Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

My first real message. I may make it as a Wikipedian yet :-) ^{[citation needed]} . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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

@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 for the barnstar, much appreciated. Urselius (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article Operation Pedestal you nominated as a good article has passed ; 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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

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

@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)[reply]

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

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

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

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[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 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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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

		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)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

"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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

• 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)[reply]