"Pasta" is watching my talk page. Or looking for an opportunity to step on my keyboard while I'm trying to edit. I don't know which.

Mississippi River Gunboats of the American Civil WarEdit

Hi, completely unrelated to the ongoing GANs, but I thought I'd mention that I now have some access to Konstam's Mississippi River Gunboats of the American Civil War 1861-65. I believe you mentioned before at some point that you did not, and so if you think it might be helpful for any of your multitude of ACW articles please do mention it. Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! That may well come in handy! Hog Farm Talk 18:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

A brownie for you!Edit

  Thanks for participating in the WikiProject report! Cheers, and happy February! 🐶 EpicPupper (he/him | talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS OregonEdit

The article CSS Oregon you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Oregon for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 18:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS CarondeletEdit

The article CSS Carondelet you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Carondelet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:01, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

February songs
 
frozen

thank you for another good one! - today: tymy joy - more on my talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine's Day edition, with spring flowers and plenty of music --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

stand and sing --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Editor on a missionEdit

Good morning Hog Farm, could I trouble you to don your admin hat for a moment. This edit history perturbs me. t seems to be a mass change to present articles from a Scottish nationalist PoV. Or in some cases near-random trivial changes. Is this allowed? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:46, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

FYI, a working link is Special:Contributions/2A02:C7F:ECE1:BC00:C404:71B2:8E43:94C3 (t · c) buidhe 09:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Gog the Mild - Unfortunately, I'm busy enough today I'm not able to dig into that super deep right now, but it's a strange mix of seemingly innocuous changes, a tendency to change around infobox orders (I'm not up to speed on the various infobox laws, so I don't know what policy is on that), and a few that look definitely problematic. The constant changes of everything to call Scotland a kingdom seem iffy without any special context to do so, and some of the fiddling with titles looks suspicious, too. This definitely looks problematic. I wouldn't bother with messing with the trivial changes, but the more nationalistic problem edits should be reverted. I see @LuK3, EvergreenFir, and Mazca: have all put pblocks on the IP range for block evasion, could this be possibly related to the other evasion? Hog Farm Talk 07:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
The big partial block on the /33 is an inconsistent mush of different issues; that /33 is a dynamic range covering a fairly large number of UK users on Sky Broadband, nobody seems to hold an IP for more than a couple of days. There are a couple of consistent troublesome users on it but I think this "Kingdom of Scotland" dude is a different one. ~ mazca talk 18:42, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
What I take to be the same editor has just had a second bite at Battle of Inverkeithing, ignoring BRD and FAOWN. Plus made some other frivolous but irritating edits. I am reverting their changes to FAs as they make them, but worry about the changes to the now large number of other articles. Would I be in order to go through these, reverting them where I don't consider the changes improvements? Gog the Mild (talk) 23:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Gog, I would consider it to be appropriate to revert anything problematic made by them to those articles without edit warring. If the IP tries to edit war the nationalistic material in, the affected pages can be added to the range block (which I'm not sure I know how to do). Hog Farm Talk 18:59, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. It seems pretty certain that they are User:Cavalierfawkes, who has just had a[nother] go at an FA. I have spotted a couple of arguably useful edits, and so shall exercise care when reverting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
  • (Non-administrator comment) The irregularly scheduled reminder to editors that what is exempted from edit warring sanctions is pretty tightly restricted to what is laid out here, and admins who patrol ANEW are pretty strict over it. Since their edits don't seem to provide an exemption, I suggest the first port of call be a discussion on their talk page (with only a single edit to it out of over 300 project-wide, I wouldn't hold out a lot of hope for a productive discussion, but you never know). If that comes to nothing, ANI is probably the best bet, unless they actually start edit-warring themselves (which they don't appear to have done yet, seemingly preferring to article hop: although I could have missed something). SN54129 14:39, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS BalticEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Baltic 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 17:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Marmaduke–Walker duelEdit

 Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Marmaduke–Walker duel, 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, Buidhe (talk) via FACBot (talk) 12:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS BalticEdit

The article CSS Baltic you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CSS Baltic for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:40, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS BalticEdit

The article CSS Baltic you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Baltic for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Request for input on a featured article candidacyEdit

Greetings, I have nominated Lake Estancia for a featured article nomination. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. The instructions for the review process are here. Thanks in advance for any comments. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 11Edit

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited CSS Fredericksburg, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Deck.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS FredericksburgEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Fredericksburg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 19:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Red panda peer reviewEdit

Would you be able to peer review the red panda article? We could use another non-biology person to look it over. Thank you. LittleJerry (talk) 16:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daniel Sickles's legEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Daniel Sickles's leg 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

GNIS locationsEdit

I fixed yet another one only a couple of days ago. Bucksnort, Tennessee isn't where the GNIS record puts it, according to actual coördinates recorded by the USGS in its own 1979 survey. Ironically, the GNIS places it at the other end of "Bucksnort road", on what was once "Pruett farm".

I also found this in a USACE report: "The GNIS Names files do not differentiate between various types of populated places. A subdivision having one inhabitant is as significant as a major metropolitan centre such as New York City." Uncle G (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

  • That USACE report line is pretty telling. My biggest pet peeve with these short stubs on these locations is that they all invariably copy over "populated place" which makes it hard to actually expand the article later if its saveable. It's hard to find sources for a mill or a landing or a logging camp if you're looking for a populated place based on the article. Hog Farm Talk 14:22, 17 February 2022 (UTC)
    • I still have a whole bunch of things to sift through. I am hoping that I can get some more into Geographic Names Information System. I'm not sure how to handle the Montana State Library's statement that it has tried to correct the GNIS three times and failed. Then there's the people who tried to match up the GNIS "corners" in Connecticut with landsat data for actual visible populated places:

      The process resulted in 258 successful matches of GNIS points with single residential polygons. Unsuccessful matches included 193 instances of multiple points per residential area and 267 points with no corresponding residential polygons. Many of the latter places were named "Corners" indicating, perhaps, minor populated places at road intersections.

      This was back in 2002, before Wikipedia was dumped on. Would that they'd thought it through further! Uncle G (talk) 16:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

FASA for Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt?Edit

HF, did you want to set up a WP:FASA for Wikipedia:Featured article review/Niandra LaDes and Usually Just a T-Shirt/archive1? If so, here are the steps, except you don't need to update the stats, as they are current. Also, don't forget to !vote on old ones at WP:FASA! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:43, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS FredericksburgEdit

The article CSS Fredericksburg you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Fredericksburg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 12:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations - January 2022 MilHist ContestEdit

  The Writer's Barnstar
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Writer's Barnstar for placing second in the January 2022 Military History Article Writing Contest with 35 points from four articles. Congratulations, Zawed (talk) 09:10, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Four AwardEdit

  Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Marmaduke–Walker duel. — Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Bilorv (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daniel Sickles's legEdit

The article Daniel Sickles's leg you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Daniel Sickles's leg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for USS R. B. ForbesEdit

 On 25 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USS R. B. Forbes, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the tugboat R. B. Forbes was the first iron mercantile vessel built in New England? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS R. B. Forbes. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, USS R. B. Forbes), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 00:02, 25 February 2022 (UTC)


Geoff Young in Kentucky congressional raceEdit

Geoff Young is running in Kentucky's Congressional 6th district race. You are experienced in articles on Kentucky, Can I get some help on this article?

Any suggestions that you have about the article? I want to make it notable. Year2040 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

@Year2040: - My experience with Kentucky articles is solely limited to minor geographic entities, and I have no experience writing post-1860 political content. The relevant notability guideline is WP:NPOL. You'll have to be able to demonstrate that this figure gets coverage in non-local media (for instance, a major statewide newspaper is much better than a local radio station), and the coverage will have to be significant and amount to more than statements that he is running. Additionally, Ballotpedia is probably not going to be viewed as a notability-brining source. Hog Farm Talk 15:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Re:Featured article review for Knights TemplarEdit

Dear User:Hog Farm, thanks for your message on my talk page. I am honoured that you have asked me to review the Knights Templar article. I will have a look soon. With regards, AnupamTalk 22:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

DYK for CSS BalticEdit

 On 27 February 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS Baltic, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the captain of the warship CSS Baltic stated that she was "about as fit to go into action as a mud scow"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Baltic. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS Baltic), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:03, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of ShepherdstownEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Shepherdstown 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 Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 04:00, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS PamlicoEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Pamlico 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:01, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Second Battle of St. MichaelsEdit

Hog Farm - Thank you for reviewing the Second Battle of St. Michaels. It might have too many images. "Historic marker near the grave of Perry Benson" and "The British occupied strategically located Kent Island" could be removed. TwoScars (talk) 22:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed all the images I thought were insufficiently relevant. (t · c) buidhe 05:44, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
Hog Farm - Thanks again for reviewing the Second Battle of St. Michaels. I noticed you wrote the GA Battle of Shepherdstown. Glad to see that—Shepherd University's George Tyler Moore Center for the Study of the Civil War in Shepherdstown, West Virginia, was very helpful when I was researching my ancestor a few years ago. They had a Record of Events for his company and summarized his Compiled Service Record. From his Record of Status on Muster Rolls I could tell when he was probably present, and when he was on furlough. (Also could see that he added a year to his age at enlistment!) I wrote a 78-page report for relatives, and my kids, that told his story with lots of maps and photographs. I also found two memorials with his name on them. TwoScars (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIV, February 2022Edit

 
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) 22:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of ShepherdstownEdit

The article Battle of Shepherdstown you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Shepherdstown for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Djmaschek -- Djmaschek (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS ScorpionEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Scorpion 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Queen angelfishEdit

Hello. Are you going to follow up on your review? LittleJerry (talk) 20:25, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS ScorpionEdit

The article CSS Scorpion you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CSS Scorpion for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 19:00, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

FAC for Battle of Glasgow, MissouriEdit

Since Ian is the only coordinator who hasn't recused on this one, I suggest ping/email him when you get a third support—he edits intermittently (you probably don't need this advice, though). (t · c) buidhe 00:26, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Your {{Copied}} templates are messed up :). It doesn't matter much, as you do properly attribute per WP:CWW, but I noticed them at Glasgow when cleaning up articlehistory, and fixed them there. Then I copied the corrected templates to the other articles, where I failed to ping you correctly, per my usual typos. The things I accomplish from an iPad!
  • Talk:Battle of Fort Davidson ‎ Fix one, User:HogFarm to check other two current current
  • Talk:Second Battle of Lexington ‎ Fix one, User:HogFarm to check the other two
Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
I think this should be fixed now? Took a couple tries of Fort Davidson, but I think I got it figured out. Hog Farm Talk 05:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Potential FA mentorshipEdit

Hi there! I saw your name listed at WP:FAM, and I was wondering whether you'd be willing to mentor me through preparing for an FA nomination, if you're willing and have the time. I created John C. Young (college president) on February 25, and it passed GA on March 2. I think it has a chance of meeting the FA criteria but I thought it'd be smart to seek the opinion of an editor that is more experienced in FA than me. If you'd be willing to mentor me, I would certainly appreciate it! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:42, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

@PCN02WPS: - Yes, I'd be willing to take a look at this, so long as you're okay with it being a few days probably before I could get to it - I've gotten a bit busier lately. Hog Farm Talk 19:53, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Awesome, thank you! No worries on the wait, just take a look whenever you can! PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 19:57, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: - Just wanted to let you know that I haven't forgotten about this. I just got really busy with work, and was trying to finish a backlog of stuff. I'll be out of town this weekend, but hopefully I can start looking at it at the beginning of next week. I just have this article, Wikipedia:Featured article review/Cliff Clinkscales/archive1, and Talk:Squib-class torpedo boat/GA1 on my radar right now, so I should be able to take a really good look next week. Hog Farm Talk 04:59, 12 March 2022 (UTC)
No worries! I appreciate the heads-up, take all the time you need. I'm in no rush. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:45, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS PamlicoEdit

The article CSS Pamlico you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Pamlico for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:41, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squib-class torpedo boatEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Squib-class torpedo boat 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 17:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Alabama PittsEdit

Hey there Hog Farm! 18 months late, but I think I'm ready to have Alabama Pitts get another look-over for GA. Would you be willing to review it again? I believe I've addressed most of your comments from Talk:Alabama Pitts/GA1, and I am prepared to discuss some of the others. If not, no worries! Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:39, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eagles247: - I'm a bit swamped on and off wikipedia right now, but if it's still unclaimed in about a week I can review it again. Hog Farm Talk 18:42, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS ScorpionEdit

The article CSS Scorpion you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:CSS Scorpion for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 18:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

March songsEdit

March songs
 

Thank you for support in the RfC for DYK! Listening to the charity concert mentioned here. I created the articles of the composer and the soprano. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Now, you can also listen on YouTube, and more music, the piece by Anna Korsun begins after about one hour, and the voices call "Freiheit!" (freedom, instead of "Freude", joy). Music every day, pictured in songs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:37, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

The Prayer is on the Main page, finally + new flowers --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:03, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping they would run it. Hog Farm Talk 21:05, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Daniel Sickles's legEdit

 On 11 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Daniel Sickles's leg, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Daniel Sickles's leg (pictured) is a popular museum display? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Daniel Sickles's leg. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Daniel Sickles's leg), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 00:26, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hook update
Your hook reached 25,458 views (2,121.5 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022—nice work!

Bruxton (talk) 03:57, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification! I had a feeling that this one would do good. Hog Farm Talk 03:58, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

MissouriEdit

Ramsay has come up again.

Uncle G (talk) 16:55, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Squib-class torpedo boatEdit

The article Squib-class torpedo boat you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Squib-class torpedo boat for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 21:01, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Squib-class torpedo boatEdit

 On 19 March 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Squib-class torpedo boat, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Confederate States Navy ordered six Squib-class torpedo boats from England, but they were never delivered? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Squib-class torpedo boat. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Squib-class torpedo boat), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

 — Amakuru (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

  Hook update
Your hook reached 5,140 views (428.3 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of March 2022—nice work!

the automation of this function is in beta testing mode—please let me know if I've screwed up! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/they) 23:27, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Varuna (1861)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Varuna (1861) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:40, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Varuna (1861)Edit

The article USS Varuna (1861) 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:USS Varuna (1861) for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:20, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Varuna (1861)Edit

The article USS Varuna (1861) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:USS Varuna (1861) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History ProjectEdit

  The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves for Battle of St. Charles, Marmaduke–Walker duel, and Battle of Glasgow, Missouri. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations - February 2022 MilHist Article Writing ContestEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the February 2022 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 69 points from 8 articles. Great job! Zawed (talk) 07:55, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVII, March 2022Edit

 
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) 09:15, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

A message of kindnessEdit

Perhaps it's the cider in me at the moment, but I'd like to take the time to thank you for the contributions you have made to MilHist and Wikipedia as a whole. You've done a great service by providing more information on the American Civil War, an incredibly important topic, and you've been a quality member of the project since you joined. It's what makes us old regs (been here 6 years, so I guess that counts for something) hopeful that it will be sustainable. Keep on chooglin'! -Indy beetle (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks very much for the compliments! I have full intentions for this to be sustainable, and hopefully move on to some "bigger-ticket" items - I'm aiming for Confederate government of Missouri for later this month, once a CPA exam section and a sinus infection are over. I briefly lived in Fayetteville as a child before winding up in the Ozarks, so I've got a bit of a NC connection. Hog Farm Talk 05:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
    • Nonetheless, the "War for Texas Independence" is still missing from Alexander Blackburn Bradford. ☺ Uncle G (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
      • (talk page stalker) What does Hog Farm have to do with this article? ––♠Vami_IV†♠ 17:17, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
        • another (talk page stalker): I don't know, but now that I've got the attention of all in this thread, good on ALL of you. Everyone here is a wikipedian I have reason to admire and trust. I agree that Hog Farm's contributions to the ACW articles in particular have helped refresh much of what wikipioneer Hal Jesperson and friends first created and organized. Seems like we owe that formative fellow (I also call wikifriend) more than a barnstar. Tip o' cider to each of you, and to the many friends who got us here. BusterD (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gov. Daniel Dunklin's Grave State Historic SiteEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Gov. Daniel Dunklin's Grave State Historic Site 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Gov. Daniel Dunklin's Grave State Historic SiteEdit

The article Gov. Daniel Dunklin's Grave State Historic Site you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Gov. Daniel Dunklin's Grave State Historic Site for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  • Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have the deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights. This means that those in the Researcher user group and Checkusers who are not administrators can now access Special:RevisionDelete. The users able to view the special page after this change are the 3 users in the Researcher group, as there are currently no checkusers who are not already administrators. (T301928)
  • When viewing deleted revisions or diffs on Special:Undelete a back link to the undelete page for the associated page is now present. (T284114)

  Arbitration

  Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Can presidential cabinet lists in presidency articles require a citation?Edit

I would like to trouble you with a question. Can a list of presidential cabinet members in an article about a presidency of a politician require a citation for WP:FA? Here's some context - right now, there are no Featured Articles about a presidency of a politician (only two Good Articles about a politician's presidency, which does not have a citation affixed to a list of presidential cabinet members), and some articles about a presidency of a politician (e.g. Presidency of Corazon Aquino) have a citation affixed to a list of presidential cabinet members. I don't think that this was covered in the WP:MOS. Cheerio! LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 12:11, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

For FA it's required to cite all information with in-line reference see the FA criteria. Basic info like cabinet members should be easy to source! (t · c) buidhe 12:23, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

@LunafreyaLaphicet: - Yes, like Buidhe said, this does need a citation. Essentially everything will need a citation unless it's self-proving like some math formulas, or patently obvious like "the Earth orbits the Sun". Hog Farm Talk 13:22, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
What if the citation for the list of presidential cabinet members is a website? After all, website citations are unstable. Some sources for cabinet member lists of presidents in certain countries (especially presidents of lesser-known countries) might not be easily available. LunafreyaLaphicet (talk) 13:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
The website may be used if it is reliable. As to the unstable portion, see Help:Archiving a source. Even if you are unable to archive the source for yourself, then there are other editors who work frequently with this and would be willing to help you out. However, even if it is not easily available, you will still need to add a citation for the material. I'm not sure what country you are referring to, but it should be doable with the possible exception of some defunct countries in non-English locations. If you're having trouble accessing a specific source that the citation would be in, you can ask at WP:RSX. Hog Farm Talk 13:56, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Duke...Edit

It'll probably be tomorrow. I had to go to the grocery store and now my head is killing me. Ealdgyth (talk) 17:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

No worries; take as long as you need. Hope you get to feeling better. Hog Farm Talk 17:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirementEdit

The administrator policy has been updated with new activity requirements following a successful Request for Comment.

Beginning January 1, 2023, administrators who meet one or both of the following criteria may be desysopped for inactivity if they have:

  1. Made neither edits nor administrative actions for at least a 12-month period OR
  2. Made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period

Administrators at risk for being desysopped under these criteria will continue to be notified ahead of time. Thank you for your continued work.

22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Congratulations - March 2022 MilHist Article Writing ContestEdit

  The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons, for placing first in the March 2022 Military History Article Writing Contest, achieving 51 points from 6 articles, an excellent month. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:03, 16 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of Glasgow, MissouriEdit

 Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Battle of Glasgow, Missouri, 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, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

A question.Edit

Hello. What does "per FAC" mean? Thank you. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 04:08, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@BeenAroundAWhile: it's an indication that the changes made were in response to comments at a featured article candidacy. Is there a specific edit you were concerned about? RE the cn tag you placed at Slayback's Missouri Cavalry Regiment - the information is found (and cited) in the last paragraph of the body. Ref 47 covers Smith's June 2 surrender, and ref 48 covers McGhee's theory and the June 14 parole. Per my understanding of WP:LEADCITE I don't think a citation there in the lead is necessary but I can add one since it is directly referencing McGhee's theory if you feel strongly about it. Hog Farm Talk 05:10, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
I believe everyone would like us to eschew the use of abbreviations, per the guideline which states "Always consider whether it is better to simply write a word or phrase out in full, thus avoiding potential confusion for those not familiar with its abbreviation." Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Abbreviations As for the cn tag, I would prefer the info be cited: To me it looks needed. Best wishes, BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 07:28, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 10th Texas Field BatteryEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 10th Texas Field Battery 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:21, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Goodbye Normal StreetEdit

  Hello! Your submission of Goodbye Normal Street 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! Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 21:37, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union Covered Bridge State Historic SiteEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site 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 Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 17:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union Covered Bridge State Historic SiteEdit

The article Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site 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:Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

DYK for USS Varuna (1861)Edit

 On 24 April 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article USS Varuna (1861), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that eight sailors on USS Varuna received the Medal of Honor for actions during the Battle of Forts Jackson and St. Philip? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/USS Varuna (1861). You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, USS Varuna (1861)), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Union Covered Bridge State Historic SiteEdit

The article Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Union Covered Bridge State Historic Site for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Eviolite -- Eviolite (talk) 05:01, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of Little Blue RiverEdit

 Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Battle of Little Blue River, 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, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

Newspaper sources and the featured article criteriaEdit

Hello Hog Farm. I've been working on Pruitt–Igoe, an article about an ill-fated St. Louis housing project built in the 1950s, with an eye to taking it to FAC at some point in the future. I recently secured a subscription to Newspapers.com through the Wikipedia Library, which has opened up many contemporaneous newspaper sources from the 1950s and 1960s. In several cases these newspaper articles have verified facts that I could not find in other sources (e.g., the dates of opening, the exact number of units). I know that the featured article criteria require "high-quality reliable sources". Do old newspaper articles, used for basic factual information, meet this standard? Ruбlov (talkcontribs) 19:18, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

@Rublov: - I think it would be okay for most non-controversial facts, such as the date of opening. A scholarly secondary source would be preferable when possible, but I don't see any issue with using a reputable historical newspaper for the information like the two examples you gave. Hog Farm Talk 19:25, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Battle of CaloocanEdit

Hola, Hog Farm. I've just had a look at your comments on the GA review page and after looking at the links again I agree that they shouldn't really be there as I must've mixed up the two units (and as such, I've altered them). Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dabberoni15: - It looks like there's still one more - see the link in On February 4, a private from the 1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry Regiment fired on Filipino troops near Manila Hog Farm Talk 17:41, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Sure, but when I kept the link to solely the 1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry Regiment, it automatically redirects readers to a Civil War-era unit. Do you have suggestions for an appropriate pipe to go in the article? Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:42, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
@Dabberoni15: - Based on a few sources I've briefly consulted, I'd say the best pipe link would be 1st Nebraska Infantry Regiment (1898). Hog Farm Talk 17:45, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do. Much obliged for your assistance, chief. Dabberoni15 (talk) 17:48, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
If I have time tonight, I might try to hammer out a start-class article for the Nebraska unit - I found several promising sources. Hog Farm Talk 18:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

USRC Forward (1882)Edit

I have added addition history and citations to the article USRC Forward (1882) bringing the article up to B-class standards for the MILHIST Project. Since I am the major author of the article I don't feel it would be correct for me to reassess the article. If you would be so kind as to look the article over when you get time and possibly reassess it for b-class I would be most grateful. At some point in time while writing the article several years ago I got distracted and never completed it. Someone in the meantime assessed it as b-class without checking the references listed. Although I very seldom write articles anymore I felt it my responsibility to complete this. It was actually quite interesting and I might have to get back into some new article research. Thank you. Cuprum17 (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

@Cuprum17: - Generally, to get a ship to MILHIST B-class, there's two more things that would need to be done. First, with ship articles, it's generally expected that the dimensions and such from the infobox would be summarized in a separate section (generally called characteristics or some such thing). The lead contains some information not elsewhere, and that would need to be moved into the main history section, with the lead becoming a summary of the new characteristics section and the history section. CSS Scorpion is one that I managed to get to GA in March that might be comparable, as both articles are on the shorter side for ships. Hog Farm Talk 20:08, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
I'll keep hammering away at it. Thank you for the guidance and I will follow your suggestions, though not immediately. Real life beckons... Cuprum17 (talk) 20:18, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CLXXVIII, April 2022Edit

 
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) 22:24, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

1st Nebraska Infantry RegimentEdit

Hey chief, I just saw your newly created article for that regiment and wanted to extend my thanks (it looks great). That being said, I wanted to draw your attention to two minor points regarding it. The first is a Wikimedia file which I think could be used in the article. The battle of Manila article states that this image depicts Company B of the regiment. In your view, do you think that this is an accurate description? Because if it is, I'd like to insert it into the article somehow. The second is perhaps a slightly broader scope issue. I'm under the impression that the 1st Nebraska was a volunteer regiment (as opposed to the Regular Army). If that is the case, then why wasn't it designated as the 1st Nebraska Volunteer Infantry Regiment, like many other volunteer regiments? Thank you in advance for being so helpful. Regards, Dabberoni15 (talk) 14:45, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

@Dabberoni15: - I'm unsure about that image - the LOC page from which that image is sourced makes no claim that I can find that the image is of the 1st Nebraska, and neither does the file page on Commons. As for the title, I see we are currently using a mix of title formats - we've got 1st Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) and 3rd Wisconsin Infantry Regiment (1898) but also 51st Iowa Volunteer Infantry Regiment and 6th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment (Spanish–American War). Additionally, many of that state units in the American Civil War were volunteer units, and it was determined not to include "volunteer" in the article names of those. I'll post a query at WT:MILHIST about how to handle this. Hog Farm Talk 17:38, 30 April 2022 (UTC)
I posted this on MILHIST but wanted to duplicate here. Brian Linn does not use "volunteer" in his work on the conflicts, and he's considered the leading authority for this period. The decision not to use "volunteer" for Civil War units is a Wiki thing as far as I know (and they have some other...odd...conventions in this area, at least to me), but for this period I'd say 1st Nebraska Infantry is far more common and appropriate. Intothatdarkness 17:07, 1 May 2022 (UTC)
Allow me to chime in as the guy who actually PERFORMED those many moves over the subject of "volunteer". I'm not sure what we decided was entirely correct, even though consensus was clear. Our MOS is not always up-to-date nor does it cover every circumstance. After hearing the scholarly case recently for NOT using the term "Union" army, a discussion which did not so conclude, I'm concerned when I look at museum artifacts which are labeled USV. During the Civil War (and this is not debatable), we had USV and USA. The OR index listing for Union Army is a set of redirects back to USA and USV. I think one day I will be forced to do those moves back to a different naming convention. (which I'd do gladly if that were the case) BusterD (talk) 22:27, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
This gets even more complicated because there was a category of troops considered United States Volunteers in addition to those volunteer units raised by states. So depending on the conflict and era, you can have state-raised Volunteers, United States Volunteers (units in essence organized and funded by the Federal Government), and the Regular Army. The 1st US Volunteer Cavalry (the Rough Riders) is perhaps the best known of the USV regiments, but there were others. Obviously prior to the creation of the National Guard the state volunteer units were far more common. Intothatdarkness 12:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of 10th Texas Field BatteryEdit

The article 10th Texas Field Battery you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:10th Texas Field Battery for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 13:01, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Yeehaw 🤠 –♠Vami_IV†♠ 01:55, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm about to ask for some mentoring in basic areas (with pings to friends I'm asking to help me)Edit

Thanks for your jumping right in on my GA review. I'm going to take a liberty here on your talk page. I'm going to ask for help. You and I largely agree on thingswiki and I appreciate your meticulous and generous nature. I want to learn from some people I don't know as well but respect. I guess I'm saying this to let you know I'm feeling an energy high here for the first time in years. I'm reading more than I write. I'm so slothful occasionally. I have this bad habit of anticipating the worst. RL often steals from my gumption stash; RL working more than usual. I had such a good time hanging with my gaming friends last weekend and my energy is up. I told a friend yesterday I was ready for some pagespace successes. I'm going to put William Longshaw Jr. up for GA in two weeks after I've written the epitaph and I'd like User:Vami IV to handle it if and when they are willing. It's unusual and perhaps incorrect to request a reviewer, but I think it's clear I have no ill intent; I just want to know that bold user better and learn their style. I'm going to ask User:Atsme to mentor me in the basic NPP skills as they have time. I should be able to rip through ten page patrols in ten minutes, but I have this issue with my cognitive process. I seem to get a "stuckness" in reviewing; it's like I care about the subject too much to take any single action, instead of breaking the tasks down and checking them off. I'd like people I trust (like an auditor) to help me break this bad habit. BusterD (talk) 21:52, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I am sought, thus I am found. It would be my pleasure to review your GAN when the time comes. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going though my clippings now. He's an odd subject but I think I could take the page farther if I could find a few more secondaries. BusterD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm there for ya, BusterD!! Just give me a date! (clarify - a calendar date. 😀 ) Atsme 💬 📧 21:59, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
Set me up like a new applicant, please! BusterD (talk) 22:06, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
 Y Admirable, BusterD - you are an inspiration. Atsme 💬 📧 09:34, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van BurenEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Van Buren 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

FACEdit

Hi, I'd like to preface this question by stating that I'm not asking for anything in particular to be done to my nomination. That being said, I'm completely new to FAC and Richardson is my first nomination. Is there anything in particular missing from the current reviews? Thanks, Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 16:54, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Depends on if Ykraps intended their review to be both a general review and a full source review. Hog Farm Talk 16:57, 4 May 2022 (UTC)
I carried out a fairly extensive source review, which meant reading through the article multiple times. If I'd noticed anything that needed attention, I would have commented so I'm happy to say I support with consideration to all the criteria. @Pickersgill-Cunliffe:, If your worrying that time's running out, don't be. All my nominations have taken over a month to pass and HMS Emerald was open for 3 months! --Ykraps (talk) 06:33, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that was fun...Edit

Talk:Osbern fitzRichard/GA1. Not. Ealdgyth (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not a good GA review whatsoever. Yikes. To avoid ambiguity, it can be mentioned that the charter states that he had another son. when that doesn't seem to be what the charter says at all. Or Avoid using "unknown". Simply state that it occurred at some point between 1088 and 1100. when the article says that it may have occurred after 1100, and if it's unknown, it should be stated to be unknown. Or the referencing format demands that are completely outside of GAN scope. You never know what you're going to get with GA reviews, and when they're bad, they're often really bad. I had an article promoted to GA based on this review once, which literally contains nothing useful whatsoever. Hog Farm Talk 01:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) That's cheered my day up!   Gog the Mild (talk) 15:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Kirk–Holden warEdit

Hi HF. Do you fancy signing off, or not, on the RSness of the sources for this one. I have just kicked the formatting into shape, but I wouldn't know a decent source from a hole in the ground on this topic. Whereas you ... Note in particular Ashe's 50 year old PhD thesis. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - I haven't done the check for anything that should be included that isn't, but I'm generally okay with the RS-ness of the sources used here. The one cite to Ashe 1925 looks okay. Of the two cites to Bogue's 50-year old, one it supported by a modern source and the other should be okay. The one that flags up the most concern for me is Zuber 1969, as a publication from a southern state's government about Reconstruction during the Civil Rights Era isn't a generally great class of sources. The single cite to Zuber 1969 here doesn't look problematic though, so I'd be comfortable signing off on RS here for ACR. Indy beetle, would it be best to replace Zuber 1969 before a FAC, or is there a reason why it would be better than what it might seem from a first glance? Hog Farm Talk 16:01, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
The Zuber book as a whole leans more towards older views of Reconstruction, but the only specifics it discusses are in regards to the documents and letters kept in the state government archives. That picture of Pearson’s writ of habeas corpus comes from the book, for example. I presume Zuber wrote of the attorney’s letter to Pearson because that is a document that is kept in the state archives. This book is almost meant more as a reading guide, or subtle advertisement, saying “Hey we keep this cool stuff in the State Archives.” It is not a comprehensive account of North Carolina during Reconstruction, even though that’s what the title suggests. -Indy beetle (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Zuber should be fine, then. I'm just a bit suspicious of older sources for Reconstruction after skimming an old first or second edition copy of Claude G. Bowers's The Tragic Era I found in an attic a few years ago. Bowers's work at least on this subject is very bad. Hog Farm Talk 16:53, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Students of the Dunning School are what you need to look out for. J. G. de Roulhac Hamilton was the North Carolinian pupil of that view and wrote the first comprehensive account of the Kirk-Holden war in his 1914 book Reconstruction in North Carolina. I did what I could to keep my distance; McGuire rebuts some of the points he made. -Indy beetle (talk) 00:08, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
So am I ok to pass the source review? Gog the Mild (talk) 15:24, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
@Gog the Mild: - On reliability, yes. I'm willing to AGF on comprehensiveness of sourcing if you are. Hog Farm Talk 15:27, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Does ACR have a comprehensiveness of sourcing criterion? I have passed it anyway. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
The A-class portion of WP:MILHIST/ASSESS says accurately represent the relevant body of published knowledge which I've always interpreted as a requirement to not have blatant omissions of major sources. Not as strict as FAC, but a step up from GAN is how I've always seen that. For instance, I'd say that Battle of Fort Davidson is good for GA, but shouldn't pass ACR without using Suderow & House's Thunder in Arcadia Valley, although that's a bit of an extreme example. Hog Farm Talk 15:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Ho hum. I have taken it as what it says. So if an article reflects what a/the major source says, but doesn't use that particular source, it's fine. I guess it's a distinction that doesn't happen much in practice. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

A favour?Edit

Any chance of a favour? If time or motivation don't allow, that's fine. But I currently have no wannabe FACs queued up, which seems an unnatural state of affairs. I have had at least one nom at FAC pretty much for the last 42 months. I was looking at Battle of Utica which you have just ACR reviewed and source reviewed. I had previously thought that it was a bit slight for FAC, but I may be talking myself round. What do you think? No need to dress up a negative opinion, if you have or form one. Thanks. And secondly, the only other non-promoted A class article of "mine" which may be up to FAC is Siege of Guînes (1352), which you kindly reviewed for A class back in October 2021, here. Again generously also looking at the sourcing. Again, might you have an opinion as to whether it would be laughed off the project if I nominated it at FAC? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:17, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: - If I was able to push Capture of Sedalia through, then either should be fine. Guines might be the better option, as there's a bit more meat there, and so long as you're confident you've reasonably dredged all the high-quality sourcing, it should be fine. (As an aside - is Utica definitely the primary topic for that title?) Could I have a request as well? I've only been able to find two detailed sources for the events of Battle of Van Buren, but have tried to patch it together as well as possible. Do you see anything that would preclude ACR/FAC for Van Buren once it passes GAN, if I'm comfortable if I've covered the breadth of sourcing as well as possible? Hog Farm Talk 16:50, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks HF. Battle of Van Buren is pretty Bearss reliant. To me it just about sneaks under the bar, others may differ. If you have a couple of weeks with nothing better to nominate I would toss it at FAC and see what the result is. It seems a perfectly reasonable article to nom and I would be a little surprised of anyone made a lot of fuss. I would tidy up/rewrite the second paragraph of the lead. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, ACW in Arkansas is a bit of a choke point with sourcing, in that there's three authors (Bearss, Shea, and Christ) that are involved in basically everything and Christ didn't write much about this one. It doesn't help that Bearss was extremely prolific in writing about Fort Smith. I'll give it another dredge to see what I can find, but it's a bad sign when the copy of The Union Cavalry in the Civil War: Volume 3 The West I just got off eBay only gives Van Buren part of a paragraph. If Baltic ever clears ACR I'll probably nominate that first, and save Van Buren for when I run out of other FAC-able ones. Hog Farm Talk 18:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) FYI a trawl found nothing further of note on Guînes, but did remind me of a source worth rereading for Utica. So I am going to nominate the former, and assuming the latter goes through ACR see if I can fatten it up a bit and then relook at it.
Utica and primary topic: I know as much about titles as I do categories - very little. They are not in the criteria so I don't much care. Personally I might have gone with Battle of Utica (49 BC), or run all three through a disambig page. But what do I know, and everyone seems to have been happy with the status quo for 15+ years. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:10, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

ARC RequestEdit

Hi Hog,

I wondered if maybe after your exam and you have the time and motivation in the near future. Would you be willing to review Oswald Boelcke? If so then I'll try to get some time to review CSS Baltic. Oh btw just curious is that your cat on above because my cat is also trying to play with my keyboard. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 06:47, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

@CPA-5: - I think cats just like to play with keyboards :) I'll take a look at Boelcke when I can (maybe this weekend?) I saw some tone issues when I skimmed it back in late March, but based on the replies to the most recent comments in that ACR, it looks like it's been largely corrected, so I'll give it another look. Hog Farm Talk 14:06, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
Great thanks then we might promote it sooner or later. I'll take a look at CSS Baltic this weekend as well. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:48, 6 May 2022 (UTC)

It would seem that Hauptmann Bölckes Feldberichte would be worth a further reading mention. Hauptmann Bölckes Feldberichte at Projeck Gutenberg-DE. Hauptmann Bölckes Feldberichte at the Internet Archive. "backdate" is more usual for documents than "pre-date", too. Uncle G (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

I have this in English.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:00, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van BurenEdit

The article Battle of Van Buren 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 Van Buren for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:01, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS Curlew (1862)Edit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS Curlew (1862) 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 Legobot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 20:20, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Oswald Boelcke assessmentEdit

Hello, I have edited the above article in response to the useful commentary in your assessment. I realize you have not completed it, and that you may want to deal with my responses upon completion.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:58, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

Hello again, I believe I have addressed your concerns. Please check the assessment to see if I have solved the problems.Georgejdorner (talk) 23:49, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Ready for review.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:42, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Georgejdorner Take a look at the rest of this talk page, it says Hog Farm is on wikibreak. (t · c) buidhe 03:52, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Ooops! No prob. The other assessor did most of the work; he'll check things out.Georgejdorner (talk) 03:57, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
@Georgejdorner: - With the tone cleaned up and the SYNTH sentence gone, my main objections to promotion are gone. I'm still not a fan of the Google maps usage, and would push a bit on that at FAC, but won't hold up ACR over that. I'm not able to take a general look at it right now, but from a skim Kershaw's Hitler bio is showing a ref warning as not used and should be removed and something seems to have gone wrong with the italics at the very end. @WP:MILHIST coordinators: - if it gets ready for promotion before I'm back, don't wait on me; my major concerns appear to have been addressed. Hog Farm Talk 04:14, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
Kershaw gone, and you should be too, on your holiday.Georgejdorner (talk) 04:21, 13 May 2022 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – May 2022Edit

News and updates for administrators from the past month (April 2022).

  Guideline and policy news

  Technical news

  Arbitration


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:34, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Van BurenEdit

The article Battle of Van Buren you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Battle of Van Buren for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS PontchartrainEdit

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Pontchartrain 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 Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Burned outEdit

I'm going to be stepping back for at least a few days, although I will return. I'll try to keep up with what I've been involved in at FAR, as well as any in-process reviews I've started and keep up with the 1 FAC, 2 ACRs, and 3 GANs I have open, and I'll try to get the tags added this morning to the article I created last night cleaned up, but no promises on how quickly things get done. I'm burning out pretty badly, and will be taking a break with my wife, cats, and books. Hog Farm Talk 13:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

In that order I'm sure! Do it HF, take as long as you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
I hope your break is refreshing, HF -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 14:05, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
May many and restful days be yours to enjoy. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 21:08, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
I am just catching up and seeing this; extended breaks are always good, always needed, and taking one is a sign of balance ... go for it, and enjoy the books, cat and wife (not in that order :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:17, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

Back for now to a greater extent; I got sucked in with some template-related stuff. Hog Farm Talk 13:11, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Goodbye Normal StreetEdit

 On 12 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Goodbye Normal Street, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Goodbye Normal Street was named after a street in Oklahoma, but also refers to the Turnpike Troubadours' new life touring on the road? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Goodbye Normal Street. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Goodbye Normal Street), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

— Maile (talk) 00:03, 12 May 2022 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!Edit

  The Working Man's Barnstar
For reviewing at least 7 points worth of articles during the January 2022 GAN Backlog Drive, I hereby present you with this barnstar in my capacity as coordinator. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:55, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Real Estate Bank of ArkansasEdit

 On 17 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Real Estate Bank of Arkansas, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that a special legislative session to deal with the Real Estate Bank of Arkansas was not called because a third of the legislature owed money to the bank? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Real Estate Bank of Arkansas. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Real Estate Bank of Arkansas), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Kusma (talk) 00:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The TFAREdit

My English just isn't up to if the article follows the format of quote". or quote.". Up to when I read that I believed that whether the dot is part of a quote or not depends on whether a dot is being quoted or not. Can you clarify, please? - I don't think you have to understand anything about the topic to tell if the phrase in the lead is a summary of the longer passages or too free, and if a summary of the French Revolution needs a ref. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: - I'm not an expert on the periods with MOS:LQ, but I believe the rule is generally that the period should be outside of the quotations marks unless the quote wouldn't make sense without it. Hog Farm Talk 21:54, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Well, that's close to what I believe. The other wording, however, suggested to me that an article should follow one format or the other consistently? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
As I've understood it, the general idea is to always put the period outside of the quotation marks unless there's a strong reason to do so, so in most cases it will be consistently outside of the question marks. An example from the article where I think a change would be warranted is in contending that men and women, whose marriages are "the cement of society", should be "educated after the same model."[25] where the period after "model" should be after the quotation mark, since it doesn't seem to be integral to the phrasing. Hog Farm Talk 22:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I changed a few of those - please check if I understood you right? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS PontchartrainEdit

The article CSS Pontchartrain you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold  . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:CSS Pontchartrain for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 13:01, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

geology of the lassen volcanic areaEdit

hello, Hog Farm! i had a quick question regarding this blurb for this article. what do you think about including the full date of the explosion in the caption for the image? i know that full dates are often mentioned in blurbs when they are relevant to the blurb's run date, and this blurb is scheduled to run on the 107th anniversary of the pictured explosion. the caption in the article also includes the full date. however, i hesitate to add the full date to the blurb's caption as your tfa nomination of the article did not include it, and i was not sure why. dying (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Dying Feel free to add the full date. The only reason it's not included is because it didn't cross my mind. Hog Farm Talk 04:48, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
done. thanks, Hog Farm! dying (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK for CSS PontchartrainEdit

 On 21 May 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article CSS Pontchartrain, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the captain of CSS Pontchartrain was twice detached from the ship to fight in land battles? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/CSS Pontchartrain. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, CSS Pontchartrain), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)