W
Active Editors
Back to Profile

User Talk: Gog the Mild

Server-side rendered snapshot of this editor's Wikipedia talk page discussions.

{{Short description|Editor talk page}}
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}}
{{bots|deny=DPL bot}}
{{Wikipedia:WikiDragon/topicon}}
{{Top icon | imagename =US-O11 insignia.svg | wikilink = Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators | description = This user is a coordinator of the Military History WikiProject | id = 1}}
{{Top icon| imagename= Editor of the week barnstar.svg| wikilink= Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week| description= Editor of the Week, 22 June 2019| id =4}}
{{WikiGnome topicon|id=6}}
{{Trout me|id=7}}
{{4A user topicon}}
{{User:Deckiller/FAC urgents}}

Siege of Hennebont



Please see my recent Talk page comment regarding inclusion of "France" in first sentence of "Siege of Hennebont" article at:

Special:Diff/1360253292 ↗ - DonFB (talk) 05:33, 21 June 2026 (UTC)

Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 ↗ scheduled for TFA



This is to let you know that Black Prince's chevauchée of 1356 ↗ has been scheduled as today's featured article ↗ for 4 August 2026. 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/August 2026 ↗, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026 ↗. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. 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! Z1720 (talk) 21:37, 22 June 2026 (UTC)

Siege of Brest (1342) ↗ scheduled for TFA



This is to let you know that Siege of Brest (1342) ↗ has been scheduled as today's featured article ↗ for 18 August 2026. 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/August 2026 ↗, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/August 2026 ↗. Please keep an eye on that page, as notifications of copy edits to or queries about the draft blurb may be posted there. 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! Z1720 (talk) 00:31, 27 June 2026 (UTC)

Neutral?


I am quite surprised to see a comment from an unrecused coordinator telling an active reviewer they are "free to oppose" without a mention of "free to support" in the same statement. I know comments asking people if they "felt in a position to support or oppose" an FAC are commonplace, and I would have felt more comfortable if you limited to that type of neutral statement. Other people considering reviewing the FAC in the future should not feel that their credibility with the coordinators is at risk if they end up deciding to support promotion. You are free to recuse and review, of course, and I was actually going to request that due to the inactivity on the nom--''<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b>'' 21:04, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
:If a reviewer expressed positive views about a nomination without formally supporting its promotion I would consider it part of a coordinator's role to put the idea in their head. Similarly if they seemed less well disposed towards a nomination. Our role is to be disinterested, not uninterested. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::FrB has promoted ↗ an FA with the song title in its chart table caption ↗, Ian has promoted ↗ an FA with the song title in its chart table caption ↗, and you have promoted most of mine doing the same. Someone's disagreement with something that common should not be encouraged into an oppose vote imo when the argument has no leg to stand on. I think the blood, sweat and tears I have put into FAC over half a decade should earn a modicum of respect and at least make sure I don't get treated like I joined Wikipedia yesterday. We lost Ippantekina and almost Aoba47 as well due to the atmosphere at FAC. Not blaming you for it at all but just something to think about.--''<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b>'' 22:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)
::One more thing I'd like to mention is that I was quite disappointed by her attitude during her FAC. She thanked everyone who reviewed it except me, and she opposed most of the suggestions I made. Ofc I don't blame her for that, since it is her own right, but it made me feel she didn't appreciate my reviews or want me to continue reviewing her articles. Nevertheless I replied to her comments, explaining why those should be addressed, but she finally ignored. So I just left her FAC alone, and didn't vote "oppose" although Gog later asked me for the clarification.
::We also can see that she feels I did make her FAC "ridiculous ↗", and I didn't offer "modicum of respect" to her and "treated [her] like [she] joined Wikipedia yesterday". If I didn't respect her, I would have not welcome her back and would have '''oppose'''d her nom immediately. Anyways, although I tried to interact more and to be closer with her, it seems that ain't successful. So I don't think we'll be interacting much in the future, and perhaps that's what she wants as well. Regards, <span style="padding:.1px 2.5px;border:2px outset #b14c6d;border-radius:99px;background:linear-gradient(#9a365a,#cc6a8a);font-family:serif;color:#f5e6e8">'''Camilasdandelions'''</span> (✉️) 06:26, 5 July 2026 (UTC)
:::{{green|"I was quite disappointed by her attitude during her FAC. She thanked everyone who reviewed it except me"}}; about sums it up. Thanks for the admission. The review page is public so anyone can see that "she finally ignored" nothing and there are appropriate replies to anything warranting one. It is out of my politeness and shyness that I don't review poor articles where an oppose vote would be apt, which is why I have not really reviewed any of yours yet. It is not out of personal spite. But fine, given what you have expressed above, I will be more conscious about interacting less in the future.--''<b style="color:purple">N</b><b style="color:teal">Ø</b>'' 11:27, 5 July 2026 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project


{| style="border: 2px solid lightsteelblue; background-color: whitesmoke;"
|rowspan="2" style="vertical-align:middle;" | 75px ↗
|rowspan="2" |
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | &ensp;'''''Military history reviewers' award ↗'''''&ensp;
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 reviews between April and June 2026 {{user0|MilHistBot}} via MilHistBot (talk) 02:47, 3 July 2026 (UTC) <br><small>Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{tlx|WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space</small>
|}

Reverted edit on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria



Hi! I noticed you recently reverted an edit I made on Wikipedia:Featured article criteria ↗ in which I corrected some grammatical errors in the prose. In your edit summary, you said that the article was fine as it was. To me, the errors I addressed were patently ungrammatical, and addressing them improved the readability of the page. Specifically, I added a comma to point 1c and removed a comma from point 3.

In point 1c, the comma was added before the coordinating conjunction "and," which connected the two independent clauses "it is not subject to ongoing edit wars" and "its content does not change significantly from day to day except in response to the featured article process." Coordinating conjunctions that connect two independent clauses require a comma before them, per point 1 in Purdue OWL's "Extended Rules for Using Commas ↗."

In point 3, the comma was removed before the subordinating conjunction "where." That conjunction began the adverbial phrase "where appropriate," which is considered a dependent clause joined to the independent clause "It has images and other media." When a dependent clause comes after an independent clause, no comma should be placed between them, per point 2a of Purdue OWL's "Extended Rules for Using Commas." I know this isn't a big deal, but I was just hoping you could clarify your edit for me. Thanks! Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 15:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)

:Pardon me for jumping in, but I just wanted to note that comma usage is very variable even within the US, and there is wide variation in international varieties of English. There are very few absolute rules for commas (though there are certainly some). I rarely find it's worth changing someone else's comma usage except in the most egregious cases. Gog may be able to cite some other sources for comma usage as I know this has come up before; Lynn Truss's ''Eats, Shoots, and Leaves'' comes to mind as one alternative authority. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 16:01, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::I tend to agree. I suspect ''real'' errors would not persist for a decade and more in the criteria for FAs, and generally speaking, any changes to them should be run by WT:FAC ↗. Wehwalt (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::Hi Salmon. The punctuation was fine as it was and is now. Note that I am not saying it is how I would have written it, but that IMO it is more readable than your proposed change. I do follow the logic of your arguments, but as Wehwalt notes it is vanishingly improbable that an actual grammatical error would survive long in the FA criteria of all places. Mike invites me to cite Lynn Truss; I shall go with "Nowadays the fashion is against grammatical fussiness. A passage peppered with commas ... smacks simply of no backbone. People who put in all the commas betray themselves as moral weaklings with empty lives and out-of-date reference books." Please note that while this is pithy I do not intend anything personal against you, rather I use it to show that Truss has forceful views on this point. Finally, if your version had been in the FA criteria for ten years and someone had changed it to the current one I suspect that I would have sighed and reverted that as well. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:37, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::Thanks for your response. I can't quite say I agree with you, unfortunately. The reason I made the changes I made was not primarily due to readability, but simply grammar. I understand that what someone considers readable can read as the opposite to someone else, which is why I think its best to not rely on what you personally think is readable, but what is grammatically correct, as grammar rules exist to make prose clear and should be a generally good proxy for whether something is so. I feel that whether something follows those rules is something that can be assessed objectively by some manual of style, authoritative work, or general usage guidelines. Even with the disagreements that exist between different sources, I'm having trouble imagining that guidelines about when to place commas before coordinating and subordinating conjunctions aren't clearly established across them, even considering different varieties of English, as {{User link|Mike Christie}} suggested. I don't have any resources on hand to provide examples of that, but I'd be happy to gather some if you wish.
::::You and {{User link|Wehwalt}} are incredulous about whether actual grammatical errors could be on the page for FA criteria, especially for so long. Considering that an FA is expected to be well-written, that idea sounds funny to me, too. But drawing from my mention of these sorts of punctuation rules being largely agreed upon, it should be easy to assess whether something is actually ungrammatical by going over the alleged violation and using established rules of grammar to decide on your own. If your mention of this stems not from incredulity, but long-term consensus, I would think that small copy edits like this aren't shackled by what was the status quo, although I have no doubt you're more experienced than me in this regard. On that assumption, if I should try to gain some consensus for this somewhere, please let me know. I'm sorry if this seems overwrought for a copy edit; I just want to clarify some things for myself. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::Many of us here are careful (not to say OCD) about precision, so I don't think anybody will consider your comments overwrought. You might take a look at the Wikipedia manual of style ↗, and its talk page history, to get a sense of just how detailed arguments about correctness here can get. If you can get consensus across multiple style guides from different varieties of English that a certain approach to commas should be enforced in particular grammatical situations, you could propose on that talk page an addition to the guidance on commas ↗. I suspect the reason that that guidance does not currently cover many cases is that there is usually no such general consensus. There are many grammatical mistakes on Wikipedia pages that are unambiguously errors, though, so if you do like copyediting there is still plenty of grist available for your mill. Mike Christie (talk ↗ - contribs ↗ - library) 20:26, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
::::::There was an edit clash between my response and Mike's comment above. He has said differently and better what I was trying to, so I have scrapped my original reply. (Salmon - if you have not yet discovered WP:COPYEDITORS ↗ can I commend it to you. And you may or may not find this ↗ some combination of entertaining, interesting or informative.) Gog the Mild (talk) 20:41, 7 July 2026 (UTC)
:::::::{{reply to|Gog the Mild|Mike Christie}} Thanks. I'll definitely check out the links you each mentioned. Salmon of Knowledge (talk) 01:27, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

A note re. FAC



I was just browsing through WP:FAC ↗ when I noticed that your closure of this nomination ↗ was reverted by the nominator in this revision ↗. However, your subsequent addition of the article to the list of archived nominations was not reverted ↗. Will this create a discrepancy? Best, MSincccc (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:If it does, I imagine {{u|Hawkeye7}} will be letting me know before long. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:44, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::Thanks for the clarification. Please feel free to reach out if needed—happy to help. Best, MSincccc (talk) 17:53, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
:::The Bot won't process it without the FACClosed template. <span style="color:#800082">Hawkeye7</span> <span style="font-size:80%">(discuss)</span> ↗ 20:30, 10 July 2026 (UTC)
::::I think what happened is the nominator concluded that the original FAC was more appropriate for FLC and simply moved the FAC page to a FLC page rather than have the FAC archived and start with a brand new FLC nom. I suppose ideally the FAC page should be restored to its pre-move state and archived, and a new FLC page be created. It was an out of process shortcut from FAC to FLC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:02, 10 July 2026 (UTC)