User talk:Gog the Mild

Page contents not supported in other languages.
This user is a WikiGnome.
Trout this user
This user is a coordinator of the Military History WikiProject
Editor of the Week, 22 June 2019
This user won the Four Award with the "{{{article_name}}}" article.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

FACs needing feedback
John B. Creeden Review it now
Argosy (magazine) Review it now
Israeli citizenship law Review it now

Adamson Tannehill[edit]

Hi Gog the Mild, Could you please let me know what still needs to be completed to get my FAC, Adamson Tannehill, over the hump? I've got three supporting reviews, including yours. The spot-check reviewer has approved all my revisions based on his/her comments. Finally, after all the trying that seems appropriate, I cannot get Harrias to finish off his much-appreciated source review. Which leaves me where? Just curious. I appreciate all your help! Tfhentz (talk) 16:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I am recused, but I note that you seem to have put Harrias's user name in bold rather than pinging them when you commented that the spot check was complete. So they may not yet realise that the review is ready for them to comment on again. Or they may be busy preparing some maps. I understand that when a review is drawn out it can be frustrating waiting for other volunteer editors to get back on something - really I do, I have been there - but for a first nom this seems to be ticking along and I am quite sure that Harrias will be along in due course, despite their misfortune of possessing a real life. Get on with your RL and try not to worry about the FAC too much. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sound're right. I just don't like things hanging, but I'll just be patient. Thanks again very much. 2603:8080:2A00:F05F:C583:9FAE:8D18:431C (talk) 19:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WikiCup 2023 November newsletter[edit]

The WikiCup is a marathon rather than a sprint and all those reaching the final round have been involved in the competition for the last ten months, improving Wikipedia vastly during the process. After all this hard work, Delaware BeanieFan11 has emerged as the 2023 winner and the WikiCup Champion. The finalists this year were:-

Congratulations to everyone who participated in this year's WikiCup, whether they made it to the final round or not, and particular congratulations to the newcomers to the competition, some of whom did very well. Wikipedia has benefitted greatly from the quality creations, expansions and improvements made, and the numerous reviews performed. All those who reached the final round will win awards. The following special awards will be made based on high performance in particular areas of content creation and review. Awards will be handed out in the next few days.

  • Unlimitedlead wins the featured article prize, for 7 FAs in total including 3 in round 2.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured list prize, for 5 FLs in total.
  • England Lee Vilenski wins the featured topic prize, for a 6-article featured topic in round 4.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the featured picture prize, for 6 FPs in total.
  • Delaware BeanieFan11 wins the good article prize, for 75 GAs in total, including 61 in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the good topic prize, for a 41-article good topic in the final round.
  • Berkelland LunaEatsTuna wins the GA reviewer prize, for 70 GA reviews in round 1.
  • MyCatIsAChonk wins the FA reviewer prize, for 66 FA reviews in the final round.
  • New York (state) Epicgenius wins the DYK prize, for 49 did you know articles in total.
  • Ukraine Muboshgu wins the ITN prize, for 46 in the news articles in total.

The WikiCup has run every year since 2007. With the 2023 contest now concluded, I will be standing down as a judge due to real life commitments, so I hope that another editor will take over running the competition. Please get in touch if you are interested. Next year's competition will hopefully begin on 1 January 2024. You are invited to sign up to participate in the contest; the WikiCup is open to all Wikipedians, both novices and experienced editors. It only remains to congratulate our worthy winners once again and thank all participants for their involvement! (If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send.) Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: the certification title issue[edit]

Hey, do you really want me to start a discussion at the Songs wikiproject talk page? That often invites drama which I am desperately trying to avoid considering I am standing on wafer thin ice on here. The only reason I am unwilling to compromise on the capitalization issue is because this contradicts every song FA I have written. "Title" (song) and "The One" (Tamar Braxton song) which you also recused and reviewed have the capitalized certification titles so I am a bit lost why this becomes an issue now.--NØ 21:09, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I probably didn't notice it before. It is one of those where once noticed it niggles; the more I think about it, the less convinced I am that it is correct. You didn't help yourself by pointing me to two discussions where the consensus was against capitalising in the situation where you did. You are correct that you are on thin ice, but I don't think a RfC on Songs would cut it anyway. A local consensus can't overrule the MoS, which - having had some time to chew it over - I now believe is clear on the matter. You would need a RfC on the MoS.
Just bite the bullet and lower case it. If you really care about consistency, change it in your other articles. Wikipedia policy is quite clear that consistency between - as opposed to within - articles is not required. (I once created articles on two battles in the same campaign, where the English were fighting in France. In one I had imperial as the primary units, in the other metric. I did it entirely to wind up a reviewer who was over-enamoured by consistency.)
"An issue now": it is surprising how often I look at something and suddenly see it in a different light. If I haven't picked this up before, you are right to chide me about it, but that doesn't mean that I am wrong now. Researching, I note that my fellow coordinator, FrB.TG, used lower case in their recently promoted Telephone (song). Perhaps they could opine on your use in My Little Love? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:39, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
From a grammatical perspective, the use of capital letters is typically reserved for proper nouns—specific names or titles. Music certifications, such as gold, platinum and diamond, are more akin to adjectives describing the degree of success a recording has achieved. I think employing lowercase letters maintains grammatical consistency, treating them as descriptors rather than unique entities. It reflects a linguistic choice that aligns with the functional role of these terms in describing, rather than naming, the level of accomplishment.
On the other hand, I notice that RIAA uses capital letters in their descriptions, but they are referring to the awards themselves, which are specific and tangible entities. The awards, such as Gold & Platinum Awards, are proper nouns because they represent physical accolades given to artists. In contrast, when discussing the certification levels (gold, platinum, etc.), which indicate the degree of success, maintaining lowercase letters aligns with the grammatical convention for common descriptors rather than specific titles or awards. FrB.TG (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Done now, albeit this is killing my OCD...--NØ 17:25, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 6 November 2023[edit]

idea lab[edit]

Regarding this comment: perhaps you could consider a milder expression of disapproval? At the idea lab village pump, editors ought to be able to throw out ideas in order to spark discussion. I do agree that proposals that aren't based on a demonstrated problem aren't going to get far. Nonetheless, getting people to think freely about new approaches is hard, and thus I feel the community would benefit from not having its participants be ashamed of proposing an idea. (I appreciate there can be a fine line between encouraging someone to make a better proposal next time, and discouraging them about their current proposal.) isaacl (talk) 18:45, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your revision. I appreciate it! isaacl (talk) 21:54, 6 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for closing Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Piri/archive1, I probably bit off more than I could chew in nominating it. I can advise that the article went through Peer Review just before I nominated it and went unreviewed, so I probably won't send it there again any time soon. I do have two questions about the process though.

I notice that Wikipedia:Guidance on source reviewing at FAC#Reliability states that in certain circumstances primary sources are "entirely acceptable and even welcome". It was my understanding that anything that was only sourceable in primary sources would constitute undue weight. What are the circumstances in which I could use them? (An earlier version of the article used way too many of them, but it may contain useful things.)

Is there any chance at all you could provide some comments on this yourself? (I did mention that I would like to run it on her birthday, 14 March, but given that said date is only four months away, and her birthday is only available in AllMusic and her Twitter, I suspect this might not happen.) Thank you. Launchballer 11:08, 9 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Primary sources: that is difficult to answer without re-litigating the FAC. WP:RSPRIMARY is the basic guidance, especially "Although specific facts may be taken from primary sources, secondary sources that present the same material are preferred. Large blocks of material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." FAC also requires sources to be "high quality". It can be difficult to measure primary sources against the criteria given and some judgements have a degree of subjectivity. Personally I avoid primary sources at virtually all costs, even for direct quotes.
You have picked a tricky article for your first FAC. It is notoriously difficult to do justice in BLPs to those whose careers are ongoing. Recently there was a fuss as to whether Liz Truss should be allowed on FAC, and she has been an MP for 13 years and has stood down as prime minister. That said, it can be done, eg Mckenna Grace. Plus such individuals usually have limited secondary sources. Skimming Piri, it does a bit give the impression of trying to stretch limited material into a decent article.
My serious advice, which you probably won't like, is to review 6 or 8 nominations at FAC, studying the comments of fellow reviewers as you do so. Critically reviewing other people's work will almost certainly have a beneficial impact on your own writing and and it will give you a better understanding of the FAC process. Also, take another 5 or 6 articles to GAN. Again, this will do wonders for your writing and your grasp of the MoS. (I took more than 40 articles to GAN before I nominated my first FAC, but that may have been excessive.)
I hope that at least some of this helps. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for this. (Most of my articles are biographies; my autism means I write exclusively about special interests, and they are usually people.) There's a few B and C-class articles I've written I could send to GA, might nominate them.--Launchballer 20:42, 10 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've put in a GOCE request, might go editor to editor while I'm waiting. Would this Tweet be sufficient for a date request?--Launchballer 17:03, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not on X, so I suspect that what I am seeing is not what you intended. Any chance of posting your proposed message here? Gog the Mild (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is an archived tweet from Piri posted on Saturday 11 March 2023, where she says "acc feels sick to be turning 24 on tuesday and being in the best physical condition i’ve ever been by far".--Launchballer 19:52, 14 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind, found a secondary source anyway.--Launchballer 00:52, 19 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023[edit]

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[reply]

I was going to close the nomination earlier but I do appreciate the archive; I'm probably giving up on that article though because it took a toll on my mental health and the three supports followed by the immediate three opposes in one day felt like a bit of a punch in the gut. Darling (talk) 14:35, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. I am not a coordinator so that I can archive nominations, but IMO it needed doing and those suggesting that further work was needed were on the money. But I agree that FAC can be an emotional roller coaster. It gets to me sometimes, and you'd think I had enough under my belt to be over that. It is right that FAC is tough, but that does mean that it is often tough on nominators too, and I don't see an easy way around that. This article is most of the way to FA standard, so I really hoping we shall be seeing it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm curious though--would I have significant contributions enough by now or by that point to renominate it? I have sort of less faith with the other nominator due to my concerns that they'll go inactive again, something they seem to have done for every nomination on it. Darling (talk) 15:15, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Gog the Mild: forgot to ping you for this, since it was an old discussion. Darling (talk) 20:33, 23 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Sorry, I should have picked it up anyway, but I have been away - see below - and missed it. This is just one editor's opinion, but if you sort out the issues identified in the review, and you invite Famous Hobo to co-nominate but they decline, then I would be content with you as the sole nominator. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:09, 24 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Signpost: 20 November 2023[edit]

Battle of Neville's Cross[edit]

Grateful if you could not just delete something relevant without discussing. The edit had a source, and the age of the source is not a relevant matter as to whether you should delete it. You wouldn't delete citation to Bede's History of the English Church and People because it's 1300 years old! TheDunelmian (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WP:BRD applies. You boldly inserted, I appropriately reverted, you may if you wish initiate a discussion on the talk page attempting to gain a consensus for the change. Note that as this is a featured article the Wikipedia:Featured article criteria apply as well as the usual Wikipedia criteria; and, possibly, WP:FAOWN. (And I may well delete Bede as a primary source, depending on what text was depending on it.) I note that you don't mention the uncited text, nor my points about the source used being neither Wikipedia:Reliable sources nor "high quality"; the emphasis is on the editor wishing to add material to establish that its sourcing clears both of these bars. If it does, I may then wish to look at it against other Wikipedia and FAC policies and criteria. But first things first and I look forward to discussing the merits of the sourcing of the proposed change on the article's talk page. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:56, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
TheDunelmian, you now you seem to be edit warring, please don't, it rarely ends well. Read WP:BRD instead and follow it. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 20 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

...Consider me suitably jealous. Eddie891 Talk Work 18:16, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ah, but not yet jealous enough. Friday morning:
Well now, I am even more jealous then before! Sounds like a fantastic way to spend a week. I'm sure you become a much better person after taking time like that, puts things into perspective, doesn't it. And I'm sure the pictures don't begin to do it justice, though I'm glad you shared them. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:18, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It wasn't all like that, but those sort of experiences are what one goes for. I had camped in the dark and with the entrance to the tent facing away from the hill, so when I emerged to start the morning's walk (an out and back from the tent) and looked around I was - very pleasantly - surprised by the view. And the weather.
If you think that could make a better person of me, you have yet to experience the depths of my intransience. More seriously, it left me noticeably chilled re just about everything. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:30, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chill... Now that sound much closer to my experience of hiking, most of the time. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:04, 21 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

In appreciation[edit]

The Barnstar of Diligence
For your dedicated stewardship of articles and communities on the project. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:07, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wow! My first barnstar for being an FAC coordinator. I am touched and grateful, especially coming from an editor with your high standards. Thank you. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Thank you for your contribution in the Battle of Hussainiwala article! This was the first Wikipedia article I have made and it means a lot. MrGreen1163 (talk) 23:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Books & Bytes – Issue 59[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 59, September – October 2023

  • Spotlight: Introducing a repository of anti-disinformation projects
  • Tech tip: Library access methods

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:15, 27 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message[edit]

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) 00:44, 28 November 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]