User talk:Ian Rose

    Hi and welcome to Ian's Talk. Please leave new comments at the end of the page. Unless requested otherwise, I will reply to you here to keep the conversation thread in one place. Cheers, Ian.

Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012

Infobox question

Hi Ian, A very happy new year to you and I hope you have had a very plesant and relaxing Christmas. I have a quick question on military infoboxes, specifically on Operation Golden Eye, which I'm just updating slightly. I had planned to use an infobox there, but not sure if there is an appropriate one, or even if one is needed or desirable on such an article. I've had a skim over the various other milhist articles for operations and they all seem to use the {{Infobox military conflict}} template, which seems excessive (especially as there was no conflict in this case). Would that still be the best one to use, or is there something better suited to an intelligence operation? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

ps. The article is still classed as a stub: I don't like re-classifying things I've worked on, so could you let me know how you would think it should be rated? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, thanks and the same to you! I don't think I'd be bothering with an infobox at this stage, given the level of coverage in the article. It almost seems like a detailed snippet from Fleming's biography, rather than a stand-alone article on an Allied op, interesting though it is. If you were to use an infobox, I can't think of another apart from military conflict that would fit the bill, as you could put dates and participants (belligerents) in there; the main issue is that it seems to be difficult from my reading of the article to discern a clear result from the op. Re. assessment, you can rate your own articles to at least Start-Class. Not sure if it's kosher to rate your own to C-Class but definitely B-Class should be left to someone else. At this stage, because of my concerns with the large influence of Fleming on the article (unless it was a one-man show of course), I'm not sure I could rate it above Start or perhaps C at this stage (I could have another look when I get time, though). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in, while I agree that there isn't a need for an infobox here, if you want to add one Template:Infobox operational plan should work. As a general comment on the article, after reading it it's not clear to me what exactly the plan would involve - was this a plan to establish 'Stay-behind' posts? Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks to both of you for your thoughts - I'll have a play around with the Template:Infobox operational plan to see if it makes the article a bit lop-sided. In relation to the Fleming-influence, because this was largely only ever a contingency plan (although there was an office in Gibraltar) it was largely just Fleming's baby. Because it was small (but mildly interesting) and never went into operation, there is little coverage outside the Fleming literature, although I'm still digging round to find more. In terms of what was involved, details are very vague, apart from it being to handle communications and sabotage (again, I suspect the vagueness is because the info is in Fleming-focussed, rather than military-focussed sources). It wasn't a stay-behind op: that was Operation Tracer, which was run in parallel by Fleming's NID boss, John Henry Godfrey. I think I need to re-write a fair chunk of it to clarify all of this and go back to the books to see what else I can dig up! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

Question about FAC

Hi Ian, hope the new year finds you well. Is a copyedit like this enough involvement to disqualify me from !voting at the article's FAC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

If it is, I'm in deep trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• LOL. I generally don't do as much reworking at other people's FACs, so I just thought I'd be safe and ask. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd also be in trouble if copyediting to that extent disqualified one from making a declaration at a FAC. Just do what Dank and I do and note in your comments that you've done the ce, and it'll be fine -- tks for checking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

• K, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 56/archive1

This review seems to be stalled - is there anything I should be doing to get it moving? --Rschen7754 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm heading out now but am planning to walk through at least the older noms later today so will get back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

See the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

I haven't gotten a response yet from Maralia. --Rschen7754 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Well I know Graham did a bit on it after I did so if we haven't heard from Maralia soon I'll give it the once-over myself so we can put it to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

		Best wishes for the New Year!
		Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013! Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year. Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all you do in here! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the good wishes, Sandy -- at a personal and a WP-wide level -- and thanks for making that the shortest retirement I can remember... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Kind of embarrassing that retirement thingie, but not long after I quit, the sock situation came to light, so I got re-motivated! Keep up the fine work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Another military question

Hi Ian, Sorry to pester you again, but a fairly quick question relating to the use of capitals in military titles. I'm updatng the article of H. C. McNeile, better known as Sapper, and writer of the Bulldog Drummond novels. I've just written that, "In November 1916 he was promoted to Acting Major"; I seem to remember being pulled up on Fleming for the capital use on titles, but couldn't find the background to it. Should this read "Acting Major", "acting Major", or "acting major"? Many thanks once again! - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

"acting major". - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Much obliged Dank—and a very happy new year to you, albeit slightly belated. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Wikipedia Day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FA-checks - formal opposes needed?

Hi Ian, i was just wondering - if an image check (or another basic copyright/plagiarizing check for that matter) shows a clear problem, do you need a formal "Oppose"-vote or is it clear enough without it? Obviously an article with basic "legal" (kind of) problems should not be promoted - just checking, what is the best handling to help the delegates keep the overview. GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Hey Joe, speaking for myself, if you clearly label your check (Image check, Source spotcheck, etc) then I'd be looking carefully to see that any issues had been satisfactorily resolved whether or not it was accompanied by an outright oppose. What it comes back to is that while declarations of support or opposition are indeed good for catching one's attention, at the end of the day the comprehensiveness and reasoning of the associated comments is what we're really looking for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Favourite / most representative FA of 2012

Hi Ian, as an active delegate (who is on break right now, admittedly) would you be willing to give a write up about your favourite new FA of 2012, or the one you consider most representative of Wikipedians' work during the timeframe? Something like this maybe, but for articles. Ed said it would fun to do, and I agree it would be interesting. If you're interested, just reply here and I'll set some space aside. (Note: I am also asking Graham and Brian, because the more the merrier). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I don't blame you for copying/pasting (I would too) but I'm not the one on a break... ;-) So no excuses from me, I'll be happy to trawl the FACs I've been directly involved in as a delegate and see if I can't come up with something... First things first: when do you need it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

• Blast, I misremembered who was on break! Ed's usually ready to publish around Tuesday, so... Monday? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

How does a popularity contest benefit FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• It's not meant as a popularity contest, Sandy, nor is it explicitly for the benefit of FAC. We're hoping to highlight examples of featured content which a) have been memorable and may be interesting for readers, b) are representative of trends in 2012, and/or c) have been remarkably well written and researched and thus may serve as examples for hopeful writers to follow. Can FAC benefit? Yes, in theory. Will it? We'll see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• As a side note, I'm asking for some input from other editors partly because I think the readers may be bored after getting two write-ups from me in as many weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'm not sure that I really need to justify participating in this, but I'd see a popularity contest as something that invited opinion from the general community, not a few experienced individuals, and my first thought on this was to consider some of the better-prepared FACs, as well as some of the more unusual subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Sounds perfect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
  • If you're able to turn it into something that also shows what a well prepared FAC looks like, that would be a win-win. It's the straight-up "favorite" that is a minefield. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Fair point, perhaps favourite is too subjective a term. One which Ian consider(s/ed) good, perhaps, would have been better phrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
      • And then if he's also able to turn it into an example of excellent reviewing, FAC wins even more by gaining potential reviewers ... which it seriously needs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

I just realised that the 70th anniversary Battle of the Bismarck Sea is on 2-3 March 2013, so I would like a fiat to take it to FAC, although James B. Conant is still at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- Conant looked fairly close to completion last time I looked at it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Columbian half dollar

I've fixed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct-Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Skye

I'm interested in your closing this as promote. My comments were clearly only partially addressed; moreover I was working on reading the rest (I rather gave up at the magnitude of the task of the prose issues & lack of comprehensive coverage) and commenting in detail on the remaining two-thirds; I shan't bother now. It might have been polite to have notified me on my talk page that you were planning on closing it shortly.

If this is how the new FAC delegates deal with good-faith reviewers then I'm not surprised FAC as a process is getting criticism. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus to promote the article and I would have promoted it. It is customary for the closing delegate to request minor remaining issues to be resolved on the article's talk page. Ian has been in post for nigh on a year – to call him a new delegate is not appropriate. Delegates are not required to notify anybody when they promote or archive FACs; this would entail a superfluous level of bureaucracy and even more work on top of the high demands of the job. Graham Colm (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Nor would I call the FAC delegates "new"-- they are all experienced. Anyway, FWIW, based on what is on that FAC page, I also would have promoted, as it had been five days since you visited and you didn't oppose. In the future, Espresso, entering an Oppose if you have serious concerns will be more likely to result in the delegates making sure you've been pinged for a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks Graham and Sandy for weighing in while I slept peacefully on the other side of the world... ;-) Espresso, aside from what the guys have noted above, the comments you made were all addressed, and there was no indication that after five days you were planning to add more. Had there been a note to that effect I would have asked you on the FAC page to get those comments in because promotion was imminent (per EdChem and myself on James Conant, for example). If you do have further suggestions for improvement I hope you'll reconsider and discuss them with Ben on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Not trying to be unhelpful, but as an outsider to the FAC process this has left me unwilling to review again. I genuinely thought I was being helpful reviewing an article on which I have substantial knowledge and references. To be honest, I was utterly gobsmacked to find the FAC had closed. My comment were not all addressed; I stated clearly I intended to come back and review the later parts of the article; some of Ben's comments in response to mine are plain incorrect; I understood "Comment" to mean "Oppose unless commments fixed". Independent of my concerns, closing an article that was nominated between Christmas & New Year with only a little over ten days of non-holiday discussion strikes me as allowing inadequate time for discussion. I read all over the place that people are encouraged to contribute to FAC, yet this is not at all encouraging. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

You were being helpful, and I hope you'll continue to be involved. To address your latest points: I think the FAC instructions make it pretty clear that "oppose" and "comment" mean just those things, we delegates need reviewers to be explicit in their declarations; and there's no set minimum or maximum time for a FAC to remain open, some last year were promoted in just 3 days because consensus was apparent, which is what delegates look for. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Espresso, because I think you are a very good reviewer, I do hope you'll continue, but delegates can't read people's minds, and different reviewers have different customs. There are, yes, times when a Comment can be weightier than an oppose, but I didn't read yours as in that vein. Please continue, but with a clear declaration ... if you feel uncomfortable opposing because you think the article can make it, you can enter something like " Oppose for now, but I expect to strike my oppose if these issues are addressed". I hope you'll continue. On the timing, it has always been common for FAs to be promoted within five to seven days ... that the page is lagging now (reviewer shortage?) and some noms are lasting a month is not the historical norm. Also, try to revisit at least within three days if you haven't entered a declaration. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. If I do try my hand at reviewing again, I'll try the "Oppose for now" formulation for clarity. I think it might be helpful to non-regulars to revise the page boilerplate to make it plain that FAC reviews are sometimes completed within 3 days, and often within 5–7 days, because that really surprises me. Based on the reviews I've tracked in the past and general acquaintance with the FAC process over many years, I thought three or four weeks was the norm. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Glad to hear you are encouraged! It's hard to codify the norm because it depends on so many factors, including how many noms are on the page, reviewer availability, etc. The trend towards gynormous long-running FACs is a relatively new one; in times past, if a FAC didn't have sufficient support within a few weeks, it was closed, and if the FAC was running longer than the article, it was likely to be closed as unprepared, needing to come back cleaned up for a new start. Articles were expected to appear at FAC prepared, and be promoted or achived in a week, and two weeks was a lengthy FAC... 20 supports in two days, and I was disappointed it took five days for close! Now it seems that the trend is getting longer, with articles being extensively rewritten while at FAC as if it were peer review, rather than the old norm where it was expected that articles would not come to FAC unless they were prepared. I don't recall a time where three or four weeks was ever the norm, although we may be headed that direction! Anyway, it would be hard to codify any standard time into the instructions. Hope to see you back there soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)FYI and btw, as I experienced with the FAC for Folding@home, some FACs contain a month's worth of active discussion, but all the while staying focused and leading towards eventual promotion. It does happen, and I think more thorough reviews can be better sometimes. Being too hasty can be problematic of course. • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

FA content this week

Hey Ian, I hope you don't mind these copyedits. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

'Tis your privilege (and duty!) as editor -- I have tweaked you back, so to speak, though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I have tweaked your tweak of my tweaks. Do you think we are even now? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• And now I'm confuzzled. I think you're all even. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Great minds, Crisco, you just made the edit I was about to (well almost)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I'd rather use an, as I (personally) read it as /ef-eh-see/, not /fak/. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Heh, I can honestly say I've never thought of it as anything but /fak/ -- is there a consensus on this?! Just the other day I was thinking of a new user box: "I give a FAC, how about you?"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• There's only one way to solve this—a fight to the death. Whoever survives gets their preferred word. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Hmm, that might be arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin... Alternatively we could just make the problem disappear -- allow me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• Nah, I have an unfair advantage. It wouldn't be sportive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

here you go , ed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Or Ian. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go earn my keep — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm so proud of you both. ;-) Y'know Crisco, you could start that article in a sandbox, like my current pet project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

• I usually do, but a couple editors expressed interest in the project at Talk:Saudi Arabia so, for fairness... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Wagner FAC

Greetings, Ian! I shall be happy to do a spot check, but I'm about to go away and won't be back till 24th Jan at the earliest. If you and the nominator are happy to wait, I'll gladly do the honours. (I'll have internet access while away and will enjoy contributing to the main FAC review meanwhile.) Thine, Tim. – Tim riley (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm away for a few days myself so we'll see if someone gets to it earlier, but I don't think leaving it till the 24th or so is a big deal. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Your opinion is appreciated on Jaws film article.

OMG, are those FA and GA stars I'm seeing at the top of your user page? O_O

That said, there's a discussion going on on Jaws film article. A user insists on adding Quint's struggle right before he was killed, and claimed that he knew Quint dealt some brain damage to the shark. Should the brain damage be included? Should the struggle be mentioned? I would appreciate your input there. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, responded there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

LS-FAC-Q

Hi Ian, I have what looks like the latest in a long string of FAC questions that you receive here. I am a bit worried about the article I nominated Lady Saigō, with FAC-Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Saigō/archive1. It has some support, but I don't know if it's enough and it's getting near the end of the list. Should I be soliciting additional reviewers at project Talk pages? Thanks for your time. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just returned from a short break... Yes, it's getting on and will need some more comprehensive review/support but the FAC is still active (e.g. Lemurbaby's recent check and your prompt response). It's always legit for you to ping with neutrally worded requests participants in earlier reviews of the article (e.g. GAN, PR, prior attempts at FAC), like this for instance. Neutrally worded requests at project pages are also okay, remembering that the delegates like to see a mix of project-relevant and non-project reviewers, to help ensure that the article is critiqued from a reasonably broad base. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

FAC question

Hi Ian, I seem to be a bit rusty at choosing non-controversial topics. An IP has posted at my current FAC that (s)he believes the content section is too long and a "potential Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources violation". Could you weigh in there, regarding whether or not this is a legitimate and actionable comment (i.e. if a logged in editor were to oppose over such an issue, would it be legit) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick response to you here for the moment, Crisco, I'll respond at the FAC later. At first glance, however, I don't see it necessary to action this comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks. I'll await your comment there. (hope your break went well) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

OpEd

Something like this? Nothing all that brilliant... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good, mate -- tks! I just tweaked a tiny bit so if you're happy let me know and I'll xfer to the January Bugle draft... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• K, I'll try and hunt down a free image or two first (Why We Fight comes to mind). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Sure, an image or two wouldn't hurt... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Alright, gave it a poster from Wings, which is under scope. We don't have any of the full Why We Fight films on Commons... probably because of the (seemingly surpassed) 100mb file size limit — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

• Ready whenever you need it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
  • Tks mate, xferred to the Bugle page here -- just make sure you're happy with the title and the byline... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
    • Thanks. Gave a bit of a tweak — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Catching up

Ian, sorry, I had a lot of Opposes out and then got really busy IRL ... I'll catch up today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

No prob, just back myself from a short break. Good timing right now, I'm dragging myself off to bed down here, so run wild in my absence and I'll look forward to seeing any updates when I resurface... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 12:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate, same to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Fraternity?

I've been wrapping this around my head for a while. What you said right here just perplexes me. What exactly do you mean by calling us a fraternity? Like, we're characters from Animal House? Or is it just a downright insult? Because its been bad enough hearing people complain that Video Game articles are always on the main page when it only happens once a month but a delegate calling us a group of people who has been characterized as drunk slackers thanks to pop culture feels degrading. But you probably do this to other editors from other projects so I'll assume good faith. However, this gamer bias as I call it comes off as unprofessional. GamerPro64 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

If I may interject, IanRose's comment does indeed appear to be in good faith, and I don't think it has anything to do with the narrow stereotype you favor. To me, his comment implies that gamers are a group of like-minded people who support each other. The collegiate version you take as an insult is one subset of the many fraternities out there. Think of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sons of the American Revolution, or academic fraternities like Sigma Xi. See Fraternity and List of general fraternities for more information. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Tks Boneyard, you've got the general idea. Where I come from, and used in the context I did, fraternity indeed simply means a group of like-minded people (who may often be sober!) FWIW, GamerPro, I'd be interested to see if anyone could find an example of me complaining about games on the main page, or gamers in general. Furthermore, I do "do this" to editors from other projects (e.g. roads/highways, military history, etc) if their's are the only comments on a FAC, for precisely the reason I mentioned in my note -- as a delegate I want to see a reasonably broad base of reviews, from within relevant projects and outside, so we come out with a well-rounded article that's accessible to the widest audience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I did not say that you complain about Video Games being on the main page so I apologize for mentioning that. Secondly, its just that some editors from the project are concerned by this. Mainly, its the fact that sometimes editors outside the project usually don't review the articles at FAC. I don't know. Maybe I'm just paranoid. GamerPro64 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Qeshm FAC

Thanks for the comments. I think Mikenorton and I have fixed them all. ceranthor 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cool. Promoting now but see my last comment before that and alter (or leave!) the infobox as you see fit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Fortress of Mimoyecques

Hi Ian, thanks for making those changes to Fortress of Mimoyecques - they're a definite improvement and you've not broken anything. I think the article's probably good to go now. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky

Hello,

you commented at its FA nomination, so I thought you would be interested commenting here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Wagner

Dear Ian, I must admit to having difficulties with the comments of GabeMcC (who I see now opposes the FAC), most of which really do seem to me to be over the top, although I have gladly concurred when I found them appropriate - but even these were minor. This is the first time I have ever gone for an FAC -can you advise me on the procedure from the present stage? As already mentioned, I can't I'm afraid deal with the citation queries until 16th or 17th February. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, hopefully the posts from Graham and me have provided some guidance. Treat each comment as it comes on its merit; objections based on the FAC criteria affect whether an article is promoted or not, those based purely on preference for this or that phrasing do not. As I mentioned earlier, the minor citation issues shouldn't hold up promotion by themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks for this. I will give myself a day or two in real life, and to give others a chance to comment, and then return to the fray. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Reliable source question

Hello, I'm looking into listing Magnum XL-200 for FAC, do you think this source would pass? It contains some good information for the article. I'm not sure how reliable you guys regard it as.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

If you can find a reliable source that confirms what they say about themselves ("... has grown to become one of the most widely known and frequently updated sources of industry information."), it would be reliable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: John Francis Jackson

This is a note to let the main editors of John Francis Jackson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 23, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

John Jackson (1908–42) was an Australian fighter ace and squadron commander of World War II. He was credited with eight aerial victories, and led No. 75 Squadron during the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. A grazier and businessman who operated his own private plane, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve in 1936. Called up for active service in 1939, Jackson served with No. 23 Squadron in Australia before he was posted to the Middle East in November 1940. As a fighter pilot with No. 3 Squadron he flew Gloster Gladiators, Hawker Hurricanes and P-40 Tomahawks during the North African and Syria–Lebanon campaigns. Jackson was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and mentioned in despatches for his actions in the Middle East. Subsequently posted to the South West Pacific theatre, he was promoted to squadron leader in March 1942 and given command of No. 75 Squadron at Port Moresby, Papua, operating P-40 Kittyhawks. He earned praise for his leadership during the defence of Port Moresby before his death in combat on 28 April. Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby, is named in his honour. His younger brother Les took over No. 75 Squadron, and also became a fighter ace. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Hope you don't mind Squadron Leader Jackson taking centre-stage soon! Bencherlite^Talk 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

No, not at all -- I'd planned to nominate him last year for 28 April (death date) but dropped the idea when Hawkeye nominated Harry Chauvel for 25 April, which I wholeheartedly supported. Blurb looks fine to me, BTW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Homework (Daft Punk album)

Hey Ian. How much time will we wait for Wesley? Last time he looked it up was on January 29 (Almost a week ago). I think that I can handle any comments he may have in the talk page, so that we don't postpone the nomination much longer (It has around 50 days by now). Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's long enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yay. Thanks for the response Ian ^^ Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Australian Flying Corps

Greetings. I have just started the Australian Flying Corps article. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Just to jump in, I had a long-dormant stub in my userspace which I've dropped in. Great work starting this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, that's great -- I'd love to have kicked it off myself but have had little time for new articles over the past year. Anyway I've watchlisted and will contribute as/when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Wagner FAC (b)

We could use your input regarding critical commentary at the Wagner FAC. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for opinions

Hi Ian. I think I'm becoming obsessive about wp (again). Before I take a few steps back, there are a few open topics I feel guilty about abandoning. Hence, if it's not too much trouble for you, I'd appreciate it if you cast you eye over a few things, and if/where you think it's necessary and/or useful, I'd appreciate you adding your 2c worth.

First, there has been a suggestion that the name of the article Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia be changed to Australian honours system. What's the best way of informing interested people, and getting them to to express their opinion? The relevant conversations-so-far are:

• Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Lead and other suggestions and
• Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Rename to "Australian Honours System"?

I'd be asking in two places: the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and the Military history project talk page. Incidentally, I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I see there are plenty of precedents for both terms elsewhere, just to make it tougher... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

What's a suitably laconic Australian reply? "Jeez. Thanks mate."? Good. So it comes down to consensus. (Yes? / No?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

The second is Australian Honours Order of Precedence. I've made what I expected would be provocative changes, and am astounded to find there has been ZERO reaction - in either direction! Could you have a look and inform me of your opinion?

Mmm, guess I'm not the right person to ask, as I thought order of wear and order of precedence were effectively he same thing... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, although outside the range of answers I was anticipating - actually, BECAUSE it is/was outside the range of answers I was anticipating, that is a very useful reply. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

(P.S. I think it might be time for you to archive Jul-Dec 2012 ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC))

I know, I've been meaning to do it but it's always the last thing on my list in any of the (rather abbreviated) WP editing sessions I've found time for this year (including this one)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Seeking input

Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

You've got mail!

Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:32, 16 February 2013 (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.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Main page appearance: David Bowie

This is a note to let the main editors of David Bowie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 11, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

David Bowie (born 1947) is an English musician. After "Space Oddity" reached the top five of the UK Singles Chart in 1969, he re-emerged during the glam rock era with "Starman" and the album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. In 1975, Bowie achieved his first major American crossover success with the number-one single "Fame" and the album Young Americans. The soul-inspired sound was a radical shift in style that initially alienated many of his UK devotees. He then recorded the critically acclaimed "Berlin Trilogy" of albums with Brian Eno, all of which reached the UK top five. After uneven commercial success in the late 1970s, Bowie had UK number ones in the early 1980s with "Ashes to Ashes", its parent album Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), "Under Pressure" (a collaboration with Queen) and Let's Dance, which yielded several hit singles. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Bowie continued to experiment with musical styles. He has not toured since the 2003–04 Reality Tour and has not performed live since 2006. Throughout his career, he has sold an estimated 140 million albums. In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked him 23rd on their list of the best singers of all time. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

FAC Closings

Because of GimmeBot's inactivity, you and others have been manually closing Featured Article Nominations. However, VoxelBot has been coded to replace Gimmebot and is currently on trial, so please just add promoted or not promoted articles to the appropriate logs as before. Thanks! Vacation9 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Look Mickey

I responded on my talk page. Neutron (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Question

Hi Ian, currently I'm a co-nom with Ceoil this FAC. I'd like to renominate Big Two-Hearted River that I couldn't finish in December and I'd like to have Ceoil as co-nom because he's worked hard to bring the prose up to snuff. Is that okay to do now, or do we have to wait for the other one to close? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi TK, glad to see you back. Yes, I think that's fine, especially given how close BTHR was last time -- tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, it'll be there soon. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

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 reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

Email

Apologies, I wasn't ignoring you - I just don't often check that email account. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Figured that must be the case -- no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

FA notice

Hi Ian, i think the nominator of this FA-nom Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Theodora_Cormontan/archive1 is willing to withdraw (not sure), but maybe could use some procedural advice from a delegate. GermanJoe (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Actioned -- tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

Nathuram Godse: 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung'

Hello. I've created a talk section at Nathuram Godse to help sort out the 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung' debate. Cheers.  —Waldhorn (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

Tks for taking action, not sure there's much to discuss on that particular question though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Agreed, except that it remains a sticking point even after your reverts. Establishing consensus seems preferable over the continuing reverts. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps, but consensus for changing the term needs to be gauged on a much wider scale than this one article. IMO Godse should simply be protected as is and those who want to see "hung" used for "hanged" should propose it in a more general forum, where the outcome could be effective Wiki-wide (I don't believe it would have a snowball's chance in hell, but if it gives them satisfaction)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Consensus?

I've addressed all of Nikkimaria's concerns. The Oblivion FAC has been on for a long time. Is something still missing? Can you check if there is a consensus yet? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time tonight to check on each of those points myself, hopefully Nikki can do so otherwise I'll see how I'm placed tomorrow night. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Nikkimaria has confrimed that the article's sourcing meets the FA criteria. Is there anything left to do?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your kindness in promoting the William Robinson Brown to FA, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Well it's really the reviewers who permit the delegate to promote, but I certainly appreciate the thought... :-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Everyone wants a pony! But only the nice folks DESERVE one! Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Signpost op-ed

Hey Ian, would you and the other delegates want to write a Signpost op-ed on getting an article to FAC, what you guys typically find wrong, and how to fix it? It could help you all in receiving better-prepared nominations. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Well your mind-reading abilities are certainly up to par, Ed, I was thinking just last week of putting together my thoughts on this subject, perhaps as a new Dispatch, but an op-ed would be an even better forum. Will discuss with the other guys... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly free to revive the Dispatch name if you'd like, even if it's only for one issue. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Bugle interview request

Thanks for the former Yugoslavia interview request, Ian - I'll certainly provide something for you to use.

On a separate issue, you might be interested to know that later this month Wikipedia's first-ever triple Today's Featured Article will run - three linked articles I wrote on German V-weapons sites in north-east France. See WP:TFAR#March 25. This will be quite a significant achievement for the MILHIST project; might be worth a mention in the next Bugle? Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) That will certainly warrant a mention in the next edition. If you have any interest in/time to write an article (of any length) on how you researched and developed these articles it would also be really interesting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. What sort of length would you prefer? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Any length would be great. If you have time to flesh the article out, 6-8 paragraphs or so (which seems to be the standard for our op-eds). But shorter or longer would also be great - I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree all above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

IHi Ian and Nick, I've written it up now - you can see it at User:Prioryman/Bugle article. Let me know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, tks mate -- had a quick read and it flows well to me, will have another look later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

That's an excellent article. Are you happy for it to be this month's op-ed? (which should be distributed sometime around the 25th). Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Muaharhar, I'm glad I have this page watchlisted. The Signpost would have included a small mention of the triple TFA anyway, but now we can include a quote from that article too (crediting Priory and the Bugle, of course). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's fine! 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2013/Op-ed. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Nick. Prioryman (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

An Award for you!

	The Aviator's Award of Excellence
	A quite staggering number of FAs and GAs on aviators! Thanks for all you do with FA promotions too, you're an invaluable wikipedian, keep it up! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

• Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh, once you've got one aviation bio FA under your belt, the rest follow pretty naturally -- the editors who really deserve kudos IMO are those who succeed across a broad spectrum of form and content... Really appreciate the thought though, especially coming from such hard-working and talented individuals. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)

KFC

I was (mistakenly) under the impression that the KFC review had already been archived. It looks as if the KFC one won't go through because whilst there are no valid opposes, there are no supports either, so I'd rather keep the Paul S Walsh page up for review. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to archive the review myself? Farrtj (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Well, I wouldn't classify as invalid the oppose of an experienced FAC editor and reviewer like Nick-D. Also, if the FAC had been archived, the nomination page would have a note to that effect from myself or one of the other delegates, and the page wouldn't appear among the active nominations at WP:FAC. Anyway, all that aside, since you've confirmed you prefer the Walsh nomination to stand, I'll archive the KFC one shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)