User talk:Hog Farm: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Trout this user
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Tag: MassMessage delivery
MilHistBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
130,794 edits
Awarded The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) to Hog Farm
Line 829: Line 829:
</div>
</div>
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1192518845 -->
<!-- Message sent by User:EN-Jungwon@enwiki using the list at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_newsletter/Subscribe&oldid=1192518845 -->
== Congratulations from the Military History Project ==
{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | [[Image:CRM.png|75px]]
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | &ensp;'''''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#Service_awards|Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)]]'''''&ensp;
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2023. {{user0|Hawkeye7}} via [[User:MilHistBot|MilHistBot]] ([[User talk:MilHistBot|talk]]) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) <p><small>Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space</small></p>
|}
<p></p>

Revision as of 00:30, 3 January 2024

SEMI-RETIRED
This user is no longer very active on Wikipedia.

    Things to review
    Things to write
    1. User:Hog Farm/Siege of Vicksburg
    2. finish expansion on Army of the Frontier
    3. Engagement at Fredericktown - MHR article and unit history; needs trip to library
    Current projects
    1. Battle of Poison Spring - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Poison Spring/archive1
    2. Smith 2023 Bayou Battles - need to work this into FA Duckport Canal
    "Pasta" is watching my talk page. Or looking for an opportunity to step on my keyboard while I'm trying to edit. I don't know which.

    Just about done

    I think this says it all. Hog Farm Talk 23:22, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Just catching up on-wiki after a trip. I'm sorry to see the TFA debacle you had for Battle of Helena. I happened to be traveling when lung cancer was at TFA, and so I totally missed the several dozen unhelpful edits that now decorate the page history. I'm sure it's frustrating to see your work disrespected by miscreants and know-nothings. I hope you know that the rest of us (and we hopefully assume countless unknown readers) appreciate your work here. I'm sure I watchlisted this page to keep up with some long-gone talk thread, but I've stayed because I enjoy taking a read through whatever project you're wrapping up – it's needed remedial schooling for a topic I seem to have learned nothing about in school.
    Anyway, over my time here I've come to the quiet opinion that the main page and its associated processes are more trouble than they're worth. Or at least they don't bring me joy/satisfaction for my time. I hope you're able to find the elements of working here that bring you joy, and strip away the elements that suck time and give frustration in return. If there's any way I can help with your projects, cleaning up messes, or keeping an eye on articles that are about to hit the lime light, just let me know. Otherwise, I wish you all the best. Ajpolino (talk) 15:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ajpolino - Thanks for the kind words. I'm feeling a bit better in RL in several ways, and my general outlook on things has improved as a result. So while this is still busy time with work, once things calm down, I'll be back :) And avoiding WP altogether whenever something of "mine" is selected by the TFA coords to be on the main page Hog Farm Talk 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    USS Marmora (1862) scheduled for TFA

    This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 August 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/August 28, 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank for the heads up. I also intend on applying semi-protection to the article beforehand - they can haul me to AN/I for that for all I care. Hog Farm Talk 23:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of John Bullock Clark

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Bullock Clark 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 04:03, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of John Bullock Clark

    The article John Bullock Clark 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:John Bullock Clark and Talk:John Bullock Clark/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 06:01, 9 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 207, July 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 19:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Galaxy

    I feel like the article has a lot of issues since (maybe) 2021 and probably needs to be sent on FAR. GreenishPickle! (🔔) 11:44, 14 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of 1st Iowa Infantry Regiment

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1st Iowa Infantry Regiment 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of John Bullock Clark

    The article John Bullock Clark you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Bullock Clark for comments about the article, and Talk:John Bullock Clark/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Steelkamp -- Steelkamp (talk) 04:03, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    August 2023 Good Article Nominations backlog drive

    Good article nominations | August 2023 Backlog Drive
    August 2023 Backlog Drive:
    • On 1 August, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin.
    • Barnstars will be awarded.
    • Interested in taking part? You can sign up here.
    Other ways to participate:
    You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

    (t · c) buidhe 05:15, 30 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of 1st Iowa Infantry Regiment

    The article 1st Iowa Infantry Regiment you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:1st Iowa Infantry Regiment for comments about the article, and Talk:1st Iowa Infantry Regiment/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:42, 3 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Marmaduke–Walker duel

    This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 6 September 2023. Please check that the article needs no amendments. Feel free to amend the draft blurb, which can be found at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 2023, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/September 2023. I suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 208, August 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 11:29, 7 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – August 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (July 2023).

    Administrator changes

    added Firefangledfeathers
    removed

    Interface administrator changes

    added Novem Linguae

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of First Battle of Springfield

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article First Battle of Springfield 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 10:03, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     The Military history A-Class medal with swords 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Swords for William Y. Slack, Battle of Grand Gulf, and Battle of Cane Hill. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 13 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TFA

    Hi there. Second Battle of Independence is probably going to run as a TFA in October. Would you care to have a go at the blurb, or prefer me to? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 16 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll try to write one up this weekend. Hog Farm Talk 05:16, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A Barnstar for you!

    The American Civil War Barnstar
    Wikipedias coverage of the American Civil War would be much less if not for your contributions! Thank you!

    Lallint 17:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you! Hog Farm Talk 03:05, 19 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Beaufort

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Beaufort 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 00:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Winslow

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Winslow 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of First Battle of Springfield

    The article First Battle of Springfield you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:First Battle of Springfield for comments about the article, and Talk:First Battle of Springfield/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Beaufort

    The article CSS Beaufort you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Beaufort for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Beaufort/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Premeditated Chaos -- Premeditated Chaos (talk) 09:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC

    Talk:Epsom riot has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Polyamorph (talk) 13:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    uss marmora

    Hog Farm, i had a quick question regarding this article and the associated blurb. the blurb mentions that marmora "saw action on the White and Little Red Rivers" in august, but i am having trouble verifying this in the article body.

    the "Late 1863" section mentions that marmora was at the mouth of the little red river at one point, and was at the junction of the white and little red rivers (which, i assume, is the same location) sometime later. however, the section does not appear to explicitly state that it spent any time on the little red river itself. also, according to that section, the most action marmora saw on the white river that month appears to be towing barges and burning a military warehouse, which i admittedly wouldn't consider "seeing action" in a war context. am i missing something here? the article lead uses the phrasing "participated in some activities", which seems more appropriate, but as it is rather lengthy, i think "was active" would be better suited for the blurb if you think "saw action" should be replaced. dying (talk) 05:57, 26 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Dying: - good catch! I agree it didn't really do much of anything on the Little Red and have removed that bit from the led. I think "seeing action" for the White River is fine; for the tinclads that was pretty much the sort of military action they were expected to do. But if you feel strongly, I'm open to rewording the blurb. Hog Farm Talk 02:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    oh, "saw action" is fine if the description is apt when considering what tinclads generally did during a war. at the time, i wasn't sure if that was the case, because marmora actually does take part in combat elsewhere during the war, so i suggested the replacement just in case you felt that "saw action" was inappropriate. basically, i just wanted to confirm with you that you were okay with this apparent discrepancy between the blurb and the article lead, since i don't know if you were involved with the blurb's drafting. as you are fine with the phrasing, there's no need to change it. thanks, Hog Farm! dying (talk) 02:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    August songs
    my story today

    Thank you today for the article, introduced: "If this nomination passes, I believe it will be the first tinclad warship to be a featured article. The best documented of the whole lot, Marmora is probably best known for being present when the ironclad Cairo sent itself to the bottom of the Yazoo River by steaming over a couple naval mines, and then torching a couple settlements in Arkansas in the next year."! - Do you think my latest GA, Berit Lindholm, had a chance for FA. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:33, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Squib

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Squib 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Holcomb, in his book on the Confederate Navy, says that Squib's iron plates protected her steam machinery and forward hatch and that the engine had two cylinders on p. 62. Would you like for me to add the bibliographic information to the article while you can fiddle with wording?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sturmvogel 66: - yes, please add the bibliographic information. Hog Farm Talk 02:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    DYK for CSS Beaufort

    On 28 August 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS Beaufort, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that CSS Beaufort fought USS Albatross in the first ship-versus-ship action of the American Civil War? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Beaufort. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS Beaufort), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. 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.

    theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 12:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Squib

    The article CSS Squib 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:CSS Squib and Talk:CSS Squib/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Squib

    The article CSS Squib you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Squib for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Squib/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Contest Article Carryover

    If you have a few spare minutes, you might want to look at the entry that I just made at the contest. In the situation where the article is improved in a month - but not yet reassessed in that month (and with request for assessment made a few days before the end of the month), I think this could be a proper listing. This is the edit summary that I used for the entry: "Blakely rife article improvement completed, B assessment requested, not yet reviewed; listed on August 31 in accordance with co-ordinator instruction step 2: "Where an article has not been re-assessed in the scoring period, it should simply be moved to the next month's subpage with an appropriate edit summary." In this type of case, recognition and presumably points are not lost. I don't expect to ever lead in a month, much less in a year. I only wish to contribute improved articles and have them reassessed. And maybe add a little to my credibility as a checker. Perhaps this is a novel listing, but it seems to be within the guidelines. Any thoughts or instructions will be appreciated. Donner60 (talk) 07:30, 31 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I have deleted the contest entry because it has been reassessed today at the same level, start. Of course, you can look in the history if you are interested in seeing how I had posted the entry as a more general way of handling a lack of assessment in the same month as the improvements were made and comment if you wish.I might be able to find sources to make the suggested improvements for reassessment later. That might not be enough for a contest entry but a higher rating may still be possible. Again, please ignore this if you are busy. Donner60 (talk) 08:40, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to delete this as a waste of your time at this point but I should have realized that a user can't delete a post, even his own, on another user's talk page. Oh well. Some days. Donner60 (talk) 08:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donner60: - sorry for the delayed reply. I had to work late a bunch this week, but hopefully the factors that have been causing that so often the last few months are dissipating. I'll try to take a look this weekend and get you a proper B-class review on this one, the changes would then make it eligible for reporting in September. Among other things, I have a copy of Warren Ripley's Artillery and Ammunition of the American Civil War around somewhere and that should have some more good information I can add to the article as well. Hog Farm Talk 01:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. No rush, of course. I would appreciate if you could find something in Ripley that would be helpful in meeting the deficiencies cited in the review. That is a source I saw in Hazlet's book but I do not have. I did find a way to source the Widow Blakely gun being cut down to a mortar at Vicksburg by citing a National Park Service historical marker at the Vicksburg Battlefield Park. The text of the marker is available online. So I just made that change and rearranged the further use section to better highlight the various uses in fortifications, at sea and in land battles. Donner60 (talk) 06:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Donner60 - do you think it would be worthwhile to try to write a separate article on the Widow Blakely cannon, like what I did with Whistling Dick (cannon) earlier this year? I had ordered for 3 or 4 bucks from the Mississippi Department of Archives and History a copy of an article Ed Bearss wrote back in the 1950s where he demonstrated that the piece identified at West Point as "Whistling Dick" was really "Widow Blakely", and I still have that on my bookshelf. Between Bearss, Ripley, and the source you have there should be enough for the bones of a decent article. That way we could include coverage of the Widow Blakely without giving it disproportionate weight at the article for the Blakely rifle itself. Hog Farm Talk 14:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I will write a "Widow Blakely" article draft as promptly as I can and we can see how it looks. I will work on it in User:Donner60/sandbox 6. I saw mention of the Bearss identification in at least one of the references. I will try to find it quickly. Of course, there may be more in the Bearss article that could be used in the "Widow Blakely" article. I may be able to get some more specifications for the size of "Widow Blakely", but I need to check. Hazlett, for one, is sparse on details for most sizes of Blakelys. Another source for more details may be needed. Donner60 (talk) 03:44, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I found the Ripley book at a reasonable price on Amazon so I ordered it. Ten days estimated delivery time. I looked a day or two ago and saw none reasonably priced. I have added more to the article tonight/this morning. Plenty of time for this month. Donner60 (talk) 09:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also now ordered the Olmstead book, companion to Hazlett, also coming in about ten days. That should give me enough references, in addition to what I have or otherwise can find, to work on Civil War artillery articles needing expansion. That will probably be after working on some higher priorities. Donner60 (talk) 22:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (August 2023).

    Guideline and policy news

    • Following an RfC, TFAs will be automatically semi-protected the day before it is on the main page and through the day after.
    • A discussion at WP:VPP about revision deletion and oversight for dead names found that [s]ysops can choose to use revdel if, in their view, it's the right tool for this situation, and they need not default to oversight. But oversight could well be right where there's a particularly high risk to the person. Use your judgment.

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • The SmallCat dispute case has closed. As part of the final decision, editors participating in XfD have been reminded to be careful about forming local consensus which may or may not reflect the broader community consensus. Regular closers of XfD forums were also encouraged to note when broader community discussion, or changes to policies and guidelines, would be helpful.

    Miscellaneous

    • Tech tip: The "Browse history interactively" banner shown at the top of Special:Diff can be used to easily look through a history, assemble composite diffs, or find out what archive something wound up in.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open

    Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election have opened. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next coordination year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting will commence on 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the current coord team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:05, 2 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Good luck!

    Hello, Hog Farm,

    I'm sorry to see you turn in your toolkit but if you are burned out in your job, it's the right decision to make. It was pleasant working with you when we happened to cross paths. I hope should the urge return to work on the project, you feel free to come back. You'll always be welcome! Take care. Liz Read! Talk! 02:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    (talk page watcher) I was worried to see the rights changes come up on my watchlist, but it's bittersweet to know it's a voluntary resignation in a busy life. I hope to see you again soon, HF. Vaticidalprophet 02:24, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good luck Hog! Your presence will be greatly missed. If you need someone to take over a review or something you're working on, ping me. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hope to see you around in the future, good luck and best wishes for things going forward! Eddie891 Talk Work 15:17, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Hog Farm, I'm sad to see you decrease your activity but you've left an excellent body of work and have helped a ton in a bunch of different areas. And I'm glad to see that this is a mostly voluntary thing after some mostly good news IRL. Good luck to whatever you do in the future and hit me up for whatever reason you want. Moneytrees🏝️(Talk) 03:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Second the above - hadn't realized you were stepping back so much...flip. Hog you have been a great presence here; calming, quietly authoritative, and hugely productive. You will be missed :( Ceoil (talk) 03:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Guess I'm late to the party here (been busy IRL myself and stepped back from MilHist) but also wanted to note my thanks. Whatever your future here is, know that you have been a great asset to the project. Ceoil summarized it better than I could have: "calming, quietly authoritative, and hugely productive". If I had to trust a single person to be sincere, committed, and persistent on anything ACW-related on Wikipedia, it would be you. I'll also note your efforts at GAn and FAC. Best of luck to you. -Indy beetle (talk) 09:21, 1 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, I didn't see that one coming. Thank you for all of your service and enjoy your real life. CLYDE TALK TO ME/STUFF DONE 16:58, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • Full salute to a top-flight content creator and reviewer. Thank you for your contributions and looking forward to seeing you back someday! czar 22:38, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    August 2023 Military History Writing Contest

    The Writers Barnstar
    On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the August 2023 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 56 points from 6 articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 09:27, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    September songs
    my story today

    Thank you today for Marmaduke–Walker duel, introduced: "Two Confederate generals begin to dislike each other after the botched attacks at Helena, Arkansas. Things boil over during the Union advance on Little Rock, and the two eventually decide to hold an illegal duel. Both show up despite being ordered to stay in camp, and Walker is mortally wounded. Marmaduke is briefly arrested, but is released and suffers no long-term consequences, becoming Governor of Missouri after the war."! - We'll miss you presence, - please come over - reading! - whenever you can. Best wishes! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:00, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Things to finish up

    So as most have probably already seen, I'm intending to take an indefinite step away with the hope of sorting some stuff out IRL and then (eventually) returning in some form. I still intend to finish up the following low-level things:

    Review Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Yugoslav torpedo boat T2/archive1 for Peacemaker67
    See Talk:CSS Winslow/GA1 through to its completion
    Review for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Minneapolis/archive1 for SusanLesch
    See Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Grand Gulf/archive1 through to the bitter end

    I'll check back in to make sure the FAs and GAs I'm primarily responsible for don't go to pieces (Marmaduke-Walker duel is TFA tomorrow, and I think there will be another one in October), and will try to respond to any pings when I do stop on, but I won't be consistently active at all. Hog Farm Talk 23:28, 5 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey mate, it has been good working with you over the past few years. All the best and hope we will see you back here sooner rather than later. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 08:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hog Farm, enjoy some time for yourself. Your comments are an unusual treasure around here and I hope to meet up again. -SusanLesch (talk) 15:16, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The long version from me, as it often is. In most respects I was quite surprised to see you stepping away. You have been one of the best and most prolific contributors to this project that I have ever encountered. Your energy, writing skills, demeanor, intelligence are obvious. You have good instincts and good advice. I could go on. But I am glad you are stepping back (and away to the extent you need to). Why? Because you are a young man and need to concentrate on your career, family and real life in general. You don't need to get burned out and disrupt your life by trying to keep up your vigorous and time-consuming pace here. I know even more that I did when I decided to concentrate more on content about a year ago that there is a lot to be done here. But some people will continue to try to improve this important project. Real life and health permitting, I will plug along at such pace as I am able to maintain despite roadblocks and problems that can be discouraging. Contribute if you can to whatever extent time permits. You have set a great example and made those of us who work in the areas that you work on aware of subjects to concentrate on. Sorry to be taking your time blabbering on but I want you to know how much I appreciate your work here and collaborations with me. Best of luck, best wishes and I hope to see you around occasionally. 10:04, 16 September 2023 (UTC) I suppose I could remember to sign the post even if this was a surprise. Donner60 (talk) 10:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely agree with Donner: "You have been one of the best and most prolific contributors...." Not only your articles, but your reviews. You've even reviewed some of my non-military things such as Swains Lock. I hope you can relax and devote time to your career and family. Remember that Wikipedia is a hobby and should not be an obsession. I'm sure that I can speak for anyone that knows you that we all hope you sort things out, get your life on track, and then maybe return to a slower–paced Wikipedia life. TwoScars (talk) 17:27, 18 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm late to the game and only found this after seeing you relinquish your admin privileges. I'm sorry to see you put down the mop and reduce your time on WP, and hope you will find your way back at some point. It's been great working with you and your many contributions are much appreciated. Ergo Sum 15:02, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 209, September 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 21:37, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    FAR

    Thank you for the Doolittle review at FAR. I understand you are time bound re wiki these days, but asking you could cast an eye over Sex Pistols, which is also at FAR. I understand the time this would take, and esp given this weeks review no probs if too busy...no harm in asking :) Best as always. Ceoil (talk) 23:29, 7 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ceoil: - I'll see when I can get to it, but I'm traveling a lot for work for the rest of the month so I don't know when. As I've noted above in the other talk page discussions, I'm going to be mostly off-wiki indefinitely but will try to get a review for this one in as thanks for all the hard work you've put into to save articles at FAR. Hog Farm Talk 14:05, 8 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Understand and to say again I appreciate the leeway and time allowed during FARs. Reviewers like you are like hens teeth. Ceoil (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Promotion of Battle of Grand Gulf

    Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Battle of Grand Gulf, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.
    This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 13 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Winslow

    The article CSS Winslow you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Winslow for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Winslow/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:03, 19 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     The WikiChevrons 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 21 reviews between January and March 2022. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:06, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     The WikiChevrons 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons for participating in 18 reviews between April and June 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:09, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     Military history reviewers' award 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 5 reviews between July and September 2023. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:17, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

    Fleetwood Park Racetrack?

    Hi. You mentioned at WP:Mentoring for FAC that you were interested in United States historic sites. Could I interest you in reviewing Fleetwood Park Racetrack? It's my first FAC and the nomination seems to have stalled after two supports. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Hog Farm has taken steps back from wikipedia editing at the moment. I am a poor substitute, but would be happy to take a look, if you're interested. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:29, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eddie891 I would indeed be happy to have you take a look. Thanks! RoySmith (talk) 19:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Roy, I'm sorry, but like Eddie noted above I just don't have the time to look to edit much at all right now due to RL factors. Hog Farm Talk 03:30, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem. I just saw your request to give up the mop due to burnout. I totally get it. Taking care of yourself comes first, always. Enjoy the time off. RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – September 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (September 2023).

    Guideline and policy news

    • An RfC is open regarding amending the paid-contribution disclosure policy to add the following text: Any administrator soliciting clients for paid Wikipedia-related consulting or advising services not covered by other paid-contribution rules must disclose all clients on their userpage.

    Technical news

    • Administrators can now choose to add the user's user page to their watchlist when changing the usergroups for a user. This works both via Special:UserRights and via the API. (T272294)

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:41, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m very sorry to read that life is a struggle at the moment. I hope that things will improve. With regards to autopatrolled, I’ve added that flag. With 190 GAs or better to your credits, it’s safe to assume that your new articles don’t require review by others. All the best! Schwede66 17:15, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A barnstar for you!

    The Original Barnstar
    Thank you for everything you've done as an FA co-ordinator (as well as more widely, obviously!) It has all been much appreciated. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    +1 Sad to see the notice, but work-life balance is definitely important. Wishing you the best and will be glad to have you back whenever and in whatever capacity you return! {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:07, 5 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also am looking forward to your return. If not in this season of your life, then hopefully the next. -- In actu (Guerillero) Parlez Moi 09:15, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I second this as well. Thank you for everything you've done for the project, Hog Farm. It is very greatly appreciated and will be missed, but I also simultaneously understand how "real life" takes precedence and is paramount. I wish you the best and hope to see you around. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:27, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 210, October 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 19:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    TFA

    October songs
    my story today

    Thank you today for Second Battle of Independence, introduced (in 2021): "This is presumably around the time that Sterling Price realized his 1864 Missouri Raid was in big trouble, as the Union managed to get sizable bodies of troops to the east and west of the Confederates, with a river to the north. Second Independence represents the Confederates' attempt to hold a rear guard long enough for the main body of the army fought a way across Byram's Ford."! - And for all the quality content you gave us, some seen above. Best wishes for what you do now! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:31, 22 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Omaha Beach

    Hi Hog, thanks very much for all your hard and good work. On a FAR for Omaha you wrote, "some of it seems plain wrong; "By the end of the day, two small isolated footholds had been won."" Please may you explain why it's wrong and potentially tag other issues? It would seriously benefit from your expertise. I've started listening to the podcast We Have Ways of Making You Talk, all about WWII, and recommend it! Tom B (talk) 15:26, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Tpbradbury: - the specific comment about the content being plain wrong was from Gog the Mild. I'm much more familiar with the American Civil War than WWII myself, while Gog has at least one FAC related to the operations on Crete. Nick-D or Hawkeye7 would also be able to better advise specifically on this topic than me. Hog Farm Talk 18:13, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    apologies, thank you Tom B (talk) 09:53, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Tom B, I have three WWII FAs (Eg Battle of Heraklion, a cracking read in my not very humble opinion ) and in draft have been fiddling around with the "missing" US battles in the Cotentin for a while; Battle of Montebourg is due to be next up. So while I am perfectly capable of being wrong, I possess some sources and some background knowledge on the Normandy campaign. I have just checked in seven sources, and they are consistent. Taking three that happen to have good maps - Atkinson (map on p 67), Ambrose (464-5), Wilmot (fp 241) - I note for the first time that the first two both have a completely different scale on their otherwise near identical maps, and it is wrong! This may or may not have contributed to the confusion. Any hoo, they show that by the end of the day the Americans were solidly ashore in a joined up lodgement 8 miles wide and 2-3 miles deep in the east and centre and more than a mile deep in the west. Reinforcements and supplies were pouring ashore and the German defences had been thoroughly fragmented. The Germans had taken 20% losses and the divisional commander was telling his bosses that unless heavily reinforced within 36 hours his formation would collapse. It wasn't and did, which is why by the 10th the advance from Omaha was deeper than in front of any of the other beaches.
    I note that a vast amount of the sourcing is dated to 1945. I have only (just) skimmed the article but see little hope of "tagging other issues"; IMHO the large majority of it is not salvageable, or even written using an acceptable approach. I have no idea how this ever got to FA, I would have thought it a quick fail at GAN. It needs restarting with a blank sheet of paper. If I had realised that it had been demoted I would have had a crack at rewriting it for FAC myself, but I assume that is what you are about. Best of luck. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:27, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Gog, thanks very much, this got to FA in 2007 when the standards were lower. No, I was not intending to rewrite it, that is why I am getting in touch with the experts! I don't have any WWII books yet and may never get to this level of detail. The article would definitely benefit from your expertise so please put this on your list and/or get other editors involved? thanks again, Tom B (talk) 10:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Congratulations from the Military History Project

     The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves 
    On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves for Hog Farm is the name in the English Wikipedia's coverage of the American Civil War, with dozens on dozens of articles of quality, and has devoted years of his time and energy to the coordination and maintenance of MILHIST. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:20, 2 October 2023 (UTC). Harrias (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Congrats, HF! 👍🏻 Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:50, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Congratulations! Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:19, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    This is quite the honor - it's humbling to think that I'd be considered for this. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Battle of Charleston

    @Hog Farm: Thanks for looking at Battle of Charleston (1862), and glad to see you are back. No hurry here, as I am reviewing a page about a railroad, and the author and I may clash on dates used for the railroad's existence. By the way, one of my sources for the Battle of Charleston is a book by Terry Lowry published by 35th Star Publishing. Lowry is not a very organized writer, but he has access to numerous Civil War letters, newspapers, and other documents. I believe he is, or was, a historian at the West Virginia State Archives. Here is a link to a discussion about Lowry that I found: West Virginia History and Archives News. TwoScars (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hog Farm: Thanks again for reviewing at Battle of Charleston (1862). How do you do so many reviews? Other than one military review, being a reviewer drives me nuts! I keep questioning things or wanting to change things. TwoScars (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Ezra Cricket (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

    Administrator changes

    added 0xDeadbeef
    readded Tamzin
    removed Dennis Brown

    Interface administrator changes

    added Pppery
    removed

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    Arbitration

    • Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
    • Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
    • Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
    • Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
    • Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
    • Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
    • An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Rennick and Hodge

    So it looks like the gun is to our heads over Kentucky again. ☺ Hodge is an excellent source for fleshing out Rennick, and I wonder if there was something similar for the South Fork in Oneida. You might want to re-visit Whitaker, Kentucky (AfD discussion) as I've looked at how Rennick and Hodge both systematize these. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    • The other one turned out to be not Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) but Trace Fork (AfD discussion). Who knew‽ Well, obviously people who read histories and geological reports knew. But who else knew‽ ☺ I can tell you exactly where that sentence about the Whitsett spur fits. Would that I could find a source to support the fairly obvious fact that it was named for Ralph Crawford Whitsett. Maybe that's in your magazine, which I cannot read. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't have a direct connection between the two, but I do have that source that indicates that a company run by R. C. Whitsett operated the tipple and conveyor at Whitsett; readers should be able to draw the connection once that info is in there. Hog Farm Talk 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    You might enjoy User talk:Drmies#up the Creeks without an English professor. There's also a Civil War connection for you. I've only put the history in The Forks of Troublesome up as far as the founding of Hindman, which seems a sensible place to stop, although the geography can be current. But there's more after that; the Civil War rivalries amongst the various settlers echoed for years in Knott County, Kentucky#History and Hindman, Kentucky#History. Maybe you can find out more about Hays and Jones and the rest. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]


    Enjoy Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky#GNIS mess, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

    Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Precious anniversary

    Precious
    Three years!

    --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Nope

    ... it's an example of why you SHOULD be a Coord ... you recognize and acknowledge issues, and aren't ego-driven :). Hope you don't feel at all that any of my comments there were aimed at you being the one to push the promote button ... you were just doing what has come to be expected. Hope this Christmas is filled with joy, health, and peace, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A possibly not-so-quick request...

    Greetings, can I ask you to give Ojos del Salado a quick check to see if it ready for a FAC candidacy? For after Guallatiri is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure - I need to give Kreutz sungrazer another read-through for the FAR first; as well as do some expansion/resourcing work for Battle of Big Black River Bridge so it will probably be next week before I can get to Ojos de Salado. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Californians. Writing about water.

    Remember the hot springs? Californians don't only write about hot springs.

    Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy

    Glad to see you around again. You are a very talented editor and we're better when you are here. All your work is truly appreciated. Hope all is well. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 03:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the kind words. It's good to be back - I missed content work and I've thankfully been able to sort out some of the issues that led to the absence. Hog Farm Talk 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems it's a good season for climbing back into the saddle, eh? What adventures across the wide and wondrous plains of American history shall we explore now? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Right now it's west Mississippi Confederate routs, but after Christmas it will probably be Battle of Poison Spring, a sad story of war crimes in Arkansas. Hog Farm Talk 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Ooh (and also ouch). For my part, I'll be focusing on Ranald S. Mackenzie - a man you might recognize - and rewrites of 1840s Texas article you brought to my attention last year. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

    Guideline and policy news

    Arbitration

    • Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
    • The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
    • Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.
    Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

    Full front page of The Bugle
    Your Military History Newsletter

    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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    David Stuart

    I thought this became a little too long and complicated to include on the assessment page so I am posting it here. Since you do not have the Eicher book, I am copying some excerpts here. Adding later: my second post below has a clearer indication of what this might mean and how I would probably handle it. With any luck, you will see the second short post at the same time as this long post and not have to revisit my clarified post on how I might handle the Eicher's take on rejected nominations.

    David Stuart is one of those odd “might have been” cases, according to the Eichers. (Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1.) The Eichers define “might-have-beens” on page xxi: “This biographical section includes military, naval, and civilian officers who were formerly thought to qualify as high commanders, but about whom we now have doubts for apparent legal reasons, or because of a consensus of recent scholarship.”

    At page 31, they wrote: “Appointments to a higher grade usually reverted to the previous lower grade when no confirmation occurred. The appointment was therefore often carried unofficially or considered an acting appointment pending the legal outcome of the confirmation or reversion.”

    They add “a typical form letter for an official appointment” which is signed by the Secretary of War and reads in part: “You are hereby informed that the President of the United States has appointed you _________ in the service of the United States, to rank from the ___ day of _____ one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. Should the Senate, at there next session, advise and consent thereto, you will be commissioned accordingly.”

    Further on that page, they state: “Steps 6 [nomination by the President] and 8 [confirmation on a vote with the “Advise and Consent” of the Senate were crucial steps [to obtain a commission], as stated in an opinion of the Attorney General (note: presumably Edward Bates but this is not shown): When a person has been nominated to an office by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and the commission has been signed by the President, and the Seal of the United States affixed thereto, his appointment to that office is complete.” Bracketed words from earlier in the page; my note in parenthesis.

    On page xvii, the Eichers have a chart showing the number of “high commanders”: such as substantive generals, brevet generals, might have beens, politicians and a few other categories as shown by 24 sources, including their book. They show Warner as listing 556 substantive type (Union generals) and 32 “might have beens” while they show 564 substantive Union generals and 116 “might have beens.” Warner's introduction states that 583 generals have bios in the book, not the 588 that the Eichers tally. Marcus Wright's official War Department list in 1908 had 557 substantive generals and 32 “might-have-beens” according to the Eichers, one more in total than the Eichers state that Warner includes but six more than Warner himself states in his intorduction. I had not noticed these distinctions between substantive generals and might have beens in Warner or Wright and did not try to look for them now. Maybe they are there. But there is nothing in Warner's sketch of Stuart to eliminate him as a general of some sort except that he was not confirmed. Perhaps one has to discern them from the facts that the appointments were not confirmed and/or commissions not issued whether an officer was a might have been general. At page xvi, the Eichers state: “The collected record of claims for who is a general or flag officer and who isn't abounds with mistakes.” They also wrote: “Many dozens of fundamental mistakes now exist with regard to the military records of commanders on both sides. Numerous specific errors in individual studies have been cited in The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography by David J. Eicher (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1997). The bulk of this work attempts to set the record straight.”

    The question becomes how should Stuart's appointment be described. He was appointed a brigadier general and acted as such. Legally, since he never was commissioned, he was actually not a general! Legally, he was not a “temporary” general or an “acting general”, since the appointment did not specify that. “Colonel commanding....” would not be accurate, at least not at the time, and I am confident he would have never signed any order or communication with that identification. Eicher probably comes closest to actual circumstance by using the term “acting general” pending the final commission or reversion in rank.

    Sorry to throw this complication at you but I thought you should take Eicher into consideration, or not, depending on how you might look at it and the source(s) you are depending on.

    At page 611, the Eichers give Stuart's cause of death as “of paralysis, Detroit, Mich, 11 Sept. 1988; in., Elmwood Cemetery, Detroit.”

    You seem to have enough material to go for a GA. I have seen a number of military bios and written a few. Some of the bios written by Zawed are relatively brief but have been assessed GA (by others). Usually, the bios that I have written or seen would have an “Early life” section, then a service section, divided into sub-sections if the service was lengthy and/or distinguished, then a “Later life” section if the officer survived into retirement. The early and later life sections are often short, as yours would be if you split them off - especially the later life. Often, I suppose, there isn't much information available.

    I am adding a few minutes after posting this that Djmaschek has assessed the article as B. I thought I would leave this note answering your question about GA before going on to the current assessment. Djmaschek took care of that and made a few suggestions concerning additions and clarifications.

    If something occurs to me on re-reading the article, I'll let you know but I think it is quite good as it is. Donner60 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    So if I had been thinking a little more clearly, I might have written that the Eichers interjection about "might-have-beens" could be handle two ways. One would be to simply leave it as it is and depend on the fact that the appointment was not confirmed to tell the story, as Warner (and Sifakis and maybe Wright) seem to have done. The other would be to add a footnote that says something like, the Eichers characterize Stuart as a "might have been" or "acting general" because the Senate's rejection of his nomination resulted in him not being commissioned as a general. He would have reverted to his previous grade of colonel. The Eichers also point out, however, that he acted as a general during the period between his notice that he had been nominated until soon after notice of the Senate's rejection of his nomination - or such better language as you might use to make the point, if you think it is worth making. Donner60 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Donner60: - I'm still thinking about how to handle this best. David Stuart (Union general) may be a better article title than directly calling him a brigadier general, given the Senate's rejection of his promotion, although he certainly functioned as a brigadier general. His report on Chickasaw Bayou is signed D. Stuart, Brigadier-General, Commanding. I think acting general is the best terminology, similar to those Confederate officers promoted to general by E. K. Smith without consultation of the rest of the CS government. Out of curiousity - what date does Eicher give for his appointment to BG? Warner and others use Nov. 29, but I've also seen Dec. 2. I half suspect that Nov. 29 is the date of rank, and Dec. 2 is the date of appointment. Hog Farm Talk 02:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    In the bio sketch, p. 611, Eicher wrote "Brig. Gen., 29 Nov. 1862 (nomination negated by the Senate, 11 Mar. 1863);". He does not specifically identify what stage of the process took place on that date. He also does not include "might-have-beens" in his tables of confirmed generals that have separate dates of rank, appointment, nomination, confirmation and termination. So Eicher is of no direct help on this. In Eicher's table, but more importantly in Wright's Memorandum which includes "might-have-beens" and dates of rank and appointment, I did see Nov 29 as a date of rank for many officers, some with Nov. 29 appointments, but some with different appointment dates.
    United States War Department, The Military Secretary's Office, Memorandum Relative to the General Officers in the Armies of the United States During the Civil War, 1861-1865 (Compiled from Official Records.) 1906. (Compiled by Wright, Marcus J..), at page 16, shows a nomination date and a date of rank for Stuart, both as Nov. 29. The Dec. 2 date is not mentioned in any of the four sources I refer to in this note. In the only other column in Wright's list, he wrote for Stuart: "Appointment expired by law Mar. 4, 1863." (Note difference from Eicher, Sifakis and Warner: March 11.)
    Sifakis, Stewart. Who Was Who in the Civil War. New York: Facts On File, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8160-1055-4. On page 631, Sifakis wrote "brigadier general, November 29, 1862". He also wrote: "With his rejection by the Senate (on March 11, 1863), he was reluctantly relieved from command on April 4 by Sherman...."
    As you know, Warner, p. 485, has "On November 29, 1862, Stuart was appointed brigadier general..." and "the Senate had rejected his appointment as brigadier general on March 11, 1863...." I think the conclusion must be that November 29, 1862 was both the date of Stuart's appointment and his date of rank (or more correctly, I suppose, the date his rank would have been). Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Military Historian of the Year

    I much appreciate your nomination of me. I think the prolific contributors of higher assessed articles and reviews, including you since you are only recently semi-tired and as someone also pointed out, still contributing much valuable content, are more deserving. Now, if there was a military history gnome of the year.... Again, thanks for the recognition. Donner60 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

    Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    A solstice greeting

    ❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

    Hi Hog Farm! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!
    Cheers,
    {{u|Sdkb}} talk
    Solstice Celebration for Hog Farm, 2023, DALL·E 3. (View full series) Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.
    Solstice Celebration for Hog Farm, 2023, DALL·E 3.
    Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

    {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Isondiga

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Isondiga 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of USS John P. Jackson

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS John P. Jackson 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS New Orleans

    Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS New Orleans 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 ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Your GA nomination of CSS Isondiga

    The article CSS Isondiga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Isondiga for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Isondiga/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", or as a bold link under "In the news" or in the "On this day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Military Historian of the Year 2023

    2023 Military Historian of the Year
    As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the coveted Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Happy New Year

    Happy New Year!
    Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

    News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2024).

    Administrator changes

    readded Nyttend
    removed

    Bureaucrat changes

    removed Nihonjoe

    CheckUser changes

    readded Joe Roe

    Oversight changes

    removed GeneralNotability

    Guideline and policy news

    Technical news

    • Partial action blocks are now in effect on the English Wikipedia. This means that administrators have the ability to restrict users from certain actions, including uploading files, moving pages and files, creating new pages, and sending thanks. T280531

    Arbitration

    Miscellaneous

    Sent by ~~~~

    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 participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hog_Farm&oldid=1193280427"