User talk:Gog the Mild: Difference between revisions

File:Kelebek.gif

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

The article Battle of Cape Ecnomus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cape Ecnomus 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) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Cleanup Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 6,000 words (including rollover words) during the GOCE February 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 21:08, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	A small token of appreciation for your outstanding work on this place. - LouisAragon (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Louis. That is extremely generous of you. I am not sure what I have done that is so outstanding, but the barnstar is much appreciated nonetheless. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:52, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from the above, I see Battle of Auberoche is the TFA of Wikipedia for today, well done! I really have to step up and take some of the articles I work on to FA. Zawed (talk) 21:11, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zawed. Thanks. Yes, my first TFA. Tomorrow I am going to have to go through it sifting all the edits generated by the increase in views. Many helpful, some not so - see the thread above this one.

I was startled, having just checked your user page, to see that you had no FAs. Given the quality of your articles, this baffles me. Skimming your 18[!] A class, I think that all of them are ready for ACR. If I were you I would nominate one, say Kippenberger, and get my feet wet. I don't see that much, if any, further work is needed to prepare it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:37, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I have been a bit wary of putting an article through the FA wringer, but really should pluck up the courage to get on with it. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 05:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zawed, well yes. I was wetting myself the first time I put something in for ACR, and highly nervous about my first FAC. For what it's worth I have found ACR a more testing stage than FAC. I don't thing that most articles have gone through ACR before FAC, so ours will look relatively polished and have far fewer glaring errors. There will be the usual irritating personal opinions and odd interpretations of the MoS, but if push comes to shove the FAC coordinators are more than ready to overrule or ignore that sort of input. Just nominate one. I'll review it straight away, so you will be off to a flying start. Or if you want, I'll give one a GOCE type copy edit plus comments on where it might be picked at at FAC; there are a couple of experienced editors I do this for. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets see:

• Kind
• Cooperative
• Gives proper feedback
• GA's
• FA's
• DYK's
• Does maintenance work and performs copy edits as well.

Yep, pretty "outstanding" in my books. ;-) - LouisAragon (talk) 23:09, 3 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK, OK. Enough already. I'm blushing. I get your point. And thank you. @LouisAragon: BTW, that was a good little article I just looked at; not a lot for me to do. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:08, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome Gog.

Thanks for checking the article, appreciate it. Keep up the great work!

Cheers, - LouisAragon (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:39, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, and all who helped, for "a turning point in the Hundred Years' War which has been almost completely ignored by historians. In 1346 Prince John, the French King's son and heir, marched a "huge" army into Gascony, supported by a large siege train, five cutting edge gunpowder cannon and every military officer in the royal court. They besieged Aiguillon, "the key to Gascony". The English commander, the Earl of Lancaster, adroitly avoided battle, harassed the French communications, and repeatedly ran supplies through to the besieged town. After more than five months John abandoned the siege under direct orders from his father, who needed all the troops he could muster to face an unexpected invasion in the north by Edward III. John's army arrived two weeks after the French army of the north had been crushingly defeated at the Battle of Crecy."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Good day to you, sir! WP Spaceflight is undergoing a bit of a renaissance with more articles spawning these days. We're overtaxing our few qualified editors, however. Would you be able to assist with our FAC and GAC backlog and/or perhaps get the assistance of some of your colleagues in milhist?

Much obliged for any help you can render (and I'd leave mine alone until I can update the refs with the complete ones now updates for Solrad 1).

--Neopeius (talk) 16:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Neopeius, good to hear from you. Manned spaceflight isn't really something that interests me. (I have been keeping an eye on Solrad, but I thought that I would let things die down a bit before stepping in.) That said, always happy to lend a hand, other commitments permitting. Did you have anything specific in mind, article wise?

You could try asking on the MilHist Talk Page. If you do I would suggest that you specify two or three articles WP SpFl would like a hand with, and/or suggest that there may be some pay back at some time in the future. I suspect that many members are likely to be inward looking, note that there are already a good number of WP Sp Fl articles in their queue (see the top of the talk page) and that WP MH is already overloaded, and so be less than sympathetic. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Gog! I replied, but it didn't take. I also am not much interested in human spaceflight, although I do plan to work on Gemini a bit. In a few days, I plan to update the citations for the SOLRAD series, once I'm done upgrading SOLRAD 1 for the featured review. Once that happens, I'd appreciate help with GAs, if you can spare any time. And, of course, I'm always happy to return favors. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: That sounds good to me. Let me know when Solrad 1 is done and I'll do a review. When you have anything else ready, give me a shout. If I need a hand with something I'll let you know. Obviously, we won't be making it easy on each other re the content of those reviews. I think that you got a feel for how I review with SolRad 1. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am looking forward to it. I wrote the others with that experience in mind! --Neopeius (talk) 23:26, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SOLRAD 2 and SOLRAD 3 are ready for G.A. review. :) --Neopeius (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Neopeius: I will assess SOLRAD 2. IMO it would be helpful to you to get input from another assessor, so I will leave SOLRAD 3. (At least for now.) It may take me a few days to get it under weigh. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:37, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's all much of a muchness. SOLRADS 1-4B were part of the same program, and I've build their pages modularly with the same citations. (i.e. if one is a GA, they probably all are now, barring minor prose quibbles). --Neopeius (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I noticed. That is why it will be interesting to see how different assessors pick up on different issues - or don't. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:44, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gog, I appreciate that the ACR source review of this article has been a bit of a "hospital pass", but am wondering if you could take another look and decide about whether to support or oppose on sourcing. The referencing is rather non-standard, there are some MOS issues, and there looks to be a few things outstanding, but I'm not sure whether you consider them to be major or minor, or even how many of them are outstanding. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Well, if I didn't have a sense of humour, I shouldn't have volunteered. I have been keeping an eye on this, hoping that it would improve. I would appreciate someone glancing over my shoulder on this and will have no qualms about being contradicted on anything I write. Now done. I have tried to keep it short, I don't see that there is much to be gained by rehearsing each and every problem I have noticed. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: You may be interested in this related thread - User talk:Cplakidas#Input appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:36, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild. Just checking to see if you have seen the comments at Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1. It looks like it is close to passing. AIRcorn (talk) 22:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Aircorn: Oops. You know, I had completely forgotten about it. I will try to wrap it up tomorrow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:22, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Just trying to keep these things moving. It is great when editors can get back to them, a lot seem to get abandoned. AIRcorn (talk) 22:24, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really. I am amazed. I haven't abandoned one yet. I got bogged down in ACRs and FACs and lost track of it. I'll get on to it. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that. I have done the same when real life suddenly gets in the way or you get a surprise early review of a GA. To be fair most abandoned ones are from the same reviewers. It seems they take a few on and then suddenly stop editing. I have just taken over seven and marked another three that I will get onto in the next little while if no one beats me to it. Another editor claimed 11 and then disappeared (they were eventually deleted) Maybe "a lot" is an exaggeration, but either way it is great to see quick responses to my queries. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 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 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

A barnstar for you!

	The Citation Barnstar
	58 sources whew lad talk) 20:20, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

Why, thankee kindly

puggo. Much appreciated. I try to keep Wikipedia neat and tidy. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Another B-star for you

		The Original Barnstar
		This barnstar is for Wiki-gnoming it all over the place! GenQuest "Talk to Me" 23:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@GenQuest: What a pleasant surprise. It seems to be my day for barnstars. Many thanks. I do like to do a bit of Wiki-gnoming of an evening. It is nice that it is appreciated.

PS. Any reason for it being 50px rather than the more normal 100px? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:18, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I stumbled across what I think was one of the books I had in the back of my mind in the Razing of Friesoythe article's ACR today. I've added material from it discussing Allied retaliation policies, which form part of its brief discussion of Friesoythe. The book is slightly frustrating in that it's vague about the frequency of such retaliations, noting that they were uncommon but then focusing on those which occurred (something I find is a frequent problem in this kind of revisionist work by academics, especially during the 1990s when they were rather naive about how their work would be used by the far right). Let me know what you think. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick and apologies for the late response; with one thing and another I missed this. The Briddiscombe source is excellent and is just what the article was missing. On a first skim it seems to sit well within the article - thank you. I well remember your comment that some contextualisation would be helpful, and my frustration as to whether such a thing even existed in a RS. This was my first A class article and I think that the nagging thought that I hadn't put the event in a proper context was what stopped me from ever nominating it for FA.

I shall copy edit, read Briddiscombe and have a look as to whether the whole article needs reorganising in the light of the new material. It may yet make it to FA. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 12 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Cape Ecnomus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of Cape Ecnomus in 256 BC was probably the largest naval battle ever? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Cape Ecnomus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Cape Ecnomus), 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, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors March 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the March newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since December 2018. All being well, we're planning to issue these quarterly in 2019, balancing the need to communicate widely with the avoidance of filling up talk pages. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. January Drive: Thanks to everyone for the splendid work in January's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from all of the articles tagged in our original target months of June, July and August 2018, and by 24 January we ran out of articles. After adding September, we finished the month with 8 target articles remaining and 842 left in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 48 requests for copyedit in January. Of the 31 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the February Blitz. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 32 copyedits, including 15 requests. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 23:39, 18 March 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 108 requests since 1 January and the backlog stands at 851 articles. March Drive: The month-long March drive is now underway; the target months are October and November 2018. Awards will be given to everyone who copyedits at least one article from the backlog. Sign up here! Election reminder: It may only be March but don't forget our mid-year Election of Coordinators opens for nominations on 1 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Vanstar
		Please accept this Vanstar for conspicuous gallantry in the field of Spaceflight! --Neopeius (talk) 17:30, 21 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog I don't wanna disturb you but I just realised that your A-class of the Battle of Cape Ecnomus nomination is already a month dead. Just curious when you will continue the nomination? If I disturb you then sorry for disturbing you just curious when you will response. Cheers mate. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5. Thanks for the reminder. I think that I have got involved with other things and taken my eye off that. I will get onto it over the next few days. ( I am away at the moment, so there may be a delay.) Thanks again for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Great to hear, in the meantime (when you are gone) I will have a review in the article. And don't worry I know some people are busy with other articles like an example I reviewed an article about the French Bretagne ship by Sturm and PB in end December but one of them reponse at the end of January this year I waited more than a month just for one response. Ah but if you are busy then you'd forgot some articles anyway have a nice day. Cheers mate. CPA-5 (talk) 18:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on the articles promotion. You will see I have finished off my review. You appear to have missed my last (much earlier) comment per:

By this time Douglas had marched south to Bamburgh, perhaps hoping for a repeat of the events of 1319, when Edward II had broken off a siege of Berwick after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying, and devastated Yorkshire. Whatever concerns Edward III had for his queen, he knew that Bamburgh could easily withstand a siege. The Scots did not have the time to construct the kind of equipment that would be necessary to take the fortress by assault. The Scots devastated the countryside but Edward III ignored this.

I have broken this sentence down but still have some concerns that I can't resolve myself. "Perhaps hoping" is speculative and comes under words-to-watch unless it is attributed? That "he knew" is opinion expressed in a wiki voice. Again, I think it should be attributed. That Edward "ignored this", is similar but not of the same import (ie of marginal concern).

English casualties were reported as fourteen; some chronicles give a lower figure of seven.[59][60] Two sources are cited but "some" is both imprecise and more than one, and there are guidelines re words-to-watch, imprecision in writing and being specific in attribution. There are lots of ways to address this (including a footnote) but it depends on who said what - who says fourteen and who says some chronicles? With this info, I could be more forward with a course.

Hope these points are sufficiently clear. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:17, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinderella157, good to hear from you again. Apologies for missing one of your suggestions, it wasn't deliberate. If I hadn't liked it I would have said so. I have rewritten to try and clarify things and have attempted to cite each sentence rather than group the cites at the end of the paragraph. "hoped" is the word used in the source (a very reliable one).

"he knew": there is a source which explicitly says this, and it is implicit in all accounts, but I agree that it reads as unencyclopdic, so have reworded.

"ignored": I have referenced the sentence directly to two sources. One uses "ignored", the other "refused to be drawn".

"some chronicles": Nicholson, the only specific treatment of the siege, and to whom I have cited the statement states "some chroniclers thought …". He does not specify the number nor directly cite it. I could rephrase it as "one chronicle give a lower figure of seven and another nine", citing to Nicholson's footnotes; but IMO that would be OR - the source just states "some". ("If English chroniclers were to be believed … the loss reputedly limited to one knight, one esquire and twelve footman. But some chroniclers thought these English casualties excessively large and pruned them to seven footmen...") Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at that, I suggest: English casualties were reported as fourteen;[61][62] however, Nicholson, observes that some chronicles have given lesser figures as low as seven.[62] Note, Nicholson has already been introduced more fully.

I am not happy with the proposed wording and do not see the point. I am not starting the sentence with "Nicholson observes that English casualties were reported as fourteen", which seems to me to be directly comparable.

On "perhaps hoped", the issue is with "perhaps" if the author being cited did not say as much. I think, in such a case of "He knew" and "hoped", it is better to more directly attribute these to Nicholson as an indirect quote. I suggest:

By this time Douglas had marched south to Bamburgh. Nicholson, suggests [concudes/reports - your choice] that Douglas hoped for a repeat of the events of 1319.[ref] In that year, Edward II had broken off a siege of Berwick after a Scottish army had advanced on York, where his queen was staying, and devastated Yorkshire. Whatever concerns Edward III had for his queen, Nicholson observes that Edward knew that Bamburgh could easily withstand a siege.[ref] [While] The Scots did not have the time to construct the kind of equipment that would be necessary to take the fortress by assault. The Scots devastated the countryside but Edward III ignored [was not diverted by] this.

Er, given your first sentence and that I removed "perhaps", I am not sure why you feel that further amendments are necessary. (I assume that that is your position, as opposed to their being aesthetically or stylistically desirable.) See my response above. Is it Wikipedia policy that whenever text is drawn from a source that the author(s) be mentioned in line?

Underlined text has possible variations. I prefer our earlier version (I only cut the long sentence in two) to your recent edit. The more recent edit seems "clunky". As I said before, any issue with "ignored" is marginal. I only raised it because it fell with the rest but it can, itself, be ignored. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:03, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Cinderella157. I have held off on your points immediately above, which I am minded to agree with, until we have thrashed out the attribution issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My turn to miss your last post but one - apologies. :) "Hoped" and "knew" are opinion. They fall close to editorialising - which was my original comment. It is acceptable to use editorial phrases/words to watch if it is clear that they are attributed to another and not being used in the wiki voice. Indirectly quoting and attributing this to Nicholson inline makes it clear that this is Nicholson's opinion and not wiki synthesis - that any speculation/mind reading is not wiki's. You might also see Template:Attribution needed. Alternatively, substitute "hoped": Douglas intended to repeat the events ... Similarly, remove "knew": Bamburgh was well fortified and provisioned. (If this was indeed the case and the reason for Edwards confidence). But I am trying to propose only minimal changes. Hope this clarifies the rationale for my concerns. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) 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 Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:34, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The (modern) Guild of Copy Editors Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copy edits totaling over 40,000 words (including bonus and rollover words) during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Total Articles, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 21 articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 3rd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting three long articles during the GOCE March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, Battle of Bergerac, and Battle of Caen (1346) Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Civility Barnstar

You may have to take it away from me... :) --Neopeius (talk) 01:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coast Guard Star
		I hereby award you the Coast Guard Star for your rescue of dead links in the Wikipedia article United States Coast Guard. These links were lost as a result of the Coast Guard Historian's Office conversion to Department of Defense website protocols. I also wish recognize your efforts in rescuing dead links in the Wikipedia article United States Armed Forces that you edited the same day. For your exceptional efforts, I award you the Coast Guard Star. Thank you and Semper Paratus! Cuprum17 (talk) 18:23, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cuprum17, that is extremely kind of you. It is pleasing that my humble Wiki-gnome efforts have received some recognition. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:28, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As a fellow Wiki-Gnome I understand completely! It can be a largely unappreciated effort at times...Cuprum17 (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

See Gog the ship SMS Lothringen got promoted. I told you everything would be fine. As long you believe in your felow wikipedians then everything would be okay. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: You are, as usual, quite right. I should trust more. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:25, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Well Gog it wasn't really a wrong decision of yours. It was more an instinct feeling than a choice of the brain. It thanks to you that the article got promoted. So I'd say good job. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 08:54, 18 April 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 April 2019 Copy Editing Blitz. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 02:06, 23 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

The second round of the 2019 WikiCup has now finished. Contestants needed to scored 32 points to advance into round 3. Our top four scorers in round 2 all scored over 400 points and were:

• Cas Liber (1210), our winner in 2016, with two featured articles and three DYKs. He also made good use of the bonus points available, more than doubling his score by choosing appropriate articles to work on.
• Kosack (750), last year's runner up, with an FA, a GA, two FLs, and five DYKs.
• Adam Cuerden (480), a WikiCup veteran, with 16 featured pictures, mostly restorations.
• Zwerg Nase (461), a seasoned competitor, with a FA, a GA and an ITN item.

Other notable performances were put in by Barkeep49 with six GAs, Ceranthor, Lee Vilenski, and Canada Hky, each with seven GARs, and MPJ-DK with a seven item GT.

So far contestants have achieved nine featured articles between them and a splendid 80 good articles. Commendably, 227 GARs have been completed during the course of the 2019 WikiCup, so the backlog of articles awaiting GA review has been reduced as a result of contestants' activities. The judges are pleased with the thorough GARs that are being performed, and have hardly had to reject any. As we enter the third round, remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 14 days of "earning" them.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on

]

For your steady production of quality content

		The Feather Barnstar
		As a small token of appreciation for your continued work on this encyclopedia, particularly expanding our One Hundred Years' War coverage, I grant you the Feather Barnstar. May it give you a small burst of inspiration to carry on slaying the beast. RetiredDuke (talk) 16:12, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

@RetiredDuke: This is extremely kind of you. It is always good to have one's input appreciated, and this does, indeed, inspire me to step once more into the breach. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:38, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NOT run IABot with the option Archive non-dead sources (or some option like that) checked on. ∯WBG^converse 10:34, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing article. If you're ready to pass the article, don't forget to update the talk page according to Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Passing, so that the bots will trigger the formalities. Just a reminder so that it won't slip your attention. Thank you! HaEr48 (talk) 16:56, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HaEr48: I am quite certain that I did that. But you are correct, it's not showing; I must have forgotten to click "Publish" , so thanks for the reminder. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I understand, that has happened to me a few times too HaEr48 (talk) 17:11, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gog:

I've finished the copy edit you requested of the article Donner Party. I think it's ready for its appearance as TFY.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 22:05, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Twofingered Typist and thanks. I am not sure how I got talked into pre-checking the TFAs, but it is good to know that a safe pair of hands is available when I get out of my depth. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:53, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Happy to help! Cheers - Twofingered Typist (talk) 12:02, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog. Is there anything left for me to do at

Hi Louis. So far as I can see, no. You are just waiting for two more reviewers and a source review. If needed I shall do one of them.

No pressure, but if you fancy reviewing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Cape Ecnomus I would be grateful.

Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:22, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing.[1] - LouisAragon (talk) 18:33, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, just picked up that there is a discrepancy in dates in the article. 3 August is listed in text in lead as end of Chevauchée, however in infobox 28 September is shown. Can you check which is correct? Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:03, 8 May 2019 (UTC)3 August 1347[reply]

@Newm30: Well spotted. Thank you. One is the date Calais fell; the other the date of the truce which ended hostilities. I have gone with the first of these. Does that seem reasonable? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 3 August would be the appropriate date used as the capitulation of Calais effectively ended the campaign from an English perspective I assume. Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:15, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

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) 06:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The article

Hi Gog. Hope, all is well. If you are fine, can you copy edit this stub-sized draft.? (Especially 'Content and Style' section needs paraphrasing for style). Feel free to trim anything. --Gazal world (talk) 14:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog. FYI, I requested on GOCE for copy editing. --Gazal world (talk) 13:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, I am just reading while in hospital (routine surgery) and found on via article Genoese crossbowmen that the French lines of Genoese crossbowmen mercenaries at the Battle of Crécy were led by Ottone Doria and Carlo Grimaldi. Not sure if that is shown in article? Regards Newm30 (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. (I deleted it from the infobox as unsourced.) What is the source?

I hope that everything runs smoothly while you are in. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gog, the following seems to identify him https://books.google.com.au/books?id=qIMlDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA52&lpg=PA52&dq=Ottone+Doria&source=bl&ots=1CfAwXgIGA&sig=ACfU3U2DYoox2nCTHHbeoTFmfmF3YN1ZKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjvu_bK7I7iAhVm73MBHeY_A4QQ6AEwD3oECAUQAQ, I just can't read page number as phone won't let me zoom in. Surgery went well and feel better than previous. Regards Newm30 (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have found a RS to support that, and it also gave some other useful information.

Trying to spend today fielding comments on the various articles I have in for assessment, but dealing with the image queries is frustrating.

I hope that you are out of there and back on form soon.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G’day Gog, feeling a bit sore after the surgery but will keep plugging away. Was just wondering whether Edward Balliol should be listed as a commander in the English column either under English banner or Disinherited banner? I’m not sure what arms (heraldry) he would hold as the “alternate” King of Scotland. I will check if McAndrew says anything about his seal during this time. Regards Newm30 (talk) 12:22, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Newm30: Expected soreness? Or anything to worry about?

Very good point. He was in sole charge of the siege for a couple of months, so he should.

So far as he was concerned, he was the legitimate king, so I imagine that his arms should be the normal Scottish ones.

Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Expected pain after repairs to hernia. Better though than repair done 15 years ago where large incision was made rather than key hole.

Balliol’s 1333 seal has him seated with the arms of King of Scotland on the left and Balliol arms on the right. So I would agree that the arms of king of Scotland to be used. This then brings about whether arms of Scots commanders should be changed to their personal arms. Regards Newm30 (talk) 13:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, my opinion would be not. They weren't fighting in a personal capacity, but as representatives of the Scottish Crown. It would have been a Scottish standard flying over Berwick. And having the same arms on both sides of an infobox is not unusual - eg civil wars. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article, unfortunately I have leaking roof problem, amongst other things, so cannot invest the time to address the points. Urselius (talk) 18:21, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Urselius. Not to worry, I hope that you get your roof sorted out. As and when you are able to repost the nomination give me a ping and if I can I will relook at it. Obviously, if by then you had had a look at my previous comments it would be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:50, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Siege of Calais (1346–1347) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Calais (1346–1347) 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) 00:22, 11 May 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 on Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

The copy edit your requested for History of Aston Villa F.C. (1961–present) before its TFA appearance has been completed.

I had to expand the lede as almost a decade of the team's history was not mentioned in it. I also got rid of all the citations in the lede and made sure all of its the text was also in the body of the article.

It seems in good shape to me at this point, but I welcome any comments.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 18:20, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks TfT, much appreciated. I shall run an eye over it. At first glance it looks like your usual sterling work. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:23, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TfT. I have just been through properly. A very impressive job. I trimmed the lead a little, but found nothing else to do. Thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:53, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was stupid of me not to check the names of the two current owners! Lesson learned. :-) Twofingered Typist (talk) 19:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Twofingered Typist, it helps if you live in the UK, less that 50 miles from Villa's ground. The names aren't exactly household, but they rang bells. Anyway, it made my day, picking up something that you had missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:45, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:02, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, that makes sense. I'd wanted to make sure that I contacted all the high-contribution editors for the article so as not to exclude anyone who did a lot of work on it. Now that I double-check with the whocolor tool I see what you're saying. Rather an oversight on my part given the array of FAs and GAs you've worked on in a far more extensive manner, and are within-scope of what the WikiJournal of Humanities tackles. Do you have any favourites that you've worked on? The articles on the Siege of Berwick (1333), Battle of Neville's Cross, Battle of Auberoche, or Battle of Bergerac are possibilities, but that's only based on articles that you've already worked on extensively, rather than new ones you might be interested in doing, so it's certainly only a suggestion. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 00:10, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: I hope that you will bear with me if I am overquestioning. If I become tiresome, please don't hesitate to say. Is there any reason why you picked those four articles? My preference would be for one of Gascon campaign of 1345, Siege of Aiguillon or Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346; ideally the first or the last. There is very little on any in the literature, so they would hopefully actually add some utility by being more widely published. (My hesitation over Siege of Aiguillon is due to its rather heavy reliance on a single source - Sumption.) Each would need some further work, but not, I think, too much. All three were created in the past seven months; each has been nominated by me for GA, AC, and FA; each achieved FA in the past three months; my "authorship" for two is over 97% and for the third is 89%.

If none of these is suitable then Razing of Friesoythe which I created 15 months ago has been an A class for a while and would need little work to get it ready for FAC. The most serious war crime committed by the Canadian army during WW2, it has had, so far as I can discover, no seperate treatment in the literature. Or currently coming up through ACR is Battle of Cape Ecnomus from 256 BC, it should be a FA before too long. By some accounts the largest naval battle of all time by the number of combatants involved. The only seperate treatment it has received during the past century is this from 1985.

If you feel that one of these might be suitable then I suspect that I may have some follow up questions, but for now I will leave things with you.

Gog the Mild (talk) 22:48, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article

]

Award deserved

		The Writer's Barnstar
		Gog, I hereby grant you this award for your efforts in expanding the articles for the Hundred Years' War (1337–1360). Newm30 (talk) 01:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply ]

@

Battle of Crecy

.

And thank you for your contributions to

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346)

, very much a team effort. Don't forget that you are now entitled to a good article infobox  :

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) to good article status .

PS I hope that you are keeping well(er than when last we communicated).

Gog the Mild (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and yes I am now recovering well after surgery. Appreciation should always be given when deserved. As an editor it is appreciated when we do get awards or a simple thanks for the efforts we put in to improve the knowledge base on Wikipedia. I look forward to your future endeavours. Regards Newm30 (talk) 10:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi
You did an edit on this file I created. How can you change the information I have put there as you don't know what I have used or who has helped me.
Please revert that edit and then please confirm that to me, thanks. --Goran tek-en (talk) 15:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goran tek-en. Reverted. Under "Information from" you had listed User:Newm30 (as well as themaparchive.com) and linked to their user page. I asked them where they had obtained their supplementary information and added it, at the request of an A class reviewer. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks but you also removed that I used OSM and I got information from Newm30. That was my concern. --Goran tek-en (talk) 17:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: Ah. Understood. Relooking at the diff I seem to have made a right Horlicks of things, no wonder you were annoyed. If you look at the thread immediately above this one you will see that I get on well with Newm30, and the last think I would deliberately do is remove a mention of him from a map which he was basically commissioning for my articles.

Please accept my humble apologies for inadvertently winding you up. As this map is a key part of articles which I have so far nominated for four GAs, four A classes and three FAs; and hope to include in six FAs in total, I owe you a lot of thanks and am annoyed with myself that instead I have given you the impression that I am a vandal. I shall be more careful in future. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, all is well, we are all humans. So many of you article writers have incredible knowledge of subjects I didn't even knew existed. Creating maps for you guys is great, glad I can help with my part. --Goran tek-en (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Goran tek-en: Thanks for that, and thanks for the forgiving attitude; appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia Library

Books & Bytes
Issue 33, March – April 2019

• #1Lib1Ref
• Wikimedia and Libraries User Group update
• Global branches update
• Bytes in brief

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:41, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Gog the Mild, I was wondering if your generous offer to review or copy edit an article of mine still stands? In case you are interested, I just nominated

Hi Jens. Of course. A couple of queries:

1. Do you mind if I copy edit it first? I do a fair bit of this for GOCE, including for pre-FA checks, so I do know what I am doing.

2. Do you what me to simply assess this against the GA standards? Or for GA plus pointers for FA? Or, more or less, give it a FA level going over during my GA assessment?

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:37, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great, thanks! Yes, a copy edit would be more than welcome if you have the time (I am not a native speaker). And well, a FA level going over with GA assessment would for sure be the best – but again, it depends on your time! Thanks again, I really appreciate this. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jens, no problem. It is actually easier for me to copy edit as I go, rather than flag every minor thing up in writing at GAN. Assessing at a higher standard now will save me time when I go through it again at FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds great! Looking forward to your improvements/comments. --Jens Lallensack (talk) 20:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having addressed most if not all of your recommendations, and added some new material, I have re-nominated the article. Urselius (talk) 19:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Urselius: Hi, I was going to have a look at this, but note that you have made nearly 100 edits in the 10 days since you nominated it. Once the article stabilises give me a ping, and if I have the time I will look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:19, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Hi, I think I have exhausted my sources now. Any further edits will just be minor stylistic tinkerings. Cheers, Urselius (talk) 18:54, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon, Gog. When reviewing an FAC recently (can't recall which) I noticed that you had done the image review. I am short of one for my current FAC, despite a request through the usual channels, and if you are free and disposed to do the review I should be most grateful. Quite understand if not, of course. Tim riley talk 17:03, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Tim riley: I am usually extremely picky what I image review, and at that frequently give up part way through. My knowledge of both the PD requirements and the wiki-procedures is shaky. That said, I think that I can navigate my way around your FAC. Done. Only one issue. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:22, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I say! That was quick. Thank you so much! I do the occasional source review but have never tried my hand at image reviewing: too hard for me! I thought that Swedish image looked suspect, but one is always reluctant to blitz images posted by earlier editors. Now gone. Warmest thanks, Tim riley talk 18:06, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	For writing and copyediting Gujarati literature related articles such as Mansukhram Tripathi. Nizil (talk) 17:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nizil, thank you very much, I am honoured. I just do a bit of polishing for the editors who do the hard work, but nevertheless, it always gives me a warm glow when this is appreciated. So please accept my appreciation for your thoughtfulness. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article

criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

I humbly ask if you would consider reviewing one of my two GANs? My DYK target date is July 1, and I'd like to have one of the GANs pass before I make the DYK nom. Not that I'm asking you to pass a GAN, but to give it an honest review. No doubt I will need all manner of help to get things ready. (Of the other articles for a six-hook DYK, three have expansions prepped and another I need to assemble.) The GANs are Poutine (food and drink GAN, has been copy edited) and Made in Canada (tv show, has not been copy edited). If you don't have time next week, please let me know and I'll pester someone else. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:31, June 1, 2019 (UTC)

I will make the time. Assessment of Poutine is underway. It sounds like an improved version of one of my favourite treats, although I have not read it properly yet. I am a little hesitant about the other - I normally stay away from anything involving moving pictures, as I don't really have a grasp of the specialist requirements. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:12, 1 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello:

I've finished my copy edit of the upcoming TFA History of aluminium.

Please let me know if you have any concerns.

Regards,

Twofingered Typist (talk) 14:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Twofingered Typist: Thank you. That is excellent. There was less work needed on the TFAs for this month, but I wanted a quality scrutiny for this one. Which is what it got. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 2 June 2019 (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 May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 4 long articles during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 2nd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 10,858 words – during the GOCE May 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Tdslk (talk) 21:40, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know your adding of archived sources is being discussed here. You may want to join us and explain your reasoning. - Ahunt (talk) 12:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Gog. Just wondering if Sumption goes into any detail in relation to the "chevauchée" by Edward III into Scotland, known as Burnt Candlemas in Lothian, Scotland in 1356. This was undertaken after the sacking of Berwick and unsuccessful siege of Berwick Castle by the Scottish in 1355. Edward III demanded that Edward Balliol renounce his right to the Scottish kingship before the chevauchée. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Newm30. I noticed that red link on my to do list go blue a few weeks ago. Yes, he does. Would you like me to expand the article? There is also a (very) little in Ormrod's Edward III. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gog, if you could expand Burnt Candlemas article that would be great, as my computer and books are packed up due to house renovations. I was disappointed with move of Chevauchee of Edward III that you are in middle of working on too. I was looking at starting basic level article for 1339 chevauchee, as well as dab article for Edward”s chevauchees. Might bring laptop home from work and have a crack at it tonight. Regards Newm30 (talk) 20:54, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gog, just a reminder when you add new entries to

@

Gonzo fan2007: Whoops. Thank you. Will do. Gog the Mild (talk) 08:47, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

On 9 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Chevauchée of Edward III, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when the English army invaded France in 1346 they burnt a 40-mile-wide (64 km) swath of destruction to within 2 miles (3 km) of Paris? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Chevauchée of Edward III), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Battle of Crécy you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Crécy for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goran tek-en. I wonder if you can help me in formatting a request for a map for a FAC properly? (I had the same request up previously, but made such a mess of it that no one at Maps could understand what I was asking for.) The "standard" map[s] for the Battle of Cape Ecnomus is this:

However it is inaccurate. I could describe the changes needed, or the three maps above could be replaced with the three similar ones on this web site.

My problem is that I do not know how to get the first map to show on the map requests page, and so I can't make clear what I would like. I imagine that it is simple once you know how, but I don't. If you could share with me how to do this, I would be grateful.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors June 2019 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June newsletter, a brief update of Guild activities since March 2019. You can unsubscribe from our mailings at any time; see below. Election time: Nomination of candidates in our mid-year Election of Coordinators opened on 1 June, and voting will take place from 16 June. Coordinators normally serve a six-month term and are elected on an approval basis. Self-nominations are welcome. If you've thought of helping out at the Guild, or know of another editor who would make a good coordinator, please consider standing for election or nominating them here. June Blitz: Our June blitz will soon be upon us; it will begin at 00:01 on 16 June (UTC) and will close at 23:59 on 22 June (UTC). The themes are "nature and the environment" and all requests. March Drive: Thanks to everyone for their work in March's Backlog Elimination Drive. We removed copyedit tags from 182 of the articles tagged in our original target months October and November 2018, and the month finished with 64 target articles remaining from November and 811 in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 22 requests for copyedit in March; the month ended with 34 requests pending. Of the 32 people who signed up for this drive, 24 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. April Blitz: Thanks to everyone who participated in the April Blitz; the blitz ran from 14 to 20 April (UTC) inclusive and the themes were Sports and Entertainment. Of the 15 people who signed up, 13 copyedited at least one article. Participants claimed 60 copyedits. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Progress report: As of 04:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 267 requests since 1 January. The backlog of tagged articles stands at 605 articles. May Drive: During the May Backlog Elimination Drive, Guild copy-editors removed copyedit tags from 191 of the 192 articles tagged in our original target months of November and December 2018, and January 2019 was added on 22 May. We finished the month with 81 target articles remaining and a record low of 598 articles in the backlog. GOCE copyeditors also completed 24 requests for copyedit during the May drive, and the month ended with 35 requests pending. Of the 26 people who signed up for this drive, 21 copyedited at least one article. Final results, including barnstars awarded, are available here. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators Miniapolis, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Reidgreg and Tdslk. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 19:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Military history A-Class medal
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal for Battle of Blanchetaque, Siege of Calais (1346–1347), and Battle of Cape Ecnomus Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 14 June 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: Nick-D looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

Hi there, Gog. I think it is possible you made some kind of confusion when submiting your latest topic for consideration. So. You created a featured topic proposal, but submitted under "Good Topics" here and then put notices on the articles' talk pages saying it's a good topic candidate. But it was submited as featured, that why the link is red on the talk pages. I would fix it myself, but I didn't want to overstep. Cheers, RetiredDuke (talk) 21:36, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: Hi. I am very far from expert at this, so any and all advice is welcome. However, the topic, while down as {{Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Chevauchée of Edward III of 1346 /archive1}} is exactly the same as all other GTCs. So I am stumped. I would be grateful if you could fix it and point me towards the diff, so that I will know for next time. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey; I'm also not knowledgeable about WP Topics, I think I just stumbled across a small inconsistency in the template in that it doesn't link directly to the nomination when said nomination is occurring. I thought you might had made a small mistake but now I see that when the topic is promoted as featured the delegate eventually solves the issue, archiving the discussion in the process. Sorry to bother you with the issue, I was just curious. Good luck with the nomination, it's some impressive work. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@RetiredDuke: Thanks. And while checking everything I did discover that I had missed tagging the main GT article, so it was as well you had me checking things; so thanks for that too. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

On 15 June 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Calais (1346–1347), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the largest English army to serve overseas prior to 1600 was gathered at the Siege of Calais in 1347? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Calais (1346–1347). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Calais (1346–1347)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if you could run your archiving bot on the

Hi

Femke Nijsse. The bot seems to be down. As soon as it is working again I will do that. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Okay, thanks :).

talk) 11:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I see you so far managed to rescue one dead link (which has been undone after a subsequent copyright violation reversal :( ). Most of the Knoxville News Sentinel sources point get redirected towards the home page for me. Do you know whether it's possible to get archived pages for those?

talk) 13:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

This is to let you know that the

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors up to the day of this TFA.

I'm unlikely to run your Caen TFARP for 26 July this time. Although we have recently relaxed the rules to allow two TFAs in a month by the same FA nominator, they need to be on unrelated topics, such as a bird and a constellation (to give a recent example). Two medieval battles in a week is too much, cheers Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimfbleak Thanks for that. I will run an eye over it, although I have unofficial responsibility to check all TFAs copy edit-wise.

I hadn't realised that it was even theoretically possible to have too many medieval battles. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:09, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Wikipedia Editor Retention Project )

Gog the Mild displays his multi-faceted nature as a

Chevauchée of Edward III (1346) (GA), Gascon campaign of 1345 (FA), Bate of Bergerac (FA) or Siege of Berwick (1333)

(FA). In his effort "...to keep Wikipedia neat and tidy" Gog often rescues sources and tags dead links within Wikipedia articles. He considers himself a blunt talker but only so that he can "move on" to the next task.

{{User:UBX/EoTWBox}}

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 19:24, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]