Jump to content

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
view • edit
Operation Matterhorn logistics Review it now


Books & Bytes – Issue 65

[edit]

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 65, September – October 2024

  • Hindu Tamil Thisai joins The Wikipedia Library
  • Frankfurt Book Fair 2024 report
  • Tech tip: Mass downloads

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team --12:49, 12 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Breton Civil War, 1341 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 Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 16:25, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]

The article Breton Civil War, 1341 you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Breton Civil War, 1341 for comments about the article, and Talk:Breton Civil War, 1341/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Parsecboy -- Parsecboy (talk) 16:02, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military history newcomer of the year and military historian of the year

[edit]

Nominations now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Nominations are open here and here respectively. The nomination period closes at 23:59 on 30 November 2024 when voting begins. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:20, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 18 November 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. 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 2024 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) 00:30, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 223, November 2024

[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) 12:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Morlaix

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Morlaix 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 Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 12:45, 27 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have just discovered that the French translation of "The Ride of the Valkyries" is Chevauchée des Walkyries Tim riley talk 11:45, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What! Outrageous. Dig up Wagner's body, he is going to get so sued. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:12, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Siege of Breteuil

[edit]
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Siege of Breteuil, 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, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

[edit]

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2024! The top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki. Cast your votes here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2024. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. MediaWiki message delivery via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]

On 3 December 2024, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Breton Civil War, 1341, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when John of Montfort was captured in 1341 during the Breton Civil War, his wife took command of the Breton army? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Breton Civil War, 1341. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Breton Civil War, 1341), 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.

 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:02, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

[edit]
Hello, Gog the Mild. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 22:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Vanderwaalforces (talk) 22:48, 3 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Love your talk page

[edit]

See you soon! Doug Weller talk 17:25, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Doug Weller, my talk page? Of all the good and wondrous things I do or have done on Wikipedia, you love my talk page! Gog the Mild (talk) 17:31, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agh! User page! Doug Weller talk 17:45, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you kindly. A well presented user page is next to Wikipedianess. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:59, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Talk page stalker here...have recommended to a few people in the last few years, that were thinking of dipping their toes into FAC, to read Gog's user page. I'm as old as stones but still use it as a checklist. Ceoil (talk) 19:02, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You can't beat Orwell for a sound view of almost anything. What I use as a checklist is here. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:26, 5 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Siege of Brest (1342)

[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Siege of Brest (1342) 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 Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 20:06, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A few suggestions on the GAN talk page. Nothing to frighten the horses. Tim riley talk 20:55, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, nine days now! Sh*t. Sorry about that. Tomorrow the Reconquista begins. SerialNumber54129 21:12, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Siege of Brest (1342)

[edit]

The article Siege of Brest (1342) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Siege of Brest (1342) for comments about the article, and Talk:Siege of Brest (1342)/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Tim riley -- Tim riley (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter

[edit]
Guild of Copy Editors December 2024 Newsletter

Hello, and welcome to the December newsletter, a quarterly digest of Guild activities since September. If you no longer want this newsletter, you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. If you'd like to be notified of upcoming drives and blitzes, and other GOCE activities, the best method is to add our announcements box to your watchlist.

Election news: The Guild's coordinators play an important role in the WikiProject, making sure nearly everything runs smoothly and on time. Editors in good standing (unblocked and without sanctions) are invited to nominate themselves or another editor to be a Guild coordinator (with their permission, of course) until 23:59 on 15 December (UTC). The voting phase begins at 00:01 on 16 December and runs until 23:59 on 31 December. Questions may be asked of candidates at any stage in the process. Elected coordinators will serve a six-month term from 1 January through 30 June.

Drive: In our September Backlog Elimination Drive, 67 editors signed up, 39 completed at least one copy edit, and between them they edited 682,696 words comprising 507 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Blitz: The October Copy Editing Blitz saw 16 editors sign-up, 15 of whom completed at least one copy edit. They edited 76,776 words comprising 35 articles. Barnstars awarded are here.

Drive: In our November Backlog Elimination Drive, 432,320 words in 151 articles were copy edited. Of the 54 users who signed up, 33 copy edited at least one article. Barnstars awarded are posted here.

Blitz: The December Blitz will begin at 00:00 on 15 December (UTC) and will end on 21 December at 23:59. Sign up here. Barnstars awarded will be posted here.

Progress report: As of 22:12, 7 December 2024 (UTC), GOCE copy editors have completed 333 requests since 1 January, and the backlog of tagged articles stands at 2,401 articles.

Thank you all again for your participation; we wouldn't be able to achieve what we have without you! Cheers from your GOCE coordinators, Dhtwiki, Miniapolis, Mox Eden and Wracking.

To stop receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

Message sent by Baffle_gab1978 using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:49, 7 December 2024 (UTC).[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Morlaix

[edit]

The article Battle of Morlaix 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:Battle of Morlaix and Talk:Battle of Morlaix/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 18:45, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to designate it a longbow target, as it seems to have left its pavise in the baggage train. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:10, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Battle of Morlaix

[edit]

The article Battle of Morlaix you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Morlaix for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Morlaix/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Serial Number 54129 -- Serial Number 54129 (talk) 20:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 12 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:57, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Io Saturnalia!

[edit]
Io, Saturnalia!
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth (talk) 15:12, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ealdgyth, and a merry solstice to you too. Personally I shall be sprinkling a libation at Nine Ladies. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:59, 17 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Preston (1648)

[edit]
A beer on me!
Well done on your major expansion of Battle of Preston (1648)! Martinevans123 (talk) 15:47, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Martinevans123, I shall enjoy that. It's the matching article to my battle of Winwick and I hope to take it to FA early in the new year. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:58, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Very impressive. A real improvement. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:19, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. It's what Wikipedia is about. I can put you down for a review when it reaches FAC then? Gog the Mild (talk) 16:27, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Errmmm.... if you must, lol. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:43, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's character forming. You'll enjoy it. I'll talk you through it, what and how much you need to do is very flexible. (I'm one of the FAC coordinators. ) I'll give you a ping. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Christianity

[edit]

I didn't expect it to make it this time either, and I am guessing you will be folding up the tent soon, but I appreciate that it has been left up long enough I could respond and gain something from the comments. Thank you. I was hoping that someone would read it all the way through and comment on content, but so far the comments have all been about little things that have been easily fixed. Maybe the commenters will return and acknowledge that their complaints have been addressed. Maybe not. No one seems to want this article but me. I know you understand that for me, it isn't about me getting an FA, it's about this article, which should be among Wikipedia's best. I wish I could find someone who cares as much as I do, who would help, because I am running out of ideas of what to do to make it good enough. There is just no way on God's green earth to make it short. It can be split, but then Wikipedia is without a main article on this very important topic. Sigh. It's late. I should go to bed. Good night. Thank you for leaving it up for a couple days. Jenhawk777 (talk) 08:42, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can go ahead and close it. I didn't expect it to pass, but I did think it would do better than it has. I think I will give up on this project. It's never going to please everyone. I apparently can't find the right balance between not enough and too much no matter how hard I try, so the failure's on me. Thank you for letting it have its day though. I am grateful. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA

[edit]
story · music · places

Thank you today for Battle of the Bagradas River (c. 240 BC), introduced (in 2021): "A battle of some 2,261 years ago from an obscure war for which detailed sources have survived and been reasonably analysed by modern scholars."! - Today is the centenary of birth of Friederike Mayröcker, a good story -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:10, 20 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Corleck

[edit]

Sorry once for once again being a pain in the hole; but would like to take the head back in 6 months or so after quietly sorting out the last few ref formatting etc from User:UndercoverClassicist, who up until his last comments had been a hero reviewer. The page was near the oldest FAC at the time I withdrew, which isn't fair to anybody (least of all the reviewers waiting for UC's completion) to vote either way, and it was embarrassing to me, which is why I got frustrated. Ceoil (talk) 03:42, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for coming back like this Ceoil, but I wouldn't worry too much. The most complex article I ever tried to put through FAC I withdrew after eight reviews when one reviewer became what I considered to be unreasonably demanding. Chill for a bit, fiddle with the article and others in your queue, then come back with it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:18, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas!

[edit]
A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!


Have a great Christmas, and may 2025 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals!

Cheers

SchroCat (talk) 08:34, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion of Breton Civil War, 1341

[edit]
Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Breton Civil War, 1341, 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) 12:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments at the Valhalla train crash FAC

[edit]

Since another coordinator came along and decided to archive it, I am responding at your talk page (I was planning to spend this part of my evening making the edits, but apparently that was not to be).

I really only had one of those to respond to: describing the location of the accident as "Valhalla, New York, United States". First, if I would add the country name to a location in Nebraska or South Carolina on the perfectly reasonable grounds that readers outside the US wouldn't necessarily know those places are in the US, then we should not make exceptions for New York or California, either. This advice also seems to me to be in conflict with WP:OBVIOUS, WP:NOTBLUE and WP:BIAS, and/or the principles behind them. It is the sort of thing I have been counseled to avoid, and in turn counseled others to (as an American, one is often reminded here and elsewhere not to assume everybody else reading Wikipedia is American, so I do that and then to get contrary advice in an FAC is, well, bewildering).

Perhaps this is also because, like most people who've lived in New York state (note that we specifically do not use that with the latter word capitalized, and we never use that as an inline dab term) for most of our lives but have never lived in the city, it makes me grit my teeth a little. The state of New York is a lot larger than the city ... one can drive 300 miles to the north, or 400 miles west, and still not have left it. I am not sure people outside the US who've never really visited outside New York or other large cities realize this. There are considerable parts of the state that are much closer to Toronto or Montreal than New York City. We deal with that assumption in a lot of the rest of the country when we travel and I don't like having to foster it (and I suppose it's the same for people who live in the Mexican state of Mexico, or Brazilians from the states of Rio de Janeiro or Sao Paulo, both of which are even larger geographically relative to the eponymous cities than the state of New York relative to the city of New York).

That said (or, really, that written ), another reason we use that "city, state, country" form (which I think is also used for Australian toponyms) is that it's much more compact than whatever alternatives I could envision that would make clear that Valhalla is not within New York City (I suppose you could say that the linked text "New York" would be enough for a reader to know the difference, but that runs afoul of MOS:EGG and the distinction will be lost on anyone reading a hard copy). Agreeing with you that the understanding that New York City is in the U.S. is widespread enough that we can assume it does not need to be restated, I could see saying something like "Valhalla, New York, in Westchester County 25 miles north of New York City" (with the caveat that that's the rail distance from Grand Central Station in midtown Manhattan ... if we went by the distance from the nearest area of the city, the northern Bronx, we'd say just 12 miles).

Really, we could use some MOS guidance on this.

Beyond that, I do want you to know that I did, in fact, do quite a bit of the things that you suggest on your linked page in preparing this article. I also have tried to get involved in FAC a bit more lately, in preparation for this. But my time is somewhat limited as I am also active in doing admin patrol work, which for me involves daily review of AIV, ANEW and RFPP, the latter of which has involved a great deal of admin time over the past year-plus due to the Gaza conflict and the amount of CTOPS page protection that has engendered. It can often take a lot of time, and when I can get to doing actual editorial work it is a huge relief, even if there's little of I can do with the time I have left on a given day. So I don't always have the time to hang out at FAC as much as some regular reviewers do, as your note suggests (and may I also tell you that in that area of your comments your tone came across as a little condescending?)

Also, for me, any review of another editor's article, whether here or at GAN, properly requires printing it out, putting it on a clipboard and finding a quiet time and place to go through it with a red pen, the sort of thing I once did professionally, not only looking for places where the copy can be fixed but also making notes about larger issues in the sidelines. This again takes time, plus the time to type this all into the nomination page (And paper, and toner/ink). Before nominating this article for FA I had, in fact, done this twice.

In fact, at GAN I have often done the copy edit myself, since a lot of people nominating there aren't the best prose stylists and I really don't think that people's GA nominations should fail purely on that basis ... I mean, I've seen people who'd put together some otherwise pretty solid articles just up and quit when they see long lists of minor copy errors about comma placement and misspellings to address in the article, then go back to the nomination page and strike through and say "done". I find it tedious and I've had to do it for a living; I can only imagine how someone without that experience must feel. But I can understand if, at FAC, we have higher expectations of editors so we list all the problems we find, bullet point by bullet point, for them to fix.

I also try to look for articles about subjects I'm not well-versed in ... after all, we should be writing our articles for that type of reader.

All that notwithstanding, I certainly do not mind this level of scrutiny—it is what we would expect of a professional publisher of quality material. Many of the suggested edits were helpful and improved the prose. I am well aware, as this post itself should easily demonstrate, that I have a tendency to run on in my sentences (I'm hardly alone, as I would imagine you know). And I don't mind it when people point that out.

But while I appreciate your encouragement for me to address the issues and renominate the article, I'm afraid I won't be doing that, at least not soon. My goal had been to have it promoted so it could run on the Main Page February 3 ... the 10th anniversary of the crash. Now, since TFA/R has that 30-day minimum lead time, and I would have to wait two weeks to renominate, that time and the Main Page slot won't be available. I think I may just put my eye on, say, the 15th anniversary in 2030 (I like 5-year anniversaries; they generate more reader interest).

And having worked on this all year with the intent of this has left me intellectually exhausted on this particular subject. I just don't have it in me right now to go right back at it, not after having worked on improving an article with the aim of an anniversary Main Page run the year before as well that only got as far as GA (but that's a different story). I will instead through the rest of the holidays work on copyediting another article I am preparing for PR and GA later on, a copyedit which to be fair has been informed by this experience. And then for FA I am thinking of another article I've developed to GA, which would have a significant anniversary date later in February 2026, which would give me the same timeline and allow me to apply some of what I've learned from this project (i.e., that if you set yourself the timeline of wanting an article on the Main Page in February and say that you should have it at FAC no later than September, you should have stuck to that timeline and not let yourself get distracted by another article you saw the possibility of writing at that time). All that one needs is to have some new information from a book about it added, and then the ride through PR.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year! Daniel Case (talk) 05:56, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving a nomination

[edit]

Hi Gog, I was clearly active in responding to @Mike Christie's comments and addressing the prosecution, so why was the nomination archived without advanced notice? Even in WP:FAC/ar there isn't a proper criteria or guideline that allows me to understand your decision to close.

Mike has not stated any opposition nor support in his comments. There's only one opposition so far. It seems like the other support votes were completely ignored and that's quite disheartening. Since you've archived the discussion how am I going to proceed? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:03, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also @Mike Christie, are you willing to make further comments in the article's talk page? PS: I'm receiving far more useful comments after nomination than in the PR. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:13, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gog will respond re the archiving, but I'll just add that I'm willing to help out at the article's talk page if you'd like me to -- I can work with you to see if we can agree on improvements to the article before another nomination. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:14, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we both posted at the same time. Yes, sadly, it's not unusual to get better comments at FAC than at PR, though PR can still be very helpful. I've watchlisted the article and can post there once you've had a go at responding to the rest of my comments (feel free to copy them to the article talk page if you like). Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:16, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, that sounds great. I haven't responded to all your comments in the nom but I'll duplicate them under a separate talk header. Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:17, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DtE. See "A nomination will be removed from the list and archived if, in the judgment of the coordinators: ... consensus for promotion has not been reached". Once a nom hits the three week point the coordinators will be frequently reviewing this. After nearly seven weeks and with an open oppose I am afraid that any coordinator would have archived this. I realise that work was going on to improve the article, but that is not what FAC is for. All of this is fairly normal and it sounds as if work to improve the article will continue off-Wiki. If it goes to PR again, let me know and I will try to find time to copy edit it - if you would like me too. Meanwhiles, I would recommend reviewing a few other FACs. I would suggest following all of the other reviews for any nomination you review. Note what each comment by a reviewer is and what response or change it elicits from the nominator, then consider whether anything similar applies to your article. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:51, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, It'll be the third PR for this article if I were to open a new one. In the previous two, I didn't receive much comments; I was hoping someone outside the Earth science field could help but that seemed impossible. As a result the FAC felt more like a PR. Mike has agreed to a non-PR assessment because I requested him to continue in the talk page what's left from FAC.
I will try to find time to copy edit it - if you would like me too: Yes, that'll be very useful, but I won't open another PR. Will placing your comments in the article's talk work for you? Dora the Axe-plorer (explore) 16:13, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dora the Axe-plorer: Have a look at earthquake articles in Category:FA-Class WikiProject Earthquakes articles, maybe they will give you some ideas. Volcanoguy 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

[edit]

Hello Gog the Mild: Enjoy the holiday season and winter solstice if it's occurring in your area of the world, and thanks for your work to maintain, improve and expand Wikipedia. Cheers, Abishe (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the WikiLove; use {{subst:Season's Greetings}} to send this message

Abishe (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 24 December 2024

[edit]
* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:00, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hair (musical)

[edit]

Hi. I know that you were one of the editors who helped to bring the Hair article up to GA level, a-many years ago. Two of the main contributors have been retired from Wikipedia for many years. Now, the article has been challenged on its Talk page on the basis of length. I have tried to tighten it up a bit, but I would love to have another pair of eyes take a look and see what can be improved in line with modern WP standards. Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 08:46, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Gog_the_Mild&oldid=1265315358"