Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

		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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

• Well done. – Reidgreg (talk) 21:29, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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.)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

@HorrorProfessor: It's true, I am an anorak. All from the last 7 months . Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[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 a classic US official history Op-ed: TomStar81 on belated declarations of war in 1916–18 Timeline: This month in World War I

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Went with "tch" LeGabrie (talk) 19:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

		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)[reply]

For a truly tireless contributor! Thanks for taking time to work on the blitz! – Reidgreg (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[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: 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.[reply]

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)[reply]

Thank you for your attention. I appreciate your time to improve the article in any way. --3E1I5S8B9RF7 (talk) 07:22, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 ([1]). I would appreciate if you could look at the new text. Have a nice week! Borsoka (talk) 13:52, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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? Template:Winky Gog the Mild (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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 [2]. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Yes Sire. Of course Sire. Will there be anything else Sire? Gog the Unworthy (talk) 21:11, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Were you able to finish your copy edit of Baldwin II of Jerusalem? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

• 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[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 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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Right away, thanks a lot! Constantine ✍ 12:20, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

		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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@Reidgreg. Goodness. I could do with 'borrowing' some for my QPQ . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Thanks for taking up the GA review process.Urselius (talk) 10:08, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 [][reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

	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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]