User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 12

I'm about to ask for some mentoring in basic areas (with pings to friends I'm asking to help me)
Thanks for your jumping right in on my GA review. I'm going to take a liberty here on your talk page. I'm going to ask for help. You and I largely agree on thingswiki and I appreciate your meticulous and generous nature. I want to learn from some people I don't know as well but respect. I guess I'm saying this to let you know I'm feeling an energy high here for the first time in years. I'm reading more than I write. I'm so slothful occasionally. I have this bad habit of anticipating the worst. RL often steals from my gumption stash; RL working more than usual. I had such a good time hanging with my gaming friends last weekend and my energy is up. I told a friend yesterday I was ready for some pagespace successes. I'm going to put William Longshaw Jr. up for GA in two weeks after I've written the epitaph and I'd like User:Vami IV to handle it if and when they are willing. It's unusual and perhaps incorrect to request a reviewer, but I think it's clear I have no ill intent; I just want to know that bold user better and learn their style. I'm going to ask User:Atsme to mentor me in the basic NPP skills as they have time. I should be able to rip through ten page patrols in ten minutes, but I have this issue with my cognitive process. I seem to get a "stuckness" in reviewing; it's like I care about the subject too much to take any single action, instead of breaking the tasks down and checking them off. I'd like people I trust (like an auditor) to help me break this bad habit. BusterD (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I am sought, thus I am found. It would be my pleasure to review your GAN when the time comes. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm going though my clippings now. He's an odd subject but I think I could take the page farther if I could find a few more secondaries. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm there for ya, BusterD!! Just give me a date! (clarify - a calendar date. 😀 )  Atsme  💬 📧 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Set me up like a new applicant, please! BusterD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Admirable, BusterD - you are an inspiration.  Atsme 💬 📧 09:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van Buren
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Van Buren 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) 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, I'd like to preface this question by stating that I'm not asking for anything in particular to be done to my nomination. That being said, I'm completely new to FAC and Richardson is my first nomination. Is there anything in particular missing from the current reviews? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Depends on if intended their review to be both a general review and a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I carried out a fairly extensive source review, which meant reading through the article multiple times. If I'd noticed anything that needed attention, I would have commented so I'm happy to say I support with consideration to all the criteria., If your worrying that time's running out, don't be. All my nominations have taken over a month to pass and HMS Emerald (1795) was open for 3 months! --Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was fun...
Talk:Osbern fitzRichard/GA1. Not. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not a good GA review whatsoever. Yikes.  To avoid ambiguity, it can be mentioned that the charter states that he had another son. when that doesn't seem to be what the charter says at all.  Or Avoid using "unknown". Simply state that it occurred at some point between 1088 and 1100. when the article says that it may have occurred after 1100, and if it's unknown, it should be stated to be unknown.  Or the referencing format demands that are completely outside of GAN scope.  You never know what you're going to get with GA reviews, and when they're bad, they're often really bad.  I had an article promoted to GA based on this review once, which literally contains nothing useful whatsoever. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's cheered my day up! Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Kirk–Holden war
Hi HF. Do you fancy signing off, or not, on the RSness of the sources for this one. I have just kicked the formatting into shape, but I wouldn't know a decent source from a hole in the ground on this topic. Whereas you ... Note in particular Ashe's 50 year old PhD thesis. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - I haven't done the check for anything that should be included that isn't, but I'm generally okay with the RS-ness of the sources used here. The one cite to Ashe 1925 looks okay.  Of the two cites to Bogue's 50-year old, one it supported by a modern source and the other should be okay.  The one that flags up the most concern for me is Zuber 1969, as a publication from a southern state's government about Reconstruction during the Civil Rights Era isn't a generally great class of sources.  The single cite to Zuber 1969 here doesn't look problematic though, so I'd be comfortable signing off on RS here for ACR. , would it be best to replace Zuber 1969 before a FAC, or is there a reason why it would be better than what it might seem from a first glance? Hog Farm Talk 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The Zuber book as a whole leans more towards older views of Reconstruction, but the only specifics it discusses are in regards to the documents and letters kept in the state government archives. That picture of Pearson’s writ of habeas corpus comes from the book, for example. I presume Zuber wrote of the attorney’s letter to Pearson because that is a document that is kept in the state archives. This book is almost meant more as a reading guide, or subtle advertisement, saying “Hey we keep this cool stuff in the State Archives.” It is not a comprehensive account of North Carolina during Reconstruction, even though that’s what the title suggests. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Zuber should be fine, then. I'm just a bit suspicious of older sources for Reconstruction after skimming an old first or second edition copy of Claude G. Bowers's The Tragic Era I found in an attic a few years ago.  Bowers's work at least on this subject is very bad. Hog Farm Talk 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Students of the Dunning School are what you need to look out for. J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton was the North Carolinian pupil of that view and wrote the first comprehensive account of the Kirk-Holden war in his 1914 book Reconstruction in North Carolina. I did what I could to keep my distance; McGuire rebuts some of the points he made. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * So am I ok to pass the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - On reliability, yes. I'm willing to AGF on comprehensiveness of sourcing if you are. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Does ACR have a comprehensiveness of sourcing criterion? I have passed it anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The A-class portion of WP:MILHIST/ASSESS says accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge which I've always interpreted as a requirement to not have blatant omissions of major sources. Not as strict as FAC, but a step up from GAN is how I've always seen that. For instance, I'd say that Battle of Fort Davidson is good for GA, but shouldn't pass ACR without using Suderow & House's Thunder in Arcadia Valley, although that's a bit of an extreme example. Hog Farm Talk 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ho hum. I have taken it as what it says. So if an article reflects what a/the major source says, but doesn't use that particular source, it's fine. I guess it's a distinction that doesn't happen much in practice. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A favour?
Any chance of a favour? If time or motivation don't allow, that's fine. But I currently have no wannabe FACs queued up, which seems an unnatural state of affairs. I have had at least one nom at FAC pretty much for the last 42 months. I was looking at Battle of Utica which you have just ACR reviewed and source reviewed. I had previously thought that it was a bit slight for FAC, but I may be talking myself round. What do you think? No need to dress up a negative opinion, if you have or form one. Thanks. And secondly, the only other non-promoted A class article of "mine" which may be up to FAC is Siege of Guînes (1352), which you kindly reviewed for A class back in October 2021, here. Again generously also looking at the sourcing. Again, might you have an opinion as to whether it would be laughed off the project if I nominated it at FAC? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - If I was able to push Capture of Sedalia through, then either should be fine. Guines might be the better option, as there's a bit more meat there, and so long as you're confident you've reasonably dredged all the high-quality sourcing, it should be fine. (As an aside - is Utica definitely the primary topic for that title?) Could I have a request as well?  I've only been able to find two detailed sources for the events of Battle of Van Buren, but have tried to patch it together as well as possible.  Do you see anything that would preclude ACR/FAC for Van Buren once it passes GAN, if I'm comfortable if I've covered the breadth of sourcing as well as possible? Hog Farm Talk 16:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks HF. Battle of Van Buren is pretty Bearss reliant. To me it just about sneaks under the bar, others may differ. If you have a couple of weeks with nothing better to nominate I would toss it at FAC and see what the result is. It seems a perfectly reasonable article to nom and I would be a little surprised of anyone made a lot of fuss. I would tidy up/rewrite the second paragraph of the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, ACW in Arkansas is a bit of a choke point with sourcing, in that there's three authors (Bearss, Shea, and Christ) that are involved in basically everything and Christ didn't write much about this one. It doesn't help that Bearss was extremely prolific in writing about Fort Smith.  I'll give it another dredge to see what I can find, but it's a bad sign when the copy of The Union Cavalry in the Civil War: Volume 3 The West I just got off eBay only gives Van Buren part of a paragraph.  If Baltic ever clears ACR I'll probably nominate that first, and save Van Buren for when I run out of other FAC-able ones. Hog Farm Talk 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)


 * FYI a trawl found nothing further of note on Guînes, but did remind me of a source worth rereading for Utica. So I am going to nominate the former, and assuming the latter goes through ACR see if I can fatten it up a bit and then relook at it.
 * Utica and primary topic: I know as much about titles as I do categories - very little. They are not in the criteria so I don't much care. Personally I might have gone with Battle of Utica (49 BC), or run all three through a disambig page. But what do I know, and everyone seems to have been happy with the status quo for 15+ years. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ARC Request
Hi Hog,

I wondered if maybe after your exam and you have the time and motivation in the near future. Would you be willing to review Oswald Boelcke? If so then I'll try to get some time to review CSS Baltic. Oh btw just curious is that your cat on above because my cat is also trying to play with my keyboard. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - I think cats just like to play with keyboards :) I'll take a look at Boelcke when I can (maybe this weekend?)  I saw some tone issues when I skimmed it back in late March, but based on the replies to the most recent comments in that ACR, it looks like it's been largely corrected, so I'll give it another look. Hog Farm Talk 14:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Great thanks then we might promote it sooner or later. I'll take a look at CSS Baltic this weekend as well. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that Hauptmann Bölckes Feldberichte would be worth a further reading mention.  at Projeck Gutenberg-DE. . "backdate" is more usual for documents than "pre-date", too. Uncle G (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I have this in English.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van Buren
The article Battle of Van Buren 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 Van Buren for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Curlew (1862)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Curlew (1862) 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) 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke assessment
Hello, I have edited the above article in response to the useful commentary in your assessment. I realize you have not completed it, and that you may want to deal with my responses upon completion.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please check the assessment to see if I have solved the problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ready for review.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Take a look at the rest of this talk page, it says Hog Farm is on wikibreak. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  03:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Ooops! No prob. The other assessor did most of the work; he'll check things out.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - With the tone cleaned up and the SYNTH sentence gone, my main objections to promotion are gone. I'm still not a fan of the Google maps usage, and would push a bit on that at FAC, but won't hold up ACR over that.  I'm not able to take a general look at it right now, but from a skim Kershaw's Hitler bio is showing a ref warning as not used and should be removed and something seems to have gone wrong with the italics at the very end.   - if it gets ready for promotion before I'm back, don't wait on me; my major concerns appear to have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Kershaw gone, and you should be too, on your holiday.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Colin M
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg David.Monniaux • Fribbler • Grue • Kpjas • West.andrew.g



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ks0stm

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ks0stm

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, a change has been made to the administrators inactivity policy. Under the new policy, if an administrator has not made at least 100 edits over a period of 5 years they may be desysopped for inactivity.
 * Following a discussion on the bureaucrat's noticeboard, a change has been made to the bureaucrats inactivity policy.

Technical news
 * The ability to undelete the associated talk page when undeleting a page has been added. This was the 11th wish of the 2021 Community Wishlist Survey.
 * A public status system for WMF wikis has been created. It is located at https://www.wikimediastatus.net/ and is hosted separately to WMF wikis so in the case of an outage it will remain viewable.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 2 of the St Christopher case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to place a ban on single-purpose accounts who were disruptively editing on the article St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine or related pages from those pages.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van Buren
The article Battle of Van Buren you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Van Buren 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, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Pontchartrain
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Pontchartrain 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) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Burned out
I'm going to be stepping back for at least a few days, although I will return. I'll try to keep up with what I've been involved in at FAR, as well as any in-process reviews I've started and keep up with the 1 FAC, 2 ACRs, and 3 GANs I have open, and I'll try to get the tags added this morning to the article I created last night cleaned up, but no promises on how quickly things get done. I'm burning out pretty badly, and will be taking a break with my wife, cats, and books. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In that order I'm sure! Do it HF, take as long as you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I hope your break is refreshing, HF -- Guerillero  Parlez Moi 14:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * May many and restful days be yours to enjoy. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  21:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I am just catching up and seeing this; extended breaks are always good, always needed, and taking one is a sign of balance ... go for it, and enjoy the books, cat and wife (not in that order :) Sandy Georgia (Talk)  22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Back for now to a greater extent; I got sucked in with some template-related stuff. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Goodbye Normal Street
— Maile (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Real Estate Bank of Arkansas
—Kusma (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The TFAR
My English just isn't up to if the article follows the format of quote". or quote.". Up to when I read that I believed that whether the dot is part of a quote or not depends on whether a dot is being quoted or not. Can you clarify, please? - I don't think you have to understand anything about the topic to tell if the phrase in the lead is a summary of the longer passages or too free, and if a summary of the French Revolution needs a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm not an expert on the periods with MOS:LQ, but I believe the rule is generally that the period should be outside of the quotations marks unless the quote wouldn't make sense without it. Hog Farm Talk 21:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that's close to what I believe. The other wording, however, suggested to me that an article should follow one format or the other consistently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * As I've understood it, the general idea is to always put the period outside of the quotation marks unless there's a strong reason to do so, so in most cases it will be consistently outside of the question marks. An example from the article where I think a change would be warranted is in contending that men and women, whose marriages are "the cement of society", should be "educated after the same model."[25] where the period after "model" should be after the quotation mark, since it doesn't seem to be integral to the phrasing. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I - please check if I understood you right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Pontchartrain
The article CSS Pontchartrain 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:CSS Pontchartrain for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

geology of the lassen volcanic area
hello, Hog Farm! i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. what do you think about including the full date of the explosion in the caption for the image? i know that full dates are often mentioned in blurbs when they are relevant to the blurb's run date, and this blurb is scheduled to run on the 107th anniversary of the pictured explosion. the caption in the article also includes the full date. however, i hesitate to add the full date to the blurb's caption as of the article did not include it, and i was not sure why. dying (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Feel free to add the full date. The only reason it's not included is because it didn't cross my mind. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
 * done. thanks, Hog Farm!  dying (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for CSS Pontchartrain
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Pontchartrain
The article CSS Pontchartrain you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Pontchartrain 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) 15:41, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Curlew (1862)
The article USS Curlew (1862) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Curlew (1862) 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) 22:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Hebrew bible campaign boxes
Hi, I have closed this discussion (pinging Nederlandse Leeuw). Please feel free to merge the templates into a navbox. Let me know if you need any assistance. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also pinging, as it's not clear to me if consensus was leaning towards a campaignbox-style template or a bottom-of-the-article navbox (I'd be okay with either route). I'm out of town and won't be able to throw much time/energy into this right now. Hog Farm Talk 02:17, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like this was dealt with while I was out of town. Hog Farm Talk 21:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter May 2022
Hello ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Alexander the Great Edition Triple Laurel Crown


Congrats on being the 42nd winner of the Alexander the Great tier! A very difficult achievement. — Bilorv ( talk ) 22:47, 24 May 2022 (UTC)


 * My most purple prose of congratulation and salutation, noble conqueror! Long in the fields abstract and definite - memory and edifice - shall your contributions and works be recalled and celebrated! – ♠Vami _IV†♠  06:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Battle of Raymond/archive1
Did an image review. It pretty much passes, but a couple minor points. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.8% of all FPs 18:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Raymond
I put in the new tripartite image for the lead. Caption might need a small tweak now. Hope that helps! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 21:25, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for uploading the higher-quality image! I've changed the caption so that it fits the new image a bit better. Hog Farm Talk 21:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I found some good images of John Logan, if you think they'd help. . Happy to do any of the commanders who are significantly prominent and have half-decent originals, honestly. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:30, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also a really nice McPherson: https://npg.si.edu/search/collections?edan_local=1&edan_q=James%2BMcPherson& Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Which one's your favorite McPherson? It would be a good addition to the article. Hog Farm Talk 23:46, 28 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd say the first - the Barr and Young - is probably the best on pose ground. The weird leaning limits my liking for the Brady images in this case. Just seems very... off.  Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:49, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, turns out we have a good Gregg image if you want the Confederate general too. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 00:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on the uniform, I have a suspicion that the Gregg one is John Irvin Gregg instead. Hog Farm Talk 01:12, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Just realising that myself. Ah, well. There's but it's not nearly as good.  On the upside, John Irvin Gregg didn't have an image before now, so... some benefit to my mistake.   Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 01:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hm. Okay, this is worrying.

Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 12:03, 31 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) 15:56, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Tropical cyclone
Tropical cyclone was delisted last year following a FAR (you participated there). I am trying to work at getting the article up to standard. Does the article now look a lot better than the version that was delisted last year? There's still a lot to do and add... What areas or subtopics do you think need more discussion besides preparations (which I am getting ready to do now), response, and structure? Noah Talk 16:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy to see you back in the saddle, Noah! I am confused about why it is not listed at Contributor copyright investigations/WikiProject Tropical cyclones 03; if it needs a CCI, it would be helpful for me if we could get that out of the way prior to FAC, as my ability to spend extended time editing has become complicated. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:50, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Lead still needs work imo (t &#183; c)  buidhe  16:54, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I thought that would be best for last. There’s still a lot of issues with the article that I have to fix and it will likely take months for it to be ready for a proper peer review. It doesn’t help me out considering many sub articles either are in bad shape or simply don’t exist. Noah Talk 17:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I partially undid your removal of the see also section in order to keep the current cyclone seasons and the portal there since it wouldn't be feasible to mention these within the prose. There will likely be a sizable expansion required to get this article up to par. I know others may disagree on the size of an article, but limiting the word count would mean not covering everything in as much detail as we need to for such a diverse topic. It's at 55.6k prose right now, which is not small but not very large either. I mean, we had James Longstreet, which had a whopping 96k prose when it passed FAC. I don't think it needs to be that large, but I think it will go over 70k once all three sections that need substantial content additions are complete. What are your thoughts on the changes I have made since the article was delisted? I hope it's heading in the right direction. I don't have any experience with writing topic-level articles such as this so I have to guess and hope I'm doing it right. Noah Talk 00:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some articles rated FA that don't meet the criteria and even ones that didn't meet the criteria when promoted. Personally, I think if you are getting to 70k that means you need a tighter summary style. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  00:57, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd rather do too much and have to split off some than not enough (save that for the end). Although 70k is much better than ≥100k :P Noah Talk 01:47, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Noah, I'll try to take a look at this later this week - I'm still trying to get caught up after being somewhat inactive last week. Hog Farm Talk 01:18, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

question re possible roles
Hi there. I am the Lead Coordinator at WikiProject History. we could use some experienced editors there, who have some knowledge of editing and of history-related topics, to serve as coordinators there. would you be at all interested? please feel free to let me know. thanks!!! --Sm8900 (talk) 19:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
 * - Unfortunately no, I'm a bit overextended right now as it is. Hog Farm Talk 02:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Kansas Infantry Regiment
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 2nd Kansas Infantry Regiment 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) 10:20, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke
Hello,

Will you be returning to the A Class Review of the above article? I am under the impression you were planning a more thorough evaluation of this nomination.Georgejdorner (talk) 01:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've supported at the ACR, but would anticipate questioning the Google Maps issue a bit harder at FAC. Hog Farm Talk 03:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your review. I share your trepidation about the Google Maps references, but Mr.Bee1966 seemed set on them.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Tamzin
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Barek • Darkwind • Geometry guy • ProcseeBot • RoyBoy • Sean Whitton • Valereee • Visorstuff • WAvegetarian
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ivanvector

Guideline and policy news
 * Several areas of improvement collated from community member votes have been identified in the Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines. The areas of improvement have been sent back for review and you are invited to provide input on these areas.

Technical news
 * Administrators using the mobile web interface can now access Special:Block directly from user pages.
 * The IP Info feature has been deployed to all wikis as a Beta Feature. Any autoconfirmed user may enable the feature using the "IP info" checkbox under . Autoconfirmed users will be able to access basic information about an IP address that includes the country and connection method. Those with advanced privileges (admin, bureaucrat, checkuser) will have access to extra information that includes the Internet Service Provider and more specific location.

Arbitration
 * Remedy 2 of the Rachel Marsden case has been rescinded following a motion. The remedy previously authorised administrators to delete or reduce to a stub, together with their talk pages, articles related to Rachel Marsden when they violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy.
 * An arbitration case regarding WikiProject Tropical Cyclones has been closed.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Zurich Bog AFD
Thanks for saying all the things I would have said if I had caught this in time... dm (talk) 17:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

GA reassessments
Hi, I don't know if you also deal with Good Articles, but here is a list of GA that should be delisted. T8612 (talk) 14:53, 11 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Alexander the Great: vast amounts of text rely on Arrian and Plutarch.
 * First Macedonian War: paraphrase of Livy and Polybius. GAR
 * Battle of Lechaeum: only seven (!) footnotes, 5 of which to Xenophon. How can this start-class be a GA is unfathomable. GAR
 * Greco-Persian Wars, Ionian Revolt, First Persian invasion of Greece, Battle of Marathon, Battle of Artemisium, Second Persian invasion of Greece, Siege of Naxos (499 BC), Battle of Salamis, Wars of the Delian League, Battle of Mycale, Battle of Lade, Battle of Plataea, Siege of Eretria, Battle of Thermopylae, : paraphrases of Herodotus, then the main secondary source is Tom Holland (not an academic).
 * Battle of Salamis (306 BC): paraphrase of Diodorus and Plutarch.
 * Constitution of the Roman Republic, History of the Roman Constitution, Senate of the Roman Republic, Legislative assemblies of the Roman Republic, History of the Constitution of the Roman Republic: series of article mainly based on Abbott (1901), who was not an academic historian and is frankly outdated (when not plainly wrong). There are also references to Robert Byrd, who was an American senator, not an academic.
 * - I'm less active at GAR, but I'll take a look at some of these. I was actually just recently talking to Gog the Mild about how the First Macedonian War needs delisted from MILHIST A-Class, so I'm starting with a ACR re-review there.  I'll list Lechaeum for GAR but I generally don't have more than one or two GARs up at a time because it's easier to forget about those. Hog Farm Talk 18:20, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lechaeum has been delisted. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 2nd Kansas Infantry Regiment
The article 2nd Kansas Infantry Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:2nd Kansas Infantry Regiment 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) 17:42, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duckport Canal
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Duckport Canal 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:21, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

TFA
Thank you today for Battle of St. Charles, introduced: "After a Union army gets bogged down without a supply line in northern Arkansas, a mixed navy and army force moves upriver to resupply them. During a brief action with Confederate fortifications on the bluffs above the river, a stray shot hits one of the Union ships in the boiler, horrifically killing or injuring almost everyone aboard with scalding steam. The Confederates are flushed out, but low water levels keep the ships from successfully resupplying the Union army in northern Arkansas, which eventually extricates itself on its own." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Squando
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Squando 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) 11:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

New message from NotReallySoroka
NotReallySoroka (talk) 18:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Ballona Creek Bike Path
I know you do a lot of work with geography AfDs. Could I get your opinion about Ballona Creek Bike Path? I cleaned up the article yesterday, but most of the sources are run-of-the-mill government listings of parks, or self-published newsletters from community organizations. Many make trivial mention of the path, though this one is detailed. I hate wasting people's time with an AfD. Would you mind giving me your opinion about whether it probably passes WP:GEOFEAT? Thanks! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll take a look into this one after I get off work. Hog Farm Talk 13:49, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's a piece about muggings on the path, here's this although it's possibly sarcastic. I have never heard of this publisher but it might be OK. Can't get the right gbooks preview for this, but it might have something. Sorta reminds me a bit of recently cleaning up Camp Brosend, Indiana recently to clarify that it was and is a church camp instead of an "unincorporated community" - not the greatest coverage, but enough for me to give it the benefit of the doubt. Hog Farm Talk 02:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I may just try to clean it up and find more sources. Thanks for your help! Magnolia677 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Mentorship
Hello, I am Cacti, and I want to have a mentor for the featured article candidacy process. As you can see from the talk page, SpaceX Starship has failed many, many times, and I do not want this to happen again. I think I have tried my best to improve the article's quality, but it seems to not be enough. Right now, what should I focus the most? What should I do right before a review? Thanks, CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - This one is a bit of a harder one. If I'm reading Talk:SpaceX Starship/GA2 and the most recent GAR right, there were some source-text issues?  If so, you'll honestly want to go through all or close to all of the citations and make sure that every single thing is supported by the source - all of my FAs I've either written from scratch myself or have gone through and either checked every statement or resourced every statement myself.  Everything I know about starships comes from old Star Trek reruns, so I can't really say anything about what the best balance would be, but a skim through the most recent GAR and FAC indicates that there's controversy over how much criticism material to add in.  You'll need to work out a solid talk page consensus on what to include for that so that if/when the amount of criticism material gets questioned at GAN/FAC, you'll have a solid consensus to point to as an explanation.  Without a consensus about amount of inclusion of criticism and sourcing in a tidy state, a new FAC is unlikely to succeed. I can come back and look at it in more detail once those two things are well-addressed.  I'm sorry, but there's probably no "easy" way forward - it's gonna take a good deal of effort and patience. Hog Farm Talk 20:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
 * For the sources, I have reviewed every single one of them, either deleting the statement or replacing the source with better, more reliable ones. In fact, this is one of the reasons I ended the good article nomination so early. For the article's neutrality, however, I think that you are right about getting a consensus before taking a shot at FAC again. I've made a section soliciting consensus at Talk:SpaceX Starship and pinged the last GAR closer for closer inspection. Then after that, like you said, we can do other stuff to improve the article. Thanks a lot for your help, it is greatly appreciated! CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 01:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Yeah, I know nothing about SpaceX or its Starships, but a talk page consensus is going to be a good thing to point to at FAC/GAN. Hog Farm Talk 01:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * After a few days of gathering consensus, I think that most agree that the article topic is a bit too unstable for GAN and FAC, and that criticisms about the Starship rocket is not covered by reliable source yet. However, criticisms about subjects related to the rocket should be covered, such as the Starbase spaceport environmental concerns and Elon Musk's overpromises. So, ignoring the article's topic stability, what do you think it still needs work on before it goes to GAN or FAC? (I won't nominate the article for GAN and FAC now, but later when the topic is more stable) CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 13:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - I would say the stability/criticism is the main thing. I'm not a subject matter expert so I can't assess the content to a GA or FA quality level very well.  I would say that one good thing to do while waiting for things to settle down would be to over time replace any weaker sources with newer better ones. Hog Farm Talk 23:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Duckport Canal
The article Duckport Canal you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Duckport Canal 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Your cat is cuter than this kitten, though. I love cats. They're awesomely independant and spirited. Anyways, I hope you've had a good day. I don't think we've interacted with each other, but I found your username on a talk page I stumbled upon so I thought I'd say hi.

Clover moss (talk) 01:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC) 
 * Thanks! That is a quite cute kitten though :) The cat in my picture literally climbed on top of the fridge while I was typing this. Time to go fetch it Hog Farm Talk 01:41, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Lol, they knew I was complimenting them and had to make it known to the lowly humans. Clover moss  (talk) 01:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter June 2022
Hello ,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Mick Jagger nominated for FAC
Hello Hog Farm, Mick Jagger has been nominated for Featured Article status. Would you be able to perform a source review for the FAC by any chance? I am reaching out as you performed the one for Paint It Black. If not, that's totally okay. Either way, I hope that you have a terrific weekend. -- The SandDoctor Talk 19:36, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'm afraid that I can't commit to that. I'll see if I can, but I'm expecting to be fairly busy the next week or so. Hog Farm Talk 19:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That's totally fair. If you come across the time in a week or two and it hasn't been done, feel free to (or not). I greatly appreciate your help with Paint It Black and hope we can work together again soon . The SandDoctor  Talk 19:40, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Plains Store
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Plains Store 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Squando
The article USS Squando you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Squando 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) 14:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

To check
The lead of Battle of Raymond is, obviously, fine, but I thought it a little long for the Signpost/Bugle reporting. Can you check my summary?


 * Battle of Raymond, nominated by Hog Farm: The Battle of Raymond, part of the American Civil War, was fought on May 12, 1863, near Raymond, Mississippi, during attempts capture the strategically important Mississippi River city of Vicksburg. During this, a portion of Grant's army consisting of Major General James B. McPherson's 10,000 to 12,000-man XVII Corps moved northeast towards Raymond.  The Confederate commander of Vicksburg, Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton, ordered Brigadier General John Gregg to Raymond for an attack.  Neither commander was aware of the strength of his opponent, and Gregg acted aggressively, thinking McPherson's force was small enough his men could easily defeat it.  McPherson, in turn, overestimated Confederate strength and responded cautiously.  After two brigades of Major General John A. Logan's division fought against the Confederate force, McPherson brought up Brigadier General John D. Stevenson's brigade and Brigadier General Marcellus M. Crocker's division, and Gregg decided to disengage after the Confederate line cracked The battle at Raymond changed Grant's plans for the Vicksburg campaign, leading him to first focus on neutralizing the Confederate forces at Jackson before turning against Vicksburg, capturing it on July 4.

I added the "part of the American Civil War" bit as, y'know, there's a difference between looking up the Battle of Raymond and reading about it in the middle of articles on songs and snooker and stuff (in The Signpost) Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 21:26, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - I'd remove the "for an attack" phrase as Gregg's orders also contained some situations in which he was suppose to withdraw, but other than that it looks great. Congrats on the McPherson FP! Hog Farm Talk 23:14, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Ach, this is why I wanted to check. How about "In response, the Confederate commander of Vicksburg, Lieutenant General John C. Pemberton, ordered Brigadier General John Gregg to Raymond."? It'd be useful, I think, to draw a connection between the events in some way. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:34, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * - Yes, that would work. Hog Farm Talk 23:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Right! Done! Thanks a lot! Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 23:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Plains Store
The article Battle of Plains Store you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Plains Store 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 00:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Katana Zero
FACBot informs me that Featured article candidates/Katana Zero/archive1 has been removed from the nomination page but has not been closed by the coordinator. You need to add a template. The instructions at Featured article candidates/archiving are wrong. Hawkeye7  (discuss)  01:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops. Fixed Hog Farm Talk 02:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Consider updating the documentation as well. I thought of having the FACBot handle this situation in accordance with the documentation. (Normally, though, when a nomination is not found on the nominations page, it means that the nominator has not completed the nomination.) It requires the bot to:
 * Do a list_transclusions call to determine if it is on a featured log (promoted) or archived nominations page.
 * If it is found, read the history of the archived nominations page
 * Go backwards through the history, reading each version of the page until it finds the one on which it was transcluded. The history gives the coordinator who archived the page and the time when it was done.
 * The FACBot now can proceed with processing the archived nomination as normal.
 * Hawkeye7  (discuss)  03:24, 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) 11:43, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

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

Your GA nomination of Fort Southerland
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fort Southerland 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 06:42, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Help
I would be happy for help for delete a page as author. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 01:03, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * - I can point you to what process to use if you'll indicate what article you're thinking of, although in many cases there won't be an easy option and sometimes there is not option. Hog Farm Talk 02:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your answer. The article was made by me. Now I want to delete it. Uzeyir Kemal (talk) 12:14, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * see WP:Speedy deletion, author request (t &#183; c)  buidhe  21:34, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Battle of Plains Store update
FYI: I just added the Union casualty table in the Battle of Plains Store. Djmaschek (talk) 21:19, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! It's a good bit more specific than what Winters and Blount were giving. Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2022
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2022).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AA • Gwalla • Ioeth • Laurascudder • Moriori (deceased) • Nat • Rfl
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Bureaucrat changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Lee Vilenski



Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Nihiltres

Technical news
 * is a new variable that can be used in abuse filters to avoid affecting globally active users.

Arbitration
 * An arbitration case regarding conduct in deletion-related editing has been opened.

Miscellaneous
 * The New Pages Patrol queue has around 10,000 articles to be reviewed. As all administrators have the patrol right, please consider helping out. The queue is here. For further information on the state of the project, see the latest NPP newsletter.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:28, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fort Southerland
The article Fort Southerland you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fort Southerland 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Revolutionary War, Ludington mess
I realize you are more Civil War, but don't know who else to turn to. The fable that Wikipedia was promoting (questioned since 1956) at Sybil Ludington came to my attention via Facebook hype around the Fourth of July and the "female Paul Revere" folklore. (See Pageviews at Sybil over July 4.) I had to completely rewrite Sybil to higher quality sources. This is Hunt, published in The New England Quarterly, but as you can see at Sybil Ludington, the veracity of this family- and tourism-promoted folklore was questioned as early as 1956. That information never made it into our article, and we have a proliferation of the story throughout Revolutionary War articles, including many GAs. For some reason, these GAs were promoted in spite of overuse of a "memoir" privately published by family members. Perhaps part of the problem with the GA reviews is that the citation was misleading; it implied that Harvard was the publisher, rather than indicating it was privately published by his relatives, which is explicitly stated in the title pages of the book, and discussed by Hunt. (The Harvard reference appears to be because the Google books version used was uploaded from the Harvard library.)These are the changes I made to Henry Ludington (GA), and these are the changes I made at Ludington family (GA). Battle of Ridgefield is another GA that was giving undue attention to the family account. I think the Battle of Ridgefield is OK now, not sure about the Family article, but Henry should not be a GA; I don't do GA, and don't care or intend to follow through on that. In conclusion, there is a cash cow surrounding the Sybil Ludington family account, and while I doubt there will be any pushback at Henry Ludington, Battle of Ridgefield, Ludington family, and the others (and more to be found???), there is likely to be pushback at Sybil, as money is made by towns and books promoting the family's account. For now, the articles are under control, but a) may need more watchers, and b) be on the lookout for any other articles citing the Johnson self-published Memoirs. I've been through "What links here" from Sybil, and hope to have caught most of it. This provided some mindless editing for me during the past few weeks, where IRL issues have zapped my attention span; I think I've found my sea legs now, and am hopefully back in the saddle and beginning to catch up at FAR. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  16:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've watchlisted Sybil, and will try to look into the others soon - behind at FAR and need to get caught up there (need to get to Palladian architecture and Enzyme inhibitor, and Missouri and Darjeeling will need my attention soon). Also need to get some attention to the topics surrounding Template:Campaignbox Advance on Little Rock as that campaign is in horrible shape and was a major one.  Also will be taking part of the CPA exam in a couple weeks so will be less active.  It shouldn't be too long before I can look at everything though :) Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Good luck on the exam !!! Sandy Georgia (Talk)  23:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 17:02, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas
The article Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas 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 Brownsville, Arkansas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Some (potentially) sweet tea

 * Thanks! It's definitely sweet tea. My personal recipe for tea is sweeter than Coca Cola Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! It's a lot easier to be in many places when you're as scatterbrained as I am. Hog Farm Talk 13:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Real Estate Bank of Arkansas
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Real Estate Bank of Arkansas 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 DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas
The article Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Brownsville, Arkansas 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 PCN02WPS -- PCN02WPS (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Real Estate Bank of Arkansas
The article Real Estate Bank of Arkansas 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:Real Estate Bank of Arkansas for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 16:21, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Duckport Canal
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 20 July 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Little Rock Campaign
Judging only from the title, you might find this of interest, if you have not found it already. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40007662 The Union Expedition Against Little Rock, August-September, 1863, Leo E. Huff, The Arkansas Historical Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 3 (Autumn, 1963), pp. 224-237. Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh hell, another mass deletion geostub candidate
By clicking on random article I've come across another trove of mass-created articles stubbed in from GEONAMES, this time in Bangladesh. I am NOT going through hundreds if not thousands of these by hand, not when they were run in at one very 20 seconds or so. Suggestions? Mangoe (talk) 18:53, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm always a little less sure about the non-English speaking countries, because English is frankly the only language I can functionally puzzle out (I could probably order food in Spanish, but that's about it). The only way this can feasibly be taken care of is a large bulk-deletion; it may be best to run a two or three of the worst through AFD beforehand to demonstrate a consensus that they're junk, or there may be the usual wailing and gnashing of teeth over the deletion of unverifiable two-liners built from an unreliable source. Hog Farm Talk 03:29, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Real Estate Bank of Arkansas
The article Real Estate Bank of Arkansas you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Real Estate Bank of Arkansas 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 DanCherek -- DanCherek (talk) 17:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Sickles's leg
Great article! Thanks for writing it. Krok6kola (talk) 12:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 13:26, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Front Royal
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Front Royal 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 TwoScars -- TwoScars (talk) 16:01, 25 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)

Feel better
... soon. I'll dig in to Darjeeling tomorrow-- am very post-COVID sluggish today, and hope that is not going to be the trend. When do you get Saturday results? While I was sick, I got on Sylvain Lesné, and stayed ahead of the misinformation coming out of the laypress ... a worthwhile distraction and something I could poke around in in spite of feeling ugh. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  17:27, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Made a light read-through - limited by bad internet on a work trip. Hog Farm Talk 01:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Rock campaign
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Little Rock campaign 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:02, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Little Rock campaign
The article Little Rock campaign you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Little Rock campaign 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 Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 18:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

DYK for 6th Louisiana Infantry Regiment (Confederate)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 4 August 2022 (UTC) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:32, 5 August 2022 (UTC)