User talk:Gog the Mild/Archive 1

Feedback on copy edits

I've taken a moment to review some of your copy edits. I'm lazy, so I looked at a few short ones from early in the drive. You can check the page histories and compare versions (the diffs) for my very slight changes. There was a bit of prose work but, per usual, most of my notes for you are about markup and MOS (Manual of Style). Please do not be discouraged by what are, by and large, trivial matters. The average article is not fully MOS-compliant. However, these sort of things would be expected to be fixed for featured article candidates (FAC) on the requests page:

• Vincent of Lérins
  • Abbreviations and acronyms should be defined on first occurrence in the lead and body of an article. For abbreviations you can use a template like {{Abbr|No.|number}} which produces No. with a tiny text box if you hover your mouse over it. {{circa}} does the same thing. Ideally, that should go for the first date with a c. If it's a really long article, I might use it again on the first occurrence in each section. If acronyms or abbreviations are used in the infobox due to space limitations, it's good to have them either wikilinked or noted with {{Abbr}}.
  • Whenever Roman numerals are used, it's good to put in a non-breaking space so that it isn't separated from what it's modifying by a line break. So, for example, World War II. You can have that inside wikilinks, it knows a space is a space. If you don't like the html entity   you can use {{nbsp}} or put the whole thing in {{nowrap|World War II}}.
  • the 24th of May. Wikipedia doesn't like to use ordinals in dates unless it's a proper noun (e.g. The 4th of July). So that should be either 24 May or May 24. One style (day-first or month-first) should be used consistently in an article, which gives us a poser: there's already one of each (in the lead and the infobox). Often an article will be tagged at the very top with {{Use dmy dates}} or {{Use mdy dates}} but no luck here. So, we check the article history... the article had the ordinal from 2001 but by 2009 had 24 May. Apply that for consistency with a non-breaking space so it won't line-wrap. (Similarly, 529 CE gets a nbsp.) Added {{use dmy dates}} to the top of the article.
  • He commits what he has learned, he added, to writing, for use as a reference, commonitory, or remembrancer, to refresh his memory. This language seems a bit wordy and redundant for Wikipedia's tone, so I simplified it.
  • "Semipelagianism" is non-hyphenated throughout the text but hyphenated in a section header (correction: 5 to 2 in favour of no hyphen). I removed that hyphen (and the extra capital) for consistency and put in a {{anchor}} in the section header to preserve any incoming section links from other articles. (There probably aren't any but I'm trying to make a habit of it.)
  • Pre-destination has one occurrence with and without a hyphen. In this case I went to the main article, predestination, which favours no hyphen.
  • it seemed to nullify the value of asceticism practiced under their Rules. I couldn't think of a good reason for Rules to be capitalized, so made it lower case.
  • There are some double hyphens. These are used to approximate a dash and they should really be replaced with dashes. (More on dashes below.)
• List of Escorteurs of the French Navy
  • This one may have been more cleanup than copy edit.
  • In the lead there are some links to the French-language Wikipedia. They marked them up nicely, but still these should be changed to {{Interlanguage link}}. (Oddly, there are some interlanguage links in the lists that follow.) This is a cleanup/linking job, not copy edit, but I like to do it. The interlanguage link (also {{ill}} for short, but I find that a little esoteric) will give a small link to the non-english article and a nice big red link for the missing English article, inviting interested readers to go ahead and write it. The neat thing is that if the English article is created it'll be linked as a normal blue link and the non-English link will disappear, so no updating is required.
    • In cases where there is an English-language article, we shouldn't link the non-English article. There's space for that from the main article on the sidebar under Languages (just as this list article has a corresponding list on the French Wikipedia). For the few that seemed to have both English and French articles, I checked that their wikidata was updated and removed the non-English links.
  • There are a lot of hyphens in the article that should be dashes. Hyphens are used for conjunction/joining and dashes for disjunction/separation. List separators and numeric ranges (e.g.: all the year ranges) use en dashes. I just type these but some people like to use html markup or templates, and in the case of a list like this I pretty much use a text editor's search and replace (but cautiously). For a full rundown on dashes, see MOS:DASH.
  • All of the ship names should get italics. (e.g.: HMS Frome K267.)
• Hwajeong-myeon, Yeosu
  • Wow, this looks like it presented some problems.
  • Foreign words not common in everyday non-specialized English get italics (see MOS:FOREIGNITALIC – this does not apply to non-Roman script like the Hangul and Hanja.) So the term myeon gets italics on its own, but probably not when connected to the proper noun Hwajeong-myeon. After myeon, I wrapped the English translation in {{lang-en}}. This gives a standard style and makes it easier for auto-translators.
  • beopjeongri and haengjeongri also get italics. Eight articles use these terms but none define them; obviously some sort of administrative unit.
  • Wikipedia has a mandate to give measurements in both metric and Imperial, so you may want to get to know the basics of {{convert}}. It is an extremely versatile template, and one of my favourites.
  • Another template is {{as of}} which you can wrap around dates when appropriate. It helps generate lists of articles that need updating.
• Vandal Sardinia
  • A couple dashes, a capital, some commas – nothing big, just details.
  • I put a hyphen in central-eastern mountain area as a compound modifier.
  • coining his own bronze coins → minting his own bronze coins
  • whilst is a little too formal; while is simpler. But since that sentence started with Meanwhile I rephrased it to avoid repetition.
  • 5000 → 5,000
  • to suffocate Goda's uprising Suffocate seems weird, like a bad translation. Strangle or choke-off might be better, but I'd tend toward suppress.
  • I moved the link for Carthage up to its first mention.
  • two refs on the wrong side of punctuation (this can result in line-wrap problems, so it's good to get in the habit of checking spaces and punctuation at references).

Okay, so lots of nit-picky stuff. I'm a bit obsessive-compulsive so that's my thing, tending more toward MOS and cleanup, reading over an article several times, sometimes backwards, looking at every comma, checking for consistency. You should try to get an understanding of Wikipedia's style for dashes and italics, though, that's a good place to start and affects almost every article. You might want to read over some of the MOS and review some of the copy edits you've already done for anything you might have missed. I'd like to give you some better advice but right now I'm hungry and tired and can't think of anything.

Oh, nice to see you've used the Keep it Simple templates on your user pages! I thought user boxes were a bit noisy so I like KIS as an alternative. Happy editing, if I haven't scared you off! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: No, no, that's good stuff. I said that I was weak on Wiki-policies. Some of the stuff you flag up I have already picked up and am implementing in later copy edits. (I learnt about italics and foreign words reading some of your comments the talk page of an article you were c/e'ing.) I have picked up where refs and punctuation need to go. Et cetera. But lots of points for me to take on board.

I am embarrassed at the inconsistencies you have picked up: must try harder. I am going to try and avoid stuff that needs clean up rather than c/e; I thought that I had been doing; I am trying hard to cherry pick stuff that seems to me to be within my limited competence. I think that I am nearly there with italics, but I shall follow your link and reinforce my learning. I am definitely weak on dashes and shall swot up. Other stuff for me to remember, like definitions on first mention - I kinda know that, but not in my active memory. Ordinals - excellent, I hate them.

I like whilst. And the coining thing was added after I finished. On a glance through I note that you are quite bold in rephrasing. I think that I am getting more so as I do more, but still have a tendency to make the minimum change which makes a phrase both grammatical and comprehensible.

I don't think that I will ever be as thorough as you, but clearly I need to improve.

Some queries: linked plurals and possessives, should they be dachas and Tsar Peter's or dachas and Tsar Peter's? (I suspect dachas and Tsar Peter's.) Similarly, I came across Armenian; should I change it to Armenian?

Another on centuries. "dating from the 15th and 16th centuries"? "dating from 15th and 16th centuries"? "dating from 15th-16th centuries"?

Links: is adding links where appropriate a part of copy editing? (I am assuming yes.)

Many thanks for the detailed feedback. I think that I shall finish the item I am working on - a popular 10,000 worder which I am already getting grief over - and take a break for a couple of days to check out all the WPs you have pointed me towards. And then reread your feedback. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep it Simple templates. I was impressed by how they looked on your pages, so I stuck my own up. I think that I like them. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Just for clarity there are policies and then there are guidelines. Policies describe the vital things that The Project (i.e.: Wikipedia) needs to function. Guidelines describe what is needed for The Project to function smoothly. Policies involve things like verifiability, copyright violation and libellous material. Policy violations should be dealt with as a priority, whereas guideline violations might not be a problem at all. What I mean to get around to saying is that it's not a big deal to miss a few guidelines here and there. It's not going to break The Project. And if you have a good reason, you can boldly go in violation of a guideline (though you should be prepared to discuss doing so).

On the other hand, as copy editors, we're expected to know a lot more about MOS guidelines than the average editor. The average editor shouldn't be expected to know all of this stuff. But when we're giving the final-polish to articles, especially for GAN and FAC requests, that's the time for nit-picking to make an article as good as possible. (As Miniapolis once said, copy editors should be more aware of textual infelicities than the GAN/FAC reviewers.)

I learnt about italics and foreign words reading some of your comments the talk page of an article you were c/e'ing. Aah! I've got a talk-page stalker! Seriously, though, that's flattering. I did the same thing a year ago, looking at edits by Jonesey and Miniapolis (who, btw, along with Corinne and Twofingered Typist are much more-talented than myself when it comes to prose work). Back in the January 2017 drive, I got a little competitive and while it was my most-productive month for ce, I also found that I was missing things if I went through articles too quickly. But improvements are improvements, and it's rare for one editor to catch everything.

There really is too much to remember, so I keep a little text file with notes. It's over 128kb now, so maybe not that little. Notes on templates, markup, guidelines, words-to-watch, useful links, tools, how to set up redirects and page moves – anything I learned which was interesting and I thought I might have to refer to. A lot of the time it's easier and quicker to search a plain text file than to try and find one of the many MOS files or essays on Wikipedia. Oh, if you haven't seen it already, Wikipedia:The Missing Manual may be good for a general read.

One aspect of Wikipedia's tone is that it aims to use plain English which I think is written at a grade 9 level. This helps to make articles on all subjects understandable to the general reader. Words understood across English dialects should be preferred over words specific to one region. I can appreciate whilst as much as I do textual infelicities, but when it comes to Wikipedia articles I tend to dumb-it-down to something simpler and more universal. I'm sure Americans could probably figure out whilst, but if it gives them even a little pause and it doesn't affect the meaning of the phrase to change it, it's probably worth changing it.

Just to give you an idea of my perspective on this: I got into copy editing to improve my writing when I learned that an article I'd help rewrite was getting over 900,000 page views a month. That scared the heck out of me! If in 10% of those views, something I wrote gave the reader even momentary confusion that made them pause 1 second, that adds up to over 24 hours – an entire day wasted! So with articles I like the prose to read as smoothly and clearly as possible, and to state things in fewer words where possible. (As opposed to how I prattle on talk pages.)

but clearly I need to improve Ah, you have room to improve. It depends a bit on what you want to do. I concentrate more on the backlog than the requests page, where the prose bar is a bit higher. You will get bolder with more experience, when you make changes and nobody reverts them (or maybe someone even thanks you). And not just with copy edit, either. The good thing is that you aren't overconfident for your competence, so those will progress together.

Q&A: I did not check the wikicode first, but I suspect the difference is piping. I tend to go with the non-piped version dacha]]s which is less to type (and less chance of a typo) but I'm not aware of any guideline. I don't believe there are line-wrap issues. A quick look at MOS:LINKING (specifically MOS:PIPE → plurals and other derived names) seems to agree with my impression. BTW, if possessives are awkward, try rephrasing. If Armenian refers to the people (i.e.: an Armenian person rather than an Armenian village, for example.) then the link should go to something like Armenian people or Armenians (the former is a redirect to the latter).

"dating from the 15th and 16th centuries"? "dating from 15th and 16th centuries"? "dating from 15th-16th centuries". I can tell you that the third one is wrong. With numeric ranges and dashes you can say in or during X–Y but with from you have to use from X to Y. I would tend to use the first example over the second. The examples at MOS:CENTURY use the.

If you, as a new reader to the article, find that there's something that could be linked that would be of related interest, then yes, you should go ahead and link it. I don't know that it's part of copy editing, but I'm sure most copy editors do at least a bit of linking work. Try to make subject-specific links, avoid links to that which is obvious, and please be aware of linking guidelines and overlinking issues.

Sorry to hear of your griefer. The 22,000 worder I was working on had a persistent IP editor who wouldn't discuss changes, so I had the article protected for a week (in hopes they would go to the talk page). Take your time, take a little break. I don't think you're in any danger of getting knocked off the leaderboard. Oh, btw, for drives there's a 'rule' that we should only work on one article at a time. I know that sometimes you have to put a ce on hold for feedback, but maybe you could try to pare down a bit from the 10 you've got as 'working'. Give me a ping if you have any other questions. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you for all of that. Understood. I don't know if I could be as painstaking as you are, but I have my own internal level as to what is 'good enough' and I ain't there yet. As you say, improvements are improvements, but I would like to have standards as well. I have a mess of stuff in the 'guidance' box on my KIS, but it is too easy to drown in it. Now that I have some context, and you have given me some leads, I will try to work my way through some of it.

Plain English, understood: I am moderately used to communicating with non-native English speakers, think that I am OK at it, and try to write 1 to 2 notches up from that for Wikipedia. I reckon that the that the thanks from the non-native English speaking editors above for my putting their articles into better English show that I can get it in the ballpark, and other non-English editors seem to agree. It had not occurred to me that "whilst" was a difficult word in this context - I had thought of it as being in the class of what a Chinese acquaintance calls "Down the pub words". I stand corrected. (Guilty secret: whilst copy editing someone had used "forsaked" as the past tense of 'forsake'. I must have been having a bad day, as I changed it to the grammatically correct "forsook" and moved on. And now I can't remember which article it was to amend it!)

I have to date largely concentrated my copy editing on areas that I am familiar with, hence my getting sucked into CEing a couple of GAs. I am well up to speed on the subject areas but have probably let them down on the WP side. I take quite a bit more care on them. I reread one of them yesterday several days after signing it off with non-tired eyes and found one missed comma. Once I am more educated on WPs I will go through them again.

Always more to learn. It is supposed to keep the brain cells active. I am not convinced :) .

Piping[?], thank you. Apostrophes leave a nasty black 's – Tsar Peter's – so I shall revise such cases and otherwise do as you suggest. I am aware of over-linking issues.

Grief. Very minor. Me: "I will try to make changes discrete, so if you don't like anything it should be easy to revert." Response: "Hmmm. You mean "discreet", I expect. Changes that aren't improvements are what irritates some people." The illiterate!

I do only work on one article at a time, bar the occasional break for a very short article for a change of pace. (Or when I have 'finished' but am waiting for responses from the author or requester.) I have been using that area as an "Hmm, they look interesting" section. Now sorted and moved to a box in my new KIS.

A last query. When editing I can click on a "special characters" character to get a drop down menu form which I can click on to insert, amongst others, an en dash and an em dash. They show on the edit page as simple dashes. I assume that these are safe to use as dashes, but not as replacements for "nds" inside {{ }}? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Piping is a term often used for when wikilinking with a different display name, the vertical bar character called a "pipe" in this context.

I have a slight aversion to Unicode, which requires 5 bytes per character, as opposed to plain text or ASCII (I'm a bit old-school). So I tend to prefer to use html elements or templates over copy&pasting special characters. For example, I'll use {{Euro}} or {{INR}} rather than copy&pasting € or ₹. En-dashes are a bit of an exception as (1) they come up so often, (2) I can easily type them from my keyboard (option-hyphen on a Mac), and (3) I'm lazy. Just be careful picking the correct character as they can look alike: — (em-dash), – (en-dash), − (minus, used for math), - (hyphen). I'm sure you've read this already, but in prose you can use either spaced en dashes or unspaced em dashes consistently through an article. With spaced en dashes, it's a good habit to precede them with a non-breaking space – and there's a template for that, I think {{snd}} (for "spaced n-dash" which produces: non-breaking space, n-dash, breaking space). That way a line won't start with a dash which could look like a bullet point. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to request copy edit review(s) on the drive talk page from one or more of the other coordinators, particularly for any article(s) you were having trouble with, or which you didn't find anything to fix. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Hi. Thanks for keeping an eye on me. I did. This from the drive Talk Page on 7 Jan: "...I would appreciate some feedback on what I might be doing wrong and where I can improve..." (This prompted a 'slow down, be more thorough' from Miniapolis. Which I have tried to do.) I haven't had trouble with any articles - partly because I have been picky about what I have taken on. (And partly because with the occasional article which I have started and then encountered problems I have done what I can and then left it without claiming credit. Eg one article needed copy editing for structure; I didn't feel competent so did a 'normal' c/e, left the tag and, obviously, didn't claim anything for the drive.) I understood that all drive contributors would have 10% checked and I expected to automatically receive extra attention as an eager newcomer. Do you think that I should specifically ask for a QA again?

For information, being less busy I have gone through many of the articles I have copy edited again, including all of the requests (I have not picked up any more of these since your warning on the subject) and all of those of 5,000+ words. Two of the requests I copy edited are currently being reviewed for FA. (One is attempting to jump straight from B class.) I am nervously keeping an eye on the comments. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Weird, that ping didn't show up on my notifications. (Can't say it's the first time that's happened.) I really wish I would have read this. I hope you'll accept that this was a miscommunication and that it was an ill-conceived attempt to get your attention by retagging those articles. I hope that you'll consider resubmitting your list on the drive.

I appreciate that you're trying not to take on too much. I believe I completed (and claimed) one of the articles you mentioned, BAC Films. (It was a tough one, a weird case of re-translating translated links plus reformatting.)

Unfortunately, the reviewing isn't done a whole lot or at least not formally. Also, normally, 10% of articles means 1 or maybe 2 reviews. Everyone else who submitted 10 copy edits on the drive has been doing this for more than a year (and half of them are in the Guild Hall of Fame). You're just so fast I can't keep up with you.

I remember one coord saying that they pace themselves to about 2000 words per day. Not so coincidentally, averaging a little over 2000 words/day plus bonuses is what you need to earn the top drive award.

It might not be bad to request another coord to check one of your articles, giving them your specific concerns if there's something you want feedback on. Maybe they can explain things better. I feel a bit like I'm seeing some of the same issues (eg: italics, capitals, consistency) and I'm not sure what else I can tell you. Maybe I could help you with a checklist, or I could jot down some quick notes on the articles I re-tagged? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:

Hi Reidgreg. Yes, I had assumed that you had read my message and that your string of reverts was your response. But I wasn't and am not offended. I had also picked up that you had redone BAC Films, which needed such a thorough revision that you reclaimed the words; I had already taken that off my count. (I noticed because, as I said, I have been revisiting articles - that one in particular as I wasn't happy with it, and with hindsight probably should not have chosen to copy edit it.)

I have the clear impression that every article you have reviewed you have not felt is up to GOCE standards. (I am not (too) upset about this and don't feel that it progresses things to mince words.) I started by taking all of the articles which you had retagged off my Drive list - obviously I couldn't claim for articles which still had a C/E tag; then I remembered BAC Films; then I thought of the early 4 which you commented on and made significant changes to yourself and removed them. I had looked at the changes you had made to all 10 of these and it was obvious that all of the remaining articles would fail the GOCE quality standard. I have an aversion to claiming non-material but kudos-earning things unless I feel that I have earned them, so there seemed little choice but to withdraw the lot.

From my point of view it seems that there is quite a bit to GOCE copy editing beyond what I have been used to as copy editing. (And my long professional experience of a particular type of C/E is probably making me a stick in mud with regard to learning new tricks.) I note your readiness to completely rewrite articles; linking, de-linking and de-duping being seen as part of C/E; the multiplicity of situations where a non-breaking space is appropriate and it is clear that I am not ready for/not up to this. Add the embarrassing frequency of a lack of consistency and the thicket of WPs which I know I am only starting to get a grip on. (Found a new one recently - WP:however. Who'd 'a' thought? I had to do a quick follow up on one of the FA nominations taking out 5 of the 7 howevers.)

What I see (or saw) as copy editing seems to have its place. Since I joined the Drive I have had 17 thanks and 3 barnstars, so the customers seem happy, even if that is only due to their ignorance of the quality of the product. Plus 4 separate peer to peer requests to copy edit other pages. (Which I am now unsure about.) But this is a different animal to GOCE copy editing.

On several occasions I have spent 7-9 hours in a day copy editing and got through 8-10,000 words. This seems a reasonable rate to me (you may disagree) even if doing it identifies me clearly as a 'sad bastard'. I think that you have been perfectly clear - I have been impressed with your patience and clarity and length of explanation. I don't hand out barnstars lightly.

I am now babbling. To summarise, I probably could achieve the low end of GOCE acceptability, but I suspect that copy editing would then come to resemble work. I edit on Wikipedia for light relief and mental stimulus. So the most useful avenue seems to me to be for me to withdraw gracefully, with no hard feelings.

Thank you again for your time, advice and support. Simon Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

From Wikidictionary, backing up your comment on whilst

==== Usage notes ====

• Mostly restrained to use in British English.
• Rare in North America and may be considered archaic, pedantic or pompous.

Always something new to learn. I shall try to avoid using it on Wikipedia. Which I may find difficult, it is standard in British English. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing 2

Still not getting a notification. I got one from another user on Friday. Maybe it only gives the first two pings in a discussion and then expects you to watch it? Who knows?

If you take a look here, that's the level of expectation. Fix any errors in grammar, punctuation and spelling, and comply with MOS. That's the requirement for a complete copy edit.

I feel it comes down to one thing that you've heard before: take your time. Copy editing is about being thorough. Like looking at every capital letter and really thinking about whether there's a good reason for it to be upper-case. It takes a bit of patience but gradually you'll be able to spot these things right away. I think like just about anything else, it's best to work on competency first and then speed will follow.

I give a lot of leeway in those first four copy edits (what the typical newcomer submits in a month) but I like to see gradual improvement thereafter. And when you put yourself on par with those at the top of the leaderboard, I'd like to see similar quality.

Sorry if I was unclear between must-have MOS and would-be-nice MOS. MOS-compliance can be seen as a sliding-scale depending on the level of copy edit. All copy edits should meet the basics so that articles look consistent. Most important are formatting choices which affect the meaning: dashes and hyphens, italics, capitals, etc. The non-breaking spaces, though, that's more for GAN/FAC copy edits.

I would encourage you to go through your copy edits and submit at least the ones you felt were the best, that you worked on the hardest or which interested you and you gave more attention to. I feel you did enough to earn a barnstar (though I'm not so sure about the top barnstar). The ones which I retagged, I left notes in the copy edit box; you might be able to address all of those issues in an hour.

Moving forward, you can absolutely continue doing copy edit outside of GOCE-activities (eg: drives, blitzes, requests). I'd guess that there are 50 times more editors doing copy edit on their own, if you count those doing minor ce or specializing in a topic. Lfstevens is a GOCE hall-of-famer who probably does a thousand copy edits a year that he doesn't claim on blitzes or drives. So there are lots of good copy editors who aren't active with the guild.

If you're putting in a lot of time, I'd suggest that you diversify your interests a bit. Maybe copy edit every-other day so that you have time to absorb what you're learning, and spend alternate days working and learning about some other aspect(s) of Wikipedia that interest you. Doing the "extra work" on an article that isn't really part of copy editing, that's like a little break for me from the grind of concentrating on the copy edit. It gives me something else to think about for a little while, makes it more interesting and less like work.

And if you ever get stuck on a copy edit or have a question, you can feel free to ask at the main GOCE talk page, the MOS talk page or the language reference desk. Or you could always ask me, if I haven't put you off too badly.

Best wishes – Reidgreg (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Strange. I even put two pings in. Thank you for your kind words. Several things are now clear which I had not previously even realised were unclear. I am moderately happy that continuous, if slow, improvement is being made. Eg I am now  'ing reasonably freely; and hopefully correctly.

I am indeed taking a break and working on some other topics - trying to kick some sense into a couple of headline articles: World War I and Six-Day War.

First comments in on one of the FA nominations I C/Eed. One obvious error due to me not re-reading the lead; one clearly over convoluted sentence; and three phrases where I think that the reviewer is just being picky - I agree with them on two (ie, given a choice I would pick their alternative phraseology), but really don't see anything wrong with the original formulations. "Otherwise reads well" So I feel a bit better, not having terminally wrecked someone's FA bid.

I shall have another look at the articles I have C/Eed - I have been doing anyway - and consider your advice.

On a separate note, would you mind casting your eye over an article I did some work on today. It had been on my to do list so I tidied it up just for fun. I would much appreciate any comments. Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell Damn! Before sending this I gave it a quick check and spotted 6 errors; 3 of them a consistent run in the lead. I really do need to pay more attention. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2018 (UTC)

Sorry that I've been a little scarce. My home Internet connection was flaky for a couple days.

I took a look at Spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell, a version from 21 Jan (I didn't check your diffs). I see two capitals and one dash you probably should have caught, but it generally looked good, there were no big clarity issues. I do have a fair amount of nit-picky MOS stuff that could be improved. Even at 70 copy edits a month I wouldn't expect you to catch all of this. This is FYI, and sometimes discussing things can help get a better understanding of it:

• I immediately wondered about the capital on Spring 2013. Seasons don't get capitals. You could say that it's the name of a proper noun, but in that case shouldn't cold spell also get capitals? (BTW, I'm speaking of its use in the lead; article titles almost always gets an initial capital.) Generally, Wikipedia follows reliable secondary sources on what's a proper noun, so might check the sources in the references and see if they capitalize it (outside of headlines). My gut instinct would be to have it as: The spring 2013 United Kingdom cold spell
  • A little later on there's the Winter season of 2012-2013 which should definitely be lower case. The year range should get an en-dash rather than a hyphen.
    • I'd also note that while year ranges normally get all four digits on both ends of the range, in this case it could be written as 2012–13 since a winter describes a regular period that does not exceed a year. You could similarly use 2012–13 for a financial year, a television season, a sports season, etc., that overlaps calendar years so long as it is not longer than a full year. But if it's more than a full year, always use all four digits. Otherwise there's ambiguity.
    • Ah! I almost missed it! There's a space between 2012-2013 and the reference. Get rid of that space so the ref is tight up against the full stop at the end of the paragraph.
  • A little further down is Easter day. That's a proper noun, both words get capitals.
• Compound modifiers get hyphens, though this is most important when there are clarity issues
  • If you're not sure about this, my favourite example is heavy metal detector. There are two words modifying detector but the reader may be unclear how. A heavy-metal detector is a device which detects heavy metals. On the other hand, a heavy metal-detector is a metal detector which weighs a lot. Without the hyphen, the reader is left to infer the meaning from context, which could make them pause. (It's also an issue for machine translators, etc.) Copy editors have to consider these on a case-by-case basis, whether a hyphen is needed and where it should be placed (or if it should be rephrased altogether).
  • the country's fourth-coldest March – This one had the biggest clarity issue and you or another editor caught it. (With the hyphen, we know it's fourth in order of coldness. Without, it could be among the coldest Marches but fourth in another order, such as chronologically.)
  • very low temperatures – That's a compound modifier but I don't see any clarity issues.
  • below average temperatures – I would tend to hyphenate below-average just to make it a little smoother.
  • a continuous strong cold east wind – this one is a bit of a string but I'm not sure how to improve it. My sense is that continuous applies to all of strong cold east, but I'm not especially fond of continuous strong-cold-east wind. What about changing east to easterly, and maybe replacing strong with the actual wind speed in numbers, if the sources have it?
• 2.5°C (4.5°F) to 3°C (5.4°F) – I would have formatted this a little differently, keeping the Celsius and Fahrenheit numbers together, using {{convert|2.5|to|3|C}} which produces 2.5 to 3 °C (36.5 to 37.4 °F). I'm not saying it's wrong, but that's the choice I would make.
• Wikipedia likes to have a space between the numbers and units. For example, 4 m rather than 4m. That's one of the places for a non-breaking space, and convert does this automatically which is one of the reasons I like it. (If you notice, the one place convert was used in the article there is a space between the temperature and the unit, with the degree sign grouped with the unit.)
• with up to 10 foot (4m) drifts – Can you spot the problem here? This is a compound modifier, with "10 foot" describing the drifts, so it gets a hyphen. I mention it here to show you this solution: {{convert|10|ft|m|adj=on}} which produces: 10-foot (3.0 m) drifts. Or alternatively {{convert|10|ft|m|adj=mid|-high}} produces: 10-foot-high (3.0 m) drifts. (BTW, I don't actually remember this, I keep examples of it in my personal notes.)
• In the United Kingdom March 2013 was reported – I can't imagine many people won't recognize the UK as a country or March 2013 as a month, but all those capitals together look just a little odd. Could drop a comma as a separator or I might flip it around as: March 2013 in the United Kingdom was reported. (see next)
  • I was starting to wonder if "United Kingdom" could be assumed but then noticed this was its first mention in the body of the article. It might be better if the country and dates of the event were mentioned in the first sentence of the body. This is one of these oft-forgotten things, especially with short articles: the lead is meant to summarize the article more than introduce it. So when looking at the first sentences of the body, it's useful to assume the reader skipped the lead altogether. Ideally, it should be clear if the reader started with the article body. Although, with a short article like this, that might seem redundant. I leave it to you.
• There are four instances of also in the article, which is one of those words-to-watch like however. You can usually get rid of most cases of also. (Other words: along, still, some, any, had already, since then.)
• especially effecting and causing mass deaths of sheep – I try to keep an eye on affect/effect. Here it seems redundant since effecting is a synonym for causing. I might replace the whole thing with: including mass deaths of sheep.

I hope that helps. I didn't spot any tone issues. Minor MOS and some personal choices. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:36, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: That is really helpful, thanks. A little oddly, having just re-read the MoS on hyphens and dashes, I had literally just finished changing the spaces in this as you have picked up. I shall work through the rest ansd attempt to learn from it. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:52, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

I got that ping! I think I'd best watchlist your talk page just in case. BTW, only noticing it now, but some of their numbers were off a bit from {{convert}}, weren't they? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:08, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Not sure if I can ping from an archive. I had just re-copy edited this, when I remembered that you had left a list of "nit-picky MOS stuff". I was pleased to note that I had picked up all but three of them; and one of those three doesn't work! I am getting there. I am trying to be steadier in my speed this drive, and more selective in my choice of articles. Let's hope that I can stick to that. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Copy editing 3

@Reidgreg: Apologies to be pestering you again. I have been working my way through the articles I have 'copy edited' which may be salvageable. And picking up some clangers which I had missed; I suppose that is good, if embarrassing. In Aru Kingdom the infobox has a right justify on "Succeeded by", which is beyond my skills to correct. What am I missing?

Some accumulated queries, for which I have not been able to find answers in the MoS - which is not to say that they aren't in there. Should I put a nbsp in any of:
5th Battalion
National Route 66
May 1066
Chapter 13
Dr. A. Bischoff
2,700 rpm
.22 Hornet rifle

Would "10 and 17 December" have 2 nbsp?

Should it be "from the 16th to the 18th century" or "from the 16th to the 18th centuries"?

Is it acceptable to have a comma in 4 July, 1776?

Thanks Gog the Mild (talk) 18:15, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for getting in touch with me, and looking over your copy edits. I don't mind going over this sort of stuff, btw. Actively thinking about it helps clarify my own understanding.

That template is a little odd, isn't it? It tries to set up preceded/succeeded by in two columns (with optional flag icons), which doesn't look great with no preceded column. (Apparently there is some dispute over exactly where it was and what preceded it.) I'd be tempted to put something in |p1= like [disassociated] "Karo tribes". (Unfortunately, it wants a linkable name with no piping, which limits our options.) You could try looking for other examples of the template by going to the template page then clicking on "What links here" under Tools in the left sidebar. (Or you can type insource:"infobox former country" into the search box.) Maybe someone else had a way of modifying it. As another alternative, the |s1= field could be removed or commented-out, it's in the body of the article and not everything has to go in the infobox (not ideal, but at least it wouldn't look so odd).

For the non-breaking spaces, there are some common examples at MOS:NBSP and scattered through MOS:NUM. Use your judgement and apply a nbsp if you think a line break could be awkward. For a finished article, I'd tend to use a nbsp in all of those examples between the word and the number.

For "10 and 17 December" I'd just use one between 17 and December. But if there's something before the "10" that could make it read weird if the "10" is separated from the "and" by a line break, you might want to put the whole thing in {{nowrap}}.

For the name "Dr. A. Bischoff" I would tend to nowrap it. I don't like the full stop from an initial at the end of a line, which could look like the end of a sentence. (Oddly, I didn't find anything about this in the MOS.)

For "4 July, 1776" I was going to give a quick answer but that's a bit of a trick question. It would be possible to write it as the holiday (proper noun) of that year, which could be The 4th of July, 1776 or The Fourth of July, 1776. But if it's just a dmy date and not referencing the American holiday, then have it without a comma. (MOS:BADDATE)

I might also put rpm into {{Abbr|rpm|revolutions per minute}} on the first occurrence.

I'm a bit stuck on century/centuries. I've seen it both ways. I suppose that the plural has less ambiguity, so that the reader won't mistake "the 16th" referring to anything other than a century, however unlikely that might be. (eg: from the 16th [of July] to the 18th century.) I'm not confident, but I'd tend toward the plural.

While checking through my notes on this, I came across one I don't use but probably should: the non-breaking hyphen produced with ‑ or {{nbhyph}}. There's always something else to fret over.

Hope this helps! Off to finish a copy edit of my own. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:28, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

P.S.: Any article for which you finish copy editing the prose before 0:00 UTC Feb 1 can be counted for the drive. (Fixing the infobox is an extra, so that'd be fine.) Try to get everything you want to claim on your section of the drive page by Feb 1 or 2. (There will probably be a Request blitz running the week of Feb 11–17, or possibly Feb 18–24.) – Reidgreg

@Reidgreg: Thank you. Very helpful. I am pleased that there was at least one even you couldn't find in the MoS. ;) Personally I would always remove full stops from initials (unless specified as Indian English) and commas from dates, but they are so common on Wikipedia that I was unsure. And my previous experience and style guides are little help: for example I would always have removed a space between a number and an abbreviated measurement: 2.2cm, 120mph etc. Or a degree and its scale: 238°K, −42°F etc. Now I am putting them in. My old heads of department would laugh themselves silly if they found out.

I have a whole set of rescrutinised copy edits I could add to the drive, but I am hesitant. My work clearly wasn't up to standard before. I strongly suspect that there are guidelines which I have as yet not even heard of which these don't adhere to. I know that I don't have the knack of picking up all errors, even on 5 close readings: I wrote and posted a new article a few days ago, yesterday I reread a sentence for what must have been the 20th time and realised that there was a howler of a repetition in it. I am still hesitant to be as brutal as you sometimes are and more or less rewrite an article from scratch. (Although thinking on't, I have on occasion.) The final straw is in one of the tag tests you set me: I have gone through The Trier Ivory several times and I just can't see where I could add or remove italics. (I am loath to bring it to your attention as I suspect that you will pick up at least one other area I have missed.) :(

Anyway, at User:Gog the Mild/Tasks I have a number of articles which are about as good as I am likely to get them, under "To standard". And take Type 91 torpedo; it may not be great but I have put in 104 separate edits and it is hugley better than it was. I am minded to put them, and probably a few others which need a final final look through, in for the drive. I would welcome your thoughts.

Oh, the second request I C/Eed which went to FAC has just got a "Support on prose. Well done." Phew. Very instructive t see what gets picked up on style at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ouch! Ouch! Working through articles which I had previously claimed for the drive I really was trying to pass off some rubbish. It is perturbing how poor some of my work was. I am now concerned that in a month I will look back again and think exactly the same!

What does {{ }} around a ' do?

Non-common foreign words should be in italics. Does this apply if the word is the subject of the article? Eg I C/Eed an article on cetbang, a type of early cannon from Indonesia. Should every mention be cetbang?

Do US readers view 'amongst' in a similar way to 'whilst'? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:35, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Ha ha. Edit conflict. Darn thing is making me re-edit the whole page instead of the section. I suppose amongst is up there. What gets me are some of the words particular to Indian English or Pakistani English, so if I generalize those I feel I have to use general terms here as well.

My dial-up connection has been very flakey the past few days, but I'll try to get to everything:

When I first had questions about style I went to the language reference desk, where they give general advice rather than Wikpedia-specific advice. So that's where I learned about some of the differences between the Chicago Manual of Style, The Guardian Style Guide, and others. Wikipedia has its own mandates and concerns, so can't really help but to have its own guide. I had to change my way of thinking about a few things, like the logical quotation system that puts punctuation outside of quotes (MOS:LQ).

I also have that difficulty, that the longer I work on an article the more difficult it is to really pay attention. When I've read something several times, my eyes start to just skim the text and I really have to concentrate. That's particularly tough with the really long articles. Or as another example, I wrote my first article after I'd done 250+ copy edits, and I felt I did a pretty good job. Then Corinne was kind enough to copy edit it for me and found more than a dozen issues. It's difficult to spot things when you get "too close" to the material, so at a certain point I either have to step away and say I'm done (or if it's really bugging me, ask someone else to take a look at it).

If you've fixed the grammar, punctuation and spelling, that's three out of four. If you can get the basic MOS and most of the particular MOS applied to the article topic (eg: MOS:TV for a television show) then you should feel confident. Nobody catches all the MOS. It's vast, and it's been known to change. Last January I did about 40,000 words of TV articles and on Feb 2 MOS:TV was updated and those copy edits were no longer compliant. (I did not react well to that.) When you add in the fact that the MOS can be a moving target, then 100% MOS compliance is temporary and pretty much impossible to achieve. Not to say that it's futile, but at a certain point, when a copy edit looks stylistically consistent with good and featured articles, it's time to declare victory and move on to the next edit.

From a coordinator standpoint (albeit one wet behind the ears) I'm declaring you a success. You're paying attention and critically thinking about the style choices, I feel you're doing well and will continue to improve.

Templates: {{'}} produces an apostrophe. That's it. That may seem silly but it has its uses. You'll usually you see this one around bold or italics, where the editor wants to be absolutely sure that an apostrophe is produced and that it doesn't accidentally turn italic markup into bold markup (mismatched apostrophes like that can have a cascading effect through a whole article). This can also make the editor's intention clear when looking at the wikicode. There are a lot of little templates like that for symbols; another is {{' "}} which produces an apostrophe, a thin space, and a quotation mark. It's useful in situations where you have a quotation within a quotation (MOS:QWQ). I suspect that casual editors are less likely to mess with templates, so this can discourage arbitrary style edits in some cases (like, for example, using {{convert}} so that an editor can't delete the space between the number and the unit).

Italics: With cetbang (italic here because we are discussing the word itself) I think you're right. The threshold for MOS:FOREIGNITALIC is foreign words not common in everyday non-specialized English. If this applies, then it should be applied consistently throughout the article. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure about the title itself, though. Normally titles use WP:COMMONNAME which

Italics 2: For The Trier Ivory, I haven't re-examined the article but as I recall this was an issue about titles of works of art. I seem to remember that The Trier Ivory was italic in some instances and not italic in others. Works of art get special markup: italics for major works of art (eg: paintings, sculptures, movies, television series, music albums, plays, operas, books and newspapers, video games), double quotes for minor works of art (eg: television episodes, songs, newspaper articles), and sometimes you'll see this extended to single quotes for a smaller subset (eg: music samples). The Trier Ivory is a descriptive name but it seems to be used as a proper noun, and it seems to me that it fits the criteria for a major work of art. It might be worth considering if the title should be in a non-English language. I'd probably leave a note on the article talk page about this. There may have been a similar issue with Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa, which are poems. I would tend to give them italics. You can use the magic word (a special kind of template) DISPLAYTITLE: to specify title formatting for a partially italic title (ie: everything but the "and").

I took a look at Type 91 torpedo. I'll try to mention things in order of importance. Please do not let the length of this discourage you, it gets a bit trivial toward the end and I wouldn't expect you to get all of that:

• The biggest prose problem is the section Steering mechanism which has numbered paragraphs and odd formatting; combined with the technical nature of the information this could be challenging for the reader. Ideally, this should either be converted to a properly formatted list with an introduction, or to proper prose. The section is unsourced, though, and technical enough that a rewrite may be difficult. It's bad enough I'd probably do some heavy-handed editing. If you don't feel up to it, maybe mark the section for special attention with an appropriate cleanup template (full list at WP:TC – warning, it's a very large page) and discount those words from the total you're claiming for the article. There's nothing wrong with taking a partial count if you can only do so much, and the section has issues that must be dealt with before copy edit can be performed.
• This sentence is probably too long: When the specification for the launch speed of aircraft was increased from 130 knots to 180 knots, with the expectation that it would be increased again, the engineers and scientists of the Type 91 project concluded that any aerial torpedo needed an anti-rolling system with not only a damping stabilizer function but also an acceleration controlling function, otherwise the torpedo would be highly likely to fall into an unstable state. – There's nothing grammatically wrong with it, but it's a bit long for plain English. Try to identify the main thoughts and break them into separate sentences, rephrasing as necessary. I'd put everything up to "again" in one sentence, rephrase the middle part a bit, and possibly another sentence break from "otherwise".
• Naval assistant manager Iyeta, Naval engineer Noma, Naval engineer Moritoshi Maeda – you might want to capitalize each word of the titles since they are attached to names (MOS:JOBTITLE). Later, on, there's by Iyeda, Assistant Manager in this case the title is separated from the name and should be lower case, since "assistant manager" is a generic title rather than a proper noun.
• Is Thunder fish being used as a proper noun? If yes, both words should get capitals; if no, neither. I'm not really certain, though, why they're giving the translation at all. It doesn't seem like it was the model name of the torpedo or the Allied name for the torpedo.
• The pressure regulator is called a Chowaki or harmonizing system. Chowaki gets italics as a foreign word, and both "chowaki" and "harmonizing system" can have italics as they're being discussed as terms (I think that's MOS:WAW "words as words" in the MOS; you could alternatively use double quotes but italics looks more consistent in this case). However, I don't think that applies to "pressure regulator" which I'd have non-italic.
• HMS Prince of Wales and HMS Repulse – the ship names should have italics (but not the HMS). Also in a list.
• use a wet-heater engine – unsure why italics are used. Possibly for emphasis, but I find the wikilink serves that purpose. There are a few places in the last half of the article where torpedo systems or components are given italics, and I'm not sure why.
• U. S. Naval Academy – no space needed between U. and S. There are three occurrences of US without the stops, so I would remove them here for consistency. (U.S. or US is acceptable, but should be consistent in an article.)
• There is an undefined acronym, IJNAS, in the second-last section of the body.
• publish a small book Koku Gyorai Note, or Aerial Torpedo Notebook – I think there should be a comma before "Koku". The comma before "or" may be omitted.
• +/- 22.5 ° (From this point it gets increasingly trivial, I wouldn't hold these against you.) I would get rid of the italics. I believe with angles you can have the degree sign right up against the number. If you want, you can use ± for an accessible plus/minus sign.
• shallow water aerial torpedo – shallow water could be hyphenated. Also thin shelled cylinder, dual ring support mechanisms, powerful high pressure controlling air flows. You got the important one in coaxial contra-rotating double 4 bladed screws but it's a long one and I'd also hyphenate 4-bladed.
• The bolt is pulled out from the torpedo when it is released. The bolt remains underneath the fuselage of aircraft. – Not a big deal, but I'd probably join those two short sentences together.
• With three of the pressure ranges, em dashes are used; these should be changed to en dashes. I would have liked to see the pressure in metric (kPa) as well. There are also a few places with numbers butted-up against units, where you could add a nbsp. I've harped on about {{convert}} before, but it's made to automatically handle the formatting for these and will choose appropriate output-units (if unspecified). In section Screws there's a 5 mm that should have an inch conversion.
• nosecone looks weird to me. It took me a second to read that. Perhaps that should be two words?
• the project was never uncompleted – I can see you wanted a citation to verify the meaning, but I feel the double-negative was unintentional and you can confidently get rid of the un.
• a part of Type 91 series –possibly put a "the" before "Type 91".
• in the chronological table (actually a list) there should be some kind of list separator between the list term (the year) and the entry (the description of what happened that year). You can use a comma, a colon, or I prefer a spaced en-dash.
• In the third paragraph of the lead, there is a special 3/4 character. Like most special characters, these are to be avoided. Instead, use {{frac|17|3|4}}. (I think that's MOS:FRAC.) Further down there are some 1/8 and 7/8 characters. Also, you don't need the "or" with the conversions, the parenthesis serves that purpose and readers will understand that much.
• in the section Front float, there should be a space after one of the citation needed templates.
• Extra work: Kyoban jettisonable aerodynamic wooden stabilizer plates and Provision of aerial torpedo technology to Germany are section headers which are longer than necessary. I'd probably remove some of the adjectives and make it more consistent with the previous sections, but I wouldn't expect you to do this unless you're familiar with section header issues.
• Extra work: for the infobox, the first letter of an entry should get a capital letter, even if it's a sentence fragment. So Wet-heater, Gyrocompass, Single-engine.

Don't panic too much about this. I don't know if I'll be able to check any other articles, but I'm sure that the articles you're confident about are good. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:39, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Took a quick look at a five more articles (I feel you should claim all of these), minor notes:

HMS Argonaut (61) – a spread of four.[4] causing serious damage. change the full stop after four to a comma. Extra work: At the end of that paragraph, maybe a nbsp before 1943. At the width I had my browser set, it happened to line break there and "1943" on its own under the image looked like a misformatted section header. In the infobox, there seems to be some excessive bold and the "x"s could be replaced with ×. BTW, any idea what the disambiguating (61) is for? Sometimes that's something like a hull number but I didn't spot anything about it in the article.

Ginseng tea – full marks

Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa – as mentioned before, the poem names should have consistent markup. Easiest is to apply italics consistently. the arabic metre Arabic should be capitalized; the spellings meter and metre are both used (in the poetic context), should pick one for consistency, probably the British version. Extra work: The title can be made italic with DISPLAYTITLE:Shikwa and Jawab-e-Shikwa (all in double braces, near the top of the article). The link to Prophet could probably be more specific (presumably this refers to Muhammad). The external links section should have consistent list formatting. I'm not sure the purpose of quoting the entire poem, and with no translation; given that there are external links for the poems and translations, this could probably be deleted. This article might get some redirects or get listed on disambiguation pages, if you want to learn about those.

Square Mouthed Vases culture – a process which may not always have been peaceful. I can see they're being careful because there's only indirect evidence suggesting warfare. Would "may have included warfare" (or hostilities) be any better? in subsequent the archaeological findings remove "the".

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430) This one's a bit longer. its former self—from c. 25,000–40,000 inhabitants to c. 2,000—and More than two dashes in a sentence can be difficult to figure out. I think I'd replace what's inside the em-dashes with "from as many as 40,000 inhabitants to around 2,000". (Although actual cited figures in the body are 25k rather than 40k.) It's a bit longer but it looks clearer to me. Some copy editors are opposed to having any dashes in the lead as it indicates fragmented thought. Efforts at a Crusade use of the indefinite article suggests that this is a generic use of crusade and should be lower case. Extra work: There are 8 as well as and 14 also which could probably be pruned (in a couple cases there's three in one paragraph). four-hour long battle perhaps an additional hyphen between hour and long. Even now, however, Venice would not commit "now" should be a word-to-watch. Make that a "then", and possibly cut the however.

It looks like your list of 39 articles is enough to get all the leaderboard categories. Good work. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:06, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: A quick reply, it is getting late here. I will reply more fully tomorrow. I feel bad about taking full credit for all of these articles. I know that they are at the bottom end of acceptability. Even I am still picking up issues on the longer ones when I go back to them. (Type 91 - I did most of the work 8-9 Jan; then did 2 edits on the 18th, 2 more on the 19th, 1 on the 24th, 3 on the 29th. Then you picked up a dozen more.) (Siege of Thessolonica is still being looked at for FA - you may remember my comments above on the prose C/E - and whilste several changes were suggested that wasn't one of them, so I will leave it for now. (But I agree with you.)) Also several are only up to scratch because of your work and/or suggestions - and that's even after I have removed 6 because over half of the valid C/E work was yours.

So I am only going to count half when transferring to the leader board. That seems somewhere between reasonable and generous to me. I would like it if only half of any older bonuses were added. (Happy to take the full 50% for the requests; I think that they are good.) I will do the calculations to spare the organiser. Let me know if you think that I am being unduly generous. As I said, more to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:38, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

PS I will be going through all of the articles I have submitted to the drive at least once more, the longer ones two or three times, over the next couple of weeks; applying the lessons you have taught which I have not yet assimilated. Or, at least, attempting to. Hopefully with the article no longer so familiar that it causes me to read straight through obvious faults.

PPS With this in mind, could you go easy on pointing out more areas for me to keep track of for a week or two? I am starting to feel that new lessons are displacing ones which have not yet fully settled in. I need to do some application to get them firmly set. I think that I can be self critical and I now have quite a list of things to check up on myself about. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:31, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I am working through your various comments and corrections, which is throwing up some queries.

You mention explaining the abbreviation "c" on first use; would I also need to explain "eg" and "ie" on first use?

I need to learn about {{ }} anchor at some point - but not right now. And all the Wiki-article did was melt my brain. (Although I can now speak Yish Yash.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

What goes on the leaderboard is just so participants can see each other's progress. It is calculated anew at the end of the drive when the final figures come in. So if you only want to claim partial word counts, that should be done on your article list. (If you look at my list, I claimed a few partial counts for articles which only had one section tagged for copy edit.)

I think you mentioned doing this before, but it might be good to check the copy edits someone else did on another article. Look at the before-version first, consider the changes you would have made, then check the diffs and see what the other copy editor did. You may actually find some stuff that they missed (it's difficult to catch everything), which might make you feel a little better about your own edits.

e.g. and i.e. seem to be standard (although, frankly, a lot of people don't actually understand them and use them interchangeably). There's a short list at MOS:ACRO of the ones which don't need expansion, things like US, UK and NATO. For c. you can use {{circa}}. Although e.g. and i.e. are from Latin, they don't need italics, which I suppose means they're the equivalent of loan words.

Copy editing 4

@Reidgreg: Leaderboard. I think that my issue is a little more complicated. If I have only C/Eed part of an article I have only counted that. (I may have overcounted the words in a couple when I first started.) Obviously if only a part of an article was tagged I only claimed for that - even if I did some work on other areas. I have withdrawn 6 articles because you did more work on them than me so I would feel bad about claiming anything. I have thrown 2 back because I haven't, with hindsight, done a good enough job and they seem beyond my current skills to remedy. I have pulled 16 which I had previously claimed as they do not, IMO revisiting them, meet the standards; they are sitting on my To Do list and I will get them up to scratch over the coming weeks - I will use them as learning exercises to reinforce my lessons.

BUT that leaves 67 articles and 100,366 words I am claiming. I feel that they meet the minimum standard - which doesn't mean that I am correct in this supposition. But they are nowhere near the standard of the other contributors, their occasional errors notwithstanding. Many are not up to what I can now do. For me to claim first place for number of articles C/Eed would be a travesty. Take Type 91. I am happy to post it as C/Eed by me and take some credit in the drive; it is massively better than it was But you picked up a string of things I had missed. So claiming 50% of Total Articles, Total Words, 5K+ Articles and Oldest Articles seems fitting. Any hoo, that is what I have put on the leaderboard.

Checking others work. Good idea - I have only been checking yours and that may be a high bar. (Earlier today I started, as promised, re-looking at all 66 articles claimed. One was Vincent of Lérins, which you clearly spent quite a bit of time and effort going through to give me tips on things I had missed a couple of weeks ago; and to make sure was up to standard. You had missed a MoS point on the first line and another in the second - that gave me a wry smile and made me feel a little better about my countless boo boos.)

I suppose that I have always considered "c." more of a loan word than i.e. or e.g., which as you note are frequently confused. Ie, more like etc. But if them's the rules then fair enough. And thanks, as always, for the link to the appropriate bit of the MoS.

The Trier Ivory should have been in italics and wasn't. It is now. The article refers to "the Ivory" (the abbreviation seems appropriate). Should "Ivory" be in italics? Or not in italics and not capitalised? Or should I just rephrase - even if this is a little clumsy - so as to duck the issue? A thought: italicise "the Trier Ivory", or just "the Trier Ivory"? (On subsequent mentions.)

Square Mouthed Vases culture – a process which may not always have been peaceful. I can see they're being careful because there's only indirect evidence suggesting warfare. Would "may have included warfare" (or hostilities) be any better? The trouble here is nobody knows. It is the culture which spread. This may mean that the existing population stayed on perfectly good terms with their neighbours, but copied their cultural habits. Or were wiped out to the last new-born and replaced. Or anything in between. I can thing of a dozen ways in which a culture may have been supplanted without any hostility. (Call it the Coca-Cola Hypothesis.) That's why I left it.

HMS Argonaut (61) BTW, any idea what the disambiguating (61) is for? Sometimes that's something like a hull number but I didn't spot anything about it in the article. It's the pennant number. Very last item in the infobox. "The system was adopted prior to the First World War to distinguish between ships with the same or similar names, to reduce the size and improve the security of communications, and to assist recognition when ships of the same class are together."

I can't find a {{ }} convert template for feet and inches. Do you know what it is? Worked it out. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:18, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

If you look here the awards have been calculated, and should be given out shortly. I've taken your concerns re:leaderboard positions to the Coordinator talk page. It should be sorted, I just wanted another coord to check.

For the future, it's okay to claim a partial count of work done with another copy editor, so long as they both agree. You usually see this when one editor has to abandon a copy edit halfway (either because they're busy or they need help) and another finishes it, or sometimes if there's an edit conflict and two are accidentally working on the same article.

BUT that leaves 67 articles and 100,366 words I am claiming. I made a little whistle when I read that. Impressive. Though if you look at January 2017, there are some even bigger numbers there. (Don't ask me why, but January seems to be a productive month.) There were some special circumstances that month (a slew of 5k TV articles that had the same issues and could be done relatively quickly) which allowed Twofingered Typist and myself to each get astoundingly high counts.

Feedback... That's a good question about "the Ivory" and you're exactly right. That could be either an abbreviation for The Trier Ivory or it could be a generic for "the ivory sculpture". (You might see, for example, after first mentioning The New York Times shortly thereafter referring to it as the Times.) So it can be either, depending on the use you're getting from context. I wouldn't use The Ivory, however, since omitting Trier from the middle is modifying the title rather than abbreviating it. If you feel the generic is confusing, you could change that to "the sculpture" or "the carving" if that reads better. And yes, when I get a tricky situation I often rephrase to avoid the issue. Simpler is usually better. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:47, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Leaderboard. Thank you. I have an unreasonable lust for barnstars. (I would dearly like to sweep the board.) Probably a minor character defect. But I also have a dislike of receiving credit for things which I don't think I deserve. A type of personal honor code if you like. Consider it a conflicting/compensating flaw.

Sharing wordage. Understood.

Plus the 22 I am not claiming at all! (About another 24,000 words.) I have certainly put some work in, trying to learn this trade. (And feel that I am getting there.)

Thanks. I would have guessed that, but better to be sure. Now sorted. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Sweeping the leaderboard is a difficult feat, to lead with both large articles and number of articles. I managed it once, but only because Twofingered Typist was on wiki-vacation that month. So it's as much about luck and timing as anything else. Stick with it long enough and an opportunity should arise. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Notes

Copy edit query

@Reidgreg: Type 91 torpedo#Steering mechanism The biggest prose problem is the section Steering mechanism which has numbered paragraphs and odd formatting; combined with the technical nature of the information this could be challenging for the reader. Ideally, this should either be converted to a properly formatted list with an introduction, or to proper prose. The section is unsourced, though, and technical enough that a rewrite may be difficult. It's bad enough I'd probably do some heavy-handed editing. Sorry about that. As it was I butchered the section, including removing several pages of differential equations. (I am not joking.) I assume that I had glazed over by then. I have rewritten. I would be grateful if you could check it for me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

Good use of a bulleted list rather than a numbered list. For MOS, I'd probably get rid of the double quotes around the list terms. There are three separate steering systems. is used to introduce the list and generally gets a colon rather than a full stop. The prose might be simplified a bit but looks acceptable. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:22, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Colon - I know that. I was sure I had used one. Ah well. The article is now in as good a shape as I am going to get it. 131 separate edits! If anyone spots anything else they can fix it themselves. Nosecone is a word, but I changed it anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:08, 2 February 2018 (UTC)

I think with compound words, Americans are more likely to put them directly together and British are more likely to hyphenate. I just try to make it clear for everyone. You've probably noticed I tend to do single large edits, but that's more a matter of working offline. I'm going to be offline a bit this weekend and then working on citing material, so may not be available for quick feedback. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I checked two dictionaries: we can have nose cone or nosecone but not nose-cone.

I think that I do a lot of small edits partly due to inexperience, partly due to fear and partly because it allows me to systematically address one issue at a time; which is about as much as I can handle.

Still checking my old copy edits. In SB Centaur SB in the title should not be in italics. How do I edit the title? Found it.

Should foreign institutions, eg Institute Francais d'Archeologie Orientale be italicised? I am assuming not as it is not an isolated word. How about "the Acadamie"?

Apollo 7 should be in italics. Should it still be in the context of "the Apollo 7 mission"? I assume so. But not for "the Apollo missions"?

"Okay, nevermind. Sorry for the confusion." I am not sure why you are apologising - the confusion was entirely generated by me.

Government College of Art & Crafts Assam is incorrectly titled. It should be "...Arts and...". How do I change it?

Should "On Thursday, 23 March 2017..." have a comma?

I hope that you enjoy your weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Foreign-language proper nouns do not get italics as foreign words, though they might get italics for another reason (eg: if the title of a work of art). If you're working with a translation, be aware that capitalization rules vary: all nouns are capitalized in German and often only the first word of a proper noun is capitalized in French (or am I thinking of French titles?). Usually the capitals give it enough emphasis as a proper noun.

With the name of a foreign institution, you'll have to consider whether to give an English translation or acronym, if relevant, and depending on the context. For example, FIFA is used a lot and rarely expanded or translated, because that is the common name.

For Apollo 7 I would not italicize the Apollo 7 mission but I would italicize the Apollo 7's mission.

Okay, nevermind. Sorry for the confusion I just quickly typed that to close-off the section and let the other coords know they don't have to concern themselves with it. Sometimes I'll put up a little "Resolved" box. Though it still seems that it has delayed distribution of barnstars.

Let me preface this last one by saying that there are two distinct things here. Changing an article title is what you do with DISPLAYTITLE, which only changes the way it appears at the top of the article. I believe what you're asking about is called a "page move", which changes the address used to access the article. Moving a page is so incredibly easy it scares me. Go to the article and at the top between View history and the search box is a little "More". Mouse-over or click on that and the first thing down is "Move". Follow the instructions. But before you do that, please make sure you have a good reason, check sources and talk page discussion, and while following the move instructions check the page's move history. Some proper nouns use the ampersand. If you're unsure, or just because it's your first time doing this, you might want to take it to Wikipedia:Requested moves. The editors there do this all the time, they know all the issues and they have some great tools to assess which is the common title.

@Reidgreg: Many thanks. Italics and foreign proper nouns - stupid of me to ask you that - I must have been having a bad day. Name change: I think that I do indeed need to take this to the specialists. The institute's web site uses 5 variants of its own name. And can I apologise to you for the messing around over the barnstars. I still feel a little guilty about those I was awarded, but I guess that I will have to live with that. I shall try to use it as a spur to get my copy editing up to scratch. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:11, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

FA nominations

Arrgh! Two weeks into my career as a copy editor and TWO(!) of the articles I copy edited have been nominated for FA. One is attempting to jump straight from B class! I am biting my nails. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: I hadn't realised that you were going straight to FA. I am nervous now. I will try to give the article an another thorough go through over the next couple of days. You will want to check all of my edits. Good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 16 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, this is my first time trying to promote an article to FA. I don't really feel like I want to go through the middle steps (should take longer time). If this FA nomination fails, I'll just fix the errors and go again when I'm allowed to. Thank you for your most recent edits, much appreciated (there is one sentence I changed, at the end of Prelude, where it says Nieroth arrived at Warsaw. I made it a little bit clearer that he arrived before 11 July, and that he opened the parliament, if you feel like it has to be modified again, you're most welcome). Imonoz (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Just to be clear, it was Nieroth himself who personally opened the parliament? "Nieroth... opened the parliamentary session" is very specific. Usually a parliamentary session would be opened by a senior noble or court functionary.

You are very brave. It seems a lot of work. On top of all of the effort you have already put in. I was interested to see that 88% of the current article is your work. Wikipedia is a collective effort, but if this gets FA it will be very much due to you.

I have been following the comments on the FA review page and so far it seems to be going well. --Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, so far it seems to go well. And yes, I totally rewrote the article. At the same time, I'm 100% sure it wouldn't pass FA if you hadn't copy pasted and looked over the it. Imonoz (talk) 09:21, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: No, it wouldn't. But copy editing is easy, if a little tedious. The hard work is digging out all of the information, structuring it, writing it up and referencing it. No comparison.

I am getting a taste of this as I work on my first article. You may be able to help me with it :) . First, I am struggling with getting references into my notes. See - User:Gog the Mild/sandbox. I have separated them out, just so that you can see them both. The references are there, but I don't know how to format them so that they show. Secondly, how do I get a full set of Categories linked in? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Well, I would start off with changing all the footnotes to the format currently used at Warsaw 1705, eg. {{sfn|Adlerfelt|1740|p=149}}. It's so much easier than the reference format you're using (which I also used earlier) IMO. And then you can use Havard to put a reference in a note, eg. <ref group=Note>Exactly like this {{Harv|Philström|1902|p=147}}.</ref> and done, is this what you meant? Just add more categories under the one you currently have, so basically:

World War II crimes

World War II fronts

Germany during the World War II

etc, but in category format as you've already using. I'm not the best to explain things unfortunately, but I hope you got some of what I said. Imonoz (talk) 11:22, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Thank you. Yes, that's what I meant. (I think.) Just to be clear, re-referencing would mean first list all of my sources in a bibliography, yes? Including links to web material?

Yes, that's best (it's a good idea to fix the sources sooner rather than later as the work will increase over time). And then exchange all the <ref>sources like these</ref> with {{sfn|formats like these|2047|p=1337}}, but it's just my opinion. I like your artice by the way. Imonoz (talk) 11:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Reading through the comments on other FA nominees I see that most reviewers really don't like too much, or even any, use of "however". So I will go through the article removing it where I think that I can. As ever, if you are not happy put them back in. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Umh, okey. Can you link the FA review where they didn't like "however"? Imonoz (talk) 19:29, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Done it. If you don't like it just revert the lot; I won't take offense. I did it as one big edit to make reversion easier.

It's at the very end of the comments on Winter War, immediately above Family Trade.

“ Coordinator comments: This is just about ready, but a few minor issues that I uncovered when doing the last few checks. We have a LOT of duplinks. I think someone needs to have a look at this as I can't really see that we need them all... Additionally, a search reveals 17 instances of "however" which we should minimise (some reviewers would argue, perhaps with some justification, for their complete removal per WP:HOWEVER. ”

The WP isn't particularly relevant to your article, but given the comment from the coordinator and his comments about other reviewers' views it seemed best to look at them. I have left some in, either 2 or 3, and where I have removed an however I honestly believe it now reads better. But if you disagree that's fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:07, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. No, it's okey. I didn't know that, that's all. You are probably right, I appreciate that. Imonoz (talk) 15:51, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: I have just read the FA comments from Cas Liber. It sounds as if I didn't do as good a job as I had thought. If you would like me to address these issues let me know. (Obviously I won't do anything without your specific permission.) Gog the Mild (talk) 11:41, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I would be really happy if you'd help me address the issues noted by Cas Liber. I'm not surprised about them either, these are some deeper errors initially made by me writing it, and I believe it's hard to catch them all when copyediting the article as a whole with all the more (as there were quite many before you helped me) immediate grammar errors. I'm really grateful for your help and I think you have done a fantastic job, also you have to remember that you were the first copyeditor of the article after I completely rewrote it, so it never went through the eyes of a lot of users fixing it during a longer time. I regonaize this type of errors Cas Liber noted, these usually stick with me whenever I write something here. It's just me trying to write in a more advanced English then I can master and so it happens. For the next article I will write everything as simple as I can to make it easier for copyeditors and myself. Anyway, if you would like to check on the errors noted, I would be grateful. In that case, I'll be sure to check into Wikipedia regurlary to assist you if there's questions of the orginial meaning of the sentence etc. Imonoz (talk) 17:44, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Apologies for not spending too much time on this. Real life is keeping me busy. I will work through it over the next day or two.

I am partially to blame. I made so many changes to the text that I was wary of being too bold and breaking up your prose even more. I should have been bolder, but I wasn't. I will be now, although, as always, feel free to revert or to query my reasons. I always knew that jumping straight to FA was tough, so I blame myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: A quick first run through. I will fine tune tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:52, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I appriciate you taking time fixing the article with me (but please don't feel any pressure whatsoever, don't think I expect you to do so things, I don't. You've done so much more than expected from a copyeditor imo and helped improve the article in many several ways), we've come a long way I think. I slowly lost a bit of interest in checking in on it a time back as the FA review progressed quite slow. The worried comments made by Cas Liber are welcoming to me as I gain a little more motivation now. I made several changes, and also removed some old text where I think I made some repetitive sentences not necessary. Also feel free to correct my changes and undo if you like. I really like the edits you recently made. Imonoz (talk) 21:21, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to keep working, or you will take the barnstars back! ;) I really want to see this article promoted; I like it. I know that jumping straight to FA is a big step so it was never going to be easy. (About the same time as I C/Eed this I C/Eed another which is currently going through FAN. By a very experienced editor and it was already a GA. Look at the prose comments it got, including from Cas Liber. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive1. I am glad that you like the edits. Yours are good. We seem to make a good team.

"...the main Saxon army under Schulenburg that threatened to enter the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." does not IMO read well check the source and we will see what we can rephrase it to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe

Reidgreg Hi. Thanks for keeping an eye on my work during the Blitz. Now that it is over I wonder if you could do me a favour? Obviously feel free to decline. I am about to nominate the one and only article I have written myself for GA. Razing of Friesoythe. I would appreciate it if you could have a look at reference 20 and explain to me how I convert it to a 'proper' footnote. I have tried to work through the various Wiki-guides, but have ended as least as confused as I started. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:14, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

Short reply: Didn't get a ping but thought I'd check in anyways (edit: oh, you used square brackets instead of squiggly braces! happens to everyone). There's actually another 9 hours left in the blitz, I'm going to try to use some of those to finish my last article. With the MOS/number edit I made, let me know if you didn't understand or if it seemed arbitrary, there is a reason for it. Copy edit did look really good, and thoughtful comments on talk page. I may not have time to look at your article for a bit, but I will hopefully have a reply for you early next week. If you want, you can look at my first article (also up for GA) Danzig Street shooting. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Oops - grr!

A bit premature from me. Obviously when and if you have time. I feel a bit cheeky asking, and there is no rush. Somehow your explanations seem to penetrate my skull, when the Wiki-policy doesn't. I had noticed that you have been having a monster blitz. Very impressive.

Your MoS/number edit had me smacking the side of my head. It was embarrassing to have missed that.

Thanks for the feedback. I avoided any film or music articles with their special requirements, and anything aiming above GA. I was moderately pleased with both.

I have been honing my skills on MilHist, promoting start classes to B. Getting to grips with things like {{ }} convert and & times ;. They have a lower standard, as do start class articles, so it makes a good sandpit. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd actually intended to take it easier on the drives and blitzes since becoming a coord, but really I've ended up doing the coord work on top of everything else and some other stuff, too. You may have noticed that I maxed my rollover for the blitz. If I can do just a little bit more on the next blitz, I can just barely get the one barnstar I'm missing. Yes, I'm hopeless.

Wow, this is a great subject for an article.

• Minor MOS: The caption under the first image is a sentence fragment so it doesn't get terminal punctuation. A metric figure needed Imperial units as well. There were some spaces before (or between) references at the end of a couple paragraphs. most devastated towns gets a hyphen (I try to watch for "most").
• declared cleared looks a little funny to me. Not quite a rhyme or alliteration. Ah, my eyes are tired.
• Some German civilians joined in the fighting here in is used as an adverb to joined. I try to check if this is necessary. One way is the "opposite test" where you ask if it makes any sense to say joined out. If it doesn't make any sense, then the in can probably be assumed and removed.
• "I summoned my GSO1... I went ahead and put this in {{Abbr|GSO|general staff officer}}. Please correct that if I made a mistake.
• At the end of the same quote out of their houses first.'" is one of these places with single and double quotes up against each other. You can give them a bit of typographical separation with either a   for a thin space or replace them with {{' "}}.
• "It appears that a false report gained currency that Colonel Wigle had been killed by a civilian sniper; as a result, the town of Friesoythe, or a great part of it, was set on fire in a mistaken reprisal. There is no record of how this came about." FYI, this quote is about 48 words. MOS:BQ recommends putting quotes longer than 40 words into a block quote. I usually use {{quote}} for that. I feel it's fine as an inline quote if you'd rather keep it as-is. On the other hand, this is an important quote and making it a block quote will let it stand out more. In any case, I certainly would not cut any of the quote to get the word count down. I leave it to you.
• In the section Aftermath, there's a quote box to the right. Quote boxes are no longer recommended for articles (there are accessibility issues for mobile devices and screen readers). It's short enough to be an inline quote if you can integrate it into the prose.
• Is Listverse a reliable source?
• As to your request I'm not great at reference work but let's have a look... Hmmm. Weird. |first= and |last= are for the author's first and last names (first also captures middle names and/or initials, if any). I'm guessing the year was a birth year to disambiguate this author from another with the same name. I'm not sure this is "correct" but I've moved what I'm assuming is the birth year into parenthesis at the end of the first name so that it displays as "Hibbert, Joyce (1923–)". While I was at it I linked Toronto in the location.

Great article. Please consider submitting it at The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Quick submission link here. If you especially want to, you can also put {{WPCan10k}} on the talk page after the WikiProject banners. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:Excellent. That's just what the article needed. Many thanks. Having implemented most of your suggestions I have just put it up for GA. Fingers crossed, although it will probably be a long wait. I didn't mean to hurry you into dropping other things to look at this. But I am glad that you enjoyed it. A full set of GOCE barnstars! I thought that it was only me who had an unnatural lust for barnstars.

Irritatingly I feel that 90% of the time I would have picked up about half of the issues you pointed out, but I have got too close to this. The other half were 'new': '", tlp|Abbr. I have probably read about them, but it hasn't 'stuck'; it will now.

Declared cleared - that is such a standard piece of military speak that it went right past me. I am not sure, tempted to leave it as it is.

Quote - you are quite right, another example of me being too close.

Listverse - not really, removed. I only put it in yesterday after a peer review suggestion, but I have rejigged the last section and now much prefer it.

Quote box. I would like to leave it if at all possible. I am sailing a bit close to the NPoV wind here. I would like to point out Vokes' hypocracy, but don't have a source for it; the quote in a box does the job and means that I don't have to somehow try to jam this into the article. (Vokes was, possibly not affectionately, known to his men as "Butcher".)

And thanks for sorting the reference out. I really need to get to grips with them one day.

One of the things which most fascinated me about this incident when I stumbled across it was the almost complete absence of censure. Stacey is the most critical (and he lied through his teeth in the official history and was economical with the truth in his autobiography) while most accounts even today tend to "they had it coming". Vokes seemed to positively glory in his role.

Thanks again Gog the Mild (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

No prob. I'd finished – or perhaps better to say I'd done all I could without making heavy cuts – from my last copy edit, and was looking at that and a couple others that caught my interest before going back to check my work. I'm not great at referencing either (in my case a bit to do with being a dial-up user). I'm going to have to learn how to archive references, which I'm told is not a requirement but is advisable for GANs. My GAN has been waiting over 4 months, but at this point I'd rather put it off a bit longer as there's been some discussion about rewriting the lead. BTW, new GAs have a 7-day window to apply for DYK (Did you know...) to promote the article on the main page, so that's something to think about while you're waiting. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Dhan Singh Thapa GAN listing

Gog the Mild, I noticed that you had edited the WP:GAN page to remove the note that the above article was waiting on a GOCE copyedit. Unfortunately, it didn't work; the bot that recreates that page every 20 minutes put it back on its next run. Editors should generally not edit that page, since it is built by the bot, and changes percolate through three times an hour.

What you would need to do if you wanted to change a note is to edit the GA nominee template on the article's talk page. I've done that for you; it amounted to removing the text from after the equal sign in the "|note=" parameter.

I did notice that although you completed the GOCE request, you didn't add the GOCE template to the article talk page indicating that it had undergone a GOCE edit. Not all requests do get this template, but I've never been sure why some editors use it and others don't. You might want to consider using it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:12, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Apologies for that. A lesson learnt. In future I shall alter the "note" as you suggest; thanks for pointing this out.

GOCE guidelines read "consider adding the {{GOCE}} tag to the article's talk page when you have successfully removed the {{copy edit}} tag". Personally I think that the template is brash, and as an unassuming WikiGnome dislike the rather loud way in which it takes credit for the copy editing and so never use it. If this is common, I assume that others feel similarly. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

No apology needed; it's a fairly obscure part of the GA nominee template, used on under one percent of the nominations, and most people never have to deal with it, particularly people not involved in gnomish areas of GAN. We all learn about these odd little corners of Wikipedia by doing, and you'll know what to do the next time. I can understand your reluctance to use the GOCE template, and as you point out it's "consider adding", not "add". It's the coordinators (and not all of them) who typically use it. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

About the GOCE tag on article talk pages, I just noticed that it can be listed inside {{Article history}}, similar to {{WikiProject banner shell}}. I haven't experimented with it yet, but it might be an option for listing it while avoiding talk-page clutter. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:12, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

If you work it out, do let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Congrats on the GA. No ideas about the block (below). – Reidgreg (talk) 22:26, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you. Appreciated. The block comes from, I think, setting up a VPN in Dubai, where I have been visiting my brother, in order to watch the rugby. As it was for 20 months I was rather taken aback. And as my IT skills barely exist I wasn't sure if the block even related to that - the information on why I was blocked and what I could do about it was scanty and in some instances faulty. After some angst and putting up this notice I managed to get up and running by uninstalling the whole VPN. (I didn't want to Skype anyone anyway!) And on the same day that the first article I wrote gats GA and I sign off my first GA assessment.

As you suggested, I have put it in for DYK. Also for On This Day. We'll see.

PS I like the way that you seem to have almost as much of an irrational yen for barnstars as me. (You will note that I have stolen some of your prose for my own vanity project.)

PS I have come across a fair bit of italicisation of the names of military operations. Eg Operation Overlord or Market Garden or Fall Blau (Case Blue). I assume that all of these, including the last, are incorrect?

PPS Your rollover for the next drive is just silly!

PPPS A friendly admin has stopped by to reassure me, see below. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I don't see a good reason for the names of military operations to be in italic. It could be for emphasis but I don't really see that making sense in Wikipedia's tone.

Ah, the Bling Bar, that got a laugh!

I was surprisingly happy to get first listing on the drive (since I set up the page). My rollover is scary, but it's only half of what Twofingered Typist has. Happy rugby watching! – Reidgreg (talk) 00:01, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Warsaw

@Imonoz: I have to keep working, or you will take the barnstars back! ;) I really want to see this article promoted; I like it. I know that jumping straight to FA is a big step so it was never going to be easy. (About the same time as I C/Eed this I C/Eed another which is currently going through FAN. By a very experienced editor and it was already a GA. Look at the prose comments it got, including from Cas Liber. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)/archive1. I am glad that you like the edits. Yours are good. We seem to make a good team.

"...the main Saxon army under Schulenburg that threatened to enter the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." does not IMO read well check the source and we will see what we can rephrase it to. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: I like the changes to the images you have made, except for the map of the battle. On my screen I can't even view it without scrolling up and down, and IMO it over-powers the text. It seems too big now. Just my opinion.

I have been staring at this for too long now. I will come back to it tomorrow, but I think that we have taken out the worst of the issues Cas Liber was objecting to. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Haha, that would be funny as those barnstars were given for the work you had done already, not everything you made for the article after it .) I saw that article a while back and I must say it's very well done. What do you suggest of the "...the main Saxon army under Schulenburg that threatened to enter the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth." sentence, I checked the source and it doesn't say Warsaw, per say, but it could work if I used two sources here instead of only one. Also, how would it sound with "...the main Saxon army under Schulenburg which threatened to enter Poland." cutting of the whole PLC and just say Poland? I agree on the battle map, although to be honest, I'm not really sure how these pictures work, they seem to differ a little in size on different browsers for me and whether I'm logged in to Wikipedia or not. But yes, that picture most likely seems to big for everyone, I'll change it. Imonoz (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Yes, changing to "Poland" makes it read more smoothly. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:30, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: References always go immediately after full stops or commas, even in notes. With no space before the full stop or comma, but one immediately after the reference. (Unless followed by another reference.) See MOS:REFSPACE. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

So this one is wrong: <ref group=Note>Or 124 killed and a little over 129 wounded {{Harv|Adlerfelt|1740|pp=148–149}}, or 156 killed or missing and 148 wounded {{Harv|Nordberg|1745|p=428}}.</ref>

And this one is right: <ref group=Note>Or 124 killed and a little over 129 wounded{{Harv|Adlerfelt|1740|pp=148–149}}, or 156 killed or missing and 148 wounded {{Harv|Nordberg|1745|p=428}}.</ref>

Without the comma, is this one right?: <ref group=Note>Or 124 killed and a little over 129 wounded {{Harv|Adlerfelt|1740|pp=148–149}} or 156 killed or missing and 148 wounded {{Harv|Nordberg|1745|p=428}}.</ref>

Just want to make sure I understood. Imonoz (talk) 17:58, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: I am really sorry, but they are all wrong. ( :) ) Try: Or 124 killed and a little over 129 wounded,{{Harv|Adlerfelt|1740|pp=148–149}} or 156 killed or missing and 148 wounded.{{Harv|Nordberg|1745|p=428}}</ref> Ie, refs immediately after the punctuation. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, got it I think. So the edit I just did in the article should be correct now I believe. Thanks. Imonoz (talk) 18:16, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, your first ref, now just after the comma, is correct. (The second also needs moving, to just after the full stop.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Hmm, in that case about every note in the article needs a look over and not just this one, right? There are 12 notes, of which 10 ends with a full stop after the actual source. I'm asking cause I'm still a little bit confused why this note in particular was the only one that were changed and not the others. Just give me a go and I'll change all the notes. Imonoz (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Yes, they all need changing. Let me know when you are finished and I will check them.

It is borderline as to whether this would count as copy editing. But, frankly, I should have changed them when I first looked at the article. I can only assume that I got sloppy, saw a <ref> after the full stop, thought "good enough", and didn't examine it properly. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

It's a minor issue and I believe I fixed it now. It's not on your hands, I think maybe it should have been noted in the "source review", but it didn't. Anyways, have a look and see if I got it right. Imonoz (talk) 19:28, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, all sorted. Good job. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Hi. IMO the addition of that "however" in the Aftermath makes the sentence worse, even destroys the sense of it. Obviously it is up to you, but I would suggest reverting it. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:34, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Ok. Only that one?

I also restored the however at ""The bravery and fearlessness which the Swedish officer [Bonde] had displayed, caused some terror to be struck into our enemies".[23] Von Paykull remained confident, however, and sent a courier to Augustus II informing..." as I felt it sounded a bit weird without. Imonoz (talk) 09:55, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: Yes, just that one. The Von Paykull one is a matter of taste. To me it reads marginally better without it, but if your opinion is different that's fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 5 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi. I did an edit in the article just recently where I broke up two sentences which I had initially made too long (one of them close to 50 words). As I did this I noticed that there is two versions of the word "center/centre" in it (I assume centre is British-English and was added by later editors). I wanted to change this but I'm not sure which version I should stick to (according to the Wikipedia rules it generally doesn't matter, as long as it is consistent) as my knowledge here is very limited (and I've probably mixed the two up while writing). Which "English version" would you say this article is mainly using? I will try to fix as many of these as I can whenever I spot them. Imonoz (talk) 03:21, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

Also, feel free to change any edits I do if you find them a little weird. Imonoz (talk) 03:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

And another thing, I would like your opinion on something. I was thinking of removing some of the pictures in the article in the "Background" section. I think there's an overflow of pictures here and was thinking of removing the picture on "Charles XII" (as he doesn't have a mainrole in the article) the one on "Peter I" (same reason) the "Grodno Campaign" (same reason) picture, the "Warsaw and the Vistula River in 1723" (as it is pretty much the same as "French map of Warsaw, made in 1705 by Nicolas de Fer" only a little inferior). Do you feel like the pictures that are currently there are OK, or do you think it would be better to get rid of some of them? Imonoz (talk) 03:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

In my view it is in British-English. I have added a tag to the talk page. I am a little irritated with myself that I didn't pick it up, but four FA assessors haven't either. Well done to you. (If you would prefer it in US-English then, as you say, that is fine.)

Your edits are never weird. They do sometimes point up the irrational nature of formal written English.

The article does not strike me as image heavy. The "Warsaw" image could readily go. The Grodno campaign map IMO should stay. The two portraits. I can see why you would want to remove them. I would tend towards keeping them, but they would not be a big loss - and a majority may agree with you that it is an improvement.

It looks as if you will be getting a decision soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:48, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Imonoz: You were right. The article looks better with fewer, larger images IMO. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Haha, I was just about writing this but as I clicked "Publish changes" I noticed someone [you] had edited before me:

Well, like I said, I was lucky to even notice it as I only reacted to the center/centre. Thank you for clearing this up, British-English seems fine (I'm writing with a mixed English, which I need to stop doing..). I made some changes to the images, I kept the "Grodno" one and I agree, it's probably best for it to stay. I also added a new one which I found "The coronation of Stanisław I Leszczyński in 1705". I made sure to notice the image reviewer so it can be reviewed before the final conclusion of the article. In my opinion, the article looks "clearer" now, this probably got to do with my monitor size, as others who are reading with smaller resolutions might have a different experience. Hopefully the decision will come soon.. Imonoz (talk) 14:19, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

MilHist contest

Please be advised that copyedited articles are not eligible for the contest, only ones that you have added content to yourself. Please go through your nominations and remove all of those that do not meet this criteria.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Apologies for the delayed response. Currently on a long distance flight with limited internet. I will respond more fully as soon as I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I'll tell the coordinators not to tally up the contest until you've had a chance to remove the troublesome noms.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66: Fixed. (I think.) I have not yet reviewed my unscored entries.) Gog the Mild (talk) 10:52, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

March copy edits

Got your ping but replying here, which is easier for me than editing the whole archive page.

@Reidgreg: Not sure if I can ping from an archive. I had just re-copy edited this, when I remembered that you had left a list of "nit-picky MOS stuff". I was pleased to note that I had picked up all but three of them; and one of those three doesn't work! I am getting there. I am trying to be steadier in my speed this drive, and more selective in my choice of articles. Let's hope that I can stick to that. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:24, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of improvement on your part and, if I haven't said it before, I feel you're a great addition to the Guild. I hope you'll complete some of those articles, like Ranger (Dungeons and Dragons), that I so obstinately re-tagged. Work at whatever pace you're comfortable with, and go for the leaderboard positions if you want to. (If you have as much time as you did in January, you shouldn't have any problem placing – the serious competitors are yourself, Twofingered Typist, Lfstevens, Miniapolis and myself. Unless there's a dark horse, I'd predict the five of us will monopolize the leaderboard by month's end.) BTW, I'm feeling a little bad that one of the requests I did last month failed its GA, but it had a lot of other issues and wasn't really ready for copy edit (even though the GA reviewer kept insisting on "more ce"). There's only so much you can do sometimes. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:16, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Well bless you sir. Thank you. That means a lot. Nevertheless, I need to stay aware that there is still, always, room to improve. As you said in your first message to me "Always something new around here."

I had forgotten about the Ranger article. Now on my to do list. It should make an interesting challenge.

I am staying completely away from lists, films, songs and albums. They seem to have specialist requirements, and I have enough new learning to embed. One of my specialist areas is military history, so I try to pick up Requests in this area up to GAN. And cherry pick them out of the normal backlog. I have started doing some GA assessing for MilHist and my mentor says I am doing ok except for being weak on referencing. In this area I know enough to keep the editors on their toes when necessary, eg my most recent Request, Battle of Echmiadzin (1804), involved more words on the talk page than there are in the article. But we got there.

Ah, yes. A large Request I copy edited has gone straight from Start to FAN. The editor, a nice guy, a good editor, but with shaky English, has had only a single GAN before. Not surprisingly it has had a bit of a kicking around. I have been providing after-sales service and it looks as if it will make it.

I have hopefully worked the copy edit mania out of my system. And the worst of my bling lust. I hope to be in there placing, but am not too concerned at the moment. Of course, the competitive urge can strike unexpectedly.

Happy copy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Hi. I finally plucked up the nerve to go back to Ranger (Dungeons & Dragons). No wonder you kept retagging. I was still finding things on my fourth go through. I should probably give it a fifth, but enough! It does cause me to worry as to what I will think when I look back on this drive's work in a couple of months.

I have now revisited all of the articles you "so obstinately re-tagged", except for The People's Republic of Amnesia: Tiananmen Revisited which I am leaving; I should never have attempted it.

On a lighter note I am currently GAN assessing an article which Miniapolis copy edited as a Request. It probably says bad things about my character that I am gaining amusement from a couple of things which I want changed and from some MoS issues which you would never let me get away with. It does give me an independent benchmark for where an acceptable copy edit should be pitched.

On an even lighter note, I have recently copy edited an article which was 53 words long. (It is now 90.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:14, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't know if it's because I'm relatively new and the MOS is fresh in my mind or I just have that kind of personality, but yeah, of the coordinators I'm probably the MOS guy. The others are much, much better with prose. TwoFingered Typist recently did a request that I'd previously copy edited (they sometimes get re-requested as additional work is done to the article) and did a much better job smoothing out the language. I really should do some more work on myself.

I've only looked at GA assessment when someone pings me, and then usually only for copy edit, MOS, or a tricky template. I should probably do a bit more of that but there's too much on my plate already. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:54, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I wonder if I could ask your advice on something which is connected to GOCE, but nothing to do with my copy editing. If you would rather not, that is fine. I am assessing Abdul Hamid (soldier) for GA. It was previously copy edited by Miniapolis as a Request. As you can see from the assessment page - Talk:Abdul Hamid (soldier)/GA1 - I have listed a string of prose issues which I would like resolving. A number of these seem to me to be copy edit issues. Miniapolis I know is a better copy editor than I will ever be, which leads me to suspect that I am asking too much of the article's editor. I am very new as an assessor and don't want to pitch my expectations at the wrong level. I realise that you aren't an assessment expert (so far as I know) but I could really use a second opinion and I would rather not take it outside of GOCE. Thanks.

PS Could you remind me how to set significant figures in {{}} convert. Is it the same as for {{}} inflation? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

First off, a fresh set of critical eyes will almost always spot something, and are always welcome. Also, because of your knowledge of the subject matter, you might be able to spot some specific issues and that's great. As for the prose threshold, honestly, I don't know just where the barre (ballet term, not a typo) is set on that. I read in one of the guides that GAs are "decent" articles and don't have to be perfect. But there's nothing wrong with giving the nominee more advice; I've seen GANs where the reviewer passed them after the nom resolved half of the issues raised, with the others being "extra work" not required for GA. I suppose there is the danger of overwhelming the nominator (as I may have done with feedback on your early copyedits) but as long as you're not too brusque about it I think it's okay.

For the article itself, it looks decent-ish to me and the biggest MOS I noticed were acronyms and initials (you noted RCLR but there is also NEFA and at the very beginning PVC – PVC might be wrapped in {{post-nominals|list=PVC}} → PVC – note the piped link. MOS:POSTNOM is obscure and not required for GA). For "retired Indian Army general Ian Cardozo", shouldn't "general" get a capital since it is attached to a name? Linking: "since Indian independence" sounds like a specific time but it links to the independence movement which covers a considerable period so this may be misleading; is there a more-specific target article?

I don't understand what you mean by "significant figures" in {{convert}}. Do you mean large numbers? 10,000,000,000 feet (3.0×10⁹ m), ten billion feet (3.0×10⁹ m), ten billion feet (3.0×10⁹ metres), something like that? – Reidgreg (talk) 16:18, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thanks as always. I am beginning to think that I worry too much. Ooh - thanks for the post-nominal reminder. You have flagged this up before, but it has gone past me. Now in my note book. I had spotted NEFA, and several other things, but thought that my list was enough to be going on with for the editor. If he fixes (most of) the issues I have flagged I will probably do the rest for him. I read "general Ian Cardozo" as "according to the retired Indian Army general whose name is Ian Cardozo" and so deliberately didn't ask for a capital. I am not insisting that I am correct, just that I didn't overlook it.

Significent figures. Possibly a UK expression. I want to stop convert giving 1 foot as 30.48 cm. (I know that it doesn't, just an example.) With inflation I would use {{}} Inflation|UK|955,611,589|1943|r=-9|fmt=eq|cursign=£ ; with "r=-9" limiting the spurious precision. Ie equivalent to £46,000,000,000 in 2021. I can't work out how to limit, or expand, the precision for convert. It may be that there isn't a way. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

I'd hold off directly making any changes to the article until after you give it a pass or fail. I think it's considered bad form to edit it during a review, the same way you shouldn't review an article to which you've significantly contributed.

The precision for convert is handled by an unnamed parameter, I believe after the units. So, for example, {{convert|1.50001|ft|cm|1}} gives 1.50001 feet (45.7 cm) whereas without that "1" you'd get 1.50001 feet (45.720 cm). For further comparison, here it is with "0" 1.50001 feet (46 cm), and with "-1" 1.50001 feet (50 cm) – Reidgreg (talk) 18:34, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Convert - excellent. Thank you. (Nothing like inflation then.)

Assessing. I had thought that, but possibly they do things differently in MilHist. The first words from the assessment of my only GAN "I did some copyediting along the way to this solid article." Looking at the two articles I copy edited for FAN (before you reined me in) several assessors have flagged up that they have edited ("Hi, am reading through and will make straightforward copyedits as I go and jot questions below", "As always, feel free to revert my copyediting.", "Looking now and copyediting as I go..."; these all from MilHist coordinators). So whilst not wanting to do too much, I am relaxed about doing some minor bits. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Can I seek some advice please. In:

The armistice also established the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) and the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The DMZ was decided to be a 2.5-mile (4.0 km)-wide fortified buffer zone between the two Korean nations. The Demilitarized Zone follows the Kansas Line where the two sides actually confronted each other at the time of the signed armistice. The DMZ is currently the most heavily defended national border in the world.

should Military Demarcation Line and Demilitarized Zone be capitalised? (I am inclined to say not, especially in the former case, but they look odd when not.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:52, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

It depends on whether or not they are proper nouns, as determined by a majority of reliable sources. I'm terrible at checking sources (and especially polling a series of them) so I usually go by the articles if they have them, and if it makes sense. (Capitals shouldn't be used only for the purpose of defining the acronym.) "Korean Demilitarized Zone" certainly seems like a proper noun to me. I know some would also capitalize "Demilitarized Zone" when if refers to this specific entity, but I would tend not to – also, I'm not sure why one would use demilitarized zone after defining DMZ except perhaps to break up the repetition, and there may be better ways of doing that. "Military Demarcation Line" seems a less-likely candidate for a proper noun, but what the sources say is more important than my opinion. (Some military reports overcapitalize a bit, but those are primary sources anyways and we should go by reliable secondary sources.)

BTW, here's another convert trick: I would personally hyphenate it as 2.5-mile-wide (4.0 km) fortified buffer-zone. That can be achieved with: convert | 2.5 | mi | km | adj=mid | -wide (testing: 2.5-mile-wide (4.0 km)). That's a fairly rare case, but useful. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:00, 9 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thanks. I should have been able to work that out myself, but I managed to get confused. And hyphenated-convert; I like it. It makes me feel as if I know what I am doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

Richard Pink

Thank you for looking at Richard Pink, and so quickly, too — mere minutes after I posted it! Dizzyingly efficient! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

@Sasuke Sarutobi: All part of the service - we aim to please. :-) I did Pink's War too while I was dropping by. (Anything for a fellow Labour Party activist!) Seriously, you did good work on the Pink article, and it was an interesting education to go through it. I didn't have the heart to fail you on the conspicuously missing reference, but fortunately it didn't take much work to turn something up. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! To be perfectly honest, I lucked out on the mix of well-written sources at the time, so as long as I didn't trip and fall face-first into my keyboard, it was hard to go wrong. But I'm glad you found it interesting — I find the interbellum a fascinating but sorely neglected period, especially given how much of modern military theory and organisation originates then, as well as so much of the roots of modern political grievances and conflicts (as well as many of the first successes of our own esteemed Party; don't worry, I won't break into renditions of "The Red Flag").

Speaking of politics and military history, you might find Six Minutes in May by Nicholas Shakespeare interesting. I've not picked up a copy yet, but seeing an interview with him suggests that it would make for gripping reading: it includes the downfall of Chamberlain in 1940 after Attlee calls a division at the request of a naval officer (who was also a prospective Conservative MP), a resulting fracas in the Commons, and if I heard correctly, a young Profumo being spat on by a fellow MP for his vote! — Sasuke Sarutobi (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Interesting, I find echoes of many contemporary civil and social issues in late Roman and Byzantine articles. Possibly I find what I am looking for. Certainly many interbellum issues are still working themselves out. Iraq, and (the non-existence of an independent) Kurdistan spring to mind. Not sure that much on modern military theory and organisation similarly springs.

Having recently watched Darkest Hour on a flight that sounds interesting.

Feel free to break into the Red Flag. I have seen worse as chair of the LCF. As we have unitary authority elections in two months and a majority of one I am thinking of going for an easy life and applying for a job as a cat herder. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at a work by Daniel Ellsberg Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1918 flu pandemic Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Military History April drive

Hey, does WP:Military History organize drives very often? – Reidgreg (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I think that the last one was in 2012, but I could be wrong. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:48, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe they wait until they have enough of a backlog? MilHist do a good job at keeping on top of things. It seems like something I'd try out, especially if they aren't held often, but I'll probably wait a bit before committing. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Oh, glad to see you picked a large article for the ce drive. Not many to go around this time, so anything at 10k should stick on the leaderboard. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:43, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I dissuade you from joining the MilHist drive? I fancy some of their bling myself and you would be stiff competition.

Yes, a couple of guaranteed silver typewriters I reckon. Plus it is an interesting topic. Heavy going though, a lot of stuff needs tediously undoing. I am up to 1973; 28 years down, 45 to go. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

February MilHist contest

Dear Gog,

I have taken on this duty on behalf of our Lead Coordinator, AustralianRupert, to contact you in regard to the February contest. AR is otherwise indisposed at the moment, being in the midst of a natural disaster. I apologise on his behalf for not attending to this matter personally. You are aware that your entries in February's competition has caused some consternation among the coordinators (as evidenced by the recent discussions on the Coord talk page, immediately above. As a matter of disclosure as to my part, I have also messaged AR on his talk page. The "issue" is that you have interpreted the rules and spirit of the competition in a way quite different from the intention and which has not happened previously (to my knowledge). Having said that, there is no suggestion or implication that you have not acted in anything other than "good faith". Consequently though, we have (attempted) to clarify the spirit and intent of the comp - that an entry addresses deficiencies in an article in a way that directly leads to it being promoted on the assessment scale.

You will note that, with some help from my fellow Coords, I have been responsible for checking and posting February's comp results. Among others, I have checked all of your submissions. For many of these, I have left comments. In most of these cases, the articles a quite short - consisting of a lead and up to, say, five paragraphs. They have generally been assessed as C class and deficient in B3 (structure). The minimum requirement for B3 is a lead and at least one (main) section. This is quite appropriate for such a small article, even if the lead might be improved or further sections added. The disparity between the prior assessment and the article's state may have occurred for two reasons: either the article has been subsequently improved or the assessor did not apply the minimum and appropriate requirement in such a case (to which, the assessment may have been incorrect). While your edits to articles submitted into the comp have invariably improved these articles, my concern (and that of others) is that these have not directly led to addressing the deficiency in the article such that it was promoted - even though it was promoted subsequent to your edits. I am more than willing to discuss any of my comments.

The problem that we, as Coords, face is to achieve an outcome that is both fair and is seen to be fair, in respect to both yourself and other competitors. You will note that I do not have a vested interest in the outcome of this as I am not nor have ever been a contestant (not by my nomination at least).

It is potentially within your power to resolve our dilemma. On behalf of the Coords, may I ask you to reconsider your entries to the comp. I would ask you to do so in light of the most recent discussions on the Coord talk page and other similar claims for points in the comp. This is, without prejudice to your initial claims. This may be made on a case-by-case basis but I suggest you might also consider a global assessment of both the number of points claimed and the number of articles claimed, as this may simplify matters.

I also note, the foreshadowed changes to the scoring table. I am reasonably confident that this will be implemented in something close to the proposed form. It would certainly simplify matters for us if this could be implemented with effect of the February comp. Your decision may be contingent upon this and/or without prejudice to how this may ultimately be implemented.

Thankyou for considering this somewhat long post and request. Please ping me on your talk page, my talk page, the Coord talk page or at my comments on the February contest with your response and/or any questions. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:36, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Children in the military

Great work on this page. I've been looking over all your edits, looking good. I can fill in some of the CNs when you're done. Fugitivedave (talk) 01:32, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Fugitivedave Thank you. We copy editors are more used to brick bats than praise. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. The article is basically in good shape, but the more times I go through it, the more detailed stuff I find which needs reviewing.

I am being fairly bold in some cases, but there are several areas where I think that the best way to improve things is by wholesale deletion; it rambles in places.

IMO "History of children in the military" and "Rehabilitation and reintegration of child soldiers" should be spun of as separate articles with only a brief mention here. If you agree you may want to start a discussion on the talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking the same. I've added the discussion.

IMO, it would be good to cut the reintegration section down by removing some of the unreferenced content that doesn't bring much to the party - so that might be a good section for any bold feelings you may be having. The history section seems tidier and more substantial, though I agree it would be better on a separate page.

Also, some of the country content is very out of date - I started updating it a month or so ago but it's a slow job. Fugitivedave (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all you've done on Children in the military - it's much better now and I agree that it's a strong article. The rehabilitation page is going to be hard work, I think. I'm not as familiar with DDR but I will see if I can get a subject expert to advise on what needs doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fugitivedave (talk • contribs) 22:07, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@Fugitivedave For information, I have added some more references to Children in the military, deleted a few unsourced bits and am applying to MilHist for it to become B class. Thanks again for your input into this.

You will probably have noticed that Milling (military training exercise) got a well deserved B class. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:40, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that - good to know. Thanks again for your conscientious work on Children in the military. I've taken it forward a bit further - it's nearly there, just a few more country sections to update/thin down a bit. Fugitivedave (talk) 13:47, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Children in the military

Please don't "rename" articles by copy / pasting them. Use the "Move" function instead. Copy / paste breaks the attribution which is a requirement of the site license. Thanks - QuiteUnusual (talk) 17:54, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

@QuiteUnusual: Oops. Apologies. Newbie mistake. What, if anything, con I do to rectify this? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

If it isn't already fixed, tag the new article with {{db-g6}} and an administrator will delete it so that you can then move the page instead. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Blitz

Hello. Just out of curiosity, was thanking me for that edit meant sincerely or sarcastically? It is a little difficult to tell the tone of voice from a little click! Best wishes DBaK (talk) 19:23, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Ah, good question. Hi. It was sincere. A minor civility if you like; but also a genuine appreciation. Yes, I can see how a different tone of click would have implied sarcasm - I shall have to watch that. And likewise to yourself. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My first real message. I may make it as a Wikipedian yet :-) . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

HA! Yes indeed. And thanks - I like sincerity. I am cheesed off over what happened there but I'm glad you were being nice about it rather than poking me with a stick. Cheers and happy editing! DBaK (talk) 19:50, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

PS Your talk page [?] gave me a laugh. A pendant after my own heart. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

:) DBaK (talk) 20:14, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

My Way (2011 film)

If you get a chance see My Way (2011 film)--Woogie10w (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

@Woogie10w: Ha ha. You are well ahead of me. I only had the story from a slightly suspect Ambrose reference. I suppose that it was asking for the 'Hollywood treatment'. Definitely on my must watch list. Thank you.

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar, much appreciated. Urselius (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Pedestal

The article Operation Pedestal you nominated as a good article has passed

[[ Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]; see Talk:Operation Pedestal for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 22:43, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

Battle of Melantias

Thanks for cleaning up the article, I had flagged it for attention but not gotten around to it. Be advised that the IP that added the material is probably associated with Michael of Potuka (talk · contribs), judging from the latter's contributions and the writing style at Draft:Anastasian Wall Battle. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: It needed a look at didn't it. Thanks. Yes, I had picked that up. For my sins I am now going to check all of the edits made by both accounts and post appropriate messages to their talk pages. There are a number of good and useful edits in there, but some do have a, umm, unique writing style. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:00, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure whether you need to trouble yourself too much with this. The articles concerning the Kutrigurs, early Slavs, and anything remotely related to the origins of the Bulgarians (cf. Kubrat, Kanasubigi, Old Great Bulgaria) have long been a battleground of IPs and throwaway accounts who come in, dump material where fact is mixed with POV phrasings, legitimate sources are misinterpreted or misrepresented, etc. Plus there are at least two or three different POV positions involved, so that it is a complete mess. Welcome to the Balkans ;). These recent articles are clearly part of this campaign. There is only a handful of established editors who are aware of this or involved in said articles, but like most of them I have long given up on trying to "fix" these edits, and now revert on sight, since, unfortunately, any reasoned discussion is impossible, both due to extreme WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality, and poor command of English on behalf of the people involved. If you are knowledgeable about the subject, the only solution is to write it up yourself using your own sources, and then keep an eye on it so that it is not "improved" by these guys. Constantine ✍ 10:12, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you for the advice and perspective. I have noted a similar issue in articles around the Ukrainian Cossacks. Talk about refighting old wars. I have an interest (very amateur) in things Byzantine and so am likely to come across more of this. I shall take your advice and be readier to simply revert. I note that you have been ahead of me with some of this: "removing horrible, DIY, and non-factual "campaign map"" made me smile. I shall follow your advice, dig out my sources and improve some of the articles myself. (Battle of Melantias in particular deserves better.) Thanks again for the background, Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Sorry to trouble you again, but "if you don't know, don't edit..." was a genuine laugh out loud moment and has brightened my day. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:17, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

You're welcome. At least one can vent some frustration that way. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 11:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

European production

Hi Gog the Mild, I rewrote that sentence you mentioned, let me know if it makes more sense or feel free to correct it. Gryffindor (talk) 00:28, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

@Gryffindor: Now I understand what was meant. I have tidied the grammar up. Feel free to change if I have missed the meaning, or if you prefer a different phraseology. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Razing of Friesoythe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Razing of Friesoythe you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.

[[ Image:Time2wait.svg|20px]] 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 Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 18:21, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

The article Razing of Friesoythe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Razing of Friesoythe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Manelolo -- Manelolo (talk) 10:41, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

DYK-nomination

Hey, I made a DYK-nomination for the Sultanate of Dahlak, but no one seems to bother to review it. Would you be interested in doing so? It's quite an unspectular DYK, so I think it would be quickly done. GG LeGabrie (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Hi LeGabrie. I am away for Easter. As soon as I get a chance to do it, I will. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:42, 29 March 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! LeGabrie (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Same here. I made a DYK-nomination for Kusumamala, but not yet reviewed. Can you chech, Gog.? Thanks in advance. --Gazal world (talk) 22:09, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

I should charge. ;) Will do, but it may take a day or two. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:24, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can I still expect your review? LeGabrie (talk) 13:02, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: You can. Apologies - real life has been a bit pressing lately. Later today I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Review almost complete. Awaiting your response. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

To be honest, I prefer my version with the localization stated first. LeGabrie (talk) 09:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Fine. Approved. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks mate. Do I get a notification when the DYK is featured on the front page? LeGabrie (talk) 13:52, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: No worries. Yes. If you scroll down this page you will see the one I got for Razing of Friesoythe. Or you could watch Template:Did you know/Queue and see when it appears and progresses. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Leo Tornikios

The article Leo Tornikios you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Leo Tornikios for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cinderella157 -- Cinderella157 (talk) 23:21, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Milhist contest checking

G'day Gog, just a note to let you know that I removed a number of articles you claimed against the Milhist monthly article writing contest for March. If you take a look at my edit summaries on that page, I have explained each one I removed. Hopefully my comments will help you to better understand what constitutes being able to claim an article yourself for future contests. Some of the work you did, such as removing a copy edit tag with a minor copy edit, or other smaller changes, didn't actually contribute to the article's promotion in terms of the criteria that changed. If you have any questions about any of my decisions, please ping me with the specifics. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:25, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Dear @Peacemaker67: thank you for your patient and detailed notes at each step of the process. I now have a much better idea of what "significant" and "incidental" mean. If there were any of the 6 articles which you passed which you thought were close to the line I would appreciate knowing - but if they don't spring to mind please don't put yourself out over this.

In future I shall stay away from ships - I clearly don't grasp the requirements. (I am also thankful that I decided not to submit a couple of articles which I had previously thought were borderline.)

I am aware that projects like MilHist only work because of the work put in by coordinators like yourself. I suspect that it is a largely thankless task, so can I pass on a heartfelt "thank you" for all of the behind the scenes effort you put in. And apologies that my inability to grasp simple instructions has caused you to spend time educating me which could have been spent elsewhere. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

March 2018 drive bling

Congrats! A lot of first-place ties that month, four of us getting two gold stars each. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you. And congrats to you. Very impressive. I suspect that we only tied for longest article because you fudged the count on Thuis. If so, it is appreciated. Yes, I hadn't noticed the four double golds. A little odd. Your 4,999 word article gave me a wry smile.

I stayed away from anything too challenging and broadly had an enjoyable time. I ran out of steam after 3 weeks - my quality started suffering - and slowed right down. I did manage to get my second GA of the year through instead :) . And today I have my first DYN? which is pleasing. Still uncovering new facets of both Wikipedia and copy editing. I will get there, it just needs time and practice. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, I was lucky to get that last one in under the wire, I didn't want to snipe you. There was a fair amount that wasn't suitable so I dropped it down. I was surprised to have reached 100k (with bonuses), so my rollover is a tiny bit higher than before.

Are you trying to make me laugh with that phonetic acronym? D as in Djibouti, Y as in Ypres, and K as in know.

Got a little start on the Milhist drive. I hope to earn a couple stripes but not sure if I'll get enough for full chevrons. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Just keeping your copy editing skills alert. More here. You are a bit of a copy editing legend. Given the level to which you edit at I really don't know how you do it. If you are after chevrons, then I think that assessing is the way to go. I am picking a lot out of the "Needs B class list completing" on the open tasks page.

My DUK? got 22,000 views, which astonishes me. Checking, this is on the high side for a DYK? article. And it didn't even get an infobox until lunch time. (No, I don't know how it got through GAN without one either.) And I got a Precious, or an "Awesome Wikipedian" award, from something called the WikiProject Quality Article Improvement. This afternoon I got a message "The article was recently copyedited by a member of the WP:GOCE but frankly speaking, I'm not satisfied and I think it need improvement and you're good at it. Would you consider doing it?" It's enough to allay even my levels of insecurity. I am feeling that my Wikipedian apprenticeship is ending, and that I can settle down to steady work as a journeyman editor. And I haven't forgotten what a big part you played in easing me into this situation. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to see my article at the top of a Google search.

One of my favourites is Ode to a Spell Checker. I don't know who the original author was, I suspect it's been added to a bit as it circulated on the pre-web Internet.

I'm better at cleanup and getting unencyclopedic articles up to scratch than taking already good articles to featured status. I will offer a couple notes after a quick re-read:

• There isn't any mention of WWII aside from the infobox and See also section. Should there perhaps be some brief mention in the introduction of the lead or the Context section? It's possible that someone might be reading the article on general interest.
• There appear to be three quotes from C.P. Stacey. The second (paragraph beginning "The Canadian Army official history") and third (the last block quote) are similar enough that they seem to repeat each other. I would suggest paraphrasing one (or part of one) to alter the wording a bit.

Overall, though, this article is at a level where others could do a better job, so you might want to list it at the Requests page with a note for one of the more-experienced editors to give it a once-over. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: The 48th most viewed non-lead DYK of all time - fame at last ;) . I hadn't seen that poem before. Very droll. And takes me back to those days.

I found it difficult to work in a mention of WWII without it sticking out, but you are correct and I have done my best. Well spotted. I have taken out the first quote almost entirely, plus other redundancies and unnecessary detail. And expanded in a couple of areas, especially the aftermath. Hopefully it is less disjointed now. Hmm, I shall take that with a pinch of salt, but pass it on to GOCE anyway, it needs it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: It was 24 minutes from my posting on Requests to TFT completing her first edit. She is getting slack. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Razing of Friesoythe

On 4 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Razing of Friesoythe, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that on 14 April 1945, the German town of Friesoythe was deliberately burnt down by the 4th Canadian (Armoured) Division and the ruins bulldozed on the orders of its commander? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Razing of Friesoythe. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Razing of Friesoythe), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Look! - Next time you can do it yourself ;) - DYK that it took me 8 years to get a result like that, and less impressive because it came with a great image? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: LOL. The 48th most viewed non-lead DYK of all time. *smug* I have just written to my GOCE mentor "I am feeling that my Wikipedian apprenticeship is ending, and that I can settle down to steady work as a journeyman editor." This reinforces that feeling. (Although logically it shouldn't.) The Posmysz article is great - it looks B class to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

That article was great collaboration with Poeticbent whose mother's tongue is Polish. Mine is German - I keep track of DYK related to Germany, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:18, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Gerda Arendt. I read the Razing of Friesoythe article of course. The DYK hook misleads. Please, look at the photograph of Friesoythe which we don't have, but should... my Posmysz Auschwitz image upload comes to mind. The town as a whole was not "razed". Several houses were levelled. The image would have been quite revealing actually. Poeticbent talk 18:15, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Poeticbent: Yes, the sources, especially the German ones seem to overstate the case. This newsreel, from about 7.45, shows Friesoythe as very badly knocked about, but not "razed". I have just, whilst looking for a reference to quote in response, come across "Not all of Friesoythe was burnt, but its centre was destroyed". It does then go on to compare the town with "Dante's Inferno". I will use this to expand the article. Several personal accounts note the level of damage as unusually high; eg the one describing the convent as the only intact building. It is difficult to do other than quote the sources, especially the quantitively specific German ones. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Additional information added, but I don't think that it changes the overall picture.

I wonder to what extent stone, or even brick, buildings could be completely gutted by fire, but still look intact from a moderate distance? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Umar Saif

Hi Gog the Mild, If I request you to copy edit a BLP (Umar Saif) I recently fixed. Would you consider doing it? The article was recently copyedited by a member of the WP:GOCE but frankly speaking, I'm not satisfied and I think it need improvement and you're good at it. --Saqib (talk) 13:57, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Saqib: Sure. It may take a day or two for me to get round to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:43, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Sure. Thanks in advance! --Saqib (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Just thought I remind you about this. It appears you are not done yet. --Saqib (talk) 10:15, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe

Hello:

The copy edit that you requested from the Guild of Copy Editors of the article Razing of Friesoythe has been completed by a "skilled pair of eyes" :).

There was little that needed to be done with the article from my perspective, but I hope the edits I made have improved it.

Citation #21 from World Cat (https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/431569741) is for this title - Fragments of war : stories from survivors of World War II. It is left as it appears on world cat in the citation even though the lack of capitalisation is clearly wrong. I'm sorry I don't know if it is WP practice when citing World Cat to do this. If not, you should fix the caps. It certainly is jarring when one scans the references.

Good luck with your journey to A Class.

Please let me know if you have any questions or concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@Twofingered Typist: Whew! Many thanks. The edits have most certainly improved it. I could not have wished for more skilled eyes. World Cat - it is just a mistake on their part, sliding past me because I have looked at this article too many times. Thank you for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:25, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the information on World Cat; I learn something new every day. Also, thank you for the barnstar and your very kind words. Much appreciated. Cheers! Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:13, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the bombing of Darwin; recent books by female military historians Review essay: K.e.coffman on Wikipedia's representations of the Nazi German military Op-ed: TomStar81 on the Red Baron Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg

@Reidgreg: I am possibly being presumptuous, but could you have a look at this conversation and see if you could help out. If you can't feel free to pass this back through me - I don't want to put you in an awkward situation. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I note that you are only 80 points off the WikiChevrons you were doubtful you would get. Good going. You will have to slow down or you will overshoot and simply get yet another ordinary barnstar :) . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you for copy editing the Raino Parvat article. And thank you for the extensive notes you left. I have copied and saved them. They will help me towards sticking a toe in the water on this type of article some day. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:31, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I do a lot of plot summaries for the tv shows that I like. I often check Wikipedia for reviews to see if a series is recommended, and if it doesn't have plot summaries I'll write them when I get around to binge-watching. Yes, I'm at about 515, I found a niche to work on and there's plenty more where those came from but I think I'll stop there. I don't want to spend the whole month tagging, though the WikiProject Barnstar looks awfully nice. You are, of course, way ahead of me. Aside from this month's GOCE blitz, I hope to get back to an article I want to expand for DYK and ITN – In the News, which makes it a bit time-sensitive against my usual procrastination and a particular challenge I've set myself. BTW, I noticed you're a few hundred edits (maybe a month) from becoming a Veteran Editor, the service rank I recently reached. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:59, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It has been interesting to see the niches which people have found to mine. I have been seriously chasing the bling. Plus it is improving my assessing skills, although that effect has probably plateaued. I do now know a lot about the laws of war, UN Security Council resolutions, British hill forts and Roman military governors. Do let me know what the article is at some stage. (I am crossing my fingers that no one pulls my article from OTD before Saturday.) Getting into ITN sounds fiendishly difficult - good luck. Edits. Yes, but your edits are hugely larger that mine, to the point of destroying any attempt at comparison. 58% of my edits are less than 20 bytes. Only 152 are over 1,000. Although both are improving. I would wildly guess that you have probably done about 3 times as much "real editing" as me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry too much about big vs small edits. I'd estimate a third of my edits are from typo purges, which is about the smallest edit you can get (though these days I try to do general cleanup while I'm after typos). I tend to do copy edits in big edits, because otherwise I'd probably change things back and forth and end up undoing half of my edits. Plus, I find that editing can attract more attention to an article and if I don't get my copy edit done in one go I'm more likely to have edit conflicts. However, I think most copy editors use a strategy of smaller section edits to avoid edit conflicts. Either way is fine. I think the only real difference is that each edit is a save of the entire article, so 100 small edits take up 100 times as much server space as 1 big edit. But memory is cheap, so that may not really matter.

I'm a day behind on the blitz and I'd like to capitalize on my rollover to try for that penultimate barnstar, so I won't be too available this week. Next week I expect to start writing that article expansion. I've finished cataloging, and this is not an exaggeration, 175 sources. That's what you get with an in-the-news story. I imagine you're busy too. If you're curious, my first article is Danzig Street shooting. Feedback is welcome though I may not be able to give it attention this week. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:15, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Your Blitz totals gave me a snort of laughter. Well done. I was only going to do one article. but a request came up for a C/E of an article currently in FA review. I have worked with the reviewing editor who suggested GOCE before and think that I can see what he is after, so I have gone for it.

Being fairly IT ignorant I had not really thought about the server space implications of edits. It is startling.

Your article looks challenging. And 175 sources! Personally I would give up!

I have been reflecting on my Wikipedia experience. On 20 December I had done 700 edits. Now I am chasing down 8,000. I have collected half a bling-bar of well done's. I feel that I can hold my own in most aspects of GOCE and MilHist. Yet most days there is something new I learn. Largely a satisfying and pleasant experience. I probably could do with being a little less obsessive.

A query. Is the possessive of Antiochus X, Antiochus X' or Antiochus X's? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm a lost cause. Did not feel up to 30k but managed to preserve my rollover, which puts me in the same circumstances for the next blitz. I'll probably do a little checking/reviewing before getting back to writing.

Half a bing-bar is solidly in the "veteran" range, I'll note.

Oooh, a tricky possessive. Or is it really? The X is pronounced "ten" rather than "ecks" so you don't have to worry about the double-s sound. I feel that X's would be the least surprising, and it looks alright to me in the article Antiochus X Eusebes. Though now I'm starting to wonder about the "Eusebes".

For your amusement, when I was a wet-behind-the-ears editor asking about possessives I was offered the following: There's this family whose surname is Moses. They are the Moseses. Across the street is another family of Moseses. The postman got confused one day and delivered mail to the wrong Moseses, and ended up wondering how many more Moseseses there were in that street. This became enshrined in post office lore as The Moseseses's Dilemma.

Happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: You stopped at 29,999. Yes. You are hopeless. I feel that Blitz words are more difficult to get, leaving aside the time pressures. I can't imagine going for the OSSW in a Blitz. Good luck for next time.

17 possessives in Antiochus X Eusebes were Antiochus X'. Whilst all but certain this was not optimal I wanted to get a check on it considering that it is in the middle of an FAR and this has not been picked up. Now, if I am wrong, it is all your fault.

Bling. It just seems to roll in. This morning I got a very shiny MilHist medal which I didn't even know existed, for doing something which I didn't realise was eligible for rewards. I am not complaining. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Well-deserved, I'm sure. MilHist is rather impressive user group, and a bit legendary to be honest. Much of the GOCE was based on their successes. All before my time, of course. Certainly do blame me (i.e.: ping me into the conversation) if there's concern with that possessive. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:11, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Hey, just a quick note on HM Prison Shepton Mallet, do you think there should be consistency in the article for the name of the war, given as World War II in the lede and the Second World War in several subsequent mentions? – Reidgreg (talk) 21:04, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Drat. Thank you. Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I hope this isn't premature, but congrats on the Milhist drive! It looks like you got first place, more than doubling the points of the next-highest participant. (I'm happy to have ranked 13th – oh, someone gave me a barnstar for work I've yet to do, so looks like I've another commitment.) I'm back, having finished the heavy lifting on that article, though I feel like I could use a wikivacation from my wikivacation. The 8,800-word monster with 163 sources is temporarily here though I hope to move it to the mainspace soon. It no doubt needs a bit of cleanup and reorganization (one of the section headers is unnamed), but I need a break from it and will probably get back to copyediting to clear my mind. (BTW, although I'd welcome any input from you, please don't edit my sandbox as it's a pain to merge page histories.) I see you've taken on a long copy edit, so don't let me distract you too much. Congrats again and happy editing! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Lol. I like the idea of awarding a barnstar in advance to encourage work on a particular project. You need a sign: Will work for barnstars. Congratulations in advance on your WikiChevrons. And on passing 10,000 edits. I could probably do with a Wiki-break myself; I got a bit obsessed during the drive. The long copy edit shouldn't be too onerous (famous last words) and as European history it fits my specialisms.

I have started into your monster, but can see that it will be a long read. Looks like an exceptionally thorough job of a very topical topic. Welcom back. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:34, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: There is probably nothing you can do about it, but this is a section which I really wanted more information about. "At some time after April 2008, McArthur applied for and was granted a pardon on the conviction which was wiped clean from his record, and would not have appeared in criminal background checks during subsequent investigations." How did this happen? What is the local law about pardons? On what grounds did he apply? Is this common? Etc. The idea that someone can simply be exonerated after conviction for beating a man senseless with a pipe bewilders me. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: What a superb, classy article. I am speechless. You should get paid for that quality of writing. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:09, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I have been unable to form an opinion on the writing; I'm too close to it. Maybe after a couple months I'll be able to look at it objectively. I have plans to promote it for DYK, ITN, OTD, and I think there's a fourth acronym that goes with them but I don't remember what it is. Not GA, though, not unless it's really stable because I don't want it becoming a former-GA. It's my second big article and, frighteningly, has double the wordcount and sources of my first effort. This trend cannot continue.

I hope that pre-emptive barnstar doesn't set a precedent, I don't want to owe more work. (It's for an article that has very few sources, which may be a different challenge for me.) But maybe I should put more on your plate? You might be interested as your next copy edit: Japanese occupation of British Borneo, about 6000 words tagged in November. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, about the beating, yeah. In the quoted source a retired homicide detective says (and you can hear his exasperation) that anyone can apply for a pardon five years after completing their sentence. Police would have had to do a very deep background check to learn about it. McArthur behaved himself, or at least stayed off police radar during that time. Also, that he turned himself in and the suggestion that drugs affected his mentality convinced the prosecutor that it could have been a one-time incident. And because the victim didn't provide a statement at sentencing, that is taken to suggest the victim was indifferent about it. The Star carried an interesting story about their freedom-of-information application for the court records (of the assault case, not the pardoning). A judge had to approve it and the ruling had to include whether they would receive access just to read the records or to have a copy of the court reporter's voice recording. They decided for the recording but it was on a cassette, and when (working on a deadline) they finally found a cassette player it was playing at a speed used for dictaphones. They ended up finding an app to record it and replay it at different speeds in order to figure out what was said. Most of the details came from that report. There are all kinds of interesting stories like that. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:14, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Its a tour de force. Sure, lots of places where the writing could perhaps be tightened up a little, but it has a real narrative drive. Will there be images? Almost a shame to sully that clean, compelling prose with photos.

I would add a bit about the background to the "pardon" into the article. Pretty much what you just wrote for me. (In the UK there is the concept of a spent offence, but it works differently.)

Doubling: are you staring at the grains of rice exponential curve  ?

The Japanese article. Sure. It looks straight forward, if a bit bloated. So long as the requestee doesn't mind waiting in turn. And it means that I can put off Battle of Haifa (1948) where moving a comma is liable to provoke calls for me to be blocked. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

Precisely. I don't want to have to do double the effort again, plus I'd be hitting the 10k article size limit (recommended). I'd been aiming for a 5× expansion for DYK, but it ended up being 8–9×. Still, that's a lot of room for safety if I cut material. I don't do a whole lot with images; I think I'm afraid of the copyright release legalese, though I did upload a picture of a historic tugboat last summer, just to better understand the process. I've been meaning to figure out how to obtain, credit and use police photos. Though I would do so in extreme moderation. Frankly, I find that very few pictures are worth a thousand words, and I don't feel that Wikipedia should look like a glossy magazine. I'm more inclined to use maps, charts and graphs.

A GA has just started on my first article – seven months to the day from when I nominated it. It'll be a race to see which of the two articles will get a DYK first (assuming it'll pass). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Thank You

Updated the Reading Artillerists article this morning with a more robust introductory paragraph and an 1840s illustration done by Albert Newsam for the lithographer P.S. Duval. Just wanted to say thanks for your assessment of the article and suggestion to improve the opening. Wishing you all the best.47thPennVols (talk) 18:26, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Happy to help. If you want to work towards a Good Article Nomination - I don't think that it is too far off - let me know; I will put my GOCE hat on and go through it properly. You have generated a fine article from a blank sheet of paper and it is always pleasing to be able to acknowledge that sort of accomplishment. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:47, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That would be great! I hadn't ever thought that a Good Article Nomination could be within the remotest realm of possibility. I think it could be fun and instructive at the same time. (I've learned so much about the tiny operational details of Wikipedia over the past week thanks to the contest and your tips.) Not sure if they would be of help or not, but I recently came across several rosters of the Artillerists from different eras of their service. (I've only added the commanding officers' names to the article because I was afraid the full rosters would make the article too long.) 47thPennVols (talk) 22:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kusumamala

Please see note on your DYK review. Yoninah (talk) 22:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thanks for the advice. As an active GOCE member I would normally copy edit. As it was a DYK nom I deliberately didn't. Seems that I had a firm grip on the wrong end of the stick. Thanks for checking me. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:06, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

No worries. Your post made me smile. Yoninah (talk) 22:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:15, 20 April 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

April 2018 blitz bling

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE April 2018 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 15:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Featured article nomination

Interested in reviewing my FA nomination? Unlike the two previous GA nominations this here is a huge one, so beware. LeGabrie (talk) 18:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Well, FA is above my pay grade, but for you I'll give it a go. However, skimming the first section it needs a copy edit. Jumping from B class to FA is brave; normally this sort of thing would get picked up at GAN. If I copy edit I become ineligible to review. So why don't you post it as a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/Requests? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Guild_of_Copy_Editors/Requests#Alodia Let's hope anyone bothers. LeGabrie (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: They will. GOCE is good. Average wait is about 17 days. As a GOCE member I often pick up history requests myself. If it sits too long I'll see if I can nudge someone. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

17 days is quite a while. Will you comment in the nomination discussion after the copy edits, or will you already give it a shot before? Perhaps when I fixed the majority of the issues mentioned by Brianboulton? LeGabrie (talk) 19:26, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: You're not an eventualist then? OK, I will make a start while flagging up that it is awaiting a copy edit. You realise that you need three assessors to all approve to pass at FA? (Just out of curiosity, why did you decide to jump straight to FA?) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

"You realise that you need three assessors to all approve to pass at FA?"

Until you said that I didn't. Don't think will be much of a problem tho.

"(Just out of curiosity, why did you decide to jump straight to FA?)"

1) Mostly because I am now quite confident in the entry, leaving out minor errors like grammar and prose. 2) I want to get this a FA so I can finally consider it done and move on. 3) I wrote to you that it's "time to get a FA ready next", so I didn't want to nominate it as GA. LeGabrie (talk) 19:58, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Fair enough. Good luck. Skimming, apart from the C/E it seems a decent article. I would expect no less from you. FA is both tough and lengthy. The last time I was involved was in copy editing Battle of Warsaw (1705). 91 separate edits! It was as ready as an article is ever going to be. It shot through FA in 60 days. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:09, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am thinking about halting the FA nomination and nominate it as a GA instead. Would you be interested in doing the review? LeGabrie (talk) 15:51, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Asolutely. Put it up for GA and we'll work together to get it through, with an eye to getting it to above the standard needed so that you can then nominate it for A class or FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

The nomination is now up. As of now I intend to make two further content edits:

1) Extending the "Origins" sub-chapter by adding further info on the origins of the Nubians

2) Getting rid of the numbered paragraphs of the "Destruction" sub-chapter LeGabrie (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

So I guess I have to wait until the "Guild" is finished before I can make further content edits (like reworking the "Destruction" chapter)? LeGabrie (talk) 15:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The fact that the copy editor has put up a "Do Not Disturb" sign suggests that they would much prefer you not to. Or, if you only have one or two sections to work on, and that won't take too long, you could ask them to leave those sections until last, by which time you will have finished with them. You have got this up for FA, so the copy editor will have reasonably expected it to be in its final, polished state. (And a response from GOCE in 9 days isn't bad.) I will get on to it re GAN as soon as they, and you, have finished. As you can see, I have already got part way through. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

By the way, THIS was probably just an error, right? LeGabrie (talk) 19:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

It has me completely baffled. Alodia is still showing on the GA nominations page, and on the talk page. And I haven't failed it. Strange, but I wouldn't worry. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:41, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps a confusion with the failed FA nomination. Will delete it. LeGabrie (talk) 19:49, 6 May 2018 (UTC) Blackmane, the user who will do the copy-editing, allowed me to make content edits. Guess the whole thing will take several days. LeGabrie (talk) 11:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Leo Tornikios

On 28 April 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Leo Tornikios, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Leo Tornikios, a failed claimant to the Byzantine throne, was publicly blinded at Christmas 1047? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Leo Tornikios. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Leo Tornikios), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

The other bit

		The Half Barnstar
		I think this half belongs to you. Fugitivedave (talk) 09:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Request list of Cameroon

• G'day Gog can you have a fast look in the List of wars involving Cameroon. I worked on the list in the last days and in my view it is a BL-Class. CPA-5 (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Lists aren't my strong suit, but it looks solid B class to me and so marked. To prove that I was paying attention, note that a book published in 1922 (Buchan) cannot have an ISBN; I replaced it with an OCLC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Gog i am trying to make more lists to BL-classes in the future. CPA-5 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

CPA-5 Good. Lists don't get the attention they deserve. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Reaching out

Hi, Gog. I just wanted to touch bases because the respectful rapport we seemed to have developed early on during the April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive appears to have gone awry, and I'm not quite sure why. As a bit of background, I received a message earlier today from @User talk:Cinderella157 regarding my article self-assessments which left me feeling very unsettled. As I checked into the matter to try to figure out why Cinderella had messaged me the way he/she had, I learned via a simple search that you had posted the following message on Cinderella's talk page:

At the risk of sticking my oar in where I shouldn't, I assume that you are aware that many of 47thPennVols B classes are self awarded and have not gone through the usual B class peer review? [eg]. I will shut up now. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:59, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

I was, quite frankly, hurt by what felt like an accusation by you of inappropriate behavior on my part, and surprised because I thought, as I mentioned above, that we had established a reasonably good rapport. (You had done several reviews for me and were very helpful, and had also offered to work with me on getting two of my articles to Good Article status - for which I had expressed my appreciation and desire to proceed.) So, I'm genuinely disappointed that you didn't reach out to me first before approaching Cinderella regarding your concerns about my self-assessments. (I'm even more disappointed that you mentioned my user name when reaching out to Cinderella, but didn't pay me the courtesy of pinging me so that I was aware you were discussing my work. Quite honestly, it felt like you were talking about me "behind my back." Had you done so, I could have easily answered your question and, perhaps, eased your concerns.)

So, in the interest of re-establishing our prior good rapport, I wanted to reach out to you today to let you know that I actually did only self-assess my articles as C-Class, and not B-Class as you had told Cinderella. The text below is an abridged version of my rather lengthy response to Cinderella's query re: my self-assessments. (The full version is available on my talk page.)

.... Although I've been writing articles for Wikipedia on and off since 2015, I'm still relatively new to the system of classification and assessment. (The April 2018 Military history backlog drive was, in fact, my first real exposure to it so I'm still learning all of the ins and outs.) I believe that my assessments actually did follow the standard. My articles re: Evelyn Tucker, Denise Vernay, and the Reading Artillerists were all independently assessed by other Milhist members earlier on in the process as B-Class, and Mathilde Verspyck and Yvonne Chollet were just assessed by @User:AustralianRupert as B-Class. (I had planned on submitting the others for independent assessment as well, but was waiting on the assessments for Verspyck and Chollet to be completed because I didn't want to monopolize the time of my fellow Milhist members by submitting too many articles for independent assessment at the same time.) Regarding my self-assessments of the other articles (Tillie Pierce, Paulette Duhalde, Hetty Voûte, Ina Boekbinder, Willemiena Bouwman, Gerritdina Benders-Letteboer, and Riet van Grunsven): Each was asssessed by me as only being C-Class (which you can still see when you view the "Edit Source" text). When I self-assessed those articles against the B-Class standards (which I did based on my understanding of the self-assessment guidelines, which state that "Editors can self-assess articles against the five B-class criteria"), the template changed the rating to B-Class on the "Read" tab (but still left my self-assessment as C-Class on the "Edit Source" text). So I did only self-assess each of those as C-Class. (If there were any issues of "form," they weren't intentional; they were technical - due to the Milhist template.)

I hope this explanation makes sense. I wasn't trying to out-do you in any way, or trying to gain some sort of an advantage in the contest. (The contest was the farthest thing from my mind.) I was simply working to get as many new articles created as possible for the Women in Red/Milhist drive because there is a tremendous lack of articles about women and women's history on Wikipedia, and was also trying to make sure that the articles were in good enough shape not just for independent Milhist assessment, but to be in good enough shape that future editors wouldn't need to do substantial editing. (The gender imbalance on Wikipedia has gotten so bad that multiple media outlets have been reporting on it.) I'm hoping that we can return to our prior good rapport, and sincerely wish you all the best. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 13:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Me bad. Many apologies. With the wonderful benefit of hindsight of course I should have pinged you in. The way the conversation developed it just didn't occur to me - my concentration was on other things, of which more later. Belated, humble apologies for this breach of etiquette. In my defence I am relatively new here myself, registered for 4 years but only made 800 edits up to mid December. So I am really not up to speed with Wiki-etiquette, but now you mention that one I can't imagine what I was thinking. I hope that you read to the end of my comments: C157 gave me an open invitation to criticise any of your self assessed articles and I responded, in part:

"Nah. Thanks but don't bother. I am just sore... 47thPennVols is an enthusiastic, hardworking editor. He has written 12 articles from scratch and is a worthy winner... Of the 6 of his articles which were peer reviewed I did 3. They were high quality... he took this in a positively welcoming spirit...I am blathering. Summary: let things lie. I shall be amongst the first to congratulate 47PV."

Some history. In February I entered the contest for the first time. I caused considerable upset - Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators#February contest verification and results and had over half of my articles thrown out. The rules of the contest were actually changed in the wake of my 'behaviour'. I felt as if I was under considerable scrutiny. In March I had a further five thrown out. This time I was determined to not have a repeat. Then C157 ruled out the first of mine he had looked at, Children in the military. I probably wasn't in the best frame of mind when I asked him what he was doing.

In his responses C157 commented "I am not infallible :) " and "I may well have got it wrong". This prompted me to point out to him that IMO he was assessing your contribution incorrectly. I was trying to be helpful to him, and trying to do it discreetly. (Which I assume is why I didn't think to ping you in.) You had put most of your articles as starting as C class, which was wrong. (The table seems to have disappeared into the archives, so I am doing this from memory. Bear with me if any is in error.) You were under-selling yourself as you wrote them all from scratch. I had made a note to myself to keep a friendly eye on this to make sure that you got full credit. That's why I was paying attention to how you were scored. C157 spotted this, but, IMO, made a different mistake. You had, as you point out, self assessed just as the instructions say. What he should have done, IMO, is check in the talk page history which articles had been peer assessed as B and assign 6 points to just those, whilst those which had only been self assessed be left at the 3 points which you had scored them at. My "sticking my oar in" comment was meant to be a friendly hint to C157 that he was missing this. Whilst, to be frank, I was mostly fretting that for a third month in a row I was going to be held up for public shaming as trying to fiddle the contest.

When C157 came back I wanted to stress that he was potentially opening up a loophole. Which was nothing to do with what you had done, just how he, in complete good faith, had treated your entry. I wanted him to be aware of the potential unintended consequence of his perfectly reasonable response to your completely reasonable entry. Again, this wasn't the main thing on my mind, I was mostly relieved that he had rescinded his decision re Children in the military.

I hope that this explains that my comment most certainly wasn't intended as "accusation by you of inappropriate behavior on my part". From the bit of confusion over Denise Vernay, where when I went to assess it as B, it already was, even though you had keyed in "C", I realised just what had happened. Looking back at your post above I think that another reason I didn't think to ping you - there was never a conscious decision not to ping you, it simply (inexcusably) didn't occur to me - was that I didn't have any "concerns" about your behaviour which I wanted easing. Only about Cinderella's, and I was talking to him. Looking back at my posts to him, I made a mess of trying to communicate - I was probably too discrete and I can see how he missed my point and why you feel that I was pointing a finger at your behaviour. I repeat, at no point did I feel that there was anything wrong with your behaviour - other than under-scoring yourself.

Hopefully a token of sincerity for that is that, having had you recalled to mind, I immediately realised that I "owed" you a review of Denise Vernay and started in on it. (Which I would hardly have done if I was miffed at your behaviour.) I am genuinely sorry for spoiling your day. Can I repeat the sentiment "He has written 12 articles from scratch and is a worthy winner". That is an incredible feat, and 11 of them on women. Probably more than the whole of the rest of MilHist managed in April. And high quality, well written and thoroughly referenced articles. (I assessed 3 of them so you can go back to my comments of the time to check that I am not just saying that.) Leaves my random collection of dead white male articles in the dust, so I hope that you do win; it will be appropriate recognition of the effort you have put in. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded this barnstar for your efforts during the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive. Thank you for your contributions. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

		Golden Wiki
		For placing first in the April 2018 MILHIST Backlog Drive, you are hereby awarded the Golden Wiki. Thank you for your efforts. For the co-ordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg 2

Precisely. I don't want to have to do double the effort again, plus I'd be hitting the 10k article size limit (recommended). I'd been aiming for a 5× expansion for DYK, but it ended up being 8–9×. Still, that's a lot of room for safety if I cut material. I don't do a whole lot with images; I think I'm afraid of the copyright release legalese, though I did upload a picture of a historic tugboat last summer, just to better understand the process. I've been meaning to figure out how to obtain, credit and use police photos. Though I would do so in extreme moderation. Frankly, I find that very few pictures are worth a thousand words, and I don't feel that Wikipedia should look like a glossy magazine. I'm more inclined to use maps, charts and graphs. A GA has just started on my first article – seven months to the day from when I nominated it. It'll be a race to see which of the two articles will get a DYK first (assuming it'll pass). – Reidgreg (talk) 15:52, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg Barkeep49 seems to know his stuff. Hopefully he will get through it in short order for you. I would be amazed if it didn't pass. (He said from the lofty pinnacle of having reviewed all of articles. I assume that is what "(Reviews: 22)" before my name means.)

I agree re images; I am essentially a maps and graphs person myself. Although: File:Toronto Gay Pride 2008.jpg. That said, I do like to get an appropriate image or two in my MilHist articles. My A class review is hung up on images at the moment; I used two photos from Library and Archives Canada and it is not being accepted that they are open use for the US unless I can establish the date they were first published. Frankly I am stumped.

I finished my first run through Charles I of Anjou, picking up all of the easy stuff and leaving some queries. Before I could start the serious work I was amused to get a "thank you for your thorough copyedit". Some people are easily pleased. (I assume that you are still tracking my work for quality control.)

Can you point me at the Wiki-page were it explains how to rename a page? I reckon that Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) needs a "D". (The last section of this - Marriage proposal - is worth reading for the humour value; I swear that if anything I am understating things.) Also, whilst I and consulting the oracle, if using inline notes, should they also go after punctuation? Last sentence of the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:25, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Help. I seem to have broken the template {{GAHybrid}}. I have used it several times before, but this time my assessment comments on Alodia seem to be going direct to the base template. Any ideas? Fixed. Phew! Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, was a but busy offline and working on a big copyedit; I checked on this first when I saw my notifications and am glad the issue has resolved. I imagine that the experienced editors who use that template quickly pounce on any changes.

I should really do more copy edit reviewing at the beginning of drives and blitzes, to get newer copy editors on the right track.

Anyone (technically, I think anyone with 10+ edits) can move a non-protected page. However, in this case there seems to be some controversy. If you check the move logs (you have to check under both titles but I've combined them here) it has:

07:08, 7 May 2018 Gog the Mild – moved page Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) to Constantine Dalassenos (Duke of Antioch) (Should be 'Duke' and not "duke".)

07:30, 7 May 2018 Cplakidas – moved page Constantine Dalassenos (Duke of Antioch) to Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) over redirect (not a title of nobility, but a latinization of the Greek doux)

02:29, 8 May 2018 Peacemaker67 – moved page Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) to Constantine Dalassenos (Duke of Antioch) (caps)

You made the first move so you're okay, you were just being bold. But the other two know there is disagreement about what the page should be named, which makes it a contested move. Making a contested move without discussion is, in my opinion, a severe form of edit warring. What they should have done is taken it to WP:RM (requested moves) for discussion. If you're unsure about a page move, taking it there is generally a good idea. The folks there specialize in this and know all the policy and the technicalities, and almost always resolve a move within a week. (Incidentally, participating there is how to demonstrate competence at page moving if you want the Page Mover user right – some editors collect barnstars, others collect user rights which actually do represent competence.) For my own two cents, I would note that the parenthetic part of titles are used for disambiguation and don't get special capitalization (e.g.: Wonderwall (song)). So the question would seem to be whether or not is is a proper-noun title as per Cplakidas. I have gone ahead and listed it at WP:RM.

I'm not so sure about that inline note. I'm probably not a big fan of having to go from the lead to the end of the article, even with a short one like this. I'm not so sure it's a lead-worthy note, and the section just above the note discusses it anyways. I don't see anything wrong with it, but I wonder: what's the point of it? Aside from drawing particular attention to one point of amusing trivia?

Other notes (here's your review) I think I would use {{abbr}} with r. the same as with c. (circa) on the first occurrence lead and body. I'm not a big fan of the slash in years circa 965/970 and might replace it with "or" (MOS:SLASH). And I think good looking could use a hyphen as a compound modifier. So just little MOS stuff.

Did I answer everything? Going to check my GA review and see what's been changed to the article. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg Dalassenos. Thanks for the help and the advice. I had been thinking that I had done something wrong. It never occurred to me that I had been reverted. IMO Constantine is wrong; he is Greek himself and is trying to do a direct translation. But a) given that a couple of editors seem to have stepped out of bounds I would prefer to get it over with b) I would rather keep it in-house at MilHist c) I have frequently worked with Constantine and got on well with him and c) it is a minor issue, so I am going to let it go.

Re the MoS stuff. You are, as usual, completely correct in all of your points. (Sigh.) Amended.

"I should really do more copy edit reviewing at the beginning of drives and blitzes, to get newer copy editors on the right track." Was that to my address?

Interesting pointer about user rights. I may start a collection. But I am keeping busy with assessing, I have four on the go at the moment; GOCE, I am trying hard to take it steady as sf my work towards the end of the last drive was shoddy; and promoting articles, I have an ACR and two GANs up at the moment, two more GANs ready to go and several others at various stages. I feel that I need more general experience first.

What on Earth is happening to the Drive this time? Two months ago we spent as much time going backwards as forward. This month the backlog just seems to be melting, and I can't work out why. At this rate it will half by the end of the month. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It's easy to miss things when page moves are occurring, which is why I find back-and-forth page moves to be a form of disruptive editing. But I know everyone meant well.

@Reidgreg: I think that Constantine was being a stubborn Greek. But I love him anyway.

Re: reviewing, I just feel like I did more coordinator stuff in the six months before I was elected (approved? consensus-ed?) than I have since, that I should put in some more time on that, and it tends to be more productive to offer help earlier than later.

I would agree. In January as I was steaming into the drive (goodness, was it only January) I was bouncing up and down asking for reviews. I was sure that I was getting things wrong. I suspect that your starting to correct me only towards the end of the month made your job even more difficult than it had to be. And my response more startled.

I haven't been keeping track of this drive month, but in past years May and November have been very busy months for copyediting. If you look at the charts, we always hit new record-low backlog numbers these months (it'd been just under 1,000 in November, then bounced back up around 1,300). A large part of that is due to Lfstevens, who purges hundreds of small articles in these months (too many to claim – I believe Lfstevens is the first GOCE hall-of-fame inductee). As for me, I hope to finish my first copy edit of the month today (slacker!).

January Drive: a net reduction of 53 articles. March: 87. First 9 days of May: 311. And the day is not yet over.

Yes, but you have taken on a 15,000 word monster. I am only on my 5th - the shame!

I should probably hang out at GA reviews and just check for MOS. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

It would drive you crazy. At GA you only need to comply with the MoS for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation. Now at FAR, where there are at least 3 reviewers anyway, you could be really useful. Think about it. Would you like me to point you at a couple where you are needed? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I have just sprayed beer all over my monitor: "I've done a little bit of copy editing".

Well, I probably shouldn't have even said that. I'd rather the reviewer was brutal than giving the prose a pass due to presumed competence on my part. I've been continually amazed at the critical blind-spots developed from working on the article. The reviewer is allowing a few extra days for another editor to respond, so I'll have to try to use some of that time to look for images. Oh, and please don't point me at any more work just now, thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 10:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you must be busy with all those GAs pinging at the same time. My GA passed so I've one to your five, published the McArthur updates and put both in for DYK. Copy edited some small articles for fun, and now I have to get back to updating McArthur again (there was movement in the case this week). Feels good to move a few big things into the 'done' column. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Yes, but your GA is bigger than all of mine put together. Congratulations, it was a great article. I have been resisting peeking as to how it was getting on. I hope that you have a nice, warn glow. Nice snappy DYK. (I have one 3 noms above.) Might it be worth putting it in On This Day? I see that you have DYK'ed Bruce McArthur as well.

I am glad that I am not the only one who seems to get blind-spots about their own articles. There should be a term for it. I have been resisting my charge at GOCE of the last two drives, which tends to degrade my copy edit quality, by spending time on getting articles promoted. Half way through the MilHist drive I started saving articles which didn't need too much work to get them to B class to my To Do List. Quite few are now ripe for GAN. I have six in the queue. If they seem to be of a standard acceptable to assessors I already have another three to follow them with. I intend to assess two GANs for every one I submit, which is keeping me out of trouble, and giving me another outlet for my newly learnt copy edit skills. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't been single-minded on copy edit either, but May 12 the copy edit backlog reached a new record low and now I want to see how low we can get it. (It'll probably set a record until November.) I missed the five-year anniversary for Danzig so I think I'll wait for one of the other big anniversaries. I might try for the first anniversary of Kinsman's disappearance in the McArthur article, but I don't know how they feel about having a DYK, ITN and OTD crowding the front page so close together.

On the McArthur article, I was shocked to find a typo in a section header. I was wondering, since you've already read it once and are interested in the subject, would you consider giving it a light copy edit if I list it on Requests? I'd meant to do so for DYK but that was before I realized how long it ended up, and since it's still in the process of being written a thorough copy edit is not appropriate. But still, I hate to think of how many other mistakes I've may have left in it. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:32, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I had a DYK and an OTD within 10 days and it just felt good. I would say, go for the full set. Happy to copy edit; no need to list it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at coalitions and logistics in World War II, and Nick-D at Australia's frontier wars Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Russian occupations of Beirut

Hope it doesn't affect your work, but I did some copy-editing of my own earlier. Just though I'd let you know. Fitzcarmalan (talk) 16:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

@Fitzcarmalan: Not a problem. The more eyes the better. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Petronius Maximus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Petronius Maximus 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine VIII

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine VIII 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romanos III Argyros

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Romanos III Argyros 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:21, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zoë Porphyrogenita

The article Zoë Porphyrogenita 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:Zoë Porphyrogenita for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Chetsford -- Chetsford (talk) 19:00, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Zoë Porphyrogenita

The article Zoë Porphyrogenita you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Zoë Porphyrogenita for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Chetsford (talk) 19:20, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine VIII

The article Constantine VIII you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine VIII for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:02, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Honorius (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Bruce McArthur

Reidgreg

• "Their parents farmed and operated from their home a foster centre for troubled children from Toronto". Perhaps 'Their parents farmed and operated a foster centre for troubled children from their Toronto home'?
  • That makes it sound like the foster home is in Toronto, whereas the intention is that the home is on the farm and the children are from Toronto. The previous sentence already says he was raised on a farm, so, how about: "In addition to running the family farm their parents fostered troubled children from Toronto". Or maybe just "On the family farm, their parents fostered troubled children from Toronto".

Either work fine. I like the latter.

• "He worked by himself, going town to town". I assume that this is grammatical in Canadian English?
  • More conversational, if one fell off the turnip truck. Checking the source, the paraphrasing was too close. How about: "He worked by himself, travelling from town to town, soliciting department stores to carry his merchandise."

Fine

• "The 49-year-old was 1.93 metres (6 ft 4 in) tall, 100 kilograms (220 lb) and street-savvy, and seemed an unlikely victim of violence." You may want to look at the commas in this.
  • I usually only use serial commas for clarity. Maybe a rephrase: "which made him seem an unlikely victim"?

Fine

• " Downer organized an August 1 safety town hall meeting in which police gave an overview of the task force and thanked the community for "the abundance of information" they'd received." Maybe 'town hall safety meeting' instead?
  • Is "town hall meeting" a North Americanism? It doesn't take place at a town hall, but is a type of meeting where officials and stakeholders talk about some subject (in this case community safety) before the community, usually with a Q&A session. "community safety meeting" might be better.

Ah. Yes. To a none North American it would seem clear that the meeting was in the town hall and, probably, officially organised. ("Always something new to learn around here."

• I, personally, have no idea what a Two-Spirit person is. A quick Google suggests that a North American reader will.
  • I didn't know what it meant before writing this article, and keep wondering if I should cut it. (Did you see the hover-over definition?) It has led to the alphabet-soup LGBTQ2S.

I an the very fringe of the UK LGBT movement, where I (very) rarely come across additional letters. But I'm a provincial.

• "Idsinga was confident that police had sufficient evidence for a conviction without the bodies." Might be clearer as '... even without the bodies.'?
  • Agreed. Idsinga was satisfied that there was enough evidence for murder convictions even without the bodies.

I am proof reading rather than copy editing, but so far only finding trivia. The issues above are the 'worst' I have found, and I am not sure that I would have flagged any of them even for a FA review. Many of the sentences are longer than I would have preferred, but not, I think, to the point of being potentially confusing to a reader. I will come back to the rest later. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:48, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

• "The owners requested that police keep crime-scene tape up around the yard to deter reporters from whom they were feeling increasingly harassed." '... by whom...'?
• "He'd last had contact with his family in August 2015, and police believe he had been killed between September 3 and December 14, 2015." 'He had last...'?
• "Police had received tips from around the world, including countries where McArthur vacationed." '... had vacationed'?
• "According to a bartender, Kayhan was active in the gay village since the mid-1990s and would stay at an apartment kept by his partner," '... Kayhan had been...'?
• "Kinsman knew McArthur for at least a decade" 'had known'?
  • Agreed on all of the above.

• "A publication ban was ordered on court proceedings, limiting what can be reported in the media." It may be helpful to give the date the ban was ordered.
  • My earliest source on that is 3 Feb and it was court-ordered, so either 19 or 29 January.

OK. If you don't have a clear date probably best to leave it as it is.

All trivial stuff. I will start on controversies tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:31, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it! It is a lot wordier than I would want for a finished article. I hope that, as it fills in, many of the shorter points can be summarized into broader statements. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:

• "Reid said she informed police of her findings and a basic criminal profile in July 2017" Possibly '... and provided a basic...'?
• "Homicide investigators only became unaware of the alleged incident after McArthur's arrest," Hah! 'aware'!
  • red-faced The dangers of working offline, I believe that I fixed that and put it back in at least once. It had been something terrible like "were unaware until after" and I somehow left the correction half-finished. At least I didn't have "be made pubic" below.
• "At a February 29 Toronto Police Services Board (TPSB) meeting Tory moved to have the internal report be made public". British English would delete the "be".
• "Her body had been found on August 5, but had badly decomposed and was not identified until November 23." It is fine as is, but maybe 'was badly decomposed'?
• "In a March 9 statement, Saunders said that he understood frustrations with little information released during the investigation" Reads clunkily to me. '...with the limited amount of information that had..."?
• "Legal experts suggested that criminal investigations and prosecutions be protected by a publication ban on witness testimony, or to preserve records and take witness statements under seal until the trials were over." '... or by preserving records and taking witness statements under seal...'?
• "Media outlets with tight deadlines obtain photos from the Internet," Is internet capitalised?
  • I questioned that when I first saw it on the wiki, but there is only the one Internet. Accept no substitutes.

Phew! and done. Great article. Have you thought about an FA nom? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

No FA on this until sentencing. It failed ITN without discussion. Apparently they do not do criminal investigations, period, even though 7 more news stories on the subject appeared while I asked them about it today. So any chance of ITN will have to wait for conviction/sentencing. It was still worthwhile doing the expansion. Much thanks for your proofread! Feel free to peek at the move request. Tricky finding a name to agree with the policy, but that's why I asked for help there. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2018 (UTC) I see that the DYK for Danzig Street shooting is scheduled to appear on the main page tomorrow (Friday) morning. Now I just have to watch for vandalism! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

A nice looking DYN. Congratulations. Is vandalism a big issue with current affairs articles? (Not something one gets a lot of down here in the Byzantine archives.) Let me know if you need an extra vote on the name change. I assume that sentencing is years away?

I may be slow in responding for a couple of days as I am taking a break in Scotland. Ridiculously good weather. In an hour I shall be taking a boat across Loch Lomond. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:05, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Oooh! Toss a caber for me. The name change has been interesting. I have learned: propose a truly horrid and controversial name if you want more editors to participate in a discussion. I think all the issues and policies have been raised and I'll be happy with whatever is decided, so long as it is decided fairly soon. Speaking of which, I thought the trial would be years away (as was the case with Danzig) considering the complicated case and huge investigation. However, it seems the trial rules have changed. I added another paragraph to Bruce McArthur#Legal proceedings. His trial has to have concluded within 30 months of charges being laid – and forensics experts have said it could take years to go through all the evidence. I'm eager to see what the Crown's strategy will be. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:52, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Caber tossed. Good tip; I can see how that would work . That is interesting. I suppose that they go with some of the easy cases, and stop charging him with any new ones so they have some in reserve. It will be interesting to see how it plays out. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Danzig's DYK broke 10k page views and (at the moment) is the ninth-highest for May. It's no hall-of-famer but I'm happy with it. After looking at those stats, I went back to an article I was contributing to when I registered my account. It's for the highest-rated show on US cable TV: Even when the show is on hiatus it gets a baseline of 10,000 views per day and has gone as high as 130,000 page views in a day. Scary. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I noticed. Wasn't it nearer 11,000? Well done anyway. You have every reason to be contented with a fine job of work. Yep, that's what folk really want from Wikipedia. I recently assessed Prince Harry for MilHist. That has had 3.5 million views in 30 days.

This may give you a smile. Far and away the largest edit I have ever seen on 20 May. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. That could be three articles from the size, though the size is in part because it's so well sourced. It should probably be renamed as a "list of" article. Page move on McArthur failed but then it was boldly moved since policy trumped opinion. Very grateful to the other editor for moving it, as I don't want the other editors on the article upset with me. The May GOCE Drive broke a couple records: Not only did it bring the backlog to a new record of 716 (preliminary number) but that's less than half of what it was at the beginning of the month; first time that's happened. I believe you're up for a gold star and four silvers. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Gotta give something back

		The Epic Barnstar
		Thanks again for your barnstar. It should be noted that it is the result of us two collaborating, as it was you who reviewed my articles and got them ready for GA-status. Here, have a star back. LeGabrie (talk) 17:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

LeGabrie you are wonderful. Appreciated. You have made an old WikiGnome very happy. Let me know when you have your next article in a state to be looked over. PS Yes, I know that I helped, but I know who did all of the heavy lifting. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:01, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Petronius Maximus

The article Petronius Maximus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Petronius Maximus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:01, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romanos III Argyros

The article Romanos III Argyros 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:Romanos III Argyros for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:20, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Constantine VIII

Hi, I just promoted your DYK nomination to a queue. The hook is good, but the article is salacious! Your descriptions of everyone's decadent behavior are so vivid. Were all Byzantine courts so amoral? Best, Yoninah (talk) 19:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah Thank you. In short, yes. You should read Zoë Porphyrogenita. One (Victorian) historian: “Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, without a single exception, the most thoroughly base and despicable form that civilization has yet assumed. There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destitute of all forms and elements of greatness, and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically applied... Immersed in sensuality... The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues of priests, eunuchs, and women, of poisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude.” Of course, the Byzantines didn't have rock 'n' roll and the drugs weren't very good, so they had to make their own entertainment. Constantine's brother Basil, after defeating the Bulgars "was said to have captured 15,000 prisoners and blinded 99 of every 100 men, leaving one one-eyed man in each cohort to lead the rest back to their ruler." Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks for writing these articles! Yoninah (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Yoninah My pleasure. I am glad that you like the encyclopedic tone. Thanks for promoting the DYK nom. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:56, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: I have just had a genuine Lol. I went to check where Constantine VIII is in the DYK queue and several places ahead of it was an article which I personally signed off as a GA at 16.00 UTC today. Clearly there is some trick which I have not yet learnt. And my Zoë Porphyrogenita hook (... that five years after Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married, aged 50, her husband was murdered by her teenage lover, who married Zoe the same day and was crowned emperor the next?) is still awaiting review. TANJ. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Lately I've tried to promote from the top of the Approved page, where nominations have gone through a lot of discussion so there's a lot to wade through. So sometimes I go to the bottom of the page where recent nominations have been passed swiftly. That's how I pulled up Constantine VIII. I'll take a look at your Zoë nomination later, if someone else doesn't get to it first. Best, Yoninah (talk) 09:58, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

@Yoninah: Thank you. You may like the article. Re-reading the above, it may come across as a complaint; it wasn't meant to. It was intended as banter. Anyway, enough; back to editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:03, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

No worries. I didn't even know what TANJ meant; had to look it up. It's funny! Yoninah (talk) 10:08, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Romanos III Argyros

The article Romanos III Argyros you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Romanos III Argyros for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macuahuitl

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Macuahuitl 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 HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 16:40, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Constantine VIII

On 26 May 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constantine VIII, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constantine VIII was crowned as co-emperor of the Byzantine Empire in 962 but had to wait 63 years before becoming sole ruler? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constantine VIII. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constantine VIII), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:02, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macuahuitl

The article Macuahuitl 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:Macuahuitl for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 21:40, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Alaska

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Alaska. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

GA Notice

GA Notice
Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article HM Prison Shepton Mallet in which you've been a major contributor, and has been 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. WPCW (talk) 10:00, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
· · ·

Thank you for your kind words. I have completed the review and it is available at Talk:HM Prison Shepton Mallet/GA1. I am new to this, and it is a dramatic change from academia to Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments about the review. WPCW (talk) 14:39, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

@WPCW: I can imagine. The review seemed spot on to me. Arguably towards the more demanding end for GA, but that may be more of a reflection of my being a little laid back. Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:24, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Zoë Porphyrogenita

Hi HLHJ

Hello, Gog the Mild, and thank you for the progress report. I'm afraid I can't share your kind assessment of my review; I hadn't realized that she only reigned a few months, and it does seem that her life was remarkably unconnected from the Empire, and it doesn't seem as if Psallus actually gives reasons for Theodora's fury, either (tho as reactions go, it was a safe political bet in a pretty unstable situation). My tone somehow came out rather impolite, too.

Well, yes. It did a bit. But I didn't see any point in poking back at the nomination's assessor. We all make posts that come across rather worse that we intended or than a mature review of what we have just banged into the keyboard would reflect. No harm done, and pleasing to see that you are actually quite reasonable and with a sense of humour to match my own. (And we haven't even mentioned the eunuch. Don't forget the eunuch.)

I've edited the lede to try and get the chronology clear in my head; please modify it as you see fit, as I may well have messed it up or even gotten something horribly wrong. I am slightly confused by the article on Zoe's mother Helena, who, it seems, married a 16-year-old Constantine, had two daughters in quick succession, and then either soon had a third, Theodora, or waited 11 years and then died giving birth to her. Psellus is interesting, I wound up reading him. He does seem rather partial to both Michael IV the Paphlagonian and, to a lesser extent, Zoe. He makes brief mention of Zoe in book two, and writes of her death in book 6, of his Chronographia, with bits in between; I'm sure you've sen all this, Gog the Mild, but add it least someone else read it. The suggestion of Zoe actually ruling despite being female is made twice in his text (it is suggested, for instance, that she marry "a man willing to treat her, not as his consort, but as empress in her own right"); Psellus attributes her not doing so to her lack of interest in such things. He does not seem to draw a clear distinction between empress consort and empress regnant, tho, and of Theodora says somewhat bizarrely "Everyone was agreed that for the Roman Empire to be governed by a woman, instead of a man, was improper, and even if the people did not think so, it certainly seemed that they did. But if one removes this single objections it must be admitted that in everything else the Empire prospered and its glory increased.". He gives Zoe's age at her first marriage as 50; the 1950s translator corrects him to 48. Not sure what's right. He repeatedly mentions her piety and generosity, the latter critically, the former not exactly approvingly. He also doesn't attribute her looks to ointments, saying that in age she took little care of her appearance, and attributes the ointments to religious devotion. He also says she was temperamental and far too ready to blind people for no good reason. Spends more time on the first fault. Of murder, he also says flat out that "I do maintain that Zoe and Michael were the cause of his death". He doesn't attribute the death to the one or the other. HLHJ (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, a scholar. I wasn't expecting that. I will have a look at your changes and see what I think. You can see how difficult it is to get the gist of what happened, or what we think the chroniclers of the time think happened, into comprehensible form for a short article. I certainly don't think that the article as it stands is a definitive version, but there is usually a reason for any decisions made. Including for those not made by me.

Hey. I haven't even looked at the article on Helena. Things can get confusing. Three people edit, each relying on a different primary source, and/or a secondary source relying on it, and you end up with a contradictory mess. Albeit with each individual statement impeccably referenced.

I found Psellus to be rather misogynistic. I could express that more strongly. Of course, Psellus was a senior advisor and civil servant in the Byzantine court and had his own views, prejudices and agendas. Ages can be an issue, especially for women and my approach has been to not worry the readers' heads with a paragraph on just when someone was born. They possibly didn't know themselves and, within reason, who cares?

Gah. Yes, lots of conflicting views among the primary sources. And the secondary for that matter. Which is why Wikipedia policy stresses reliance on secondary sources - you know this, I am sure. I have tried to pick a path through the secondary sources' broad consensus. In the GA assessment I was close to told off for not giving enough space to Zoe's famed use of lotions and potions.

Hook. It seems clear that Z&M were responsible for the death of Romanos. (Or, possibly, complicit in John setting it up.) That being so, what is wrong with the original hook? Michael doesn't have to have carried out the act himself. If I pay someone to kill you, I am guilty of murder. Definition 3 in Wiktionary. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I put Theodora into GAN last night. And on my to do page are some further Byzantine topics I hope to work on. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Alchon Huns

Hi, thanks for your reviewing Alchon Huns and for your initial recommendations. I'll get on with addressing the issues you raise, which are all on point! I agree the article is over-illustrated so will remove images you suggest. It looks like I'll have to take on a bigger edit load than I initially thought. Though happy to do it, it will prolong the process a bit. Thanks for being patient! alx_bio 02:09, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: No problem. Take your time. (Within reason.) So long as there is someone still interested in working on the article I am happy. I haven't really got into it yet - I didn't want to waste my time if the editors had lost interest - but it looks solid. So hopefully not too much work for you. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:59, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the May 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with a total of 80 points from 18 articles. Well done and congratulations, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:00, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg

Wow. That could be three articles from the size, though the size is in part because it's so well sourced. It should probably be renamed as a "list of" article. Page move on McArthur failed but then it was boldly moved since policy trumped opinion. Very grateful to the other editor for moving it, as I don't want the other editors on the article upset with me. The May GOCE Drive broke a couple records: Not only did it bring the backlog to a new record of 716 (preliminary number) but that's less than half of what it was at the beginning of the month; first time that's happened. I believe you're up for a gold star and four silvers. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:20, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Well done with McArthur; the ways of Wikipedia are weird and wonderful. Yes, I had been wondering about whether the total would half since 250 came off in the first six days. That is an impressive surge over the last two days.

I was tempted to join in the fun myself, but stuck to my resolution to do less copy editing and concentrate that on my specialist areas. It is pleasing to see that two of these have since achieved GA and two more are in the queue. I am still not hitting the level of attention to detail that you would like me to, but I think that I am doing a fair enough job. Apart from anything else I am getting bolder; and getting thank you's for gutting editors' articles!

I have largely stayed away from anything above GA. My last was in April for a an article on an obscure corner of history which was in FAR. I got a "thanks" from one of the reviewers. The same editor (who thanked me) has put a request on GOCE for an article to be reviewed prior to FA submission. Topic-wise it is right up my street. But I am a little wary of my (in)ability to copy edit to an appropriate standard. Your thoughts would be valued.

A couple of smiles for you. From an FAR:

There seems to be a lack of non-breaking spaces ({{nbsp}} or {{snd}}) in all of the places where the MoS would suggest that there should be. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Added alt text. I am not familiar with the usage of non-breaking spaces. Kges1901 (talk) 15:34, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

@Kges1901: That all looks fine. "I am not familiar with the usage of non-breaking spaces." Shocking! And you with 4 A class or FA articles to your name. Even your FA assessors didn't pick it up. What are things coming to that FA assessors let through articles ignoring the MoS? Hohum. I should make you learn them and put them in, but that seems a bit petty. OK. I'll let this one go and if I get a spare hour I will put them in for you. Also I made an edit myself to tie up a last niggling point. Are you/the sources ok with it? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

From a DYK nom:

ALT4:... that ... Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita first married aged ~50 (three days before the death of her father), lived in an open marriage until her husband died in suspicious circumstances, married her teenage lover the same day, had him crowned emperor the next, was imprisoned by him until his death, was exiled by his successor and nephew, was restored by a popular revolt, and ruled with her sister before temporarily ousting her from power and marrying a former lover? (maximum drama version) @HLHJ:.ALT4 - you forgot the beauty parade of her former fiancés and lovers to pick her third husband! And her third husband's mistresses and their official positions. And what about the eunuch? And... and...

All factually accurate and sourced.

Your contribution to the Drive has been as impressive as ever. Three first places. I don't know how you coped with that 15,000 word sprawler. I do note that it is now a third the size. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:54, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

PS Is it safe to review your McArthur DYK nom yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:23, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

PPS Apparently I have just made my 10,000th edit. It was "If you think that the article "is not comprehensive and well written" consider putting in a request for a copy edit at GOCE." Gog the Mild (talk) 12:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

There does seem to be a huge difference between GA and FA. I was surprised that GA didn't require compliance with main-page MOS. On the prose side, familiarity with the subject matter may make it easier so long as you're careful the writing isn't directed toward a specialized readership. I'd suggest it'd be a good place to start, in your area of specialty, and if FAs require multiple reviewers then you have some assurance that others will catch what you might miss. But I have not done a lot in the way of assessment. I'll probably try reviewing some DYKs – if only to improve my familiarity with the system and what hooks the readership likes – and work my way up from there. From my pedestrian knowledge of it, the ALT4 above looks a little bit long to me, though I suppose it'd be okay if a lot of the words were bold-linked.

Oh, for gutting articles, I did one for the drive that had the worst plot summary I've ever seen. Besides being poorly written, it was essentially a summary of the death count from an action movie and I had quite a time sieving out what the plot actually was. I gutted it from 2,000 to under 200 words. The big article I did at the beginning of the drive was probably only reduced by 10% (merely decimated), but with much of the article in list format prosecount only counts it if you remove the bullet points in preview (which is what I do when I want an accurate count). That article has a different problem, as multiple editors have reverted work from multiple copyeditors – a tad frustrating.

Thanks for the GOCE advertising! I feel the trick will be to keep the backlog from climbing back up above 1,000 in the next few months. That and keeping participation/membership up, so sending out a newsletter in the next day or three. McArthur's DYK – the nom is still there though the article is at 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides' – has me a little flummoxed to find a catchy hook without going negative, given the subject matter. I wrote two quick articles during the drive for an ALT2; they're related but hopefully don't repeat too much. By all means review, if you feel you can be non-biased. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2018 (UTC) Addendum: I should have said if you feel it won't give the appearance of bias, since we've helped each other out a bit and you reviewed my earlier DYK. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:33, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: GOCE. No problem. I do that a couple of times a month. I do worry a bit that it may overwhelm Requests. Not just my advertising, but generally. Yes, the challenge now is to keep the backlog under 1,000. But that's a good challenge.

MacArthur reviewed. I see most of DYK reviewing as fairly mechanical, so I don't see that there is a lot of room for bias. Deliberate fudging, yes, but not really for me to display unconscious bias. Anyway, few people know how tough a mentor you were to me, so they will assume that I am being tough on your nomination just because it deserves it. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

The main page concerns aren't something I'd really anticipated, but I'm sure just the article title on its own would get some clicks. I think I had it easy as a GOCE coordinator because there were five of us this term. However, it looks like only two are returning for the next term. Yeeps! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:14, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: DYK. Just for clarity, I am waiting for you to indicate whether you prefer ALT1 or ALT3 or to propose a new one before I sign off on it. (Hopefully it is clear that I gave the nom a thorough and fair review.)

Yeeps indeed. Can't you 'lean' on some of the longstanding and/or regular editors? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Oh-ho. I have just read the talk page. I can see that I shall be calling you "Sir" soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Heaven help us all. For the DYK, I mentioned a couple optional ce tweaks to ALT3. Too bad the multiple-article hook won't fly, but I hope the subject matter itself to be of sufficient interest without a hooky hook. (that's fun to say) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:20, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Congratulations on the McArthur DYK. Let me know how many views it gets. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! View 'em a couple times for me! I've been sitting on updates for it, Death of Alloura Wells and Murder of Tess Richey and expect there'll be a small court update by the end of the week. It came up at a good time, Toronto Pride will be soon and maybe the article will come to the attention of those interested. I also seem to be well on track for the blitz barnstar I wanted. Overall, seem to be getting a lot done going into the next term as coord. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:55, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Viewed each a dozen times. Are you sure there is not a guideline? Sounds satisfying. I am having a moderately satisfying if busy Wiki-month - between that and real life I am doubtful that I will get the barnstar I hoped for from the blitz. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Macuahuitl

Hi there, just wanted to give you a heads-up that your recent edit to Macuahuitl caused a reference error. I went in to fix it but then second-guessed myself about your intentions, and didn't want to undo your improvements. Mind taking a look? Thanks! Jessicapierce (talk) 17:34, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jessicapierce Thanks for flagging this up. I think that my intentions were to go and get some lunch, without checking that I had left things in good order. Now resolved. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

my complaint

is the generic nature of GA and the way that local information can be quite wrong and an average editor is not to know. Nothing reflecting on your competence in any way - hope you understand that. Best JarrahTree 13:51, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

@JarrahTree: Yep. I understand your point and largely agree with it. I have been on both ends of that issue at GA, both as assessor and nominee. That's why I wanted to clarify my remit. And even with a copy edit one can lose the sense intended, so please check my changes carefully. I intend to make the minimum changes to get 1a up to GA, but do shout if you are unhappy with anything. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for that - appreciate your understanding - will check over the rest of weekend. JarrahTree 14:28, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Macuahuitl

The article Macuahuitl you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Macuahuitl for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of HaEr48 -- HaEr48 (talk) 23:23, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Replied

Just in case; I replied on my talk page.[1] I have some time the next few days so if we get this fixed, we might be able to finish the article. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:39, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Anastasius I Dicorus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Zeno (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:48, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

May 2018 GOCE drive bling

		The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 13 articles during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 37,818 total words during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 1st Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting four long articles during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 8,196 words – during the GOCE May 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for helping to bring the copy edit backlog to a new all-time low! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2018 (UTC)

Zoë Porphyrogenita

Hi HLHJ

Hello, Gog the Mild, and thank you for the progress report. I'm afraid I can't share your kind assessment of my review; I hadn't realized that she only reigned a few months, and it does seem that her life was remarkably unconnected from the Empire, and it doesn't seem as if Psallus actually gives reasons for Theodora's fury, either (tho as reactions go, it was a safe political bet in a pretty unstable situation). My tone somehow came out rather impolite, too.

Well, yes. It did a bit. But I didn't see any point in poking back at the nomination's assessor. We all make posts that come across rather worse that we intended or than a mature review of what we have just banged into the keyboard would reflect. No harm done, and pleasing to see that you are actually quite reasonable and with a sense of humour to match my own. (And we haven't even mentioned the eunuch. Don't forget the eunuch.)

I've edited the lede to try and get the chronology clear in my head; please modify it as you see fit, as I may well have messed it up or even gotten something horribly wrong. I am slightly confused by the article on Zoe's mother Helena, who, it seems, married a 16-year-old Constantine, had two daughters in quick succession, and then either soon had a third, Theodora, or waited 11 years and then died giving birth to her. Psellus is interesting, I wound up reading him. He does seem rather partial to both Michael IV the Paphlagonian and, to a lesser extent, Zoe. He makes brief mention of Zoe in book two, and writes of her death in book 6, of his Chronographia, with bits in between; I'm sure you've sen all this, Gog the Mild, but add it least someone else read it. The suggestion of Zoe actually ruling despite being female is made twice in his text (it is suggested, for instance, that she marry "a man willing to treat her, not as his consort, but as empress in her own right"); Psellus attributes her not doing so to her lack of interest in such things. He does not seem to draw a clear distinction between empress consort and empress regnant, tho, and of Theodora says somewhat bizarrely "Everyone was agreed that for the Roman Empire to be governed by a woman, instead of a man, was improper, and even if the people did not think so, it certainly seemed that they did. But if one removes this single objections it must be admitted that in everything else the Empire prospered and its glory increased.". He gives Zoe's age at her first marriage as 50; the 1950s translator corrects him to 48. Not sure what's right. He repeatedly mentions her piety and generosity, the latter critically, the former not exactly approvingly. He also doesn't attribute her looks to ointments, saying that in age she took little care of her appearance, and attributes the ointments to religious devotion. He also says she was temperamental and far too ready to blind people for no good reason. Spends more time on the first fault. Of murder, he also says flat out that "I do maintain that Zoe and Michael were the cause of his death". He doesn't attribute the death to the one or the other. HLHJ (talk) 05:08, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, a scholar. I wasn't expecting that. I will have a look at your changes and see what I think. You can see how difficult it is to get the gist of what happened, or what we think the chroniclers of the time think happened, into comprehensible form for a short article. I certainly don't think that the article as it stands is a definitive version, but there is usually a reason for any decisions made. Including for those not made by me.

Hey. I haven't even looked at the article on Helena. Things can get confusing. Three people edit, each relying on a different primary source, and/or a secondary source relying on it, and you end up with a contradictory mess. Albeit with each individual statement impeccably referenced.

I found Psellus to be rather misogynistic. I could express that more strongly. Of course, Psellus was a senior advisor and civil servant in the Byzantine court and had his own views, prejudices and agendas. Ages can be an issue, especially for women and my approach has been to not worry the readers' heads with a paragraph on just when someone was born. They possibly didn't know themselves and, within reason, who cares?

Gah. Yes, lots of conflicting views among the primary sources. And the secondary for that matter. Which is why Wikipedia policy stresses reliance on secondary sources - you know this, I am sure. I have tried to pick a path through the secondary sources' broad consensus. In the GA assessment I was close to told off for not giving enough space to Zoe's famed use of lotions and potions.

Hook. It seems clear that Z&M were responsible for the death of Romanos. (Or, possibly, complicit in John setting it up.) That being so, what is wrong with the original hook? Michael doesn't have to have carried out the act himself. If I pay someone to kill you, I am guilty of murder. Definition 3 in Wiktionary. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:27, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

PS I put Theodora into GAN last night. And on my to do page are some further Byzantine topics I hope to work on. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Apologies for the slow response, and the talk-page-topic necromancy. Scholarly assessment would require me to read more than one source, and ideally think a bit before running out of time and posting random thoughts. The mangled "but add it least someone else read it"; I added a link to the source (Psellus) lest someone else want to read it. I do not have access to many of the sources, and no intention to try and rival your knowledge of the subject. I'm happy with the citedness of the idea that Z&M were responsible for the death of Romanos, but less so with attributing the death solely to one of them; your latest hook is fine, and I'll OK it. Congrats on the GAN. I should run an article through that someday and get to know the process, I'm sure it would improve my writing.

I re-read the article; are you now doubting whether Micheal was a teenager at marriage? I'm not that fashed about the term "open marriage"; I only added it because I found myself, when first reading the article, wondering how a Byzantine empress acquired quite that many publicly-known lovers. Feel free to edit it out if it's awkward. I thought it was "the Hagia Sophia", but I see the dedicated article uses both, so never mind. May I ask if the sources are contradictory on Zoe's personality?

Psellus... I'm just not sure what he is saying with that quote; it sounds ironic. Maybe he is arguing with a colleague. At least he didn't mythologize the women he writes of into "She looked after the house, she spun wool". Which admittedly would be hard with Zoe. "Looked after the ointments, and made emperors"?... that somehow also doesn't suffice. HLHJ (talk) 01:52, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Germanic peoples

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Germanic peoples. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2018 News Welcome to the June 2018 GOCE newsletter, in which you will find Guild updates since the February edition. Progress continues to be made on the copyediting backlog, which has been reduced to 7 months and reached a new all-time low. Requests continue to be handled efficiently this year, with 272 completed by the end of May (an average completion time of 10.5 days). Fewer than 10% of these waited longer than 20 days, and the longest wait time was 29 days. Wikipedia in general, and the Guild in particular, experienced a deep loss with the death on 20 March of Corinne. Corinne (a GOCE coordinator since 1 July 2016) was a tireless aide on the requests page, and her peerless copyediting is a part of innumerable GAs and FAs. Her good cheer, courtesy and tact are very much missed. March drive: The goal was to remove June, July and August 2017 from our backlog and all February 2018 Requests (a total of 219 articles). This drive was an outstanding success, and by the end of the month all but eight of these articles were cleared. Of the 33 editors who signed up, 19 recorded 277 copy edits (425,758 words). April blitz: This one-week copy-editing blitz ran from 15 through 21 April, focusing on Requests and the last eight articles tagged in August 2017. At the end of the week there were only 17 pending requests, with none older than 17 days. Of the nine editors who signed up, eight editors completed 22 copy edits (62,412 words). May drive: We set out to remove September, October and November 2017 from our backlog and all April 2018 Requests (a total of 298 articles). There was great success this month with the backlog more than halved from 1,449 articles at the beginning of the month to a record low of 716 articles. Officially, of the 20 who signed up, 15 editors recorded 151 copy edits (248,813 words). Coordinator elections: It's election time again. Nominations for Guild coordinators (who will serve a six-month term for the second half of 2018) have begun, and will close at 23:59 UTC on 15 June. All Wikipedia editors in good standing are eligible, and self-nominations are encouraged. Voting will take place between 00:01 UTC on 16 June and 23:59 UTC on 30 June. June blitz: Stay tuned for this one-week copy-editing blitz, which will take place in mid-June. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators: Corinne, Jonesey95, Miniapolis, Reidgreg and Tdslk. >>> Participate in the June elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:26, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Nice new GA on the Aztec weapon, and great you added more quality to the Pre-Columbian Americas, one of my main subjects here (see for instance Muisca art). I reviewed your DYK, but I find the hook you selected not so interesting. The article is, very much. What I would suggest is a more interesting fact that none of the original ones survive and we only have replicas and images of them. Cheers, Tisquesusa (talk) 16:53, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Tisquesusa. I remember seeing your name a lot in February and March when I a little work on some Mesoamerican articles (I remember Battle of Chocontá) and a dozen or so Colombian conquistadors (eg Juan del Junco). You are doing a lot of good work in that area. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:54, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Ha, thanks a lot, yes it's an interesting area with still so much to describe. Now I have shifted focus a bit towards the Geology and Paleontology of Colombia and South America, but I may pick up the loose ends of the Muisca and other indigenous cultures later again. Tisquesusa (talk) 18:00, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

GA review of Ptolemy IX Lathyros

Have you looked at my responses to your questions on Talk: Ptolemy IX Lathyros? Векочел (talk) 19:38, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

• @Gog the Mild: Thanks for your review on Ptolemy IX! Векочел (talk) 20:55, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

@Векочел: No problem. It was a nice little article. I felt bad giving you a long to do list, but you worked through it rapidly and well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type of Constans

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Type of Constans 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 Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 21:21, 5 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10)

The article Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Mesoamerican Barnstar of National Merit
		Please accept this Barnstar on behalf of WP:MESO, as thanks for improving Macuahuitl to Good Article. Best regards, Simon Burchell (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
		this WikiAward was given to Gog the Mild by Simon Burchell (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Simon Burchell, I was speechless at receiving this, and very touched. It is much appreciated, although I am not sure I deserve it. A lot of editors did a lot of good work before I gave it the final push over the line. Nevertheless, many thanks; I am still smiling. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:18, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!

Hello, Gog the Mild/Archive 1. Your question has been answered at the Teahouse Q&A board. Feel free to reply there!
Please note that all old questions are archived after 2-3 days of inactivity. Message added by Nick Moyes (talk) 01:06, 11 June 2018 (UTC). (You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{teahouse talkback}} template).

Please comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on a supergun of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War

The article Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:01, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:21, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:09, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gothic War (535–554)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gothic War (535–554) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:40, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	For your amazing work at Later Jin (1616–1636) from turning it from this into this. Donald Trung (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

@Donald Trung: Thank you. Much appreciated. I am blushing looking at those two diffs. I turned up from GOCE just to copy edit. But I reckoned that the article deserved more - after all, it was an important period. I ended up doing a fair bit of research. It seems odd to get a barnstar three months after the event, but it has certainly made my day. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Type of Constans

The article Type of Constans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Type of Constans for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Farang Rak Tham -- Farang Rak Tham (talk) 09:21, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK Constans thingie

Hello Gog, could you provide a quote for the second citation? It's just that i've downloaded a version of the source that has no page numbers. Thanks.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 00:06, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Mass killings under Communist regimes. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gothic War (535–554)

The article Gothic War (535–554) 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:Gothic War (535–554) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael IV the Paphlagonian

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Michael IV the Paphlagonian 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:40, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:41, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Petroe

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Petroe 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch)

The article Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

For your help

		The Half Barnstar
		Awarded with gratitude to Gog the Mild for advising, reviewing, proof reading and generally keeping up my morale while writing and DYK-promoting the current-events articles 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides, Death of Alloura Wells, and Murder of Tess Richey. The other half of this barnstar has been awarded to Yoninah because: teamwork! Much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

The triple-DYK had views of 15,610 (7,646 + 4,140 + 3,824) and is currently ranked No. 2 for June 2018 (though I expect that to fall; the number might be discounted slightly from today's views so unsure if it will earn a permanent place on the 15,000-view list). The two smaller articles account for more than half of the page views, so they really made a difference with the relatively dry hook. Again, much thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 15:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Petroe

The article Battle of Petroe you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Petroe for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:21, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gothic War (535–554)

The article Gothic War (535–554) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gothic War (535–554) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Michael IV the Paphlagonian

The article Michael IV the Paphlagonian you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Michael IV the Paphlagonian for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:02, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Septimius Severus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Septimius Severus 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 16:20, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Anastasius I Dicorus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Anastasius I Dicorus 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:00, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century) 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 Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:01, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

Wow

		The Barnstar of WikiProject Greece
		Great work in bringing so many Byzantine Empire-related articles to GA level, without sacrificing quality. Well done! Constantine ✍ 10:55, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

A few suggestions, though, to avoid errors common to new-comers in Byzantine articles: please do not rely on Finlay (very well researched for his time, but mostly outdated by now), and Canduci (not scholarly, and I suspect self-published), and try to avoid over-relying on Norwich (eminently readable, but prone to errors and simplifications). Narratively they are mostly fine, but when trying to assess the impact and motivations of policies, social and economic factors, political disputes etc. they tend to be way behind the current state of research. This applies even to giants of the field like Bury (whom I relied on almost exclusively when writing my early Justinian-era articles). I recommend using Treadgold to write the narrative core of the story if you don't have a dedicated study, and then using more focused studies to flesh it out. The entries in De Imperatoribus Romanis are always very useful to glean the topics and broad scholarly consensus on each article, but there is a wealth of information online; Byzantine studies have exploded over the last generation. If you need any assistance finding up-to-date scholarship in any article, feel free to ask. Constantine ✍ 11:03, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

@Cplakidas: Thank you very much, much appreciated. Especially coming from you.

1. I had been a little worried about picking up others hard work and then 'claiming the credit' for it. But it equally seemed a shame to not push on to GA a lot of very respectable starts. And getting the articles up to and through GA has certainly seemed like a fair bit of work.
2. I have certainly worried that my work has been a bit on the simplistic side in terms of scholarship. I have adopted a bit of a 'popular' approach to the articles. Your comments re this are reassuring, but I think that I am operating towards the bottom end of what is acceptable.
3. Sources. I don't remember ever having used Finlay, and Canduci only rarely and reluctantly; henceforth I shall avoid both of them. (I have not necessarily replaced them when I have found them in an article; I will now be readier to do so.) Norwich and Ostrogorsky are my go to sources, mostly for readability and because I own hard copies. Bury, Treadgold and Kazhdan for detail and to back up. My use of more specialist/recent sources has been a bit hit and miss; I am gradually building up a more systematic set of them. My most recent downloads from Academia were "Constans II, Ravenna’s Autocephaly and the Panel of the Privileges in St. Apollinare in Classe: A Reappraisal" and "The Crusading Historiography on Early Modern Age: The Question of the Normans of Southern Italy". I recently started into The Byzantine Economy (Laiou and Morrisson), and have the blockbuster 1,500+ page study Laiou edited waiting for me. (I like economic history, but sadly Wikipedia doesn't pay a lot of attention to it.)
4. If you notice (potential) gaps in my knowledge, feel free to fire anything which might fill them at me.
5. You may want to cast your eye over Type of Constans, including the talk page. It will be on DYK on Sunday and so will attract some attention, almost certainly much of it not of a good sort. I am considering renaming it Typos of Constans.
6. I have a few other articles on my GA wishlist, including Maurice, Narses, Basil II, Battle of Taginae, Battle of the Frigidus and Isaac I Komnenos.
7. Some of the GAs I hope to work towards A class and possibly eventually FA, but I am aware that I am still learning my trade and so have put this off for another day/year.
8. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:14, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Type of Constans

On 24 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Type of Constans, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Pope Martin I was abducted and tried for high treason because of his opposition to the Type of Constans? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Type of Constans. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Type of Constans), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Macuahuitl at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 07:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10)

On 25 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Roman general Publius Cornelius Dolabella was denied a triumph for ending a 10-year-long war partly because Emperor Tiberius had already declared victory? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Publius Cornelius Dolabella (consul 10)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ideological bias on Wikipedia. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 GOCE Blitz bling

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 4,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE June 2018 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your copy edit! – Reidgreg (talk) 12:09, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Thank you for the bling, although it is embarrassing how little I did during the blitz. Unfortunately RL was busy for me. Less unfortunately my non-GOCE Wiki-activities got silly-busy. Hopefully it will all sort itself out in time for the drive. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

That's a scary convergence of storms with so many GA and DYK reviews coming up at once. – Reidgreg (talk) 10:54, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Septimius Severus

The article Septimius Severus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Septimius Severus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:41, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Petronius Maximus

On 27 June 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Petronius Maximus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after Petronius Maximus angered their king, the Vandals sacked Rome so thoroughly that their name is still used as a synonym for wanton destruction? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Petronius Maximus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Petronius Maximus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor)

The article Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Dueling copyedits

Hi. I noticed that you accepted a copyedit request for Battle of Kerlés before marking your Seleucus VI Epiphanes acceptance as done. Since copyeditors should accept only one request at a time (and especially since your earlier acceptance is an FAC), please finish that one before you begin the second. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 17:45, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Apologies Miniapolis. I had finished it. I must have got carried away, entered it for the blitz, left a message on the article’s talk page and forgotten to actually post the “Done”. I shall try to pay more attention in future. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Not to worry, and thanks for the quick reply; I'll archive it. Have fun with the other article and all the best, Miniapolis 18:17, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Miniapolis. Just to let you know that yes, I am copy editing Timișoara Fortress. It is a monster. A big copy edit on the translation from Roumanian and a lot of MoS sorting. Plus a lot of clean up and negotiating material being moved to new articles or deleted. I have been with this since 6 July and am likely to be with it for a while yet. So for light relief and a break of pace I have copy edited a couple of short articles from an period and place I am familiar with and by an editor I have frequently worked with, William Cormick and Ernest Cloquet. I hope that this doesn't infringe too many GoCE guidelines. Regards. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

No problem at all; I know what it's like to need a break :-). Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 14:42, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century)

The article Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 19:41, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War

On 1 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that over 400 female Red Guards were shot after being captured during the 1918 Finnish Civil War, with some being raped before execution? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:01, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

June 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the June 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with a total of 88 points from 14 articles. Well done and congratulations, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:13, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Afsharid dynasty

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Afsharid dynasty. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks.

HCPUNXKID 13:33, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Sluys

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Sluys 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 Sp33dyphil -- Sp33dyphil (talk) 10:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

List of rulers of Safavid Georgia

Hey Gog,

I eventually want to bring Safavid Georgia to FA status. There's still a tiny bit of detailed information left that could be added (such as about the province's fiscal history). That, coupled with the points raised by Kober on the talk page, should do the trick. But that's obviously another story for another time.

My actual question: right now, the article doesn't contain a link to List of rulers of Safavid Georgia. What would be a proper spot to add/insert the link in your opinion? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:36, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi LouisAragon, give thought to going through MilHist ACR first. List of rulers: either See also at the bottom. or a new section just above mint:

Rulers

Main article: List of rulers of Safavid Georgia

insert number here individuals served as valis, khans or governors of Kartli or Kakheti while Georgia was under Safavid rule between 1505 and 1724.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Carlton le Willows Academy

Hi Reidgreg. Oops, I mean Sir. Could you have a brief look at this. I did most of a copy edit on it (and suspect that much of it will eventually get used) so am inclined to claim 50% of the words for the drive. Does that sound reasonable? (You know how my lust for bling clouds my judgement.) Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

You did the work, whether or not the other editor wanted to keep it. If you feel you did a 50% job at that point, then yes, though I suspect you did more than a halfway job. There's always the possibility that you'll be invited to finish by the end of the month, so perhaps you'll be able to claim the full amount then? BTW, I am merely the chief janitor in charge of things best left unmentioned, so you can cut-out the "sir". My ego should not be overfed. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes Sir. Sorry Sir. Thank you Sir. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:25, 7 July 2018 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your GA nomination of Anastasius I Dicorus

The article Anastasius I Dicorus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Anastasius I Dicorus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Julius Evola

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Julius Evola. Legobot (talk) 04:26, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor)

On 9 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the head of Constantine III was presented to his co-emperor Honorius on the end of a pole? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constantine III (Western Roman Emperor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch)

On 10 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Constantine Dalassenos twice came close to marrying Zoë Porphyrogenita and becoming emperor of Byzantium – and twice failed? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Constantine Dalassenos (duke of Antioch)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: This month's external reviews Op-ed: TomStar81 on the murder of the Romanovs Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac I Komnenos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Isaac I Komnenos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 06:20, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC)

The article Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucius Valerius Flaccus (suffect consul 86 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Auntieruth55 -- Auntieruth55 (talk) 15:41, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Septimius Severus

On 12 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Septimius Severus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Roman Empire reached its greatest extent under Emperor Septimius Severus? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Septimius Severus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Septimius Severus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Battle of Kerlés

Sorry, I was quite busy in real life (and I was also brought into lengthy and boring discussions relating to other articles) and I realized only now that you completed the copyedit. Thank you for your assistance. Now I can make a GAN. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 03:20, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Denise Vernay

Hi, Gog. Your edits during the April Milhist backlog drive to my article about Denise Vernay were tremendously helpful, and I genuinely appreciated your suggestion that the article might be worthy of GA status down the road. I took a short break from editing for Milhist (found some amazing Civil War letters for my GGF's regiment!), but am back writing and editing. While revisiting Denise's article this morning, I was reminded of how compelling her story is. There's just something about her that makes me want to raise her profile even higher. I realize that you're busy with a number of article reviews, but I wanted to reach out because you'd mentioned in April that you'd be willing to help to rework the article to help it achieve a higher ranking. Would you still be interested in helping to polish her article so that we can get it nominated for GA status? Hope all is well in your world. Kind Regards. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:35, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47thPennVols. Good to hear from you. Of course I would be happy to help. What would you like me to do? While I wait for your answer I will skim the article and copy edit as appropriate.

You may be interested to hear that I bit the bullet and got Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War promoted to GA, thanks to your nudge in that direction.

I hope that all is good with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

That's SO great to hear, Gog the Mild (re: the Red Guards article and your willingness to help)! Giving you a standing ovation from across the miles for your Red Guards success. (Worthy of an entire pub's worth of beer.) Am looking forward to your copyedits on Denise. One thing I've found about my own writing is that if I take a short break after settling on what I think is my final draft, it's much easier to "take an axe" (or in my case, a "cleaver") during another round of editing a month later. (Much less "painful".) So, if you need to trim (or cleaver), have at it. Life is good here. Having a relatively pleasant summer with research into my GGF's Civil War regiment progressing nicely. (Am still hoping to turn THAT into a book someday.) Again, many thanks for your support! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:00, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: I had started a series of detailed comments for you to contemplate. Given what you have written above I shall just be bold. But do revert or query anything you're not happy with. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Apologies for my delayed response. (Just got home from my day job.) You did a BEAUTIFUL job with the edits, Gog. (Thank you. Thank you. Thank you!) I made only one change. (There was a tiny issue with two words in one sentence; so I just tweaked the wording; otherwise, I genuinely loved what I read.) The flow of the entire article feels much smoother - making the quotes from Denise even more powerful. So, what's our next step? 47thPennVols (talk) 04:48, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Phew! Good. The long pause after your earlier rapid responses had me concerned. Yes, I think that often "Less is more" but I was worried that you would feel that I had wielded the cleaver too freely.

What next? I have checked the free use of the pictures and run it through Earwig. No problems. Other issues:

• I have left a couple of comments on the talk page.
  • Have begun checking off the items (on Denise Vernay's talk page and on our discussions here on your talk page) that I believe have been completed so we still know what's on the "to do" list. (Please revert if there are any you feel still need work.) 47thPennVols (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• The lead is meant to summarise the contents of the article. The second and third paragraphs don't really do this. If you want to leave them as they are then you need to expand these areas in the article. Alternatively you could move these into the article more or less as they are and write a new paragraph for the lead; perhaps concentrating on her wartime experiences? (I would be happy to sketch a possible in my sandbox if you wish.) You may find some supplementary information on her family in the article on her sister, Simone Veil.
  • Based on the discussions we've had and improvements made to the lead (and per my comment above), am marking this item as done. (If you think we still need to work on the lead, please revert. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

• References. All names of newspapers and books (and films) should be in italics, as in references 2, 3 and 6. Titles of articles should be in inverted commas.
  • Will try to finish this one up tonight after work so that you can take a look tomorrow. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

That's about all I can think of. I will let you know if further thoughts occur. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: No worries. You used the cleaver judiciously. (It actually felt more like a scalpel.) Glad to hear things checked out with Earwig. I'll mull over the content changes you're recommending for the lead, etc., and will get working on drafting and/or shifting things around after work tonight. I'm also working tomorrow morning, but will have most of the weekend free. So, I should be able to be back in touch with you by Sunday at the latest (hopefully sooner).

Regarding the naming convention, I've struggled with this as well (not just with Denise, but with a number of the other female members of the Resistance that I've written about). I've been thinking we should be using whatever surname they were using when they were involved with the most significant activities of their careers. In the case of many, that would mean using their maiden names since many were not yet married during the Resistance. For others, it would mean using the married surname because they were either married during the Resistance or were involved, post-war, in something else significant (over and above their Resistance work). But then I wonder, were they better known by their married names after the war and, if so, should we instead just go with their married surnames? (So, clearly I have not yet made up my mind on the best way forward.) Are you aware of a specific Wikipedia policy on naming conventions? If so, can you provide me with a link so that I can investigate further? (I really want to settle this one in my own mind, and then revise all of the bios to fit the same naming convention. Case in point - Hendrika Gerritsen - whose name has been changed multiple times now by multiple different editors and remains at risk of becoming an "editorial football" because of the ongoing confusion and debate over whether or not to use the English naming convention "Heinsius-Gerritsen" vs. Dutch "Gerritsen-Heinsius", as well as suggestions to use the simpler maiden "Heinsius" vs. the simpler married "Gerritsen".) Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this. 47thPennVols (talk) 16:24, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Sounds like a busy weekend. Wikipedia policy on people's names: WP:Manual of Style/Biographies § Names pretty much covers it all. My concern is that it tends to be women who are commonly referred to by their given name; a form of infantilization and pretty overtly sexist. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:05, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Thanks for the policy link. I'll take a look this weekend. Just as a bit of background, my use of a female subject's given name and the use of both the given and last names of the subject stem from work I've done on news articles, biographical sketches, etc. for news media and academic institutions. (I've actually worked for two newspapers, and this usage was based on style guide decisions made by managing editors when writing articles in which two or more of the subjects had the same surname.) Also, just from a personal perspective, as a woman myself, I actually don't find the use of the given name as sexist or infantilizing. But I do want to ensure that these articles are consistent with the Wikipedia style guide; so again, huge thanks for sending the link. I'll be back in touch after I work my way through your list. Have a great weekend, and again, thank you for your edits and insights. I'm enjoying this process immensely. 47thPennVols (talk) 03:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

• Have marked this item as done on Denise Vernay's talk page. 47thPennVols (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: I had a day off hiking with friends yesterday and now feel exhausted. I hope that your weekend is good after your Saturday morning at work. Re sexism in given names: this may be a British thing; I may be over sensitive; it may be that as a man myself I feel a need to err on the cautious side. Your comment "I've been thinking we should be using whatever surname they were using when they were involved with the most significant activities of their careers." seems on the money to me. (There are historical men whose names and/or nom do guerre changes.) The exception is when talking of a subject in the context of ther family, when I favour using their full name rather than their unadorned given name unless this really reads badly. When applying any particular name choice to women I always think "How would this read if I was doing the same thing about a male Medal of Honor recipient?"

Note that I am far from expert in GANs and that any given assessor may have a different opinion than me, especially on prose/style matters. I have tried to focus on matters than any competent assessor is likely to pick up on. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:48, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Genuinely glad to hear to had a day off. You've been working so hard on so many editorial projects that a bit of fresh air was probably a good thing. (I'm feeling the need to "hug a tree myself," and hope to do so before the end of the month.) Just wanted to give you an update re: the progress made on the article. First, the exciting news: I finally found the obit for Denise Jacob's husband which, in turn, helpfully provided his burial location (and a clue to hers). In addition, I came across a series of articles about the exhumation and reinterment at the Panthéon of the remains of her sister, Simone (in a very big and very public national ceremony earlier this month). Those articles indicate that Simone had initially been buried at the same cemetery - Montparnasse - as Denise's husband (so, again, another clue to the possible burial location for Denise). I've sent out a call for help to volunteers who do grave research in Paris, and am keeping my fingers crossed that they can confirm the location of her grave. Meawhile, I've updated the article with the info I have so far. As for her naming convention, I posted my ideas re: the formatting I think we should use on the talk page for the article, and look forward to your thoughts. (The MoS link was very helpful. Thank you!) I'm also continuing to whittle away at the other items on your GAN list. Will keep you posted. Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: That sounds like great progress. You are certainly assembling all of the available information into the article. If you can establish her burial place, and given the other work you have put into the article recently, I think that you are getting close to being able to nominate as a GA. You have a good week too. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century)

On 13 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Theodora was dragged from a monastery and forced to become Empress of the Byzantine Empire against her will? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Theodora Porphyrogenita (11th century)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:52, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Żegota

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Żegota. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Sage of Bactria

	Sage of Bactria
	Awarded with gratitude to Gog the Mild for exceptional editorial work that elevated the article Alchon Huns to become one of precious few Afghanistan-related Good Articles. alx_bio 22:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: What a wonderful surprise. Thank you very much. It is appreciated. I am not entirely sure that I am a sage of any sort, much less a sage of the ancient kingdom of Bactria, but I shall wear my elephant skullcap with pride.

You are right, startlingly few Afghan articles at GA or above, and most of them from the 21st century. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Alx bio: Alchon Huns is going to be the lead article on DYK? in 4 days. Congratulations. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:14, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gothic War (535–554)

On 16 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gothic War (535–554), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the 6th-century Gothic War, Rome was besieged three times by the Goths, falling and being sacked twice? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gothic War (535–554). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gothic War (535–554)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

If you are looking for a quick DYK QPQ...

It's not my article, but I'm trying to get Endsleigh Gardens out of the DYK queue. At this point the article seems fine, and ALT5 should be good (full disclosure: I proposed it to avoid previous hook concerns), so it could give you a pretty easy DYK credit. Congratulations on all your hard work! Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 21:40, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Actually, no. I have five in the bank and only two GANs in the works. But I owe you a favour, or two as I am not counting this one, so I am happy to help. Good work there in getting out of the "murder" rut with a new look at potential hooks. I just hope that the original nominator is not going to object that it no longer includes their image. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:29, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that they would have gotten to use the image, as it is fairly busy and would likely not display well at the DYK size. The Zoe image, in contrast, is visually appealing at pretty much any size and I hope it will appear. It's always at the discretion of those releasing a set. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 23:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Mary Mark Ockerbloom: Wikipedia could do with more images of powerful females, so let's hope so. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Important note about using the DYK checklist template

Gog the Mild, when you use the DYK checklist template, you need to be sure to close it with a pair of braces to match the pair before "DYK checklist". The last couple of times you've used this template, you've omitted the closing braces, and this causes a couple of problems: the approved template isn't moved to the Approved page, and the opening couple of lines of the template are displayed on the Nominations page (they're supposed to be non-display characters.)

Please be sure to either include the closing braces, or at least to not delete or omit them if you're copying the checklist from somewhere. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: D'oh! Apologies. Yes, I am copying it in and forgetting to close it. I have now added the closing braces to my template so it won't happen again. Thanks for tidying up after me. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:57, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Michael IV the Paphlagonian

On 17 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Michael IV the Paphlagonian, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that before becoming Emperor of Byzantium, the young Michael IV was the previous emperor's body servant and his wife's lover? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Michael IV the Paphlagonian. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Michael IV the Paphlagonian), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 19

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Germanisation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Enlightenment (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac I Komnenos

The article Isaac I Komnenos 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:Isaac I Komnenos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 04:20, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

Did you just get vandalized? Looks like there was a now-blocked IP editor who only made revert edits, probably the same editor as another blocked IP. There is a lot of odd behaviour out there. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Indeed I did. By two different IPs. Subtle enough that I wasn't sure it was vandalism. Until I checked the IP's history. (Reverting an Indian language user's sandbox!?) Someone playing rather than out and out vandalism I thought. Happily a rollbacker was rapidly on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure it's a right of passage to encounter such people. The counter-vandalism squad are pretty impressive. My first copy edit of the month was reverted by a major contributor of the article, who seems to only edit that article (a "one-article account"). If I can't engage them in discussion then I'll probably restore the copy edit. It's not a high-traffic article so I'm not feeling rushed. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:13, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Hmm. Sounds irritating. Remember Constantine? Who insisted that "duke" had a lower case d and got into reverting the rename. Long time editor, very experienced, very knowledgeable, usually very helpful. My latest GAN had just picked up an assessor when he started making major changes. After the first three edits he posted on the review page " I am currently engaged in expanding/rewriting the article considerably, as part of my Komnenian biographies project. If you or Gog the Mild don't mind putting the review a couple of weeks on hold, I will be able to go through with this. Thanks." What can you say? [/whinge] PS I came across Capture of the Esmeralda and watch listed it to sort out one day - I have a good source which they aren't using. Having a skim of the talk page to get a grip of the issues, who should I find, calming tempers and dispensing good sense? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

Frustrating, but I guess it's better to hold the review than to have major changes afterwards. My second DYK was briefly on hold due to a very lame edit war that broke out during the review. I gave it some time to cool down and then went by Wikipedia:Third Opinion looking for help. In the week or so since I've gotten into a habit of responding to Third Opinion requests myself, and even went back to the Teahouse to answer some questions there. I figure a little experience like that will help me anticipate potential problems and keep a level head. – Reidgreg (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: That's very mature of you, and I suspect that you are absolutely right. I have just switched my 3rd opinion notifier off. I found, not surprisingly, that most really needed a reading, or even two, of a lengthy discussion thread, possibly an article and all but certainly several Wikipedia policies. It was very time consuming and I started to suspect not terribly effective; skills of gentle persuading towards the light are not my strong suit. I have decided to try to concentrate on article improvement, mostly already existing but long neglected history ones, and copy editing for light relief. It's not going to develop me as a Wikipedian, but that's not why I edit. (I am currently assessing Ptolemy I Soter for GA, it seems that there is no Royal Road to Wikipedian competence. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

As the point man for the GOCE, I'm expected to handle any drama so I want to be prepared for that. Some editors don't seem to be committed to a resolution though, or were trying to play the system. I understand wanting to concentrate on article improvement, which is what almost all of us came here for (ahem, aside from the vandals). My edit distribution used to be over 85% to mainspace but now that's fallen below 70% because of the edits/time I'm spending with WikiProjects and on article talk pages. Some discussions do get exhausting and appear of uncertain value. I think my first big one was an RfC that had close to 300 participants, some of whom I'm sure were sock puppets or meat puppets. I pity the admin who had to close that. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:05, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Hmm. As a student of military history, I know the likely fate of the point man. Ha! Only 54% of my edits are in main space. 19% are on talk pages - that jumped when I did a lot of assessing and tagging for the MilHist drive. You do have a habit of making me think about what I do on Wikipdeia. Some copy editing, in areas where I am topic-comfortable, works for me. So does expanding existing mil-hist articles. So does assessing for B class. And GAN assessing, I have done 45 now, across quite a range of topic areas. DYK nom assessing works. Getting involved in any type of long, calm persuasion debates doesn't work for me, even in articles where I have a strong opinion. I really ought to "give more back" and have looked into becoming a new page reviewer several times, but each time I have started to read the instruction page it has tied my brain in a knot. Given that I have not yet worked out how to use AWB this is perhaps not surprising. But I have only really been editing for 7 months, so it is early days. As I discover how things work, no doubt I will become involved in more things.

I also seem to have a number of editors who come to me for assistance with specific issues, such as, from yesterday, Talk:Narmakosh#Copy editing (I should have made Gazel world list it on Requests so that I could claim the words, but I couldn't be bothered.) or User talk:Gog the Mild#Kingdom of Fazughli. In short, where I currently am Wiki-wise feels both comfortable and productive, so maybe I should just relax. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

LOL. What was it, the forlorn hope? (Hey, that was an interesting read!) You're definitely rounding out your skill set while applying those skills to a specific subject. You're more productive than I am and I suspect you're more competent as well. Assessing requires competency in every area of article writing. You make a good point there: GA nominees are genuinely looking for advice to improve articles and most DYKs nominators are there as well, so it should be fairly drama-free. Nice to hear that you've built enough of a reputation that editors are seeking your help. (BTW, thanks for all your copy editing this month!) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Bibulus

		The Content Creativity Barnstar
		For the fun and engrossing reads you create, including your recently reworked Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus article, and for your creation of the new Sniglet, "Rebublic," which needs to be shared with the world. 47thPennVols (talk) 23:04, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. Proposed definition: "Rebublic, a nation pulled down into a state of "bubba-tude" by the boorish behavior of its citizenry."

@47thPennVols: That gave me a genuine laugh out loud moment. I like that idea. And thank you very much. I am pleased that you enjoyed the article. And my original approach to terminological exactitude. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Now up for GA. Assuming that it gets it I already know what my DYK hook is . Gog the Mild (talk) 23:36, 20 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: It was late here when I got this. (It's late again now.) I was thrilled to get a barnstar and appreciative of your making positive comments about Bibulus. I have since had a chance to reflect on why I was appreciative. I mostly edit on very low traffic articles, except when they are DYK?s, and what limited feedback I receive is almost entirely on Wikipedia technical and MoS issues. The bar for the prose is pretty low. But I do worry that I am writing borderline tosh. Having a disinterested opinion, especially one from someone who has received money for their writing, delivers an unimpeachable judgement. That it was positive was very reassuring. What I am trying to say, I think, is not so much thank you for liking Bibulus (or the 37% of the current prose that I wrote) but thank you for communicating your enthusiasm for it so convincingly.

You may be pleased to hear that my creative spark has been rekindled. Bibulus went into GAN yesterday, another Roman went in today, and I am part way through a large expansion of Maurice (emperor) prior to GA submission. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Your kind words mean a great deal. Thank you. The barnstar was sincere on my part. In addition to enjoying and appreciating much of what you write, my own work has benefitted frequently from your recommended revisions, delivered by you with a gentleness and good humor that is all too rare in our world these days. (I've worked several utterly horrid editors over the years so it's always a joy for me to find someone capable of not "just" improving my work, but one who can do so while leaving my dignity and will to live intact. ) I'm genuinely glad to hear that I've been able to help spark your creativity. I look forward to seeing more of your articles achieve GA status, and can't wait to see what you post next. You'll be seeing more from me re: Denise Vernay in the coming week. After getting the 91st Pennsylvania article off my "to do" list, I am back to having enough brain matter to do her article upgrades justice. Have a wonderful remainder of the weekend.)

@47thPennVols: Well thank you for that. I try hard to give an advice in an appropriate way, not always successfully. 91st Penn is very close to a GAN IMHO. We could probably, jointly, get it there in a couple of hours. I am looking forward to seeing what you do with Vernay. It is going to be a finely polished intaglio of an article, I can tell.

Bibulus was clearly my lucky article. It rocketed through GA in 9 hours, my next GAN was just as quick and I finished Maurice (emperor) posted it and it was assessed as GA within 5 hours. I got 3 GA notifications inside 24 hours(!), see below. So thanks again for helping to get my creative juices flowing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Bravo re: Maurice! Glad to hear you think the 91st Penn might be worth submitting for a GAN as well. When I first started revising the stub, I had only planned to improve it to B-Class, but then I kept coming across interesting data that made me think it might have greater potential. And then I found that 1890s photo of the vets at the regiment's monument on Little Round Top? I started wondering if I should pick your brain about its GAN possibilities. So, yes, let's add this one to the list!

And speaking of Denise Vernay, I still need to finish the "editorial housekeeping" (Italicizing books and newspaper titles, etc.), but have reworked the lead and two of the body sections: "Imprisonment at Ravensbrück and Mauthausen" (inserted new paragraph, beginning with "Her sisters, Madeleine, and Simone," near the end of that section) and "Post-war life" to include info about the death of her sister, Madeleine (see par. 1, 2, 5, 6), and then added a new subsection for "Death" in order to include info about the deaths and burial locations of her husband and sister, Simone. I'm not sure I'm completely happy with the lead, yet, but would appreciate it if you could take a look and let me know what you think. 47thPennVols (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

P.S. I also had a couple of ideas this afternoon for DYKs for Denise Vernay. 47thPennVols (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: The lead. I may have got a bit over-enthusiastic in my efforts to make it encyclopedic. Have a look and change back anything you don't like. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Hi. We just had an "edit conflict." (My fault. I had a flash of insight this morning over coffee, and had begun reworking the lead again, and didn't realize you were also doing work at the same time. When I tried to combine the two, the system "ate" my edits. So, I restored to my revised version from this morning, which unfortunately wiped out your efforts to make the lead more encyclopedic. (Your edits were fine, btw, but I switched back to my version from this morning because I had added in more biographical details using transition sentences that I hope have improved the flow between the opening paragraphs.) When you get a moment, could you take another look at the "new version" of the lead that I just finished? (And again, apologies for the confusion.) 47thPennVols (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Again a brutal swinging of the cleaver. Again, revert anything you don't like. Edit conflict, it happens. On WW2 you hardly dare pause to sip your tea or you will be overwriting three other people. A query, you use the phrase "death camp"; that means an Extermination camp, as distinct from a concentration camp. Is that what the sources say?

I'm to bed. 'Night. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:22, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: You polished and buffed. (Didn't feel "cleavered" in the least.) We packed a great deal of info into a small space, but the flow from paragraph to paragraph feels very readable. So, many thanks! As for the phrase "death camp," it's pretty standard in academic discussions, book titles, museum exhibits, etc. (Examples: "Killing Centers: An Overview," United States Holocaust Memorial Museum; and Berenbaum, Michael, and Yisrael Gutman, editors. Anatomy of the Auschwitz Death Camp. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998.) 47thPennVols (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

:::::Good. "Death camp"; fine, just me being overly pedantic. Let me know if/when you would like me to take a look at the main body. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:21, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Sluys

The article Battle of Sluys you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Sluys for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sp33dyphil -- Sp33dyphil (talk) 03:01, 21 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Macuahuitl

On 22 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Macuahuitl, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that there are accounts of a macuahuitl, a Mesoamerican weapon made from wood and stone, decapitating a horse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Macuahuitl. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Macuahuitl), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:01, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus

The article Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 08:41, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes

The article Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:02, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maurice (emperor)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Maurice (emperor) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 20:20, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Maurice (emperor)

The article Maurice (emperor) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Maurice (emperor) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:21, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Kingdom of Fazughli

Hey, I just nominated a new entry for GA status. Interested in reviewing it? LeGabrie (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: Sure. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 23 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Zoë Porphyrogenita

On 24 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Zoë Porphyrogenita, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the same day her husband was murdered, 55-year-old Byzantine Empress Zoë Porphyrogenita (pictured) married her young lover and had him crowned emperor the next day? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Zoë Porphyrogenita. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Zoë Porphyrogenita), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Casliber 00:02, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this seriously your ninth DYK for July? And the month isn't over yet! Amazing work. You'll have to tell me your total DYK pageviews for the month. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: A stalker! Yes, indeed. Another one coming on Wednesday and that may be it for the month, although one was approved this morning and there are two more awaiting assessment, so there is still time. Good hooks I think. I currently have 7 of the 10 most viewed non-lead articles for July. (Not that it's a competition.) This is my first lead DYK, so it will be interesting to see how it goes. Only 8 GA approvals so far this month . Including 3 in a 24 hour period, of which the longest wait from nominating to approval was <9 hours; good old MilHist. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

PS. I have just reread your post. I hadn't thought of a total, total page views. You're more of an anorak than me! I shall check that. A number of the piped links in the hooks also picked up a lot of views. So Finnish Civil war picked up 4,000 views when I DYKed Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War. Today's DYK was nominated over two months ago, and I last did serious work on it some time before that. It is interesting to come back to it and look at all the changes other editors have made. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Wow, you and the rest of Milhist have your acts together. (I'll make sure to give this one a few views today.) I started a series of 20 articles for a possible multiple-article DYK but have stalled a bit (this is the subject which I was given a "pre-emptive" barnstar for earlier). Next month I'll have to do some DYK reviewing to stockpile enough credits. But for now it's copy editing; there are only 40 articles left from 2017. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I thought I'd share this link with you: Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Monthly achievement initiative: August 2018. WIR primarily look at women's biographies, but usually any new women-related articles qualify for their drives so if you write any new articles like Female Red Guards of the Finnish Civil War in August, you can submit them to that drive. (I'm sure there are challenge series that would accept them as well.) Just FYI, as WIR often gives out nice barnstars. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Interesting. Thanks. I have a couple of other WIR tagged GANs. Eg the DYK at the head of this thread. But I almost never write new articles. Today I started my second ever new article in my sandbox. I am hoping to publish it over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Yeah, they're pretty much for new articles. I think most of the challenge series accept expansions, though, and they don't have deadlines (except to get it in before the target number of improved articles, usually 10,000). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:35, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

GA Review Template

What is the template you use in your GA reviews? I think I want to switch to using it. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Never mind found it in your templates. Thanks! Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Anastasius I Dicorus

On 26 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Anastasius I Dicorus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Byzantine emperor Anastasius I died, he left a treasury with over 23 million gold solidi, equivalent to 420 long tons of gold? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Anastasius I Dicorus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Anastasius I Dicorus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your effort at Timișoara Fortress article. --Turbojet (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

@Turbojet: No problem. You have put a tremendous amount of work into it. I hope that it picks up an assessor soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:09, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

A page you started (Capture of Berwick (1333)) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Capture of Berwick (1333), Gog the Mild!

Wikipedia editor SamHolt6 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Reviewed, commendable effort and a very well done article

To reply, leave a comment on SamHolt6's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

SamHolt6 (talk) 02:44, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Razing of Friesoythe - A-Class review

Hi, this is a reminder that there are some outstanding and relatively dated comments from A-Class reviewers of your Razing of Friesoythe article. You have already been pinged about this a few times, please respond to these reviewer comments so that the review can be closed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dutch expedition to Valdivia

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dutch expedition to Valdivia 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) 00:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Berwick (1333)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Capture of Berwick (1333) 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) 00:41, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Russell (1901)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article HMS Russell (1901) 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) 20:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus

On 31 July 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Marcus Bibulus opposed a law proposed by Julius Caesar, he was publicly soaked with excrement? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marcus Calpurnius Bibulus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

A Barnstar for Guidance

		The Guidance Barnstar
		For being a mentor to beginning and intermediate-level users and a role model for experienced Wikipedians. Thank you for helping so many of us learn to navigate Wikipedia's often daunting maze of policies and procedures, and for demonstrating daily that it's possible to be kind while inspiring others to strive for excellence in research, writing and editing. May the winds of passion and productivity always be at your back. 47thPennVols (talk) 10:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: I came in and found this waiting for me. What a fabulous surprise. I am very touched by your generous words. I am not so sure that I have been a good mentor. But don't dare take me at my word and reclaim the barnstar! I only started serious editing on 20 December last year. (See month counts here. So I am something of a beginner myself. I have received a lot of assistance myself, so it feels especially good to pay some of it forward. I consider the Guidance Barnstar be be especially esteemed and so I am exceedingly happy to receive this one. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:11, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

• My pleasure. I was trying to figure out which barnstar to give you because several applied. I'm so glad I made the right choice. Again, many thanks for your guidance and mentoring. (Embrace the word. You ARE a mentor at heart. ) 47thPennVols (talk) 16:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

• Well done. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: You picked a good one. I also like the citation, it is almost poetic in its approach. I am resisting the impulse to print it out and put it on my fridge . OK, I am embracing my mentorship (mentordom? mentorishness?). Gog the Mild (talk) 10:14, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: Every so often, words flow. Glad to hear the citation wasn't too over the top. BTW, if I'm seeming a tad slow in responding right now, it's just that I'm working on a new bio for Women in Red - Mary Lowe Dickinson. She has turned out to be a little more "Homeric" than I originally anticipated. (I'm already missing writing about battle carnage.) 47thPennVols (talk) 05:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: No worries. I have delayed this response so that you won't appear impolite . Your words seem to "just flow" quite frequently. Homeric is good. So long as you don't end up as Achilles. Or burn the topless towers of Ilium. I know what you mean about battle carnage. (I wrote an article about a theological dispute in the 7th century a couple of months ago. It was one of my best articles, but I was glad to get back to Roman consuls and Byzantine monarchs.)

I will be glad when your next two GANs are assessed. I think that you have several other articles which could go straight to GAN, but I think that you will feel readier to do this once you have a range of experience of the system. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:05, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

July DYKs

@Reidgreg: Ended up with 11 DYKs in July, all from new GAs. 100,000 views in total. Counting bumps in non-bold links 135,000. Zoe, bless her little cotton socks, got over 24,000 views. The lead makes a big difference; one of Zoe's husbands got nearly as many views when non-bold linked in her lead article as he did in his own, non-leas, DYK. It was fun while it lasted. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:39, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow. I find it difficult to imagine myself putting half as many DYKs through in a month. Truly impressive work. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:37, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: The DYKs are ok, it's getting the GAs to base them on that's the difficulty. It was that burst of creativity in June; I probably won't have a burst like it again, but it was an intense learning experience. Looking at my numbers for the Western Roman Empire discussion on Requests I was startled to discover that of my 23 GAs, 19 are Roman or Byzantine! My current GANs are more varied which will stretch my skills. (Which is good.)

GOCE Lead
Coordinator

Re your new point man role, has anyone machine gunned you as you stepped over a rise yet? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:20, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

Not so far, and another five months to go. I noticed some accidentally deleted requests, so trying to watch for things like that to head-off potential complaints. I think generally folks have been too busy to complain. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 2 August 2018 (UTC) Ha! That's why nobody else wanted the job. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Capture of Berwick (1333) i

Hello! Your submission of Capture of Berwick (1333) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Yoninah (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 3

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Flavius Arinthaeus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dura (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

July 2018 GOCE Drive bling

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 60,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 21 articles during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Words, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 36,035 total words during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting three long articles during the GOCE July 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

And I was just telling someone that we don't often award the Barnstar of Diligence. Well done! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: That seems odd. I was aiming for this specific barnstar because it is missing from my collection, but why is it so rarely awarded? (Maybe a bit low for the regulars and a bit high for the occasionals?)

Good to see the totals on the backlog looking so low: now, if only we could stop people posting new copy edit tags... Gog the Mild (talk) 23:54, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah, whew. For a moment I feared I'd made a mistake. (I had to do a bit of a manual recount.) Yes, exactly. The distribution of copy editors by participation (yes, yes, anorak) has three peaks, with a gap between the middle and high-end contributors. I believe it was only awarded once from January to June. So it does seem you have to exhibit some diligence to earn it. Almost 200 copy edits were recorded on the drive (plus others that weren't recorded) but over 500 articles were added to the backlog in June and July. Nonetheless, I take it as progress as we successfully achieved the goal of clearing the oldest three months, and the backlog now sits at a low of seven months. – Reidgreg (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Do you have anoraks in Canada? The clothing, not the personality type. I am a real number anorak myself. To the extent that if you were willing to trust me with the raw data I would be happy to create a GOCE data page for anoraks and maintain it. With contributor profiles, award ratios, running totals of articles c/e'ed, articles tagged, waiting times for requests etc. Obviously with lots of graphs. Speaking of which, is there some way for me to add the three most recent quarters to the big GOCE backlog graph?

I have been skimming the past year at GOCE and I am astonished afresh at the workload it gets through.

Do you know when the Blitz will be this month? I am dragging my feet on Western Roman Empire because I want to claim it in the Blitz and get a Tireless Contributor Barnstar . I will have to undercount the words, but if I am going to game the system I may as well really game it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:44, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 21:21, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes

On 5 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when Gaius Hospes wore his award for valour at public gatherings, it was expected that he be applauded by every person present? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gaius Vettius Sabinianus Julius Hospes), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC)

The article Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) 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:Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Re: Lucius Neratius Marcellus

This is an article I was planning on taking to GA, which is one reason I submitted it to Peer review. I have delayed on doing that until I could find an appropriate illustration for the article, amongst other reasons. There are a number of articles on Roman consuls which I started & plan on taking to GA; you can tell that not only I was the person who made the first edits, but have done a lot of work on them -- research, working on the language, etc. So would you please do me the favor to contact me about them before submitting any of these articles to GA first? I would consider that a very kind thing. Thank you. -- llywrch (talk) 05:39, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch apologies if I have cut across your editing. You have been doing sterling work for far longer than me so I am distressed if you feel that I am capitalising on any of it. I always try to check that an article I am looking to do substantial work on is truly dormant. I fairly frequently come across articles you started and are clearly still working on, so I move on. (I say "frequently", having had 18 Roman or Byzantine articles promoted to GA in the last 10 weeks and with 4 more as GANs I come across your work quite a bit.) In this case I noted that the article was started by someone else and that you hadn't edited it for its first ten years. You had made a number of edits over the past four years, mostly just over a year ago when the peer review took place. I had made a couple of large edits in May when I submitted it for B class review at MilHist. I earmarked as a possible for working up to GAN at the time. When, two months later the only further edits were several editors making what looked like Wiki-gnoming edits I decided to go for it.

I recite this in the hope that you can understand how I got to this situation. With the benefit of hindsight perhaps I should have pinged you, but even looking at it now the article seemed dormant when I came across it in May and still so in July. Nevertheless sincere apologies, it is most irritating to put work into an article and then have another editor pick it up. I shall be more careful in future. You may wish to cast your eye over my current shortlist of articles to improve to see if there are any other potential clashes. A skim shows that you have edited about half of the Roman biographies, usually minor edits and only in one case in the last 6 months. I have just removed Lucius Annius Fabianus (consul 141) which you made a more substantial edit to a couple of months ago and Lucius Neratius Proculus, Gnaeus Domitius Lucanus and Lucius Funisulanus Vettonianus which are clearly "yours". Any more which should go? Apologies again, and hopefully there are enough dead Romans out there to keep us both active. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:42, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

First, I appreciate that you read my post as a request, & not as a peevish complaint. I was worried that I might inadvertently come across as angry when I was actually disappointed. And I also appreciate your compliments.

That said, about the article. Now that I look at the history of the article, I see that you are right: I didn't create it. I guess my memory of re-writing it misled me to thinking that. So I don't have the claim to it I thought I had. I was also misled by the fact that, despite having worked hard on a number of articles I haven't yet dared to nominate any for GA because I know far too well their weaknesses. For example on Lucius Neratius Marcellus, there is no direct proof that he became quaestor at the age of 25; rather, contemporary Classical historians have inferred that was the practice. (One cite for this inference would be Richard Talbert, The Senate of Imperial Rome (Princeton: University Press, 1984), p. 16.) Also, the fact that Marcellus was the first known curator acta senatorum needs to be carefully expressed: he is the first person known to hold this position, & it is entirely possible there were others before him. There are many events in Classical history that rest on inference or surmise, rather than attested fact; I find it a frequent challenge to try to convey this subtlety, perhaps to the point of being needlessly wordy. But at another point, we don't know the actual dates of his tenure as governor of Roman Britain; there is no surviving official archive that records when men were appointed to these posts. Birley surmises he was appointed governor in the year 101 & had left Britain by 105; Werner Eck surmises a tenure of 101-104; because the next known governor entered office c. 111, Marcellus could have been governor for a much longer time.

FWIW, I'm not a fan of infoboxes, which is why I tend to remove them on articles when I find them. Yet I'd find them more useful if they contained information that was not easily insertable into the article body, such as the person's Roman tribe (in Marcellus' case it is Voltinia), or their lemma in Pauly-Wissowa & the Prosopographia Imperia Romana.

These are just some of the issues with this article that kept me from submitting it for GA review, besides lack of supporting materials. (It was suggested this article would benefit from a stemma, similar to the fr.wikipedia article -- although that stemma is based on obsolete material.)

As for the articles you thought were mine, after Marcellus, the two that I've been thinking hardest of submitting for GA apparently weren't even on your radar: Aulus Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento & Lucius Valerius Catullus Messalinus. In both cases, lack of supporting materials has been the biggest handicap (I'm just not big on adding pictures to articles), although Messalinus probably needs more content, which I've yet been unable to find. I am surprised you considered Lucius Annius Fabianus (consul 141) substantial enough to consider for GA. Maybe I've been looking at the criteria all wrong...

In short, since I don't have a firm basis to object to you working on promoting Marcellus to GA, & because I am in favor of more quality articles in Wikipedia, there is no reason for you not to work on promoting this article. So good luck with it, & I hope it passes review. -- llywrch (talk) 07:20, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Llywrch I think that you pitched the tone of your first post just right. I hope that I did as well with my response. On your point about level of detail, I think that we are reading the criteria differently. For GA it is required that "it addresses the main aspects of the topic". For A class "The article is comprehensive... it neglects no major facts or details... and does not go into unnecessary detail." In the last 2 months I have had 5 consuls or praetors promoted to GA. So several assessors have had a look at the level of my work; none have expressed any qualms and a couple have been complimentary. I am aware of at least some of the articles' deficiencies. To pick a recent example, yesterday Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) was promoted. Before nominating I had to try and get all of the nuances of his role in De finibus bonorum et malorum and its background into less than a dozen lines. It can't be done. I am not really happy with what I ended up with, but it does meet the GA criterion. I had become a little twitchy that I may have been misreading the GA criterea, so I ran a recent Roman past a more experienced editor - see here.

As it happens I am a big fan of infoboxes; if I wrote the rules they would be mandatory for all articles. I like the way I can orientate myself with the who, where, what at a glance before starting to read an article. But my preferences are neither here nor there. At B class an infobox is acceptable in lieu of an image, and at GAN most assessors will cut you a lot of slack on images if you have an informative infobox. I can see how an aversion to infoboxes can leave you with a problem over images for this period.

Re Lucius Annius Fabianus (consul 141), that gave me a smile. The list was my "B class possible"s, with a slight stress on possibles. A minority of those I work up to B class I then consider weighty enough to think about GA. I shall put him back in the pot then.

At the top of my to do list are the articles promoted to GA this year, plus current GANs. An asterisk indicates that I might want to take it to ACR or FAC one day. None of the consuls have asterisks - I know my, and the sources, limitations. I am inexperienced to give a view on these things, but to me the level of coverage you are talking of is appropriate to FAs. For example, I think that if you could resolve the image issue Aulus Didius Gallus Fabricius Veiento would have few problems with a GA assessment in its current state. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:16, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Lucius Postumius Megellus (consul 305 BC) I note that you were the last person to edit this, alhough it was over two years ago. Are you ok with me doing some work on it? Ditto Lucius Scribonius Libo (consul 34 BC) and Lucius Caesonius Lucillus Macer Rufinianus. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:46, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Despite your protests, Gog, I must have made you a bit cautious; I've made no significant additions to any of those 3. The most important edit was to the first, Postumus Megellus, & that was to add a navigation box. For the other two, all I did was modify links or make copy edits. If you want to promote those to GA, feel free. -- llywrch (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Capture of Berwick (1333)

The article Capture of Berwick (1333) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Capture of Berwick (1333) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 11:41, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC)

The article Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Courcelles -- Courcelles (talk) 17:02, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Berwick (1333)

On 8 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Berwick (1333), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the besieged town of Berwick-upon-Tweed refused to surrender, the governor's son was hanged outside the town gates? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Berwick (1333)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS S36

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SMS S36 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) 02:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS S36

The article SMS S36 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:SMS S36 for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 03:01, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Norwich

Hi! I just came across yet another occasion when Norwich lets his literary flair get in the way of accurate research, and was reminded of my previous message to you regarding sources: in p. 336 of Byzantium: The Apogee he describes Constantine X Doukas as an "aristocratic intellectual" and an "impractical and wooly-minded bureaucrat", when in fact he was a senior military officer and one of Isaac Komnenos' chief lieutenants during the revolt that brought him to power. I will always appreciate Norwich for getting me involved with Byzantine history, but he is emphatically not a reliable, let alone critical, source. Please avoid him when writing articles. Constantine ✍ 15:06, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

HorrorProfessor

Hello Gog the Mild. Thank you for the pointers and for the welcome! I am impressed by your medals!! HorrorProfessor (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2018 (UTC) HorrorProfessor.

@HorrorProfessor: It's true, I am an anorak. All from the last 7 months . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

This may be a source for the deleted "where it was filmed". Although I am not sure how reliable it is. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:40, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

I've usually found locations listed for filming as largely reliable on imdb. Thank you Sir, your a scholar and a gentleman.HorrorProfessor (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC) HorrorProfessor.

yeah just as a heads up per WP:FILM standards we don't use IMDb as a source per WP:RS/IMDb. Andrzejbanas (talk) 23:24, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: I think that HorrorProfessor is at the foot of the usual steep Wikipedia learning curve. I can well remember when I was struggling to identify what a "reliable source" was. Although looking at the post immediately above this one ("Norwich") maybe I am still at that stage. (The three volume history of the Byzantine Empire is not reliable? Bleh!) I am glad that I added my caveat re the reliability of IMBd. Hopefully HorrorProfessor will stick with it. The cost is worth it, as we both know, but I always find it difficult to persuade newcomers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Nah its a common mistake. I think HorrorProf is definitely trying to follow along with the rules much better then the usual new editor in trying to fit to rules instead of establishing why they don't like them to only one user and hoping they can keep on editing their merry way! Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Andrzejbanas: Reminds me of some of my students in RL. I mostly work in MilHist where I think that we get a better class of newcomer. Not that I am much of an "old hand" myself. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:40, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Denise Vernay

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Denise Vernay 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 Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 03:02, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Maurice (emperor)

On 14 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Maurice (emperor), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the deposed Byzantine emperor Maurice was forced to watch his six sons executed before he was beheaded himself? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Maurice (emperor). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Maurice (emperor)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SMS S36

The article SMS S36 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SMS S36 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 02:42, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (geographic names). Legobot (talk) 04:30, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Reidgreg

Hi. Just touching base. A couple of things, although it is likely that none of them will merit a response. I think, that as often when I communicate with you, I will be using it as an opportunity to organise my thoughts and be introspective.

1. There have been no comments on my copy editing for a while. I thing [think] that it is ok. I am sure that there are plenty of things which you could pick up, but I am also sure that I leave every article I copy edit much improved. I think that it helps that I stay away from: Lists; Films and videos; Actors and singers; Songs and albums; Games. I have had several articles I have c/e'ed go through ACR or FAC; looking at the feedback I seem to be picking up everything other than personal preferences. So I am happy there, but ready for feedback on how to up my game further if anyone feels like giving it.
2. On Tuesday, in the space of a few hours I received notification of my first A class pass (looking good for FA), my 25th GA and my 20th DYN (sic) hit the main page (my second, after my very first DYK, to receive over 15,000 views). As is often the case when I hit a personal Wikipedia milestone, I thought of how much it relied on the firm base for my editing which you had such an important role in constructing. I wandered, rather aimlessly, around the wilderness that is Wikipedia for nearly four years. Then you patiently equipped me with the tools I needed, helped me to look up and identify some distant peaks I might want to move towards and I was up and running, or at least staggering. I feel that I have macheted my way out of the tropical lowlands and am making slow but steady progress through the foothills. So far it has been a satisfying journey. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Wow, those are some kind words. To quote a WIR bio I'm working on: "Thank you. And you're welcome." (OK, it was better coming from her, but she was a professional comedian.) You've done so much I wish I could take credit for some of your work, like a pyramid-scheme of recruiting people into the cult of Wikipedia regular contributors. I'll see about getting you some feedback later this month. Today I'm going to try starting some DYKn reviews, research possible themes for this month's blitz, search for sources, and any other housekeeping, so should be online (if semi-busy). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I wasn't requesting, or even especially wanting a review of my copy edit skills. It was just that I was thinking that this was about the stage that a regular if low level contributor with intermediate level skills is likely to get complacent and that it may be as well to remind you that I am not in the same class as the other regulars and that wearing one of you various hats you may wish to keep a watchful eye on me. (Yes, feel free to copy edit that sentence.) Gog the Mild (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

August GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors August 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the August 2018 GOCE newsletter. Thanks to everyone who participated in the Guild's June election; your new and returning coordinators are listed below. The next election will occur in December 2018; all Wikipedia editors in good standing may take part. Our June blitz focused on Requests and articles tagged for copy edit in October 2017. Of the eleven people who signed up, eight editors recorded a total of 28 copy edits, including 3 articles of more than 10,000 words. Complete results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thanks to everyone who participated in the July drive. Of the seventeen people who signed up, thirteen editors completed 194 copy edits, successfully removing all articles tagged in the last three months of 2017. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are here. The August blitz will run for one week, from 19 to 25 August. Sign up now! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the August blitz! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Denise Vernay

The article Denise Vernay 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:Denise Vernay for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 03:22, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Neville's Cross

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Neville's Cross 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 QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Well done

G'day Gog, just a quick note of congratulations for getting Razing of Friesoythe through A-Class review. It is a fairly high bar, and will set the article up well for a run at FAC. Keep up the good work! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:08, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi

Hey Gog, thanks for your message. There's absolutely no problem if you want to edit, revise, or rewrite a page I happened to have created, in fact I would be thankful! I had forgotten about the article as I'm busy with other things both in real life and in wiki. Cheers! JDHaidar (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Neville's Cross

The article Battle of Neville's Cross you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Neville's Cross for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of QatarStarsLeague -- QatarStarsLeague (talk) 18:02, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac I Komnenos

The article Isaac I Komnenos 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:Isaac I Komnenos for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 21:40, 20 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Isaac I Komnenos

The article Isaac I Komnenos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Isaac I Komnenos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:22, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Justin I

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Justin I you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Neratius Marcellus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lucius Neratius Marcellus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flavius Arinthaeus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Flavius Arinthaeus you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 03:01, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Dutch expedition to Valdivia

The article Dutch expedition to Valdivia you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Dutch expedition to Valdivia for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Dutch expedition to Valdivia

Hello! Your submission of Dutch expedition to Valdivia at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Nizil (talk) 17:17, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

Ennarea

Hey, I am currently reworking my old entry for Ennarea. Got a grammar question: how would you write this: "čč"? "chch"?LeGabrie (talk) 15:37, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Went with "tch" LeGabrie (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 GOCE blitz bling

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 10,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE August 2018 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

For a truly tireless contributor! Thanks for taking time to work on the blitz! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC)

On 28 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after his death, politician, jurist, and general Lucius Torquatus was portrayed by Roman writer Cicero as an advocate for Epicurean ethics? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Denise Vernay

The article Denise Vernay you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Denise Vernay for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 04:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Technical question

Hi, Gog. Hope all's well in your world. I have a quick technical question re: the B-Class assessment checklist/template. Is there a preferred format for noting whether or not an article has passed each item on the checklist? (Does it matter if we use "Yes" vs. "Y" or "No" vs. "N" as long as we're consistent within the B-class template?) I ask because I've been seeing a number of changes to the review templates over the last few weeks (most recently to the Denise Vernay article). So, I find myself wondering if it's just a style thing or if there's a tech reason for making these edits that I may not be familiar with. Your insights would be most appreciated. 47thPennVols (talk) 10:00, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47th, if I may be so familiar. No, it makes no difference whatsoever. It means that the servers have to store infinitesimally less, but that's a teaspoon and ocean issue. I suspect that some editors are accustomed to seeing some things laid out in a certain way and it gives them satisfaction to rearrange them to match. If there is a "preferred" format, and I suspect that there isn't, then no one has shared it with me. It is, as you surmise, a style thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:29, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks so much. I've varied my checklist formatting (yes v. y/no v. n) based on whether I'm assessing the B-Class standards myself (in which case I usually spell things out) v. just completing a checklist someone has added in the y/n format. I was just really afraid, after all of the edits that started appearing, that I was doing something wrong. So, I'm relieved to know that I haven't committed a heinous formatting error. (Thank you for preventing more gray hair from sprouting.) On an entirely different matter, just wanted to say thanks again for your kind words the other day. It really did make my day (and month). Have a great week! 47thPennVols (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Flavius Arinthaeus

The article Flavius Arinthaeus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Flavius Arinthaeus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 15:41, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Justin I

The article Justin I you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Justin I for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 16:27, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of HMS Russell (1901)

The article HMS Russell (1901) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:HMS Russell (1901) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Claiming copy edits

Hey, could you do me a favour and not claim any articles on your drive/blitz list until the event begins? We've got more than two days before the September drive starts. I suspect you want to claim those military history articles before someone else does, but I don't want it to look like you're jumping the gun. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:59, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Of course. I hadn't claimed any. (I haven't even done any work on any yet.) I had put one down as "working"; I had thought that was allowed, so long as I didn't actually do any work. I stand corrected, the inherent conflict is obvious once I think about it, and have altered my account. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:31, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! I just don't want it getting out of hand, if new editors see that and think it's okay to start working. Or consequently having to consider disqualifying work and giving someone a bad experience with the GOCE. – Reidgreg (talk) 01:20, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lucius Neratius Marcellus

The article Lucius Neratius Marcellus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lucius Neratius Marcellus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Iazyges -- Iazyges (talk) 22:21, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Saudi Arabia. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 31

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Battle of Bergerac, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Bergerac (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 31 August 2018 (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. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

August 2018 Military History Writers' Contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2018 Military History Article Writing Contest with 139 points from 25 articles. Congratulations, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Thankyou for your comment at my TP. You will be aware of the GWE ArbCom case? It has caused me to consider if I want to nominate and set myself up to fail. Your comment has been encouraging and I will probably nominate because of it. Australian R has been my mentor and guide. I am pleased that I have been able to pass this on to you. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:21, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I dipped in and out of the Arb case. Much it went over my inexperienced (Wikipedia wise) head. It seemed a rather large storm in a small tea cup. I can understand, what I think was, the main point - keeping an awareness in articles that no part of the Wehrmacht was ever "clean". Personally I think the penny dropped when I read Gilbert in 1989, but I suppose that the battle needs constantly refighting. The collateral damage seemed to spray in some odd directions and to my, inexperienced, eye some of the FoFs seemed to spring fully formed from the minds of ArbComm. Irregardless, if I am the only editor who has been encouraging you to stand then the incidence of bastards in MilHist is higher than I thought and/or I was lucky to get the encouragement from you that I did. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:50, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

7 of one, 8 of another? - Muhammad VII of Granada

Would you please look in at 7 of one, 8 of another? where I mention that I'm totally confused by the several mentions of both 'VII' and 'VIII'? Thank you. Shenme (talk) 01:26, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIX, September 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Indy Beetle and Nick-D on the Katangese Gendarmes and India during World War II Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at two important treaties of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:19, 10 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia talk:How to write a plot summary. Legobot (talk) 04:31, 15 September 2018 (UTC)

Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced

G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC) Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.

DYK for Battle of Neville's Cross

On 16 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Neville's Cross, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that during the Battle of Neville's Cross, King David II of Scotland was shot twice in the face by arrows and taken prisoner after knocking out the teeth of his captor? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Neville's Cross. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Neville's Cross), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)

Deportation of the Meskhetian Turks

Thank you for your attention. I appreciate your time to improve the article in any way. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

@3E1I5S8B9RF7: I am always happy to help improve well referenced and comprehensive articles. Please keep generating them.

If you have any queries regarding any of my edits, or don't understand why I have made a change, or consider - especially - that I have changed the meaning, please do not hesitate to flag it up, either here or on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 21 September 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Dutch expedition to Valdivia

On 22 September 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Dutch expedition to Valdivia, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the expedition to Valdivia seized and then abandoned the last Dutch possession on the Pacific coast of America? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dutch expedition to Valdivia. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Dutch expedition to Valdivia), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Good Article Barnstar

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Fantastic job promoting Dutch expedition to Valdivia to GA status and bring it to DYK! One of the best works I've seen at DYK in a long time. Happy editing, MX (✉ • ✎) 00:09, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

@MX: What a nice surprise. Thank you very much for the appreciation. And for the barn star. I only started nominating to DYK in February of this year (I only nominate GAs) and it is good to be reassured that I am getting it right. May all of your GAs be as appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 12:41, 22 September 2018 (UTC)

Baldwin I of Jerusalem

Thank you for your comprehensive and thorough copyedit. The article is now ready for a GAN and I am really grateful for it to you. I slightly modified the text in one of the sentences ([2]). I would appreciate if you could look at the new text. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

@Borsoka: It is always pleasant to work on well sourced and comprehensive articles. Please continue generating them. I think that this one could reasonably aspire to A class.

The change is fine grammar and copy edit-wise. I assume that you have changed the wording because it now better reflects the source.

For what it is worth, I also feel that it is ready for GAN. I regret that I won't be able to assess it - good luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar which is much appreciated. It has indeed been a trying few months, but calm has been restored (for now) which has allowed me to get on with creating and improving content rather than spending all my time engaged in disputes. best regards Mztourist (talk) 03:32, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Have your say!

Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for the copyedit on Northern Expedition! Hopefully you were't too frustrated with all these bad grammar. Cheers, Alex Shih (talk) 16:16, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Hi Alex Shih. I find it quite fulfilling to copy edit well sourced and comprehensive articles. I am usually left feeling that I have made them at least marginally better. When I saw your name against a GOCE request I knew that it would be a challenge, and I wasn't wrong. Fun: in a difficult chess problem, wouldn't want to do it every day sort of way. Hopefully I have left it more readable and grammatical, without butchering the meaning or the accuracy too badly. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:59, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

Talk page stalker

@47thPennVols: Ah ha! I kept adding bits as I found more good advice. Much of it is there as a reminder to me when I am copy editing for GOCE. But it is something to strive for in article writing too. I have most of Orwell's work - I haven't reread it for years. I must dig it out, a great writer. One tends to forget just how no-nonsense he was.

I trust that all is well with you? You are certainly churning out a regular flow of impressive articles. I hope that you are enjoying it. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:11, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

• It's been ages since I've read Orwell also, but when I saw the post on your page, I was reminded (by you) of Orwell's writing insights. (Apologies for the "stalking", but we've been in communication so often over the last six months, it seemed appropriate (and more efficient) to just follow your talk page since I figured we'd be likely to communicate again at some point in the very near future. And it's been helpful, too, since you often dialogue with other Milhist members, et. al. re: various procedural things I'm still trying to grasp.) As for me, I am doing better. (Thank you for asking.) I embarked on my "Medal of Honor winner writing-editing spree" as a cure for the funk I was in after the Denise Vernay GA review "crashed and burned". I needed to remind myself that I do produce good work; having multiple Milhist editors verify this (in addition to your guidance and constructive criticism) has also helped. I hope all is well with you, too. (I've noticed that your articles continue to receive favorable reviews - something that truly gladdens my heart since, as you know, I think you produce wonderfully engaging biographies. (Each time you come out with something new, I have yet another excuse to linger over my morning coffee.) May the research and writing gods continue to smile upon you. 47thPennVols (talk) 01:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Yeah. I like his essays best, and Homage to Catalonia (amazing to think that it only sold 900 copies in its first 2 years), and The Road to Wigan Pier. Heck, all of it I guess.

No problem with having my talk page on your watch list. Flattering that you feel that you may learn something observing me fumble my way through Wikipedia.

Hmm. I am glad that you are doing better, even if I am not fully convinced.

You seem to generate good work as standard (and as I regularly copy edit FA noms for GOCE I have an idea of what a good article looks like) and be able to step this up to exceptional without seeming to strain. (Although I suspect that there is a swan effect going on: "All calm and serene on the surface, but paddling like billy-oh underneath.") I really want you to get a GA or three more, but assessing seems slow recently.

My production has slowed this month. RL has been brisk, it's a GOCE drive month, and I have been doing some QPQ re GANs, ACRs and FACs. And I already have 7 GANs and 2 ACRs queued up. I have plans for an extended series of articles of various aspects of the Hundred Years' War; shamefully under-represented. So hopefully soon you will be having longer morning coffee breaks.

Re "procedural things", feel free to ask about anything you have a query on. Although as you can see from the immediately below, I am still a beginner myself.

Take care. Be well. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:12, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

666

@Reidgreg: "Number of the Beast (666)" I suppose that it was irresistible.

*Cough* *red face* I don't suppose that you could point me towards the Wiki-policy on northeast, north-east, north east; northeasterly, north-easterly etc could you. I can't seem to find it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

There really wasn't a question about it. (The Iron Maiden song is still stuck in my head.) What can I say? The devil made me do it.

Ah, I started to answer the wrong question – overcapitalization is often a problem – but it seems that the same MOS section applies: Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters § Compass points

Compound compass points are usually fully compounded in American English, for example northwest, while in British English they are sometimes written as separate words or hyphenated, as in north-west. This also affects names of regions such as Southeastern United States and South East England. Finer compass points take a hyphen after the first word, regardless, and never use a space: south-southeast or south-south-east, but not south-south east, south southeast, etc.

The main MOS page similarly has:

Composite directions may or may not be hyphenated, depending on the variety of English adopted in the article. Southeast Asia and northwest are more common in American English; but South-East Asia and north-west in British English. In cases such as north–south dialogue and east–west orientation, use an en dash.

So you could chock it up to WP:ENGVAR (if the article has a strong connection to one variety of English) or simply go for consistency in the article. Thanks for asking me! (Hunting for MOS guidelines is more fun than hunting for typos!) Now for some fun article titles: North–South and East–West Corridor, also Cork Mid, North, South, South East and West (Dáil constituency), and North West (South African province). – Reidgreg (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: "The devil made me do it." Ha, try that one when the lead coordinator catches you. No, wait...

Thank you. I am a little relieved that the main cause for my uncertainty over usage is because there are two. I didn't realise that this was a national variant. As you once wrote "Always something new to learn around here".

A fantastic job being done on those old articles. Only 6 articles older than 6 months! And I assume that they will soon be gone. I feel a little guilty about not contributing to it, but it is good to see. Great work. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think that's a tendency with compound words: for Americans to shove them together and Brits to hyphenate.

It seems we've picked up some speed these past few days and are on course to hit our targets – which feels much more important/satisfying to me when I'm in charge. I was a little surprised you didn't take any of the military-oriented old articles like Women in the military, but you're doing good work with requests and helping to keep the backlog under 1,100 (I'm hoping we can break 1,000 again November). – Reidgreg (talk) 23:32, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I have had my eye on Women in the military, but it was a big one and there always seemed something more interesting available. Most of the "old" articles which I thought within my capability I have done by now.

When I first read that I thought it a bit pessimistic. It would seem that your reign will commence with two drives going under 1,000. Perhaps you need to target nothing older than 3 months and under 500 for November? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

I spoke too soon; the backlog dropped under 1,000 just after I typed that; an unexpected bonus. Not bad, clearing three months and August requests. Ah! You beat me for total articles! Nice. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I feel a bit embarrassed, doing more articles then you when you did so many more words. But when <1,000 seemed in sight I started cherry picking short articles, although with Tdslk's superb effort it turned out not to be necessary.

A query re this diff [3]. To me, both are grammatically acceptable constructions. (But what do I know?) What do you think? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

If I was more present at the end of the drive I would have done another article to tie you, just to make room for another editor on that leaderboard row. It's not unusual to have widely varied places between wordcounts and article counts; for quite a while I was ahead of Tdslk for word count though only half or a third for articles. I like it; it makes that "quintuple crown" a rare achievement.

The concern is with the addition of so in Douglas raced back to David II's camp, waking the rest of the army as he did so. I feel I should check that they woke while he was racing, that it was a consequence of his racing to the camp rather than of his arriving at the camp. This could certainly be the case, if they were sounding bugles or some such to alert the camp ahead of their arrival. I think either is okay. If its bothersome, you might consider a rephrase. I'm not sure I like the only near the beginning of the paragraph. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: I wondered about that. I probably should have stopped when I was level with you; but I was intending to do at least one more article, and I think that I assumed that you were too.

Good point.

Ah. Thank you. I knew that I was missing something. Rephrased to be less clumsy. "Only" sentence also slightly tweaked. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Don't worry about that, it's just one of my little amusements that I like to arrange ties, along with claiming certain numbers. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:44, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Let me guess, the Devil makes you do it. Interestingly, the tie between myself and Dhtwiki at the bottom of the longest article category was not contrived; both articles just happened to be 6,141 words long. Roll on the blitz. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't you notice my edit from six weeks ago that made them the exact same length? (No, not really.) We seem to be running low on long articles. I tried a couple 12,000-word articles at the start but couldn't claim the full amount on either. I applaud Lfstevens for the 26,000-word monster, and it wasn't his first time overhauling that beast. – Reidgreg (talk) 02:01, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg:I would have been willing to believe that. Yes, I did four in my first two drives, and don't think that I have even seen one since. Lfstevens is a braver editor than me; "This article may be too long to read and navigate comfortably" - may?

Looking back through the records to check the number of 10,000 worders I noticed that the fifth article I ever copy edited for GOCE was a 7,400 worder for FA. You must have been having kittens. I am currently commenting on it at FAC and, while it has had some TLC since I worked on it, it is reassuring to see the comment "I've been copy-editing for errors in the prose and honestly this is one of the best history articles I've read as far as prose concerns. I've tired myself out looking for errors and found none."

A query: If an entire sentence is in brackets, should its cite go immediately after the full stop or after the closing parenthesis? I am sure that it is in the MOS somewhere, but I can't find it. (Apologies for treating you as a kind of Wikipedia FAQs.)

Another query. Is there an idiot's level guide, stress on idiot, on how to archive links? Eg via Wayback? I can find essays stating that it should be done but they don't give a link to a basic guide as to how to.

Thanks

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

It's a pleasant surprise to get some unexpected praise like that, eh? A while ago I came across a discussion in which several editors were citing my GA as an example! That pleased me to no end.

Although I think it looks neater for the citation to follow the parenthesis, the important consideration (and determining factor) is exactly what statement the citation is covering. If the citation is only for the statement inside the parenthesis, then the reference goes inside the parenthesis (between the full stop and the closing parenthesis). If the citation also covers material from before the parenthetic statement, then the reference goes outside the closing parenthesis. The short version of this is at MOS:REFPUNCT, Where a footnote applies only to material within parentheses, the ref tags belong just before the closing parenthesis.

Ah, yes, "archive" is another one of those terms (along with "citation" and "parenthesis") that is maddening to narrow-down in a search. The main article on the topic is Wikipedia:Link rot. There are additional Wikipedia pages for each archiving site. I use a fairly simple one, Wikipedia:Using archive.is, as I can't connect to Wayback Machine. There are also toolbars you can add to your browser to semi-automate archiving via Wayback Machine, etc. However, the easiest way is to get a bot to do the archiving for you. User:InternetArchiveBot and User:GreenC/WaybackMedic 2.1 are the two primary bots for this. I have not personally used them, because I can't manually load those sites to verify the archiving, so I do it manually which is slower but (in my mind) safer. Mind you, I've only archived sources for my 4 DYKs. Please let me know if you have success with them. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2018 (UTC) P.S.: I don't mind doing directory assistance, I know it took me a long time to find help on archiving before I came across Wikipedia:Link rot. Some things are terribly difficult to find until you know where (or how) to look... or knowing that the information is even there to be found. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:27, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Reidgreg. Apologies for the (very) long delay in responding. Real life and Wikipedia have been keeping me busy - mostly real life. Re favourable comments on my copy editing - I am mostly relieved when I come across them. Re your GA: from memory, when I went through it I commented that it was "a tour de force" and that it had "a powerful narrative drive". It was also sourced to the hilt. People darn well should be praising it and holding it up as an example of good practice.

Parenthetic statements and footnotes. Thank you. I have already used that twice in ACR discussions. Appreciated.

The links were useful, thanks. They suffered from the usual problems of either not having instructions (or ones that I could find) or instructions which I couldn't get to work. However, after some fiddling I did get this one to function and have now run a large number of articles through it. It won't (or I can't get it to) archive pdfs and one or two other things, but basically it does what I need.

It is a shame that we are continents apart, as I am building up quite a debt of beer for all of this FAQ service.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:51, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I wasn't waiting on your reply, and wearing the coord badge means I spend a lot of time on talk pages lately. Perhaps I'll get you to return the favour by archiving the sources for my articles? The serial killings article I was working on has topped 200 sources and 10,000 words (a different source for every 50 words!!?). There is such a thing as WP:OVERCITATION but I think that's for a line of a dozen citations after a single sentence (one example is listed with 172 citations for a single sentence!). Given the subject matter I feel I have to be extra cautious to cite everything, but it will be a lot to check at GA. Adding to the article as stories come out in the press, it's become a bit bloated and at some point I'll have to go back and apply summary style to make it more concise. On Monday he's going to appear in court for the first time in nine months, and I doubt he's entering a plea agreement but on the chance he does I want to be ready to promote it for In The News, my original goal from eight months ago.

Oh, if one archiving service doesn't work for a particular reference, try another. Though there may be some that won't archive due to copyright. I believe at the FA level they want as many references as possible to be archived. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:21, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Do you have a list anywhere of articles you would like the links in archiving? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

No list, but thanks for doing those two (the two big/important ones). That probably saved me a good hour of work doing it manually, and I've obviously been avoiding it as it looks like I hadn't archived anything since May. If you don't mind, could you check Death of Alloura Wells and Murder of Tess Richey? They share a lot of the same sources but I think Richey has had some updates since May. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Both done. Each took me literally less than 15 seconds, so feel free to send any others my way. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:14, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Man, it is nice to have loyal subjects at my bidding. When I suggested having the blitz, the other coordinators had the page up within 15 minutes and very quickly assembled themes. It's good to be king. – Reidgreg (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes Sire. Of course Sire. Will there be anything else Sire? Gog the Unworthy (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Were you able to finish your copy edit of Baldwin II of Jerusalem? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Sadly not. I am still crawling through it right now. (Health has not been brilliant, RL has been busy and 3 GAs and my 2nd A class all conspired.) So nul points for me.

On a brighter note, remember Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430), the 5th article I ever worked on for GOCE, and which was for FAC? With hindsight I am amazed that you let me work on. I am amazed at myself for attempting it - a mixture of ignorance and chutzpah I think. Actually, I must have been nervous - I kept going back to it for weeks and made 67 separate edits. Anyway, it passed FA today and the editor posted a request at the bottom of this talk page. Somehow the traditional reward for a job well done outweighs the absence of any thanks. (Constantine was the instigator of the Duke/duke page move that you helped me out with.)

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ha! We don't have the authority to "let" anyone do anything. Any editor is free to do any edit at any time, as long as there isn't a block or protection in place. I figured you were busy with all the GA notices. Take your time with the copy edit, there's no deadline. It doesn't seem to be in the GA queue yet, so the requester probably isn't in any hurry. Take care of yourself, my friend. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). Legobot (talk) 04:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Justin I

On 2 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Justin I, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Justin I arrived at Constantinople as an illiterate teenage peasant and died as Emperor of Byzantium? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Justin I. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Justin I), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

July to September 2018 Milhist article reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 24 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

September 2018 drive bling

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 4th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 19 articles during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 1 long article during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 6,141 words – during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

		The (old school) League of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 30,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE September 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 19:46, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Lucius Neratius Marcellus

On 5 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lucius Neratius Marcellus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Lucius Neratius Marcellus was involved in the establishment of the defensive line that later became Hadrian's Wall? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lucius Neratius Marcellus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lucius Neratius Marcellus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Your review of John N. Coyne

Thanks so much for taking a look at my rework of the Coyne article. I couldn't believe my eyes when, in the midst of my upgrade research, I found Thompson's statement that the flag Coyne captured was the first to be taken on a battlefield from the Confederate army by Union troops. Thanks also for your B-Class review of the article. When you have a moment could you revise the status on the talk page of the Coyne article? (It's still showing as C-Class.) Hope all is going smoothly with your own research. (Just fired up the coffee pot and am looking for something new to read.) 47thPennVols (talk) 15:52, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

When I clicked Publish on changing the status of this I saw a red bell and thought "I know what that is". Typical male brain: takes ten minutes to realise that I have left a job half finished. My only excuse, other than that of being unfairly endowed with an inferior brain, is that I have too many windows open and I am getting confused as to just what I am doing. (Of which, more below.)

I find it startling that after such a notable battlefield feat he is not moderately well known, at least among afficionados. Wikipedia has been going for 15 years and there is still work like that to be done. Well done you for rescuing him from obscurity. I am a little awed by the way you rattle out your Medal of Honor articles without compromising quality. Makes me feel quite lazy.

This table suggests that only 66 GANs were assessed by MilHist members in the last three months. (Some assessments will be missing and some will have been done by non-MilHist members.) And 34 of those by two people. No wonder there is a backlog.

I have discovered how little activity there is on the Hundred Years' War. I am working on a new article, my third. And simultaneously trying to push Battle of Winchelsea to GA. Trouble is, as I dig into a source I find something which pertains to a article I have already written or want to write. And I keep chasing sources down three or four levels, updating an article or two, and forgetting where I started.

The Hundred Years' War is a barren area. Outside of six major battles there is almost no one doing anything. A whole 118 years of fevered military activity to go at. Entire campaigns with no articles at all. A number really, really badly written and/or sourced. I have just done some work on an article where the most recent reference was from 1908, and the most commonly cited was a 14th century chronicler. So I have the warm glow of doing needed work, and the opportunity to put my stamp on a huge area. Collaboration - hah!

Enough chit chat. Back to the Wiki-mines. You take care and keep well.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

• I would dispute the fact that you have "male brain". (Well, you're male, and do have a brain. But I think your seriously wonderful brain just had a moment of "Wikipedia overload" - something I'm finding I have with increasing frequency. I define this condition as "Today, I'll get back to editing that article I started on yesterday" [starts typing, hits post, double checks new wikilink only to find a typo or data error in the article I've just linked to, which then sends me off on a quest to find the data I need to fix the error on that linked article - and utterly sidetracking me from my original mission of finishing the edit job on the aforementioned "Today, I'll get back to editing...."]. If I had two brains and four hands, I could get so much more accomplished. Alas, I must contend with being a mere mortal. As such, I feel like an utter slacker compared to you. I have a far easier time of it because, IMHO, Civil War-era sources are much easier to combine that those for the subjects you choose to tackle. I'm in awe of you, my friend, for choosing to better Wikipedia's coverage of the Hundred Years' War - while working on GA noms and reviews. Bravo, and may the gods of research, writing and proofreading smile upon and assist you.) 47thPennVols (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47thPennVols. Apologies for the (very) long delay in responding. Real life and Wikipedia have been keeping me busy - mostly real life. I have just reread your, utterly accurate, description of how editing Wikipedia works in practice. It had me giggling all over again.

I am curious: how many ACW Medal of Honor winners were there? (Ie, are you in any danger of running out of raw material?)

Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:26, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Giggling is good. Glad I could return the favor. (You've made me smile many times during our exchanges.) As for the exact number of CMOH winners, let's just say I've got enough sources to keep my busy for at least a little while. (One of the fun things about this project is that, every so often while I'm creating a new bio or reworking another, I come across an article for that soldier's regiment which hasn't yet been created or which needs work to bring it up to B class. So, I'm getting the chance to improve the 'pedia in those areas as well.) I'm sitting here with a fresh cup of coffee, looking for something mind expanding to read. What are you working on this week? 47thPennVols (talk) 16:39, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. I'm close to wrapping up a 1346 siege article in draft space - User:Gog the Mild/sandbox3. Not mind expanding. I don't think this is mind expanding, but it may give you a chuckle. Something non-Wikipedian from back when I used to be fit.

At the moment I am imitating your fine example (imitation, sincerity etc) and trying to focus. There were seven articles on battles and sieges involving England in 1345-47. The best one was a C. I have had two promoted to GA this week, written a new one which is up for GAN, had one GA'ed a while ago and reaching the end of ACR, will be adding Siege of Aiguillon shortly, writing three to fill gaps and attempting to improve the remaining four. The long term plan is to get all of them to FA, but given that I haven't even submitted anything for FA yet that is clearly presumptuous. The big advantage of this approach, as you will know better than me, is that it allows the same sources to be repeatedly referred to and one gets a 'feel' for the period. See the first two targets here, User:Gog the Mild/Tasks#Targets. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Okay, now I feel like a total "lazy bones". I've just been shooting to get mine to B class (because a significant number of the MOH winner articles are stubs or start-class). But you, my friend? Your GA accomplishments have been genuinely impressive, and your drive to reach FA? I bow to your editorial superiority. (I'll be erecting a small shrine to you as soon as I can figure out the most appropriate location.) In all seriousness, I am in awe of your record to date. (The sheer number of Wikipedia articles that are in WAY better condition than they were when you first started deserves a hearty back-pat. So consider your back patted - heartily.) Okay, back to editing. (And many thanks for the new reading material.) 47thPennVols (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Quite right Lazy Bones (I can't even write that without laughing out loud), enough drinking coffee; back to the Wiki-mines, you have a production quota to meet. No, no, wait; you may take a break while you ponder where to locate my shrine.

Are we falling into stereotypes here? You come up with the bright ideas, which I steal; I get my back patted and my ego reinforced. (Not that I'm complaining .) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Re my self imposed targets, I may never get there, I probably won't. But:

Ah, but a man’s reach should exceed his grasp,
Or what’s a heaven for?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Chewing over your last comment - in my slow, male-brain way - I have just realised that I have been heartily patted on the back by an editor who has published 30 B class articles in the past 50 days! It is a discombobulating production rate; yet you think that my accomplishments are impressive. After this epiphany my head is so swollen that I may struggle to get it through the door to go to bed. May I humbly petition to pat your back? I promise not to be too hearty, but it will be most heartfelt.Gog the Mild (talk) 22:00, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Isaac I Komnenos

On 6 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Isaac I Komnenos, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that two years after winning the throne of the Byzantine Empire in battle, Isaac I voluntarily abdicated and retired to a monastery? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Isaac I Komnenos. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Isaac I Komnenos), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CL, October 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at the use of so-called "substandard" manpower in armies Interview: On the Bugle turning 150 (issues that is!) Op-ed: TomStar81 on the collapse of empires at the close of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 07:00, 7 October 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 13

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

1345 (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Bergerac

Ralph de Stafford, 1st Earl of Stafford (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Aiguillon

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Auberoche

Hello. I'm pleased to tell you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Auberoche 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 12:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

I've left a few suggestions on the review page. They're very minor, and I haven't put the review on formal hold, though will of course do so if you wish. Tim riley talk 13:33, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Getting in first, before that blasted bot: good work, and congratulations! It was a pleasure to review the article and promote it to GA. I shall certainly look in at the Battle of Bergerac, though I don't guarantee that I'll review it: I may or may not depending on time. Tim riley talk 17:36, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: You beat the bot by 5 minutes . For your information, I am about to add a significant amount of information to the article. Here's why:

Having done a lot of work on Battle of Bergerac and Battle of Auberoche and nominating them for GA in late August and early September I took it into my head to write an article on the campaign in which they took place, the Gascon campaign of 1345. This went live a week ago and I have been tweaking it since. As one does, digging deeper into the topic I discovered additional sources, and layers of nuance behind some of those I had used. Going through Battle of Auberoche in the light of your GAN comments I realised how much new material, and new sources for existing material, I had uncovered over the past six weeks. I am about to include it.

I flag this up because I think that it looks bad to materially alter an article immediately it attains GA. Feel free to re-examine the article; feel free to down grade it; and/or provide additional feedback. I think that the additions improve the article. (Obviously I suppose, otherwise I wouldn't have made them.)

Assuming that the changes don't damn it, I would appreciate your views on how ready this is for FAC. I have not yet made a FA nomination and I was planning to put it through ACR at MilHist first. But I currently have two articles there, grinding their way slowly. Is it worth jumping this one straight to FAC, or could it do with the fine tuning which an ACR would provide first? Any advice you could offer would be appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:38, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Replying to the above;

If the major additions you speak of are just those made yesterday evening I see nothing to disturb the validity of the GA status. If you have any further additions in mind I shall have to wait and see, but on current form I doubt if there is any cause for concern.

It is difficult to comment on whether an article is ready for FAC if – like me in this case – one knows next to nothing about the topic. I have looked at the article on the Battle of Bergerac (and, what the Hell, I may as well review it for GAN now, having already gone through it), and to me both articles look comprehensive and the sources wide and well-chosen, but I am too inexpert to pronounce confidently on those two points. So I cannot be sure whether the two articles meet FA criteria 1b and 1c. To my mind they should encounter no serious problems as regards the other eight criteria.

Among the barnstars on my user page is The Queen's Award for Cowardice, a well-earned honour, and I know little of the military history project. So I can't advise you on whether it is prudent to skip the project's ACR process. I suppose an alternative might be to go to peer review instead and then on to FAC – my normal route to FA – but peer review can take an age too, unless you have some regular Wiki-colleagues you can persuade to look in. (I am quite shameless in taking the cap round for contributions to my PRs such as the one I have open at present.)

I hope these thoughts are of some use. – Tim riley talk 08:15, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Good evening Tim. All of the alterations have been made. I didn't think that you would see a problem, but I felt bad about making such a large change immediately after you passed the article.

Thank you for your thoughts on FAC. I am relaxed about most of 1b and 1c: the sources are impeccable. And it has everything that I, who knew nothing about the topic two months ago, could find. Yesterday I received a copy of the last missing article from the Professor of Medieval History at Southamton University - a nice chap. However, it is not impossible that it is not "a thorough and representative survey of the relevant literature". The event is little studied and it is quite possible that I have overlooked a source which specialist scholars (which I am a long way from being) would consider seminal. I think that I shall give Auberoche a final brush down and put it up for FA to see what happens.

Regarding Hector Berlioz, I really wouldn't want to go near an article about a composer, especially at that sort of level. My knowledge of music, of all eras and genres, is as close to zero as one can reasonably get without actually being deaf. A shame - I do owe you a favour, and I try to take my QPQs seriously. Let me know when you have a non-music article in need of review.

And to really push my luck, you are now in a magnificent position to assess Gascon campaign of 1345, of which the two battles you have just looked at were the main events. I think that you would find much of it remarkably familiar.

I shall now have a look at your comments about Battle of Bergerac.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:43, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

In re my current PR – fair enough: de gustibus. I have just been reviewing at FAC an article you might find more in your line: Demetrius III Eucaerus. Battles galore and bodies everywhere. Do look in if you have time.

I suppose ("I am in blood Stepp'd in so far") I might as well review the third of your Gascon trilogy, though I usually avoid repeatedly reviewing the same nominator's GANs – not that I dislike doing so, but it looks a bit cosy. More anon. – Tim riley talk 10:44, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank'ee, kind sir. Once more unto the breach, dear friends, once more. I do occasionally get serial assessors. Someone did three of my Roman consuls in 36 hours. Auntieruth did five of my Byzantine emperors, but she was on a major drive at the time.

Demetrius looks interesting. Thank you for that. A whole series of Seleucid monarchs seem to be coming through recently. Nice to see one not called Antiochus. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Auberoche

The article Battle of Auberoche you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Auberoche for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 17:41, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bergerac

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bergerac 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 09:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bergerac

The article Battle of Bergerac you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bergerac for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 13:41, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Lunalonge

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Lunalonge 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, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Lunalonge

The article Battle of Lunalonge 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 Lunalonge for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 01:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Copyedit request

Hi Gog! I am planning to put al-Mu'tasim up for an FA nomination soon, now that Thessalonica is wrapped up. Could you please, if you have time and interest, do a copyedit of the article? I would appreciate it very much. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. Sure. Give me a couple of days or so. If you don't see any action, feel free to nudge me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, no reason to hurry, do it whenever you feel like it, and take your time. Thanks again! --Constantine ✍ 16:10, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. At the risk of being cheeky, I have just submitted an ACR, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Auberoche. If you happen to have a spare moment, do feel free to cast your eye over it. . Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:50, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Sure thing, but as I am caught up in some of my own projects now, it will be in the weekend or so. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

@Constantine No problem, it's not going anywhere. Thanks. (You may be interested to know that I have just submitted Battle of Neville's Cross as a FAC, my first.) Gog the Mild (talk) 15:43, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. I should be able to do this over the weekend. Could you do be a favour and enter it in GOCE Requests? I will pick it up immediately, and it will get me brownie points with GOCE. With all of the article improvement and assessing I have been doing lately I have been struggling to pull my weight there. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Right away, thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 12:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Lunalonge

The article Battle of Lunalonge you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Lunalonge for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

25 DYK Medal

		The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal
		To Gog the Mild for his first 25 DYK promotions on the main page, every one a good article (spanning warfare, history, and philosophy and religion), and nearly all within a six-month period. Your consistently good work is much appreciated. Congratulations! Reidgreg (talk) 14:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg, Lor' bless you squire. It is nice to know that someone is paying attention. This was the first thing I saw after finally signing off Baldwin II, so I now feel quite recharged. I hope to be producing a DYK for engineering and technology once someone assesses SB Centaur, but I am not holding my breath. I have just checked - there are an impressive number of ticks on the article list from the last blitz; well done, I hadn't expected so many. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

I ran your name through QPQcheck on my last review to test that the tool was functioning correctly, and was surprised to see you up to 26. Then I had to see for myself that you did that many good articles, and at that point I might as well give you the award. I'm blown away on several counts – my only GA waited more than six months for review, so I have difficulty wrapping my head around how much you've accomplished. I suppose this means that you've reviewed 25 GANs as well? I noticed that one of your last GA/DYKs is now an FAC, I'll have to keep an eye on how that proceeds. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:27, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg, I'm a little surprised myself. I think that it helps that most of my GANs are for MilHist, although they have been slacking lately - one has been waiting nearly three months. I think that because I had been drilled so rigorously by you on Wiki-style when I first started with GOCE, and because I already knew how to write prose, albeit mostly in report style (with a smattering of poetry and light fiction), it was fairly easy to pitch articles at GA level. I look back at some and wince a little; they were only just over the bar. I deliberately decided to churn out a few to get the hang of all the style points - hence the spread of topic areas - and imbed the level of writing required. You may recall the rush of 10 GAs in July.

I then stepped up and started writing (and referencing and et cetera) in a way which I hoped would be up to FA. I put my first article into ACR in early September. The second, from a couple of weeks later, popped out first and has gone into FAC, as you cannily spotted. I have a further six articles which I think/hope are more or less ready for FAC right now. I am putting them through ACR, no more than two at a time, and we shall see how they get on. Given that my first FAC went in this week I am more than a little nervous.

"I suppose this means that you've reviewed 25 GANs as well?" Très amusant. No, I have assessed 62 GANs of other editors. (And not failed one yet, so possibly I am doing it wrong.) I was trying to QPQ at 2:1, but the rush of GAs assessed for me has left me short. (I have 35 GAs so far, I only go for DYK if I think that there is a decent hook in them.) Given that I currently have another 9 in the queue I am going to struggle to get back on track.

When I submitted my first GAN, back in February, I grandiosely hoped to have a tally of 20 by the end of the year . I am also one gimme GAN assessment away from my first good topic.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to guess 50 and have it 'only' be 25. I'm still getting my feet with DYK reviews before looking at GAN reviews. Right now I'm in the middle of a batch of 100+ 'minor' reviews for another WikiProject I'm trying to get done for early November. I haven't done much writing lately, but am hoping to do more multiple-hook DYKs. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg. Goodness. I could do with 'borrowing' some for my QPQ . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Ah, it's more like very minor assessment, trying to make statistical sense of an even larger number of contributions. Really need to find a better (ie: less corruption-implying) term for QPQ. Perhaps do ut des ("I give so that you will give")? The exchange of good deeds sounds nicer but there is still reciprocity implied. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:38, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Siege of Shaizar

Thanks for taking up the GA review process.Urselius (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Urselius No problem, it's a nice article. You've been working on it for over 6 years[!] There's dedication.

Time for a shameless plug. If you would like to look at one of my GANs it would be much appreciated. I have several late Medieval military history nominations you may feel at home with. Or if you are feeling adventurous, I put up my first FAC four days ago, also late Medieval - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Neville's Cross/archive1. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I'll have a look at the Neville's Cross - I'm fairly well up on the Hundred Years War. I've read two of the multi-volume history that is fairly recent.Urselius (talk) 19:18, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Urselius I can see where you're coming from, but a bit earlier and a different Neville. I think that you will like it anyway.

I keep looking at your other GAN. Right up my street but a bit of a monster. Maybe when I have a day or so to spare. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

@Urselius Oops. First bit was before you amended. I assume that you mean Sumption. (I found him a great read, and a bit of an eye opener.) You'll be right at home. Sumption is the core of it, boiled down and with more scholarly bits added. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

I was thinking of St. Albans for some reason. Saints and crosses - some sort of mental short circuit. I have added a support and a couple of points to the FA review page, the first very minor indeed, the second should be easy enough to add some material. I think it is important to highlight out how Medieval armies differed, if they did differ, and the difference between English and Scots martial equipment was still very wide as late as Pinkie in the mid 16th century. Urselius (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As soon as I saw your first post I assumed that was the mental connection. (Or, on a further level, there is a Saint Alban's Cross, which is a saltire.)

I entirely agree re composition, and "everyone knows" how these two armies differed; both in composition and resulting tactics. I have just been digging into some further possible sources, to no avail. They are all mining the same limited comtemporary chronicles which just don't cover it. Even the images show mounted knights fighting each other. I guess that it was a busy year and most chroniclers concentrated on Aiguillon, Crecy and Calais rather than provincial affairs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiBeer

Thank you! I try not to take anything too seriously here :) And as above, thanks for editing the Siege of Shaizar and other crusades articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Oman on Neville's Cross

Sir Charles Oman's second volume of his 'Art of War in the Middle Ages has all you might hope for - including schiltrons pp. 149-151 - Och Aye! An old book, but they are often better at details, modern historians tend to live in vague abstractions, pushing grand theories. I have a reprint of the book and would be happy to give you snippets. Urselius (talk) 21:53, 27 October 2018 (UTC) Actually, it has a wealth of detail, so a short essay would be closer to the mark. Urselius (talk) 22:00, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

That's the second time this month I have been picked up for depreciating Oman. I need to get myself a copy, even if I take everything he writes with a pinch of salt. (Update, I have ordered one. God bless the internet,) But in this case any port in a storm - it's an RS to back up what we want to write and we don't need to poke too hard at where he got his information from. Cough. Is there any chance that you could scan the three key pages and email them to me. A big ask I know, so feel free to demur. Especially as in the last 30 minutes I have turned up two sources which give some information, one on the Scots, t'other on the English. The English one is a PhD thesis, but one can't have everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:43, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

A quick précis of Oman

p. 149 (footnote) - from the muster rolls - Lancashire sent 960 horsed archers 240 archers on foot. [Probably the total mobilised rather than being present], but it does show how high the proportion of mounted men would have been. The English army also included 'hobilars' which Oman interprets as horsed spearmen, who dismounted to fight.

p.150 - Scottish army in 3 'great schiltrons' drawn up on a hillside amidst hedges and cuttings - right under Moray, centre under the king, left under Robert Stuart and March. The English after waiting for some time attacked in echelon with the left leading, the right refused. The right never came into close combat. The English left outflanked Moray's schiltron and the longbowmen drove off the Scottish light-troops, and then poured arrows into the dense formation of Scottish pikemen (Oman says 'pikemen', but also 'spearmen' later on the same page). Under this barrage the Scottish left broke up, falling back on the king's corps. The English left then moved against the Scottish king's flank, while the English centre attacked its front. The fight then became a close quarter contest. The king's formation eventually gave way. As the Scottish centre was seen to be giving ground, the Scottish left quit the field in haste, having not been seriously engaged.

p.151 - Oman classed the battle as being won by archery - the flanking longbow missiles making the frontal attack of the men-at-arms and hobilars certain of success. Oman says that Baker of Swinbrook makes it clear that the fight in the centre involved much hand-to-hand combat.

Oman gives sources as 'muster rolls', Scotichronicon, Wyntoun, Baker of Swinbrook and the Lanercost Chronicle. Urselius (talk) 08:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC) - my opinions in []

Urselius, that is wonderful. Many thanks. I shall use some of it straight away, but mostly I think, wait for my copy to arrive and try to reconcile it with more recent sources. (What you cover above looks as if much of it comes from the early versions of Froissatt. Seems as if Oman has cherry picked the most exciting and pro-English bits to me, but I may be slurring a fine historian. I will start working up something in my sandbox. Are you ok with me checking the content with you as I go along?

Note that I have moved some discussion from the FAC, to keep it all together. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:18, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

You are welcome, yes, I have my copy of Oman to hand, if you want me to check any wording - however, I may not be on the computer much, or at least on fitfully, for the rest of today. Urselius (talk) 14:12, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

GANs, life and everything

Thanks a lot for the favourable review. I have extensively written 3 pre-existing articles that were promoted to GA, but this was the first for one that I created. As for FA, I had a bad experience with the Battle of Waterloo review, and I will never go near another as sponsor ;) Urselius (talk) 08:13, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Urselius. You are welcome. It was a nice, straightforward GA. (At this point I shall refer to the warning on my user page: "Sometimes I may seem blunt in what I say here... it's faster (and more effective) to say what I mean directly. If this bothers you, please let me know, and I'll say things in a more roundabout and pleasant way.") Nicely and densely cited to scholarly sources. Possibly in need of a light copy edit - not that I can talk - but way on the easy and pleasant side to assess. And you didn't give me any (inappropriate) grief over my edits or suggestions. So I have picked up your latest offering, I'll get round to it in a day or two.

It is good to see a flow of your articles coming through for GAN. There are quite a few more which need very little doing. Going through your user page I was strongly tempted to steal several, give them a quick dust off and brush up and put them through GAN myself.

The third and fourth articles I have ever written from scratch (from a total of four) are Gascon campaign of 1345 and Siege of Aiguillon. I think that you may find them an interesting read. And, as they are both GANs, if you should feel compelled to assess one of them, go for it .

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:37, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Damme

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Damme 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) 08:01, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Bergerac

On 30 October 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Bergerac, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the French town of Bergerac was captured after a portcullis jammed on a wounded horse? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Bergerac. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Bergerac), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Nice job getting Battle of Bergerac to GA status and to the Main Page! Fantastic piece of work. MX (✉ • ✎) 22:07, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi MX. Well, that was a nice surprise. It is always good when your work is appreciated, so thank you. Yes, quite a bit of TLC has gone into this one. It's sister battle, Auberoche is currently undergoing ACR. Assuming that goes well, Bergerac will be following it. Thanks again, I shall display it with pride. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

The only Byzantine award on the block

	Panhypersebastos award
	For excellent and valuable contributions to Byzantine articles, you are hereby "Honoured Above All". You may now wear yellow shoes! User:Urselius

@Urselius: Wow! Yellow shoes. Fantastic. My dreams come true. I am going straight out to buy a spray can of yellow paint. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:25, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Damme

The article Battle of Damme 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 Damme for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 07:00, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army

Do you think that I could go ahead, and nominate History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army for A-class, or does it need more work? I'm asking because I have no experience in the matter. Thanks for the review by the way. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:14, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. I am far from an authority myself, but the article is probably close to being worth a shot. I would suggest:

• Have a look at my checklist, mostly 1, 2, 3, 4 (Earwig), 6, 7 (needs doing), 9, 11 and 12.
• Run through the A class criterea. I think you will think its fine, but be harsh on yourself.
• Then ask me again, flagging up anything you think is weak and/or a problem and I'll read through it thoroughly and tell you what I think

Does that sound ok?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, it does. Thanks for letting me know. I'll try and get back to you in a couple weeks (my time has not been as free as I would like, and I have been awfully busy.) Thank you for being so helpful & understanding. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:34, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Canada 10,000 Challenge award

		The Bronze Maple Leaf Award
		This maple leaf is awarded to Gog the Mild for writing the good article Razing of Friesoythe and a related biography during the second year of The 10,000 Challenge of WikiProject Canada. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

One more for the bling bar! – Reidgreg (talk) 23:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Wow. Great. Thank you. Country barnstars seem to be hard to earn, so this is appreciated. A barn star from you is very much appreciated. I trust that things are going well with you?

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Damme

The article Battle of Damme you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Damme for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 00:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

WikiCup 2018 November newsletter

The WikiCup is over for another year! Our Champion this year is Courcelles (submissions), who over the course of the competition has amassed 147 GAs, 111 GARs, 9 DYKs, 4 FLs and 1 ITN. Our finalists were as follows:

1. Courcelles (submissions)
2. Kosack (submissions)
3. Kees08 (submissions)
4. SounderBruce (submissions)
5. Cas Liber (submissions)
6. Nova Crystallis (submissions)
7. Iazyges (submissions)
8. Ceranthor (submissions)

All those who reached the final win awards, and awards will also be going to the following participants:

• Cas Liber (submissions) wins the FA prize, for three featured articles in round 2.
• Courcelles (submissions) wins the GA prize, for 92 good articles in round 3.
• Kosack (submissions) wins the FL prize, for five featured lists overall.
• Cartoon network freak (submissions) wins the topic prize, for 30 articles in good topics overall.
• Usernameunique (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 24 did you know articles in round 3.
• Zanhe (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 17 in the news articles overall.
• Aoba47 (submissions) wins the GAR prize, for 43 good article reviews in round 1.

Awards will be handed out in the coming weeks. Please be patient!

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether you made it to the final rounds or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the WikiCup who have achieved much this year. Thanks to all who have taken part and helped out with the competition.

Next year's competition begins on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; it is open to all Wikipedians, new and old. The WikiCup judges will be back in touch over the coming months, and we hope to see you all in the 2019 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email) and Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email).

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winchelsea

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Winchelsea 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 LeGabrie -- LeGabrie (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gascon campaign of 1345

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gascon campaign of 1345 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) 22:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 5

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Gascon campaign of 1345, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clermont (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winchelsea

The article Battle of Winchelsea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Winchelsea for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of LeGabrie -- LeGabrie (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A-class congratulations

Greetings Gog, as one of the supporters of the page Siege of Berwick (1333). Which passed the A-class review yesterday, so that is why I wanna tell you now congrats, for passing your page and your work on it. It deserves an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, CPA-5! ——SerialNumber54129 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CPA-5, it is always nice when your work is appreciated. And SN54129 is quite right, they put in a very hefty addition to the article shortly after I created it and deserve a hefty share of the congrats. And thank you for your helpful assessment. Next stop is FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just joshing with you Gog :) I won't mention it again! ——SerialNumber54129 04:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Let's hope it'd get FA-class. If you need me in any kinda review, just let me know. Also good luck (when the time is ready) with the page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CPA-5, I appreciate the offer. As soon as I have anything which I think that you could assess I shall ping you. Siege of Berwick (1333) is going into FAC as soon a my present, first [!] candidate is passed or failed. You contributed to it at ACR - Battle of Neville's Cross. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Razing of Friesoythe, Battle of Neville's Cross, and Siege of Berwick (1333). MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of

Hi Gog the Mild. I was wondering whether you can assist me in determining whether Battle of Saintes (1 April) and Battle of Taillebourg (1351) (8 April) are two separate battles or are they being conflated? They appear to both result in Guy II de Nesle being captured. He would have had two large ransoms within a short period of time. Apparently after Saintes, Guy II de Nesle was ransomed by Phillip IV. This would only leave a few days before the other battle of Taillebourg. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Newm30: Gog will confirm this (or otherwise!), but I think you are correct in suspecting a conflation; or, rather, that the battle we call Taillebourg is actually a duplication of that of Saintes.See: Sumption II (1999), 132–133; Wagner, Enc. HYW (2006), 275. Etc. Probably because although its named after Saintes, both the proximity of the town, and the involvement of the garrison, of Taillebourg have perhaps over-emphasised the latter's role.

Interestingly— WP:OR alert!—a reason for the confusion may stem from the fact that in 1242, there were indeed two discrete battles, Taillebourg, and the following day, Saintes, on 21/22 July. Ironically, unlike with the 1351 articles(s), we have only one article to cover both of the earlier battles. Hope this helps! Now for the return of the talk page, just like Gascony, to its rightful owner's possession :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. Serial Number 54129 is really your go to person for that sort of query, I just dabble in the period. And they seem to have summed it up nicely above. It does seem improbable that de Nesle was paroled, raised and paid his ransom, and was back in the fray all within a week doesn't it. I suspect different chroniclers, both agreeing which day of the week it happened on, but not which week. Yes, that's OR; but SN54129's insightful sounding OR has inspired me. Anyway, it seems certain that there was only one battle, at least in 1351. Sumption (my 1999 edition has it on p. 77) places this on 1 April, but this 2011 edition does have it on pp. 132–33. If you follow the link I think that you will find some additional material and references you could use to (further) expand the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Oman (1998) [1924] p. 59,makes a passing reference to "700 [longbow]men... the flower of the English infantry" taking part. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have also found a map of Gascon campaign of 1345, that maybe able to be redrawn at Commons. I have a request there presently and pending result of the 1345 campaign map to be created. Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: That would be great. Any chance that "Lancaster" could be replaced with "Derby"? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 or another article or the proposed image? Do you know what the order of precedence was for that time between Derby or Lancaster? I was following French wikipedia names for articles. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, I am referring to the map you linked to. Henry was Earl of Derby until his father died on 22 September 1345, when he became Earl of Lancaster, that being the senior rank. Obviously it was some time before his new title was known of in Gascony. RSs usually refer to him as Derby for his 1345 campaign and Lancaster from 1346 on, and it would be nice if the map could reflect this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No problems. After thinking about it last night I had come to that conclusion, I was just confused beforehand. I will list it shortly at Commons. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How many words!

Hi Reidgreg. 22,000 words. And I looked at that article before you started work. Crazy man. Rather you than me. But very well done indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a real Beast (獣, Jū). Hey, the article/subject was full of bad puns. The search statistics listed it at 26,916 words, but I think that counted the Japanese text. Too bad, I could have taken first in three leaderboard slots with one copy edit! Unfortunately, there are a lot of bloated Japanese TV character lists out there, I think the Sentai franchise has about 20 series. After doing a couple of them you get a feel for it but it's still a long march through a swamp. This batch of old articles have a few of them: List of Kamen Rider Build characters (19,618 with lists), Characters of The Legend of Zelda (14,395 with lists), and a section copy edit on List of Sailor Moon characters. Oh, I also had 'fun' with an Indian daily drama, condensing a 3000+ word plot 'summary' to 400 words. I should probably take a break and review some copy edits though.

I recently achieved my Veteran II (I'm about 2 months behind my expected edit quota) and took a moment to review my own edits and update my user pages. Should I be surprised that I have over 100 edits to this talk page? It also got me thinking about QPQs. I've got 0:1 for GAs and 9:4 for DYK, but my copy edit QPQ is 280:1 and my barnstar QPQ is now 9:2 (180 given to 40 received). Imagine if we enforced QPQ for copy edits? Or even worse, at Articles for Creation or Dispute Resolution? That'd be like handing the courtroom over to the criminals (assuming bad faith). There's probably material for an essay or Signpost article there, if one doesn't already exist. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hah, that will teach us to *complain* about the lack of 10,000+ word articles. GOCE seems to be in good shape at the moment, keeping well on top of both the list of tagged articles and turning requests around in a remarkably short time. The former should dip well below 1,000 this drive. I have noticed a number of really bad machine translated article cropping up, usually badly referenced. Not sure if it is me noticing, or if the incidence is actually increasing. (I knocked more than a third off San Agustín culture.)

Have you only had one GA. I was surprised, but thinking of how thorough you are, both with facts and with references, not to mention how much else you are involved with, perhaps I shouldn't have been. When you next nominate one feel free to ping me; I've assessed 60+ over the past 8 months so am feeling fairly comfortable.

QPQ for copy editing. Right. So we force all the editors who can't write grammatical English and/or follow Wikipedia guidelines to copy edit other articles. I can see a certain amusement value. Perhaps we could charge? Why don't you write something for signpost, on a strictly for laughs basis, along those lines? That is a serious suggestion.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see we're on track for the 900s. I just hope not to backslide too much in December, so that the backlog at the end of the year is lower than it was at the end of 2017 (otherwise my 'reign' as lead will break a seven-year streak).

I would eventually like to take the serial killer article to GA, but the trial is tenatively set for Sept 2019 so it's still a long way off before it can be a 'complete' treatment of the subject. (But if I can get it to GA/FA I can qualify for a 'deletion to quality' barnstar, as it had gone through a deletion discussion early this year.)

Yes! The idea of extending QPQ has an exquisite ridiculousness to it. For some time I've wanted to contribute something like that in the spirit of WP:FUN but my sense of humour alternates between very dark and very silly. For example, a previous idea was for an essay about getting editors to discuss their edits, tentatively titled Wikipedia:Enhanced interrogation techniques (wikt:ve haf vays of making you talk).

Ah, I need a little amusement after working on crime articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: One of your comments above has just gone "ping". Thoughts traverse my neurons v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. At the end of last year December closed on 1,194. I suppose that we may not beat that, but if it seems possible send out the word and we'll drive it down. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We're at 974 as I type this and may well break 900, but it depends on December; sometimes 300 get tagged in a month, sometimes 100. Hopefully taggers will be busy decorating for the holidays.

I did a small update to the McArthur article and took a look at its page views. It had 7k+ for DYK, then 13k a month later and broke 5k twice during Pride week. It rarely drops below 200 views a day and had just reached 125k total views. I thought that was really impressive and then I put it side-by-side with the original title from before the page move (took me a while to get the capital A in McArthur) (link). According to that, it already has well over a quarter-million page views. My update was mid-May so most of that has nothing to do with me, though. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: As I type this it stands at 960. We may get somewhere near 800. If the taggers aren't full of seasonal cheer we can always have an impromptu Christmas drive to spare your blushes.

Impressive. That's more than any six of mine. But you write on difficult topics which people actually want to read about. I suspect that you are over analysing there. It seems to me "obvious" that the big spike in something like that is going to be as it breaks, with mini-spikes as it subsequently features in the news. What I noticed was the later spike actually being higher than the first one. We have no way of knowing how many views there would have been if you hadn't sorted it out. (If you have a machine for rerunning reality, please let me know.) About the only things we can be sure of is that people who click on it now come away both much better informed and with a much better opinion of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. The low in May 2018 was 716 articles. I best find time to do some more.

It does make me feel better, that it's being used that much. And maybe a little more motivation to push for a GA after the trial. Still a long way from the TV show articles which are viewed that many times each week. (I noticed the good topic lists include a number of TV shows like that.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Unfortunately I live in too glassy a house to be able to accuse you of having become a bit obsessed.

About half of my GAs more than doubled their annual views with their DYK day. Your DYK got lost in the tsunami of views. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Descriptions of Great War things

Do you mind using "First World War" and thinking about the meaning of the words you use? " ...defensive strongpoint of the German 6th Army on the Western Front during World War I". How can a strongpoint not be defensive? Does it have to be during not "in" the First World War? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks babe, apart from semantic quibbles, I think it's a really good idea to interpolate a systematic description style. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Quite right. I have labeled a few articles, inc some WWI ones, but I must have switched my brain off for that one. You were well within your rights to trout me. If the evidence wasn't clear I wouldn't have believed I'd done it. Barely even literate. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked Trout up ;O) ;O) ;O) At first I thought you were alluding to Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout...;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: So it goes. Second thingy from the right at the top of the page. Not been needed yet - folk on Wikipedia are cutting me a lot of slack I reckon. I shall self-trout:

 Self-trout

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Peacemaker67 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Gascon campaign (1345) map

Hi Gog the Mild, just wondering whether you could cast eye over draft version of map here and provide comments. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: That is looking fantastic. I have added some suggestions. Thank you very much for initiating this. I was only peripherally aware of the map creation facility and your request is going to really enhance the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Calais (1349)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Calais (1349) 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gascon campaign of 1345

The article Gascon campaign of 1345 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gascon campaign of 1345 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Aiguillon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Aiguillon 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) 09:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For Battle of Calais (1349) and other very engrossing reads, for always being helpful and around on Military History, for reviewing several of my articles, and constantly contributing in countless other ways. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Wow! That was a surprise. You are possibly aware that I am more appreciative of barnstars than a mature adult really should be, and so you have made my day. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Calais (1349)

The article Battle of Calais (1349) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Calais (1349) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Auberoche

On 19 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Auberoche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Auberoche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Auberoche), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I've been slowly working on List of most successful American submarines in World War II, and just requested United States Submarine Operations in World War II and Silent Victory from my Local library. Anyways, I'm aware of inconsistencies between the sources on the number of ships sunk. Currently I am using JANAC tabulations. Should I include all three? One? or a mix? I'd be interested to know what you think. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. This is not one of my specialist areas, so I am not sure what my advice is worth. I am aware of the events and the controversy. For what it is worth, I would go with the JANAC figures - everyone seems to use these as their starting point. If either of the others has major differences I would footnote it. I would not, personally, think that it would be helpful to a non-expert reader to have three, sometimes different, sometimes not, figures shown. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of Gascon campaign of 1345

Gog, please be advised that the File:Map of Gascon campaign of 1345.svg has been uploaded for use. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30:. It looks great. Many thanks for commissioning this. I am about to leave a message regarding it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

HI Newm30, you may be interested to hear that Battle of Auberoche is now at FAC and Gascon campaign of 1345 is at ACR. I am certain that the map is contributing to both, so can I thank you again - I would never have realised that this was possible. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No problems, I will keep looking out for red links and improvement opportunities as I come across them. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gog the Mild. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bouvines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bouvines 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) 04:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Siege of La Réole (1345-1346)

Hi, I was reading some literature and was intrigued that the Siege of La Réole in 1345-1346, which lasted eight as part of the Gascon campaign of 1345 did not have an independent article. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The only siege I was aware of was the one mentioned towards the end of Gascon campaign of 1345, see below. IMO it is not notable enough to merit a separate article, and if it were it could never get above a stub. Gascon campaign of 1345 includes pretty much all of the information any source has on this and it is not as if we are likely to discover any more.

He then moved on the large, strongly fortified town of La Réole. This occupied a key position on the north bank of the Garonne river, only 35 miles (56 km) from Bordeaux. The town had been English until captured by the French twenty-one years earlier. It had enjoyed considerable autonomy and lucrative trading privileges, which it had lost under the French. After negotiations with Derby, on 8 November the citizens distracted the large French garrison and opened a gate for the English. The garrison fled to the citadel, which was considered exceptionally strong; the English proceeded to mine it.[60] The garrison agreed a provisional surrender; if they were not relieved within five weeks they would leave. They were allowed to communicate this to the Duke of Normandy, but as he had just disbanded his army, and it was anyway mid-winter, there was little he could do. In early January 1346 the garrison left and the English replaced them. The town regained its previous privileges.[61] Derby spent the rest of the winter in La Réole.

I would suggest that one should be wary of moving from helpfully filling in red links to crating articles for the sake of it. But that is just my ill-informed opinion.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict

Greetings Gog, in the last 2 months (yes months) I was working on this page. The intresting part is that it is also my first major page (whom I'm working) for a B-class (of course really slowly). However 'cause I'm a non-native English speaker I am not sure this page has the good English grammer materials to describe it as a B-class. So my question is can you've a grammer review? If you do I really would appreciate your help. Also, I'm working at the "strengths" of both parties, and maybe I can find some "commanders" in the infobox too.

P.S. I also think it has the length of a GA-class, so maybe (just maybe) it would become my first GA-class page. Cheers and thanks for your efforts. CPA-5 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Sure. It may take me a couple of days to get round to it. Would you like:

1. The minimum I think it needs to get to B class.
2. The full GoCE treatment.
3. The GoCE plus comments and notes on what it may need to get to GA?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Great, I'm happy to hear that you'd help me thanks again. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Would you like to pick one of the options above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I personaly think for a GA review it should be first a B-class or am I totally wrong (shouldn't suprise me if I am)? Because I'm not really sure the page can have GA review now already, if its status is a stub especially, by someone who don't really know or the grammer is good enough for having a B-class status. So is it possible to have a GA-class review already, because if it can I'd choose that option? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Fine. I should be able to get it started over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, I can't wait. You made me excited. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Could you do me a favour? Enter the article as a request at the GoCE Request page. I will pick it up straight away, and it means that I can claim credit for copy editing it for the GoCE November drive. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Done I'm free in the evening (UTC time). CPA-5 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Caen (1346)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Caen (1346) 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) 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the thorough copyedits made at 2015 Ocotlán ambush! I feel confident about the article now and have placed it at GAN. Many thanks, your work is greatly appreciated! MX (✉ • ✎) 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@MX: Why thank you. That is thoughtful of you. We WikiGnomes appreciate an expression of appreciation. I shall keep an eye on it at GAN. If you need any help when it is being assessed, give me a ping. But you should be fine: it is a detailed, well referenced, logically laid out article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Georgios II

Do you think THIS is enough for a GA? LeGabrie (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi LeGabrie. Personally, no. Strictly there is no minimum on a GA, but given the limited amount known about him, and how uncertain much of that is, I would be surprised if anyone would consider it up to GA.

That said, it does seem to meet the 6 criteria, so no harm in nominating it and seeing what happens.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: The article has a readable prose size of 325 words. WP:SIZERULE suggests that if an article is less than 1,000 words "consider combining it with a related page". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well no problem, I can still display this article on my talk page then, just without that juicy green plus. Will let you know when I've created another, more fitting candidate. LeGabrie (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shekhar: Ek Jivani

Hi Gog, Hope you are well. I am working on above draft, which is about a Indian novel. I will put a request for copyediting on GOCE, whenever I finish my work. For now, can you have a look on 'plot' section ? It needs to be paraphrased as some sentences from it is very near to original source (Only plot section). Also the last paragraph of the 'plot' section needs to be re-written entirely (Only last paragraph), because there are a lack of Encyclopedic tone. Thanks. As per you convenience. -Gazal world (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gazal world. Good to hear from you. I have gone through, doing - I think - what you asked. Before I go through again and fine tune, I would appreciate some feedback as to whether I am on the right lines. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gog. This is exactly what I want. You have done great job. Now, It looks very sharp. Just one thing you missed in last paragraph, that is 'Sharda', the first love of Shekhar. Can you re-add it ? -Gazal world (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gazal world. Added. I found this last bit the most difficult. Knowing nothing of the women's ages, castes, occupations, how they met Shekhar and wheat they did together I suspect that my prose is a bit stilted. If you could add one of these details to the name of each of the women it will help the last bit to flow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel userboxed

Thx much for the award. If you have no objection, I'm moving it to my userpage. And allow me to confess surprise I've been so entertaining. :o (Tho I can see how the cats might be. ;p ) Greer Grant ^{meow mix} 12:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melding Person. It's your barnstar, feel free to nail it up where you want . Oh yes - there were several chuckle out loud moments. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear. I hope I also encouraged you to have a look at some of the pages I created, & you found them (marginally?) interesting. (I'm aware, they're pretty low-traffic & specialized interest, in the main {under 200/mo not uncommon}, so any new view is welcome. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: I found some of them fascinating. I have not done more than skim a handful of them as yet - you have created a lot of articles. 200/mo - ha! Some of my GAs don't get 200/yr. Barely an exaggeration, the interest level in obscure Roman consuls is low. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

♠Thx. And the number created looks bigger; most of them are pretty stubby. ;p (Like Dick Cadwalader, frex.) Some, like the Gargoyle, got added to later; the Hirohata Merc page was "revived", & has been added to, as well. (It's the one I'm proudest of since it'd been deleted--& now, it's actually not bad. :D )

♠It's a surprise, sometimes, what even a single issue of something like Street Rodder can provide, tho: I got enough for three pages on Chip Foose projects: The Stallion {a feature mag article, so it's the big one}, 0032, & Impact--plus bio info on Chip himself. And the Donovan page, and the Donovan hemi page, were both taken mainly from about a 100-word obit piece :o (in HRM, IIRC).

♠I know what you mean about views, tho; I don't check the numbers all the time (or I'd be sooo depressed ;p ), but in the 30s isn't unusual. Comes from being interested in subjects most WP readers aren't, I guess. I sometimes feel like I'm the only one paying attention to things related to hot roding, customizing, or drag racing (as witness most of my pages this year--& some of the most contentious ones, like Magoo, which, astoundingly, got tagged "non-notable" within about 2h of creation, obviously by somebody who knew nothing about him). Okay, sorry, I'll stop ranting, now ;p. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: No need to talk yourself down. It's impressive: that's official.

Ha, yes. Although I am more of an expander of existing articles. I have only written four new articles. I think it wonderful that helpful souls like yourself create so many new articles for me to browse and pick from to expand. As I mostly work in military history there are not too many of yours that take my fancy, but some.

I only tend to look at the number of views when an article is up for DYK. When it can be amusing to see it exceed its prvious lifetime views in a single day. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not a talk-down, facts are facts. I've put up nothing I'm ashamed of. Most of the bio pages are as good as I had. And you can have a look at the debate over Doug Thorley to see how bad it can get: he won Indy (which is NHRA's Super Bowl) in '67, but do you think I can find a single mention at the NHRA page, or a single issue of National Dragster or 'HRM online to back it up? Hell, no. I can't even find a mention in copies on Ebay! (Needless to say, my local library doesn't have copies of HRM going back that far.) You have no idea how frustrating that is, especially when somebody's nom'd the page for deletion. (Not a fan of that, TBH. So I have to apologize for the rant--again. ;p )
• I almost never pay attention to the views, except when I need an ego stroking. ;p And yeah, a DYK draws 'em like flies to honey, no question. I nominated a couple hoping to attract improvement thanks to more attention. ;p (Didn't work. :( :( )
• I put the pages up & hope somebody interested, with better sources, adds to them. Sometimes, I'll come across something I can add, from my back issues. That's all I can do. If you're creating milhist pages, maybe I'll be one of those pageviews, 'cause I've got a long-standing interest, there. (You might not guess from my page creation...) You may have noticed, my first page was the nicknames list; most of the sources in the first couple of edits were things I'd actually read.
• If you're one of those following behind & exploiting, I'm happy to have you on the team. I'm terrible at proofreading & cite amalgamation & such, so... ;p And as said, the Hirohata Merc or Gargoyle pages, frex, wouldn't be as good as it now is without guys like you. I may be able to claim credit for creating it, but not sole credit for it being so good, & I won't pretend I can. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The only difficult part was summing up your contributions in 20 words, though I am obsessed with wordcounts and conciseness. (The other noms went over, so you could have them disqualified and win by default!) Congrats for well-deserved nominations for both awards! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg I did notice that you used exactly 20 words, with the aid of a nifty hyphen, and was impressed. Also an impressive information to byte ratio there.

Good idea - I am tempted to request the disqualification of all other candidates, but apart from the danger of a mass sense of humour by pass it would also rule out my nomination by Zawed as MH of the year.

Sad to note that you are standing down as lead GOCE co-ord, but pleased that you anticipate doing much the same work. It is difficult to express how much (some) ordinary editors like me appreciate the work that editors like you put in to ensure that the playground is there for us. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have volunteered for lead except that otherwise it would have meant 10 consecutive terms between either Jonesey95 or Miniapolis in that position, and I didn't think that was fair. I am the least-experienced of the coordinators (everyone else has at least two years as coord while I'm just finishing my first). Now that I think about it, though, I was given two user rights last week... I wonder if that was incentive to remain as lead? Well, we'll see how the rest of the noms go. BTW, when you win those big MilHist awards, you'll be in the running to become a coordinator there. BTW2, you sniped me with that Teamwork Barnstar but I sent one of my own to the team as a whole. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As you said, Guild Hall didn't burn down. From outside it all seemed to run very smoothly.

I remember you pointing out the difference between user rights and barnstars, so well done.

Nah. I'll plead inexperience. Wait - that didn't work out for you! Hmm.

Oops. Well I am not going to apologise for giving the team, including you, a hard earned pat on the back, but apologies if my timing was infelicitous. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 GOCE drive bling

		The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 3 long articles during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 6,989 words – during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping this month with your always talented work! – Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Aiguillon

On 4 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Aiguillon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1346, a French army more than 15,000 strong besieged Aiguillon for five months, but failed to cut its supply lines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Aiguillon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Aiguillon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Aiguillon

The article Siege of Aiguillon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Aiguillon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bouvines

The article Battle of Bouvines you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bouvines for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

G'day Gog, you are very kind to nominate me, but I really would like to clear the field for other far more worthy nominees, as I've more than had my time in the sun over the last few years and it is nice to spread the love around. I hope you won't be offended if I withdraw? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. Oh course not. Given that such an obvious candidate hadn't already been nominated I wondered if I was committing a faux pas. But I thought "Sod it" (as we say in England): 1. It is going to take more than that to upset Peacemaker, and 2. He can always do a Sherman. I could argue with the "far more worthy nominees" bit, but even I can work out that that would be a faux pas. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Warm regards' Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade

The article 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gascon campaign of 1345

On 6 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gascon campaign of 1345, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Gascon campaign of 1345 was the first successful land campaign of the Hundred Years' War, eight years after it started? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gascon campaign of 1345. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gascon campaign of 1345), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Blanchetaque

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Blanchetaque 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 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) 23:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Lunalonge

On 13 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lunalonge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after a force of Anglo-Gascon cavalry defeated a French force, they had to walk home because the surviving French had captured their horses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lunalonge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Lunalonge), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Blanchetaque

The article Battle of Blanchetaque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Blanchetaque for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Damme

On 17 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Damme, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the Battle of Damme, a smaller English fleet captured 300 French ships and burned another 100? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Damme. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Damme), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Vanamonde93 00:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Shekhar: Ek Jivani

Hi Gog. Hope, you are well. I nominated Shekhar: Ek Jivani for DYK. Can you have a look on it ? (Template:Did you know nominations/Shekhar: Ek Jivani). Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gog. Happy Christmas. I just come here to know: What is QPQ ? -Gazal world (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gazal world, merry Christmas to you too. Quid pro quo means doing something to get something in return. For DYK nominations, it means that after an editors first four noms (you have just made your forth nom), for every nomination they make they must review one other nomination (unrelated to them). It is point 5 of the rules. I keep track of mine in a table, striking ones I have reviewed out as I "use them up" with fresh nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Alcohol free?

I'm not so politically correct I'll censor myself, I just don't know (or care ;p ) what flavor you celebrate. So, greetings of the season, & may they bring you joy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I remember something I read, once, in Opera News about the great Tatiana Troyanos. Here was a woman that had every right to complain at the Fates over her lot in life...she was abandoned by her parents to an orphanage, and she battled health issues for many years before dying of cancer at 55. (I remember reading that selfsame article about her and being amazed at what she had overcome.) And yet she remained ever gracious in her career and her professional dealings. The writer of the article, I remember, recalled assisting in a Metropolitan Opera performance of Giulio Cesare in Egitto, in which Kathleen Battle was singing. Battle was then in the throes of some of her worst behavior, and she was really letting people have it over trivial matters. And the writer said that when the curtain fell, he was about ready to tell her off, when he felt a tug at his elbow. It was Troyanos - she took him aside, smiled, and said, "Don't. It doesn't matter." It can be so tempting to get wound up over the least little thing around here. But every time I do, somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind...so deep that I feel her presence rather than hear it...I'm sure Troyanos is reminding me, too: "It doesn't matter." If she, with all that she overcame, could say it, then I damn well can, too –Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Thanks for all the work you do to make Wikipedia a better place, and your welcoming demeanor as we have interacted this year. Wishing you and yours a very happy holidays! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Just a short note, but one filled with armfuls of gratitude, goodwill, and best wishes for a very happy and healthy holiday season. (The link at "armsful" will take you to 2005 newspaper commentary that I found enjoyable - a little present from one lover of minutiae and constructive editing to another.)

Thank you for the many kindnesses you have sent my way this past year. Your insights and guidance have been appreciated than mere adjectives could ever adequately say.

May your year ahead be filled with productive research and creative wordsmithing! 47thPennVols (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47thPennVols. It is so good to hear from you again. At least twice I have been so tempted to send you unsolicited, and no doubt unwanted, personal emails that I have started writing them. I hope that you are well and that you trusty quill is sharp. Ah, I note that you have doubled your tally of GAs, well done. Nice - a literally fascinating (in the old fashioned sense of the word) read. Oh no: I clicked through to read the GAN review and was led to your account of your accident. That sounds dreadful. Although I am happy that it wasn't worse, as it sounds as if it easily could have been. I hope that you are fully recovered[?] No wonder you have been quiet on Wikipedia. Your vibrant and educational articles have been missed. I hope that it won't be too long before you feel physically and mentally able start back to them.

Sadly the Hartford Courant is "currently unavailable in most European countries". However, I fly to the US on Saturday to visit my brother for Christmas, so I shall have to wait until the weekend to read it.

Take care. Recover.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• A very belated hello to you, too, Gog the Mild, and sincerely heartfelt thanks for your concern for my wellbeing and kind words regarding my research and writing, which provided a much-needed boost to my spirit (smiling). I'm still dealing with issues with my hand and wrist which continue to hamper my abilities to type (and which are forcing me to limit my time on Wikipedia), as well as a few lingering aches and pains elsewhere, but I am on the mend, and feeling grateful because, yes, it really could have been far, far worse. (I'm not the tallest person in the world so had I not fallen out of the way, the driver would have hit me mid-body - a sobering thought that I'm trying to banish now that I'm able to take short, but daily walks.) On the plus side? I've been able to do more reading - so I have more background material for future articles when I can start typing in earnest again. I'll respond to your message below later this weekend, but just wanted to say thanks, and tell you that I hope you're having a wonderful and memorable time visiting your brother. Will you be in the U.S. for New Year's Eve? (P.S. Your correspondence will always be welcome so please never feel shy about emailing me.) 47thPennVols (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings to you 47thPennVols. I hope that you are well; or failing that, weller than the last time we corresponded. Having arrived in the US, to spend the holidays with my brother, I am able to read the link you sent me. Both amusing and educational, as I had suspected that it would be. In return, can I attract your attention to a piece on the importance of the humble comma, along with armsful of respect, admiration and appreciation. And, of course, my very best wishes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Many thanks for the generous and kind words attached to your vote on the discussion page. It is not just a turn of phrase when I say that you are being too kind - I can never live up to that description. Nevertheless, the thought that you think that I can is appreciated. Even if it has caused me to blush. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year 47thPennVols. Apologies for the lack of emails. My ability to send and receive Wikipedia emails has hit a problem. A skilled team of highly trained hominids is working on it and hope to have normal service resumed shortly after they invent fire. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy "whatever floats your boat"!

G'day Gog, Happy Christmas and New Year, or whatever other holiday floats your particular boat. You have been a breath of fresh air in the Milhist space this year. All the very best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67 and a merry Christmas to you and yours. Thanks for the comment. I am (probably over-) aware that I am still crawling up the Wikipedia learning curve and still (probably over-) worry as to whether I am making a net positive contribution. It is pleasing to have some reassurance that I am on the right track.

I hope that it hardly needs to be said that I consider that you are doing a sterling job. You seem to be involved in almost everything MilHist related, and that is just the things I notice. And it has got to the stage with me that if you opine something I simply take it to be the case. Classy, understated leadership by example. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is really appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Blanchetaque at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Caen (1346)

The article Battle of Caen (1346) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Caen (1346) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

Thanks again for your GA review of the article. If you have any comments to make on the A-class nomination, it would be much appreciated (the review has already attracted two supports). Also, congratulations on your forthcoming win of military history newcomer of the year—completely deserved. And happy New Year's! Catrìona (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catrìona, sure. My memory is that it was a pretty solid article, and noting who the supports are from, and who copy edited it for GOCE I can't imagine that I will have much to do. I may throw in a source review to make it worth my while. Thank you for the congratulations, coming from you that means a lot to me. I am not so sure about the "completely deserved", but possibly that is my self esteem issue. And a happy New Year to you - may your keyboard never grow still. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the Year

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well deserved! Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year

		2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Gold Wiki for coming first in the 2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Congratulations!!! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Primus inter pares award

		Primus inter pares
		As the only other recipient of this award to my knowledge (although in different years), I hereby award you the Primus inter pares award for being voted both the 2018 Military Historian of the Year and 2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year. Congratulations, and thank you for your sterling efforts in 2018. Hopefully you haven't peaked too early... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and well-earned! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Always nice knowing it's quality work when seeing your contributions on my watchlist. Congrats and thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me. This recognition is very well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I hope that I haven't "peaked too early". I can't imagine producing 2018's volume of B class and GA articles again, but I have a list of candidates for A class and FA, some of which I will want to put through B class and ACR first, so hopefully there will be some improvement in quality to compensate for the reduction in quantity. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, congratulations! It could not have been awarded to anyone more deserving. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks for your efforts in 2018 (which have quite rightly been recognised per the above). It has been a pleasure working with you. All the best for 2019! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Operation Lancaster II

Gog, I'm not a fan of location maps because they take up a lot of space to deliver a small amount of information that is already covered by the location and coordinates and so I plan to delete this. I'm also not terribly keen on the generic background and aftermath information, as this would become tiresomely repetitive if copied across all the other Vietnam War operation and battle pages. My view is that if people want an overview of the progress of the war they should read the main Vietnam War page. I will leave it for now and let you choose how you wish to handle it. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist. I will (a little reluctantly) bow to your superior experience and remove the map. (My view is the opposite of yours re information:space, but I accept that the long thin case of Vietnam may be an exception.) I feel a little stronger regarding the need to "properly" introduce an article - any article. If you will let me play around with background and aftermath for this article we can communicate using it as a concrete example. As I fine tune them they may grow on you; as you comment I may change my views. I think that we both accept that we are coming to this with good intentions and (reasonably) open minds. I am also expanding the lead and look forward to your comments and/or changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and have nothing but good faith in you. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Greetings Gog, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. I already says it now because my last hours here on Wikipedia for 2018 are in. I will be back in the evening of 1 January 2019 CET time It was an honour to work with you together in 2018. Anyway I would say: "you Brits follow us the Belgians into the future". Cheers and have a great day. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, and a happy New Year to you too. Many thanks for the keen analysis you have brought to bear on so many of my articles. I am more than happy to follow you into the future, whatever it may bring us. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Your offer

...I've ce'd it, and would like to take you up on your offer to look through it. If you have a moment, I'd especially appreciate a source spot-check because I'm somewhat unlucky with getting the right page numbers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891, a few things jump out.

1. Two books don't have publisher locations.
2. One of your external links is broken.
3. The titles of some books etc are not in title case. Eg cite 2, Clary, Whitehorne.
4. Bibliography: United States Government Publishing Office should only be linked at first mention.
5. Likewise United States Army Center of Military History

I have not spot checked the references; I will probably pick up the source review when you go to ACR and do it then.

I have done some very minor copy editing.

There are the usual marginal or debatable issues left; not a problem. (IMHO.)

I repeat that I am very far from being any sort of expert on ACRs, but so far as I can see it is ready for nomination. Great work and I look forward to commenting on it further at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will make it to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you today for Battle of Auberoche, "Eight years into the Hundred Years' War the Battle of Auberoche was one of the first decisive land victories by either side and a significant humiliation for the French."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333)

Hi, I am having a look at the article and making some copy edits as I go. These are along the lines of your talk page - particularly, making prose structure less complex and more direct and improving readability. They are suggestions and open to discussion. There are some reviewing points in the offing if you want to have a look at Henry Reid Bay. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a few edits. Let me know if these are ok. If you think this too intrusive, I will hold-off. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, good to hear from you again. I am just making a note to myself - Do not make yourself a target. I should have realised that you would understand my adding "(relatively)" to "gently correcting" as a reference to the, sadly justified, arse kicking you gave me over Leo Tornikios and decide that my "near flow-of-consciousness prose" required further "ratchet[ing] up".

I am assuming that I can talk to you like this on the grounds of: the well known esteem in which I hold you and your opinions; the length and nature of our Wikipedian interactions; and your being Australian. If not, can I you refer to the second paragraph of my user page.

This is Wikipedia, you can edit what you wish. But given that the article is towards the end of its FAC I appreciate the courtesy heads up. I shall have a look. If you feel like doing an image review on it I would be grateful; it got one at ACR which, as I understand it, pretty much covered the same criteria.

The words of wisdom from the master are on my user page mostly as a reminder to me. The "near flow-of-consciousness prose" comment wasn't entirely a joke and I need constant reminding to rein myself in, and/or write prose that actually makes sense.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, literally ten minutes after posting the above and while I was reading through your changes Tim riley, who is something of a stickler for use of prose and English (in a good way), supported the FAC.

The specifics: you have, as with Leo T, caught me abroad and without access to my hard copies. But:

1. "bloodily sacked". The source (Prestwich, 1997):

The common people...did not fare so well...the men were slaughtered in a dreadful bloodbath, which reflected Edward's anger...'like that of a wild boar pursued by dogs' [contemporary chronicler]...bodies 'fell like autumn leaves'...they were thrown down wells or tipped into the sea...11,060 were killed

Even for the time this was exceptional and seemed to me to justify "bloodily". I would be interested in your view in the light of the source.

2. The page I need to support, or not, "grinding" is missing on Google, so will have to wait until I am back in the UK.

3. I consider this the first article which I "really" wrote from scratch - Razing of Friesoythe was more of a beginner's exercise - so from a purely selfish point of view I welcome any and all suggestions, tightening of the language, and challenging of the prose against the sources. I do tend to editorialise, so pointing out where I have and asking me to back it up is a good learning exercise for me. In brief, feel free to go at the article if you are prepared to put in the time, but I completely understand if you have other priorities.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I forgot - what does "There are some reviewing points in the offing if you want to have a look at Henry Reid Bay" mean? (What is a "reviewing point"?) Happy to look at, review, assess, copy edit anything you wish, but you will have to spell it out for my slow moving grey matter. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just a little worried that your recent glory may have gone to your head. Well deserved. Friendly banter and a good robust discussion are always welcome. I have been having some of the latter with SMacCandlish on proper nouns and capitalisation. The circular definition at MOS:CAPS is singularly unhelpful. While most people get it right most of the time, you get things like the move discussion at Talk:Lunar Roving Vehicle (ie all caps). I have been thinking for some time to write an essay on the subject.

I can see that you fully get the point wrt "grinding" and "bloodily". The sentence with "grinding war" in it was particularly long, had two main ideas in it and was a good candidate to split. Superficially, my edit may look like the original was scrapped but it was really just a rearrangement and modifying some links and the links were really a separate matter. Just watch out for my sometimes clumbsy fingers. :) I will not hold up promotion of the article.

Some may not be familiar with the nuance of Berwick-upon-Tweed v Berwick. I am not. It may be useful to address that both here and at the parent article - perhaps in a note, as you already use them in the article.

To Henry Reid Bay, I recently created it and it could do with a review - hence the reference to points.

All the best. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella157 As if.

Nouns. Yes please. Always Battle of Xyz; how about S/siege of Xyz? Or O/operation Xyz. I have seen all of these; and as a GOCE copy editor I am expected to sort them out!

Getting the point isn't difficult after you have pointed it out. So, what would your view be on me reinserting "bloodily", as a fair reflection of the source?

Your edit looked to me like just how you describe it. (If it hadn't you would have heard the outraged scream.)

Berwick: I got told off by Peacemaker for overusing notes, so I am trying to ration myself. But it is a sound point; I shall have a look and see what I can come up with.

Henry Reid Bay: still haven't a Scooby. You sure that you don't want one of those page patroller people? I shall go through it and tag and assess it.

I look forward to your edits. I'll let you know about anything you grot weng. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So that was what woke me up in the wee-small hours (kilo time) two nights ago? Re: "bloodily", there is no issue with quoting and attributing a phrase/word or "close" paraphrase from a source that might otherwise be considered editorialising. A citation can be annotated as an explanation: see citation 40 at Battle of Buna–Gona as an example. See also, Template:Attribution needed for some other advice. How to treat this would depend on what the source actually says. On the other hand, 30 years of war (not skirmishing) is always going to be "grinding" and sackings are inherently brutal and bloody. So, to add "bloodily" (or "brutally") is only justified if it was exceptionally so, and this might require a quorum of sources to establish a POV. I should have been more direct and just asked for a B-class review - thank you. Good to know I am not the only one tat sets stings weng (per your thank). ;) Apologies for the delay in this part-B installment/reply. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Have been pondering: Twenty-two years later it was retaken by treachery by Robert Bruce, expelling the last English garrison from Scottish soil. and the two "by"s.

Suggest: Through English treachery, it was retaken twenty-two years later by Robert Bruce – expelling the last English garrison from Scottish soil. Simply replacing the first "by" with "through" implied the treachery was Robert's, not the English sergeant's.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have gone for my own version. See what you think.

My understanding is that it is perfectly honourable to exploit treachery in the ranks of an opponent. The dishonour lies with he that accepts the bribe etc. Your edit resolves the two "by"s but implies the treachery was the Bruce's (it is a subject/object type thing). The trick would be, to make it clear with the least number of words? My thoghts FWIW.

@Cinderella157: I agree re treachery and dishonour. I even got away with pontificating about it in Battle of Calais (1349). My understanding is that a town taken by treachery is referred to as a town taken by treachery, without reference to whose. Eg, "Troy was taken by treachery." Nevertheless, I have gone the long way around.

• In the main body, "Berwick" is mot common but sometimes "Berwick-upon-Tweed"? Should this be more consistent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Good point.

• At the beginning of 1333, the atmosphere on the border was tense.[10] The English parliament met at York and debated the situation for five days without conclusion. It begs the questions: why was it tense and what was the situation? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it does. The situation was that less than six months earlier an English backed army had invaded from English ports, slaughtered the Scottish nobility and foisted their own claimant on the throne, as covered in "background". Sounds reasonable grounds for a bit of border tension to me.

What happened 6 months ago in the "background" is separated from this statement by a section heading and a paragraph. That paragraph goes off quite somewhere else and breaks the continuity and cognitive thread. It needs some "tie" to link it back and bridge the intervening paragraph (for those who came in late). Edward III dropped all pretence of neutrality, recognised Balliol as King of Scotland and made ready for war. That would explain why tings were tense but I was looking for something else - particularly given this that follows: Possibly to prevent the Scots from taking the initiative, England began openly preparing for war, while announcing that it was Scotland which was preparing to invade England. (It seems that England was always preparing for war). Is that as clear as mud?

Yep. I am just doing my slow-kid-at-the-back impersonation. Tweaked.

• Edward III was organising the sea transports which would be required for revictualling his and Balliol's armies. Was this the only specific preparation made? Also suggest: Edward III prepared by organising the sea transports to revictual his and Balliol's armies.

Well no, he also purchased a new hauberk, I have a source. He probably sharpened his sword and ate a hearty breakfast as well. I am not getting your point here; I am not spotting any meaningful distinction between the two versions above.

Pretty much the whole para (except a bit at the start and this one sentence at the end) is about how Douglas prepared to meet the English. Is there more about how the English prepared, that would provide balance. :) The diffeerence is in to revictual v for revictualling - admittedly not much.

Right. Now that you hit me over the head with it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I have removed it, leaving the para only about the Scots, and reinserted it in a different form among the English activities. I shouldn't mention Edward's Hauberk then?

• the defenders launched burning brushwood By this, did they set it adrift? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. They did. Changed.

• which was destroyed in sight of the English army Meaning Douglas destroyed it? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked.

Hi Cinderella157 Apologies if I woke you up, but I don't see how. Even I don't have my Wiki-alerts sounding an audible alarm. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, things have been busy. The copy edit has noticeably tightened up the prose. I have tried to take on board the under lying lessons for my future use. I have in turn made a couple of counter-tweaks. Some commentary on your points above on which I would be interested to hear what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Figured you were dealing with references. Have a listen to this Your comment made me think of this (and Monty Python). If you don't know Al Stewart, his music often has historical themes. I am travelling and at a library atm to get internet. I was having a pause, waiting for your reply. I will get back to it. See inserted comments above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Getting the references sorted has been a real pain. My own silly fault; all part of the learning curve.

I have had Year of the Cat for over 40 years. Some excellent work on it. I can't listen to Lord Grenville without thinking of the Ballad of the Fleet:

Sink me the ship, Master Gunner—sink her, split her in twain!

Fall into the hands of God, not into the hands of Spain!

Flying Sorcery is great. I bought a Best of CD 15 or so years ago and was disappointed that the only good songs were from YotC and so gave up on him. However, Joe the Georgian is good. I will see if I can dig out that Best of and give it a second chance, and/or buy Time Passages. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, that deals with the points to date with a few smiles. Another image came to me of Lord Flashheart as Edward, except for the absence of ribaldry - which I was able to conjure for myself. As for Troy, I would say that it was taken by subterfuge rather than treachery, which implies betrayal? On Al Stewart, I am fond of 24 Carrots. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Just been reading Goldsworthy on a flight. He uses the phrase "by stealth". This works for me. I may cheat and see what YouTube has on 24Cs. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break 2

Nearly there. All members of the garrison would be given free passage and Keith was to be allowed immediately to leave Berwick, travel to wherever the Guardian of Scotland happened to be, advise him of the change of circumstances and return safely to Berwick. This seems a little strange. It reads to suggest the permission and "change of circumstance" is after the surrender. Why would Keith leave the surrendered town just to return? Was he actually allowed to leave before the surrender to tell Douglas of the terms of the truce? Please confirm/check. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:30, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: OK. So that is me editing a complicated situation down. The short answer is, yes, he was. I have given more detail on what the terms of the indentures were - specifically how "relief" was defined - which hopefully make it clear why the Scots insisted on a mechanism for conveying the details to Douglas. See [4] Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Relief was defined as one of three events occurring on 19 July implies the relief had to occur on that date and no other. This "appears" erroneous as opposed to a date prior to 20 July? Please confirm. If relief was only permitted on 19 July (and not before), this should be empasised so that it does not appear erroneous. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Well picked up. The source uses a convoluted sentence, but it was mostly me misreading it. Although bear in mind that the new agreement was signed on the 15th and that Douglas was 15 miles away and didn't even know about it at that point. If he chose the battle option - the only realistic option other than giving up - it was a 35 mile march by the shortest practicable route - once he learnt the news and made a decision. So, as Edward no doubt intended, time was pressing and it was improbable that "relief" would occur before the 19th. Nevertheless, I misread the source and thanks for picking it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

By this time Douglas had marched south to Bamburgh, perhaps hoping for a repeat of the events of 1319, when Edward II had broken off a siege of Berwick after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying, and devastated Yorkshire. Whatever concerns Edward III had for his queen, he knew that Bamburgh could easily withstand a siege. The Scots did not have the time to construct the kind of equipment that would be necessary to take the fortress by assault. The Scots devastated the countryside but Edward III ignored this.

The first ul should be more directly attributed? The second is editorialising and probably not necessary. the third possibly falls somewhere in between. Thought I would give you first crack at this. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:16, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Caps for names of military "events"

On capitalising military events, I have never pondered the matter but here goes.

• MILMOS is silent on the capitalisation even if it does imply caps. WP:NCCAP and MOS:CAPS apply.
• The name phrase (note the absence of proper here) for a military event generally follows the form: attributive (ie a noun descriptor), proposition (eg at or of but omitted in the case of operation XYZ) and a place (or something else), which is usually a town or locality and consequently a proper name itself. The place (etc) can be a noun phrase itself. If a noun phrase (or something else), the capitalisation within that needs to be considered separately but I won't digress further. The second form followed is: place (or like) and a noun descriptive of the event.
• With a qualification to follow ... Proper names are not descriptive. Battle, operation, riot, siege etc are all descriptive - ie not proper names but it is perhaps better to consider them titles. Whether titles (including titles of books ets) are proper nouns is moot but the orthographic convention is to use title case for the titles of works. That solves the dilemma for titles of works ...
• Choosing the title of an article is simplified, since it uses sentence case - hence "Siege of" for the title. But capitalisation of the same in prose may be a false consistency.
• Similarly, capitalisation of part of a noun phrase does not confer capitalisation on the whole phrase - see Apollo command and service module and the recent move discussion there. Per not capitalising all, see Kokoda Track campaign
• In short it is probable that all of the descriptive parts of a military action title should not be capitalised - including "battle". This n-gram is interesting. My impression is that "Battle of XYZ" is capitalised throughout WP and I am not going to rock that boat.
• There is a distinction between onomastics (which deals with nouns and proper names) and orthography (which deals with capitalisation). English is a living language. Words and phrases can pass in and out of capitalisation - eg SCUBA, Scuba and now scuba.
• Conflict names can require capitalisation if they are overwhelmingly and universally capitalised. Some problems in determining this are: the size of the sample set (when an event has little coverage the capitalisation observed can be skewed) and independence of sources (military, government and newspaper tend to over capitalise) and distinguishing use in running prose from titles, headings, captions etc (where title case is often used for these). MOS:CAPS requires capitalisation in a substantial majority of sources. I interpret this as a 2/3 majority but, for n-gram evidence on its own, this is probably >85%, to account for title case in headings etc. Between the two figure, it is necessary to sample the sources to see what the usage in runing prose is. On "siege of Berwick", see this.
• In short, I would tend not to capitalise any but "Battle of" (subject to the sources).

A long answer that is probably as clear as mud. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: A perfectly clear answer, thank you. Both educational and logical. Speaking as an ex-educator I have found the combination not as common as I would like, or even as I might hope. I shall endeavour to implement as you outline.

N-gram viewer: very interesting. Not something I had previously come across. I have squirrelled it away for future use. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, Isaac I Komnenos, Battle of Neville's Cross, SMS S36, and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, Isaac I Komnenos, Battle of Neville's Cross, SMS S36, and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Isaac I Komnenos and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, and SMS S36 you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Ships Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For your clean sweep of the 2018 Military historian & Newcomer of the Year awards I hereby bestow upon you this Exceptional Newcomer Award. Speaking for myself, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.  :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81 Many thanks. That is very thoughtful of you. I note that you have been the New Year Father Christmas, and it has been interesting seeing what others got in their stockings.

I shall now be spending the rest of the day trying to work out just why you picked out those four GAs and one A class from my 44 GAs and four A class last year. Off hand I can see no connection, so I shall have to reread them. A happy, healthy and productive New Year to you. "Here's looking at you." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer to that is so overt its covert: There is no 100% automated process in the Military history WikiProject for tracking quality content. MilHistBot tracks and reports the A-class reviews, but the other material must be accounted for manually, and on site the easiest place to check source material for that is in The Signpost, which features a section for a given month's FA and FP content. Ordinarily, GA material is not present there, but last year on two separate occasions a list was included of promoted GA material for me check against. As the overall process is taxing on my patients, eyes, fingers, butt, and sanity, I typically forgo the GA materiel on those occasions when I have decided to collect and examine material for a "year in review" award section, however since it was reported in the signpost I figure "what the heck" and went for it this year :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Ah ha. Thank you. I had got as far as realising that they were 5 consecutive GAs from a 20 day period, but had then stalled. I can now stop worrying about trivia and get back to some constructive editing.

I had not realised that this was an annual and semi-formal occurrence. How delightful. Reinforces what I already thought about MilHist. You will have given a large number of editors of lower level articles a nice warm glow, including this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Its more like a semi-annual occurrence: its whenever the spirit moves a lazy, apathetic, thirty-something year old to do something for the community as a whole. I think the last time was in 2016, but I'm not sure about that. Usually, in the interst of editor retention, I try to do this on a once a year basis, but that can be challenging. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Well next time you get the inclination, feel free to throw some my way. Assuming that is allowed. I wouldn't mind helping to spread some love around. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're keen to spread the love around there is an area where recognition is still warranted. The main page contains 365 days worth of featured articles, pictures, and DYK notices, along with in the news clips and featured lists. If you would like to test the mettle of your patients, eyes, fingers, butt, and sanity, you are welcome to wade into that archived list of 2018 main page appearances and locate the milhist specific ones, then assign a value to the article, list picture, dyk, or in the news item and compile a list of barnstars for editors of the military history project to receive based on appearances. Its tough work, and not something I've ever done before, but you are certainly welcome to try if its something that interests you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback?

How'd you like to start 2019 with a new tool? You're contributions show that you can be trusted with the Rollback tool, and I have no trouble enabling it for you. Think it over, and if you decide you'd like it, lemme know. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Now there is a compliment. Thank you. I have actually used rollback twice previously, although the "rollback" tag seems to appear on some infrequent basis which I cannot work out. I don't think that it is something which I would want to use very often, but I can see it being handy when I do. The instructions seem straight forward. I have been following the GiantSnowman case at Arb Comm with a horrid fascination so I can see a possible downside, but can't imagine getting myself into anything resembling that. So, yes please. And thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Alrighty, you're all set! Use it wisely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing like getting a new user right to show that you're trusted by the community. Although if the rights aren't used a lot, some people consider it Wikipedia:Hat collecting (the user right equivalent of editcountitis or barnstaritis). The GOCE admins granted me mass message sender, which means I'm trusted enough to not spam the user base. I think a lot of the editors with rollback do counter-vandalism and dispute resolution. I have seen a rollback user abuse the right (inappropriate BRR [edit warring] of a dispute under discussion) so I'm glad to see you're not taking it lightly.
  • Thanks for finishing the copy edit of Xixiasaurus, BTW. I didn't want to bug you about it since I saw you entered the WikiCup, as I figure that will take up most of your time. Let me know if you want a second set of eyes on anything for that. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg Good to hear from you again. When offered it I recalled a comment from you re the difference between barnstars and user rights. I already have editcountitis or barnstaritis but I don't see how it can be hatism if I don't ask for it. I keep an eye on a few history pages which are subject to ethnic historical revisionism, so I should have at least the occasional use for it.

I hope that I will always finish anything I start, but that one took me too long. Both RL and Wikipedia got busy on me, and the article turned out to be at the edge of my competence. I know dinosaurs and I know FACs, but the combination needed concentration. Anyway, I think that I did a passable job on what was already a very good article. It was good to note that you were still looking over my shoulder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't avoiding you, just thought you might be busy between end-of-year and WikiCup. That copy edit went back on my radar when it hit the top of the Requests list. BTW, if you ever do get too busy, there's nothing wrong with handing it off to another copy editor. That happens with about 40 or 50 requests each year (maybe 10%). What's the other side of hat collecting, admins who give out rights thereby obligating the recipients to do more housekeeping? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no recollection of entering the Wikicup. I did - I thought - sign up for updates. I didn’t see my name on the list of entrants. I shan’t be entering. I want to get away from volume this year; every article I do serious work on now I have A class or FA in mind. As I am finding out, real quality is quite time consuming. And the Wikicup sounds as if it will play directly to my addictive ‘’and’’ my competitive instincts.

If I get stuck on a copy edit, I won’t hesitate then. But this was mostly a case of it not making the top of my round-to-it list.

Well, I was asked. And I could always relinquish it. Hey ho, it will probably “work” in that I ‘’will’’ feel obligated to use it. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The week I got MMS I read up on all the policies and answered a request – of course copy editing the person's notice and linking them to directories where they could find more people for their mailing list. It seems, though, that anyone who sends 3–4 newsletters quickly gets the right so there aren't all that many requests. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg, if I am reading the MMS page correctly, there are 54 non-admins with this right, so it sounds like a fairly select group to me. You need to set up a copy edit request service, similar to GOCE's . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

G'day Gog, I'm wondering if you would mind writing an op-ed for The Bugle about what it is like to navigate Wikipedia and the Milhist space as a newcomer? I know that Nick and Ian are looking for op-ed's now that Tom's WWI series is done, and I think you would have a lot of useful and interesting observations to make. It might also encourage other newer editors in a general sense, as well as to submit op-ed's of their own. Would you consider it? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, in principle I would be happy to. Who do I talk to, how many words do they want and when is the deadline? Plus I probably need to run the first para or two and an outline past someone to check that what I plan to write is something they are happy to publish. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I would just write up something like 1,000 words in your sandbox or on a user page, then ping the editors (@Ian Rose and Nick-D:) and they will give you feedback (if that's necessary), and schedule it for an upcoming issue. No deadline, but I know they are keen to get a variety of op-ed's from project members. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - drafting in your user space works best, then either place a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom and/or ping Ian and I directly. We're totally flexible about op-eds' topics, format and length, and usually only lightly edit contributions for typos, grammar, etc - but we'd be more than happy to provide feedback if you'd like. In regards to timing, we aim to finalise each edition of the Bugle in the first weekend of the month, so if you'd like to contribute something for the February edition, having it ready by late January would be much appreciated. Regards Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Rose and Nick-D: Hi guys. I have made a start - Wikipedia is another country. It got a bit out of control. I have no idea if it is any use to you. Feel free to say that it isn't. I shan't be offended. Also feel free to edit it as much as you wish. Or to send bits back to me for rewriting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Nick-D looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Battle of Auberoche

Gog, I found the following statement in a french online source, about the French captives of this battle. The Comte de Lisle was taken prisoner, and with him Aymar de Poitiers, Viscount de Caraman (Arnaud d'Euze), Agout des Baux, Seneschal of Toulouse, Raymond de Jourdain, and Viscount de Lautrec. Poitters Louis, count of Valentinois, and Henry de Montigny, Seneschal of Queroy, remained among the dead. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Berwick (1333), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SB Centaur 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

The article SB Centaur 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:SB Centaur for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

The article SB Centaur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SB Centaur for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

On 13 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1346, an English army plundered its way across south-west France for 350 miles (560 km) without meeting effective resistance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

– Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Little issues in the Hundred Years' War's serie

Hello Gog this is just a little hint for you. I know your Hundred Years' War articles has about the same background with here and there little differences. But, if you change something I'd recommend you, to change the other articles (which their backgrounds is mostly the same as the Battle of Auberoche) too. An example you changed this sentence The Gascons had their own language and customs. to The independent minded Gascons had their own customs and claimed to have a separate language. which is fair enough to use, but other articles like the Battle of Bergerac, the Gascon campaign of 1345, the Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 and the Siege of Aiguillon, all of them still use the sentence The Gascons had their own language and customs.. This can confuse the reader whether the information is acceptable or not. Other examples are the 100 million litre wine. The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 also use the U.S. quarts and the other articles don't. The last example I could find was the "English-controlled" in the pink colour part of the File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg image. In the Battle of Auberoche article it is written as in "English-controlled" but the other articles I just mentioned are just written in "English controlled". If, I find an(y) other little issue(s) in your serie, than I'll report it to you (again). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz—FAC

Thank you again for your GA review and A-class comments. I have addressed all outstanding issues, including semicolons and footnotes. Might you be willing to offer comments on the FAC nomination? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Battle of Auberoche, Gascon campaign of 1345, and Siege of Aiguillon. Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Four award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Siege of Berwick (1333). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

--Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:15, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Blanchetaque

On 20 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Blanchetaque, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the Battle of Blanchetaque, English longbowmen stood in a tidal river to engage French mercenary crossbowmen? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Blanchetaque. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Blanchetaque), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Triple Crown

Congratulations on joining the ranks of Triple Crown holders for your fantastic work at Battle of Neville's Cross. Keep up the good work.

Damien Linnane (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I am pleased to award you the Imperial Triple Crown Jewels for your oustanding contributions. Your work is appreciated. Damien Linnane (talk) 13:14, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi there. To the best of my knowledge no-one has ever upgraded a Triple Crown before within the parameters of the award tier they are already in. I mean, the Imperial Triple Crown is awarded for 2, 3 or 4 articles that meet the criteria in each category. You already have the Imperial Triple Crown for 2 articles. As long as I've been monitoring the award nobody has ever asked before to upgrade an Imperial Crown from 2 articles to 3 or 4 articles, rather its customary to just wait until you have 5 and are eligible for the whole next award level. I don't see any point in adding your 3rd article, especially since the Imperial Triple Crown I gave you on this talk page makes no reference to what articles you received it for (the only reason I mentioned it in your standard crown was because it was the same article for all 3 criteria, meaning mentioning it wouldn't take up much space), but I'll update the data on your entry at Wikipedia:Triple Crown/Standard Winners just for the hell of it. I'm mentioning this to you though as I'd much prefer not to encourage this behaviour among the general community. It would get tedious if everyone did it. For example the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown is for between 5 and 14 articles. I wouldn't want to have to spend the time updating this award nine times for each person. Also in case you didn't notice I replied to your last query on my talk page. Have a nice day. Damien Linnane (talk) 12:06, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Damien Linnane Apologies for putting you to the trouble of a lengthy reply. I had misunderstood the rules. I shall revisit them to see what the ratio of me being stupid to the rules being in need of a tweak was. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:25, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries :). Damien Linnane (talk) 12:34, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your continued work on medieval articles. You have now helped promote enough content to be awarded the Imperial Napoleonic Triple Crown. Damien Linnane (talk) 22:46, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Caen (1346)

On 22 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Caen (1346), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after capturing the French town of Caen in 1346, an English army massacred the population and engaged in an orgy of rape? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Caen (1346). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Caen (1346)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 00:02, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 23

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aiguillon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

New FAC nom

G’day Gog. I recommend you ping the FAC coords on the old FAC page when you want to nom a fresh one. I found myself looking for your “dispensation” when I saw a fresh nom while you still had one open, and didn’t see it until I checked Ian’s talk page. It just makes it transparent for everyone. By no means do you have to do it that way, but it probably is the easiest way to get approval and make it clear to others that you have done that which is necessary. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 12:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67 Thanks for that. Will do in future. I was going with Ian's "yes, a coord's talk page is fine for this, or you can ping us on the extant nom page", but will choose the latter of his options in future. Apologies if it got confusing. In this case the first FAC was promoted at 23:39 (UTC), although the bot didn't update until 00:05. I opened the new FAC at 23:53; so I am not sure I allowed a 14 minute break or jumped the gun by 12 minutes. When, technically, does a FAC count as "promoted"? (I note that last time - Siege of Berwick (1333) - there was a 46 hour gap between the coord "promoting" the article and the bot updating the talk page.) Gog the Mild (talk) 12:59, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Actually, you can ask for a dispensation once the old nom has three supports, an image review and a source review. You don't need to wait until it is actually promoted. I've never had them turn me down. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:36, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

For GA-reviewing Solrad 1

	The Pioneer Award
	For service above and beyond the call of duty in the field of Spaceflight.

(Given by --Neopeius (talk) 22:44, 25 January 2019 (UTC))

@Neopeius: Why, what a pleasant surprise. Many thanks. That is very generous of you, and has made my day. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. I figured it appropriate. I did, after all, literally write the book on Pioneer 1 ;)

That was a genuine laugh out loud. I feel honoured. But good night; to be continued. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Article ratings

Since you are clearly very knowledgeable, perhaps you could give me your insight on the grading system, both for my edification and so I can apply them to others.

A Stub is pretty obvious -- a placeholder article that is lacking in almost everything. Start is a decent beginning giving the basics, but no more. "B" seems like a solid Wikipedia article.

The others I'm not sure about. Is "C" better than "Start"? Or is it a failed attempt at "B"? And how to "GA" and "A" relate to each other?

I'd appreciate any and all thoughts. :)

--Neopeius (talk) 22:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

P.S. (I have read the articles, but these are questions I retain after reading them...)

@Neopeius: Not sure what articles you mean. It is past my bed time so I will summarise and respond to questions tomorrow. This has the best coverage I know of - Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment.

B class need to meet all five of the B class criteria. I found the FAQs helpful.

C class needs to meet criteria 3, 4 and 5, and either 1 or 2.

The bar for start is pretty low - see the summary page above.

GA needs to meet the criteria I was ticking off in your GAN. A class is an in-project assessment and is significantly higher. An article needs to be near perfect. FA, put simply, an article does need to be perfect.

Play around with expanding the criteria on the MilHist guide page - ignore the lists section - and fire any queries at me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I see. So GA is less than A and A is less than FA.

Correct.

Having read the article, which was excellent, thank you, my remaining questions are:

1. What will I need to get Solrad 1 to a A?

I am going to duck this one. Once you have done 2 or 3 more GAs ask me again and it will be much easier for both of us.

1. Is there a minimum standard of quality I should be shooting for in my articles in general (i.e. should I obsessively make everything FA, or is B a good standard? It should be noted that for many satellites I might cover, sources I meager, indeed (but it's still worth having something about them on here).

No. Creating 20 stubs for 20 satellites is perfectly acceptable. At least they then have placeholders. Personally I only did work on an article if I thought that I could get it to at least B class. I didn't always succeed, but I needed to think that I might when I started. If the sources permitted and I was interested, I might then consider working to GA or above. B class is a perfectly acceptable standard; around 2.6% of Wikipedia articles are B class or above.

1. Is it proper to start at Start class and upgrade, or is it preferred I not post anything until I've got at least B level?

No rules. Not even unwritten. Start class and upgrading seems a sound approach. Remember that once it is out of your sandbox and published, anyone can edit it.

Sleep well, new friend! --Neopeius (talk) 23:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Copy edit request

Hi Gog. Hope, you would be fine. I am here to request 'copy edit' Nari Pratishtha. Can you have a look? If you are fine with the subject, I will put my request on GOCE. And if you can't, no problem at all. Someone else will do that. -Gazal world (talk) 20:30, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Gazal world. That looks interesting. I am fine thanks, I hope that you are too. Yes, I am happy to copy edit it. Could you list it at GOCE requests straight away, although it may be a day or two before I can do the work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done Posted request on GOCE. Thanks Gog. -Gazal world (talk) 21:42, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Melos

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Even though the FAC process for this article is closed, I'll just leave some remarks about your criticisms.

"The whole The Melian Dialogue section has one cite - for ten paragraphs."

It's like a movie synopsis. The whole section is a synopsis of the text by Thucydides. I figured it was obvious from the introductory summary and inline citations weren't needed.

"More information on the cultural record than the actual siege."

"The actual information on the siege presented is very limited. This may well be due to lack of sourcing. If so, then, IMO, this alone precludes it from becoming a FA; if it isn't then the missing information needs to be included."

This you can blame on Thucydides, who is the only source on the siege. He wrote very little on the siege itself. I added stuff about the culture in order to provide context. In order to understand why the Athenians attacked Melos, why they were merciless, what the legacy of the siege is, etc. These things are arguably more important than the details of the siege itself.

"Too many short, choppy, two or three sentence paragraphs."

Do these paragraphs at least communicate their points clearly and in good detail? I don't care so much about elegant prose as much as clarity and accuracy.Kurzon (talk) 10:11, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Kurzon. Apologies if I was a little blunt at FAC; I tried to be subtle first. I am not sure how experienced you are at having articles promoted, but if any of the below seems condescending, could you AGF.

• It's a pretty strict Wikipedia rule: the bare minimum is a cite at the end of each paragraph, even if it is the same cite at the end of each paragraph. (There are actually sound reasons for this.)
• To me the background, siege and immediate aftermath just don't support a FAC. If information is limited then that can't be helped, but the article could bear quite a bit more background and immediate aftermath. Eg, you have nothing on the Delian League. I don't know it helps, but I took Siege of Berwick (1333) to FA two weeks ago. Note the fairly extended scene setting and the information on the aftermath. Siege of Aiguillon should be FA this month; note how there is a lot of background and a reasonable amount of aftermath to pad out what is basically a limited amount of information on the siege itself. Not that I had as big a problem with sources as you have. I mention these as they are both sieges that I wrote from scratch and went through FAC this month. Both went through B class assessment, then GAN, then ACR first.
• "I added stuff about the culture in order to provide context." IMO context needs to be the historical background and aftermath. Adding something on its cultural effects is fine, but ATM the article could almost be taken for one on Thucydides' dramatization with the bits on the actual siege as the background.
• I thought that it was well written. Broadly clear. For me, the prose is fine for B or GA; I would have comments on some minutiae at ACR or FAC. But probably less than I get on my prose. Obviously, without examining the (secondary) sources I can't speak to the accuracy, but from my general recollection of the event I saw nothing which rang an alarm.
• PS If it returns to FAC I would expect to see at least some mention of Seaman and possibly Vickers too.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

GOCE 2018 Annual Report

Guild of Copy Editors 2018 Annual Report Our 2018 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress; Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2019. – Your project coordinators: Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:30, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

toggle ref check

Hello, just a note to say that User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck has been update to add the option to toggle it on or off.[[

The installed script will add a tab to the drop-down tab at the top, located between the 'watchlist star' and the search box (using the vector.js skin). The tab toggles between "Hide ref check" and "Show ref check" with displaying the errors as the default option. Please do drop me a line if you have any problems or suggestions. Tks. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 15:15, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to bother you again. After the addition of a toggle option in the tab atop the page, one editor requested a revised version in which the toggle link appears in the "Tools" section of the page's left sidebar. So now there are two versions of this tool. If you prefer the links in the Toolbar section on the side, the slightly altered script is named User:Lingzhi2/reviewsourcecheck-sb.js (just add "-sb" before the ".js"). Finally, both versions should now also store the page state (whether reference errors/warnings are "hidden" or "shown"). The state persists between page loads and between the browser closing and reopening (unless cleared by the user, for example by deleting data in your browser's cache etc.). Huge thanks to User:Evad37 for much coding help. If you have any questions or problems, please drop me a line. Thanks again. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 08:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cape Ecnomus

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Cape Ecnomus 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 15:20, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Map

Hey Gog, you know I'm working on an article about a Communist insurgency in Bhutan? Well about that, I was thinking about using a map about the Bhutan's dictricts. A map which tells where the rebels are/were operating in Bhutan. However I personaly don't know how to make a map. Do you know someone who can make for me a map or he/she knows a good map? I'd like to have a map like this one File:Bhutan location map.svg but only the Dagana, Samtse, Chukha, Sarpang dictricts and (a little spillover) in the capital Thimphu should have a colour. Because the rebels are active in those dictricts and in the capital. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:17, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5 I am not that knowledgeable on maps. I only know how to use those on the long list of maps here. I have no idea how to create a new template map, although instructions are here. If you look at the Blanchetaque map, especially in edit mode, you will get an idea of what can be done with these maps. Note that this map uses the decimal long and latitudes, not the arc minutes and seconds given in most Wikipedia articles; either go into edit mode, where they are usually decimal, or just use a calculator.

I suspect that you may be better off with a "hand made" map. You can put in a request for one here. They are very friendly. Not sure if this helps. Either way, feel free to query me further. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

Blanchetaque

Abbeville

Amiens

Crécy

Calais

Poissy

Paris

class=notpageimage|

The location of some places mentioned in the text, shown within modern Hauts-de-France

January 2019 GOCE drive bling

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 20,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

No leaderboard awards, but you can claim some bragging rights from the annual report! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:37, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Solrad 2 a good article?

Hello, Gog!

Thank you, again, for all your help. I am starting the process of improving my articles to raise their quality. I've just finished Solrad 2, which has been upgraded to a B. The fellow who did so suggested it might garner a G.A. I wasn't sure whether to submit or not because, while I think I've done about a good a job as can be done, there just isn't a tremendous amount of information about the satellite; it didn't make it to orbit.

On the other hand, it is my understanding that getting to G.A. is a matter of execution, not scope?

One other thing -- how did you get all your Good Articles to show up at the top of your Talk page there? :)

Cheers! --Neopeius (talk) 04:56, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Neopeius. My pleasure.

Solrad 2. It's short, but it seems to me to have enough meat to support a GA, but not more. Nominate it and see.

Create a page called "User:Neopeius/Top". How to create a page here. Look at my User:Gog the Mild/Top in edit source mode to see how it works. Eg, {{click|link=Solrad 1|image=Symbol support vote.svg|width=20px|height=20px|title=Solrad 1}} will create a GA symbol linked to Solrad 1. To make the symbol smaller or larger, change the "20px" bits. Any page which you want to have this header, put "{{User:Neopeius/Top}}" at or near the top. Voila.

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:45, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

You make the Wikipedian experience truly a pleasure, thank you. --Neopeius (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIV, February 2019

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

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) 12:19, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination

If you are minded for a spot of revenge for my pernickety reviewing I have nominated St James's Theatre for GAN. Tim riley talk 19:20, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: 4,000+ words on a building! Which doesn't even exist any more. Reduce it to "It was cuboid and a bit ornate. Opened 1835, demolished 1957." and I'll pass it. Yes, I am a Philistine in my spare time. Would you like a straight GA review? Your a very reasonable additional fee I provide a service which assesses it as if it were a FAC. Saves time and effort in the long run. Your choice. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:42, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't propose to take the article further than GA. It doesn't (and won't as far as I'm concerned) meet the criterion of comprehensiveness. The heart sinks at the prospect of an article comprehensively listing every single production. A review against the GA criteria will be perfect. Tim riley talk 08:41, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Good evening Tim I have started on this. It doesn't seem as if there will be much I will be asking of you. On the other hand, could I ask a small favour of you? Could you make your support at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Bergerac#Comments from Tim riley more explicit? I know that Peacemaker's comment seems to imply that he is taking this for granted, but the ACR is held up for lack of a third support, and yours is the only one which I think could be taken as being less than clear.

Ah. Another favour occurs to me. You assessed Battle of Bergerac and Battle of Auberoche at GAN, and the latter at FAC; they form two-thirds of my good topic candidate Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Gascon campaign of 1345/archive1. If you have the time and the inclination I would be grateful if you could have a look at it. Obviously, if you lack one or the other that is not a problem, I am already deeply in your debt.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll gladly look in at the Gascon article, but I think I'd feel happier if I waited till you have passed or failed my present GA. One wants to avoid any impression of mutual back-scratching. To the pure all things are pure, of course, but there some others about. Tim riley talk 23:09, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thanks for the nudge, it has done the trick. And thank you again for the review. As a relative newcomer I have grown used to going at fellow MilHist editor’s articles hammer and tongs with little thought that someone might look askance at this. They would only need to see the lumps we knock out of each other’s articles to have, I would hope, their fears allayed. But I can appreciate the need for a Caesar’s wife approach, not least because your GAN is going to get the closest to a wave through that I have ever given. I continue to be in your debt, so feel free to push more assessments my way; perhaps I shall get the opportunity to be harsher. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Be careful what you wish for ... I'm at it again. Tim riley talk 20:09, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

And thank you for a judicious and helpful review. I don't think either of us is now in hock to the other for a spot of reviewing. Happy to look in at your further GANs or FACs natch, and indeed I am about to do so at one of the latter. Tim riley talk 19:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Tim. Nevertheless, please feel free to let me know of any articles which you have up for assessment. I may well not review them, especially if they are at FAC and in areas where I feel that I am technically ignorant, but yours are a pleasing read and I would expect that I would assess a fair few. And thanks for persevering with 1345; you have already looked over the two battles from this campaign, so much of it should seem familiar. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you for taking the trouble to acquaint yourself with a whole new set of Wiki-criteria. Your comment seems to have elicited an additional support, so I am now hopeful re a forthcoming promotion. A meaningless gewgaw I know, but it serves to keep me editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:51, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

My pleasure. I confess I am not entirely sure what purpose Featured or Good Topics serve so far as our readers are concerned, but I'm happy to contribute anyway. There are lots of aspects of Wikipedia that seem to me obscure. E.g there are editors who spend their entire time tinkering with categories, though I've never met a reader who gave a twopenny damn whether XYZ was "a French male classical composer" or "a male French classical composer" etc etc.

Many thanks for your review of the St James's Theatre. My overhaul was one of those cases where one looks at an article and sees it needs a wash-and-brush-up but then finds oneself going into it in more detail than planned. You have, perhaps, found yourself in similar case from time to time. Tim riley talk 23:15, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: I have found that there are some uses for categories. Other than keeping editors who enjoy messing around with them away from content I am working on.

Indeed. This has led to some of my more off-beat, by my norms, articles. I recall that 15 months when ago I first became active on Wikipedia through work for GOCE (I realise that your opinion of GOCE has just plummeted.) I stumbled across a BDP of a Canadian WW2 general who had, it was obvious, committed a war crime. So I did some research and filled out the article. Then did some more research to fill out the article on the town he razed. Then did some more to create a new article - one of only four I have written - on the event. It seemed silly not to cut and paste what I had already written and fill the gaps in order to be explicit. As I submitted it for B class assessment I realised that I had become a content creator. (It became my first GAN, DYK and ACR.)

I don't think that GTs have any benefit for readers, beyond encouraging editors to 'complete the set', when otherwise they may not. It has worked for me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 23:58, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Siege of Aiguillon. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:01, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Many thanks. That was extremely swift. Eight minutes. I won't even try to match that speed of service. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:05, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Haha just a happenstance of good timing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:51, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

Valentine's Day

Happy Valentine's Day Gog. I hope you have/had a great Valentine's Day with your loved one. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:11, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5 Thank you. Sadly not, but the thought is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

• You're welcome. Maybe next time you will have a great Valentine's Day with your loved one (well at least I hope so). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

TFA appearance of Battle of Auberoche

Hi, this is to let you know that the above article will appear as Today's Featured Article on March 2, 2019. The blurb to be used can be found here. You are free to edit the blurb, and may want to watchlist that page, as well as WP:ERRORS in case there are queries about it on the day it runs, as well as the previous day. If you have questions or concerns, feel free to post on my talk. Thanks for building quality content!--Wehwalt (talk) 12:29, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Copyeditor?

Hello! Do you think that I have a good enough grasp of the MOS and English that I could copy edit articles? I've largely felt I might be more harm than help to the Guild, but am still considering if I might be able to join. And do you think I could FA nominate History of the Office of The Inspector General of the United States Army as is? Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:52, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddie, good to hear from you. Re HotOotIGotUSA, yes. If only because the four editors who looked at it for GAN and ACR aren't going to have let much of consequence past themselves. (He claimed immodestly .) And yes anway, on skimming the article.

GoCE. Yes. With conditions.

• Stick with the shorter, newer, start class and stub articles to begin with. Resist the temptation to get into requests and pre-GANs. To be blunt, if you miss a MoS point or two in one of those then, hey, you have still improved the article. While if you do the same for someone's beloved article which is about to go to FAC …
• Ask Reidgreg if he will mentor you. Feel free to mention my name and link me in if you do. He is a great guy, has an awesome grasp of the MOS, and is a truly good person to have telling you what to do. (I hardly cried at all when he was doing this for me; although he may have.)
• Stay away from articles with specialist requirements which you are not familiar with. For me this means that I never touch lists nor articles on films, pop songs, video games or people connected with them.

In brief, yes, I think that you would be an asset to GoCE; the above is advice which I wish someone had given me before I started copy editing.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

On second thought

On second thought, please don't CE the article. Maybe I'll go back to this version and chop it in half. that will solve everyone's length & footnote issues. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 22:20, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• On third thought, there are compelling arguments why (with the exception of prose) the article online now is meaningfully superior to the one Wikipedia be displaying if it were in a state that any random FAC reviewers would grant the bronze star. That is, for large topics there are diminishing returns on trying to cram the topic into a box that suits either WP:WIAFA or (in this case, except for prose) any random FAC reviewer's current impressionistic thoughts about any one of an uncountable number of details of form. FAC kinda makes a valiant stab at addressing Content, while in reality it is 98% about Form over Content. That valiant stab is in fact quite sufficient for small or midsized articles, or larger ones that are straightforward account with few or no debatable details. As the topic grows larger and (crucially) more complex, some elements of WP:WIAFA remain as important as ever, but others can no longer fit the needs of the topic... I could take the article to a bronze star [and others may take other large topics to FA[, but the result would be that the information it presents to the public would have blind spots; its usefulness to the public would be reduced.
• So if you wanna do a public service by copy editing the article, that would be a Good Thing. But trying to cram that article into a FAC reviewer's idea of a FAC would be detrimental.
• I am done worrying about WTF FAC thinks. For large, complex topics, it is counterproductive – even detrimental to the article.
• And yes, most of the comments about content on the FAC were way off the mark. There is one thing that was mentioned that needs to be done, (note that I had talked about that same issue on the Talk page before taking it to FAC). I will add a small section with perhaps 4 sentences eventually.
• You probably think I'm sour grapes, since I stand alone quite contrary to everyone else's opinions, and since I take a dim view of the value of the vast majority of the comments on the FAC, some of which came from people who are probably your friend(s). That's OK. I can only say & do what I know to be true.
• Thanks! ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 04:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WikiCup 2019 March newsletter

And so ends the first round of the competition. Everyone with a positive score moves on to Round 2. With 56 contestants qualifying, each group in Round 2 contains seven contestants, with the two leaders from each group due to qualify for Round 3 as well as the top sixteen remaining contestants.

Our top scorers in Round 1 were:

• L293D, a WikiCup newcomer, led the field with ten good articles on submarines for a total of 357 points.
• Adam Cuerden, a WikiCup veteran, came next with 274 points, mostly from eight featured pictures, restorations of artwork.
• MPJ-DK, a wrestling enthusiast, was in third place with 263 points, garnered from a featured list, five good articles, two DYKs and four GARs.
• Usernameunique came next at 243, with a featured article and a good article, both on ancient helmets.
• Squeamish Ossifrage was in joint fifth place with 224 points, mostly garnered from bringing the 1937 Fox vault fire to featured article status.
• Ed! was also on 224, with an amazing number of good article reviews (56 actually).

These contestants, like all the others, now have to start scoring points again from scratch. Between them, contestants completed reviews on 143 good articles, one hundred more than the number of good articles they claimed for, thus making a substantial dent in the review backlog. Well done all!

Remember that any content promoted after the end of Round 1 but before the start of Round 2 can be claimed in Round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews.

If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13 (talk), Sturmvogel 66 (talk), Vanamonde (talk) and Cwmhiraeth (talk).

Today's featured article

I see one of your FACs is on today's front page, and very good it looks. I pass on some sage advice given to me by a wise old hand: don't look at the changes by the vandals, well-meaning ninnies and the rest until tomorrow, when the caravan has moved on and you can quietly take your bucket and shovel and clear up the mess. Meanwhile some stalwart page watchers will stop the worst of the vandalism. Following this advice has saved me much angst and done wonders for my blood pressure. Tim riley talk 11:32, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

@Tim riley: Thank you Tim. Wise words. I have tried hard to follow your advice. I have just sent out for a larger bucket and shall have a look at the damage in the morning. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:33, 3 March 2019 (UTC)