User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 8

Unreviewed medicine FAs
Hi Hog Farm, just dropping by for a brief follow-up to this exchange. I've not kept up with the project at Unreviewed featured articles/2020, but I'm happy to help with the medicine articles. I certainly don't have Sandy's rolodex, but I've got a general sense of who is interested in what among the medicine editors. I'll try to keep an eye on at least one old medicine FA at a time. Is Acute myeloid leukemia where I should start? I think(?) it's the oldest medicine FAC/FAR date on the URFA page, but I might've missed another. More importantly, I hope all is well on your end! Ajpolino (talk) 00:14, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , That seems as good a place as any. We're keeping another list of FAs noticed to need improvement at WP:FAR/notices given. The oldest medicine article on that list is Alzheimer's disease, noticed on 2020-07-29. I think a lot of us are reluctant to nominate medicine articles at FAR because of Sandy's concerns about overloading medicine editors with too many at a time, but you know a lot better than most of us about that workflow. (t &#183; c)  buidhe  01:19, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

A more detailed list of the older list of medical-related FAs by last review date:


 * 2006
 * Michael Woodruff - surgeon who worked with organ transplants
 * Acute myeloid leukemia - noticed for potential FAR
 * Influenza


 * 2007
 * Coeliac disease
 * Metabolism
 * DNA
 * Autism - noticed for potential FAR
 * Polio

Alzheimer's disease was last reviewed in 2008. Hog Farm Talk 04:34, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * To give the closest thing I've got to Sandy's rolodex, her sandbox (sandybox?) has a lot. I brought it up on WT:MED, because Lung cancer is scheduled for TFA in August but is one she has concerns about. Not sure every case of "needs review" here should be read as needing FAR -- some are explicitly about relatively minor matters -- but certainly at least ones that warrant checking through. Vaticidalprophet 15:13, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think a lot of the need review instances are ones that need checked for just general stuff such as updating, not necessarily FAR. I don't know her full plan, though. Hog Farm Talk 18:30, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Got it. Thanks for the list. We're working on organizing some improvements at Acute myeloid leukemia. I'll start to look into the others. In the meantime, I think Alzheimer's disease is ready for FAR. Sandy posted all over the place to try to gin up some interest (I could only dig up this one from memory, but I think she posted a few times). I found a subject expert in real life who reviewed the article, laid out her plan, then got sidetracked by real life and probably isn't coming back any time soon. Sadly, there doesn't seem to be much interest in neurological diseases among the current medicine editors, so I don't think anyone is likely to adopt the article. I'll try to formulate an FAR nomination. Heads up to HF and buidhe, it's my first nomination so if I break something important I hope you'll jump in to fix it. Ajpolino (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Brian Traxler
Made all changes; thanks for the review! Let me know if anything more is needed.

Also, thanks for letting me know about Willie Mays. I feel like I'm in the same boat with you as far as images go. I always get annoyed when people ask what makes them appropriate (I don't know...I assume you're the expert...figure it out yourself!). :) Thanks for all the lookovers you've done with the Mays article. Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 21:35, 4 July 2021 (UTC)

Darnestown, Maryland
Hog Farm - Thank you for reviewing for GA the article Darnestown, Maryland. I see you have reviewed some of my GAs before, and you are also have an article getting reviewed for GA. A question: I use Microsoft Word and a Wikipedia tool called Highlight Duplicate Links on articles, and used to have an automated peer review macro. Are there any additional tools or macros that I should be using? TwoScars (talk) 15:22, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I personally don't use a whole lot of tools for it. I've got the highlight duplicate links as well, I sometimes use Word for a few things, and I use a Wikipedia tool called Link Classifier to check for links to dab pages and such.  I also sometimes bribe one of my friends with food to proofread my stuff.  I use the free Wikipedia Library for research a good bit, too. Hog Farm Talk 16:07, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hog Farm - Thanks for reviewing Darnestown, Maryland. The volume of work you do is amazing! TwoScars (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

1997 New Mexico's 3rd congressional district special election GA review
Hog Farm, thanks for reviewing this article nine months (!!) ago. I've emerged from the bowels of real life to come back to Wikipedia, and I've addressed the comments you left on the review back then. If there's any other sources (like the corona beer one) that you'd like to review, I'm happy to pull them for you and send them your way, but I think it should be in a much better place now.

I'm sorry to have left it dormant so long, really appreciate all the work you put into the review. Thanks so much.  Nomader  ( talk ) 18:37, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Looks like most things have gotten addressed. Since the review was closed, you'll need to renominate, but if you ping me when you renominate it I'll pick up the review again and make one last read-through.  Should be pretty close to passing. Hog Farm Talk 00:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I went ahead and renominated, really appreciate it.  Nomader  ( talk ) 02:27, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Indianola (1862)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Indianola (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) 12:20, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

GA sweeps
Hey HF -- I've been considering the concept of a GA sweep extensively lately (people might've noticed), and I'm starting to draft an idea of what a workable plan to look for substandard GAs and maintain/raise/create (depending on your level of cynicism) GA standards would look like. I suspect this is something you might be interested in, so I'm dumping my workshopping at User:Vaticidalprophet/GA reform here for you (and talk page stalkers?) to see if you think this is heading in a viable direction. (Ignore the "crackpot scratchpad" -- or don't, if you want -- but it's a much more speculative and unformed "bounce some stuff and see what's interesting" set of ideas, rather than the relatively crystallized sweeps.) I think successive sweeps each individually broken down into the thousand-ish highest priority articles is a workable idea if we can get some productive and dedicated people on board (but getting productive and dedicated people on board is always the sticking point, isn't it? the original sweeps had one guy assess 10% of all GAs). I've also been contemplating lately the last point -- how the rapidly rising number of GAs represents an insufficient number of articles taken to/passing FAC as well as insufficient reassessment of older or at-risk GAs -- and at what can be done to solve that problem as well. Vaticidalprophet 10:48, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Will give some thoughts over there. As to (talk page stalkers?) there's supposedly 40 of them according to some pageviews stats I just yanked, but I can't fathom which 40 people would possibly be watching this page Hog Farm Talk 16:13, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Indianola (1862)
The article USS Indianola (1862) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS Indianola (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) 17:21, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Hancock
Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)

You'll know
I think it's pretty safe to say that if you had messed anything up then it would pretty quickly be made apparent. And for the record? I think you've been doing a fantastic job. — Ched (talk) 09:25, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I would second that. Hog Farm's quality and quantity of work shamed me into action, because I've been here a while and am not making the kinds of edits I might. I've been impressed with Hog Farm's maturity and good common sense as administrator. Great work, dude! BusterD (talk) 11:26, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. Drmies (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the very nice words, everyone. Hog Farm Talk 19:49, 11 July 2021 (UTC)

Skirmish at Adamstown
Just wanted to say I have been offline and just saw your question. E.B. Long, The Civil War Day by Day, shows a skirmish at Adamstown, MD on October 14, 1864. As in almost all instances where a minor action is noted, Long shows no further details. This occurred the day after Mosby took up a section of the B&O Railroad near Kearneysville, west of Harper's Ferry, seized $173,000 from two Union Army paymasters and burned a train, according to Long. That certainly puts Mosby and company in the same area the day before the skirmish but that doesn't necessarily mean they were involved. As you noted, the Battle of Cedar Creek was only five days later so the skirmish would not seem to be connected to the Shenandoah Valley campaign of 1864. I will look into this further tonight. Donner60 (talk) 22:30, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Definitely Mosby. Sifakis, Compendium of the Confederate Armies, Virginia, page 146, shows 43rd Cavalry Battalion, Partisan Rangers, in action at Adamstown on October 14, 1864. I think McCausland may have been Mosby's nominal commanding officer. I should have been more confident I could find at least something more quickly. I'll look for further details. Donner60 (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Searching Google books brings up some action with Mosby there on July 30, 1864 (the same day McCausland burned Chambersburg, Pa.) So searching may be difficult.  I think my dad has a bio of Mosby at his house, but I recently moved out on my own and don't have much on the war in the east (mainly Vicksburg and Trans-Mississippi, with a little Gettysburg and Chancellorsville). This, which was supposedly first published in America's Civil War, states that Mosby was in an action with some trains at Duffields Depot on the same day as the Adamstown skirmish, which is supported by this NRHP nomination form.  Google maps says that Duffields Depot is about 26 miles from Adamstown, so Mosby was still in the general area.  Worst case scenario, if nothing substantial can be found, the skirmish article might be a candidate to redirect/merge to Adamstown, Maryland where it is briefly mentioned. Hog Farm Talk 22:55, 11 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I found some more on this.
 * Mosby’s raid on the B&O may have started on October 13 with destruction of track but Long did not note that the train robbery, the so-called "Greenback Raid", occurred on October 14. Virgil Carrington Jones in "Ranger Mosby," p. 218 notes that the "train crash" was at 2:15 a.m. On page 219, Jones wrote:


 * The attack on the train had a telling effect of the Federals at Washington. Fear for the safety of the railroad was general and for a time transportation along the B&O came to a virtual standstill. This had been due partly to a raid conducted on the 14th by William Chapman. He dashed into Maryland, destroyed several canal boats, plundered store houses, scatted the Loudoun Rangers and returned safely to Virginia while enemy troops were waiting to ambush him at a ford higher up the river.


 * On pages 207-8 of James A. Ramage, "Gray Ghost, The Life of Col. John Singleton Mosby," this is written:


 * On the same day William Chapman and eighty men took advantage of a second hole in Sheridan’s picket line, a twenty-five mile gap along the Potomac River from Great Falls to the Monocacy River....With no challenge Chapman crossed at White’s Ford, burned five empty canal boats, and at Adamstown, Maryland on the B&O cut the telegraph line and plundered two stores. No trains were running, as Mosby’s raid earlier that morning had halted traffic. On the return to the Potomac the raiders skirmished with a party of the Loudoun Rangers, but, as with Mosby’s party, Chapman had no casualties. Halleck ordered the paymasters in Martinsburg to return to Harpers Ferry, and Sheridan’s army had to wait a few days for their pay.


 * There are a few paragraphs about the aftermath. A detail is that Augur’s cavalry captured Mosby’s four artillery pieces on the same day. Mosby hadn’t had much use for the four pieces which he had captured from the Union a few months earlier. He had no more artillery during the remainder of the war.


 * This is from the Wikipedia article on the Loudoun Rangers.


 * The Loudoun Rangers, also known as Mean's Rangers for their commander, Samuel C. Means, was a partisan cavalry unit raised in Loudoun County, Virginia, that fought for the Union during the American Civil War. The Rangers have the distinction of being the only unit raised in present-day Virginia to serve in the Union Army....In 1864 the Rangers were absorbed into regular service, leading to Means' departure. Daniel Keyes subsequently took his place as leader of the outfit." (Exactly when this change of command occurred is not stated in the article but perhaps a reference can be found. The Greenback Raid was in October so it might be surmised that Keyes was already in command.)


 * Some years ago, I had thought that the Greenback Raid, and repercussions, were likely notable enough for a separate article but I haven’t gotten around to writing it. The Adamstown skirmish was related to that raid on the same day. Perhaps a decent little article can be written about it, the skirmish and the aftermath. The Adamstown skirmish could then be included in a Greenback raid article since it was contemporaneous and related. I will note it on my to do list since it is an interesting incident and may not take a long time to write. Donner60 (talk) 00:17, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be a good place to interpret that. Unfortunately, I don't have access to the sort of print sources that would be helpful for that, but I can try to see if I can get something through interlibrary loan if there's a source you need and are lacking. Hog Farm Talk 00:27, 12 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think I have enough on it. The notes above do not exhaust the references that I have that could have something, especially on the Greenback Raid, if not the Adamstown skirmish. I thought I should mention, although you probably know this, that Chapman was one of Mosby's chief lieutenants. So the two actions must have been coordinated. You have taken on quite a lot with the stub project so I appreciate your offer but I think you can spend the time on other articles. We should be able do away with the Adamstown skirmish as a stub article soon. By the way, I wasn't surprised to see that EightNations...started this article too. He must have had access to Dyer, possibly online, and decided he could make many articles out of that. I suspect he was a relatively young child when he undertook to add articles to Wikipedia and really wasn't up to it. Donner60 (talk) 01:28, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in my RFA
I had a visual just now of you and CaptainEek racing to be the first to endorse my candidacy. That it was you two is a pleasant thing to me. I am in a sort of meta-retreat mode now, with my creative gumption low but a need to express gratitude high. I just did a contested AfD reclose but felt pretty confident about it. Please be the one to tell me when my fly is down. BusterD (talk) 20:59, 13 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the AFD close looks good. And yes, I was hoping to be the first support, but lost out due to slow internet at work. Hog Farm Talk 03:19, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

Conclusion of the American Civil War
I notice you edit a lot of American Civil War articles and bring many to Good Article status. The above article I created in 2009 and brought to Good Article status in 2010. I also helped brought to Good Article status Australia and the American Civil War.--Doug Coldwell (talk) 11:05, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I found both to be very interesting. I actually wasn't familiar with the Australia angle before reading that! Hog Farm Talk 23:35, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Navjivan (weekly) and Navjivan (Neighbourhood)
Hi Hog Farm. I noticed that you removed the red links of Navjivan from several articles (including Mahadev Desai and Kishansinh Chavda). The article deleted under this AfD is Navjivan (Neighbourhood), a place in Ahmedabad. While the 'Navjivan' (a redirect which is now deleted) was a weekly newspaper in founded by Mahatma Gandhi (also in Ahmedabad). For information, see the lead section of Navajivan Trust. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 12:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I have recreated a redirect at that title to Navajivan Trust and then added back the links to the two articles you named. If there are others that need the links to the newspaper restored, all you'll need to do is add the links back. Hog Farm Talk 23:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Request for your opinion
Hello Hog Farm, I apologize for an unexpected message but I simply wanted to ask your 3rd party opinion as a Wikipedia admin on this concern I have:

User by the username of BaxçeyêReş made this edit, where I am particularly concerned about the "your nation's germinal vitriol'" sentence in reference to the country of Azerbaijan. Personally, it seemed to me like a racist sentence to make, given the user referred to a "nation" and not a government, for example. I posted my intention to seek administrative action on the user's talk page in this edit, which was just reverted. The user also has edit the history of removing Azerbaijani names from Caucasus villages and locations, which in itself is not a problem if proper reasoning is provided, by combined with the above sentence looks concerning.

The user also made this statement: "I will continue to crush you and your vitriol every time you re-join Wikipedia", which also I thought is bizarre. The user also informed me of their intention to report me to ANI here immediately after I informed them of my intention, which again seems like bad conduct.

I am asking for your opinion, what do you think? I think a clear breach of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I also want to ask more people but since you're an admin I wanted to contact you first.

Edit: please also note these   on Kurdish wikipedia, where the user states: "Azerbaijan is worth as much as dirt", "Azerbaijani articles were created by god to be vandalized" and "you are a dirty prostitue ElijaM".

Thank you in advance. - WimpyDood (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Removing "Azerbaijani names" is an act of virtue when they are unsourced or even made-up by random IP addresses and hour-old accounts out of Baku.
 * As I have mentioned to you before, WimpyDood/Creffel, anti-Armenian attitudes are deeply entrenched in Azerbaijani society. When you have a user like EljanM, whose sockpuppets repeatedly claim Armenia as "part of Azerbaijan", try to erase century-old Armenian names from Wikipedia, and continuously attack users, it becomes clear that my words are not only justified, but true. Azerbaijan does have a history of germnial vitriol against Armenians, among others (my own Kurdish family was chased away from Karabakh by Azerbaijani armed forces [believe it or not, WimpyDood, Azerbaijanis can be bad guys, too]).
 * WimpyDood, the alter ego of Creffel, has a long history of using POV-inspirited language and exaggerated language to describe topics on Armenia and Azerbaijan.
 * Every discussion I have been involved in with this user has been fruitless, and now that they can no longer feasibly defend their actions, they resort to harassing admins to get me banned. What a sad day to Wikipedia and the concept of objectivity this has been so far. BaxçeyêReş (talk) 23:08, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

I have received similar messages and, hm, dealt with the situation. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks for handling it. It's always interesting to log on and see "You have 5 new messages" on the yellow bar of doom at the doom. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Heh :) No worries. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 11:13, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Witold Lutosławski
Hey HF, hope all is well. Been working on Witold Lutosławski for URFA, as (for some reason) someone decided to remove 100+ inline cites a few years back. I think it's back up to standard (besides some remaining citation formatting and references needed in the Awards and honours section)—what would be your take (should you have the time/interest)? Best - Aza24 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I somehow forgot about this entirely. Will try to take a look tonight after work. Hog Farm Talk 20:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Many thanks, and no rush, just trying to get a feel of where the article stands. Aza24 (talk) 22:16, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Question about GA Reviewers
I noticed that you are a sysop active in WP:GA and was wondering if GA reviewers are supposed to edit the article. In my experience maybe they might do some small grammar corrections but I am mostly interested in if reviewers are supposed to institute wording changes or edit phrases. I've done a fair number of GA Reviews and have also had articles undergo the process and usually reviewers stay pretty much hands-off but is there anything in the instructions that speaks to how much reviewers are allowed to change? An article that I have done some work on is undergoing a review right now - Talk:Mountain Meadows Massacre/GA1 - and today I noticed that the reviewer went in and incrementally changed content. Looking for advice - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 19:30, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - if I may, there's nothing stopping you from editing an article you are reviewing. People generally do copyedits, or things that would be too long to explain on the GAN page. The issue with making changes to the article is that it gives no recourse if the nominator (or otherwise) disagree. I generally don't edit the article at all and don't think it's wise, but some reviewers do. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 19:41, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks - appreciate your input. That's kind of the way I approach a Review but yeah..."some reviewers do". I didn't think there was anything that spelled out editing an article while reviewing it but wasn't sure, I guess it's up to the individual. Shearonink (talk) 20:35, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - Technically, you can edit the article so long as you don't become a significant contributor, in which case you wouldn't have independence from the article to do the review. However, I generally recommend against it most of the time. The nominator should be familiar with the sources, and having the nominator look through proposed changes prevents accidental source issues from coming in.  I generally only edit the article during a review to correct obvious spelling/punctuation errors, although sometimes I'll run into some stuff with more complex reference formatting errors that are easier to fix myself than to try to explain. Hog Farm Talk 22:46, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah I get that...if it's a complicated Harvard/sfn/sfnm/whatever cite and I was reviewing I might go just ahead & fix it myself, they can be nasty to tease out possible issues. I appreciate anyone taking a GA Review on and I don't want to tamp down someone's enthusiasm for editing and participating in Wikipedia but I just checked the edit count on the article and I am troubled by a few things. At this point the Reviewer is showing up in the top 25 contributors (#23 of with .5% of the edits), and the article itself has landed in the Reviewer's top ten of article-spaces edited... Their edits have been mostly concerned with grammar but they've also been slightly tampering with phrases & meaning. (It's also only the 4th GA Review that they've done.)
 * Wish me luck, I'm going to respond to how much they are editing the actual article. I kind of feel it must be done but I don't relish doing it. Thx Hog Farm & both for your input. Shearonink (talk) 03:49, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So I left a note for the Reviewer re: their contributions. Everything seemed copasetic but I do have to say... it's been a month since the GA Review was started, 5 days since I last heard from the Reviewer (and since they last posted on WP) and I don't have a real sense of if Mountain Meadows Massacre is any closer to being a GA or not. Advice please - thanks. Shearonink (talk) 00:48, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * It's not an ideal situation, but I'd recommend waiting it out a little longer. The reviewer seemed ready to be continuing on the review as of when the last edited, so hopefully they'll come of break soon and work on it.  If there's no response in about another week or week and a half, recommend pinging them again, and if that doesn't get a response, leave a note at WT:GAN and maybe somebody can pick it up.  There's just no real good way to handle those situations that I'm aware of (I've got a review open where I've been waiting over a month for comments, as well). Hog Farm Talk 02:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I feel so much better now Doctor. And, a *month*?!? /faint. Shearonink (talk) 02:16, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it happens sometimes. See Talk:Lafayette Park Historic District/GA1 for one of the longest-running GA reviews I think I've ever seen. Hog Farm Talk 02:27, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh. My Gerd. Shearonink (talk) 03:30, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * The only other WP process I've had experience with around that took longer than I thought it was going to was a List I put up for FL status but that only took about 3 months not going on 9... Btw haven't heard from my Reviewer for over a week (they haven't edited in that timeframe either) but I'll just wait for them to show back up. If they don't edit or take the Review back up again in maybe a month I'll assume abandonment and go on from there. Thanks everyone - Shearonink (talk) 15:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Update: Well, it's been almost 4 weeks since the GA Reviewer has made any substantial edit on the Review (they haven't edited WP much at all lately), they've made two short posts saying they're busy & will get to it soon, etc., last substantial edits were on July 27th (see Review editing history). I've posted to their user talk but if they don't respond substantially by the one month mark (August 24th) how do I go about filing for another Review since, at that point, this one basically would seem abandoned? Thanks, Shearonink (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - when it comes to that point, I'd recommend just making a brief comment at WT:GAN that the review seems to have been abandoned. Hog Farm Talk 15:55, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll do that. Wasn't sure how best to proceed. Shearonink (talk) 16:02, 20 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Have now put it back into the GAN pool - heh starting all over again with a May 2021 submission. Thanks again for your help & advice. Shearonink (talk) 13:21, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Due to the wait, I've gone ahead and picked up the nom. Best Wishes,  Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864
The article The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 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 Kusma -- Kusma (talk) 09:21, 29 July 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIII, July 2021
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:31, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Sierre Leone GAN catch
Thanks for that, I completely missed it was already under review when I looked at it today. Guess my mind was still on when I poked around it yesterday. CMD (talk) 16:13, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * - I only saw that because I have the GAN page watchlisted, and I sometimes check out failures of articles to see what the issues were. I'm sure the reviewer would have noticed eventually, as well. Hog Farm Talk 16:16, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Well I'm grateful you were on the ball through whatever method. I'm pretty sure there's no need for me to leave comments in this particular case. CMD (talk) 16:24, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

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

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg BusterD
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Kees08 • Nickshanks • Protonk • Schissel • Ultraexactzz • Wknight94



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

Oversighter changes
 * Gnome-colors-view-refresh.svg TheresNoTime
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg ST47

Guideline and policy news
 * An RfC is open to add a delay of one week from nomination to deletion for G13 speedy deletions.

Technical news
 * Last week all wikis were very slow or not accessible for 30 minutes. This was due to server lag caused by regenerating dynamic lists on the Russian Wikinews after a large bulk import.

Arbitration
 * Following an amendment request, the committee has clarified that the Talk page exception to the 500/30 rule in remedy 5 of the Palestine-Israel articles 4 case does not apply to requested move discussions.

Miscellaneous
 * You can vote for candidates in the 2021 Board of Trustees elections from 4 August to 17 August. Four community elected seats are up for election.

Discuss this newsletter

Subscribe

Archive Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Battle of White Sulphur Springs
Hog Farm - thank you for reviewing the Battle of White Sulphur Springs. Many of the soldiers in this battle were also in the Battle of Droop Mountain and Battle of Cove Mountain. TwoScars (talk) 12:06, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks again for your time and effort in reviewing the Battle of White Sulphur Springs. I have another project that I am working on: upgrading the Battle of the Wilderness to Good Article. It probably will not be ready until 2022, since it does not always get my highest priority. I e-mailed Hal J. nearly a year ago, and he is OK with me working on it. However, I still need to be careful with an article that gets 10,000 views per month and has been praised in an online editorial (in 2015). I plan to use Hal's maps as much as possible and drop some of the things that have probably been added over time, such as the entire "In popular culture" section and casualties table. Also, galleries are now frowned upon. I have hard copies of Rhea's and Gallagher's books, but want to make sure other sources are used too. Do you think it would be wise to have a few people from WikiProject Military history to look over the revised article in my sandbox (once it is ready) before it replaces the current article? It would not need to be a thorough review, but just make sure there is not something now out, or in, that causes "heartburn". TwoScars (talk) 17:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I think there wouldn't be too much heartburn. And it might be okay to do sections at a time directly into the article.  When I rewrite battle articles, I generally go from top-to-bottom in chunks, and I've had to overwrite some older material when it proved to be problematic.  Admittedly, Wilderness is much higher-profile than anything I've taken to GA (Battle of Raymond, Battle of Fort Davidson, and Battle of Blackburn's Ford are probably the biggest names out of my GAs).  and  may have some advice as well. I have print copies of the Kennedy and Trudeau sources cited in the article, so I can look things up in those if you need it (actually got my copy of Trudeau at an auction for $2). Hog Farm Talk 19:38, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ,, - I will be glad to help on reviewing the article and adding suggestions as I think could be useful. As far as sources are concerned, I have acquired a large collection of Civil War books over the years and have downloaded many books and articles, most of which are earlier than the current copyright expiration date. Some of the early books might not be considered as the best sources but do give some useful views of contemporaries and veterans. Others, such as Humphreys, Andrew A., The Virginia Campaign of 1864 and 1865: The Army of the Potomac and the Army of the James. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons, 1883. OCLC 38203003, are quite good overall in stating the facts. I have thought that Ed Bearrs, A. Wilson Greene and others have placed considerable reliance on it or otherwise have found many of the same facts and reached the same conclusions.
 * Although my activity for the past two months has been at a low ebb due to "real life", and an offline project, I expect to be back to my usual editing and writing routine within a few weeks. I had intended to have helped Hog Farm more than I have so far with his stub project, including writing an article incorporating one of the stubs, which I have yet to finish and regret my tardiness. The time I have been able to devote to it has been unusually small so far compared with the time I have spent on Wikipedia most months over the past 11 years.
 * I have rewritten a few articles in the same manner as Hog Farm has done but I have only rewritten some especially problematic sections of others. I can think of at least three that I should work on some more. I have thought it helpful to at least revise or add to especially poor sections even if the others also could stand some revision or addition. Two Scars: Thanks for undertaking the large and important project. Please leave me a talk page message or ping me when you have something to review or would like suggestions on additional sources for some facts. Donner60 (talk) 22:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't gotten much of a chance to do much on the stub project, either  Work has been pretty hectic for me the last few months. Hog Farm Talk 22:34, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Angola deletion discussion
Hello. I want to acknowledge that closing the Angola, Deleware Afd way too early was not a good idea. Looking back on the whole thing it was somewhat disruptive behavior on my part.

I mean, when two editors come to my talk page, and one is an Admin, and they both tell me I am in error. And I am told, I need to revert my edit. Well, that was the first clue that something was wrong. And I should have reverted as soon as I saw both your messages. My next mistake was allowing this error judgement to cause a DRV discussion.

I am embarrassed that I let such poor judgement cause a disruption. I am chalking it up to a learning experience and the fact I should have known better. I'm also reading up on this stuff again, such as WP:NACD, WP:INVOLVED and WP:DRV. I left the same message on User:Extraordinary Writ's talk page. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - The main thing with the time frame is that AFDs are generally open for 7 days, and should only be closed early if consensus is certain (see WP:SNOW) or in a few weird cases like the nom getting blocked for socking and nobody supporting deletion and stuff like that. For Angola, there was only the nominator and two others, and it had been less than a day.  There just hadn't been enough time for that sort of thing to form.  Really, with closing AFDs, you'll want to make sure that there's time for sources brought forth in the discussion (like those brought up by Firfson) to get a chance to be analyzed by others.  There hadn't been enough time for this, and the extreme majority needed for SNOW closures wasn't present (see this for what is really necessary to make a SNOW close after only about a 24 hours).  Besides the fact that closing discussion you're involved in or could be perceived to be involved in (I don't close any WP:GNIS-type discussion like the Angola one because I am involved in most of them) isn't desirable, there just wasn't enough to make a clear enough consensus to close that one at that time.  I personally recommend staying away from early closes except for extreme cases or if it's only like 15 minutes before the 7 day frame is hit. Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for response. That link provided a good example of what a real SNOW close looks like. And I see that due to problems with GNIS we editors need to pay attention to Wikipedia articles about places in general. The GNIS essay is a good one and hopefully it is widely promogulated. I agree that we need to give a number of editors the opportunity to analyze the sources at AfD. I actually hadn't realized that before. Also, I will be staying away from early closures. And I probably would not close after seven or more days unless the AfD is bright-line-clearly a "keep." Anyway, see you around the campus (Wikipedia) some other day. It is good to clear things up with other editors. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Turtle FAC
Hello. Would you be able to review the article and give it another spotcheck? Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 12:07, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'm going to be travelling fairly long distances for work the next couple weeks, and that looks like a pretty major effort there, so unfortunately not this time. Sorry I don't think I can get to this. Hog Farm Talk 05:13, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Turtle is currently at peer review, would you be able to do a source shotcheck? That's all I need. LittleJerry (talk) 20:14, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * - Yeah, I should be able to look at this over the next couple days. Hog Farm Talk 23:41, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Would you also be able to look at the later sections. I just want to be extra safe. LittleJerry (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

A couple of Delaware places that need sum luv
From what I can see, both Jimtown, Delaware and Pinetown, Delaware are historic black communities. There's a passing congressional hearing statement to that effect for the first(not that such questioning can be considered in any way reliable), and it's baldly obvious with the second, though the news articles about the place seem to want to avoid saying that. And there's the problem: I can't get any history on either even though there has to be some. If you can find some time to expand either, I would really appreciate it. I wouldn't delete either, but I don't want to leave them as just "unincorporated communities". Mangoe (talk) 03:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - It looks like has been able to flesh out the Jimtown article.  I couldn't turn up any significant history for Pinetown, but have been able to add some details from the late 90s through 2015 (including one that did confirm demographics).  I'll try to see if I can hunt down some older history tomorrow.  It's still kinda stubby, but it at least contains some significant stuff now. Hog Farm Talk 06:00, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

In appreciation

 * - Many thanks! That means quite a bit coming from the FAC czar. Hog Farm Talk 15:42, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Waa ha haa! Bow down before me Earthlings.


 * You are most welcome; you earned it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

State-line-straddling towns
I have started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_United_States concerning dealing with two cases where towns straddle the MD-DE state line. Mangoe (talk) 03:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Issues with postal village
See discussion at Talk:Postal_village. And congratulations! Mangoe (talk) 04:46, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Three supports, image and source passes
Nearly five days. I'm slipping. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:53, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I anticipate adding another support to Halidon Hill very soon - I've skimmed it and I don't think I'll even be able to nitpick much. I am legitimately amazed at how quickly you can get articles written and promoted so quickly - you've got to be getting close to 40 FAs! Hog Farm Talk 17:33, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * When Burnt Candlemas is promoted - six supports plus image and source so far - that will be 40, including the 2 collaborations. My first FAC was promoted on 16 December 2018, so hopefully Ian will do the business by the 15th, to give me 40 FACs inside 32 months. I seem to have found the formula and just keep applying it. It pleases me that I have, so far, managed FACs from five historical periods, although I have stuck rigidly to conflicts. Eg, no bios. (I understand conflicts and can explain them. People less so.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I just found the subject I couldn't write coherently about and gave up on - Good Country People, a short story I read for a college class. Between not being good at writing about literary topics and the convoluted/bizarre plot of the story I just simply gave up.  Only conflicts, military units, historic sites, and the occassional simple bio for me.  I once attempted to write an article about a song, which ended up pretty badly.  Heard it on the radio and thought "that sounds like a DYK hook".  I guess it says something that I find music and literature hard to write about, but can easily keep track of Sterling Price's people running around Missouri in 1864 burning stuff and losing 3 battles in less than 24 hours. Hog Farm Talk 18:14, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I suspect it does. I suspect that my ability to write coherently about any military conflict, but not about any person, says much the same thing about me. (Although, to be fair, outside of Wikipedia some of my poetry and short autobiographical work has been praised.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * A 30-page undergraduate paper I wrote about the Book of Revelation was the talk of my college's theology department for a few months. The relevant professor kept a copy when he retired.  Thankfully MILHIST generally is less esoteric and generally doesn't require attempting to interpret giant burning mountains falling from the sky and various plagues. Hog Farm Talk 19:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Anyone who attempts a serious analysis of the Book of Revelation has my sincere admiration. Impressive. Even if it did cause your professor to retire.
 * Gog the Mild (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

file:Mercury-tasmania-9dec2006.jpg
I removed the PROD and added the image to the page where it belongs. I added a fair use rationale, which is something the original uploader should have done. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 05:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 07:10, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Peer review of sustainable energy
Hi! I was wondering if you would be keen and have time to do a peer review for sustainable energy, which we are preparing for a FAC run. We have had two reviews so far, and will be done addressing those point in a weeks time. We'd like a final review to assess whether we've managed to explain the topic well to people less familiar with it, and whether the structure of the article makes sense. Thanks :). FemkeMilene (talk) 08:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
 * - I'll take a look at it. It'll likely take a couple days for me to get through it.  Is that fine? Hog Farm Talk 02:04, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated! FemkeMilene (talk) 16:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henderson Hall Historic District
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Henderson Hall Historic District 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 12:41, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Henderson Hall Historic District
The article Henderson Hall Historic District you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Henderson Hall Historic District 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 Ganesha811 -- Ganesha811 (talk) 12:42, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for CSS Pickens
&mdash; Amakuru (talk) 00:03, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXXIV, August 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) 15:49, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

The Copyright Cleanup Barnstar

 * - Thanks! CCI must be a huge task.  I just had the realization today that the one I'm working one is a smallish one, at only 200ish articles.  And it still feels like a huge mountain (especially since the editor the CCI is for used web sources that aren't archived on the wayback machine well and have aged poorly with link rot, so it's sometimes essentially impossible to determine what the original source text was).  Out of curiousity, how are the CCI case pages organized?  I knocked out a bunch at the bottom of the page that were not additions of text, but the ones at the top of the page look real hairy. Hog Farm Talk 02:30, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
 * They're organized by the size of the edits made to an article, and the number of edits made to an article. We have scripts for filtering out non-copyrightable edits but stuff'll still slip through the cracks. Totally innocuous edits like reverts of vandalism or the addition/tweaking of a table are fairly common. The tops of cases are always pretty hairy and there are some really, really scary cases in this regard. – ♠Vami _IV†♠  09:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Great Lakes Storm of 1913

 * Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 05:25, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Source review?
Hi Hog Farm, hope all is well. Could I interest you in a source review of Featured article candidates/Walt Whitman and Abraham Lincoln/archive1? I'd imagine you're very busy, so please don't feel obligated if you don't have the time or interest. Cheers, Eddie891 Talk Work 13:51, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure!. Hog Farm Talk 22:23, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military history WikiProject

 * Thanks! Hog Farm Talk 22:25, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * And sneaked through into the final round of the WikiCup with a 200 point starter! Life is good. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

WikiCup 2021 September newsletter
The fourth round of the competition has finished with over 500 points being required to qualify for the final round. It was a hotly competitive round with two contestants, 🇧🇼 The Rambling Man and Epicgenius, each scoring over 3000 points, and six contestants scoring over 1000. All but one of the finalists achieved one or more FAs during the round, the exception being Bloom6132 who demonstrated that 61 "in the news" items produces an impressive number of points. Other contestants who made it to the final are Gog the Mild, 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Lee Vilenski,  BennyOnTheLoose, 🇷🇼 Amakuru and  Hog Farm. However, all their points are now swept away and everyone starts afresh in the final round.

Round 4 saw the achievement of 18 featured articles and 157 good articles. Bilorv scored for a 25-article good topic on Black Mirror but narrowly missed out on qualifying for the final round. There was enthusiasm for FARs, with 89 being performed, and there were 63 GARs and around 100 DYKs during the round. As we start round 5, we say goodbye to the eight competitors who didn't quite make it to the final round; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia, and we hope you will join us again next year. For other contestants, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 4 but before the start of round 5 can be claimed in round 5. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews Needed (remember to remove your listing when no longer required). If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:01, 2 September 2021 (UTC)