User talk:Gog the Mild

File:Kelebek.gif

W:Wikipedian for 10 years and 24 days

Guidance

Old

DYNs

Refs

GAs

Templates

To Do List

Awards

Your GA nomination of Battle of Cape Ecnomus

The article Battle of Cape Ecnomus you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Cape Ecnomus for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cplakidas -- Cplakidas (talk) 21:02, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

February 2019 GOCE blitz bling

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

A barnstar for you!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lets see:

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

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

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

You're welcome Gog.

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

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

Siege of Aiguillon scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the Siege of Aiguillon article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 1, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

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

April

... with thanks from QAI

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

Four Award

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Gascon campaign of 1345. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Help in Spaceflight

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Marcus Aurelius

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

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

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

Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)/GA1

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

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

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

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

I understand that. I have done the same when real life suddenly gets in the way or you get a surprise early review of a GA. To be fair most abandoned ones are from the same reviewers. It seems they take a few on and then suddenly stop editing. I have just taken over seven and marked another three that I will get onto in the next little while if no one beats me to it. Another editor claimed 11 and then disappeared (they were eventually deleted) Maybe "a lot" is an exaggeration, but either way it is great to see quick responses to my queries. Regards AIRcorn (talk) 22:42, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLV, March 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: Hawkeye7 on US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

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) 11:00, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

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

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

Another B-star for you

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

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

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

Razing of Friesoythe

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

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

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

DYK for Battle of Cape Ecnomus

On 12 March 2019, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Battle of Cape Ecnomus, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Battle of Cape Ecnomus in 256 BC was probably the largest naval battle ever? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Cape Ecnomus. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Battle of Cape Ecnomus), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

March GOCE newsletter

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

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

For your help with SOLRADS 1 and 2...

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

A-class of the Battle of Cape Ecnomus

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

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

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

Siege of Berwick (1333)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC)

The article Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Gnaeus Calpurnius Piso (consul 23 BC) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Llywrch -- Llywrch (talk) 07:01, 2 April 2019 (UTC)== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==

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

March 2019 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 March 2019 Backlog Elimination Drive. Congratulations, and thank you for your contributions! Reidgreg (talk) 18:38, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The Bugle: Issue CLVI, April 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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

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) 21:59, 8 April 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 Lancaster's chevauchée of 1346, Battle of Bergerac, and Battle of Caen (1346) Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)