Gog the Mild

FACs needing feedback view •
Misti	Review it now
Sounder commuter rail	Review it now
Carl Zoll	Review it now

Happy Feet

Hi can I ask what how much your interest/uninterest in the Happy Feet article is? I am asking because you pointed out that I had put quite a bit of trivia in and would like some help with it, but understand that you may not be interested. I've gone over the article a few times again since your last comment and have removed more trivia, and I believe I've taken it all out but I'm not sure. How do I know when something is trivia? Also do you think I should remove the sentence about the "Haere Ra Happy Feet" farewell party? I'm not sure if it's trivia or not. Thanks for your review regardless of if you're interested in helping with this query. ―Panamitsu (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)

Hi Panamitsu. I rarely go through a nomination for a third time, but have just done so for Happy Feet. Much better. The only thing which seemed to be clear trivia to me was "The snack manufacturer Bluebird Foods, which had long featured penguins in its advertising, made a contribution. The aquaculture firm New Zealand King Salmon provided juvenile salmon (smolt) for his diet." Which I would have summarised, or just deleted. However, it is not extensive and close enough to the line for reasonable disagreement, so I have not commented on it in my re-review. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:07, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! ―Panamitsu (talk) 11:26, 19 May 2025 (UTC)

Hello again

Apologies for the random message, but I just wanted to thank you for your help with my recent FAC. I hope that you are doing well and have a great day/night! Aoba47 (talk) 22:45, 25 May 2025 (UTC)

Given your vast experience with FACs I don't think you needed that much help, but the thank you is appreciated. I look forward to your next offering. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 26 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scottish invasion of England (1648)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Scottish invasion of England (1648) 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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 19:45, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC)

Great addition to the Second Punic War articles. I took a look at Second Punic War and saw there was only a single paragraph on this. Donner60 (talk) 22:57, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks Donner60, I'm glad you like it. Two paragraphs, although not long ones. But then, there is little more on Scipio's campaign in Spain, and only one paragraph on Cannae; it's a summary level article after all. Hopefully this article fills that gap. Do feel free to review it at GAN. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:12, 27 May 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Siege of Hennebont

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Siege of Hennebont, 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, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:06, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC)

Hello! Your submission of Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! 4meter4 (talk) 21:12, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC) 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 MSincccc -- MSincccc (talk) 07:41, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Siege of Breteuil scheduled for TFA

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 5 July 2025. 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/July 2025, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/July 2025. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be left there by user:JennyOz, who assists the coordinators by reviewing the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before it appears on the Main Page. Thanks, and congratulations on your work! SchroCat (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Scottish invasion of England (1648)

The article Scottish invasion of England (1648) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Scottish invasion of England (1648) for comments about the article, and Talk:Scottish invasion of England (1648)/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 Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

Congratulations - May 2025 Military History Writing Contest

		The Writers Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your sterling performance - 5 articles, 1 brought to FA class and 2 brought to GA class, 43 points - and second place finish in the Military History Project writing contest for May 2025 with this award of the Writers Barnstar. Well done. Congratulations, Donner60 (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2025 (UTC)

FAC question

Hello! It's me again! I am just beginning to implement your suggestions and am already learning more than I thought I would. Thank you again. I have also been attempting to finish making changes on History of Christianity that didn't get done because it closed, and I have run into a problem. I am concerned that one of the reviewers who opposed did so out of a personal dislike. We bumped heads before the FAC. Is there anything I can do to block them from reviewing next time? Our most recent exchange is here: [1] Jenhawk777 (talk) 15:29, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

That editor seems to have ruled themselves out of future reviews. Blocking from reviewing - no, that is not an option. In general, I suggest you AGF all over again in each review. Respond to comments as best you can, but don't feel a need to repeat yourself, even if that leaves you with nothing to say after a couple of to and fros. If they end up opposing and you feel their grounds are completely unreasonable, stick links like the above in your notes to the coordinators explaining why the oppose should be disregarded. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:00, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

No, it is not a personal dislike. Jenhawk does not have basic knowledge of the topic, this is the problem. Borsoka (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh, I have no doubt they will show up again, and that their review will - always - be negative. That seems clear from this unfounded personal attack combined with their refusal to address my questions. I thought blocking was probably not an option, but I will hold onto this as a possible path of action if needed. I know that one of the requirements of FAC is that a commenter needs to answer questions about their comments, and if they refuse in that circumstance, I can and will ask for a disregard. That's certainly as good as a block as far as I'm concerned, since I have always addressed every comment they ever made both before and during FAC. I think the problems we have had are simply because, as a non-native English speaker, they occasionally mis-use phrases, and it isn't immediately clear what they actually meant. It shouldn't be a big deal. It only becomes one when they refuse to acknowledge the problem and disparage me instead. This helps me to know there is some path of action that I can take to deal with that. Thank you. I will keep this. Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:51, 7 June 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC)

The article Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC) you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Gog the Mild -- Gog the Mild (talk) 11:22, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Possibly a bot error. Wishing you the best at the WikiCup—looking forward to any future collaborations. MSincccc (talk) 11:38, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Probably because of the name change. That was an excellently thorough review, many thanks. I could do with you running an eye over all of my prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:42, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

On location of FAC comment

Hi Gog, hope all is well. Just wondering, would you agree with my inclination that a fairly lengthy comment like this one is better suited for the article talk page than an FAC? I felt it fit better there, but would be happy to move back if you think it would be preferable to centralize discussion. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:58, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Eddie891. Good to hear from you, I trust that things are well. I am not a fan of putting information anywhere other than on the FAC page, if appropriate collapsed. However, given that you have summarised your concerns clearly and in some detail there I am happy enough with how you have handled this one. Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:14, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

That makes sense, thanks! I'm alright, and very happy to see an article at FAC when I have some free time to help out that aligns somewhat with my areas of knowledge, for once :). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:53, 8 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish invasion of England (1648)

On 12 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Scottish invasion of England (1648), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Scottish invasion of England in 1648 was defeated by an army less than half their size? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish invasion of England (1648). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Scottish invasion of England (1648)), 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.

—Ganesha811 (talk) 00:03, 12 June 2025 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 230, June 2025

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at the Antonine Plague and cryptographic security Timeline: This month in military history

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) 10:40, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Punic Wars

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Punic Wars, 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, David Fuchs (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:07, 19 June 2025 (UTC)

Jayden Daniels FAN

Next nomination, should I just explicitly ask each of the commentators if they support promotion or not upon their comments being addressed? This seems like a flaw in the FAN process, as I can't control if others take interest in reviewing the article and returning for updates. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:23, 20 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi Dissident93, you can. But most reviewers know the drill. Ie in your last nom, two reviewers were making passing comments for which support or oppose weren't applicable. If a reviewer makes an extensive comments without saying whether they oppose and without indicating why not a coordinator is likely to query them anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:36, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Roman invasion hook

• ... that the Romans invaded Africa in 204 BC and, after four years of fighting, completely defeated the Carthaginians?

By my calculation, July 204 to "spring 201" is less than three years, no? Gatoclass (talk) 07:58, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

1. Correct. 2. Oops. 3. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:46, 21 June 2025 (UTC)

Easter Oratorio

If ready to close, don't wait for me — if I do get to it, it will be the weekend at the earliest. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 21:41, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks UndercoverClassicist. To be clear, if it were to be promoted, there is nothing you have noticed so far which would cause you to have significant qualms about that? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2025 (UTC)

If this is still "in date" -- I'd consider myself an uninformed neutral at this point; I suspect the article has moved on enough that any comments I've made are now moot, and I can no longer vouch either that any concerns remain or that new ones haven't come in. I won't have time to look over it for the next fortnight or so, but it looks as though there are plenty of skilled people doing so at the moment, so hopefully my (additional) input won't be missed. UndercoverClassicist ^T·C 18:23, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Fair nuff UC, thanks for the update. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:31, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

Battle of Ardres - Peer Review

As info, and if you have any feedback for me, I posted this on the peer review page: "I have reassessed the article as start class with the following edit summary "revert to start class for military history project; should not have been changed and rated as high as B by the author of additions to the article Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment; fails b3 due to one sentence lead Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/B-Class FAQ b3; fails b4 due to poor grammar and writing." If any other coordinator, former coordinator or well experienced military history contributor disagrees with this assessment, please let me know. If the author requests another assessment to be made please post a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Requests. Donner60 (talk) 01:52, 24 June 2025 (UTC)" Donner60 (talk) 02:11, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 June 2025

• News and notes: Happy 7 millionth!

• In the media: Playing professor pong with prosecutorial discretion

• Disinformation report: Pardon me, Mr. President, have you seen my socks?

• Recent research: Wikipedia's political bias; "Ethical" LLMs accede to copyright owners' demands but ignore those of Wikipedians

• Traffic report: All Sinners, a future, all Saints, a past

• News from Diff: Call for candidates is now open: Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees

• Opinion: Russian Wiki-fork flails, failing readers and editors

• Debriefing: EggRoll97's RfA² debriefing

• Community view: A Deep Dive Into Wikimedia (part 3)

• Comix: Hamburgers

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

DYK for Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC)

On 24 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that it took more than two years after the Romans invaded Africa in 204 BC for them to completely defeat the Carthaginians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Roman invasion of Africa (205–201 BC). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Roman invasion of Africa (204–201 BC)), 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.

Gatoclass (talk) 12:02, 24 June 2025 (UTC)

Quick question about Wikipedia:Featured article criteria

Hello Gog the Mild! You are listed as one of the FAC coordinators, and I have a quick question.

For FA criteria 2c, consistent citations, does switching between harvnb and sfn still count as consistent? I am guessing it would still be consistent, but I am not sure how firm this criteria is. I have seen very firm applications of consistency. Bogazicili (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

I only ever use sfn, so I am not sure I know what harvnb would look like. Could you point me towards an article which uses it? Or, better, that has a mix of sfn and harvnb. However, note that Template:Harvard citation no brackets comments "Note that the use (or even non-use) of these templates is an element of citation "style", and adding or removing them in articles with an established style should be consistent with that style. See WP:CITEVAR." Gog the Mild (talk) 21:24, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I can't imagine a valid reason to use harvnb and sfn in the same article. At an FAC, I would suggest that a user pick one and stick with it, citing criteria 2c. It's unnecessarily complicating matters to do otherwise. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 22:22, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

It's sometimes necessary due to technical limitations (example). Gog, Abraham Lincoln uses both for that reason - harvnb for citations within explanatory notes, sfn otherwise. Nikkimaria (talk) 05:03, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

… and I stand corrected. That seems a perfectly valid use! Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 09:30, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

I am never going to understand referencing of the <ref> ... </ref> type, so I am afraid the query is directed at the wrong person. Sorry. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:00, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the responses everyone. Besides Nikkimaria's example, sfn seems to have problems with quotes: Template:Sfn#Adding_additional_comments_or_quotes

I think quotes are important for quick verification and article stability, especially in articles in contentious topic areas.

Gog the Mild, examples of articles with harvnb would be Climate change and Human history. Note the quotes in the articles. I think a non-controversial article would be more likely to get away with no quotes and all sfn's.

Another issue is that multirefs with sfn seem to me that they are very convoluted. Note the multiref sourcing in Byzantine Empire with sfnm. Bogazicili (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Now that I have a few people here, would the following meet FA criteria 2c:

short inline citation format for lengthy sources that require page numbers or entry names, such as books and long reports with {{cite book}} and {{cite report}} templates. Full inline citations for everything else, such as newspaper articles. {{harvc}} for book chapters in edited books with individually authored chapters. Short inline citations with quotes, multi references, in explanatory footnote should be in harvnb. For all other short inline citations, sfn should be used.

What do you think? Any feedback? Thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

In the abstract, this sounds fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:02, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: thanks! Bogazicili (talk) 19:44, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Ping

I was thinking of pinging you on the Siege of Utica's FAC page this week when I happened to notice the template on your user page that explained your inactivity until the end of the month. I hope you’re enjoying your holiday. Cheers. MSincccc (talk) 13:52, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

Oops! Sorry MS, I meant to get that sorted for you and Tim before I left. Apologies. I am travelling up right now. Due to decant into heavy rain and 45 mph winds in two hours. Not ideal walking or camping weather. Tomorrow is supposed to be better. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

list

Where is there a list of current FA nominees? I find the list of reviews easily but not candidates. Jenhawk777 (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2025 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) - WP:FAC. Hog Farm _Talk 04:10, 28 June 2025 (UTC)

WikiCup 2025 July newsletter

The third round of the 2025 WikiCup ended on 28 June. This round was again competitive, with three contestants scoring more than 1,000 round points:

• BeanieFan11 (submissions) with 1,314 round points, mostly from articles about athletes and politicians, including 20 good articles and 48 did you know articles
• Gog the Mild (submissions) with 1,197 round points, mostly from military history articles, including 9 featured topic articles, two featured articles, and four good articles
• Sammi Brie (submissions) with 1,055 round points, mostly from television station articles, including 27 good articles and 9 good topic articles

Everyone who competed in round 3 will advance to round 4 unless they have withdrawn. This table shows all competitors who have received tournament points so far, while the full scores for round 3 can be seen here. During this round, contestants have claimed 4 featured articles, 16 featured lists, 1 featured picture, 9 featured-topic articles, 149 good articles, 27 good-topic articles, and more than 90 Did You Know articles. In addition, competitors have worked on 18 In the News articles, and they have conducted more than 200 reviews.

Remember that any content promoted after 28 June but before the start of Round 4 can be claimed in Round 4. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points. If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article candidates, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, feel free to review one of the nominations listed on Wikipedia:WikiCup/Reviews Needed. Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges 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) 14:49, 29 June 2025 (UTC)

Guild of Copy Editors' June 2025 Newsletter

Guild of Copy Editors June 2025 Newsletter Hello and welcome to the June 2025 newsletter, a quarterly-ish digest of Guild activities since April. Don't forget you can unsubscribe at any time; see below. Hall of Fame: Congratulations to Dhtwiki for their well-deserved addition to the Hall of Fame last month, and thanks to GoldRomean for the nomination. Election news: Voting in the mid-year coordinator election ends at 23:59 on 30 June. Results will be announced at the election page. April Blitz: 14 of the 25 editors who signed up for the April 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 92,769 words in 30 articles. Barnstars awarded are available here. May Drive: 31 of the 54 editors who signed up for the May 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive copy edited 384,392 words in 216 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. June Blitz: 10 of the 12 editors who signed up for the June 2025 Copy Editing Blitz copy edited 26,652 words in 13 articles. Barnstars awarded are here. July Drive: Our July 2025 Backlog Elimination Drive will begin on 1 July and finish on 31 July. Barnstars awarded will be posted here. Progress report: As of 02:30, 30 June 2025 (UTC), GOCE copyeditors have completed 148 requests since 1 January, and the backlog stands at 2,270 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. To discontinue receiving GOCE newsletters, please remove your name from our mailing list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Promotion of Truce of Malestroit

Congratulations, Gog the Mild! The article you nominated, Truce of Malestroit, 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, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Books & Bytes – Issue 69

The Wikipedia Library: Books & Bytes
Issue 69, May–June 2025

In this issue we highlight a new partnership, Citation Watchlist and, as always, a roundup of news and community items related to libraries and digital knowledge.

Read the full newsletter

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery on behalf of The Wikipedia Library team – 13:10, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

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 9 reviews between April and June 2025. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 July 2025 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Congratulations - June 2025 Military History Writing Contest

		The Writers Barnstar
		On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I am pleased to reward your sterling performance - 3 articles, 1 brought to FA class and 2 brought to GA class, 25 points - and second place finish in the Military History Project writing contest for June 2025 with this award of the Writers Barnstar. Well done. Congratulations, Donner60 (talk) 02:37, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

FAC reviews

Hello dearheart, is it warm in rainy England? It is over 100 here. I am staying inside in the air conditioning so I want to work on WP articles. Is there an easy-access list of current FAC nominees? I can find the list of established FAs that need re-reviewing, but not of recent new nominations. It's probably right in front of me! I'm apparently blind! Help! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean WP:FAC? Scroll down past the instructions and you get to the ToC. Do feel free to give my current FAC - Siege of Utica - a going over.

And hello to you too. I think we just set a new record for the highest UK June temperature, although it has cooled down somewhat now. June was only the low 90s, but a shock for us Brits, partly because there is very little air conditioning. So obviously I went hiking last weekend. Well, no one ever accused me of being smart and made it stick. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Ha ha!! Hiking when it's in the 90's - well you would have had plenty of company here! People like to hike the Appalachian trail, which starts about an hour from here, because it's cooler in the mountains - the crazy ones (imo) go to the beach and sit in the sun -- and since I live 30 minutes from the beach, I only go there when company demands it. I don't hike unless my life is threatened... then it would be hiking in an air-conditioned mall... otherwise known as "shopping"...

This weekend was the Fourth of July - Independence Day - so holiday weekend, and I had to teach this morning - those are my excuses for taking so long to get back to you. ToC -- Table of Contents? Then clicking it actually pulls up the nominees at the left. I see it. A two step where I was expecting an easy one-step. But I have it now. Thank you! I think doing reviews is helping me understand the requirements of FAC better -- I don't know that it will help me do any better, but at least I will have a better idea of what I'm doing wrong... Thank you again - for all your help!! Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

TFA

story · music · places

Thank you today for Siege of Breteuil, introduced: "For a few weeks in 1356 the military focus of western Europe was an obscure fortification in Normandy. Then things moved on. I think I have pulled together the most comprehensive article there is on this mildly odd event and how it came to be. As ever, all comments, suggestions and complaints are most welcome."! -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 04:59, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Breton Civil War, 1341–1343

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Breton Civil War, 1341–1343 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 Fortuna imperatrix mundi -- Fortuna imperatrix mundi (talk) 13:24, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

Administrator Elections | Call for Candidates

The administrator elections process has officially started! Interested editors are encouraged to self-nominate or arrange to be nominated by reviewing the instructions at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/July 2025/Candidates.

Here is the schedule:

• July 9–15 - Call for candidates
• July 18–22 - Discussion phase
• July 23–29 - SecurePoll voting phase

Please note the following:

• The requirements to run are identical to RFA—a prospective candidate must be extended confirmed.
• Prospective candidates are advised to become familiar with the community's expectations of administrators, which are much higher than the minimum requirement of having extended confirmed status. This includes reviewing successful and unsuccessful RFAs, reading the essay Wikipedia:Advice for RfA candidates, and possibly requesting an optional poll on their chances of passing.
• The process will have a seven day call for candidates phase, a two day pause, a five day discussion phase, and a seven day private vote using SecurePoll. Discussion and questions are only allowed on the candidate pages during the discussion phase.
• The outcome of this process is identical to making a request for adminship. There is no official difference between an administrator appointed through RFA versus administrator elections.
• Administrator elections are also a valid means of regaining adminship for de-sysopped editors.

Ask any questions about the process at the talk page. A separate user talk message will be sent to official candidates with additional information about the process.

If you are interested in the process, please make sure to watchlist the appropriate pages. A watchlist notice will be added when the discussion phase opens, and again when the voting phase opens.

You're receiving this message because you signed up for the mailing list. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the list.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:11, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

FAC page length

Hope all's good with you. Don't want to be coordinating a coord, but the page is getting annoyingly long (WP:PEIS size of almost 1.4 million bytes!) and there are a fair few older, poorly-attended nominations which could do with nudging or archiving, to my mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2025 (UTC)