User talk:Gog the Mild

W:Wikipedian for 10 years, 5 months and 11 days

Guidance

Old

Refs

Templates

DYNs

GAs

To Do List

Awards

Your GA nomination of Battle of Winchelsea

The article Battle of Winchelsea you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Winchelsea 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 LeGabrie -- LeGabrie (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

A-class congratulations

Greetings Gog, as one of the supporters of the page Siege of Berwick (1333). Which passed the A-class review yesterday, so that is why I wanna tell you now congrats, for passing your page and your work on it. It deserves an A-class. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 19:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks very much, CPA-5! ——SerialNumber54129 19:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CPA-5, it is always nice when your work is appreciated. And SN54129 is quite right, they put in a very hefty addition to the article shortly after I created it and deserve a hefty share of the congrats. And thank you for your helpful assessment. Next stop is FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Just joshing with you Gog :) I won't mention it again! ——SerialNumber54129 04:19, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

• Let's hope it'd get FA-class. If you need me in any kinda review, just let me know. Also good luck (when the time is ready) with the page. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:42, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks CPA-5, I appreciate the offer. As soon as I have anything which I think that you could assess I shall ping you. Siege of Berwick (1333) is going into FAC as soon a my present, first [!] candidate is passed or failed. You contributed to it at ACR - Battle of Neville's Cross. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:31, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

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 Razing of Friesoythe, Battle of Neville's Cross, and Siege of Berwick (1333). MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Battle of

Hi Gog the Mild. I was wondering whether you can assist me in determining whether Battle of Saintes (1 April) and Battle of Taillebourg (1351) (8 April) are two separate battles or are they being conflated? They appear to both result in Guy II de Nesle being captured. He would have had two large ransoms within a short period of time. Apparently after Saintes, Guy II de Nesle was ransomed by Phillip IV. This would only leave a few days before the other battle of Taillebourg. Regards Newm30 (talk) 04:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @Newm30: Gog will confirm this (or otherwise!), but I think you are correct in suspecting a conflation; or, rather, that the battle we call Taillebourg is actually a duplication of that of Saintes.See: Sumption II (1999), 132–133; Wagner, Enc. HYW (2006), 275. Etc. Probably because although its named after Saintes, both the proximity of the town, and the involvement of the garrison, of Taillebourg have perhaps over-emphasised the latter's role.

Interestingly— WP:OR alert!—a reason for the confusion may stem from the fact that in 1242, there were indeed two discrete battles, Taillebourg, and the following day, Saintes, on 21/22 July. Ironically, unlike with the 1351 articles(s), we have only one article to cover both of the earlier battles. Hope this helps! Now for the return of the talk page, just like Gascony, to its rightful owner's possession :) ——SerialNumber54129 04:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newm30. Serial Number 54129 is really your go to person for that sort of query, I just dabble in the period. And they seem to have summed it up nicely above. It does seem improbable that de Nesle was paroled, raised and paid his ransom, and was back in the fray all within a week doesn't it. I suspect different chroniclers, both agreeing which day of the week it happened on, but not which week. Yes, that's OR; but SN54129's insightful sounding OR has inspired me. Anyway, it seems certain that there was only one battle, at least in 1351. Sumption (my 1999 edition has it on p. 77) places this on 1 April, but this 2011 edition does have it on pp. 132–33. If you follow the link I think that you will find some additional material and references you could use to (further) expand the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:08, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: Oman (1998) [1924] p. 59,makes a passing reference to "700 [longbow]men... the flower of the English infantry" taking part. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I have also found a map of Gascon campaign of 1345, that maybe able to be redrawn at Commons. I have a request there presently and pending result of the 1345 campaign map to be created. Regards Newm30 (talk) 09:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: That would be great. Any chance that "Lancaster" could be replaced with "Derby"? Gog the Mild (talk) 13:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Are you referring to Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 or another article or the proposed image? Do you know what the order of precedence was for that time between Derby or Lancaster? I was following French wikipedia names for articles. Regards Newm30 (talk) 05:29, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Newm30, I am referring to the map you linked to. Henry was Earl of Derby until his father died on 22 September 1345, when he became Earl of Lancaster, that being the senior rank. Obviously it was some time before his new title was known of in Gascony. RSs usually refer to him as Derby for his 1345 campaign and Lancaster from 1346 on, and it would be nice if the map could reflect this. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:32, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

No problems. After thinking about it last night I had come to that conclusion, I was just confused beforehand. I will list it shortly at Commons. Regards Newm30 (talk) 06:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

How many words!

Hi Reidgreg. 22,000 words. And I looked at that article before you started work. Crazy man. Rather you than me. But very well done indeed. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, it was a real Beast (獣, Jū). Hey, the article/subject was full of bad puns. The search statistics listed it at 26,916 words, but I think that counted the Japanese text. Too bad, I could have taken first in three leaderboard slots with one copy edit! Unfortunately, there are a lot of bloated Japanese TV character lists out there, I think the Sentai franchise has about 20 series. After doing a couple of them you get a feel for it but it's still a long march through a swamp. This batch of old articles have a few of them: List of Kamen Rider Build characters (19,618 with lists), Characters of The Legend of Zelda (14,395 with lists), and a section copy edit on List of Sailor Moon characters. Oh, I also had 'fun' with an Indian daily drama, condensing a 3000+ word plot 'summary' to 400 words. I should probably take a break and review some copy edits though.

I recently achieved my Veteran II (I'm about 2 months behind my expected edit quota) and took a moment to review my own edits and update my user pages. Should I be surprised that I have over 100 edits to this talk page? It also got me thinking about QPQs. I've got 0:1 for GAs and 9:4 for DYK, but my copy edit QPQ is 280:1 and my barnstar QPQ is now 9:2 (180 given to 40 received). Imagine if we enforced QPQ for copy edits? Or even worse, at Articles for Creation or Dispute Resolution? That'd be like handing the courtroom over to the criminals (assuming bad faith). There's probably material for an essay or Signpost article there, if one doesn't already exist. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Hah, that will teach us to *complain* about the lack of 10,000+ word articles. GOCE seems to be in good shape at the moment, keeping well on top of both the list of tagged articles and turning requests around in a remarkably short time. The former should dip well below 1,000 this drive. I have noticed a number of really bad machine translated article cropping up, usually badly referenced. Not sure if it is me noticing, or if the incidence is actually increasing. (I knocked more than a third off San Agustín culture.)

Have you only had one GA. I was surprised, but thinking of how thorough you are, both with facts and with references, not to mention how much else you are involved with, perhaps I shouldn't have been. When you next nominate one feel free to ping me; I've assessed 60+ over the past 8 months so am feeling fairly comfortable.

QPQ for copy editing. Right. So we force all the editors who can't write grammatical English and/or follow Wikipedia guidelines to copy edit other articles. I can see a certain amusement value. Perhaps we could charge? Why don't you write something for signpost, on a strictly for laughs basis, along those lines? That is a serious suggestion.

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad to see we're on track for the 900s. I just hope not to backslide too much in December, so that the backlog at the end of the year is lower than it was at the end of 2017 (otherwise my 'reign' as lead will break a seven-year streak).

I would eventually like to take the serial killer article to GA, but the trial is tenatively set for Sept 2019 so it's still a long way off before it can be a 'complete' treatment of the subject. (But if I can get it to GA/FA I can qualify for a 'deletion to quality' barnstar, as it had gone through a deletion discussion early this year.)

Yes! The idea of extending QPQ has an exquisite ridiculousness to it. For some time I've wanted to contribute something like that in the spirit of WP:FUN but my sense of humour alternates between very dark and very silly. For example, a previous idea was for an essay about getting editors to discuss their edits, tentatively titled Wikipedia:Enhanced interrogation techniques (wikt:ve haf vays of making you talk).

Ah, I need a little amusement after working on crime articles. – Reidgreg (talk) 22:05, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: One of your comments above has just gone "ping". Thoughts traverse my neurons v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y. At the end of last year December closed on 1,194. I suppose that we may not beat that, but if it seems possible send out the word and we'll drive it down. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:17, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We're at 974 as I type this and may well break 900, but it depends on December; sometimes 300 get tagged in a month, sometimes 100. Hopefully taggers will be busy decorating for the holidays.

I did a small update to the McArthur article and took a look at its page views. It had 7k+ for DYK, then 13k a month later and broke 5k twice during Pride week. It rarely drops below 200 views a day and had just reached 125k total views. I thought that was really impressive and then I put it side-by-side with the original title from before the page move (took me a while to get the capital A in McArthur) (link). According to that, it already has well over a quarter-million page views. My update was mid-May so most of that has nothing to do with me, though. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:27, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: As I type this it stands at 960. We may get somewhere near 800. If the taggers aren't full of seasonal cheer we can always have an impromptu Christmas drive to spare your blushes.

Impressive. That's more than any six of mine. But you write on difficult topics which people actually want to read about. I suspect that you are over analysing there. It seems to me "obvious" that the big spike in something like that is going to be as it breaks, with mini-spikes as it subsequently features in the news. What I noticed was the later spike actually being higher than the first one. We have no way of knowing how many views there would have been if you hadn't sorted it out. (If you have a machine for rerunning reality, please let me know.) About the only things we can be sure of is that people who click on it now come away both much better informed and with a much better opinion of Wikipedia. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:05, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Hmmm. The low in May 2018 was 716 articles. I best find time to do some more.

It does make me feel better, that it's being used that much. And maybe a little more motivation to push for a GA after the trial. Still a long way from the TV show articles which are viewed that many times each week. (I noticed the good topic lists include a number of TV shows like that.) – Reidgreg (talk) 22:25, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg: Unfortunately I live in too glassy a house to be able to accuse you of having become a bit obsessed.

About half of my GAs more than doubled their annual views with their DYK day. Your DYK got lost in the tsunami of views. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:37, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Descriptions of Great War things

Do you mind using "First World War" and thinking about the meaning of the words you use? " ...defensive strongpoint of the German 6th Army on the Western Front during World War I". How can a strongpoint not be defensive? Does it have to be during not "in" the First World War? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:21, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks babe, apart from semantic quibbles, I think it's a really good idea to interpolate a systematic description style. Regards Keith-264 (talk) 19:38, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: Quite right. I have labeled a few articles, inc some WWI ones, but I must have switched my brain off for that one. You were well within your rights to trout me. If the evidence wasn't clear I wouldn't have believed I'd done it. Barely even literate. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:10, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

I've just looked Trout up ;O) ;O) ;O) At first I thought you were alluding to Vonnegut's Kilgore Trout...;O) Regards Keith-264 (talk) 20:23, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

@Keith-264: So it goes. Second thingy from the right at the top of the page. Not been needed yet - folk on Wikipedia are cutting me a lot of slack I reckon. I shall self-trout:

 Self-trout

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:48, 11 November 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLI, November 2018

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 looks at the Sydney Wars Op-ed: TomStar81 on the end of World War I Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 14 November 2018 (UTC)

Gascon campaign (1345) map

Hi Gog the Mild, just wondering whether you could cast eye over draft version of map here and provide comments. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:10, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30: That is looking fantastic. I have added some suggestions. Thank you very much for initiating this. I was only peripherally aware of the map creation facility and your request is going to really enhance the article. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:25, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Calais (1349)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Calais (1349) 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 15:01, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gascon campaign of 1345

The article Gascon campaign of 1345 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Gascon campaign of 1345 for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Aiguillon

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Aiguillon 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:02, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	For Battle of Calais (1349) and other very engrossing reads, for always being helpful and around on Military History, for reviewing several of my articles, and constantly contributing in countless other ways. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:25, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eddie891: Wow! That was a surprise. You are possibly aware that I am more appreciative of barnstars than a mature adult really should be, and so you have made my day. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:33, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Calais (1349)

The article Battle of Calais (1349) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Calais (1349) 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 Eddie891 -- Eddie891 (talk) 17:21, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Auberoche

On 19 November 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Auberoche, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Auberoche. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Auberoche), 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.

Vanamonde (talk) 04:38, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Thoughts?

I've been slowly working on List of most successful American submarines in World War II, and just requested United States Submarine Operations in World War II and Silent Victory from my Local library. Anyways, I'm aware of inconsistencies between the sources on the number of ships sunk. Currently I am using JANAC tabulations. Should I include all three? One? or a mix? I'd be interested to know what you think. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:43, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. This is not one of my specialist areas, so I am not sure what my advice is worth. I am aware of the events and the controversy. For what it is worth, I would go with the JANAC figures - everyone seems to use these as their starting point. If either of the others has major differences I would footnote it. I would not, personally, think that it would be helpful to a non-expert reader to have three, sometimes different, sometimes not, figures shown. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:30, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Map of Gascon campaign of 1345

Gog, please be advised that the File:Map of Gascon campaign of 1345.svg has been uploaded for use. Regards Newm30 (talk) 23:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

@Newm30:. It looks great. Many thanks for commissioning this. I am about to leave a message regarding it. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

HI Newm30, you may be interested to hear that Battle of Auberoche is now at FAC and Gascon campaign of 1345 is at ACR. I am certain that the map is contributing to both, so can I thank you again - I would never have realised that this was possible. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

No problems, I will keep looking out for red links and improvement opportunities as I come across them. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:06, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Gog the Mild. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bouvines

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bouvines 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:20, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Siege of La Réole (1345-1346)

Hi, I was reading some literature and was intrigued that the Siege of La Réole in 1345-1346, which lasted eight as part of the Gascon campaign of 1345 did not have an independent article. Your thoughts? Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:00, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

The only siege I was aware of was the one mentioned towards the end of Gascon campaign of 1345, see below. IMO it is not notable enough to merit a separate article, and if it were it could never get above a stub. Gascon campaign of 1345 includes pretty much all of the information any source has on this and it is not as if we are likely to discover any more.

He then moved on the large, strongly fortified town of La Réole. This occupied a key position on the north bank of the Garonne river, only 35 miles (56 km) from Bordeaux. The town had been English until captured by the French twenty-one years earlier. It had enjoyed considerable autonomy and lucrative trading privileges, which it had lost under the French. After negotiations with Derby, on 8 November the citizens distracted the large French garrison and opened a gate for the English. The garrison fled to the citadel, which was considered exceptionally strong; the English proceeded to mine it.[60] The garrison agreed a provisional surrender; if they were not relieved within five weeks they would leave. They were allowed to communicate this to the Duke of Normandy, but as he had just disbanded his army, and it was anyway mid-winter, there was little he could do. In early January 1346 the garrison left and the English replaced them. The town regained its previous privileges.[61] Derby spent the rest of the winter in La Réole.

I would suggest that one should be wary of moving from helpfully filling in red links to crating articles for the sake of it. But that is just my ill-informed opinion.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:01, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Eritrean–Ethiopian border conflict

Greetings Gog, in the last 2 months (yes months) I was working on this page. The intresting part is that it is also my first major page (whom I'm working) for a B-class (of course really slowly). However 'cause I'm a non-native English speaker I am not sure this page has the good English grammer materials to describe it as a B-class. So my question is can you've a grammer review? If you do I really would appreciate your help. Also, I'm working at the "strengths" of both parties, and maybe I can find some "commanders" in the infobox too.

P.S. I also think it has the length of a GA-class, so maybe (just maybe) it would become my first GA-class page. Cheers and thanks for your efforts. CPA-5 (talk) 18:41, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Sure. It may take me a couple of days to get round to it. Would you like:

1. The minimum I think it needs to get to B class.
2. The full GoCE treatment.
3. The GoCE plus comments and notes on what it may need to get to GA?

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:35, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

• Great, I'm happy to hear that you'd help me thanks again. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:54, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Would you like to pick one of the options above? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:09, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• I personaly think for a GA review it should be first a B-class or am I totally wrong (shouldn't suprise me if I am)? Because I'm not really sure the page can have GA review now already, if its status is a stub especially, by someone who don't really know or the grammer is good enough for having a B-class status. So is it possible to have a GA-class review already, because if it can I'd choose that option? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:29, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

@CPA-5: Fine. I should be able to get it started over the weekend. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:35, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks, I can't wait. You made me excited. ;) CPA-5 (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5. Could you do me a favour? Enter the article as a request at the GoCE Request page. I will pick it up straight away, and it means that I can claim credit for copy editing it for the GoCE November drive. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

• Done I'm free in the evening (UTC time). CPA-5 (talk) 09:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Caen (1346)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Caen (1346) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Special Barnstar
	Thank you for the thorough copyedits made at 2015 Ocotlán ambush! I feel confident about the article now and have placed it at GAN. Many thanks, your work is greatly appreciated! MX (✉ • ✎) 16:01, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

@MX: Why thank you. That is thoughtful of you. We WikiGnomes appreciate an expression of appreciation. I shall keep an eye on it at GAN. If you need any help when it is being assessed, give me a ping. But you should be fine: it is a detailed, well referenced, logically laid out article. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Georgios II

Do you think THIS is enough for a GA? LeGabrie (talk) 14:26, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi LeGabrie. Personally, no. Strictly there is no minimum on a GA, but given the limited amount known about him, and how uncertain much of that is, I would be surprised if anyone would consider it up to GA.

That said, it does seem to meet the 6 criteria, so no harm in nominating it and seeing what happens.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:39, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

@LeGabrie: The article has a readable prose size of 325 words. WP:SIZERULE suggests that if an article is less than 1,000 words "consider combining it with a related page". Gog the Mild (talk) 14:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Well no problem, I can still display this article on my talk page then, just without that juicy green plus. Will let you know when I've created another, more fitting candidate. LeGabrie (talk) 14:50, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:Shekhar: Ek Jivani

Hi Gog, Hope you are well. I am working on above draft, which is about a Indian novel. I will put a request for copyediting on GOCE, whenever I finish my work. For now, can you have a look on 'plot' section ? It needs to be paraphrased as some sentences from it is very near to original source (Only plot section). Also the last paragraph of the 'plot' section needs to be re-written entirely (Only last paragraph), because there are a lack of Encyclopedic tone. Thanks. As per you convenience. -Gazal world (talk) 13:45, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gazal world. Good to hear from you. I have gone through, doing - I think - what you asked. Before I go through again and fine tune, I would appreciate some feedback as to whether I am on the right lines. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gog. This is exactly what I want. You have done great job. Now, It looks very sharp. Just one thing you missed in last paragraph, that is 'Sharda', the first love of Shekhar. Can you re-add it ? -Gazal world (talk) 20:54, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

@Gazal world. Added. I found this last bit the most difficult. Knowing nothing of the women's ages, castes, occupations, how they met Shekhar and wheat they did together I suspect that my prose is a bit stilted. If you could add one of these details to the name of each of the women it will help the last bit to flow. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

I feel userboxed

Thx much for the award. If you have no objection, I'm moving it to my userpage. And allow me to confess surprise I've been so entertaining. :o (Tho I can see how the cats might be. ;p ) Greer Grant ^{meow mix} 12:09, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Hi Melding Person. It's your barnstar, feel free to nail it up where you want . Oh yes - there were several chuckle out loud moments. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:42, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

Good to hear. I hope I also encouraged you to have a look at some of the pages I created, & you found them (marginally?) interesting. (I'm aware, they're pretty low-traffic & specialized interest, in the main {under 200/mo not uncommon}, so any new view is welcome. ;p ) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 13:54, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: I found some of them fascinating. I have not done more than skim a handful of them as yet - you have created a lot of articles. 200/mo - ha! Some of my GAs don't get 200/yr. Barely an exaggeration, the interest level in obscure Roman consuls is low. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

♠Thx. And the number created looks bigger; most of them are pretty stubby. ;p (Like Dick Cadwalader, frex.) Some, like the Gargoyle, got added to later; the Hirohata Merc page was "revived", & has been added to, as well. (It's the one I'm proudest of since it'd been deleted--& now, it's actually not bad. :D )

♠It's a surprise, sometimes, what even a single issue of something like Street Rodder can provide, tho: I got enough for three pages on Chip Foose projects: The Stallion {a feature mag article, so it's the big one}, 0032, & Impact--plus bio info on Chip himself. And the Donovan page, and the Donovan hemi page, were both taken mainly from about a 100-word obit piece :o (in HRM, IIRC).

♠I know what you mean about views, tho; I don't check the numbers all the time (or I'd be sooo depressed ;p ), but in the 30s isn't unusual. Comes from being interested in subjects most WP readers aren't, I guess. I sometimes feel like I'm the only one paying attention to things related to hot roding, customizing, or drag racing (as witness most of my pages this year--& some of the most contentious ones, like Magoo, which, astoundingly, got tagged "non-notable" within about 2h of creation, obviously by somebody who knew nothing about him). Okay, sorry, I'll stop ranting, now ;p. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:49, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

@Trekphiler: No need to talk yourself down. It's impressive: that's official.

Ha, yes. Although I am more of an expander of existing articles. I have only written four new articles. I think it wonderful that helpful souls like yourself create so many new articles for me to browse and pick from to expand. As I mostly work in military history there are not too many of yours that take my fancy, but some.

I only tend to look at the number of views when an article is up for DYK. When it can be amusing to see it exceed its prvious lifetime views in a single day. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:38, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

• Not a talk-down, facts are facts. I've put up nothing I'm ashamed of. Most of the bio pages are as good as I had. And you can have a look at the debate over Doug Thorley to see how bad it can get: he won Indy (which is NHRA's Super Bowl) in '67, but do you think I can find a single mention at the NHRA page, or a single issue of National Dragster or 'HRM online to back it up? Hell, no. I can't even find a mention in copies on Ebay! (Needless to say, my local library doesn't have copies of HRM going back that far.) You have no idea how frustrating that is, especially when somebody's nom'd the page for deletion. (Not a fan of that, TBH. So I have to apologize for the rant--again. ;p )
• I almost never pay attention to the views, except when I need an ego stroking. ;p And yeah, a DYK draws 'em like flies to honey, no question. I nominated a couple hoping to attract improvement thanks to more attention. ;p (Didn't work. :( :( )
• I put the pages up & hope somebody interested, with better sources, adds to them. Sometimes, I'll come across something I can add, from my back issues. That's all I can do. If you're creating milhist pages, maybe I'll be one of those pageviews, 'cause I've got a long-standing interest, there. (You might not guess from my page creation...) You may have noticed, my first page was the nicknames list; most of the sources in the first couple of edits were things I'd actually read.
• If you're one of those following behind & exploiting, I'm happy to have you on the team. I'm terrible at proofreading & cite amalgamation & such, so... ;p And as said, the Hirohata Merc or Gargoyle pages, frex, wouldn't be as good as it now is without guys like you. I may be able to claim credit for creating it, but not sole credit for it being so good, & I won't pretend I can. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:49, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Nominations for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards are open until 23:59 (GMT) on 15 December 2018. Why don't you nominate the editors who you believe have made a real difference to the project in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:26, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

The only difficult part was summing up your contributions in 20 words, though I am obsessed with wordcounts and conciseness. (The other noms went over, so you could have them disqualified and win by default!) Congrats for well-deserved nominations for both awards! – Reidgreg (talk) 16:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

@Reidgreg I did notice that you used exactly 20 words, with the aid of a nifty hyphen, and was impressed. Also an impressive information to byte ratio there.

Good idea - I am tempted to request the disqualification of all other candidates, but apart from the danger of a mass sense of humour by pass it would also rule out my nomination by Zawed as MH of the year.

Sad to note that you are standing down as lead GOCE co-ord, but pleased that you anticipate doing much the same work. It is difficult to express how much (some) ordinary editors like me appreciate the work that editors like you put in to ensure that the playground is there for us. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

I probably wouldn't have volunteered for lead except that otherwise it would have meant 10 consecutive terms between either Jonesey95 or Miniapolis in that position, and I didn't think that was fair. I am the least-experienced of the coordinators (everyone else has at least two years as coord while I'm just finishing my first). Now that I think about it, though, I was given two user rights last week... I wonder if that was incentive to remain as lead? Well, we'll see how the rest of the noms go. BTW, when you win those big MilHist awards, you'll be in the running to become a coordinator there. BTW2, you sniped me with that Teamwork Barnstar but I sent one of my own to the team as a whole. – Reidgreg (talk) 17:18, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

As you said, Guild Hall didn't burn down. From outside it all seemed to run very smoothly.

I remember you pointing out the difference between user rights and barnstars, so well done.

Nah. I'll plead inexperience. Wait - that didn't work out for you! Hmm.

Oops. Well I am not going to apologise for giving the team, including you, a hard earned pat on the back, but apologies if my timing was infelicitous. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

November 2018 GOCE drive bling

		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 November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Long Articles, 2nd Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting 3 long articles during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

		Guild of Copy Editors Leaderboard Award: Longest Article, 5th Place
		This Leaderboard Barnstar is awarded to Gog the Mild for copyediting one of the five longest articles – 6,989 words – during the GOCE November 2018 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping this month with your always talented work! – Reidgreg (talk) 02:52, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018 GOCE newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors December 2018 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the December 2018 GOCE newsletter. Here is what's been happening since the August edition. Thanks to everyone who participated in the August blitz (results), which focused on Requests and the oldest backlog month. Of the twenty editors who signed up, eleven editors recorded 37 copy edits. For the September drive (results), of the twenty-three people who signed up, nineteen editors completed 294 copy edits. Our October blitz (results) focused on Requests, geography, and food and drink articles. Of the fourteen people who signed up, eleven recorded a total of 57 copy edits. For the November drive (results), twenty-two people signed up, and eighteen editors recorded 273 copy edits. This helped to bring the backlog to a six-month low of 825 articles. The December blitz will run for one week, from 16 to 22 December. Sign up now! Elections: Nominations for the Guild's coordinators for the first half of 2019 will be open from 1 to 15 December. Voting will then take place and the election will close on 31 December at 23:59 UTC. Positions for Guild coordinators, who perform the important behind-the-scenes tasks that keep our project running smoothly, are open to all Wikipedians in good standing. We welcome self-nominations, so please consider nominating yourself if you've ever thought about helping out; it's your Guild and it doesn't run itself! Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators; Reidgreg, Baffle gab1978, Jonesey95, Miniapolis and Tdslk. >>> Sign up for the December blitz! <<< >>> Participate in the Coordinator elections! <<< To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Siege of Aiguillon

On 4 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Siege of Aiguillon, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1346, a French army more than 15,000 strong besieged Aiguillon for five months, but failed to cut its supply lines? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Aiguillon. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Siege of Aiguillon), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:02, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Siege of Aiguillon

The article Siege of Aiguillon you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Aiguillon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bouvines

The article Battle of Bouvines you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bouvines 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) 16:21, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks

G'day Gog, you are very kind to nominate me, but I really would like to clear the field for other far more worthy nominees, as I've more than had my time in the sun over the last few years and it is nice to spread the love around. I hope you won't be offended if I withdraw? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:56, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker. Oh course not. Given that such an obvious candidate hadn't already been nominated I wondered if I was committing a faux pas. But I thought "Sod it" (as we say in England): 1. It is going to take more than that to upset Peacemaker, and 2. He can always do a Sherman. I could argue with the "far more worthy nominees" bit, but even I can work out that that would be a faux pas. Take care. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:34, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Warm regards' Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:16, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade

The article 28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:28th (Thames and Medway) Anti-Aircraft Brigade 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 Kges1901 -- Kges1901 (talk) 23:21, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Gascon campaign of 1345

On 6 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Gascon campaign of 1345, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Gascon campaign of 1345 was the first successful land campaign of the Hundred Years' War, eight years after it started? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Gascon campaign of 1345. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Gascon campaign of 1345), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Alex Shih (talk) 00:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLII, December 2018

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Indy beetle looks at military newspapers in East Africa

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Blanchetaque

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Blanchetaque 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 15:00, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Lunalonge

On 13 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Lunalonge, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that after a force of Anglo-Gascon cavalry defeated a French force, they had to walk home because the surviving French had captured their horses? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Lunalonge. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Lunalonge), 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Blanchetaque

The article Battle of Blanchetaque you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Blanchetaque 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 Display name 99 -- Display name 99 (talk) 15:21, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards

Voting for our annual Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards is open until 23:59 (GMT) on 30 December 2018. Why don't you vote for the editors who you believe have made a real difference to Wikipedia's coverage of military history in 2018? MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:17, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Damme

On 17 December 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Damme, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that at the Battle of Damme, a smaller English fleet captured 300 French ships and burned another 100? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Damme. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Damme), 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.

Vanamonde93 00:02, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Shekhar: Ek Jivani

Hi Gog. Hope, you are well. I nominated Shekhar: Ek Jivani for DYK. Can you have a look on it ? (Template:Did you know nominations/Shekhar: Ek Jivani). Thanks. -Gazal world (talk) 09:09, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gog. Happy Christmas. I just come here to know: What is QPQ ? -Gazal world (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hey Gazal world, merry Christmas to you too. Quid pro quo means doing something to get something in return. For DYK nominations, it means that after an editors first four noms (you have just made your forth nom), for every nomination they make they must review one other nomination (unrelated to them). It is point 5 of the rules. I keep track of mine in a table, striking ones I have reviewed out as I "use them up" with fresh nominations. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Alcohol free?

I'm not so politically correct I'll censor myself, I just don't know (or care ;p ) what flavor you celebrate. So, greetings of the season, & may they bring you joy. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 10:17, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

I remember something I read, once, in Opera News about the great Tatiana Troyanos. Here was a woman that had every right to complain at the Fates over her lot in life...she was abandoned by her parents to an orphanage, and she battled health issues for many years before dying of cancer at 55. (I remember reading that selfsame article about her and being amazed at what she had overcome.) And yet she remained ever gracious in her career and her professional dealings. The writer of the article, I remember, recalled assisting in a Metropolitan Opera performance of Giulio Cesare in Egitto, in which Kathleen Battle was singing. Battle was then in the throes of some of her worst behavior, and she was really letting people have it over trivial matters. And the writer said that when the curtain fell, he was about ready to tell her off, when he felt a tug at his elbow. It was Troyanos - she took him aside, smiled, and said, "Don't. It doesn't matter." It can be so tempting to get wound up over the least little thing around here. But every time I do, somewhere in the dark recesses of my mind...so deep that I feel her presence rather than hear it...I'm sure Troyanos is reminding me, too: "It doesn't matter." If she, with all that she overcame, could say it, then I damn well can, too –Ser Amantio di Nicolao

Thanks for all the work you do to make Wikipedia a better place, and your welcoming demeanor as we have interacted this year. Wishing you and yours a very happy holidays! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:21, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!

Just a short note, but one filled with armfuls of gratitude, goodwill, and best wishes for a very happy and healthy holiday season. (The link at "armsful" will take you to 2005 newspaper commentary that I found enjoyable - a little present from one lover of minutiae and constructive editing to another.)

Thank you for the many kindnesses you have sent my way this past year. Your insights and guidance have been appreciated than mere adjectives could ever adequately say.

May your year ahead be filled with productive research and creative wordsmithing! 47thPennVols (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi 47thPennVols. It is so good to hear from you again. At least twice I have been so tempted to send you unsolicited, and no doubt unwanted, personal emails that I have started writing them. I hope that you are well and that you trusty quill is sharp. Ah, I note that you have doubled your tally of GAs, well done. Nice - a literally fascinating (in the old fashioned sense of the word) read. Oh no: I clicked through to read the GAN review and was led to your account of your accident. That sounds dreadful. Although I am happy that it wasn't worse, as it sounds as if it easily could have been. I hope that you are fully recovered[?] No wonder you have been quiet on Wikipedia. Your vibrant and educational articles have been missed. I hope that it won't be too long before you feel physically and mentally able start back to them.

Sadly the Hartford Courant is "currently unavailable in most European countries". However, I fly to the US on Saturday to visit my brother for Christmas, so I shall have to wait until the weekend to read it.

Take care. Recover.

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

• A very belated hello to you, too, Gog the Mild, and sincerely heartfelt thanks for your concern for my wellbeing and kind words regarding my research and writing, which provided a much-needed boost to my spirit (smiling). I'm still dealing with issues with my hand and wrist which continue to hamper my abilities to type (and which are forcing me to limit my time on Wikipedia), as well as a few lingering aches and pains elsewhere, but I am on the mend, and feeling grateful because, yes, it really could have been far, far worse. (I'm not the tallest person in the world so had I not fallen out of the way, the driver would have hit me mid-body - a sobering thought that I'm trying to banish now that I'm able to take short, but daily walks.) On the plus side? I've been able to do more reading - so I have more background material for future articles when I can start typing in earnest again. I'll respond to your message below later this weekend, but just wanted to say thanks, and tell you that I hope you're having a wonderful and memorable time visiting your brother. Will you be in the U.S. for New Year's Eve? (P.S. Your correspondence will always be welcome so please never feel shy about emailing me.) 47thPennVols (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Season's greetings to you 47thPennVols. I hope that you are well; or failing that, weller than the last time we corresponded. Having arrived in the US, to spend the holidays with my brother, I am able to read the link you sent me. Both amusing and educational, as I had suspected that it would be. In return, can I attract your attention to a piece on the importance of the humble comma, along with armsful of respect, admiration and appreciation. And, of course, my very best wishes. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:17, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

@47thPennVols: Many thanks for the generous and kind words attached to your vote on the discussion page. It is not just a turn of phrase when I say that you are being too kind - I can never live up to that description. Nevertheless, the thought that you think that I can is appreciated. Even if it has caused me to blush. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year 47thPennVols. Apologies for the lack of emails. My ability to send and receive Wikipedia emails has hit a problem. A skilled team of highly trained hominids is working on it and hope to have normal service resumed shortly after they invent fire. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:36, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Happy "whatever floats your boat"!

G'day Gog, Happy Christmas and New Year, or whatever other holiday floats your particular boat. You have been a breath of fresh air in the Milhist space this year. All the very best, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:08, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67 and a merry Christmas to you and yours. Thanks for the comment. I am (probably over-) aware that I am still crawling up the Wikipedia learning curve and still (probably over-) worry as to whether I am making a net positive contribution. It is pleasing to have some reassurance that I am on the right track.

I hope that it hardly needs to be said that I consider that you are doing a sterling job. You seem to be involved in almost everything MilHist related, and that is just the things I notice. And it has got to the stage with me that if you opine something I simply take it to be the case. Classy, understated leadership by example. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:02, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. It is really appreciated. Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:36, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Blanchetaque at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; if you would like to continue, please link the nomination to the nominations page as described in step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 08:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 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) 20:03, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Caen (1346)

The article Battle of Caen (1346) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Caen (1346) 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) 22:41, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

Best wishes for this holiday season! Thank you for your Wiki contributions in 2018. May 2019 be prosperous and joyful. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:49, 21 December 2018 (UTC) Noël ~ καλά Χριστούγεννα ~ З Калядамі ~ חנוכה שמח ~ Gott nytt år!

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz

Thanks again for your GA review of the article. If you have any comments to make on the A-class nomination, it would be much appreciated (the review has already attracted two supports). Also, congratulations on your forthcoming win of military history newcomer of the year—completely deserved. And happy New Year's! Catrìona (talk) 20:03, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Catrìona, sure. My memory is that it was a pretty solid article, and noting who the supports are from, and who copy edited it for GOCE I can't imagine that I will have much to do. I may throw in a source review to make it worth my while. Thank you for the congratulations, coming from you that means a lot to me. I am not so sure about the "completely deserved", but possibly that is my self esteem issue. And a happy New Year to you - may your keyboard never grow still. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military Historian of the Year

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:59, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• Well deserved! Chetsford (talk) 07:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year

		2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Gold Wiki for coming first in the 2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:07, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Wow. Congratulations!!! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:29, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Primus inter pares award

		Primus inter pares
		As the only other recipient of this award to my knowledge (although in different years), I hereby award you the Primus inter pares award for being voted both the 2018 Military Historian of the Year and 2018 Military History Newcomer of the Year. Congratulations, and thank you for your sterling efforts in 2018. Hopefully you haven't peaked too early... Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and keep up the good work! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 01:47, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Cheers Cinderella157 (talk) 01:48, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations and well-earned! – Reidgreg (talk) 03:40, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations! Mztourist (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Always nice knowing it's quality work when seeing your contributions on my watchlist. Congrats and thank you! Alex Shih (talk) 08:58, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations also from me. This recognition is very well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks guys. I hope that I haven't "peaked too early". I can't imagine producing 2018's volume of B class and GA articles again, but I have a list of candidates for A class and FA, some of which I will want to put through B class and ACR first, so hopefully there will be some improvement in quality to compensate for the reduction in quantity. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Indeed, congratulations! It could not have been awarded to anyone more deserving. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 08:14, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks for your efforts in 2018 (which have quite rightly been recognised per the above). It has been a pleasure working with you. All the best for 2019! Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Operation Lancaster II

Gog, I'm not a fan of location maps because they take up a lot of space to deliver a small amount of information that is already covered by the location and coordinates and so I plan to delete this. I'm also not terribly keen on the generic background and aftermath information, as this would become tiresomely repetitive if copied across all the other Vietnam War operation and battle pages. My view is that if people want an overview of the progress of the war they should read the main Vietnam War page. I will leave it for now and let you choose how you wish to handle it. regards Mztourist (talk) 03:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi Mztourist. I will (a little reluctantly) bow to your superior experience and remove the map. (My view is the opposite of yours re information:space, but I accept that the long thin case of Vietnam may be an exception.) I feel a little stronger regarding the need to "properly" introduce an article - any article. If you will let me play around with background and aftermath for this article we can communicate using it as a concrete example. As I fine tune them they may grow on you; as you comment I may change my views. I think that we both accept that we are coming to this with good intentions and (reasonably) open minds. I am also expanding the lead and look forward to your comments and/or changes. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Agreed and have nothing but good faith in you. regards Mztourist (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Greetings Gog, I wanted to say happy New Year and hopefully you'd have a great 2019. I already says it now because my last hours here on Wikipedia for 2018 are in. I will be back in the evening of 1 January 2019 CET time It was an honour to work with you together in 2018. Anyway I would say: "you Brits follow us the Belgians into the future". Cheers and have a great day. CPA-5 (talk) 13:09, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CPA-5, and a happy New Year to you too. Many thanks for the keen analysis you have brought to bear on so many of my articles. I am more than happy to follow you into the future, whatever it may bring us. Gog the Mild (talk) 00:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

Your offer

...I've ce'd it, and would like to take you up on your offer to look through it. If you have a moment, I'd especially appreciate a source spot-check because I'm somewhat unlucky with getting the right page numbers. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 01:00, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891, a few things jump out.

1. Two books don't have publisher locations.
2. One of your external links is broken.
3. The titles of some books etc are not in title case. Eg cite 2, Clary, Whitehorne.
4. Bibliography: United States Government Publishing Office should only be linked at first mention.
5. Likewise United States Army Center of Military History

I have not spot checked the references; I will probably pick up the source review when you go to ACR and do it then.

I have done some very minor copy editing.

There are the usual marginal or debatable issues left; not a problem. (IMHO.)

I repeat that I am very far from being any sort of expert on ACRs, but so far as I can see it is ready for nomination. Great work and I look forward to commenting on it further at ACR.

Gog the Mild (talk) 03:55, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup!

Hello and Happy New Year!

Welcome to the 2019 WikiCup, the competition begins today. If you have already joined, your submission page can be found here. If you have not yet signed up, you can add your name here and we will set up your submissions page. One important rule to remember is that only content on which you have completed significant work during 2019, and which you have nominated this year, is eligible for points in the competition, the judges will be checking! Any questions should be directed to one of the judges, or left on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup. 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 make it 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 · contribs · email). MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:14, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

2019

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:46, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Siege of Berwick (1333)

Hi, I am having a look at the article and making some copy edits as I go. These are along the lines of your talk page - particularly, making prose structure less complex and more direct and improving readability. They are suggestions and open to discussion. There are some reviewing points in the offing if you want to have a look at Henry Reid Bay. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 10:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I have made a few edits. Let me know if these are ok. If you think this too intrusive, I will hold-off. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:13, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Cinderella157, good to hear from you again. I am just making a note to myself - Do not make yourself a target. I should have realised that you would understand my adding "(relatively)" to "gently correcting" as a reference to the, sadly justified, arse kicking you gave me over Leo Tornikios and decide that my "near flow-of-consciousness prose" required further "ratchet[ing] up".

I am assuming that I can talk to you like this on the grounds of: the well known esteem in which I hold you and your opinions; the length and nature of our Wikipedian interactions; and your being Australian. If not, can I you refer to the second paragraph of my user page.

This is Wikipedia, you can edit what you wish. But given that the article is towards the end of its FAC I appreciate the courtesy heads up. I shall have a look. If you feel like doing an image review on it I would be grateful; it got one at ACR which, as I understand it, pretty much covered the same criteria.

The words of wisdom from the master are on my user page mostly as a reminder to me. The "near flow-of-consciousness prose" comment wasn't entirely a joke and I need constant reminding to rein myself in, and/or write prose that actually makes sense.

Gog the Mild (talk) 16:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Interestingly, literally ten minutes after posting the above and while I was reading through your changes Tim riley, who is something of a stickler for use of prose and English (in a good way), supported the FAC.

The specifics: you have, as with Leo T, caught me abroad and without access to my hard copies. But:

1. "bloodily sacked". The source (Prestwich, 1997):

The common people...did not fare so well...the men were slaughtered in a dreadful bloodbath, which reflected Edward's anger...'like that of a wild boar pursued by dogs' [contemporary chronicler]...bodies 'fell like autumn leaves'...they were thrown down wells or tipped into the sea...11,060 were killed

Even for the time this was exceptional and seemed to me to justify "bloodily". I would be interested in your view in the light of the source.

2. The page I need to support, or not, "grinding" is missing on Google, so will have to wait until I am back in the UK.

3. I consider this the first article which I "really" wrote from scratch - Razing of Friesoythe was more of a beginner's exercise - so from a purely selfish point of view I welcome any and all suggestions, tightening of the language, and challenging of the prose against the sources. I do tend to editorialise, so pointing out where I have and asking me to back it up is a good learning exercise for me. In brief, feel free to go at the article if you are prepared to put in the time, but I completely understand if you have other priorities.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: I forgot - what does "There are some reviewing points in the offing if you want to have a look at Henry Reid Bay" mean? (What is a "reviewing point"?) Happy to look at, review, assess, copy edit anything you wish, but you will have to spell it out for my slow moving grey matter. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

I was just a little worried that your recent glory may have gone to your head. Well deserved. Friendly banter and a good robust discussion are always welcome. I have been having some of the latter with SMacCandlish on proper nouns and capitalisation. The circular definition at MOS:CAPS is singularly unhelpful. While most people get it right most of the time, you get things like the move discussion at Talk:Lunar Roving Vehicle (ie all caps). I have been thinking for some time to write an essay on the subject.

I can see that you fully get the point wrt "grinding" and "bloodily". The sentence with "grinding war" in it was particularly long, had two main ideas in it and was a good candidate to split. Superficially, my edit may look like the original was scrapped but it was really just a rearrangement and modifying some links and the links were really a separate matter. Just watch out for my sometimes clumbsy fingers. :) I will not hold up promotion of the article.

Some may not be familiar with the nuance of Berwick-upon-Tweed v Berwick. I am not. It may be useful to address that both here and at the parent article - perhaps in a note, as you already use them in the article.

To Henry Reid Bay, I recently created it and it could do with a review - hence the reference to points.

All the best. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 23:53, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Cinderella157 As if.

Nouns. Yes please. Always Battle of Xyz; how about S/siege of Xyz? Or O/operation Xyz. I have seen all of these; and as a GOCE copy editor I am expected to sort them out!

Getting the point isn't difficult after you have pointed it out. So, what would your view be on me reinserting "bloodily", as a fair reflection of the source?

Your edit looked to me like just how you describe it. (If it hadn't you would have heard the outraged scream.)

Berwick: I got told off by Peacemaker for overusing notes, so I am trying to ration myself. But it is a sound point; I shall have a look and see what I can come up with.

Henry Reid Bay: still haven't a Scooby. You sure that you don't want one of those page patroller people? I shall go through it and tag and assess it.

I look forward to your edits. I'll let you know about anything you grot weng. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

So that was what woke me up in the wee-small hours (kilo time) two nights ago? Re: "bloodily", there is no issue with quoting and attributing a phrase/word or "close" paraphrase from a source that might otherwise be considered editorialising. A citation can be annotated as an explanation: see citation 40 at Battle of Buna–Gona as an example. See also, Template:Attribution needed for some other advice. How to treat this would depend on what the source actually says. On the other hand, 30 years of war (not skirmishing) is always going to be "grinding" and sackings are inherently brutal and bloody. So, to add "bloodily" (or "brutally") is only justified if it was exceptionally so, and this might require a quorum of sources to establish a POV. I should have been more direct and just asked for a B-class review - thank you. Good to know I am not the only one tat sets stings weng (per your thank). ;) Apologies for the delay in this part-B installment/reply. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• Have been pondering: Twenty-two years later it was retaken by treachery by Robert Bruce, expelling the last English garrison from Scottish soil. and the two "by"s.

Suggest: Through English treachery, it was retaken twenty-two years later by Robert Bruce – expelling the last English garrison from Scottish soil. Simply replacing the first "by" with "through" implied the treachery was Robert's, not the English sergeant's.Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have gone for my own version. See what you think.

My understanding is that it is perfectly honourable to exploit treachery in the ranks of an opponent. The dishonour lies with he that accepts the bribe etc. Your edit resolves the two "by"s but implies the treachery was the Bruce's (it is a subject/object type thing). The trick would be, to make it clear with the least number of words? My thoghts FWIW.

@Cinderella157: I agree re treachery and dishonour. I even got away with pontificating about it in Battle of Calais (1349). My understanding is that a town taken by treachery is referred to as a town taken by treachery, without reference to whose. Eg, "Troy was taken by treachery." Nevertheless, I have gone the long way around.

• In the main body, "Berwick" is mot common but sometimes "Berwick-upon-Tweed"? Should this be more consistent? Cinderella157 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Done. Good point.

• At the beginning of 1333, the atmosphere on the border was tense.[10] The English parliament met at York and debated the situation for five days without conclusion. It begs the questions: why was it tense and what was the situation? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:31, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I don't see how it does. The situation was that less than six months earlier an English backed army had invaded from English ports, slaughtered the Scottish nobility and foisted their own claimant on the throne, as covered in "background". Sounds reasonable grounds for a bit of border tension to me.

What happened 6 months ago in the "background" is separated from this statement by a section heading and a paragraph. That paragraph goes off quite somewhere else and breaks the continuity and cognitive thread. It needs some "tie" to link it back and bridge the intervening paragraph (for those who came in late). Edward III dropped all pretence of neutrality, recognised Balliol as King of Scotland and made ready for war. That would explain why tings were tense but I was looking for something else - particularly given this that follows: Possibly to prevent the Scots from taking the initiative, England began openly preparing for war, while announcing that it was Scotland which was preparing to invade England. (It seems that England was always preparing for war). Is that as clear as mud?

Yep. I am just doing my slow-kid-at-the-back impersonation. Tweaked.

• Edward III was organising the sea transports which would be required for revictualling his and Balliol's armies. Was this the only specific preparation made? Also suggest: Edward III prepared by organising the sea transports to revictual his and Balliol's armies.

Well no, he also purchased a new hauberk, I have a source. He probably sharpened his sword and ate a hearty breakfast as well. I am not getting your point here; I am not spotting any meaningful distinction between the two versions above.

Pretty much the whole para (except a bit at the start and this one sentence at the end) is about how Douglas prepared to meet the English. Is there more about how the English prepared, that would provide balance. :) The diffeerence is in to revictual v for revictualling - admittedly not much.

Right. Now that you hit me over the head with it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. I have removed it, leaving the para only about the Scots, and reinserted it in a different form among the English activities. I shouldn't mention Edward's Hauberk then?

• the defenders launched burning brushwood By this, did they set it adrift? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:43, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Ah, yes. They did. Changed.

• which was destroyed in sight of the English army Meaning Douglas destroyed it? Cinderella157 (talk) 08:46, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Tweaked.

Hi Cinderella157 Apologies if I woke you up, but I don't see how. Even I don't have my Wiki-alerts sounding an audible alarm. Apologies for taking so long to get back to you, things have been busy. The copy edit has noticeably tightened up the prose. I have tried to take on board the under lying lessons for my future use. I have in turn made a couple of counter-tweaks. Some commentary on your points above on which I would be interested to hear what you think. Gog the Mild (talk) 04:43, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Figured you were dealing with references. Have a listen to this Your comment made me think of this (and Monty Python). If you don't know Al Stewart, his music often has historical themes. I am travelling and at a library atm to get internet. I was having a pause, waiting for your reply. I will get back to it. See inserted comments above. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:54, 11 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes. Getting the references sorted has been a real pain. My own silly fault; all part of the learning curve.

I have had Year of the Cat for over 40 years. Some excellent work on it. I can't listen to Lord Grenville without thinking of the Ballad of the Fleet:

Sink me the ship, Master Gunner—sink her, split her in twain!

Fall into the hands of God, not into the hands of Spain!

Flying Sorcery is great. I bought a Best of CD 15 or so years ago and was disappointed that the only good songs were from YotC and so gave up on him. However, Joe the Georgian is good. I will see if I can dig out that Best of and give it a second chance, and/or buy Time Passages. Gog the Mild (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi, that deals with the points to date with a few smiles. Another image came to me of Lord Flashheart as Edward, except for the absence of ribaldry - which I was able to conjure for myself. As for Troy, I would say that it was taken by subterfuge rather than treachery, which implies betrayal? On Al Stewart, I am fond of 24 Carrots. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: Just been reading Goldsworthy on a flight. He uses the phrase "by stealth". This works for me. I may cheat and see what YouTube has on 24Cs. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Caps for names of military "events"

On capitalising military events, I have never pondered the matter but here goes.

• MILMOS is silent on the capitalisation even if it does imply caps. WP:NCCAP and MOS:CAPS apply.
• The name phrase (note the absence of proper here) for a military event generally follows the form: attributive (ie a noun descriptor), proposition (eg at or of but omitted in the case of operation XYZ) and a place (or something else), which is usually a town or locality and consequently a proper name itself. The place (etc) can be a noun phrase itself. If a noun phrase (or something else), the capitalisation within that needs to be considered separately but I won't digress further. The second form followed is: place (or like) and a noun descriptive of the event.
• With a qualification to follow ... Proper names are not descriptive. Battle, operation, riot, siege etc are all descriptive - ie not proper names but it is perhaps better to consider them titles. Whether titles (including titles of books ets) are proper nouns is moot but the orthographic convention is to use title case for the titles of works. That solves the dilemma for titles of works ...
• Choosing the title of an article is simplified, since it uses sentence case - hence "Siege of" for the title. But capitalisation of the same in prose may be a false consistency.
• Similarly, capitalisation of part of a noun phrase does not confer capitalisation on the whole phrase - see Apollo command and service module and the recent move discussion there. Per not capitalising all, see Kokoda Track campaign
• In short it is probable that all of the descriptive parts of a military action title should not be capitalised - including "battle". This n-gram is interesting. My impression is that "Battle of XYZ" is capitalised throughout WP and I am not going to rock that boat.
• There is a distinction between onomastics (which deals with nouns and proper names) and orthography (which deals with capitalisation). English is a living language. Words and phrases can pass in and out of capitalisation - eg SCUBA, Scuba and now scuba.
• Conflict names can require capitalisation if they are overwhelmingly and universally capitalised. Some problems in determining this are: the size of the sample set (when an event has little coverage the capitalisation observed can be skewed) and independence of sources (military, government and newspaper tend to over capitalise) and distinguishing use in running prose from titles, headings, captions etc (where title case is often used for these). MOS:CAPS requires capitalisation in a substantial majority of sources. I interpret this as a 2/3 majority but, for n-gram evidence on its own, this is probably >85%, to account for title case in headings etc. Between the two figure, it is necessary to sample the sources to see what the usage in runing prose is. On "siege of Berwick", see this.
• In short, I would tend not to capitalise any but "Battle of" (subject to the sources).

A long answer that is probably as clear as mud. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 12:42, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@Cinderella157: A perfectly clear answer, thank you. Both educational and logical. Speaking as an ex-educator I have found the combination not as common as I would like, or even as I might hope. I shall endeavour to implement as you outline.

N-gram viewer: very interesting. Not something I had previously come across. I have squirrelled it away for future use. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:51, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

2018 Year in Review

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, Isaac I Komnenos, Battle of Neville's Cross, SMS S36, and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded these WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, Isaac I Komnenos, Battle of Neville's Cross, SMS S36, and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded The Epic Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Isaac I Komnenos and Lucius Manlius Torquatus (Praetor 49 BC) you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		WikiProject Ships Barnstar
		For your work on Dutch expedition to Valdivia, and SMS S36 you are hereby awarded the WikiProject Ships Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For your clean sweep of the 2018 Military historian & Newcomer of the Year awards I hereby bestow upon you this Exceptional Newcomer Award. Speaking for myself, I think this is the beginning of a beautiful friendship.  :) TomStar81 (Talk) 19:38, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi TomStar81 Many thanks. That is very thoughtful of you. I note that you have been the New Year Father Christmas, and it has been interesting seeing what others got in their stockings.

I shall now be spending the rest of the day trying to work out just why you picked out those four GAs and one A class from my 44 GAs and four A class last year. Off hand I can see no connection, so I shall have to reread them. A happy, healthy and productive New Year to you. "Here's looking at you." Gog the Mild (talk) 19:59, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The answer to that is so overt its covert: There is no 100% automated process in the Military history WikiProject for tracking quality content. MilHistBot tracks and reports the A-class reviews, but the other material must be accounted for manually, and on site the easiest place to check source material for that is in The Signpost, which features a section for a given month's FA and FP content. Ordinarily, GA material is not present there, but last year on two separate occasions a list was included of promoted GA material for me check against. As the overall process is taxing on my patients, eyes, fingers, butt, and sanity, I typically forgo the GA materiel on those occasions when I have decided to collect and examine material for a "year in review" award section, however since it was reported in the signpost I figure "what the heck" and went for it this year :) TomStar81 (Talk) 20:12, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Ah ha. Thank you. I had got as far as realising that they were 5 consecutive GAs from a 20 day period, but had then stalled. I can now stop worrying about trivia and get back to some constructive editing.

I had not realised that this was an annual and semi-formal occurrence. How delightful. Reinforces what I already thought about MilHist. You will have given a large number of editors of lower level articles a nice warm glow, including this one. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Its more like a semi-annual occurrence: its whenever the spirit moves a lazy, apathetic, thirty-something year old to do something for the community as a whole. I think the last time was in 2016, but I'm not sure about that. Usually, in the interst of editor retention, I try to do this on a once a year basis, but that can be challenging. TomStar81 (Talk) 20:50, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Well next time you get the inclination, feel free to throw some my way. Assuming that is allowed. I wouldn't mind helping to spread some love around. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:54, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

If you're keen to spread the love around there is an area where recognition is still warranted. The main page contains 365 days worth of featured articles, pictures, and DYK notices, along with in the news clips and featured lists. If you would like to test the mettle of your patients, eyes, fingers, butt, and sanity, you are welcome to wade into that archived list of 2018 main page appearances and locate the milhist specific ones, then assign a value to the article, list picture, dyk, or in the news item and compile a list of barnstars for editors of the military history project to receive based on appearances. Its tough work, and not something I've ever done before, but you are certainly welcome to try if its something that interests you. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:52, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Rollback?

How'd you like to start 2019 with a new tool? You're contributions show that you can be trusted with the Rollback tool, and I have no trouble enabling it for you. Think it over, and if you decide you'd like it, lemme know. TomStar81 (Talk) 22:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

@TomStar81: Now there is a compliment. Thank you. I have actually used rollback twice previously, although the "rollback" tag seems to appear on some infrequent basis which I cannot work out. I don't think that it is something which I would want to use very often, but I can see it being handy when I do. The instructions seem straight forward. I have been following the GiantSnowman case at Arb Comm with a horrid fascination so I can see a possible downside, but can't imagine getting myself into anything resembling that. So, yes please. And thanks again. Gog the Mild (talk) 02:41, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

• Alrighty, you're all set! Use it wisely. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:13, 5 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Nothing like getting a new user right to show that you're trusted by the community. Although if the rights aren't used a lot, some people consider it Wikipedia:Hat collecting (the user right equivalent of editcountitis or barnstaritis). The GOCE admins granted me mass message sender, which means I'm trusted enough to not spam the user base. I think a lot of the editors with rollback do counter-vandalism and dispute resolution. I have seen a rollback user abuse the right (inappropriate BRR [edit warring] of a dispute under discussion) so I'm glad to see you're not taking it lightly.
  • Thanks for finishing the copy edit of Xixiasaurus, BTW. I didn't want to bug you about it since I saw you entered the WikiCup, as I figure that will take up most of your time. Let me know if you want a second set of eyes on anything for that. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg Good to hear from you again. When offered it I recalled a comment from you re the difference between barnstars and user rights. I already have editcountitis or barnstaritis but I don't see how it can be hatism if I don't ask for it. I keep an eye on a few history pages which are subject to ethnic historical revisionism, so I should have at least the occasional use for it.

I hope that I will always finish anything I start, but that one took me too long. Both RL and Wikipedia got busy on me, and the article turned out to be at the edge of my competence. I know dinosaurs and I know FACs, but the combination needed concentration. Anyway, I think that I did a passable job on what was already a very good article. It was good to note that you were still looking over my shoulder. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:41, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't avoiding you, just thought you might be busy between end-of-year and WikiCup. That copy edit went back on my radar when it hit the top of the Requests list. BTW, if you ever do get too busy, there's nothing wrong with handing it off to another copy editor. That happens with about 40 or 50 requests each year (maybe 10%). What's the other side of hat collecting, admins who give out rights thereby obligating the recipients to do more housekeeping? – Reidgreg (talk) 17:24, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I have no recollection of entering the Wikicup. I did - I thought - sign up for updates. I didn’t see my name on the list of entrants. I shan’t be entering. I want to get away from volume this year; every article I do serious work on now I have A class or FA in mind. As I am finding out, real quality is quite time consuming. And the Wikicup sounds as if it will play directly to my addictive ‘’and’’ my competitive instincts.

If I get stuck on a copy edit, I won’t hesitate then. But this was mostly a case of it not making the top of my round-to-it list.

Well, I was asked. And I could always relinquish it. Hey ho, it will probably “work” in that I ‘’will’’ feel obligated to use it. Ah well. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

The week I got MMS I read up on all the policies and answered a request – of course copy editing the person's notice and linking them to directories where they could find more people for their mailing list. It seems, though, that anyone who sends 3–4 newsletters quickly gets the right so there aren't all that many requests. – Reidgreg (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Reidgreg, if I am reading the MMS page correctly, there are 54 non-admins with this right, so it sounds like a fairly select group to me. You need to set up a copy edit request service, similar to GOCE's . Gog the Mild (talk) 17:15, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

G'day Gog, I'm wondering if you would mind writing an op-ed for The Bugle about what it is like to navigate Wikipedia and the Milhist space as a newcomer? I know that Nick and Ian are looking for op-ed's now that Tom's WWI series is done, and I think you would have a lot of useful and interesting observations to make. It might also encourage other newer editors in a general sense, as well as to submit op-ed's of their own. Would you consider it? Regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:35, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Peacemaker67, in principle I would be happy to. Who do I talk to, how many words do they want and when is the deadline? Plus I probably need to run the first para or two and an outline past someone to check that what I plan to write is something they are happy to publish. Gog the Mild (talk) 01:00, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

I would just write up something like 1,000 words in your sandbox or on a user page, then ping the editors (@Ian Rose and Nick-D:) and they will give you feedback (if that's necessary), and schedule it for an upcoming issue. No deadline, but I know they are keen to get a variety of op-ed's from project members. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:07, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Yes, that's right - drafting in your user space works best, then either place a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom and/or ping Ian and I directly. We're totally flexible about op-eds' topics, format and length, and usually only lightly edit contributions for typos, grammar, etc - but we'd be more than happy to provide feedback if you'd like. In regards to timing, we aim to finalise each edition of the Bugle in the first weekend of the month, so if you'd like to contribute something for the February edition, having it ready by late January would be much appreciated. Regards Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

@Ian Rose and Nick-D: Hi guys. I have made a start - Wikipedia is another country. It got a bit out of control. I have no idea if it is any use to you. Feel free to say that it isn't. I shan't be offended. Also feel free to edit it as much as you wish. Or to send bits back to me for rewriting. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:38, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLIII, January 2019

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 Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Battle of Auberoche

Gog, I found the following statement in a french online source, about the French captives of this battle. The Comte de Lisle was taken prisoner, and with him Aymar de Poitiers, Viscount de Caraman (Arnaud d'Euze), Agout des Baux, Seneschal of Toulouse, Raymond de Jourdain, and Viscount de Lautrec. Poitters Louis, count of Valentinois, and Henry de Montigny, Seneschal of Queroy, remained among the dead. Regards Newm30 (talk) 08:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Siege of Berwick (1333), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hull (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article SB Centaur 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 01:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

The article SB Centaur 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:SB Centaur for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 02:01, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of SB Centaur

The article SB Centaur you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:SB Centaur 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 Ed! -- Ed! (talk) 15:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346

On 13 January 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in 1346, an English army plundered its way across south-west France for 350 miles (560 km) without meeting effective resistance? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346), 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, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Little issues in the Hundred Years' War's serie

Hello Gog this is just a little hint for you. I know your Hundred Years' War articles has about the same background with here and there little differences. But, if you change something I'd recommend you, to change the other articles (which their backgrounds is mostly the same as the Battle of Auberoche) too. An example you changed this sentence The Gascons had their own language and customs. to The independent minded Gascons had their own customs and claimed to have a separate language. which is fair enough to use, but other articles like the Battle of Bergerac, the Gascon campaign of 1345, the Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 and the Siege of Aiguillon, all of them still use the sentence The Gascons had their own language and customs.. This can confuse the reader whether the information is acceptable or not. Other examples are the 100 million litre wine. The article Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346 also use the U.S. quarts and the other articles don't. The last example I could find was the "English-controlled" in the pink colour part of the File:Guyenne_1328-en.svg image. In the Battle of Auberoche article it is written as in "English-controlled" but the other articles I just mentioned are just written in "English controlled". If, I find an(y) other little issue(s) in your serie, than I'll report it to you (again). Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:12, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

Escape of Viktor Pestek and Siegfried Lederer from Auschwitz—FAC

Thank you again for your GA review and A-class comments. I have addressed all outstanding issues, including semicolons and footnotes. Might you be willing to offer comments on the FAC nomination? buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 08:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

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 Battle of Auberoche, Gascon campaign of 1345, and Siege of Aiguillon. Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)