User talk:Gog the Mild

FACs needing feedback ; view • edit
Mission: Impossible – Fallout	Review it now
I'm God	Review it now
You Belong with Me	Review it now
Blackrocks Brewery	Review it now

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

RFA2024 update: phase I concluded, phase II begins[edit]

Hi there! Phase I of the Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/2024 review has concluded, with several impactful changes gaining community consensus and proceeding to various stages of implementation. Some proposals will be implemented in full outright; others will be discussed at phase II before being implemented; and still others will proceed on a trial basis before being brought to phase II. The following proposals have gained consensus:

Proposals 2 and 9b (phase II discussion): Add a reminder of civility norms at RfA and Require links for claims of specific policy violations
Proposal 3b (in trial): Make the first two days discussion-only
Proposal 13 (in trial): Admin elections
Proposal 14 (implemented): Suffrage requirements
Proposals 16 and 16c (phase II discussion): Allow the community to initiate recall RfAs and Community recall process based on dewiki
Proposal 17 (phase II discussion): Have named Admins/crats to monitor infractions
Proposal 24 (phase II discussion): Provide better mentoring for becoming an admin and the RfA process
Proposal 25 (implemented): Require nominees to be extended confirmed

See the project page for a full list of proposals and their outcomes. A huge thank-you to everyone who has participated so far :) looking forward to seeing lots of hard work become a reality in phase II. theleekycauldron (talk), via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:09, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your EotW nomination[edit]

back in early March is finally working its way up to the top of the queue. I have recently started to award mid-week in addition to Sunday in order to speed up the process and get the awards where they belong--on the editors talk page. I am updating the nomination just a bit. Thanks for all you do! Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 13:32, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Nice to see the award so busy. It doesn't seem that long ago that we were scratching around trying to find worthy recipients. Let me know if there is anything I can help with. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:53, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! A crowded Queue is a good problem to have. Don't hesitate to nominate is still the active thought. Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 14:08, 6 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back. Just in time to congratulate your nominee. TRA Buster Seven Talk (UTC) 20:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue 217, May 2024[edit]

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 and Nick-D look at a diverse range of works
Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the "center of gravity"

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) 20:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Narwhal[edit]

Can you quickly read the lead section of narwhal and comment on the prose? Thanks for your time. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 06:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments; I addressed them. So, what do you think of the article's state right now? Is it ready? Please let me know. Wolverine XI ^{(talk to me)} 04:14, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 16 May 2024[edit]

News and notes: Democracy in action: multiple elections

Special report: Will the new RfA reform come to the rescue of administrators?

Arbitration report: Ruined temples for posterity to ponder over – arbitration from '22 to '24

In the media: Deadnames on the French Wikipedia, and a duel between Russian wikis

Op-Ed: Wikidata to split as sheer volume of information overloads infrastructure

Comix: Generations

Traffic report: Crawl out through the fallout, baby

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:57, 16 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rapide[edit]

hi gog, welcome back from the trip :). hope i’m not rushing you or anything but this FAC has three supports, and a source review and image review both completed (it’s been open for nearly a month). mind taking a look at it? thanks and best! 750 h+ 15:22, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How strange, that was literally the last thing I was looking at. And thinking that I agree with FrB.TG. Let's see if we can get another reviewer to give it a once over. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:26, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ok, i’ll see if i can get somebody.~~ Editor PCN02WPS kindly decided to leave comments :). 750 h+ 15:37, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PCN finished his review, and it seems like he’ll be leaving a support :). 750 h+ 23:32, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: little friendly ping 😬 (sorry it's been two days, probably just my impatience) 750 h+ 12:37, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it happens, I have started looking at the article. Although I am now tempted to look at one which has been waiting longer instead. Pipe down and take a class in patience, or I shall ask Serial Number to have a little chat with you. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:51, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

whoops, understood 750 h+ 14:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-gimme gimme gimme comment) This whole gimme gimme gimme approach is frankly disgusting. ——Serial Number 54129 15:34, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Input request @ Talk:Jinn[edit]

Jinn (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
An input request has been relisted to have more inputs about DUE/UNDUE relevance and fringe-ness at Talk:Jinn#Comparative mythology, Due, Fringe or Undue?.

also Pre-RfC stage info:

Also A user has proposed updates for consideration at this sand box for the article Jinn.

As a discussion facilitator fyi a WP:DUE discussion (some aspects may touch WP:Fringe) is at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC stage's WP:RSN#Hachette Livre and WP:ORN step. After RSN and WP:ORN step, RfC formatting is likely to be discussed at Talk:Jinn#Pre-RfC in a new sub section.

This input request / intimation is made to you, looking at your previous contribution to the article Pre-Islamic Arabia (Xtool) or talk page there of. Bookku (talk) 13:05, 23 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	Thanks so much for all of your hard work and help with the Featured Article process! Princessa Unicorn (talk) 11:40, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! No one ever gets thanked for that! I am touched, and your thoughtfulness is appreciated. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:02, 24 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

TFA[edit]

Thank you today for Siege of Guînes (1352), introduced (in 2022): "Just when you thought it was safe to visit FAC after I had declared that there would be no more of my Edwardian Hundred Years' War articles, I find one down the back of the sofa. A fairly typical event from this conflict, of which enough has survived into the modern sources to reconstruct reasonably well." -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question about FAC process[edit]

First off, thank you for your pre-review comments here. I nominated Free and Candid Disquisitions as my first FAC early last month, with three full reviews resulting in three supports. An image review was completed at the outset and addressed a single concern. However, I am worried that three supports and a neutral image review might be interpreted as insufficient to establish a consensus for promotion. Is there an informal minimum number of supports necessary to establish a consensus? If so, do you have recommendations about next steps? ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:25, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I've noticed that FAC nominators have been burdening regulars with a lot of questions lately. I apologize if this sounds like just another squeaky wheel, and I fully understand if you'd rather not respond here. Thank you for your work as a coordinator. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:39, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. No problem. If you become a nuisance I will either ignore you or, more likely, tell you so. I only count two general supports - from UC and SC. Am I missing something? The number, type and quality of supports needed for any given nomination is more of an art than a science. That said, 1. it needs more, 2. it is ticking along nicely, 3. I have nudged a couple of potential reviewers, and 4. I had been thinking of looking at that one myself, I am not sure why it dropped off my radar. I may be able to go through it tomorrow. First FACs are always a bit nerve wracking, but I see nothing that need alarm you so far. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your coordinator comments are appreciated. To point 4, don't feel an impetus to rush a review, as I have limited availability tomorrow. To point 1, I think I must have not understood something correctly: is a pass on a source review like that performed by Dugan Murphy (with the caveat that, as a first-timer, I needed a more in-depth one) not interchangeable with a support? If not, I'm very appreciative that you clarified that point! Don't expect further pinging/talk page messages from me unless you make comments first or something goes horribly awry. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:33, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]