Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Battle of Oroscopa, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 17 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Battle of Oroscopa. Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

– Epicgenius (talk) 02:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 on British conscription and German warship raiders

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

Hello Gog the Mild,

A fairly low-priority question, but I was curious if you had any opinion on my old comment at Talk:Hundred_Years'_War_(1345–1347)#Renaming. I'd be happy to file a multi-RM, or even a WP:RM/TR, to move the articles over, because I think the complaints about the current title suggesting multiple wars called "Hundred Years War" rather than slices of the same war is valid. However, I also think the main article maintainer(s) should be given a wide degree of deference on matters of style, and no point in suggesting a move if you'd hate the titles. Did you have any thoughts on my suggestion of using a comma, so Hundred Years' War, 13XX–13XX style? I think that makes it fairly clear that this is a specific time period of a larger conflict. My only worry with 1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War is that since the dates are semi-arbitrary, it's a little tricky to find via autocompletion - i.e. someone typing in "Hundred Years' War" in the search box will see the "child" articles, but you'd have to guess the right starting date to see the autocompletion if the year is up front, yet the years are semi-arbitrary in this case. That said, I'd still personally prefer "13XX-13XX during the Hundred Years' War over the status quo, so I think some sort of move should be done! Any opinion yourself? SnowFire (talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking, that is thoughtful of you. My preference is Hundred Years' War, 13XX–13XX style. It would certainly improve the current situation, and I am against the 1345–1347 during the Hundred Years' War for the reasons you lay out, plus the aesthetic unpleasantness of starting a title with a string of numbers - I can't think off hand of any RS which does that. They do use the other, eg see under "Hundred Years' War, Phases of" here. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:28, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me! I moved the articles and updated the template links. SnowFire (talk) 20:48, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SnowFire, good work. Do you have any view on supporting, or otherwise, the featured topic nomination? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:16, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not really? Looks like the promotion is going to uncontroversially succeed, so congratulations on your good work. Maybe you could merge the subtopics into the main topic, though? Not sure they're really needed as separate templates anymore. Unsure if there's a procedure for that. SnowFire (talk) 23:41, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I hope so. The other nom I posted on the same day has just been promoted after seven enthusiastic supports and no quibbles, so it is looking like a tough bar to get over. Merging, there is a policy somewhere stressing the hierarchical nature of Wikipedia articles, which I read as suggesting that they shouldn't be. I could probably hunt it down if you want. And other G&FTs retain their sub-topics - see for example Wikipedia:Featured topics/Battleships of Japan and Wikipedia:Featured topics/God of War franchise. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I listed Turtle as TFA for May 23, 2022 which is World Turtle Day. Can you make sure it doesn't get nominated before then? LittleJerry (talk) 20:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I can try. I am not the only scheduler. As you have listed it in potentials it should be off the usual list. If it gets scheduled in error, give me a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Second Battle of Cape Finisterre (1747), has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:06, 31 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, now that I am a FAC coordinator I'd like to get started at promoting articles. I thought I would start with black-and-red broadbill since it seems to be fairly straightforward. I was just wondering what process is used to decide whether to promote an article? I assume it's just a matter of reading through the nomination and checking that all criteria have been assessed, but is there a checklist or guide anywhere to help me figure it out? Thanks in advance (t · c) buidhe 03:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Geez you don't want much do you? Everyone knows that all the juicy FAC rules are unwritten...! Seriously I coulda sworn Gog sent you and HF something but now of course I can't spot it anywhere. Gog, perhaps try again (unless I dreamt it all, nothing is impossible)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:58, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Ian is possibly referring to this, which is more a checklist of what to do after you have decided to promote. I am unaware of any formalised guidance, outside the FAC page header. As to my process when deciding whether to promote, it is so nomination-specific that I hesitate to generalise from it. Have a go, bear the FAC page instructions in mind, be aware of but not bound by precedent, and email your fellow coordinators as a group with any specific queries. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:47, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks! (t · c) buidhe 13:16, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, tks, that checklist of the mechanics is very good to have around. As to guidance on when to promote, I couldn't put it better than Gog did just now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:23, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

1. The Rambling Man (submissions) with 5072 points
2. Lee Vilenski (submissions) with 3276 points
3. Amakuru (submissions) with 3197 points
4. Epicgenius (submissions) with 1611 points
5. Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1571 points
6. BennyOnTheLoose (submissions) with 1420 points
7. Hog Farm (submissions) with 1043 points
8. Bloom6132 (submissions) with 528 points

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

• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the featured article prize, for 8 FAs in round 5.
• Lee Vilenski (submissions) wins the featured list prize, for 3 FLs in round 5.
• Gog the Mild (submissions) wins the featured topic prize, for 13 articles in a featured topic in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the good article prize, for 63 GAs in round 4.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the good topic prize, for 86 articles in good topics in round 5.
• The Rambling Man (submissions) wins the reviewer prize, for 68 FAC reviews and 213 GAN reviews, both in round 5.
• Epicgenius (submissions) wins the DYK prize, for 30 did you know articles in round 3 and 105 overall.
• Bloom6132 (submissions) wins the ITN prize, for 71 in the news articles in round 1 and 284 overall.

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

If you have views on whether the rules or scoring need adjustment for next year's contest, please comment on the WikiCup talk page. Next year's competition will begin on 1 January. You are invited to sign up to participate; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors, and we hope to see you all in the 2022 competition. Until then, it only remains to once again congratulate our worthy winners, and thank all participants for their involvement! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

November songs

Congratulations! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:46, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Great work, Gog! How you managed to get this much work through, and still co-ordinate at FAC is amazing to me. The Featured Topic you made is a great piece of work! Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:23, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lee, especially given your stunning efforts. In 2019 you just missed out on first place with 899 points, in 2021 more than three times as many leaves you still second. I don't know how you manage it. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

The above article will be put through trial by ordeal as TFA on 26 December 2021. Be there or be square.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Wehwalt, can we use this as the standard talk page alert for TFAs? Gog the Mild (talk) 14:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog, Looking at the map in the article (this), I'm not sure it can be verified as being accurate, as the Wikicommons page says the sources used were OSM (that's clearly OK), themaparchive.com (this appears to be a dead link), and Newm30 (not a reliable source). Is there a problem, or am I being thick? Regards, Amitchell125 (talk) 13:33, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I reckon this map (registration to the Internet Archive required) is the nearest to the one in your article. Happy to produce an svg version if you think it a good idea. Amitchell125 (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the history of that Commons page you will see that I added the actual sources, but that the map maker, Goran tek-en, removed them. Newm30 consulted with me re the details and sourcing of the map and I am happy that the map accurately reflects HQ RSs. Goren tek-en is an excellent map maker and is usually careful about attribution, see this map -File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg - which they recently produced for a different FA of mine.

I have the Burne in the dead tree version, but prefer to use the more up to date and, I strongly suspect, thorough sources, which vary in some minor details. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Amitchell125, Gog the Mild

• I have now updated the themaparchive link
• Regarding Newm30, I have no knowledge, possibility or wish to check if a requester is a reliable source (what ever that is) or not, I check the sources to the best of my ability.
• In the history I can't see what I should have removed, please link directly to that version as I don't remember this. If I did wrong I will of course change it. As you say, I'm a graphic worker and I depend on the knowledge of the requester and others. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

By the way Gog the Mild the map File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg (look down on the page) has become a Valued image. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 13:56, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: I think that there was confusion between you, me and Newm30 when the map was discussed. Newm30 did a fine job of communicating with you over generating the map. But they didn't let you know which sources they had used to pass information to you. Trying to be helpful, and knowing what they were from consultation with Newm30 during the process, I added them. But I messed the process up, which led to this exchange. We never did get round to adding back the actual high quality, reliable sources which I added then removed. I imagine that Amitchell125 is concerned about this lack of clear sourcing because the map now features in six featured articles - which makes it one of Wikipedia's highest profile maps, so a hearty well done to you there. I don't think it is anyone's "fault", and certainly not yours; it is just one of those things.

Would you be ok with my adding the sourcing in and your checking that I have not disturbed anything, which means that it then meets the FA criteria?

File:Western Mediterranean territory, 150 BC.svg - whew! I am not over-surprised, it was high quality work, but I am impressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:49, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild Please add the sources but as I didn't know about them at the time of the creation I'm not sure where to put them. It would kind of be included in the knowledge passed on by Newm30 to me so I changed some stuff there and where I put "xxxx" seems fine to me. See if that works for you too and ping me when done, thanks.

• I see on that map that I do the "information" part better now so I will check that and the file itself as I evolved there too.
• I'm thinking of nominating this map for QI and maybe VI maybe I could need some help then.
• Newm30 This file Map of route of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 is about the same stuff, I can see that also needs updated (I'm actually doing that to most of my old stuff, but it takes time). Is there also lack of sources?
• Can I ask both of you to check them when I'm done? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 21:39, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild I saw your adding of sources, but shouldn't you (maybe more users) also be added as contributor with information and knowledge? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that I communicated with you over the map, only Newm30. So from your point of view as the map maker the attribution would seem correct to me. But you are the expert on Commons, so feel free to amend. From an enWikipedia PoV all it needs is the HQ RS(s) on which the map is based and there is no interest in how, or via who, the information was communicated to you.

This - File:Battle of Dunbar, battlefield map, 0530.jpg - is an example of a map produced by an enWikipedia editor at my request and based on information (mostly) provided by me. Note that my name doesn't feature at all. This may be "wrong" from a Commons PoV, but is fine from an end-user's. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild At commons (there are some differences towards wikipedia) you should always state if a media is derived from somewhere or where you got the information from, source. Just as you in wikipedia give references we give sources. In this case I stand as the creator but that is for the graphic work really, the knowledge and information comes from somewhere else and it should be stated. It might be from some text, image etc or from a user. It's not unusual I'm being contacted and a user wants to discuss the correctness of something in a media. I have really no idea, so for me as a graphic worker it helps a lot if all of the information and knowledge is very clear on a medias page. Then the user who wants to change something can easily see who to discuss with, or for me it's so much easier to direct the question to someone with the knowledge. So I will add you if that's fine with you. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 12:26, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goran tek-en, that makes sense, and I (obviously) have no issues with your attaching my name. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed this one under history, rather than warfare, based on the example of the Treaty of Guines. Any objections to this? Hog Farm _Talk 02:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hog Farm I don't pay much more attention to categorisation than I do to article titles, but seeing as you asked, it seems to me that a treaty which ends a military conflict is MilHist, not Hist, per my Treaty of Lutatius. I can see that this would have the effect of separating these from other types of treaty (eg trade) which may offend some "lumpers", but IMO thems the breaks. In particular it seems to me that a truce is an entirely MilHist topic and should not be put into the general history group. But I have no intention of making a fuss about any of these. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:47, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to warfare Hog Farm _Talk 14:31, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've been looking around for information on non-Egyptian Ancient African music (for my long haul at the History of music article). This is probably a stretch but I thought I'd check, as I know you frequently write about Carthaginian topics, albeit warfare ones. Do you know if there are any good sources on the music of Ancient Carthage?—or perhaps Carthaginian culture in general, where I would hope musical information would be included? Grove, oxford bibliographies, JSTOR and my normal methods have led to pretty much nothing. Best – Aza24 (talk) 09:06, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aza24, the standard general text on the history of Carthage is

• Miles, Richard (2011). Carthage Must be Destroyed. New York: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-14-101809-6.

It has a fair bit on culture, religion and ritual, although a skim of the index doesn't give anything on music.

• Hoyos, Dexter (2015) [2011]. A Companion to the Punic Wars. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley. ISBN 978-1-1190-2550-4.

may be worth a skim, but a quick look only yields some Numidian interest in Greek music: "such details as Masinissa being a lover of Greek music are reported" (p. 397); "We also hear that Masinissa liked to invite Greek musicians and dancers to his court to provide entertainment for him and his guests." (p. 403) I did find this, which seems to be all there is. More generally, have you seen this? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:03, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well Numidian is not the route I thought to go, but those anecdotes look useful!—a similar connection between Ancient Greek and Persian music exists. I had not heard of that source on Coroplastic sculptures though, which seems particularly valuable. I will say, it is extremely unusual of how broad of a range that source covers—geographically. The issue I've found is that there are basically no substantive modern general histories of music in a global sense, so this seems to be something of an exception for the Ancient period. So thanks! By the way, if I can spare your time for a further question, every couple of weeks I add more references and such to the List of medieval composers article. I've been including rows between composers to mark the emergence of certain musical periods, e.g. "(9th century) The Abbey of Saint Gall becomes a musical and literary center of Europe". I'm considering including more historical (non-musical) markers; currently I only really have "The Western Roman Empire falls in 476, ushering in the Middle Ages". What would you think about this?—would it be too much information and is there any small list of major medieval European events you would think to include? I'm thinking maybe the beginning and end of the Hundred Years' War, a few crusades and the East–West Schism? I guess some of it depends on how the events affected music (e.g. I know the Albigensian Crusade basically ended the troubadour and similar movements) but I feel like some events are too big to exclude, even if their actual (observable, at least) effect was minimal. Aza24 (talk) 00:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Aza24, I think that putting in some non-musical markers for general guidance is a good idea. Unless you have a good grip on the general history of the period be cautious though. So, off hand, yes to Fall of Rome/Jerusalem/Constantinople, Arab conquests, Columbus's voyage; no to the Hundred Years' War - definitely not notable in this context (much as I submerge myself in it)- nor, IMO, most crusades (unless they have a specific musical effect). Gog the Mild (talk) 11:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also [1] and [2]. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:55, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Truce of Calais, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Hog Farm (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

Boynamedsue (talk) 16:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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

This one > Dinogad's smock Boynamedsue (talk) 17:41, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue Sorry to step in, have you checked this post and other help elsewhere or on this page, Wikipedia:FAQ/Editing#How_can_I_add_pictures_to_pages? --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Goran tek-en. Boynamedsue, I have inserted the image. No doubt you will wish to change everything about it, that's fine. If you click on the image, you get a different version with Goran tek-en's name bottom left; click on "More details" to get the full attribution, plus other interesting stuff. How it is now, is how it is supposed to be. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Gog and Goran, both of your help is very much appreciated.Boynamedsue (talk) 07:55, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue, Gog the Mild I'm that type of person who try to search for knowledge when I don't have it and don't understand what is explained to me. So Gog the Mild it is not out of respect but to me it seemed strange that you would have to download-upload an image to insert it for an article at wikipedia, or did I misunderstand you.

• Look at this page w:User:Goran_tek-en/sandbox where I try to explain what I have found and know about this subject. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 10:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Boynamedsue I updated that sandbox page, look at UPDATE close to the end. --always ping me-- Goran tek-en (talk) 14:04, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Goran tek-en Ahhh, now I see! Thank you very much for the information, I will be able to use this feature in the future. It has been a pleasure to meet you, thank you for all your time and hard work. --Boynamedsue (talk) 14:13, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 47, September – October 2021

• On-wiki Wikipedia Library notification rolling out
• Search tool deployed
• New My Library design improvements

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:58, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly are the criteria for adding to/maintaining the urgents listing? Pinging Buidhe and Ian Rose as well. Hog Farm _Talk 16:11, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

In general I've been told that these are usually articles nearing the three-week mark which already have at least one or two supports, but need more to be promoted. (t · c) buidhe 16:54, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I use it, and have so used it since before I was a coordinator, to list nominations which have two general supports and need a third to reach the potential minimum number for a promotion to be considered. And for Sports and MilHist nominations which have three, or more, general supports from Sports-orientated or MilHist regular editors as a way of seeking a non-specialist check; potentially for similar in other areas, but I can't recall that ever happening. I am not saying that these are exact criteria or anything, just explaining how I use it. I think that Ian Rose has a broadly similar approach. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Dundee you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:21, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Would you be willing to give this one a quick skim to make sure there are no major flaws? It was passed for GA by a newer user, who left no comments on it. It's pretty short and won't be advancing above GA. Hog Farm _Talk 14:47, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks pretty good to me. I have made a couple of minor changes, revert at will. Query:

• "The Union force had lost either seven men killed and 38 wounded or a total of 46 men during the battle. Full Confederate losses are not known, but at least two men were killed, in addition to several wounded." You have this reversed in the infobox.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:13, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it! Yep, that's an error - corrected. Hog Farm _Talk 16:17, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Dear! Been a minute, huh? Back in the wayback you used some bot of some kind to insert dashes into isbn's on Biblical criticism. Can you tell me what it is, where to find it, how to use it? I would be very grateful for any help you can offer. I know you're terribly busy.Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk777, I hope that you are both busy and well. Here you go: hyphenator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bless you yes, I am staying busy, there is always more to do than time to do it - which I know you are familiar with. Thank you so much for this.Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:20, 21 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. I hope you've been well. I have failed to stay away, no matter how busy I remain IRL. I've rationalized that I have to have a hobby....

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

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