User talk:Ian Rose: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:20, 13 July 2012

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

Big Two-Hearted River

Hi, I've changed my mind, can you please close this Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Big Two-Hearted River/archive1. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a mechanism or system or something by which it's possible to indicate that a FAC was abandoned, or that archiving was requested? The closing here, not promoted, seems to indicate that's it not worthy of promotion, which is now part of the permanent article history. Clearly there's more going on to make me walk away from a 4000 word article about a short story. Anyway, just wondering. Btw- this is cross-posted from Raul's page, and maybe I should place at FAC talk for discussion, but adding it here since I requested the closing here. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Not promoted" is simply the wording automatically added by the closing bot. I can understand that perhaps the term "archived" might seem more appropriate since that's the term we generally use for closing something that's not promoted, but we don't currently have a mechanism for differentiating between the various reasons a FAC might be archived, e.g. opposition to promotion from reviewers, or lack of interest and therefore no consensus for promotion, or the nominator requesting archival, as in this case. Your note requesting that the nomination be archived is preserved where you placed it, at the bottom of the FAC, and if you'd requested the archive on my talk page only I would have included the diff in the FAC when closing, so it was clear for posterity why the archive took place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Isaacson

By all means have a go. I've only put a couple of nights into it so far, and a lot of that was re-learning wiki code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallingwithstyle (talk • contribs) 12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nice extra work on the article. The Australian Lancaster Q-Queenie was named Queenie VI by Isaacson and his crew in honour of the five other Queenies they had fought in. It's in one of the cites, can't remember which one. Worth adding? There's also precious little about his post war career - he was an Icon of sorts in postwar publishing. I'll see what I can dig up at the next Library I stop at (my wife and I are both full-time travellers). RichardH (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) One other thing- I was wondering why you changed all the ranks to lower case from initial capitals. I would have thought that ranks had the status of proper names. For example, John was a wing commander likely means he was a GPCAPT in Australian service, whereas John was a Wing Commander states the rank but makes no implication about the formation, if any, he commands. RichardH (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good on you re. the travelling! Re. libraries, yes, I would've gone to the Mitchell myself this week if I could have -- wasn't possible. I think it should pass B-Class assessment without much trouble, but more on his post-war career will probably be necessary for GA, which would be nice to go for at some stage. Even Who's Who would help finetune some of the dates. There's always the biography of course, but that's getting serious... ;-) Re. Queenie, pretty sure one source I have claims she was scrapped after the war -- will double-check... Re. ranks, actually I tend to agree with you and for a long time always capitalised ranks in all cases in "my" articles. However the manual of style, which insists ranks are capitalised only when used as a person's title, has won out lately. To avoid confusion, I try to make it very clear when someone is commanding a wing, as opposed to ranked wing commander... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will be near a library tomorrow. I'll try to get some more info about Isaacson and his publishing career, unless you are already chasing that down. He's also been a significant figure in Victoria's (Australia's?) Jewish community. Worth including if verifiable? Cheers RichardH (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's demarcate! I'll be checking Who's Who for date ranges on things in the later life section, plus Units of the Royal Australian Air Force for anything on his RAAF Reserve unit commands. I'll leave the rest to you and, yes, I think verifiable info on contributions to the Jewish community is worthwhile. My main recommendation is not to spend too much time on it -- as long as we capture the main points of anything extra that seems significant we really shouldn't need much more detail to have a satisfactory GA-class article. In fact it might even pass GAN as is, I just think a quick pass through some additional sources tomorrow will make it even better. So I reckon we draw a line in the sand that we add what we can tomorrow, and then let CanadianPaul go ahead with his review on a stable article the following day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Update: have got all the details from Who's Who, lots of dates and directorships, which I'll review and add as I think useful; already added in RAAF Reserve unit and ADC dates, the rest will do later tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, added/updated what I think is worthwhile. There were other dates/positions but none notable in WP terms, and I didn't want to just rehash his resume from Who's Who. I think it's fine to submit to the GA review now but if you have some more to add, pls do so -- IMO, however, we should try and let our GA reviewer loose on it ASAP so things don't drag... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Richard, if I don't hear from you tonight, I think I'd better ask the GAN reviewer to go ahead. I'm confident it'll pass as is, and we can always expand it further afterwards with any info you find, or even get hold of his biography and go for broke with MilHist A-Class Review and then perhaps FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, yes please send up for GA nomination. I've found some fascinating material in Firkins' book on 460 about Isaacson being shunned to a degree on return to Australia, as apparently 'Europe men' were disliked by CoC back home. If I can find a second reference, I'll add it. There were also some interesting remarks about his flying prowess, apparently great in the air but not so good close to the ground... Still haven't found anything extra re the Jewish angle, but will keep looking. FAC would be fun, and it would seem fitting to get at least one Bomber Boy there while he was stil alive.RichardH (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, done. Funny you mention "Europe men" being shunned... I recently took an article to FAC on James Rowland -- Pathfinder, Chief of the Air Staff, and NSW Governor -- and found a source quoting him as saying that when he returned to Australia he felt that he'd been in the "wrong war". Yes, be good to get a living Bomber Boy to FA next. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly OT, but Firkins also says that in 1943 some 460 members received white feathers in the mail, with 'Jap Dodger' being written on the accompanying note. Pretty horrifying, considering. I think there's an untold story there. I note that there's no 'Australian involvement in Bomber Command' article yet. I might start one. Buckets of material, and since more than 3,000 Australians died, surely worth an article in its own right? RichardH (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Mold

Thanks for the image and source review. Hopefully, I've addressed the points in the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher

G'day Ian, if you are free, would you mind taking a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher and maybe providing a review? It has been open since 27 May and has only received one review. I would like to review it for Adam, but as I helped copy edit the article during its GA review, I'm probably ineligible now as a reviewer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I've got a bit of a list on right now but will definitely try to get to it by end of week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FAC being ignored?

I remember you had closed my first FAC for Ra.One and encouraged me for a second time. My second time failed too, unfortunately. Right now, its the third nomination for the article, and is on the verge of moving to the "Older nominations" category. I had pinged some editors regarding this, asking them for some help with the FAC and some concrete movement after only one comment was left. I'm trying to AGF, but the responses have been baffling.

In the beginning, two editors rebuffed me with a "Not interested" and then a third editor gave a rather silly and false excuse to pull himself/herself out. I have since pinged a couple of other editors, and they have not even bothered to respond. I get this sort of treatment a lot; is this being done intentionally? I've often asked unknown editors to take a look at some article I've been working on, and they don't deem it fit to reply even though they go about talking to others and editing generally (one can see their contributions). I find this extremely rude and insulting, and I'm being increasingly disillusioned and discouraged by the FAC process. Please help in any way you can. ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 16:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know it must be frustrating, particularly when you've put a great deal of effort into a particular article. Unlike the job of FAC delegate, there's no assigned position of 'FAC reviewer', so we're always at the mercy of people being willing to undertake that task. I would however caution against inferring rudeness or insult when people don't feel they can participate, as everyone's a volunteer. If you've already pinged previous FAC, GAN or peer reviewers, have you also left neutrally worded notices at relevant Wikiproject talk pages? Aside from that, reviewing others' FACs is good practice; not only can it sometimes generate interest in one's own articles (noting of course that we need to avoid quid-pro-quo supporting) but the more reviews other articles get, the quicker people like me can determine consensus and remove them from the FAC list, meaning the chance of a drive-by review of remaining FACs is a little higher. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the advice :). ~*~Ankit Bhatt~*~ 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

More WikiChevrons

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the second quarter of 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. - Dank (push to talk) 18:56, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Shannon

Hi, I have reviewed Dave Shannon and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Dave Shannon/GA1. Canadian Paul 00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

iPad FAC

Hi Ian, I think that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPad (3rd generation)/archive2 might need more attention than is typical from the FA delegates. The nominator appears to be highly unfamiliar with FA processes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate -- I've watchlisted it for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thanks for your encouragement. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers mate! Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spotchecks on FAC candidates

Hi Ian, sorry for my dumb question but maybe you can help me understand better. Are spotchecks of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing a mandatory item on every FAC review? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate -- there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers... ;-) No, unlike image checks, spotchecks of sources aren't required for every FAC. Generally I'd expect them if:

It's the nominator's first FAC, meaning they've never had a spotcheck there.
There's been issues of inaccuracy or close paraphrasing with a nominator's previous FACs.
The nominator's an established FAC editor who hasn't had a spotcheck in a while (say 6--12 months).
There's multiple nominators / main editors, not all of whom are experienced at FAC.

Ideally I think we should probably spotcheck every FAC, as even the best editors can make honest mistakes, but that isn't exactly practical... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian I am in great need of assistance to create a page for Robert Thomas Jr, percussionist, formerly of Weather Report, Zawinul Syndicate

Greetings Ian, I am in great need of assistance to create a page for Robert Thomas Jr., famous percussionist, formerly with the ground breaking Jazz-Fusion group Weather Report, Weather Update, Zawinul Syndicate, Jaco Pastorius, Stan Getz, Ahmad Jamal, Herbie Mann and many others. Unfortunately, I am very old school and do not have the skills to write a page on Wikipedia. I understand members of the Wikipedia Community might be willing to create a page for those that are not able to do so. Could you please point me to the right place to get assistance in this regard? Please write to me at Agencynouveau@gmail.com Please let me know.AgencyNouveau (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With best regards,

Stephen Alvin Agency Nouveau Agencynouveau@gmail.comAgencyNouveau (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Dave Shannon

On 10 July 2012, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Dave Shannon, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that at age twenty, Flight Lieutenant Dave Shannon (pictured) was the youngest pilot to take part in the "Dambuster" raid of May 1943? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Dave Shannon. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, running in the day slot in the UK, this got 8,500 page views. You should be pleased with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I am, and already added to DYKSTATS... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 28: / Line 28: @@
 ::::::::Hi Ian, yes please send up for GA nomination.  I've found some fascinating material in Firkins' book on 460 about Isaacson being shunned to a degree on return to Australia, as apparently 'Europe men' were disliked by CoC back home. If I can find a second reference, I'll add it. There were also some interesting remarks about his flying prowess, apparently great in the air but not so good close to the ground...  Still haven't found anything extra re the Jewish angle, but will keep looking.  FAC would be fun, and it would seem fitting to get at least one Bomber Boy there while he was stil alive.[[User:Fallingwithstyle|RichardH]] ([[User talk:Fallingwithstyle|talk]]) 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 :::::::::Okay, done. Funny you mention "Europe men" being shunned... I recently took an article to FAC on James Rowland -- Pathfinder, Chief of the Air Staff, and NSW Governor -- and found a source  quoting him as saying that when he returned to Australia he felt that he'd been in the "wrong war". Yes, be good to get a living Bomber Boy to FA next. Cheers, [[User:Ian Rose|Ian Rose]] ([[User talk:Ian Rose#top|talk]]) 12:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
+:::::::::::Slightly OT, but Firkins also says that in 1943 some 460 members received white feathers in the mail, with 'Jap Dodger' being written on the accompanying note.  Pretty horrifying, considering. I think there's an untold story there.  I note that there's no 'Australian involvement in Bomber Command' article yet.  I might start one. Buckets of material, and since more than 3,000 Australians died, surely worth an article in its own right? [[User:Fallingwithstyle|RichardH]] ([[User talk:Fallingwithstyle|talk]]) 13:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 == Mold ==