Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

Hey, Gog! You asked at User talk:Vanamonde93/Main page editor about tasks at DYK. One common task is setting preps -- pulling approved hooks into a prep set -- which is a bit like putting together a complicated puzzle. For instance, we alternate within a prep set the bio and non-bio hooks. We don't want more than a certain number of US hooks or military hooks or music hooks. We need a quirky in the last slot. We can't use all long hooks, or all short ones. And if today's set has a bio hook in the image slot, tomorrow's set get a non-bio image. We need a new set every day, and it's often best if a single editor tries to do a full set, or at least to do most of the hooks in that set, just to prevent working at cross-purposes. If the MPE proposal eventually passes, it's quite likely multiple of our current prep setters will apply for the right, which means they won't have as much time to set preps (plus they probably shouldn't move preps they've set to queue), which means we'll need more prep setters. If you're interested, I can show you how to start. Ping me if you respond here, real life is keeping me from maintaining good control over my watch list right now. --valereee (talk) 19:02, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: That sounds like the sort of thing which might interest me. I hung around DYK a fair bit when I was putting my noms in frequently. (They were all GAs, apart from one FA, so I anticipate having to crank my standards down.) I am expecting being busy IRL for the next 48 hours. But if you would care to give pointers as to the first lesson, I will work through it when I can and get back to you. Or should I ping again when I am more available? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whenever you have time is great! The first thing I would do is read Wikipedia:Did you know and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, especially Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Supplementary_guidelines#Rules_of_thumb_for_preparing_updates. Realize that when you move a hook to prep, you are basically saying, "I agree with the reviewer that this hook satisfies DYK rules." The reviewer is supposed to have checked that all the rules were indeed followed. But I find issues, and I'm actually the third check. Prep setters provide what is basically the second check. For your first lesson: What change do new GAs often require, and why does DYK need stricter requirements in that area?

Second lesson: promote some hooks into a prep. Instructions for promoting a hook are at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook. It involves having multiple pages open at a time. I would start with the lowest empty set, even if there are empty ones above it, as this gives you the most time to set the prep while receiving input from other experienced prep setters like Yoninah and Cwmhiraeth, who will likely be here to comment on your work soon after you start setting. :) --valereee (talk) 20:22, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes tell me more Tbiw (talk) 19:16, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Gascon campaign of 1345, introduced: "The Hundred Years' War was started when Philip VI of France confiscated the English fief of Gascony. Despite this, activities in Gascony during the war receive little attention - in the general literature as well as on Wikipedia. I have been attempting to remedy the latter situation and so would like to present for FAC an account of "the first successful land campaign of... the Hundred Year's War"! - I have a FAC in need open, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:14, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

Just wanted to let you know the "primary" editor of Arthur Gilligan found that I introduced three unintentional factual errors to the article which were the result of minor word changes resulting from my limited understanding of cricket. My apologies! I gather this is to be added to a list of other pre-TFA copy edited articles where errors occurred to be presented to you at some future date. Oh, thanks for the recent TFA article view stats. Cheers, Twofingered Typist (talk) 13:56, 18 December 2019 (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: Hawkeye7 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

The comments you added here look like they belong to a specific FAC, but they've ended up on the general talk page for all FACs. --RL0919 (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RL0919: Gah! How embarrassing. Thanks for letting me know. Fixed. I hope. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looks fine now, and in the annals of WP's worst mistakes, I don't think this one will rate. :-) --RL0919 (talk) 20:03, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks RL0919. It was aimed at a couple of editors whose article I am mentoring - ineptly, clearly - towards FAC. Don't tell them. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:49, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog I was a little testy when I responded about the footnote, and although I hope that did not come through in the response, I fear it may have. If so, please accept my apologies. I know that you are somewhat embroiled in issues of copy editing right now, and it's not my intention to add to that. I will say, though, that with WP's requirement for summary style and concision, it's often not possible to provide a detailed explanation of some aspects of any given subject. I always strive to convey nuances I don't feel able to expand upon fully in very carefully chosen words, and it can be quite frustrating when a well-intentioned copy editor comes along and, for the laudable sake of clarity of prose, effectively strips the narrative of that nuance. It doesn't help that the 55th (West Lancashire) Division article is missing a significant chunk of context about the difficulties both the TF and the military authorities faced before and on the outbreak of WWI, which is why I've unfortunately felt it necessary to oppose at FAC (and that's a shame, because I know from long ago how diligent an editor the nom is). Anyways, Merry Christmas, or whatever well-wishing phrase is appropriate for you at this time of year. Factotem (talk) 16:54, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Factotem: No need to apologise. You did come across as a little irritated, but it was fair enough - you were right and I was wrong. Simples. I don't have your depth of knowledge of the pre-WWI period, but you can probably tell from my FAC comments - and my copy edit comments and the fact that I ducked the ACR - that I have concerns about the article. I am going to recommend that they take it away and rework it. I am happy to input into this, and I shall recommend that they seek your contributions.

Copy editing - as a copy editor that is just the sort of unintentional loss of nuance I dread. Hopefully I do it rarely.

And the most Christmasy of Christmases to you too.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well no, my challenge was fair but not fairly made, and there's no excuse for that. I shall try and do better in future. Have a good 'un. Factotem (talk) 18:59, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion going on at the Easter Rising talk page about whether the rising should be considered part of the Great War in the infobox because it was significantly influenced by it. Can you please contribute? 98.221.136.220 (talk) 20:12, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy. - Dank (push to talk) 12:23, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Replying here since the threads seem to have disappeared ... Harry (HJ) hasn't been active (or wasn't till my ping ... actually, several inactive people have become semi-active again after getting my pings for these older blurbs!) Carcharoth saw that and stepped in to help with several of Harry's war memorial blurbs, and he and Harry were happy with the results. It's fine that you did the blurb, they'll probably like it, but it's best to ping both of them to look at it, I think.

Good Topics: It's probably GAN-discrimination, but for the 16 years that TFA has been going on, we haven't mentioned Good Topics. (Of course, a Good Topic can change to a Featured Topic.) - Dank (push to talk) 18:06, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dank. The threads have reappeared. Thanks for the responses. Both make sense. Harry seemed active enough when I was reviewing his Midland Railway War Memorial for ACR. I ended up taking a tape measure down to do some OR and he still owes me a pint. I'll ping Carcharoth in.

Fine. I had a momentary panic. Are we happy flagging up FTs and not GTs? (I note that this GT is 8/12ths of the way to an FT.)

Probably best to continue this on the blurb page. Apologies for the hiatus. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:20, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Modest Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 2,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE December 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Miniapolis 22:07, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings1}} to send this message

Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Yes my brother happy Christmas and boxing day may we see more of it. Tbiw (talk) 19:17, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Hello Gog the Mild:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve the encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers, and have a happy and enjoyable New Year! Cheers, Donner60 (talk) 06:27, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks (static)}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.

Let sing or form a Christmas song Tbiw (talk) 19:19, 27 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Golden Wiki
		As voted by the members of the project, please accept this Golden Wiki as the Military Historian of the Year for 2019. Well done on your back to back wins! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:29, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulation Gog, mightily well deserved! Harrias ^talk 08:51, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations from me, also, Gog. Thanks for your efforts throughout 2019 and all the best for 2020. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:16, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67, AustralianRupert, and Harrias: Thanks guys. Congratulations from veterans like you three is especially appreciated. You all have happy new years. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Battle of Calais, "an everyday story of 14th-century folk. Knightly honour and dishonour; bribery and treason; cunning schemes and an incognito king; captivity and ransoms; truces and treachery; revenge and torture. They didn't have Wikipedia in the 14th century, so they had to make their own entertainment."! Wishing vision for 2020! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Razing of Friesoythe. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

   Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year fireworks}} to user talk pages.

Thanks Eddie: A happy and productive new year to you too. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:27, 31 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you've got (e)mail :) TomStar81 (Talk) 07:45, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The competition begins today and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you have already signed up, your submissions page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. We are relaxing the rule that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2020 will count; now to be eligible for points in the competition, you must have completed significant work on the content at some time! Any questions on the rules or on anything else connected to the Cup should be directed to one of the judges, or posted to the WikiCup talk page. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. Good luck! The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:43, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just came across Wikipedia talk:Good articles § 2019 Good article reviews statistics where you are tied at 5th place for GA reviews in 2019. More than one per week, a considerable service! Well done! – Reidgreg (talk) 20:06, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I keep track of my reviews and thought that I had done more. But I picked up at least five GANs which had been opened and abandoned by other reviewers and I assume that these didn't get counted. Plus I have five currently open, so that probably explains it. What I hadn't realised was how well that compared with other reviewers, so thanks for that. I am a little shocked. Interesting to see so many active MilHist members in the top slots. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog - I read through this discussion about the GA review backlog with interest yesterday, and have been mulling it over. I've long been against the idea of QPQ for GA reviews, believing that each of us should do what we are good at and enjoy doing - as you know, I spend much of my time removing vandalism and spam, and doing new page reviews, and I'd like to think that I earn enough brownie points that way to justify asking for the occasional GA review from an experienced editor, but I've never felt quite confident enough to attempt a GA review myself. However, I appreciate the frustration that a big backlog can cause (nobody has picked up St Rufus Church yet, it's been almost a week!), so perhaps it's time I dipped my toe in that particular pool. In that discussion, an editor mentions the idea of mentoring GA reviewers - is this something that you would consider doing for me (or can you point me in the direction of someone who does GA review mentoring)? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:56, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth Summit. I have always tried to review two GANs for each one I ran. When I was generating two or three a week I struggled; since concentrating on FAs I have a few "in the bank". See comment immediately above. I have discovered this - Wikipedia:Good article help/mentor - to which I have just added my name, and I would be happy to talk you through a couple. Do you have a potential target?

A week, ha! I assume that you have looked at Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Report? Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, ah - yes, I probably should have been able to find that myself if I'd searched a bit harder. (I hadn't looked at the Report page, but I was joking about the week, honest!). Thanks for your offer - much appreciated. Thinking that I should maybe start out with a subject that's within my comfort zone - what about St. Peter's Church (Queenstown, Maryland)? GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. Put a brief holding comment on the GAN page to "reserve" it. I suggest not mentioning that you are a first timer. Cut and paste this table in. Run the article through Earwig, click "Turnitin". If there is nothing alarming there, put 'y' after "copyright and plagiarism". Check the article history and decide whether you can put a 'y' after "stable". Click on each image, then on "More details": check that "Source" is "own work" or gives you a valid copy of the image; check that "Licensing" gives free use or PD in both the country of origin and the US; check that nothing seems obviously odd or suspicious about this last claim. If all images are fine for all of this. put 'y' after "freeortaggedpics".

Report back here, flagging up any issues or queries. Note that at this point there is no necessity for you to have read the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so...

• The article is stable, no problems there.
• Earwig was a bit grumpy. There are a few sentences that will need to be paraphrased as they appear to have been copy/pasted more or less verbatim from online sources, and there is a substantial quote (attributed) from the National Register of Historic Places - I'm not sure if that really needs to be there.

Bearing in mind Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing I agree. Specifically: "The parish of St. Peter's was formed in 1765, and the chapel constructed soon thereafter was the third permanent mission established"; "The enlarged 1877 structure is a good example of Victorian-Gothic church architecture"; and "The interior is virtually intact from the Victorian construction period, and contains all of the 1877 stained glass and altar furniture" need rephrasing IMO. Write an action point on the GAN stating so, including the link to Earwig.

• The photographs are all 'own work', no worries there. The published image of Cecil Calvert has a happy green tick from FlickrevieweR, so I assume it's legit. The map I'm not quite 100% about - it's old (18th C), but was produced in the UK rather than the US - seems to have been copied from here - does it need any additional copyright tags?

It does. Well spotted. It needs a tag for its home country, as well as the existing US one. Happily, as we know that it was published before 1923 and can assume that its creator has been dead for at least a century, I stuck in the all purpose {{PD-Art|PD-old-100-expired}} for you.

GirthSummit _(blether) 14:55, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One action for you above.

Now read the article. If you are happy with "broadness", "focus", "neutral" and "originalresearch", indicate so on the checklist. If not, let me know. Does it comply with the MoS for the four areas in the checklist? You can't downcheck it for other MoS non-compliances, although you may wish to mention them, making it clear that they will not effect your GAN judgement. Was "the prose ... clear and concise ... and the spelling and grammar ... correct"? If not, either copy edit it yourself, or flag up each case on the GAN page. Then report back here again. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:22, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, thanks - I've got to go out now, but I'll get onto this later this evening or tomorrow. Cheers GirthSummit _(blether) 15:43, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've read through the article to get an overview. There are some small points, which I haven't listed yet (places where the prose could be improved, a couple of not-quite-neutral statements, that sort of thing) but I've got a broader concern. A large part of the article (I haven't done a precise word count, but I think it's probably the majority of the verbiage) isn't actually about the church itself - it's about the historical background of Catholics in Maryland. That makes me unsure whether I could tick the 'focus' box without either a significant expansion of the discussion of the church, or a significant trimming of the historical background. Could you take a quick look and let me know what you think before I start getting into making lists of words I think should be changed? GirthSummit _(blether) 11:13, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thinking about this a bit further, I'm not quite sure about the 'neutral' box either, on account of the historical stuff. There's quite a lot of mateerial along the lines of 'Catholics were oppressed', 'Catholics were not treated well', about Claireborne's deep hatred of Catholics (even though he doesn't seem to have had any direct involvement in the establishment of this church), and about the treatment of Catholics during the Plundering Time - none of this is really contextualised, and I come away with a slight sense of... I'm not sure what exactly. Partisanship? Advocacy? Perhaps not quite, but it doesn't quite feel right for an article that should be focussed on a particular church. The stuff about the building itself looks fine - one or two phrases that could be toned down or attributed perhaps (e.g. who says it's a good example of Victorian Gothic?), but nothing that couldn't be addressed with a bit of light copy editing. My feeling is that if the history section was significantly trimmed, enough to give context for the foundation of the church itself but leaving out stuff that would be better addressed in an article about the history of Catholicism in the early American colonies, we might be back into neutral territory. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:01, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spot on. And good prioritising. IMO most of the first paragraph of Geography and all of History needs to go or be drastically slimmed. And while this is only GA, the description of the church as it is today seems thin to me. So personally I definitely wouldn't tick focus, and probably not broadness. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops - edit conflict there. If the history section is trimmed, that would probably address the neutrality concerns, so I'll try to put something tactful along those lines on the GA review page and ping the proposer. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog - so, I made some comments and the author has done a lot of work to the text now. How to you feel about the text now? I think that the focus is much tighter, and the content somewhat broader - would you tick those boxes now if you were in my shoes? GirthSummit _(blether) 16:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Girth. If it were me, and it isn't, I would give it the benefit of the doubt. It is still heavy on the history side, but most of the trivia has gone. It covers enough description to get a tick on that from me. It's not how I would write it, but that's not the point. IMO it meets 3a and 3b. (Several sections could do with retitling though.) If you felt the it was unfocused, then I think that would be a defensible position. That help? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:55, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, yep, thanks - just wanted a second opinion, since it's my first time and these criteria are a bit subjective. I agree on the titling, I'll probably make some suggestions along those lines. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:59, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again - the author has reorganised the structure a bit (moved things around) and changed one or two of the section titles. I'd be content to tick 1a, 1b and 2c, but I wouldn't mind a steer on whether the citations are properly formatted - I'm not intimately familiar with the Harvard style, it looks alright to me but you might spot something I've missed. Any other concerns? GirthSummit _(blether) 17:38, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit:

• Page ranges should be separated by en dashes, not hyphens. I have fixed that using a tool. For some reason cite 29 is still a problem.
• US Post Office abbreviations should not be used to identify states; so in "Baltimore, MD" MD needs either expanding, or scrapping. (Given that most people could be expected to have a rough idea where Baltimore is, I would go for b.)
• There is something wrong with cite 35. It is not a web link, so should be in Harvard style for consistency. But checking I see that the url is there but blanked. Unblanking it should resolve the issue.

Overall the citations are in pretty good order. Better than I usually manage.

Skimming, I can't see anything else to alarm me.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:58, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool - looks like SN fixed the issue with ref 29, I've unblanked that URL and removed the post code. What's the next step - tick all the boxes and give it a GA logo, or is there more work to do? GirthSummit _(blether) 18:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit: Your call.. Personally I see no reason why you shouldn't promote it, per 2.4.1 of Wikipedia:Good article nominations/Instructions. Good work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:41, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and because I get the feeling that its important to others here too I've decided to do a run for the 2019 year. Its gonna be a little more difficult this year though since my primary source for the material to be checked is missing, but I'll figure something out. For now though I need to get back to work on my day job stuff; I'll get started on the project this evening if there is time. If you'd like to help your welcome to, I'll tell you what I do and where I go to cross check for stuff. TomStar81 (Talk) 16:34, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TomStar81 Happy to help. Just point me. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first power outage of the new year. Unexpected, but it happens. (That god for mobile devices) Anyway... To compile the list for the awards we'll need to check the featured articles, lists, and pictures, and since the post didn't run any featured content stories past April the last four moths will need to be accounted for manually through the records - I guess from FAC, FLC, and FPC pages (i've actually never tried that before). We'll build the list at User:TomStar81/2019, keeping in mid the following guidelines for the end of the year awards:

• Be Generous. By default anyone whose done work within the Military history WikiProject over the last year is at a minimum eligible for the WikiChevrons for Milhist work and the Epic Barnstar for work within the field of history. There are four tabs I keep open that track awards for this, the pages are Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards (partuclarly the bottom of the page which lists general awards), Wikipedia:Barnstars, Wikipedia:Awards by WikiProject, and Wikipedia:Other awards, and I do my best to account for all possible awards that editors in a given year could receive, so to the extent that the awards description permits it pile it on. Additionally, be on the look out for extraordinary contributions, as those who have done truly remarkable things last year may meet the requirements for a Chevrons w/ Oak Leaves nomination (assuming they are not disqualified by the nomination criteria).
• Don't link to user names while compiling the list, and use nowiki tags for the awards sections while building them. Otherwise, the ping system may inadvertently alert users of the awards we're putting to gather for them, and we don't want people to be spoiled by seeing it coming, its better they get to experience it first hand.
• Do a thorough content check. Some FA and FL class articles (such as biography articles) may not be geared specifically toward milhist but may include in the article mentions or applications for or related to military service - Elvis Presley, for example, is famous for his music, but did put two years in the army as an enlisted guy, so work on an Elvis Presley article could qualify an editor for shout out. Same goes for Featured Pictures, sometimes you think a picture has nothing to do with milhist and when you check the articles the image appears in you'll find a military application. You'll need to use a degree of discretion here, sometimes the difference between awarding and not award comes down to a difference of opinions, but as noted above being generous is part of this process.
• Watch for barnstar free zones. Once or twice when I've gotten to the handing out the awards phase I've found a barnstar free zone. If it happens exchange the bling for a thanks and move on.

I figure we can split the work and each get two months from the signpost and four months of candidate checking, if that is agreeable to you. If you like, I can reinstate my 2018 award page and you can look at that to see what I did there to get a sense for how the 2019 page should look as it gets built. TomStar81 (Talk) 17:15, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tom. Are we just looking for featured content? If so, a large part of it could be picked up from The Bugle. (Also all of the new A class if needed.) Given my reviewing, blurb writing and copy editing activities around FAC I would be happy to take on all of the FAs. (Listed here.) I know nothing about FPs and only a little more about FLs, so maybe they are for you. There are also, IMO, some barnstar-worthy achievements in Gt and FT - I would be happy to dig these out.

Yes please, a look at last year's would be handy; I am feeling vague as to what the finished product should look like. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored my 2018 list, its here if you want to look at it. Note that this is from the tail end of the tabulation, the start of it looks very different. Also note that this is what works best for me, you will undoubtedly figure out something that will work best for you. TomStar81 (Talk) 23:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate I saw you are working with the Military History Article Writing Contest in last month's Bungle edition. I've moved the text to the January edition because I believe it summarises more the recent news from December and the last month's edition summarises more the November news. Or is this a mistake? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:16, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's good CPA-5. Thanks for having my back. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:08, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Writer's Barnstar
		On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar, for placing second in the December 2019 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 40 points from three articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you did the source review on Teriitaria II before the article was promoted to A-class. It is now an FAC so feel free to look at the nomination. Векочел (talk) 02:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 44 reviews between October and December 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can you do it for the 2020 JNU Attack article. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 03:40, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata, done. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dey subrata, please see SerTanmay#Misc_fixes --DBigXrayᗙ 17:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feature article reviews have been introduced to the WikiCup for the first time this year. There was some reluctance by the FAC community about permitting this as they did not want the quality of FAC reviews to be lowered. As a result we adopted this rule, mentioned on the WikiCup scoring page. "You must mention in your review that you are planning to claim WikiCup points for the review." So please add such a statement to your review of Randall Davidson, and any other reviews of FACs in the future for which you wish to claim WikiCup points. Thanks. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:06, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth, a little oddly, I spotted the rule and added a statement five minutes before you posted this. Is the wording satisfactory? Apologies for having been unaware of this when I completed the review, and thanks for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:16, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording is fine. Hopefully, doing a FAR will be a step towards contestants attempting to achieve featured status for their own projects. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:33, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cwmhiraeth: a query. "My" article Battle of Lagos has just been promoted to FA. Am I in order to score it in the WikiCup? Thanks. Relatively limited work carried out on it this year - see here and here. (Rather more on the last day of 2019 - [1] .) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:04, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can score for that, because we have relaxed the rule that previously said you must have done substantial work on the article during the contest, and now it is merely that you must have done substantial work at some time.

You claimed for the GAR of History of Filipino Americans - what is the status of that review? It appears to be incomplete. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmhiraeth: Thank you. Claimed. It is incomplete. I have no idea what I was thinking. (I had possibly just been scoring at GoCE, which works differently.) Anyway, apologies and removed. Although I hope that it will be back before the end of the round. Are all newbies this difficult? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This archival cleanup by you seems mostly OK, but you marked two refs with url-status=dead which I've switched back to live, since for me they're live.

Assuming that I'm correct :), this is only a minor bug, since the only "bad" effect is that readers will be more likely to go to the archive than the live source.

Hope this feedback is useful - overall, this sort of bot-aided archiving is a critically important long-term task for Wikipedia's verifiability, so thanks for doing the work! Boud (talk) 23:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boud. It is indeed. I'll try to see if I can track down the cause. I reckon that if everyone did a bit of Wiki-gnome archiving things would be a lot sounder. So I do what I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, when I run the bot again, it now agrees that they are indeed live. Sorry 'bout that. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:24, 18 January 2020 (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: Hawkeye7 on Jim Mattis

Sir, I apologize for delay in responding. If the offer on the collaboration on the Battle of Phintias is still valid, I would like to seek your guidance. Regards, Maglorbd (talk) 06:35, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maglorbd, good to hear from you. Yes, it is open, so long as you don't mind it being a bit of a slow burner - I have rather a lot of open commitments at the moment, and seem to be getting through them slowly.

I have hard copies of Goldsworthy, Bagnall and Miles. Lazenby of course is available on line. I have recently taken Battle of Cape Ecnomus through FAC and put Battle of the Aegates up for GAN. Reading through them will give you an idea of what I have in mind for Battle of Phintias. If you are OK with my general approach let me know and I propose to then add some of the "standard" bits from the other two articles and give Battle of Phintias a good copy edit. (I do some work for GoCE.) We can then discuss which of my changes you do and don't like, and how to move it further forward. Rereading it I think that A class should be achievable and it may be reasonable to aspire higher.

What do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can I get you to cast your eyes over Reginald de Warenne with an eye to an FAC reasonably soon? Yes, that means I'll be doing reviews more also. I'm going to ask @SandyGeorgia: to look it over also... anyone else watching this page or his is welcome to copyedit, with the understanding that I'll be watching like a hawk for any distortions of the sourcing.... I realize he's a bit before your time but ... it can't be THAT difficult! Ealdgyth - Talk 00:06, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of the Aegates you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 16:01, 26 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 37, November – December 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group

Read the full newsletter

On behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of the Aegates you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of the Aegates 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 Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, I think, since your GA review was opened but never started in earnest, the best thing to do would be for you to request a G7 speedy deletion of the page. If you'd prefer, I can do a G6. I'll adjust the GA nominee template so that it uses page 2 again rather than page 3. Thanks, and sorry this one didn't work out. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset. If you could point me towards a "How to do a G7" page I will do it, or if it is easier all round for you to do a G6, that is fine by me. If you are suspecting that I haven't a Scooby what either of those are, you are correct. Yes, I picked up three GANs from the same nominator; two have gone through fine, this one we have a perfectly friendly difference of opinion over, so I threw it back for another reviewer's opinion. More detail is on the nominator's talk page. And thanks for keeping an eye on this sort of thing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, what you need to do is put the following line at the top of the page you want deleted (though the G7 can only be used when you're the sole editor of the page, as in this case): <noinclude>{{Db-g7}}</noinclude>

The instructions around speedy deletions in general are at WP:SPEEDY, with the key paragraph on how to place such a nomination being the second in the Introduction to criteria section. (You will want to use the noinclude tags regardless of what it says.) There's also the WP:G7 section much lower on the page, which explains this particular request. However, if you don't want to get into all this, I'm happy to take care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:03, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset Sadly, the instructions (like so much of Wikipedia) make absolutely no sense to me. However, I can cut and paste to the top of a page. As Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 no longer seems to exist - which I assume is the issue - I have put it at the top of Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3. I assume that the main editor will then need to renominate? Gog the Mild (talk) 18:14, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gog the Mild, sorry, I wasn't clear enough. It looks like you created the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA3 page and asked for it to be deleted at the same time. That can stand, since the page will need to be deleted now that you've created it. However, what you need to do now is also put the request at the top of the Talk:Mayaguez incident/GA2 page, which does still exist—just click on the link in this sentence and you're there. Then add the deletion request on that page. The editor does not need to renominate, and I'll take care of all the changes to the Talk:Mayaguez incident page. Thanks—and next time (or still, if you'd prefer), I'll take care of it entirely. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks BlueMoonset. It would seem that one of my over-eager minions has already done this. Clearly I need to give them some content creation to do. And thanks for sorting out the renomination side. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 2 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your image and source review at the Marshall's Elm FAC, but you might want to pop back and add your signature! Harrias ^talk 20:32, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, helpful that. More haste less speed. I thought that I would cut and paste my ACR reviews while in the midst of something else, remembered to delete the old signatures, but forgot what that implied! Gog the Mild (talk) 20:37, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, it happens. I have a worrying number of minor edits with summaries such as "ce, fix" or "oops, fix", which are just going back and sorting stupid stuff I've done. Anyway, I think I might be spending more of the next week or so reading rather than writing, as I'm getting my hands on some books to tackle one of the biggies. (User:Harrias/Edgehill). Harrias ^talk 20:41, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exciting. Which one? Nick-D once claimed that "I'm pretty sure that my most common edit summary is 'fix' (referring to fixing stuff I just added!)". Gog the Mild (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bad day, aren't I. I should have guessed - the shambolic one. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's be honest, they were pretty much all shambolic for the first 18 months. Each engagement was simply win by the least incompetent. Even Fairfax, for all his relative excellence, was pretty idiotic at times. Harrias ^talk 22:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So true. I love the neat little rectangles in dead straight lines on the map. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for for the barnstar a while back by the time. It seems to have mostly passed me by at the time, and I apparently didn't say anything! I genuinely enjoy reviewing articles, but I can get a bit carried away with it at times, so it is nice to know that it is appreciated nonetheless. Harrias ^talk 11:47, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I've nominated Tet Offensive attack on US Embassy, if you could please pick it up. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors 2019 Annual Report Our 2019 Annual Report is now ready for review. Highlights: Overview of Backlog-reduction progress (a record low backlog!); Summary of Drives, Blitzes, and the Requests page; Automated archiving of requests; Membership news and results of elections; Annual leaderboard; Plans for 2020. – Your Guild coordinators: Jonesey95, Baffle gab1978, Reidgreg, Tdslk and Twofingered Typist. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. And thank you; it's nice to be appreciated. Another couple of sessions and we should be able to wrap it up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:21, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On 9 February 2020, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of the Aegates, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of the Aegates in 241 BC ended the First Punic War after 23 years? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of the Aegates. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of the Aegates), 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, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I would like to create some kind of collaborative workspace where coordinators or members of various WikiProjects would gather and provide updates and information on what is going on at each wikiproject, i.e. regarding their latest efforts, projects, and where interested editors can get involved.

You are a coordinator at one of the most active WikiProkjects, so I wanted to get your brief input on whether you'd be interested in helping me to make this happen. I see a few possible options for making this happen, so I would like to get your input and feedback on this. which of the options below would you prefer? also, please reply to the brief questions below.

• Would you be interested in an idea of this nature?
• If so, which option below seems most feasible to you?
  • Create a new page/talk page at the existing WikiProject Council, where members of various WikiProject can gather to offer updates, information and ideas on the latest efforts at each of their own WikiProject, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Town Hall.
  • Create an entirely new WikiProject with an inclusive name such as
    • Wikipedia:WIkiProject Town Hall,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Bulletin Board,
    • Wikipedia:WikiProject Water Cooler
  • Create a new collaborative page or forum, but not as a new WIkiProject, i.e. with some name like
    • Wikipedia:Town Hall or
    • Wikipedia:Water Cooler
  • Create a new sub-page in my own userspace, such as User:Sm8900/Town Hall
  • Create a subpage at an umbrella-type WikiProject that already covers a broad topical area, such as Wikipedia:WikiProject History/Town Hall

Please feel free to let me know what you think of this idea, and please let me know your preference, regarding the options above. if you do not see any need for this idea, that is totally fine. However, I think that the majority of editors lack awareness of where the truly active editing is taking place and at which WikiProjects, and I would like to do whatever I can to help make people more aware of where the activity is, what they can do to help, and also which areas of Wikipedia offer ideas and efforts that might help them in their own editing activities. Please feel free to let me know. --Sm8900 (talk) 05:11, 9 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your adding of archive links where they are not needed adds lots of bloat and endangers the status of articles because they can be considered too large. It also makes them harder to edit. Please set the bot to only do this to deadlinks. -- BullRangifer (talk) 01:06, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bullrangifer. I am not sure what you mean by "bloat", but the only "danger" to an article is if it becomes too big, and this is measured by "readable prose size" per WP:LENGTH. Adding, or removing, archive links does not effect this either way: eg, John Bolton was 54kB after I had archived the links - in the middle of the "May need to be divided" range - and after you reverted it was, of course, still 54kB.

Archiving the web links of an article saves a copy of cited web pages as a prophylactic against link rot, more details here. I tend to do it with, among others, the "more serious" articles I come across as a part of my Wikignoming. When the links to, eg John Bolton, start to rot, which, eventually, they will, and "link permanently dead" tags start appearing, it may well be too late to recover them if they were not archived while in good health.

I do quite a bit of this sort of archiving, and if you were to look at my thanks log you would see that a lot of editors appreciate it.

Happy editing. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:27, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...do you really mean that adding links to existing content at the Internet Archive somehow "creates" a link there? How does that work?

BTW, I get "thanks" from editors after I remove the additions of unnecessary archive links. -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:35, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BullRangifer, I am not technical, so rather than my understanding, note that it says here "each URL is saved along with details with, and archive snapshots, either queried from the Wayback Machine, or collected elsewhere on Wikipedia." I dunno how it does it: black magic; herding the electrons with very small cowboys; quantum?

Sounds like that mythical beast, the average editor, doesn't know what they want. I guess we knew that. I do occasionally get reverted, from 5,273 over the past year or so; I just let it lie. (5,000+ IABot edits! Golly gosh, I need to get out more.) Gog the Mild (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not super technical either, so don't feel bad. I'm trying to learn this. I don't use the bot, and what I know is from talking to editors who do use it.

I don't think the bot actually "archives" anything, but the words you quote indicate that it saves the results of its own use in its own database of links. That way it won't search elsewhere for those links again. It searches the Internet Archive and other databases for archived pages of the links in the Wikipedia article. If they don't exist, it does nothing. It doesn't enter any links into the database at the Internet Archive. That can be done manually by anyone. I do that occasionally when I am searching the Internet Archive and find it doesn't have any saved links for the website I'm looking at. It actually offers me the option to then save the link.

If you don't force the bot to only "fix dead links", it will replace as many links here as it can find out there, including for links here that are not dead, and that's what I have reverted. Notice the wording here:

"You can use this bot yourself by browsing the history of any page, and clicking on the "Fix dead links" link in the "External tools" section at the top of the page."

My understanding is that the bot should be used to "Fix dead links", so make sure you use the bot's setting to do just that, and only that. -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, how do I download/install the bot so I can use it? -- BullRangifer (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't forgotten about this, but due to scheduling conflicts I think the earliest I'm gonna have any appreciable amount of time to work on it won't be until March. January and February have been rather challenging for me from a time management perspective, so much so that I haven't really had a chance to get enough sleep between jobs and hospital visits and jury duty. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:32, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, it sounds as if you are having a rough time of things. No worries from my end - obviously real life comes first. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 8,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE January 2020 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 16:38, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 16:11, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Drepana 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 20:40, 11 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Drepana 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 Drepana for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Drepana you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Drepana 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 17:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog the Mild,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources

• There is an ongoing discussion around changing notifications for new editors who attempt to write articles.
• A recent discussion of whether Michelin starred restraunts are notable was archived without closure.
• A resource page with links pertinent for reviewers was created this month.
• A proposal to increase the scope of G5 was withdrawn.

Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

	Heartfelt thanks
	... for your considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours! Sandy (Talk) 19:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]