet regarding my FAC, Adamson Tannehill. It's getting lots of pageviews, so it is apparently getting some attention. I've made some revisions to the article since it was nominated -- is that keeping people at bay? Thanks for your thoughts! Tfhentz (talk) 13:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC) "Sometimes placing a polite neutrally phrased request on the talk pages of a few of the more frequent reviewers helps. Or on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. Or of editors you know are interested in the topic of the nomination. Or who have contributed at PR, or assessed at GAN, or edited the article. Sometimes one struggles to get reviews because potential reviewers have read the article and decided that it requires too much work to get up to FA standard. I am not saying this is the case here - I have not read the article - just noting a frequent issue." Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I very much doubt it. My boilerplate advice to FAC nominators seeking reviewers is:"Reviewers are more happy to review articles from people whose name they see on other reviews (although I should say there is definitely no quid pro quo system on FAC). Reviewers are a scarce resource at FAC, unfortunately, and the more you put into the process, the more you are likely to get out. Personally, when browsing the list for an article to review, I am more likely to select one by an editor whom I recognise as a frequent reviewer. Critically reviewing other people's work may also have a beneficial impact on your own writing and your understanding of the FAC process."
 * I'm not usually into military history but I'll try to take a look tonight. If you don't see something from me by tomorrow, please ping me.  And I hope I'm not being too forward if I note that my Fleetwood Park Racetrack is also in need of another review. RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
 * , Thanks very much for coming to my aid! Overnight, I received two long reviews. Even so, your review of my ever-changing article (per FA reviews) would be most welcome. No worries; I'd be glad to look at your article when I have a moment. Cheers. Tfhentz (talk) 17:38, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:30, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Battle of Byshek
Battle of Byshek (1467)Hello, you added the "grammar style" tag for this battle, I edited the article a little more. Is there any mistake or incorrect spelling? Keremmaarda (talk) 10:52, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Keremmaarda, I was about to respond when the article disappeared. Fallen foul of AfD it seems. So your query is moot. That said, if you have another article you would like me to run an eye over, feel free to ask. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

FAC review
Hi Gog the Mild, Could you tell me what the decision of the FAC review of Adamson Tannehill is? Was the article rejected? There's been no response to my review revisions, so I'm a bit in the dark. Many thanks. Tfhentz (talk) 11:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi Tfhentz. You need to address that to the reviewer. Pinging them to let them know you have completed your response to their comments would probably be a helpful next move.Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023
<div class="hlist" style="margin-top:10px; font-size:90%; padding-left:5px; font-family:Georgia, Palatino, Palatino Linotype, Times, Times New Roman, serif;"> * Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Dipping my toes in again
...here's to hoping there are fewer (as in no) unanticipated hang-ups than last time. Hope you and yours are well, and if there's any FACs you think my input would be especially less unwelcome in, don't hesitate to ping over. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:52, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Excellent. Welcome back, you have been missed. You know, I correctly guessed what your nom would be before looking. I cannot think of any nomination which would not be improved by your reviewing it, but we do have an unusually large number of first timers - identifiable in the table here - who would probably benefit from an insightful but sympathetic review. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

26-10-2023
Hey, why did you back down what's the reason Jericho Gosteva (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Read the edit summary, and feel free to discuss it on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Answer my question to convince your word not true. I just added Link did not work Jericho Gosteva (talk) 20:50, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I've just blocked this account. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:04, 26 October 2023 (UTC)