Gog the Mild
| FACs needing feedback view • | |
|---|---|
| 1914 FA Cup final | Review it now |
| Iron Man | Review it now |
| Empire of the Sultans | Review it now |
Question edit
My question was old enough I think it got archived. I saw you had responded in my notifications. Thank you. I know you're busy. If there is confusion, I'm sure it's mine. I posted on the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard to see if others agreed with the assertion of bias, and I thought your response was "Of course it's biased." I think now - maybe - you meant a western bias, while I think - maybe - Borsoka meant an anti-Catholic bias. I probably do have the first one but not the second. I am trying to fix both. I am in the process of adding all I can find on the East. I've done Antiquity and am still working in my sandbox on Middle Ages but will have something there soon.
As to the second, in an effort to be concise, I see now that my summary was misleading. I have now divided the section most in question into two sections - High and Late Middle Ages - which shows the transition better and offers multiple causes for decline rather than making it seem as if there was one primary cause.
I am adding sources, but they all say basically the same things. I am including more explanation which hopefully will help with neutrality. At any rate, I wanted to be sure I had responded fully to where you noted the need for improvement. I tried to be sure I took out everything you objected to and anything I could find like it. If there is anything else you see that needs attention, I would be deeply grateful for any and all comments. Your input is invaluable. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:04, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- I can only see CMT at NPV, which I managed to miss and didn't comment on at all. The only article of yours I recall commenting on was HoC at FAC, or maybe PR. So, absent specificity, I assumed you meant that.
- No need to add lots of sources if they all say the same. But squirrel them away, so if challenged you can establish that what you are repeating the consensus of the HQ RSs, not some HQ outlier. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hey if you could, would you go here Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/History of Christianity/1 and make a comment? Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:07, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
- [[1]] but as I look back, it does seem like a continuation of peer review more than a discussion of neutrality. It's moot now anyway. At the reassessment page someone suggested moving this article to History of western Christianity, so I did in hopes that would resolve the conflict over it being western biased. Thank you for all your help.Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:30, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- @Jenhawk777: Can I go back to my suggestion at PR? "... run 20 or 30 articles through GAN before thinking about FAC. (I did 42.) Then nominate 6 or 8 or 10 "straight forward" articles at FAC, staring with a couple of real gimmes, ideally in the same broad subject area as the target "complex topic". Then one may be ready to put some real toughies through FAC. Of course, no one has ever been happy with these suggestions." The history of Christianity consists of hundreds, thousands, of sub-articles, sub-sub-articles, sub-sub-sub ... Why not pick one of these, whatever you feel you are strong on (History of Late Medieval Christianity in Western Europe, Nestorianism in south and east Asia during the twelve century, whatever) and work it up to GAN. Then do another. Then another. You will be playing to your strengths, any problems will be much more circumscribed, and you will be getting steady positive reinforcement rather than negative. Only when you are long past ready for it move up to meatier topics (The Reformation, the Coptic Church, dum diversas, whatever). Having done much work on some of the sub-articles you will be already broadly familiar with the sources, the scholarly consensuses and PoVs, and reader, editor and reviewer issues and objections; you should be able to do a fair bit of cut and pasting. Wa da ya think? The ultimate aim would be to come back to HoC with such a fund of knowledge and experience that putting it through FAC is feasible.
- Another thought - there is no end to them - find a collaborator. Ideally one whose strengths match your weaknesses - which of course is frequently a recipe for not getting on
. You seem to be well on top of the sources and thematic/historic development; there must be editors strong on the written and unwritten rules of Wikipedia re GAN (initially you don't need to think about FAC, get the GAs rolling out (an FAC collaborator would be a trickier ask)) whom you wouldn't find too objectionable and who would be willing to split the workload.
- Another thought - there is no end to them - find a collaborator. Ideally one whose strengths match your weaknesses - which of course is frequently a recipe for not getting on
- Any hoo, the best of luck with the Christianity articles, certainly many of them could do with improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- You suggested this some years ago, and while this particular article doesn't reflect that, I have actually tried to comply. While I don't think there are any in this topic area that would be "gimmes", I do acknowledge that there certainly are shorter ones. Perhaps the problem is that once I get ahold of them, they all become long articles...
- I do not have anywhere near 30 GAs! I have 7. I have not been highly motivated to nominate others, but perhaps you're right and I should pursue that more. At any rate, this is the first article since Biblical criticism that I was willing to suffer through to get FA for it.
- Fair enough. Stick with it.
- Does the title change help?
- Yep. Although it may raise new problems.
- Apparently it has. It seems impossible to please everyone. Perhaps it is time for me to move on to something else. I have spent 2 years on this article. That's enough. No FA, but at least it is GA - if it survives the reassessment!
- Yep. Although it may raise new problems.
- I am blessed and fortunate enough to have more than one collaborator. They are strong where I am not, and all that produces is a deep and abiding appreciation. Some of the best people I've ever met are on Wikipedia - you included - and they often help me! You are the only FA person I have any contact with though as far as I know. Somehow I doubt that makes you my collaborator however. But I appreciate the good wishes and the good advice. Thanx again. Jenhawk777 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- You have been fortunate. I have only had a collaborator for two GANs and 4 FACs. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
- You suggested this some years ago, and while this particular article doesn't reflect that, I have actually tried to comply. While I don't think there are any in this topic area that would be "gimmes", I do acknowledge that there certainly are shorter ones. Perhaps the problem is that once I get ahold of them, they all become long articles...
- Any hoo, the best of luck with the Christianity articles, certainly many of them could do with improvement. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:16, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
You know what? You are pretty fun! 
I appreciate the chat. If you ever want me to collaborate on anything, let me know and I will make it first priority. The only thing that could prevent that would be something in real life. And I would explain hopefully... At any rate, I would love to collaborate with you. Jenhawk777 (talk) 00:01, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Books & Bytes – Issue 61 edit
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 61, January – February 2024
- Bristol University Press and British Online Archives now available
- 1Lib1Ref results
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --16:32, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024 edit
|
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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus edit
Message added 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greetings, since you did review Guallatiri at FAC I was wondering if you may be interested in Ojos del Salado too. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Jo-Jo, I always keep an eye on your articles and try to chip in a review if they look as if they need it. Mostly because I like to 'reward' nominators who are also frequent reviewers. I have been busy in RL recently and a number of my Wikipedia activities are in arrears. Looking at Ojos, I don't think it needs further general reviews - although the closing coordinator will no doubt give it a quick copy edit. What it needed was a source review. I was girding my loins to take this on, but note that the ever helpful Hawkeye has just jumped in. So, hopefully, you'll be wrapping this one up soon. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:55, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
RFA2024 update: no longer accepting new proposals in phase I edit
Hey there! This is to let you know that phase I of the 2024 requests for adminship (RfA) review is now no longer accepting new proposals. Lots of proposals remain open for discussion, and the current round of review looks to be on a good track towards making significant progress towards improving RfA's structure and environment. I'd like to give my heartfelt thanks to everyone who has given us their idea for change to make RfA better, and the same to everyone who has given the necessary feedback to improve those ideas. The following proposals remain open for discussion:
- Proposal 2, initiated by HouseBlaster, provides for the addition of a text box at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship reminding all editors of our policies and enforcement mechanisms around decorum.
- Proposals 3 and 3b, initiated by Barkeep49 and Usedtobecool, respectively, provide for trials of discussion-only periods at RfA. The first would add three extra discussion-only days to the beginning, while the second would convert the first two days to discussion-only.
- Proposal 5, initiated by SilkTork, provides for a trial of RfAs without threaded discussion in the voting sections.
- Proposals 6c and 6d, initiated by BilledMammal, provide for allowing users to be selected as provisional admins for a limited time through various concrete selection criteria and smaller-scale vetting.
- Proposal 7, initiated by Lee Vilenski, provides for the "General discussion" section being broken up with section headings.
- Proposal 9b, initiated by Reaper Eternal, provides for the requirement that allegations of policy violation be substantiated with appropriate links to where the alleged misconduct occured.
- Proposals 12c, 21, and 21b, initiated by City of Silver, Ritchie333, and HouseBlaster, respectively, provide for reducing the discretionary zone, which currently extends from 65% to 75%. The first would reduce it 65%–70%, the second would reduce it to 50%–66%, and the third would reduce it to 60%–70%.
- Proposal 13, initiated by Novem Lingaue, provides for periodic, privately balloted admin elections.
- Proposal 14, initiated by Kusma, provides for the creation of some minimum suffrage requirements to cast a vote.
- Proposals 16 and 16c, initiated by Thebiguglyalien and Soni, respectively, provide for community-based admin desysop procedures. 16 would desysop where consensus is established in favor at the administrators' noticeboard; 16c would allow a petition to force reconfirmation.
- Proposal 16e, initiated by BilledMammal, would extend the recall procedures of 16 to bureaucrats.
- Proposal 17, initiated by SchroCat, provides for "on-call" admins and 'crats to monitor RfAs for decorum.
- Proposal 18, initiated by theleekycauldron, provides for lowering the RfB target from 85% to 75%.
- Proposal 24, initiated by SportingFlyer, provides for a more robust alternate version of the optional candidate poll.
- Proposal 25, initiated by Femke, provides for the requirement that nominees be extended-confirmed in addition to their nominators.
- Proposal 27, initiated by WereSpielChequers, provides for the creation of a training course for admin hopefuls, as well as periodic retraining to keep admins from drifting out of sync with community norms.
- Proposal 28, initiated by HouseBlaster, tightens restrictions on multi-part questions.
To read proposals that were closed as unsuccessful, please see Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review/Phase I/Closed proposals. You are cordially invited once again to participate in the open discussions; when phase I ends, phase II will review the outcomes of trial proposals and refine the implementation details of other proposals. Another notification will be sent out when this phase begins, likely with the first successful close of a major proposal. Happy editing! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her), via:
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
FAC question edit
Since you were the FAC coordinator leaving queries on my FAC, I figured I'd ask you if there is anything else that I need to get done for it. There are multiple prose supports and now no opposes, although this is my first FAC, so I'm not sure if there is a set number of supports needed to pass. As for the image and source reviews, neither has been marked as passed or failed, but both reviewers have responded after I addressed their concerns. -- ZooBlazer 17:21, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi ZooBlazer, for future reference, this sort of query is better posed on the FAC page, but no big deal. Image and source reviews: yeah, sometimes they can be a bit laconic; I am taking both as passes. The standard reviewing is ticking along well, but is a little thin at the moment for a first time nomination. I've added it to urgents and will ask around for an additional experienced reviewer. The article also also needs a first-timer's source check and I have asked Jo-Jo if they will oblige. (You can pay them back by reviewing an article or two of theirs. Eg Mount Hudson.) So chill for now, you are probably on the home straight and there is nothing that you currently need to be doing. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report edit
Guild of Copy Editors 2023 Annual Report
 Our 2023 Annual Report is now ready for review.
Highlights:
– Your Guild coordinators:
Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking.
To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
Question re wikiproject status edit
Hi. do you wish to remain active, as one of the wikiproject coordinators at WikiProject History? Please advise. whatever you prefer is totally fine; I simply wanted to clarify. thanks! Sm8900 (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
FAC apology edit
Hello. I wanted to apologize for my behavior during the FAC for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Wrath of the Darkhul King article. I should have taken a step back and a deep breath to clear my head and to try and engage with the conversation in a more productive manner. Aoba47 (talk) 15:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Aoba47, that is very good of you and I appreciate it. I would like to see BtVS:WotDK back at FAC; it was a solid article which seemed not far off passing to me. Take care and keep well. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
TFA edit
Thank you today for Battle of New Carthage, introduced: "Another in the seemingly endless series of Second Punic War articles I have been nominating. This one sees a young Publius Cornelius Scipio demonstrating tactical innovation in his first full command – in Iberia. (Readers of my last FAC will recognise him as the man who was to eventually defeat Hannibal and win the war for the Romans.)" -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 | |
| Six years! |
|---|
--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The Signpost: 29 March 2024 edit
- Technology report: Millions of readers still seeing broken pages as "temporary" disabling of graph extension nears its second year
- Recent research: "Newcomer Homepage" feature mostly fails to boost new editors
- Traffic report: He rules over everything, on the land called planet Dune
- Humour: Letters from the editors
- Comix: Layout issue
Withdrawing FAR edit
Dearest editor,
I am inquiring on how to withdraw the FAR of Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie. All the Best! Otuọcha (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
- Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
DB9 edit
Hi Gog the Mild. Hope I'm not bugging you or anything but could you possibly leave some comments on this peer review about the Aston Martin DB9 article? Thanks (and don't feel obliged to.) Best, 750h+ | Talk 18:38, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi 750h+. Cars aren't really my thing, and I note that it has just gone to FAC anyway. If approaching the three-week mark it is struggling to find reviewers, give me another ping and I may be able to have a look at it. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh that's fine, this was for the peer review. Now its at FAC, it should attract more attention. 750h+ | Talk 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
-
- There's optimism... or FAC :) ——Serial Number 54129 15:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Oh that's fine, this was for the peer review. Now its at FAC, it should attract more attention. 750h+ | Talk 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024 edit
|
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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Big Raven Formation edit
Hey Gog, I would like your thoughts about nominating the Big Raven Formation article for FA. I'm not sure if it's too technical for the average reader to understand. Volcanoguy 16:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
- Hi Volcanoguy, I see that you have nominated it anyway. I have a fair bit on, but I will try to fit a review in if I can. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:20, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I decided to nominate it because the GA reviewer (a non-geology expert) said the article was easy enough for them to understand. Volcanoguy 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- Fine. Hopefully I will get to have a look at it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
- I decided to nominate it because the GA reviewer (a non-geology expert) said the article was easy enough for them to understand. Volcanoguy 15:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Mentorship proposal edit
Dear Gog the Mild, I am writing after stumbling upon your message on the talk page of the article on Markos Botsaris. I am interested in finding a mentor to provide assistance towards my first nomination of an article for the status of Featured Article, namely the article on the battle of Meligalas. I know that you are not listed among those volunteering for the role, but I have already written a message to Peacemaker67 to no avail and I noticed you have successfully nominated numerous articles relating to military history, so I am wondering whether you would be interested in undertaking this role and providing your guidance. Regardless, I send you my regards, Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter edit
Guild of Copy Editors April 2024 Newsletter
 Hello and welcome to the April 2024 newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since December. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. We extend a warm welcome to all of our new members. We wish you all happy copy-editing. Election results: In our December 2023 coordinator election, Zippybonzo stepped down as coordinator; we thank them for their service. Incumbents Dhtwiki and Miniapolis were reelected coordinators, and Wracking was newly elected coordinator, to serve through 30 June. Nominations for our mid-year Election of Coordinators will open on 1 June (UTC). Drive: 46 editors signed up for our January Backlog Elimination Drive, 32 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 289 articles totaling 626,729 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: 23 editors signed up for our February Copy Editing Blitz. 18 claimed at least one copy-edit and between them, they copy-edited 100,293 words in 32 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. Drive: 53 editors signed up for our March Backlog Elimination Drive, 34 of whom claimed at least one copy-edit. Between them, they copy-edited 300 articles totaling 587,828 words. Barnstars awarded are here. Blitz: Sign up for our April Copy Editing Blitz, which runs from 14 to 20 April. Barnstars will be awarded here. Progress report: As of 23:17, 11 April 2024 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have processed 109 requests since 1 January 2024, and the backlog stands at 2,480 articles. Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from Baffle gab1978 and your GOCE coordinators Dhtwiki, Miniapolis and Wracking. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.
|
WikiCup 2024 April newsletter edit
We are approaching the end of the 2024 WikiCup's second round, with a little over two weeks remaining. Currently, contestants must score at least 105 points to progress to the third round.
Our current top scorers are as follows:
Sammi Brie (submissions) with 642 points, mostly from 11 GAs about radio and television;
voorts (submissions) with 530 points, mostly from two FAs (Well he would, wouldn't he? and Cora Agnes Benneson) and three GAs;
Generalissima (submissions) with 523 points, mostly from 11 GAs about coinage and history;
SounderBruce (submissions) with 497 points, mostly from a FA about the 2020 season of the soccer club Seattle Sounders FC and two GAs;
Tamzin (submissions) with 410 points, mostly from a FA about the drink Capri-Sun and three GAs;
Kusma (submissions) with 330 points, mostly from a FA about the English botanist Anna Blackburne and a GA.
Competitors may submit work for the second round until the end of 28 April, and the third round starts 1 May. Remember that only competitors with the top 32 scores will make it through to the third round. If you are concerned that your nomination will not receive the necessary reviews, and you hope to get it promoted before the end of the round, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews. Please remember to continue to offer reviews at GAN, FAC and all the other pages that require them to prevent any backlogs. As a reminder, competitors are strictly prohibited from gaming Wikipedia policies or processes to receive more points.
If you would like to learn more about rules and scoring for the 2024 WikiCup, please read Wikipedia:WikiCup/Scoring. Further questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup and the judges (Cwmhiraeth (talk · contribs), Epicgenius (talk · contribs), and Frostly (talk · contribs)) are reachable on their talk pages. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove your name from Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Pre-FAC edit
Gog, do you think Battle of Poison Spring is close enough to FA standard to dispense with the A-Class review? Three of the major sources need to go back to the library by May 17 so I'm hoping to get the FAC started sooner rather than later. Hog Farm Talk 03:02, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
New message from Jo-Jo Eumerus edit
Message added 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Greetings, just pinging in case you have anything else to add to the comments there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:36, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Congratulations from the Military History Project edit
|
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 7 reviews between January and March 2024. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 04:28, 22 April 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
|
Books & Bytes – Issue 62 edit
The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 62, March – April 2024
- IEEE and Haaretz now available
- Let's Connect Clinics about The Wikipedia Library
- Spotlight and Wikipedia Library tips
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --11:02, 23 April 2024 (UTC)