User talk:Hog Farm/Archive 17

Battle of Charleston

@Hog Farm: Thanks for looking at Battle of Charleston (1862), and glad to see you are back. No hurry here, as I am reviewing a page about a railroad, and the author and I may clash on dates used for the railroad's existence. By the way, one of my sources for the Battle of Charleston is a book by Terry Lowry published by 35th Star Publishing. Lowry is not a very organized writer, but he has access to numerous Civil War letters, newspapers, and other documents. I believe he is, or was, a historian at the West Virginia State Archives. Here is a link to a discussion about Lowry that I found: West Virginia History and Archives News. TwoScars (talk) 23:57, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: Thanks again for reviewing at Battle of Charleston (1862). How do you do so many reviews? Other than one military review, being a reviewer drives me nuts! I keep questioning things or wanting to change things. TwoScars (talk) 16:08, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

Ezra Cricket (talk) 04:36, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – November 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (October 2023).

Administrator changes

0xDeadbeef

Tamzin

Dennis Brown

Interface administrator changes

Pppery

• Ragesoss
• TheresNoTime

Guideline and policy news

Technical news

• The WMF is working on making it possible for administrators to edit MediaWiki configuration directly. This is similar to previous work on Special:EditGrowthConfig. A technical RfC is running until November 08, where you can provide feedback.
• There is a proposed plan for re-enabling the Graph Extension. Feedback on this proposal is requested.

Arbitration

• Eligible editors are invited to self-nominate themselves from 12 November 2023 until 21 November 2023 to stand in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections.
• Xaosflux, RoySmith and Cyberpower678 have been appointed to the Electoral Commission for the 2023 Arbitration Committee Elections. BusterD is the reserve commissioner.
• Following a motion, the contentious topic designation of Prem Rawat has been struck. Actions previously taken using this contentious topic designation are still in force.
• Following several motions, multiple topic areas are no longer designated as a contentious topic. These contentious topic designations were from the Editor conduct in e-cigs articles, Liancourt Rocks, Longevity, Medicine, September 11 conspiracy theories, and Shakespeare authorship question cases.
• Following a motion, remedies 3.1 (All related articles under 1RR whenever the dispute over naming is concerned), 6 (Stalemate resolution) and 30 (Administrative supervision) of the Macedonia 2 case have been rescinded.
• Following a motion, remedy 6 (One-revert rule) of the The Troubles case has been amended.
• An arbitration case named Industrial agriculture has been opened. Evidence submissions in this case close 8 November.

Miscellaneous

• The Articles for Creation backlog drive is happening in November 2023, with 700+ drafts pending reviews for in the last 4 months or so. In addition to the AfC participants, all administrators and New Page Patrollers can conduct reviews using the helper script, Yet Another AFC Helper Script, which can be enabled in the Gadgets settings. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 211, November 2023

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at English Civil War logistics and Peacemaker67 at Austro-Hungarian torpedo boats Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on how WP:SIZE matters

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) 18:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Rennick and Hodge

So it looks like the gun is to our heads over Kentucky again. ☺ Hodge is an excellent source for fleshing out Rennick, and I wonder if there was something similar for the South Fork in Oneida. You might want to re-visit Whitaker, Kentucky (AfD discussion) as I've looked at how Rennick and Hodge both systematize these. Uncle G (talk) 11:39, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

• The other one turned out to be not Lotts Creek (Perry, Kentucky) but Trace Fork (AfD discussion). Who knew‽ Well, obviously people who read histories and geological reports knew. But who else knew‽ ☺ I can tell you exactly where that sentence about the Whitsett spur fits. Would that I could find a source to support the fairly obvious fact that it was named for Ralph Crawford Whitsett. Maybe that's in your magazine, which I cannot read. Uncle G (talk) 07:53, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't have a direct connection between the two, but I do have that source that indicates that a company run by R. C. Whitsett operated the tipple and conveyor at Whitsett; readers should be able to draw the connection once that info is in there. Hog Farm _Talk 18:46, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You might enjoy User talk:Drmies#up the Creeks without an English professor. There's also a Civil War connection for you. I've only put the history in The Forks of Troublesome up as far as the founding of Hindman, which seems a sensible place to stop, although the geography can be current. But there's more after that; the Civil War rivalries amongst the various settlers echoed for years in Knott County, Kentucky#History and Hindman, Kentucky#History. Maybe you can find out more about Hays and Jones and the rest. Uncle G (talk) 02:57, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Enjoy Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kentucky#GNIS mess, too. Uncle G (talk) 09:48, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Precious anniversary

Precious

Three years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Nope

... it's an example of why you SHOULD be a Coord ... you recognize and acknowledge issues, and aren't ego-driven :). Hope you don't feel at all that any of my comments there were aimed at you being the one to push the promote button ... you were just doing what has come to be expected. Hope this Christmas is filled with joy, health, and peace, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:17, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

A possibly not-so-quick request...

Greetings, can I ask you to give Ojos del Salado a quick check to see if it ready for a FAC candidacy? For after Guallatiri is resolved. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Sure - I need to give Kreutz sungrazer another read-through for the FAR first; as well as do some expansion/resourcing work for Battle of Big Black River Bridge so it will probably be next week before I can get to Ojos de Salado. Hog Farm _Talk 17:38, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Californians. Writing about water.

Remember the hot springs? Californians don't only write about hot springs.

• Fine Gold Creek (AfD discussion)

Uncle G (talk) 20:41, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy

Glad to see you around again. You are a very talented editor and we're better when you are here. All your work is truly appreciated. Hope all is well. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 03:32, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. It's good to be back - I missed content work and I've thankfully been able to sort out some of the issues that led to the absence. Hog Farm _Talk 01:51, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Seems it's a good season for climbing back into the saddle, eh? What adventures across the wide and wondrous plains of American history shall we explore now? –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 09:35, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Right now it's west Mississippi Confederate routs, but after Christmas it will probably be Battle of Poison Spring, a sad story of war crimes in Arkansas. Hog Farm _Talk 21:28, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Ooh (and also ouch). For my part, I'll be focusing on Ranald S. Mackenzie - a man you might recognize - and rewrites of 1840s Texas article you brought to my attention last year. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 22:57, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – December 2023

News and updates for administrators from the past month (November 2023).

Administrator changes

• Ganesha811
• JPxG

• Ajpolino
• Lourdes
• Mairi
• RockMFR
• Somno
• WilyD

Beeblebrox → Just Step Sideways

CheckUser changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Oversight changes

• Beeblebrox
• Opabinia regalis

Guideline and policy news

• Following a talk page discussion, the Administrators' accountability policy has been updated to note that while it is considered best practice for administrators to have notifications (pings) enabled, this is not mandatory. Administrators who do not use notifications are now strongly encouraged to indicate this on their user page.

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Extended Confirmed Restriction has been amended, removing the allowance for non-extended-confirmed editors to post constructive comments on the "Talk:" namespace. Now, non-extended-confirmed editors may use the "Talk:" namespace solely to make edit requests related to articles within the topic area, provided that their actions are not disruptive.
• The Arbitration Committee has announced a call for Checkusers and Oversighters, stating that it will currently be accepting applications for CheckUser and/or Oversight permissions at any point in the year.
• Eligible users are invited to vote on candidates for the Arbitration Committee until 23:59 December 11, 2023 (UTC). Candidate statements can be seen here.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:54, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 212, December 2023

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: Nick-D looks at the Russian invasion of Ukraine Op-ed: Nick-D on writing Rhodesian military articles

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) 23:59, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

David Stuart

I thought this became a little too long and complicated to include on the assessment page so I am posting it here. Since you do not have the Eicher book, I am copying some excerpts here. Adding later: my second post below has a clearer indication of what this might mean and how I would probably handle it. With any luck, you will see the second short post at the same time as this long post and not have to revisit my clarified post on how I might handle the Eicher's take on rejected nominations.

David Stuart is one of those odd “might have been” cases, according to the Eichers. (Eicher, John H., and David J. Eicher, Civil War High Commands. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001. ISBN 978-0-8047-3641-1.) The Eichers define “might-have-beens” on page xxi: “This biographical section includes military, naval, and civilian officers who were formerly thought to qualify as high commanders, but about whom we now have doubts for apparent legal reasons, or because of a consensus of recent scholarship.”

At page 31, they wrote: “Appointments to a higher grade usually reverted to the previous lower grade when no confirmation occurred. The appointment was therefore often carried unofficially or considered an acting appointment pending the legal outcome of the confirmation or reversion.”

They add “a typical form letter for an official appointment” which is signed by the Secretary of War and reads in part: “You are hereby informed that the President of the United States has appointed you _________ in the service of the United States, to rank from the ___ day of _____ one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one. Should the Senate, at there next session, advise and consent thereto, you will be commissioned accordingly.”

Further on that page, they state: “Steps 6 [nomination by the President] and 8 [confirmation on a vote with the “Advise and Consent” of the Senate were crucial steps [to obtain a commission], as stated in an opinion of the Attorney General (note: presumably Edward Bates but this is not shown): When a person has been nominated to an office by the President, confirmed by the Senate, and the commission has been signed by the President, and the Seal of the United States affixed thereto, his appointment to that office is complete.” Bracketed words from earlier in the page; my note in parenthesis.

On page xvii, the Eichers have a chart showing the number of “high commanders”: such as substantive generals, brevet generals, might have beens, politicians and a few other categories as shown by 24 sources, including their book. They show Warner as listing 556 substantive type (Union generals) and 32 “might have beens” while they show 564 substantive Union generals and 116 “might have beens.” Warner's introduction states that 583 generals have bios in the book, not the 588 that the Eichers tally. Marcus Wright's official War Department list in 1908 had 557 substantive generals and 32 “might-have-beens” according to the Eichers, one more in total than the Eichers state that Warner includes but six more than Warner himself states in his intorduction. I had not noticed these distinctions between substantive generals and might have beens in Warner or Wright and did not try to look for them now. Maybe they are there. But there is nothing in Warner's sketch of Stuart to eliminate him as a general of some sort except that he was not confirmed. Perhaps one has to discern them from the facts that the appointments were not confirmed and/or commissions not issued whether an officer was a might have been general. At page xvi, the Eichers state: “The collected record of claims for who is a general or flag officer and who isn't abounds with mistakes.” They also wrote: “Many dozens of fundamental mistakes now exist with regard to the military records of commanders on both sides. Numerous specific errors in individual studies have been cited in The Civil War in Books: An Analytical Bibliography by David J. Eicher (University of Illinois Press, Urbana, 1997). The bulk of this work attempts to set the record straight.”

The question becomes how should Stuart's appointment be described. He was appointed a brigadier general and acted as such. Legally, since he never was commissioned, he was actually not a general! Legally, he was not a “temporary” general or an “acting general”, since the appointment did not specify that. “Colonel commanding....” would not be accurate, at least not at the time, and I am confident he would have never signed any order or communication with that identification. Eicher probably comes closest to actual circumstance by using the term “acting general” pending the final commission or reversion in rank.

Sorry to throw this complication at you but I thought you should take Eicher into consideration, or not, depending on how you might look at it and the source(s) you are depending on.

At page 611, the Eichers give Stuart's cause of death as “of paralysis, Detroit, Mich, 11 Sept. 1988; in., Elmwood Cemetery, Detroit.”

You seem to have enough material to go for a GA. I have seen a number of military bios and written a few. Some of the bios written by Zawed are relatively brief but have been assessed GA (by others). Usually, the bios that I have written or seen would have an “Early life” section, then a service section, divided into sub-sections if the service was lengthy and/or distinguished, then a “Later life” section if the officer survived into retirement. The early and later life sections are often short, as yours would be if you split them off - especially the later life. Often, I suppose, there isn't much information available.

I am adding a few minutes after posting this that Djmaschek has assessed the article as B. I thought I would leave this note answering your question about GA before going on to the current assessment. Djmaschek took care of that and made a few suggestions concerning additions and clarifications.

If something occurs to me on re-reading the article, I'll let you know but I think it is quite good as it is. Donner60 (talk) 11:07, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

So if I had been thinking a little more clearly, I might have written that the Eichers interjection about "might-have-beens" could be handle two ways. One would be to simply leave it as it is and depend on the fact that the appointment was not confirmed to tell the story, as Warner (and Sifakis and maybe Wright) seem to have done. The other would be to add a footnote that says something like, the Eichers characterize Stuart as a "might have been" or "acting general" because the Senate's rejection of his nomination resulted in him not being commissioned as a general. He would have reverted to his previous grade of colonel. The Eichers also point out, however, that he acted as a general during the period between his notice that he had been nominated until soon after notice of the Senate's rejection of his nomination - or such better language as you might use to make the point, if you think it is worth making. Donner60 (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

@Donner60: - I'm still thinking about how to handle this best. David Stuart (Union general) may be a better article title than directly calling him a brigadier general, given the Senate's rejection of his promotion, although he certainly functioned as a brigadier general. His report on Chickasaw Bayou is signed D. Stuart, Brigadier-General, Commanding. I think acting general is the best terminology, similar to those Confederate officers promoted to general by E. K. Smith without consultation of the rest of the CS government. Out of curiousity - what date does Eicher give for his appointment to BG? Warner and others use Nov. 29, but I've also seen Dec. 2. I half suspect that Nov. 29 is the date of rank, and Dec. 2 is the date of appointment. Hog Farm _Talk 02:24, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

In the bio sketch, p. 611, Eicher wrote "Brig. Gen., 29 Nov. 1862 (nomination negated by the Senate, 11 Mar. 1863);". He does not specifically identify what stage of the process took place on that date. He also does not include "might-have-beens" in his tables of confirmed generals that have separate dates of rank, appointment, nomination, confirmation and termination. So Eicher is of no direct help on this. In Eicher's table, but more importantly in Wright's Memorandum which includes "might-have-beens" and dates of rank and appointment, I did see Nov 29 as a date of rank for many officers, some with Nov. 29 appointments, but some with different appointment dates.

United States War Department, The Military Secretary's Office, Memorandum Relative to the General Officers in the Armies of the United States During the Civil War, 1861-1865 (Compiled from Official Records.) 1906. (Compiled by Wright, Marcus J..), at page 16, shows a nomination date and a date of rank for Stuart, both as Nov. 29. The Dec. 2 date is not mentioned in any of the four sources I refer to in this note. In the only other column in Wright's list, he wrote for Stuart: "Appointment expired by law Mar. 4, 1863." (Note difference from Eicher, Sifakis and Warner: March 11.)

Sifakis, Stewart. Who Was Who in the Civil War. New York: Facts On File, 1988. ISBN 978-0-8160-1055-4. On page 631, Sifakis wrote "brigadier general, November 29, 1862". He also wrote: "With his rejection by the Senate (on March 11, 1863), he was reluctantly relieved from command on April 4 by Sherman...."

As you know, Warner, p. 485, has "On November 29, 1862, Stuart was appointed brigadier general..." and "the Senate had rejected his appointment as brigadier general on March 11, 1863...." I think the conclusion must be that November 29, 1862 was both the date of Stuart's appointment and his date of rank (or more correctly, I suppose, the date his rank would have been). Donner60 (talk) 05:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

I much appreciate your nomination of me. I think the prolific contributors of higher assessed articles and reviews, including you since you are only recently semi-tired and as someone also pointed out, still contributing much valuable content, are more deserving. Now, if there was a military history gnome of the year.... Again, thanks for the recognition. Donner60 (talk) 00:24, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Voting for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023 is now open!

Voting is now open for the WikiProject Military History newcomer of the year and military historian of the year awards for 2023! The the top editors will be awarded the coveted Gold Wiki . Cast your votes vote here and here respectively. Voting closes at 23:59 on 30 December 2023. On behalf of the coordinators, wishing you the very best for the festive season and the new year. Hawkeye7 (talk · contribs) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

A solstice greeting

❄️ Happy holidays! ❄️

Hi Hog Farm! I'd like to wish you a splendid solstice season as we wrap up the year. Here is an artwork, made individually for you, to celebrate. Thanks as always for the invaluable work you do at FAC. Take care, and thanks for all you do to make Wikipedia better!

Cheers,
{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk

Solstice Celebration for Hog Farm, 2023, DALL·E 3.

(View full series)

Note: The vibes are winter solsticey. If you're in the southern hemisphere, oops, apologies.

{{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 06:41, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Isondiga

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS Isondiga you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 22:03, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS John P. Jackson

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article USS John P. Jackson you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS New Orleans

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article CSS New Orleans you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of CSS Isondiga

The article CSS Isondiga you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS Isondiga for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS Isondiga/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 15:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2023

		2023 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the coveted Golden Wiki as the recipient of the 2023 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2023. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:48, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Happy New Year

		Happy New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy New Year, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free and may Janus light your way. Ealdgyth (talk) 14:36, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – January 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (December 2023).

Administrator changes

Clovermoss

Dennis Brown

• Julia W
• Marasmusine
• PBS

CheckUser changes

• Aoidh
• HJ Mitchell
• Sdrqaz
• Spicy
• ToBeFree
• Vanamonde93
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Oversighter changes

• Aoidh
• Firefly
• Sdrqaz
• ToBeFree
• Z1720

Maxim

• Enterprisey
• Izno
• SilkTork

Arbitration

• Following the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections, the following editors have been appointed to the Arbitration Committee: Aoidh, Cabayi, Firefly, HJ Mitchell, Maxim, Sdrqaz, ToBeFree, Z1720.
• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee rescinded the restrictions on the page name move discussions for the two Ireland pages that were enacted in June 2009.
• The arbitration case Industrial agriculture has been closed.

Miscellaneous

• The New Pages Patrol backlog drive is happening in January 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles in the new pages feed. Currently, there is a backlog of over 13,000 unreviewed articles awaiting review. Sign up here to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:54, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for participating in 8 reviews between October and December 2023. Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC) Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Your GA nomination of CSS New Orleans

The article CSS New Orleans you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:CSS New Orleans for comments about the article, and Talk:CSS New Orleans/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Pickersgill-Cunliffe -- Pickersgill-Cunliffe (talk) 07:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of William Y. Slack

Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, William Y. Slack, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of USS John P. Jackson

The article USS John P. Jackson you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:USS John P. Jackson for comments about the article, and Talk:USS John P. Jackson/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 213, January 2024

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new featured and A-class content Book review: Hawkeye7 looks at three diverse works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on the state of the Wikiproject

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) 18:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simpson Harris Morgan

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simpson Harris Morgan

The article Simpson Harris Morgan 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:Simpson Harris Morgan and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 16:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Simpson Harris Morgan

The article Simpson Harris Morgan you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan for comments about the article, and Talk:Simpson Harris Morgan/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article has never appeared on the Main Page as a "Did you know" item, and has not appeared within the last year either as "Today's featured article", 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 at DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On this day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Ealdgyth -- Ealdgyth (talk) 15:04, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

TFA calling

Evening HF, I trust that things are going well for you, especially in your busy off-Wiki existence. Speaking of which, I am now something of a fan of the Turnpike Troubadours, so thanks for accidentally introducing me. Two of your multifarious FAs have been scheduled for March, Grant's Canal and William Y. Slack. Fancy having a go at blurbs for them? Cheers. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:20, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up - I'm working on a draft for Slack right now and will tackle the canal soon as well - might be next weekend before I can get to the canal; I've got a hectic week at work coming up. Glad you're enjoying Turnpike! Hog Farm _Talk 01:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – February 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2024).

Administrator changes

• Red-tailed hawk
• Robertsky

• Ameliorate!
• Ancheta Wis
• Anthony Bradbury (deceased)
• Cobi
• Ev
• Moondyne
• Worm That Turned

Bureaucrat changes

Worm That Turned

CheckUser changes

Wugapodes

Interface administrator changes

• Enterprisey
• Izno

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC about increasing the inactivity requirement for Interface administrators is open for feedback.

Technical news

• Pages that use the JSON contentmodel will now use tabs instead of spaces for auto-indentation. This will significantly reduce the page size. (T326065)

Arbitration

• Following a motion, the Arbitration Committee adopted a new enforcement restriction on January 4, 2024, wherein the Committee may apply the 'Reliable source consensus-required restriction' to specified topic areas.
• Community feedback is requested for a draft to replace the "Information for administrators processing requests" section at WP:AE.

Miscellaneous

• Voting in the 2024 Steward elections will begin on 06 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC) and end on 27 February 2024, 14:00 (UTC). The confirmation process of current stewards is being held in parallel. You can automatically check your eligibility to vote.
• A vote to ratify the charter for the Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is open till 2 February 2024, 23:59:59 (UTC) via Secure Poll. All eligible voters within the Wikimedia community have the opportunity to either support or oppose the adoption of the U4C Charter and share their reasons. The details of the voting process and voter eligibility can be found here.
• Community Tech has made some preliminary decisions about the future of the Community Wishlist Survey. In summary, they aim to develop a new, continuous intake system for community technical requests that improves prioritization, resource allocation, and communication regarding wishes. Read more
• The Unreferenced articles backlog drive is happening in February 2024 to reduce the backlog of articles tagged with {{Unreferenced}}. You can help reduce the backlog by adding citations to these articles. Sign up to participate!

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Grant's Canal

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 15 March 2024. 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/March 2024, or to make comments on other matters concerning the scheduling of this article at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/March 2024. Please keep an eye on that page, as comments regarding the draft blurb may be left there by user:dying, who assists the coordinators by making suggestions on the blurbs, or by others. I also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from two days before the article appears on the Main Page. Thanks and congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

@Wehwalt: - I just received a copy of a relevant work published last October. I'll read through this weekend and see if any new material needs added. Hog Farm _Talk 18:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

That's good. There's time. The blurb isn't ready yet, btw, Gog the Mild will be doing it. If you want them to wait in case the lead does, I'm sure they will. Wehwalt (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

And there I am, two threads up, demonstrating my ability to delegate. :-) Gog the Mild (talk) 19:18, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ah. Then there's no need for me to notify that Slack will run on March 21, is there? On to the next one yet. Wehwalt (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

story · music · places

Thank you today for the article, introduced: "In mid-1862, the Union decided that the city of Vicksburg could not be taken with the forces on hand, so they decided to bypass Vicksburg with a canal (in the process breaking local law which forbade messing with the river's path). Disease and low water levels doomed that attempt. In early 1863, another attempt on Vicksburg had fizzled out and the canal idea was tried again. This time, there was too much water and everything flooded, in addition to another round of disease. After the war, the Mississippi perversely cut a similar path on its own, although the government has since reverted the river back."! - Rossini's Petite messe solennelle was premiered on 14 March 1864, - when I listen to the desolate Agnus Dei I think of Vami. ..Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:06, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Vacation pics uploaded, at least the first day, - and Aribert Reimann remembered. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you today for William Y. Slack, introduced: "A small-town lawyer from Chillicothe, Missouri, Slack served briefly in the Missouri House of Representatives and in the US Army in the Mexican War in the 1840s. With the outbreak of civil war in 1861, Slack sided with the pro-Confederate state militia and was appointed a general officer in the militia. He fought at Carthage in July 1861, took a bullet to the hip at Wilson's Creek in the next month, and transferred to formal Confederate service in the winter of 1861/1862. While leading a brigade at Pea Ridge in March 1862, he took another wound close to the site of the old Wilson's Creek one. This injury proved fatal and he died two weeks later. The Confederate government later promoted Slack to the rank of brigadier general in the Confederate service; they may not have known he was dead."! - Second TFA this month, and a new FA, that's impressing! On Bach's birthday --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Some days later, a calf in the mist and chocolate cake, and a story of collaboration --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:34, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations: January 2024 MilHist Article Writing Contest

		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 2024 round of the Military History Article Writing Contest, with 26 points from three articles, one brought to FA class and two brought to GA class. Well done. Donner60 (talk) 01:36, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 214, February 2024

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 Pickersgill-Cunliffe review four books

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) 19:09, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

TFA for Battle of Grand Gulf

Per your request, I've got this one listed as the April 29th TFA. No need to do anything. Let me know if there's anything I can do. - Dank (push to talk) 02:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Covid again

@TwoScars: Just after I wrote my note on the Battle of Antietam reassessment, the covid that my wife brought home spread to me. My activity and energy were greatly reduced. We have now tested negative but I have some lingering symptoms (unless allergies or something else). I have been working on some coordinator tasks most days but have much catching up to do here and in real life. It seems as if that may take a few weeks, at least. I thought I should let you know the reason for my reduced activity. With any luck that will change over the next few weeks. Donner60 (talk) 07:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60: Glad to hear you are getting better. When I had it, I had back muscle aches for weeks (maybe a month) after I tested negative. I don't know if it was related to the plane ride or covid or both, but I mask up on all plane rides now. No worries here about reduced activity—we have family life that should have top priority. I get paranoid when people have no activity, since I had a friend I knew since grade school die—and it took us about six months of no response from emails to figure out why we got no response. Anyway, Antietam can wait. Don't overextend yourself. I've done some easy stuff to it, while also doing some glass industry work. TwoScars (talk) 17:13, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. This is my second time around with it, despite six shots. I recovered quickly the first time after a shot of antibodies. A shot is not recommended for the current variants unless perhaps one needs to be hospitalized. I have lingering symptoms which apparently isn't uncommon. We need to keep in mind that Wikipedia is voluntary and is not supposed to be time constrained. The problem with the constant stream of reassessments recently is that the articles will get downgraded if not promptly fixed. Many can be, and should be, but it often takes some time in addition to other work such as our own to do list and, for me, the large number of B class assessments that I have been dealing with in recent months. We will do what we can and it will need to suffice. Donner60 (talk) 21:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Please be careful, both of y'all. As I've noted elsewhere, I'm getting ready to move so all my books are packed up and I'll have limited time for awhile. Hog Farm _Talk 00:39, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Antietam

@TwoScars: There appears to be no rush to finish this. Yesterday, User GabrielPenn4223 was blocked indefinitely by User Bbb. After I looked at GabrielPenn4223's user talk page, I think the block was fully justiable and necessary. He was a disruptive editor, apparently immature, willing to sock, and in disregard of several warnings and suggestions about how to proceed on Wikipedia and what to learn about advanced areas of the project. He was dabbling in areas that he obviously had no business fooling with. He had two previous blocks that I noticed. He was putting up articles for review or for deletion in large numbers and seemingly at random and without a good basis in many cases. Battle of Antietam apparently needed some work but this was a case of a lucky shot by a loose cannon. Perhaps you or TwoScars or me can close this when the editing is finished. It can take a little time but your move will get done satisfactorily in due time. Donner60 (talk) 06:48, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@TwoScars: I just amended my comment above because I found the answer at Wikipedia:Good article reassessment which is "Anyone may close a GAR, although discussions which have become controversial should be left for closure by experienced users or GAR coordinators." This has not been and obviously won't be contentious so it seems that any one of us can close the reassessment when we think the needed improvements are finished. I was too quick to assume there was no policy and should have looked before I leaped with my comment here before I just amended it. Donner60 (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

@Donner60: Not worried about GabrielPenn4223. I think the Battle of Antietam is already improved. I see only one "Better source needed". Not sure what is necessary for GA, but current footnotes 74, 75, 76, and 77 bother me because together they use 30 pages as a source for about 11 lines in the article. There are a few other places that use one citation for an entire paragraph. Nothing really wrong, but more difficult for a user to make sure the citations are adequate. I downloaded Hartwig and Gallagher's books from the Wikipedia Library Project Muse, and I can use them to check things over (or add citations) next week. As typical of Gallagher, he has a collection of articles by Bohannon, Hartwig, and others that have not been used. I have Eicher's book, but do not have Sears or Bailey, which are used often. TwoScars (talk) 17:28, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

TwoScars - I own a print copy of Sears. The box that is is currently in will hopefully be unpacked sometime on Saturday, so if there's anything in Sears you would like to look into, I can look it up in my copy after then. Hog Farm _Talk 17:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

March 2024 GAN backlog drive

Good article nominations | March 2024 Backlog Drive
March 2024 Backlog Drive: On 1 March, a one-month backlog drive for good article nominations will begin. Barnstars will be awarded. Interested in taking part? You can sign up here or ask questions here.
You're receiving this message because you have reviewed or nominated a good article in the last year.

(t · c) buidhe 02:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Promotion of Battle of Cane Hill

Congratulations, Hog Farm! The article you nominated, Battle of Cane Hill, has been promoted to featured status, recognizing it as one of the best articles on Wikipedia. The nomination discussion has been archived.

This is a rare accomplishment and you should be proud. If you would like, you may nominate it to appear on the Main page as Today's featured article. Keep up the great work! Cheers, FrB.TG (talk) via FACBot (talk) 00:05, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

In appreciation

		The Good Article Rescue Barnstar
		This is presented to you by the GAR process in recognition of your sterling work in helping Battle of Antietam retain its Good Article status. Please feel free to display the GA icon on your userpage. Keep up the good work! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:01, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – March 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (February 2024).

Administrator changes

• Sdkb
• The Night Watch

• East718
• Isabelle Belato
• Mzajac
• Staecker
• Stan Shebs
• Sugarfish
• Tamzin

Bureaucrat changes

SilkTork

Guideline and policy news

• Phase I of the 2024 RfA review is now open for participation. Editors are invited to review, comment on, and propose improvements to the requests for adminship process.
• Following an RfC, the inactivity requirement for the removal of the interface administrator right increased from 6 months to 12 months.

Technical news

• The mobile site history pages now use the same HTML as the desktop history pages. (T353388)

Miscellaneous

• The 2024 appointees for the Ombuds commission are だ＊ぜ, AGK, Ameisenigel, Bennylin, Daniuu, Doǵu, Emufarmers, Faendalimas, MdsShakil, Minorax, Nehaoua, Renvoy and RoySmith as members, with Vermont serving as steward-observer.
• Following the 2024 Steward Elections, the following editors have been appointed as stewards: Ajraddatz, Albertoleoncio, EPIC, JJMC89, Johannnes89, Melos and Yahya.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:21, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 215, March 2024

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 four recent works

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) 22:56, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

GA matters

I'd like not to be pinged for anything concerning the GA process, broadly construed. Thanks. XOR'easter (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bayou Fourche

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 19:04, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Appomattox Court House

Wanted to advise you of this discussion:

• Talk:Appomattox_Court_House_National_Historical_Park#Name_of_town_--_in_lede

I know you made quite a few revisions to the article in January 2023. I believe you may have removed some of the language that I felt should be restored. --David Tornheim (talk) 04:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@David Tornheim: - I don't object to such a wording change; my involvement with the article was mainly to rewrite it to prevent it begin gutted due to a copyright violations investigation into a prior primary author of the page. Hog Farm _Talk 14:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Jenkins' Trans-Allegheny Raid

Hog Farm - I hope all is well. I have some stuff going on this week, and probably will not be able to do any Wikipedia work on Monday and Tuesday. I should be able to get back to it on Wednesday. TwoScars (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

No worries - I'm not entirely for sure when I'll be able to get to the review either. It'll depend on how my work schedule ends up this week; things could be easy or very busy depending on how certain things go. Hog Farm _Talk 01:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Hog Farm - thanks for all your work on Jenkins' Trans-Allegheny Raid. I now have about two days per week where it is very difficult to get on Wikipedia. Cheers. TwoScars (talk) 15:05, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi Hog Farm, I noticed you did a pre-FAC review for Ojos del Salado in December so I was just wondering if you would be interested in doing a pre-FAC review for Volcanism of the Mount Edziza volcanic complex. It's a lengthy article so any input would be helpful. Thanks. Volcanoguy 16:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

@Volcanoguy: - I can give it a read-through although I'm a CPA not a geologist so I'm not going to be able to comment much on the technical aspects of the article. It'll probably be next week before I can get to it though; I have a very busy weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 02:15, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. The geology shouldn't be hard for me to solve if a problem with it is brought up at FAC since I understand nearly all of what I have wrote in this article. I'm more concerned about the sourcing, grammar, etc. Volcanoguy 04:06, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter – April 2024

News and updates for administrators from the past month (March 2024).

Administrator changes

• Kbdank71
• Kosack
• NrDg
• TLSuda

Guideline and policy news

• An RfC is open to convert all current and future community discretionary sanctions to (community designated) contentious topics procedure.

Technical news

• The Toolforge Grid Engine services have been shut down after the final migration process from Grid Engine to Kubernetes. (T313405)

Arbitration

• An arbitration case has been opened to look into "the intersection of managing conflict of interest editing with the harassment (outing) policy".

Miscellaneous

• Editors are invited to sign up for The Core Contest, an initiative running from April 15 to May 31, which aims to improve vital and other core articles on Wikipedia.

---

• Discuss this newsletter
• Subscribe
• Archive

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Hog Farm. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 07:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Schierbecker (talk) 07:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Schierbecker - Thanks for the source scan! I saw the email around the time it was sent but haven't had a chance to work that into the article or reply yet; work and other IRL matters have been extremely hectic for me for some time. I should have time to get to this over the weekend. Hog Farm _Talk 02:29, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Great! I can make another trip on Saturday if you need anything more. I try to make myself helpful. I am most often in the Chicago and St. Louis (I noticed you were in Missouri too) areas btw. If you ever need source scans from libraries in those areas, please let me know. Schierbecker (talk) 03:50, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Watch out for Hhfjbaker

@Hog Farm:@Donner60: have you looked at the references and citations on Third Battle of Winchester today? Hhfjbaker has totally messed them up. To fix the mess, I might have to make about 10 reverts unless they fix it. TwoScars (talk) 16:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hog Farm and TwoScars: Indeed. I hope you can straighten this out. And he is not neutral either. Has changed Confederate to Rebel. (You can see on his user page where he lives; that's a clue) I decided to leave it in the one instance I have seen it. Has introduced NATO abbreviations for officers. Also introduced 24-hour time, not appropriate for Civil War era and not used by Civil War historians (perhaps there is an outlier somewhere but I can't remember one. I had to take the latter two to talk pages to get them reversed and I changed the one article in which I found it. From his talk page, he is an older guy and a veteran. I hate to be critical or confrontational with such a person. But he really should not be editing Wikipedia according to his personal prejudices and preferences rather than accepted guidelines or standards. Or he should stick to editing Massachusetts regiments. He needs to be watched and I looked in on what he was doing again some time back and did not see any articles that I thought I should check. Of course, there is only so much time to keep an eye on the guy and keep up with everything else. So much for my info and a bit of a rant. Donner60 (talk) 00:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

It looks like the reference issue has been fixed. I'll keep an eye on articles for the CSA/Rebel switch, which is inappropriate for the encyclopedia. I used 24 hour time for a couple articles until I realized that this was only used on the modern history books I read, not anything about the Civil War. I've found myself having less and less time to edit lately. Hog Farm _Talk 00:05, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

To his credit, he fixed up the mess at Third Winchester. (It was embarrassing with lots of red error messages around the time I first posted here.) I did have to point out a few things he still needed to fix. After I asked him about where I could read about his citation style in the MOS, he apologized (on his talk page) and said he should have left Third Winchester alone. Although I am still unhappy about what he did to Third Winchester, he scored points with me by saying he should have left it alone. I also tried to steer him to more constructive things such as upgrading First Battle of Winchester to GA instead of messing with the citation style for something already at GA. TwoScars (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue 216, April 2024

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, Nick-D and Pickersgill-Cunliffe discuss six (count 'em, six!) works comprising eight volumes Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on a lecture by the Australian official historian

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) 23:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Battle of Bayou Fourche

The article Battle of Bayou Fourche you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche for comments about the article, and Talk:Battle of Bayou Fourche/GA1 for the nomination. Well done! If the article is eligible to appear in the "Did you know" section of the Main Page, you can nominate it within the next seven days. Message delivered by ChristieBot, on behalf of Johannes Schade -- Johannes Schade (talk) 17:24, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Congratulations: June 2024 MilHist Article Writing Contest

		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 June 2024 round of the Military History Article Writing Contest, with 10 points from one article brought to GA class. Well done. Donner60 (talk) 02:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)