User talk:Gog the Mild

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)

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)

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)

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--NØ 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.--NØ 22:33, 28 June 2026 (UTC)