User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 7

Virginian corners
In times past, Virginia was surveyed by (amongst other things) recording and blazing trees, corner trees and line trees. These were boundary markers for boundaries around places, and of course not populated places themselves. These corners could well have lived on in maps long enough that they made it into the GNIS in the 1970s. (It was expressly illegal to remove a corner tree back in the 19th century; and one important point of Virginian law was whether one could take the word of a dead person about which tree was a marker tree.)

Of course, things have a way of changing over time, but if a corner looks like it is between things rather than at them, it might well once have been a tree. Uncle G (talk) 20:14, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Corners in old metes and bounds are very interesting (they're a great clue to historical vegetation patterns), but IME in the eastern US, "X Corners" usually means "road junction near the farm(s) owned by the X family". Significant in describing the course of public roads, but not necessarily a meaningful concentration of population. Choess (talk) 20:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the "corners" in Virginia have generally been named road junctions from what I've seen. An interesting note about the survey trees is that big chunks of the Kentucky-Tennessee border were initially marked only with survey trees, which eventually got cut down/died/struck by lightning and the border had to be re-surveyed.  Border trees for small plots of land = good idea.  Border trees for a subnational border hundreds of miles long = bad idea. Hog Farm Talk 00:15, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

An LTA keeps vandalizing my talk page
Can you please block him? Thanks. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Never mind. The deed is done. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Alexandria • Happyme22 • RexxS

Guideline and policy news
 * Following a request for comment, F7 (invalid fair-use claim) subcriterion a has been deprecated; it covered immediate deletion of non-free media with invalid fair-use tags.
 * Following a request for comment, page movers were granted the delete-redirect userright, which allows moving a page over a single-revision redirect, regardless of that redirect's target.

Technical news
 * When you move a page that many editors have on their watchlist the history can be split and it might also not be possible to move it again for a while. This is because of a job queue problem.
 * Code to support some very old web browsers is being removed. This could cause issues in those browsers.

Arbitration
 * A community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure is open until April 25.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll see your California and raise you Denmark.
You think that you have it hard with oil fields? Over on User talk:Drmies Faroese would be classified as "Very Difficult Foreign". &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 08:28, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Springs made easy
See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject California/GNIS cleanup task force. Uncle G (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Milliken's Bend
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 12:02, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer to your query
You had to know about the sockmaster ILT, that is, ancient Wikipedia history :) :) Particularly plagued Victoriaearle. Sandy Georgia (Talk)  15:35, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Long-term abuse/ItsLassieTime. Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  16:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Carlossuarez46 case resolved by motion
A request for arbitration that you filed has been resolved by motion. A permanent link to the motion can be found here and the announcement can be found here. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Additionally, a suspended case has been opened at Arbitration/Requests/Case/Carlossuarez46. For the Arbitration Committee, GeneralNotability (talk) 00:40, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Battle of Independence
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Second Battle of 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Martensdale, California
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Tip on redacting user creation logs
Hi. When redacting a user creation log, you'll want to remove the username, as that is the main part of the log. 2603:6011:E00:472:E969:2260:46A0:A24F (talk) 03:15, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that was what I was attempting to do. Gonna try again, as I think that one really ought to be redacted as clearly just an attack. Hog Farm Talk 03:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Second time's the charm. Hog Farm Talk 03:20, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Could you please delete and redact the talk page I tagged for deletion? The username in question is abusive, globally locked and suppressed, and will never be unblocked. 2603:6011:E00:472:E969:2260:46A0:A24F (talk) 03:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Page deleted and log entry redacted, extreme BLP violations. I noticed that it sad that that username was not registered on this wiki, so I guess that's what global suppression does. Hog Farm Talk 03:37, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I tagged another abusive user talk page for deletion. 2603:6011:E00:472:E969:2260:46A0:A24F (talk) 04:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Done. Hog Farm Talk 04:08, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Second Battle of Independence
The article Second Battle of Independence you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Second Battle of 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXX, April 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) 02:09, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Could I get some eyes on User talk:Whitney Gaines?
User accidentally edited while logged out. New librarian user has been badgered a bit today by a well-meaning established user who noticed the new user placing uploaded images which didn't meet that user's quality standard. It would be nice if someone besides myself was encouraging to this GLAM user who means well and engages on talk. If you read the talk page you'll get it. Thanks. BusterD (talk) 01:30, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your eyes; I appreciate your kind words. This new user has had an unfortunate first experience and is choosing to blank their talk page for now. Most of the issues were out of the user's control. They didn't upload these images themself. They merely applied images their library had uploaded previously. The quality and format of these files were bound to draw the attention of someone who deeply cared about this. I attempted to get this someone to disengage but was unsuccessful. My urgency was related to a brand new user editing under their RL name who had accidentally revealed their IP address. Again, thanks for your participation. BusterD (talk) 15:25, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Is there any spot where some revdels of the accidentally revealed IP address is needed? Hog Farm Talk 16:23, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * On the talk page I see the user made three edits while logged out. The two edits after 08:20 local time seem to WHOIS as residential, whereas the single edit this morning seems to be an educational server. This sort of thing is above my pay grade but I think all three might need hiding. New users, real names and their ip addresses are a bad recipe, IMHO. BusterD (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - I've hidden them in the logs. If they signed those contributions, there could be other issues. Hog Farm Talk 16:55, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

CSD
Hello Hog Farm. I was looking around and noticed Big Jake (lobster), since it's been a while since I ventured into the CSD area, I was wondering if you thought either db-a7 or db-event would be acceptable for that article. — Ched (talk) 11:40, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm actually not that confident with the A7 speedy criteria - I haven't nominated an A7 since October 2020. Merging a sentence to Largest organisms might be a way to deal with it (although some of the AP stories about Big Jake report a 44 lb lobster).  There's some coverage in old newspapers, although it's mainly reprints of the same two or three AP stories.  Likely enough to avoid an A7, which is a pretty low bar. Hog Farm Talk 14:19, 21 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you. I think I now have a better feel for the current atmosphere to some degree.  I appreciate your time, TY and Best. — Ched (talk) 14:36, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Your list
Cryptic has an SQL query. Uncle G (talk) 05:03, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Administrators' noticeboard

URFA talk links
You have my permission to delete mine, too wherever you find them on that page ... sometimes I forget to remove them, or am iPad editing which makes it difficult. Bst, Sandy Georgia (Talk)  18:39, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown
Congrats on the Triple Crown(s)! You might be interested in a userbox I made, :

— Bilorv ( talk ) 20:32, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks! I didn't even know I qualified. Hog Farm Talk 00:31, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * is to thank, for this edit. — Bilorv ( talk ) 00:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

William Lyon Mackenzie review
Hi Hog Farm, JS has stated on my talk page that they are finished their FAC review of William Lyon Mackenzie. Instead of a ping, I'm leaving this message here. I hope you will review the article by clicking here. Thanks! (HF's talk page lurkers are also invited to review the FAC!) Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Will get to soon, probably during one of my college classes this week. Hog Farm Talk 03:00, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Pohick
It's one of those things that, once one knows what to search for, turns up all over the place, such as ISBN 9780738532561 page 97, for example, and ISBN 9781603540476 page 414. Enjoy expanding. Uncle G (talk) 18:19, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I had gotten the impression it was a rail location, and it's hard to find coverage for a historic building when you're location for rail stuff.  Now that it's clear what Pohick was, it should be a lot easier to find material to work into the NRHP article. Hog Farm Talk 18:22, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * There is so much to just triage. I have not yet had the chance to even revisit  and .  Uncle G (talk) 18:35, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I've decided with the Missouri ones to just make a list of ones that need potential attention.  It's a mess.  A lot of the Missouri represents represent actual historic communities, but the focus on quantity over quality is the problem.  I'd rather have 50 articles that clearly and accurately state the history of a historic community than 500 that just say "X is a place in Y".  It's hard to triage articles when you not only have to find sources, but you have to ID the site first.  Take Sinsabaugh, Missouri - Ramsay calls Sinsabaugh a lumber switch served by the Acorn P.O.  He then calls Acorn a P.O. that served the Sinsabaugh station.  But he also says that Acorn was equivalent to a lumber switch named Slagle.  So it's gonna take a good bit of research on my part to untangle the whole Sinsabaugh/Slagle/Acorn mess. Hog Farm Talk 20:49, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I've researched some difficult stuff in my day, but that list is quite hard. I found a fairly good source for old towns in California, by the way, even if only their names and that they are towns.  See . Uncle G (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 May newsletter
The second round of the 2021 WikiCup has now finished; it was a high-scoring round and contestants needed 61 points to advance to Round 3. There were some impressive efforts in the round, with the top eight contestants all scoring more than 400 points. A large number of the points came from the 12 featured articles and the 110 good articles achieved in total by contestants, as well as the 216 good article reviews they performed; the GAN backlog drive and the stay-at-home imperative during the COVID-19 pandemic may have been partially responsible for these impressive figures.

Our top scorers in Round 2 were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 2963 points from three featured articles, 20 featured article reviews, 37 good articles, 73 good article reviews, as well as 22 DYKs.
 * Epicgenius, with 1718 points from one featured article, 29 good articles, 16 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 990 points from 13 DYKs and 64 "In the news" items, mostly recent deaths.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 834 points from two featured articles, five good articles, 14 featured article reviews and 15 good article reviews.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 524 points from two featured articles and four featured article reviews.
 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski, with 501 points from one featured article, three good articles, six featured article reviews and 25 good article reviews.
 * Transgender Pride flag.svg Sammi Brie, with 485 points from four good articles, eight good article reviews and 27 DYKs, on US radio and television stations.
 * Flag of the United Nations.svg Ktin, with 436 points from four good articles, seven DYKs and 11 "In the news" items.

Please remember 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 (except for at the end of each round, when you must claim them before the cut-off date/time). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:27, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

FAC
Hi, I noticed you said on Sandy's talk page that you were looking for FACs to review. I wonder if you'd be willing to consider reviewing my FAC for Assassination of Talat Pasha? It's only tangentially milhist related but very dramatic. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  02:18, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Reynolds
Uncle G (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Enchanter • Carlossuarez46

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Ragesoss

Guideline and policy news
 * Following an RfC, consensus was found that third party appeals are allowed but discouraged.
 * The 2021 Desysop Policy RfC was closed with no consensus. Consensus was found in a previous RfC for a community based desysop procedure, though the procedure proposed in the 2021 RfC did not gain consensus.

Technical news
 * The user group  will be renamed to  . This is for technical reasons. You can comment at  if you have objections.

Arbitration
 * The community consultation on the Arbitration Committee discretionary sanctions procedure was closed, and an initial draft based on feedback from the now closed consultation is expected to be released in early June to early July for community review.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Local history books
Not cheap. &#9786; Uncle G (talk) 21:40, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm a Missouri resident, so I could likely track down some county histories in public county libraries. Many county/regional libraries have good stocks of local history books, so once I get that list completed, it would be fairly easy to in-library-use local history books (I travel some in Missouri for work). Looks like that particular one is held in four cities. Hog Farm Talk 21:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Smithe Redwoods State Natural Reserve
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:03, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If you thought that this and were extraordinary, you have not seen anything.  I've found the rename and refactor target for . Uncle G (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like there may be support for keeping Goltra as a stand-alone stub, as is, with no evidence for it being a community and no real expansion beyond a description of where it is. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Going Largo
I have just discovered an entire area of California. Uncle G (talk) 07:06, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Eyes on my splitting of Battle of Cabin Creek please
Based on the stale discussion on talk, today I split the page into the three articles seen on what is now a disambiguation page. I plan to do work on all three pages over time (ex: adding brief preservation sections to the two battle pages), but seeing as how you asserted support in the discussion, I'd appreciate it if you looked at the rough work and provide feedback there if you see something obvious. Might take you a minute or two. Thanks in any event. BusterD (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - The split looks fine to me. Thanks for doing that. Hog Farm Talk 21:44, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure; I appreciate your looking. You have been doing yeoman work, my friend. It has been a while since we had new blood in the ACW contributor mix. Your efforts are inspiring me to get more active. If I can be of any service, please call on me. Thanks again. BusterD (talk) 21:48, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Fog Harm
I'm really sorry, I saw your name and this was the first thing I thought. I had to leave the comment "Fog Harm" here. I don't mean to mock you or anything, I just laugh because of really stupid letter changes. Wetrorave (talk) 18:18, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women review
Hi Hog Farm. Earlier in the year you were so kind to review for FAC my Arsenal Women 11–1 Bristol City Women nomination. You kindly added "pass on source formatting, reliability, source-text integrity, and the copyrights policy" but the nomination failed. I have nominated it again after a peer review. It has a few supports now, but I was hoping you could have a quick look again. Here is a |comparison between versions. Thanks! Edwininlondon (talk) 06:57, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RfC List of military disasters
Hi Hog Farm. Could you take a look at the closing result of the RfC on the talk page? I don’t understand, I thought RfCs are not a democratic vote. There is a source specifically calling Vukovar a military catastrophe and it is a peer reviewed source. How is it invalid? The operation Vukovar” therefore became the biggest catastrophe in the military history of that army. It also presented a turning point of international public opinion in favour of Croatia, contributing significantly to launching of procedure for recognition of Croatian and Slovenian independence." Kosta Nikolić: New Documents on the War in Vukovar in 1991.OyMosby (talk) 10:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Tommy John
Changes addressed! Thanks for picking this up! Let me know if anything more is needed! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Galveston Harbor (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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

"black goo"
Hi Hog Farm, just curious what you mean by "black goo" in this edit. Victoria (tk) 20:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * (hope you don't mind the ping) - It's quoting SandyGeorgia from a different FAR from a few months ago. Kinda the image of things sadly melting away. The imagery reminds me of the stuff that sometimes forms on the bottom of old ponds from basically accumulated neglect. Hog Farm Talk 21:03, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was that bad and there were extenuating circumstances. Anyway, thanks for the explanation. Victoria (tk) 21:05, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I didn't think it was in particularly bad shape, either. I didn't mean "black goo" to be a reflection on the article's content, but more on the sadness of the gradual decay of what use to be some of Wikipedia's finest content. Hog Farm Talk 21:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. That makes sense. I don't think decay is the issue here as much as other factors. It's not been a particularly well traveled page but does seem to have been recently rediscovered. Victoria (tk) 17:03, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi to both ... after an extremely busy month, I am starting to make an effort to catch up, but it's hard to know what to prioritize ... please let me know of anything urgent I may have missed. My house and garden have never looked better ... that was one heck of a case of spring cleaning fever I got, along with the delivery of ten yards of mulch :) Bst, Sandy Georgia  (Talk)  21:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXI, May 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) 00:57, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Henderson Hall Historic District
— Maile (talk) 00:02, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Willie Mays
Per your request from the peer review, wanted to let you know that I just nominated Willie Mays for FA status again. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * - Will get to soon, once I finish off some other things I'm working on. Feel free to leave me a reminder message if I haven't started a review within a week. Hog Farm Talk 20:43, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Sometime in the coming months when you get a chance, could you evaluate the Mays article under the criteria you didn't check in the most recent FA review? The most recent FA review closed due to a lack of supports; I am thinking a lot of people didn't have time at the moment to go through it. This way, you could do it at your leisure, as opposed to within a certain amount of time. Let me know! Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

GNIS
Enjoy Reliability of GNIS data/Robert M. Rennick Manuscript Collection. I have done one for Ramsay, too. Uncle G (talk) 17:40, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That looks useful. I've created the shortcuts WP:RENNICK and WP:RAMSAY to easier use at pointing to those explanations for AFDs. Hog Farm Talk 19:56, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Reynolds Wayside Campground
—valereee (talk) 12:03, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862)
The article Battle of Galveston Harbor (1862) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Galveston Harbor (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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Very hard challenge
Uncle G (talk) 16:52, 30 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Ogle, Kentucky
 * - I'm not entirely sure what this is, either. Rennick says that it wasn't a town, but then says it had a couple stores.  Searching in old newspapers, I can find some evidence supporting that there was at least one store there, and there's some older stuff in trivial "local news" listings about people from Ogle getting married, etc.  Can find some stuff relating to the PO in the time from 1893 to 1906, and have added a source indicating when the PO was opened.  A few references to people "of Ogle" being killed in accidents, as well (as late as a soldier from Ogle getting killed in a military training accident in the early 1950s).  But I can find no significant coverage, and topos show basically nothing there. Hog Farm Talk 18:26, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Deletion of "Hoffmann Mineral"
Dear HogFarm, on June 4, the article "Hoffmann Mineral" was deleted. The page contains information about a company that has existed since 1903 and sells its unique products worldwide. The company is currently managed in the 3rd generation and is an important institution for the city of "Neuburg an der Donau". Just because two users think that this company is not worth mentioning, this article does not have to be deleted. I would be happy if you would reconsider the deletion.

--NinaSeitle (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Wikipedia's guidelines for notability of companies to be included in the encyclopedia are WP:NCORP and WP:ORGCRIT. None of the things mentioned above automatically pass those two guidelines.  Essentially, you'll need to find multiple sources from reliable organizations where both the source and the content are not associated with or produced by Hoffmann.  These sources also need to be in-depth (primarily about the company and not other things).  You'll also want to make sure that the sources aren't from government regulators or courts.  They also need to be about non-routine events; sources that just say the company appointed a new director or issued stock aren't significant enough.  I see that Draft:Hoffmann Mineral exists, although the sourcing doesn't look to be up to those guidelines at the moment.  I would recommend that you add stronger sourcing into the article to show that it meets those two criteria and then send the article through WP:AFC where it will be reviewed.  If you think I made an error in closing the discussion, you can create a listing at WP:DRV where the accuracy of the closing would be discussed. Hog Farm Talk 03:07, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Hello HogFarm I have updated the sources. I would be happy if you could take another look at my new Draft:Hoffmann_Mineral. NinaSeitle (talk) 08:59, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't read German, so I don't feel confident doing a full source assessment. Sending it through WP:AFC for review and then leaving a note at WT:GERMANY to see if anyone there would be able to take a look at it would be your best bet. Hog Farm Talk 21:10, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Bravo! Well-deserved. BusterD (talk) 07:53, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Excellent work. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  07:57, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, all! Hog Farm Talk 01:17, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – June 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (May 2021). Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Ashleyyoursmile • Less Unless
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Husond • MattWade • MJCdetroit • Carioca • Vague Rant • Kingboyk • Thunderboltz • Gwen Gale • AniMate • SlimVirgin (deceased)

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus was reached to deprecate Editor assistance.
 * Following a Request for Comment the Book namespace was deprecated.

Technical news
 * Wikimedia previously used the IRC network Freenode. However, due to changes over who controlled the network with reports of a forceful takeover by several ex-staff members, the Wikimedia IRC Group Contacts decided to move to the new Libera Chat network. It has been reported that Wikimedia related channels on Freenode have been forcibly taken over if they pointed members to Libera. There is a migration guide and Wikimedia discussions about this.

Arbitration
 * After a Clarification request, the Arbitration Committee modified Remedy 5 of the Antisemitism in Poland case. This means sourcing expectations are a discretionary sanction instead of being present on all articles. It also details using the talk page or the Reliable Sources Noticeboard to discuss disputed sources.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:45, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Wises Landing, Kentucky
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:02, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Willing to review the Armenian genocide article?
Thanks for your review on the Assassination of Talat Pasha article. Now the Armenian genocide A-class review just needs one more support before I can get it promoted and go on to FAC. I would greatly appreciate your help (although it is a rather gory subject, I totally understand if you don't want to review it.) (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:07, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Will try to get to soon. I've got a ACR for a British infantry division I promised some days ago on the list first, but Armenian Genocide will be second on there. Hog Farm Talk 14:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Battle of Blenheim
Battle of Blenheim, which you have contributed to, has been nominated for TFA. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Byram's Ford
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Byram's Ford you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 10:20, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Byram's Ford
The article Battle of Byram's Ford 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 Byram's Ford for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Byram's Ford
The article Battle of Byram's Ford you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Byram's Ford 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 06:21, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXII, June 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) 03:07, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Hancock
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Hancock you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)

Destubbing ACW Articles; Battle of Tebbs Bend Monument
I wasn't sure whether to leave a message on the talk page of your list, or here. I'll go with your preference if I have more thoughts.

I thought I would mention that perhaps Battle of Tebbs Bend Monument might be merged into the battle article and, since it is an existing article, turned into a redirect. I have seen a few such battlefield monument or related topics at the end of a few battle articles. Not long before the pandemic, I was at the monument with a group and a local historian. It is about the only preserved land at Tebbs Bend, although the area is still rural. Besides the monument's interesting history, the location is a great vantage point for an explanation of the battle, which did not take place over a large area. The highway running alongside the monument was key to the battle. Of course, the article could just be left as it is but I doubt that it could be expanded much. Because of my experience with the visit to the monument, I favor keeping some mention of it in the battle article or remaining on its own. Donner60 (talk) 04:55, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * - Either spot is fine - the list is currently battles in the stub category including some ones I've been stub sorting into there, but other sections can be added as well. I'll try to take a look to see if the battle monument can be expanded much (I was able to expand the obscure First Battle of Newtonia Historic District and Second Battle of Newtonia Site from redirects into GAs, so maybe there's some stuff out there). I don't think it hurts anything to keep a NRHP item as a separate article, although a merge wouldn't harm anything if it does turn out to be unexpandable. Hog Farm Talk 13:50, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I noted that I had a soft spot for the monument, having actually been there. Your note of NRHP status is also significant.
 * I will be working on at least a few other articles on your list in the near future, including your AFD nominations. I've commented "delete" with reasons on one that you listed, Skirmish at Adam's Bluff.
 * Also, Battle of Clark's House had nothing to do with Jackson's Valley Campaign and I will comment on that. Dyer and Long show two skirmishes on May 1, 1862, at Clark's Hollow and Camp Creek, and do not list an action at Clark's House. Despite the CWSAC battle description, Battle of Princeton Court House also had nothing to do with Jackson's Valley Campaign. Both the May 1 and May 15-17 actions were fought by different commands at locations more than 100 miles from the actions by units of the two armies involved in the Valley Campaign at McDowell and Franklin. I will delete the mentions of the campaign in the articles about Clark's House and Princeton Court House, with explanations. The only coincidence that I see is that they occurred during the same time period in what was then western Virginia (now Mercer County, West Virginia v. Pendleton County, West Virginia, so again, not near the Valley Campaign locations).
 * Thanks for your attention to the monument article and your unbounded energy and contributions to the project. Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Hancock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Army of the Northwest.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

GAN Backlog Drive - July 2021
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2021 (UTC)

The consensus was "Keep" on Ron Anderson (voice coach)
I do not understand why you closed Articles for deletion/Ron Anderson (voice coach) as "No consensus." More discussion would have been good, but there were two policy-based "Keep" arguments and no "Delete" !votes. nominated it for failing ANYBIO. After I showed that Anderson passes NCREATIVE1, Mccapra agreed. During the discussion, I and others also reduced the reliance on bad sources, finding several new RS. Can you explain your reasoning for "No consensus"?HouseOfChange (talk) 07:23, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * There's no point in contesting a no-consensus close as it defaults to the status quo. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  07:54, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks,, good to see you again! I agree that the practical outcome of "No consensus" is the same as "Keep." But I am asking to understand the puzzling decision. There are lots of AfD arcana I don't know yet, so probably this is a new example. HouseOfChange (talk) 10:39, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - My rationale here was that it's not 100% clear what intended to mean by Ok that makes sense.  Did it mean something along the lines of "Subject is notable" or did it mean "I understand your argument now"?  They clearly didn't withdraw the nomination or outright state the article should be kept, so the simple statement can't be interpreted strictly as the former with no other elaboration.  The discussion needed to be treated with Mccapra's implicit delete !vote from the nomination as still outstanding, meaning that there was no clear consensus to keep.  But there certainly wasn't a consensus to delete.  With the discussion having been open for three weeks, it seemed that additional time open wasn't super likely to lead to more involvement, so I closed it as no consensus.  Essentially, because Mccapra's statement could be understand multiple ways, the delete had to be assumed to be outstanding, resulting in no consensus at the discussion. Hog Farm Talk 17:14, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Apologies for being ambiguous. I did indeed mean ‘I see your point’ not that I was persuaded of it. Mccapra (talk) 18:04, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I understand your reasoning now, although I do not agree that consensus required unanimity. It is rare for any AfD filer to change his mind. But, as Buidhe said, it doesn't matter to this article. Thanks for clarifying. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:09, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Scorpionism
Hello, just wanted to ask you to confirm your position regarding merging Scorpionism before moving ahead since you raised a valid question. I asked at Talk:Scorpionism but you did not reply, so I thought I'd best say something here before making any assumptions. Scyrme (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 July newsletter
The third round of the 2021 WikiCup has now come to an end. Each of the sixteen contestants who made it into the fourth round had at least 294 points, and our top six scorers all had over 600 points. They were:


 * 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man, with 1825 points from 3 featured articles, 44 featured article reviews, 14 good articles, 30 good article reviews and 10 DYKs. In addition, he completed a 34-article good topic on the EFL Championship play-offs.
 * Epicgenius, a New York specialist, with 1083 points from 2 featured article reviews, 18 good articles, 30 DYKs and plenty of bonus points.
 * Bloom6132, with 869 points from 11 DYKs, all with bonus points, and 54 "In the news" items, mostly covering people who had recently died.
 * Standard of Oliver Cromwell (1653–1659).svg Gog the Mild, with 817 points from 3 featured articles on historic battles in Europe, 5 featured article reviews and 3 good articles.
 * Bennington Flag.svg Hog Farm, with 659 points from 2 featured articles and 2 good articles on American Civil War battles, 18 featured article reviews, 2 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 4 DYKs.
 * ICS Zulu.svg BennyOnTheLoose, a snooker specialist and new to the Cup, with 647 points from a featured article, 2 featured article reviews, 6 good articles, 6 good article reviews and 3 DYKs.

In round three, contestants achieved 19 featured articles, 7 featured lists, 106 featured article reviews, 72 good articles, 1 good topic, 62 good article reviews, 165 DYKs and 96 ITN items. We enter the fourth round with scores reset to zero; 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 (one contestant in round 3 lost out because of this). 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. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Judges: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) and Cwmhiraeth Cwmhiraeth (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – July 2021
News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2021).

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg Trialpears
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • Eliz81 • Mulad • ThaddeusB • Vianello • Who
 * Pictogram voting rename.png →

Interface administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg Ragesoss



CheckUser changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK • DGG

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg AGK

Guideline and policy news
 * Consensus has been reached to delete all books in the book namespace. There was rough consensus that the deleted books should still be available on request at WP:REFUND even after the namespace is removed.
 * An RfC is open to discuss the next steps following a trial which automatically applied pending changes to TFAs.

Technical news
 * IP addresses of unregistered users are to be hidden from everyone. There is a rough draft of how IP addresses may be shown to users who need to see them. This currently details allowing administrators, checkusers, stewards and those with a new usergroup to view the full IP address of unregistered users. Editors with at least 500 edits and an account over a year old will be able to see all but the end of the IP address in the proposal. The ability to see the IP addresses hidden behind the mask would be dependent on agreeing to not share the parts of the IP address they can see with those who do not have access to the same information. Accessing part of or the full IP address of a masked editor would also be logged. Comments on the draft are being welcomed at the talk page.

Arbitration
 * The community authorised COVID-19 general sanctions have been superseded by the COVID-19 discretionary sanctions following a motion at a case request. Alerts given and sanctions placed under the community authorised general sanctions are now considered alerts for and sanctions under the new discretionary sanctions.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

ArchiveSent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)