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.
For "...[your] continued high quality content work (especially with our biographies), as well as [your] ongoing project work as a coordinator and with the Bugle", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'm going to Cornwall for a few days next week, and I intend to nominate the above article shortly after I get back. I've included a weather map for the first time, created by me using the NOAA/ESLR database. I don't think there are any issues with copyright since it's self-made using a PD database, but I'd welcome your advice on two issues
The weather map is used as reference for "with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]", which it clearly supports. Do you think that the way I've referenced this is correctly formatted?
I'm assuming that you see enough image and source reviews to be able to guide me on this, but if you think I should ask elsewhere, please point me in the right direction, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me?14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker)@Jimfbleak: With regards to licensing, correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is produced when you select data from the NOAA/ESLR database and an algorithm of their site produces the map output based on that data? In other words, your only input was to select the data from the dataset? If so, I'd suggest adding a NOAA tag, as dual credit to you and NOAA would be more appropriate. (I'd also suggest scaling up the map in the article itself, as it's difficult to read at default size). As to citation, the formatting is fine, but in context I'd question that cite. The full sentence is "The UK Met Office suggested that the influx of accentors was driven by strong and persistent easterly winds from Siberia,[21] partially driven by a high-pressure area centred over Scandinavia,[22] with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]" This wording suggests that the entire sentence is the interpretation of the UK Met Office, but the last cite at least (I haven't checked the middle one) is a primary source. If the Met Office said all of that, just cite them for the whole thing; if they didn't, we need to be careful about what sort of interpretation we're applying to the primary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, many thanks!. I've changed the source line of the image file to "Own work using NOAA data and algorithms", is that what you had in mind, or is there a special template? I've separated the last statement from the Met Office sentence, "Another weather system produced easterlies in western Asia during the same period." which is, I think, an interpretation-free description of what the weather data shows. Jimfbleak - talk to me?15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, that looks good, although I take your point about it not being a 100% fit. I think it covers attribution and transparency though, which is what I'm trying to achieve here, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me?06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What can I say? Thanks Jim for thinking of me with this query, and thanks Nikki for jumping in with your greater knowledge of the situation -- Happy New Year to you both... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
For your contributions to the Featured Articles Reg Pollard and Dick Cresswell, both of whom served in World War II, you are hereby presented with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This FAC, which you commented on, was archived yesterday. What are your suggestions for material to be added to the article to make it FA? Kges1901 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Kges, I don't have too much time to add to my FAC comments right now but would like to revisit as soon as I can -- pls give me a few days and ping me if you haven't heard from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, tks for the ping. I'll comment here for now but pls feel free to transfer this to the article talk page to centralise if you like. Having stopped pre-war in my FAC review, I quickly went through the rest of the article just now and made a couple of small edits. I think the flow and the level of detail in the WWII/death section is adequate but my concerns re. the lack of career info from 1925 to 1932 and the confusing account of 1937 are still an issue for me. I realise that you may simply not be able to find the info for 1925-32, or to reconcile conflicting info for 1937, but in that case I have to question whether this is ready for FAC (to be honest I don't think it was really ready for ACR with those issues but I didn't participate in that review so it's a bit of a moot point). Not being very well-versed in Soviet military history, I can only compare the article to what I'd expect (and generally see) in say Allied or German military FA-level bios. If you are able add material or tweak what's there I would be happy to revisit and make further suggestions before another FA nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Since I can't add the information now, I'll wait for the necessary information to be added on the Russian sources I use. Perhaps some Russian will obtain Petrov's record in the CAMD archives and post it on the internet. For now, I'll let it sit at GA/A, which is also the highest level it got on the German wiki.Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm happy if it makes you feel any better... ;-) Seriously, it's very good to have you back to augment Nikki's and others' efforts, especially as Brian's had to cut down recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
@Nick-D: I don't know if The Bugle is the place for this, but do y'all be think there would be interest in an article on copyright?
Background: Since becoming a coordinator, I have done much/too much Wikignome work focused on editing references (with some weight on those that are linked to the internet). In the course of this, I have come across a lot of (what I believe to be unintentional) failure to comply with Wikipedia's copyright rules. Two thirds of these rules (and the ones most editors are usually familiar with, even if they are violated) has to do with not quoting copyrighted information and with giving citations to copyrighted sources in general. There are other Gnomes who patrol this issue, and compliance is good, if not ideal. There is another element, however, and that is giving proper credit for the use of the material. I have found in the process of verifying, adding archives, etc. that it is rare for the author to be properly credited (which is a requirement). I have found this is true not only for IP editors, who may use the styles [http://website] or, at best [http://website Name of Website], but editors who have enough experience to use templates.
I would include a couple of other items in the article, that I have noticed and are associated (even if not, like the general subject contrary to copyright): 1) Making up your own name for the website (an example would be citing 56 OG Fact Sheet, when the page cited was Factsheet: 56th Operations Group) 2) Using the Wayback Machine -- since I've noticed a lot of articles have a short half-life and this can create a "permanent' link.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a great topic for a Bugle article. If you wanted to narrow in on frequent areas of copyright problems in military history articles, you could cover the problems with copying and pasting news stories (a major problem in articles on modern topics) and material from websites in articles on historic topics. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian. Sorry to bother you. If I may ask... I am really unable to decide between text options. The list of "causes" of the Bengal famine of 1943 is very distressingly long. I have two overlapping, alternate versions of a summary, either for the lede or.. for little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text. One version is boring and tends to induce googly-eyed torpor, but is also somewhat more accurate, at the expense of detail. It is the first para here. The other is more interesting but less accurate. It is "The demand for rice was..." here. An example of the "little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text" is the first para of Background, beginning with the words: "From the late nineteenth century..."
Hi Lingzhi, had a look. Have to admit I'm a bit out of my depth here but I don't see a particular issue with the sandbox version -- when you characterise it as "less accurate", do you perhaps mean "more general"? I don't think we ever want "less accurate" info in WP but I think it's fine for a lead to discuss things at a high level or in a general sense, as long as the main body goes into appropriately nuanced detail. One other thing if this is going to FAC eventually, I think one should always clearly attribute quotes, e.g. who says "a vast cremation ground", "bodies in all states of decay...[were] dragged through the lanes of abandoned villages by hungry jackals", "massive escalation", etc? As it is one can't be sure if the author of the source says it or if it's someone the source is quoting... An alternative would be to paraphrase some of these, e.g. "vast cremation ground" is a graphic phrase that I think you might well retain, but unless the other two were said by someone notable, perhaps they could be put in your own words (just a thought). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for spending time on this, and for your comments. I think the misc version is... more compact... and more academic... so it covers ground more efficiently but does not read as well... I like the idea of having a higher proportion of quoted text than is perhaps considered standard or average in WP, for two reasons: 1) I live in fear of POV warriors, and quoted text is relatively less assailable. 2) More importantly to me, quoted text... seems to... lend a sense of immediacy (without shrillness); it seems to personalize the text without POV-ifying it. Or at least I think so. [But I will try to clarify ambiguous citations, at least to some degree].. I will probably resist more than a few attempts to impose a standard format on the article. Another forex, the lede is long. Well, [insert exclamation here], the topic is über-complex, and many people will read only the lede. And so on. Many thanks... Lingzhi ♦ (talk)11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, if you have time I'd appreciate your input on this. I've followed your earlier advice and kept it all in a single narrative, rather than separating the publishing and reception histories. The article isn't done yet, but it's getting closer (no images or copyedit pass yet). I have a couple of questions.
The article is already 7,412 words of prose, and that doesn't include the table, which is huge. I haven't done overseas (non-English-language) magazines yet, nor have I done much on UK magazines or on the period 1945-1950, which would be a few hundred words more. Should I cut it to end at 1945? Ashley ends at 1950 for good reasons: that's the best date to pick for the pulp/digest switch, with F&SF launching at the end of 1949 and Galaxy the following year. But it would be awfully long. Or should I cut the UK and non-English stuff to another article, and take it up to 1950, and change the title to indicate it's North America only?
If you have time to skim the article and tell me if the structure works as I have it, that would be much appreciated too.
Hi Mike, I think I'd stick with the 1950 end date because although 1945 would make perfect sense to the uninitiated, I think 1950 is more appropriate in the life of the field, and the fact that a key source, i.e. Ashley, uses it makes it an even easier decision. I don't think including the extra five years should make it too detailed. If you felt you had to cut then I would reduce the scope to the US rather than reduce the timeframe, but my feeling is that even with the UK and non-English sections you can justify the length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted to ask something about FACs. Am I allowed to nominate another article for FAC if another one have multiple supports like FLCs? BTW Snuggums has given his support to the FAC and the image in question was recently verified.Krish | Talk20:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey! There is a new problem. The picture which was reviewed yesterday, now has been nominated for deletion. So I removed it from the article. Is is okay? I don't know what to do now.Krish | Talk06:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: Given that there has been a fair amount of recent activity on your nomination and there is potential for more attention, I would prefer that you stick to one open nomination at this time. Hope this helps! --Laser brain(talk)14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Laser brain: I don't understand. Does it mean the article will not pass? I was hoping otherwise. Since everything has been resolved and the article is in good shape. Is there something which I am missing here?Krish | Talk15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Krish!: No, I'm not making any statement about ongoing consensus at the nomination. I'm just saying that you've had a fair bit of activity there and I think there's a potential that reviewers may add comments that will require more attention from you. When that is the case, we'd generally prefer folks have just one nomination open. --Laser brain(talk)16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Ian (and also pinging Laser brain and Sarastro1): I'm able to do at least three more FAC reviews over the next week or so; is there anything you'd particularly like to see another reviewer on? Looking at counts of support it looks like nothing is being ignored, from the older list, at least. I've done three of the four urgents -- I see Laser brain is in the middle of reviewing the remaining one so I was going to wait for him on that. Or I can pick something from the top half of the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, tks for grabbing the Russells, which I felt needed more work -- as well as the others you've done recently of course. I wouldn't mind you checking Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) from the top half of the list, as it's the third time at bat. God of War: Ascension also comes to mind -- I'll leave Andy and Sarastro a recommendation or two now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1: Just FYI, it might take me longer than I thought to get to Yesterday's Enterprise; I've signed myself up to try to help out with the source review issues at Nike-X, which I'd like to see promoted, and I think that will slow me down a bit, so you may want to ask someone else to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ian - I saw your recent edit to Prince Romerson, and I'd like to ask you about something. I saw you changed "a number of" to "several". In the course of a lot of reading and copy-editing articles, I have several times seen people changing "a number of" to "several", and maybe even a few discussions about it. I know that, for the sake of conciseness, using one word instead of three is often a good choice, but at the same time I have always thought of "a number of" as an acceptable alternative to "several". I'm just curious to know whether you consider it an unacceptable alternative to "several" or are merely changing it because it reduces the number of words. If the former, I would be interested in knowing why you consider it unacceptable. I often think the prose in WP lacks variety, and the same words are used over and over again, and if a bit of variety in the vocabulary could be introduced here and there, it would be a good thing. I'm interested in your point of view. – Corinne (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Corinne, thanks for asking. I like to see variety too and I don't consider "a number of" to be unacceptable, it's just something I see so often in the course of walking through articles as a FAC coord that I do like to consider other -- and, as you rightly surmised, shorter -- possibilities. Of course it's not as a bad as "a large number of" (why not "many"?) or "a small number of" (why not "some" or "a few"?). So you may well find me leaving "a number of" when there's already a "several" in the vicinity, because repetition is something else I tend to pick up on! I guess the bottom line is that I consider word usage to be a somewhat subjective thing anyway, so I try not shoot any expression "on sight" and am always happy to discuss copyedits if people have another point of view. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not the way it works, mate, especially regards a featured article -- when there's disagreement the status quo should remain while discussion takes place, and change afterwards if/when there's consensus for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Spot checks
Hi Ian, I'm having trouble persuading someone to take on the spot check on the Henry Morgan FAC; HJ Mitchell pencilled himself in, but it looks like RL has kept him away from WP for a while. As I wouldn't like to see this fall off the bottom of the page over this additional step, do you know of anyone I could ask to step in to undertake it? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bounder, as a rule, if a nom has a fair amount of commentary and support then it won't be archived while it awaits image or source checks. I know we'd all like to see it wrapped up though -- Nikkimaria or Laser brain, would either of you have a chance to take on a spotcheck for this first-time nominator? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've posted a response to you on The Bounder's page, but he usually removes posts he doesn't like, so I'm repeating it here.
The Daily Mail is used in that article as a key primary source. The Daily Mail and Guardian published early photographs of Tomlinson showing him in contact with the police just before he died. This was important in the early investigation—which for a week was journalist-led—because the official story was that Tomlinson had simply had a heart attack.
Ian, I'm surprised to see you respond to his attack as you did. If the coordinators won't stand up for reviewers under attack, then no one is going to want to leave a negative review. SarahSV(talk)05:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarah, if by "his attack" you're referring to his characterisation of your comments, a coordinator (Andy) had already responded to that and it's pretty evident that he is set in his opinion, whether we like or not. This coordinator was moving on and pointing out there's a process for raising concerns about sources (or any aspect) of FAs if he truly believes that other articles are not receiving -- or have not received -- the same scrutiny as his. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
You implied that his comment had merit. The point is that nominators shouldn't act vengefully against reviewers. It's normal to be upset, and everyone understands that (I've been in both positions, so I understand it very well), but acts of revenge against a reviewer's FAs or searching their edits from years ago to find things to disagree with, cross the line. The Bounder is not a new editor; he understands the FA process. Editors who leave critical reviews are your most precious commodity as an FA coordinator, and they need your strong defence. It isn't easy to leave one. But without them you'll be waving through problematic articles. SarahSV(talk)05:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you inferred that, Sarah, the observation was intended to point out, as even-handedly as I could, that sources that might be considered controversial now (i.e. the Daily Mail, as evidenced by the current RFC) were not necessarily so in 2009. I value all participants at FAC, whether they be critical commentators like yourself, in-depth source reviewers (see my response to Ealdgyth above), image licensing experts, experienced nominators, or first-time nominators (like The Bounder). IMO, if FAC is to maintain its quality and relevance we can ill afford losses among any of these groups. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator.
The use of the Daily Mail has nothing to do with standards having changed since 2009. I keep the article reasonably well updated, so if there were inappropriate sources I'd remove them. The tabloid images [1][2] were used because they're primary sources showing Tomlinson's contact with police shortly before he died.
But we shouldn't be discussing my FAs as a result of my review of an FAC. That is the point, and it would be nice if coordinators would put a stop to that kind of linkage as soon as they see it. SarahSV(talk)19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@SlimVirgin: I'm not sure much of this is ideal, and I'm not sure there are too many wrongs to right, but can I just check "The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator" and he "is not a new editor". I'm possibly being thick, but which other articles has he nominated? And the account is only 4 months old. Am I missing something? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sarastro1, this isn't his first account. If someone wants a clean start, I don't want to get in the way of that. On the other hand, when an editor claims to be a first-time nominator, it means reviewers might treat him differently. It also means that editors who might otherwise have chosen not to interact are denied that choice. That's all I want to say. I'm obviously wishing at this point that I hadn't reviewed the article. SarahSV(talk)20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Garage rock article
I thought you could take a look at the Garage rock article and see how things are coming along there. Do you think it is near ready for review? I could take a little time and wait if need be. But, I'd be interested in any feedback you could provide. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
sf was SF for clarity in the title of the person. It might otherwise be mistaken for a typo of "of". It's also because when I google "sf," it pops up the abbreviation capitalized, so I acted accordingly.
The placement with the punctuation in the quotation is to be consistent with the American English spelling and punctuation style on the page as it is an American pulp magazine. In American English, the punctuation is within double (") quotations, if that helps clear things.
I can understand the table formatting being unnecessary, though I do want to space the text from the file embed link so it doesn't look fused together.
Hi Cheeseskates, appreciate the opportunity to discuss the edits further:
Perhaps I missed something but not sure what you mean by "in the title of the person"... In any case I grant you "SF" is valid, but so is "sf" (just checking the two detailed histories of science fiction I have, one uses SF and the other uses sf). The lower-case format seems to be the style that's been adopted and accepted in not just this article but most or all of the similar articles in WP.
Being Australian I wouldn't presume to debate AmEng conventions with you, but I believe that MOS:LQ recommends that while full sentences should always be wholly within quote marks, fragments should take quote marks before punctuation.
Sorry, I didn't see that you added the spaces in a few cases, no objections to that.
Hello, I noticed you reverted an IP when he removed the mention of the "Wehrmachtsberichte". Actually there was a discussion at Talk:Wehrmachtbericht#Military commendation?. I am with the IP here, as the Wehrmachtsberichte are primary sources. I took the liberty of undoing your edit. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, primary sources are not forbidden in WP, especially when used to cite simple facts (they should not be used to interpret facts). The Rudel article has been through peer review and MilHist A-Class Review, and the mentions in the Wehrmachtsberichte were considered acceptable. Consensus can of course change, but you need to discuss that on the Rudel talk page, or bring it up at a wider forum (e.g. the MilHist talk page). Until the consensus does change, the article should remain as it was, so I've reverted to the earlier version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware that primary sources are allowed, with caveats; the problem I see here is in labeling being mentioned in the Wehrmachtsbericht as a military award (which imho is an interpretation of the primary source which should not be done; neither the English nor the German article Wehrmachtsbericht does make a mention of it being a military award (as a sidenote: this is different from being Mentioned in dispatches, which is explicitly one). That is why I linked to the discussion above). Just passing peer review for a "good article" and being A-graded in a Wiki-project does not concensus make for every detail in the article. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well, no, three outstanding formatting questions isn't as big a deal as say a reliability issue, and wouldn't result in a nom's archival, but I admit I had formed the impression that because Casliber had responded to most points, and you hadn't followed up after several days, that they had all been actioned. If not, I'm sure Cas can revisit them and either action them or discuss with you on the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Good to see someone working on such an article... I agree it should be renamed though -- we have the following already utilising the alternate wording:
(talk page stalker) Thanks for creating this article Newm30! Regarding the title, given that Qantas also operated Catalinas during the Second World War ([3]) a RAAF-specific title is workable if that's all the article will cover. I'd suggest extending it and tweaking the title to also cover the Qantas aircraft though given they were a part of the war effort. As a random note, there's an interesting display on the Qantas Catalinas in the Qantas museum at Sydney Airport. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose you happen to have a local library with a (very) well-stocked cricket section do you? I've been looking at an article that could potentially be very good, but the lack of access to two or three books on Australian cricket are rather hampering things. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are a couple of major libraries in Sydney I get to every so often, as well as the local up the road -- what are you after? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Sarastro, I checked the online catalogues of the major libraries in my general area and Pollard's book should be available from Macquarie University, while 200 years looks like it's in the State Library (which also holds his Complete Histories of Australian cricket, 1803-1989 and 1803-1995, if they're of any help). I may not be able to borrow either book but if you let me know what you're after specifically I can try and look at them in the next week or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Anything at all about the Tasmania v Victoria cricket match of 1851; the first intercolonial game and apparently the first first-class game in Australia. Anything on the game, or the teams in the built up to it. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Active editor with song FAs?
Do you (or a TPS) know an active editor who has a string of FAs on popular songs? I'm working with Carbrera on improving Make Me Like You, which has failed at FAC a couple of times, and I'd like to get additional input on the talk page from someone who's done several of these to FA level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Although we restarted Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin and moved it to the top of the list at FAC, and I've reset the dates of the nomination, FACbot keeps moving it to the top of the Older Nominations section. Possibly I'm missing something, and maybe Hawkeye7 can tell me where the bot looks to decide where to put the nomination, but we might have to leave it there as we can't keep putting it back! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The FACBot looks at the date on which the nomination was created. In this case, that was 5 December 2016. So it's an older nomination. Normally when you create a new nomination, it would be archive2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the attitude doesn't seem like a recipe for longevity at WP in general, let alone FAC...! Cheers, 00:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
BMPL
Hey you might have been eyeing that the Briarcliff Manor Public Library fac has been open for just over a month. At the very least it still needs a source review, and nobody's seemed to come. Any ideas on people I should reach out to? Much appreciated, ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)04:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply] As well I have oft wondered about family. A few of my relatives, some immediate, have Wikipedia accounts. I don't think I ever spotted a rule against such users contributing to GA or FA reviews, and the quality of work always matters while identity doesn't, on Wikipedia at least. What are your thoughts on this? ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)05:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Actually no, I hadn't seen it because it looks like you didn't transclude the page to WP:FAC... Before we look at doing that, though, a formatting issue: L4 headers should be used to demarcate reviewer comments, not L3. Even then, we wouldn't be at the stage of seeking a source review because the opposing reviewers from the previous FAC need to have a chance to check and see if their concerns have been addressed. Lastly, re. family and friends reviewing, I couldn't see where WP:COI went into that (it seems to focus more on editing articles about family and friends) but I certainly wouldn't be soliciting input from WP editors who happened to be family or friends; happy to hear thoughts from my talk page stalkers on this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I could've sworn I had transcluded, that's odd and somewhat silly. Should I reformat the headers? The reviewers did that, so I didn't want to touch it. Done, as the transcluded copy messed up the TOC w/ L2 headers. ɱ(talk) · vbm · coi)20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Eve Russell - featured article candidate
I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC currently three "support" votes and image and source reviews, but I have received a note that it could use more commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability. I was wondering if you could help me with this. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Tks for asking, Aoba, I might be able to recuse coord duties and review, let me see how I go in the next day or two. Just keeping my coord hat on for a minute, though, I think I may have mentioned once before to try not to think in terms of "votes", as the depth of commentary is considered more important than a simple declaration of support (or opposition). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.
Don't have a reliable source regarding Allan Moffat's wife as he's a famously private person. His sons Andrew and James are half-brothers and a real estate website said Moff's wife was called "Sue" in 2011. He's not been with Pauline for awhile. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for taking the time to explain -- I have to admit I haven't followed things for several years, it was still Pauline last I time I did... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, well it hasn't been quite that long since I was following Moff's career (though admittedly most of my interest in professional sport was a childhood thing) but clearly I missed that bit...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again. I will only go ahead once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested, Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do I have to ask for more reviews for my FAC? It has 5 supports and a withdrawal oppose, and it's almost a month since it's been open. I ask because I have another article in the queue that I've been working on. MCMLXXXIX15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi 1989, sorry I took a while to respond -- RL intruding...! On a quick scan it looks like you could probably sit tight on it, I'm sure one of the coords (perhaps me) will be able to look it over in more detail soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Simone Russell - featured article candidate
Thank you again for your help with the Eve Russell FAC. I have recently nominated the Simone Russell article for Featured Article consideration, and it has received a lot of attention already (and I am very grateful for their suggestions/comments). I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.
Hello, I apologize again for the intrusion. I was wondering if you could possible look at my FAC to gauge the commentary on it? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nick -- very nice shot, clear and crisp. I don't think we can fit it into the article but at least people can find it in the Commons link. Yeah, bit unusual none of the papers mentioned where he was buried... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)- featured article candidate
Thank you again for all of your help and feedback from my FACs. You have definitely helped me and encouraged me to be more active in the FAC process (though I have a lot more to learn and I am still a novice). I would be extremely grateful if you could provide any comments or suggestions to my current FAC? I am very fortunate to have received such extensive feedback after only putting the FAC up a couple of days ago. I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ian, can you give me a link to the word count template? I had it installed on my user page while ago and I want to implement it on the Macedonian wiki edition. Thanks for the help.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. Though I'm not sure it can count prose written in Cyrillic script. I tried passing prose from articles in Cyrillic here, but the DYK counter only shows number of characters in the text. It seems it can't count the words.--Retrohead (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian! I'm a student working on a wikied project, and my group is hoping to get the page we edited onto the featured content page. We've put a lot of work into the Indigenous Environmental Network page, and would greatly appreciate if you could look it over and give us some feedback. Thanks!
This is to let you know that the William Henry Bury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. Note that as per the discussion on the TFAR page, I have not deemed it appropriate to run it on his birthday. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I have notified the other main editors. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me?13:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Just noticed your comment here, while putting together the April stats; thanks -- I appreciate it. I do think the increased discussion of reviewing has helped. As with so many things in life, the things that get talked about are the things that get done, so I suspect that periodic renewals of the discussion will be necessary to keep up the review volume. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm having trouble with how the prose is supposed to look in Naruto for FA standards. Would you be able to help me with it and add comments to the FAC if needed? If not, please reply. Thanks. -- 198901:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think Mike is going to comment any further on what's wrong with the prose, that's why I'm asking for your help. Hopefully you'll be active soon. -- 198911:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
FAC for The Demi-Virgin
Hi, Ian. Normally I would wait my turn for FAC closings, but I started thinking ahead to possible TFA dates for The Demi-Virgin and realized that one option is as soon as June 3. Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Demi-Virgin/archive1 has three supports with no opposes or unresolved comments, plus completed image and source reviews, I'm hoping it might be promoted sooner rather than later, so I can jump into a TFA/R discussion before it is too late. But if it needs longer, then I can focus on other date options. --RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I did check it when I was doing the rounds over the weekend and, although everything is going very well, I felt it was a bit soon to close given it's only been open around ten days. I'd prefer to give it at least another week to see if anyone else has thoughts -- if we still have consensus for promotion then and it's closed, I think you'd still have time for the TFAR you mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
OK, we'll see how it goes. It's not a dealbreaker either way, but I thought I should at least ask. Thanks for the prompt reply. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ian, how are you? I was wondering did you get a chance to look at the spotchecks for the above FAC? I had pinged you there while writing a response, but not sure whether you got the notification. Or maybe you got it and will look at it afterwards (in that case please feel free to ignore this message). I know with Laser brain retiring, FAC load might be more for you and Sarastro. Thanks for all that you do. —IB[ Poke ]07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well, tks for asking -- a lot on this week RL-wise though so I may not be able to get to check things properly till the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Just a little nudge on this one! If you don't have time to do another spot-check, Giants2008 had a look and found no other problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, was preparing to have another look at sources when I found several new issues with the prose, but will try and button everything up tonight... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Ian, just gently reminding you, this one was addressed long ago. Perhaps you missed the notification. —IB[ Poke ]16:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for another one! - I don't know what to say (probably nothing) in a thread that has "Which confirms once again how meaningless FA review often is." on WT:RSN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Captains Table IJN Soryu
Do you want English Sources or if I copy the ones from the Japanese page is that sufficient?
Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree05:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 7 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
(talk page stalker)@Hmlarson: The problem was that you nominated two FACs at the same time, with a third FAC already open. The FAC instructions only allow an editor to nominate one article at a time by themselves, with the possibility of one more if it is a co-nomination. This has been the case for a long time now. Any nominations that are out-of-process like this are deleted as standard procedure. I noticed before the FAC pages were deleted that a reviewer had also pointed out that the nominations were out of process. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Aah, thanks for clarifying. "Out of process" isn't really clear. Hmlarson (talk)
Hello, Ian Rose and thank you for your message about the last edits on King John's page!
I've been having a few problems with my computer lately - couldn't log in to make edits. I just thought it would be better to make a "list" of John's children. It's usually done for most royalty and I thought it would make a more "lightened" presentation of John's descendants.--Aziliz Breizh (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CyberGhostface, sorry but not quite sure what you mean by "bump this up". TBH, given only one reviewer has supported promotion during a review that's been running six weeks, and Cas has suggested further analysis is required (and provided possible sources), I think the best course would be archiving this nom, giving you a chance to address his point, and then returning with pings to all the previous reviewers to take another look. I say that knowing how many times the article has been at the plate, but others have been through more noms and still achieved the bronze star in the end... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your recommendations and patience since this is my first time that I am nominating an article here for FA consideration. If I were to follow your guidelines, what needs to be done to initiate a copyedit and a PR? And who would do this process?--Seiya (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Timeline
Was actually just coming back to do this today since I guessed that the newsletter would be going out in the next few days. I was going to do the op-ed too, but I guess I got beat to that this month :) Should have it done in about a half an hour. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I just spotted that the APDC has developed a new website - today I think given I was browsing it yesterday. The good news is that it looks more functional. The bad news is that it appears that all of our links are broken, though none of the PDFs are loading at the moment... Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, not just today but this arvo I think, I was accessing something from the old site only this morning! Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if all the links are broken, no-one in government seems to believe in redirects -- look at AWM... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I sent the AWM an email to alert them to problems with the official histories (eg, the page numbers for the chapters not being listed in the index and the URLs changing), and the reply stated that the new URLs will be permanent. I'll believe that when I see it though! They're going to re-add the page numbers too. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election
Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I can see that. I just added +1 for the people I voted for so that's where the weird tally numbers came up. Sorry about that, it'll be something I'll have to keep in mind int he future. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations!
Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2017 – September 2018
In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi there, Ian! I pinged you here yesterday, but I think you missed it. In any case, I saw you're an experienced FAC editor. With that in mind, I thought of asking you to look over the article above and to kinda copy–edit it (it isn't long, so it shouldn't take that much). Unlocked, a FAC, has received some support, but an experienced user complained over the article's prose, with his main issues being "chopped" sentences (and maybe some other minor stuff you could correct). With that being said, would you have time to edit it? Best regards! Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas -- it looked to me that Brian had already done a source review... I was mainly waiting to see if RileyBugz would return... Perhaps give him one more ping but in the meantime no issue with you starting another... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Cas, actually in this case I would prefer to see at least one more review/declaration before we start another nom, if that's okay -- is there anyone you could bug to take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ian Rose. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting
As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Why Brian, the merest thought of the possibility of the inkling hadn't begun to even contemplate crossing my mind... ;-) Seriously though, thank you for the good wishes and I wish you and your family the very best over the festive season. WP is fortunate to have your contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, did I miss something? There's certainly been nothing of any interest cricket-related in the world recently. Definitely not. No. Nothing. Not a thing. Move along. On a completely unrelated matter, maybe someone should block Brian for blatant vandalism. Some things should not be placed on talk pages. Sarastro (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have an interesting DYK today, Wolfram Röhrig, who was a jazz pianist, headed a broadcaster's department for light music, composed film music, and recorded giant choral works with an amateur chorus, including my latest FA, first as it seems. But not only that - and that's why I come here: he also played a (minor) part on 20 July 1944, so is a character in a film series about it. It's rather broadly covered in the German WP article that he was part of the telecommunication that day, but I wasn't able to find a source, so left it out. Any chance that you might find something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the sapphire Gerda, and best wishes for the festive season. Re. Rohrig, I can't promise anything but will check what literature I have on the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for Reg Pollard, written "almost spur-of-the-moment", and for mentioning "sense of humour" ("biblical" Enobsra), - dangerous, very dangerous, humour I mean, - the ultimate weapon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for today's Henry Wrigley, a "veteran of World War I and founding member of the RAAF, Henry Wrigley was one of aviation's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia in 1919, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out more)... During World War II he was largely responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the first women's service in the country."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thank-you click out of the blue ;) - I am a bit concerned about the first FAC of a fellow editor which looks nice on the FAC side, but had some editing and talk (article and user talk) that looks not constructive to me, even if probably with good intentions. Please watch. - I wonder - generally - if editing a FAC should be somewhat restricted, such as 1RR, to not edit-war and then claim instability. (WP:BRD seems not enough. When I reverted the second time a bold edit was made, WP:GANG was mentioned.) I also wonder if users could stick to friendly language even when disagreeing. My dreams ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.
Hello Ian Rose, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing, Chris Troutman (talk)00:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hello, its been over a week since the last review and support. The article currently has four supports and reviews have covered everything from sourcing to images to the text. Is there anything else needed? LittleJerry (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba47, sorry, I did mean to respond to your query at WT:FAC yesterday when I was actioning another FAC request -- I haven't gone closely into the status but at first glance it looks reasonably close to promotion so would have no issue if you'd like to nominate another now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the response! I always bad for messaging you as I bet you are juggling a lot of work both on here and in real life so I do not mean to be an inconvenience. Hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for interrupting again, but I was just wondering if there was any movement on this as a little over a week has passed since I initially put up my request for a status update. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to bother you here. My FAC Margaret (singer) received 10 supports, the image review has been carried out and the sources review is complete. I think it is ready for promotion. Do you think you could look into it? Hope you have a good weekend. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Nick, I think I saw this in an issue of Air Force News last year but if I remember rightly it was the new name for a totally different school, and the report made no connection with the old 1FTS, so I left our 1FTS article as is pending further info. I'll try and take another look soon (after I do the FA blurbs for the Bugle and despatch!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
From a quick search, the 25 February 2016 edition says that the School of Air Warfare was renamed No. 1 Flying Training School that month. There's also some coverage in later issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's the one I saw (time flies!), and I've checked the later ones and again no mention of the earlier incarnation. I don't think we can say that the 1FTS we discuss in our current article has been re-formed as such, because there's no connection between the old 1FTS and the SAW, or with the SAN, as SAW was called formerly. I'd like to see the crest of the new 1FTS, if it has one, that would tell us something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the wording is all very vague. It might be worth noting that the name at least lives on? On a different subject, I've also noticed that the Williams Foundation has posted the first three of interesting series of articles which were published in Australian Aviation on the history of the RAAF's higher organisation - there's links to them here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Australian Air Corps 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 08:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And another
Polk not having generated any comments in some time, and likely ripe for promotion, would you mind if I nominated the next one?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I was going to say that after contributing or co-contributing 36 articles to TFA over the years I'm finally starting to get a bit jack of working through the inevitable changes that arise, well-intentioned as many are... Are you really desperate for another Australian military one...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that there were some cs1 maintenance tags - I think someone had fiddled with the cite book template at some point causing it to not like having (ed.) in the author/first/last name parameters - so I tweaked some of them; please revert if I've made a mess of it. I didn't do anything with the Stephens/O'Loghlin entry under 'Further reading', which is showing the same error, as I wasn't sure if they are also authors? And (sorry) IaBot has marked the present ref #55 in the Notes section as a permanent dead link but it's the same as the Helson link in the References which does seem to work - I didn't like to fiddle with that in case I messed it up, so perhaps you could have a look when you get the chance? SagaciousPhil - Chat17:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recently, I noticed your many edits at the film for 2001, and couldn't help noticing the Kubrick quotation on your user page. For the past 2-3 weeks, I've been thinking of moving the main article for 2001 towards featured article and was wondering if you might be interested. Do you have any interest in possibly joining in and moving this article forward? JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
desperately needs attention for external validation!
stop deleting my edits dude I am only doing it for a class grade I need the edit to get a good grade if you don't like it leave it up for a week and delete it then I don't care geesh you are too serious about wiki edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athsquare (talk • contribs) 23:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I'm not hassling you, but would you mind looking to see if Kges1901's latest comment satisfies your concerns about Seidov? I think that's the only thing holding up promotion at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi guys, tks for being so patient, I did get close to completing my re-review during the week but kept getting waylaid before finishing -- will have another go now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On 16 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australian Air Corps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian Air Corps has been described as "Australia's first independent air force, albeit an interim one"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Air Corps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Australian Air Corps), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey, Ian. I am not sure if you have been able to revisit the FAC, but I've resolved all of Mike's comments. Could you take a look? Thank you. VedantTalk16:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:
tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.
As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.
The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.
The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.
I can see that the last mass message had an error message as the edit comment. You may wish to fix that, or ask about it at meta. Thanks --Fæ (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC is ready for your final review. Sarastro was the coordinator for this one at first, but he switched roles and became a reviewer to complete the review, and he has since supported it. Unless you see anything that he missed, I believe this review is complete and ready to go. Jackdude101talkcont00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am a first time nominator for FAC WestJet Encore. It is now under "older nominations". Is there anything more that I need to do? So far, there are several reviewers that have left comments. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind leaving this open a bit longer to see if we can't get at least one more comprehensive review -- it's been open three weeks and that's not excessive -- in any case I think we still need an image licensing review (you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC for that). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to nag. I am merely a FA newbie. As far as images, they are all free use, no fair use ones. Fair use might be allowed but I wanted to see if free use only could be done. Thank you for your comments. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, you're not nagging, I've been pretty busy in RL and haven't been able to keep quite as close an eye on things as I'd like recently but that's slowly improving. I'm always glad when new people give FAC a try and hope they find it a good experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing and promoting the article to FA. I feel that I can now make small edits to it because before I didn't want to touch it while it was being considered, unless absolutely necessary. The FAC process also has taught me how to edit better after I followed some advice made in the FAC reviews. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's really good to hear. Actually I think that one of the most important lessons to be learnt in FAC (or any WP assessment process) is to try to keep revisions to the minimum and as much as possible only in direct response to reviewer suggestions -- something along the lines of no. 3 in Robert Heinlein's Rules of Writing: "You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order". ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, I'm finished editing the Bugle for this month. When you're happy with it, I think it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.
I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.
Does this mean that it closed as a "did not pass" for FA? I still have a chance to improve the article. --LovelyGirl7talk
Sorry for belated response LG, yes archiving effectively means that it did not pass assessment this time; as I think I mentioned in my closing comment you're welcome to re-nominate after a minimum of two weeks from the closure (though I think the suggested improvements, and my recommendation for a de facto peer review after that, might take longer anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's been quite a while now, I've tried another knowledgeable reviewer, if no joy I'll just go ahead and make the prose pass I'd planned earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Depending on the depth of the copyedit, yes. I often make a few tweaks to articles before I promote them but if I do serious copyediting -- and especially of course if I feel I should oppose or support -- then I recuse. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I apologize for the intrusion, but I was wondering if the FAC had enough comments to be promoted as a featured article? Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Dear Ian, just a note of appreciation for all your hard and skillful work at FAC and in the Featured Article process. It is an important part of what makes Wikipedia such a wonderful resource for so many people around the world. Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, would been quicker but I spent a few minutes checking if the other changes made much difference either way (didn't look like it)... ;-) Hope you and yours are keeping well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! Yes, I did much the same. At first I didn't spot any difference, but now I see the second row doesn't line up, (whereas in the IP's version it does). I might look again.
My youngest graduated last month. (First time I've worn a suit and tie for a while! We seem to be past the weddings, and fortunately the funerals don't seem to have started yet.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The existing award is very nice and I'm keeping it. The Bot will run tomorrow morning. It won't be bothered by the existence of an award on the page, so there is no need to remove it. This will be a good test of the Bot. Hawkeye7(discuss)08:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That FAC is turning into a bit of a marathon and I don't have the energy to stick with it. Is it ok to bail out or am I obligated to stick with it? Basically my sense is that it's not quite there but I'm on the fence about whether the work can be done while at FAC or to archive, get the work done, and then bring it back. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, sorry for belated response -- pls don't feel obligated, you've put a lot of effort into the review and it shouldn't have had to go on this long. Some time tonight I (or perhaps Andy if he has time sooner) will try and have look and determine whether to archive or not. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No worries about belated replies - I'm not here that much these days. I noticed you archived it, so I'll leave a message on the article talk page. Happy to keep working there (it's an interesting place), but not in the confines of FAC. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you did everything right except transclude the nom page to top of WP:FAC -- this is a manual operation and the last part of the nom process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gerda, I didn't see that particular exchange but I was aware Victoria is ill based on her comment at another FAC; hers was not the only extant oppose though so I feel I have to stand by my closing note. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I said that I understand. I'm not going to nominate that article again anytime soon, and if I do (but I hope you noticed my comment that we never know how much more time we'll be given), I'll ask you for a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think this was a good decision because it's best to get the work done outside of FAC. I'm willing to continue with Gerda (I'm hooked now), but my time is extremely unreliable so it's best to do it slowly on the talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself. It would be good to have an editor with your background on military topics on call as a reviewer for when pages come up in your area of expertise (that list of articles on your user page is impressive, well done).
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.
When I attempted to fix a red link things just got worse. Could you look into it and see where the 'money wrench' is? It would be gretaly appreciated. Best, Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! I hope that you are having a great week so far. I was wondering if I could have a status update for my current FAC. It has already received an image review and a fair amount fo commentary. I believe that it is ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Same question as I had about an earlier FAC - am I obligated to continue and continue and continue or may I be done? I'm beyond not having energy and at some point it feels abusive. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Victoria, I don't think anyone's health or RL in general should ever be compromised by their work here. Important as many of us consider WP, it's not worth that. I and the other coords will do our best to give appropriate weight to all reviews that offer actionable criticism regardless of how 'complete' those reviews are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hope youll read
My last post before this one. wp:consensus is pathetically easy to game under the current regime/system.... Then as a private homework assignment, make a table and keep score win-lose- draw- not on wiafa (that's four columns) for every oppose reason on the Bengal fac You don't need to share your results with anyone else,ever. It's personal. But you might wanna do it just to consider the possibility that I may be in the right....Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axylus.arisbe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh ps I deleted my ling.nut email acct and scrambled lingzhi password NOT because the fac failed. If you had examined the merits of the arguments and said which oppose reasons were pathetic, but then said we need an outside review, I would have very cheerfully accepted a Fail. But since you didn't, all those Oppose reasons ill be recycled and reargued next time around, with the comment "nothing has been changed". If you were me, would you be discouraged Axylus.arisbe (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, tks for this -- I'd forgotten we didn't have his precise death date in there. Have to admit I haven't considered squadron websites as RSs at FA level. I just did another search in Gale and Factiva to see if there was anything but no luck. Ryerson tells me 6 April 1997 as well, citing the Brisbane Courier Mail from 9 April 1997 but they don't offer a page number and it doesn't look like their search engine allows a direct link to the result to be cited. Nikkimaria, do you have an opinion on all this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably reasonable for uncontroversial facts. This source says 6 April 1997 as well: Chris Coulthard-Clark (23 April 1997). "Air ace of Pacific and N Africa". The Australian. p. 14.. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you Nikki, I'll use that -- for future reference (literally) can I ask how you happened to access it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vance Drummond 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 Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yes, got a bit carried away there. I've gone through everything myself now and saw no reliability issues, and only one minor formatting inconsistency that I fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Regarding the featured article candidate Saving Light
It is a shame that the nomination for Saving Light failed, but regarding re-nominations, would I be allowed to re-nominate the article now (or soon as possible) as it failed because of only having only one (supporting) vote and that all issues listed were fixed and addressed? Micro (Talk) 07:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Micro, I would not be averse to waiving the usual 2-week waiting period given there wasn't much commentary, but I'd like you to wait to re-nominate till we tick over into August, as I expect we'll be closing some more in the next day or two and it may benefit you to re-add when the list is shorter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[This] isn't the first time one of my FACs have stalled. Aside from reaching out to related wikiprojects and specific editors I think might be interested, do you have any suggestions for attracting commenters? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy sometimes. Peer Review might get some people along, and if so it's fine to ping them with neutrally worded notices when you come to nominate the same article at FAC. As a longer-term strategy, you can try and review more FACs to help more editors notice your work. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question about FAC
Thank you for archiving my previous FAC. I believe that I would have to wait the standard two-week period before putting up another FAC, but I wanted to clarify that with you. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, yes I think the usual 2-week waiting period is appropriate as this wasn't a case of the nom attracting little or no commentary. Pls take the time to consider/implement improvements to the article or to others you're looking to nominate based on what you've gleaned from the withdrawn nom's review. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian (and Laser brain and Sarastro1), I don't want to nag the regulars at WT:FAC for more comments on my last post there, but given that the few comments made have been positive, how would you feel about opposes on prose that are not revisited? It seems justifiable to me, but it goes against a long-standing expectation that an opposer who does not revisit when asked may find their oppose taken at lower value. If I were a coord I wouldn't like to see suggestions that make it harder to determine consensus, but you're all reviewers too, and you've seen the kind of loop I'm referring to. I can continue as I have in the past -- not reviewing, if I'm not prepared to revisit any oppose that might result -- but if you think there is a niche for opposes that are not returned to, on the basis that the prose is not FAC-ready, then I may oppose in that way in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, tks for the poke. I have been watching that thread and planning to comment, just hadn't got round.... My first thought was/is that if an experienced reviewer believes the prose is not FAC-ready, and they can get in early enough in the process, it's a good reason to come straight out and recommend withdrawal, which is something the coords almost always act on (it's a bit harder to action a withdrawal request that occurs some weeks in, when other reviewers may have supported). More later, probably at the thread itself, but no issue continuing here first if you like... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I'd expect or ping for a revisit is if the nominator somehow completely overhauled the article during the FAC (something we discourage by practice; it should be withdrawn or archived). I might expect the oppose to look again, or at least strike their opposition as it was likely based on an irrelevant version of the page. I never favor requiring laundry-lists of action items to accompany opposition, or demands that reviewers continue to enumerate items unless the article is already at 95%+ and needs a little push over the hill. --Laser brain(talk)09:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FAC closure of San Junipero
Hi Ian. I saw you closed the FAC nomination of San Junipero. I must admit that I'm quite confused by this. If I'm understanding correctly, you closed it because you think it will take at least two months to gather consensus (or enough responses to pass/fail). But there are plenty of FAC nominations open which were nominated in June (2–3 months ago) and are still open.
I have tried contacting people and WikiProjects about the nomination—see 1, 2, 3. I've also got a response from someone who planned to review the nomination imminently ([5]). These were all quite recent requests as I didn't anticipate that the nomination would gather no responses in three weeks.
If you re-open the nomination, I have three or four more people in mind I could contact (and a couple of active talk pages) and I can start doing some "here's an FAC review; I'd love it if you reviewed mine", though I've refrained until now because I dislike the practice. I hope you can understand that it's very disheartening to get no responses for a month, finally get a comment and within two hours (before I've even seen the comment) be notified that the FAC is closed. I have no interest in taking the page through a Peer Review or FAC mentorship, because (a) they're both optional processes, (b) I don't want this to take another four months, and (c) in my opinion, the article is ready for FA status now.
Hi Bilorv, I understand the frustration, particular as the archiving came just after the first comments, but noms in similar situations are often archived two or three weeks in. It's no reflection whatsoever on you, this happens pretty frequently. I realise some noms stay open longer than a couple of months but that's not by design, and those that are currently that old may well be closed the next time one of the coords looks at the list. I appreciate you may have people lined up to review, there's no reason they can't give you feedback at PR or even on the article talk page before another attempt at FAC. It's fine to ping previous reviewers with neutrally worded requests for comment when you get to FAC. Regarding your last three points: a) I'm afraid I must be missing what you mean by PR and FAC mentorship being optional processes -- so is FAC and so, for that matter, is WP in general; b) the time to get an article featured is elastic, but I've found through long experience that the best way to minimise the time at FAC is get s many eyes on the article before nominating; c) I don't doubt you feel the article is FA-ready, in fact we assume it of every nominator and their article -- but the process relies on editors reviewing the article against the FA criteria and supporting its promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With (a), I meant optional with respect to FA i.e. they're not necessary to get an article featured. I've found PR to be a waste of time in the past.
Can I renominate the article at FAC immediately? I see that this isn't supposed to be done within two weeks of a nomination being archived, but there's an exemption for nominations with little feedback. I just want to double check before actually doing it, and make sure it doesn't come across as rude. I understand you're just following procedure, and my frustration is at the lack of FA reviewers rather than your actions. — Bilorv(c)(talk)17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv, I'm sorry to hear you find PR a waste of time but I realize it can be a bit of a wasteland, and I can't force you to go there before FAC. As far as renominating early, it's true there was only one reviewer but there was a longish list of points -- I'd be happy to split the difference and say go ahead and renominate at FAC after a week has passed from the archiving, or when you've actioned Aobas' points (if you haven't already of course) -- whichever is later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks-a goldfish
thanks for all your great work!!! has given you a puppy!Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
The FACBot added this notice to the article TP after I withdrew the nom. Can't we simply state the nominator "withdrew it as a candidate"? The template also states that Morgan le Fay is a former featured article, but I can't find when or why. Thanks in advance....Atsme📞📧00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme, the closing note on the article's FAC nomination page states that "this candidate has been withdrawn", after that the FAC bot treats it the same as other archived noms. As to the "former featured article" bit and the half-completed new FAC nomination, those seem to have been introduced by the closing bot -- Hawkeye7, would you mind taking a look when you get a chance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
– In the latest version, although it looks like the Bot performs only a few simple operations, to do them, it actually breaks down the entire page and rebuilds it completely. This resolves problems we have had with template handling, particularly where templates contain templates (contain templates...) (1) The FFA was an error on my part. (2) Failure to remove the nomination template was caused by an error in the recursive template search method, which has been corrected. (3) Corrected a problem with display of default template parameters. Your forbearance is greatly appreciated. In answer to Atsme, "withdrawn" is not a valid parameter to {{Article history}}. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye, it goes without saying that I'm very grateful for the hard work you've put into FACBot over the years -- the hiccups only stand out because it generally runs so effectively. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on the thanks to Hawkeye7 whose explanation I read and actually understood for the most part, but recursive threw me, as I thought it was a style of handwriting. 😆 I'll also fess-up and take responsibility for any actions I may have taken, either purposefully or inadvertently, that may have contributed to the bot issues, beginning with my initial screw-up by forgetting to save the TP template after nominating. I had opened too many tabs 🍻 in the browser, trying to follow instructions in proper order, and after completing all the steps, I accidentally closed the TP tab before saving it. I can sleep now that I've confessed.
Ian, thank you for following-up with my request. If I may make 2 suggestions (if not, stop reading now): (1) the word "failed" seems rather harsh. Won't you please consider replacing that parameter with "not promoted" which may prove to be a lesser disincentive than failed? (2) Regarding "withdrawn", if it's not too difficult, can it please be added as a valid parameter? Just my thoughts... Atsme📞📧16:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, pardon me for jumping in, but it's actually {{Article history}} that's the issue -- it requires the word "failed" in that position. If you suggest on that template's talk page that "unsuccessful" be added as a synonym, then the bot could start putting that instead of "failed"; "unsuccessful" is at least neutral (I believe that's why RfA uses it). To use "withdrawn" would require the FAC coordinators to add a parameter when closing, I would think, so that would be more complicated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike - I'll see what I can do. In the interim, here's a little template that may save you some words....(Buttinsky)....I actually got the idea from an admin. 😊 Atsme📞📧18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recursion is a mathematical concept. It occurs because templates can contain other templates - recursion. The problem for the Bot is then determining where a particular template ends. With the latest change this has been overhauled, and a recursive algorithm implemented, so that these problems will go away. We still have a problem with FAC nominations where the template is added to the talk page and then the nomination is not initiated, or is initiated but not added to the nominations page. The Bot detects these errors but lets them through in the belief that the editor may get around to it soon. It reports to me. In the former case I normally remove the template after a few days. In future I may get the Bot to do it automatically. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering IF...because of the various issues with the FAC process...we should consider not promoting it...😂. I do hope y'all know that I'm pulling your leg. [FBDB] On a serious note, thank you Hawkeye7 - your explanation was helpful. (And the explanation for my banter is that it's Happy Hour - which means my nose is no longer to the grindstone.) Atsme📞📧21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Milhist coordinator election voting has commenced
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Promoted article
Hi there, you seem to have added Bulgaria to the September Featured Article log by mistake.[6] It's also already on the star chart[7], but I don't think the nomination is over yet. Maybe that's why the bot can't run through. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that one snuck into the copy/paste from WP:FAC. I picked it up before adding to WP:FA but obviously didn't go back to fix at the Feature Log. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
FQSR question and an old archive question
Ian (and Laser brain and Sarastro1), can I ask what, if anything, you're planning to do about the FQSR workshop page? I was imagining that the coordinators would close nominations as successful, or unsuccessful, or prod for more details; I don't want to do any prodding myself since the point of the workshop is to see how the process might work in practice. Two of the reviews seem closable as successful, and one looks like it might be a fail; another might require a nudge.
Hi Mike, I believe we'd agreed among ourselves that Sarastro would be designated coord for the workshop and I did send an email prod the other day but haven't heard anything back. We still have to keep the main FAC list ticking over, which is what I've been doing -- perhaps Andy could look in on the workshop entries? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and pinging Hawkeye7 for this question), I've been going through old FACs to harvest support/oppose data, and ran into something odd. The August 2015 archived noms page had one of the archives transcluded without the "archive1" at the end. I've fixed that, but something is still not right. If you go here you'll see that the article title is the section header, outside the "archived FAC" box; this is not how they usually appear, as you can see elsewhere on the page. Perhaps nothing needs to be done about it, but I thought I'd ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Have your say!
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lou Spence 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 Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, I present you with these Coordinator stars as a mark of the responsibilities you have volunteered to take on for the project for the next year. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree01:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Look; I know the ink probably isn't even dry on the last one, but would there be any chance of receiving permission to put up another one? Hope all's well. ——SerialNumber5412910:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the two-week gap is only when a nom is archived, the rationale being that if there are issues preventing the nom being promoted then there should be a minimum time limit for those issues to be addressed before the nominator puts the article forward again (or indeed another article, as similar issues could well be present in the nominator's other work). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You reversed my edit requesting a reference to Shaw's preference regarding his name as it is mentioned further down in the article. You're right, but do you think it might be useful to add a note at the first place this preference is mentioned? I think it would. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could do it as I'm not terribly sure of the syntax. Thanks.
Páraic Maguire12:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Páraic, my apologies for such a belated reply. In WP we generally try to avoid citations in the lead unless the cited statement is a quote, or the information is not cited elsewhere in the article. As Shaw's preference doesn't fall under either of those categories, I don't see a reason to cite it in the lead. Of course I'm just someone who happens to keep the article on his watchlist, not one of its main editors. If you feel strongly about it, I think the best thing would be to raise it on the Shaw talk page and see if consensus develops to add the citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question about FAC
I would like to withdraw my current FAC, and I was wondering if you could please archive it? I was disappointed by the following comment by one of the two support voters (Looks good. Not the best article, but it passes for FA and is pretty good for an obscure show), particularly the (Not the best article,). I know that I should not take it personally, and I would brush it off in a work context. However, since Wikipedia is purely for volunteers, that kind of backhanded comment makes it less enjoyable for me personally, and I should be devoting my time to other things anyway. Apologies for the long message. I just wanted to explain the rationale behind the request to withdraw and archive. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, as you were away the last few days I hatted the recent thread on FAC talk - although involved it seemed to be the best thing to do. It's a bad result all round and I hope Tony decides to return to FA reviews at some point. The thread, although hatted, is a little sensitive and doesn't reflect the best part of many of the contributors. Rather like happens at ANI, it may be worth archiving the thread. I'll leave it to your discretion (and that of @FAC coordinators: your fellow co-ords) as to whether you think this the best course of action. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gav. Surprising as it may seem I didn't stay out of that thread by choice but heavy work commitments, coupled with two family members falling ill, meant I've had time for only the most cursory glances at WP, and no chance for any substantial edits appropriate for commenting on a situation like that. I regret the result too and have no problem with your closure (nor with the archiving that's since taken place). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Bugle
Hi Ian, taking your other commitments into account, will you have capacity to add the featured articles and awards to the November Bugle edition? Everything else should be good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ian Rose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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.
Military history WikiProject World War I Op-Ed Series
The Teamwork Barnstar
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF - reformed, and now renamed?
Hi Ian, I spotted this photo on the Defence website today saying that No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF has been renamed. It's listed as an active unit on the RAAF page on RAAF Base East Sale [8], so presumably it was re-formed at some point recently and is now being redesignated? (which seems a shame). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that -- funnily enough the second link didn't work for me either but when I opened the thread in my mobile instead of on my laptop, both worked... :-P The caption of the second image mentions a renaming ceremony but I couldn't see where it says it's renamed from 1FTS? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "mid-caption" on the left-hand side when viewed on a computer ("On 6 December 2018, Royal Australian Air Force’s No 1 Flying Training School (1FTS) at RAAF Base East Sale, was renamed Air Mission Training School."). The supposedly permanent link isn't working for me now either! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha! Yeah, shame though it is that such an historic unit is gone again almost as soon as it's reactivated, it wasn't the same institution/purpose -- I think they made an error using that name in the first place. The fact that it's now defunct again might actually make it easier for me to work a footnote about this latest incarnation into the current article, something I wasn't at all looking forward to otherwise, as there'd been so little fanfare/info about reviving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Hello IR,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Ian, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find your decision to prematurely (in my opinion) close my FAC nomination extremely disappointing. I suppose that I'll only seek GAs, as is the unfortunate trend. I don't write about videogames, American TV shows or hurricanes. I suppose that means achieving an FA is impossible and I should just move on. What can I do? Asking for another peer review is absurd, the article has hardly changed since the last one and User:Yunshui's GA. Many experienced editors have helped improve the article such as User:Thnidu.
Deseret alphabet is really more about history than about the alphabet in any event. The idea that we need a linguistics professor to approve it just cements Wikipedia's systemic bias against certain types of articles. I'll not pursue this any further, I think I'll have much more luck getting Aglipayan Church to GA than ever getting a single FA unless I start writing about hurricanes. I should have listened to Yunshui. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Psiĥedelisto, I am a research linguist: not a professor— I retired from the University of Pennsylvania as a research administrator in the Linguistic Data Consortium— but a Ph.D. in the field (U of California, Berkeley, 1981). I've been a language geek all my life, which is related to my fondness for editing and my abilities in it, and is what drew me to the article in the first place. But I can't undertake a program of research on this subject. --Thnidu (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just wanted to apologize for the above rant. I know it's not your fault the FAC system is how it is, you were just doing what the rules say to do. I was merely frustrated by the system itself, not necessarily your close. Cheers, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks Psiĥedelisto. To be fair, I can't say I disagree vehemently with any of the FAC instructions, otherwise I wouldn't feel right about performing coord duties. I do acknowledge the process can be frustrating though. Re. your article, I would still prefer to see formal or informal review of the article before you renominate because I'm concerned that it might again languish at FAC without a groundswell of prior interest, but you're completely at liberty to renominate. The FAC instructions say that you should wait two weeks from the time the previous nom was archived before starting another, but they give the coordinators discretion to waive that when the first nom attracted little commentary, as in your case, so you can bring it back any time you like AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Austral season's greetings
Austral season's greetings
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
... and today Bobby Gibbes, saying "I've made use of a good many sources to try and tell Gibbes' story in context, and to get behind the usual facade of the fearless fighter pilot and crack shot, neither of which he claimed to be. Still, "irrepressible" is the word I'd use to describe him: a dual ace who flew combat in a cast when he broke his ankle; went beyond the call of duty to rescue one of his mates who crashed in the desert; participated in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945; pioneered air transport in New Guinea; and built and flew his own light plane in his 60s and 70s."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Good afternoon Ian. Apologies if this is not the correct place for this request. My FA nom Siege of Berwick (1333) has five supports, an image review and a placeholder for the source review which has been there for two weeks. I have reminded the placeholding editor, but I wondered if I might have permission to nominate a further FA while we wait for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gog, yes, a coord's talk page is fine for this, or you can ping us on the extant nom page. I'd normally say yes straight away in a case like this but I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (which we normally ask for at one's first FAC nom but apparently didn't through oversight) and therefore I'd prefer we hold off on a second nom until that happens. I'm probably being overcautious but this is a fundamental part of the process so I hope you're okay with that. I'll add a note to the FAC page re. the spotcheck as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ian. No worries. I saw a mention of a relaxed attitude to granting permissions and thought it worth asking. As it happens the editor who said they would source review has come back saying they hope to do this tomorrow. I fully understand the quality control issues. I shall, attempt to, control my impatience. Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again Gog. Yeah, not so much a relaxed attitude as just encouraging editors to make use of an existing convention -- which as I say I would've acted on immediately you requested it but for the spotcheck thing. Anyway, as that seems to have turned up no major issues, pls feel free now to nominate a second article at your convenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly no need to apologise. I appreciate the smooth way in which the FA process is kept running, and don't expect special treatment for my impatience. I am impressed by the efficiency of your TPW though. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Planet Nine
Hi Ian. I have re-nominated this and hope that is acceptable by the established process. The article's main authors have reviewed it very thoroughly and addressed every criticism we could find. It has been at least two weeks and I have no other nominations pending. Let me know if there are any concerns. Thank you for all your good work. JehochmanTalk02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, quick heads up, I've heard (unofficially) that this one will be at TFA on his birthday. Anything special you want to see in the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, any chance you can unofficially get it canned...?! I'm kinda over seeing any of 'my' articles on the front page, even if they are relatively non-controversial and don't attract as much rubbish as some, but especially older ones like this that would need more attention before they went live. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry.... I've been sick. Generally, it's not something we do. It's not like Wehwalt and I don't share your pain, but they have to go up sometime. It's the price we pay for doing good work. Ealdgyth - Talk16:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Mmm, the way I tend to judge these is that the instructions say you can't have two solo noms simultaneously, so anything that "adds up" to less than two is fine. Since you have a solo and a co-nom, another co-nom would effectively be the same as two solos... It'd be different if one of the current ones was close to promotion but I don't think that's the case so I think we should wait a bit. Of course if Andy or Sarastro think differently, I'm more than happy to reconsider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. I was wondering if you could look at my current FAC. It has only been up for ten days, but it has received four support votes, an image review, and a source review. Since it has not been up that long (not even two weeks), I am not certain that is ready for promotion, but I was just wondering your thoughts on its status? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, it's looking pretty good so far but I like to leave noms open at least 2-3 weeks to give busy editors a chance to comment. I think we could do with one or two more people casting their eye over it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies again for the message, but I was just curious about the status of the FAC. It has been a little over a week since my last message, and one additional editor supported the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, noticing that you have an interest in first wave punk, have put "Cut the Crap" up for PR. Its a strange addition to their cannon that brings up a lot of heated emotions, with that in mind the PR is framed as a "safe space" were you can eff, blind, and vent about mid 80s music and where did it all go wrong to your hearts content. You input anyhow would be valued. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for thinking of me Ceoil, I've bookmarked article and PR and will try to comment when I can. You're right about the interest, though I'll admit I wasn't a big Clash fan -- perhaps that will allow me to be more severely objective than I might otherwise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for tidying up Siege of Aiguillon prior to promoting it to FA. A little embarrassing that so many niggly bits were left, even if I can console myself with the thought that a lot of other eyes had missed them too.
Apologies that my attempted op-ed for The Bugle wasn't up to the mark. I think that it got a bit out of control. Let me know if you would like me to have an attempt at one in a more traditional style.
I help out a little at both the Four Awards and the Triple Crown. It has been noted that neither gets the traffic that it used to, and suggested that some gentle promotion may be in order. As a first step, would it be in order to put something in The Bugle making people aware of both awards? If so, would it be down to me to draft something and submit it to you for approval? Do you have any other suggestions re promotion, or an opinion as to whether this is a good idea in the first place?
Hi Gog, on the go now so just replying to point 3 for now... I'm not sure about mentioning those things in the project news page but do you think it might be worth an op-ed? Perhaps you could go a little into the scope and history of the awards and how they motivate people (or even just yourself), as well as discussing how they could use more participation. Bugle op-eds can be (and have been) a forum for WP processes as well as broader military subjects... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that Kees. In that case I'd prefer to see a spotcheck -- I'm sure you both did your share of the referencing in your co-noms but if this is the first time you're bearing the whole load I think a spotcheck wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Permission to do blurbs early
@FAC coordinators: I'm going to be taking almost a month off from editing to work on a project that I hope will benefit new editors. I want to be available for a week after I post any proposed blurbs, so the timing is a little tight. Would it be okay if I post my suggested blurbs (currently in User:Dank/Sandbox/5) to FAC talk pages before the articles get promoted? I'll add a disclaimer, of course, that I'm not trying to predict when or if articles will get promoted. (Just between us, I don't even think about doing blurbs until I see two solid supports.) I'm just trying to get people to look at the blurbs before I leave. It's fine to say "no", of course, if you have concerns about the blurb review process interfering in any way with the FAC process. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is to let you know that the Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 13, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.
I want to start this off by saying it does not really bother me, so only take action if it bothers you :). I presume you place FAs into the various sections on Wikipedia:Featured_articles (if not please point me in the right direction). Warfare biographies has Alan Shepard and John Glenn, while Neil Armstrong is under Physics and astronomy biographies. With Aldrin, Collins, and Chaffee coming up, as well as Dave Scott I think, it could be useful to make the categorization consistent. GA puts them under Physics and astronomy (to be fair, I might have made that subcategory). Anyways, it does not bother me if they are not grouped together on the FA page, but I thought maybe it would bother someone, so just wanted to bring it up. Kees08 (Talk)00:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Kees -- it's an interesting question, and there's probably no ideal answer but consistency is certainly desirable. I think people should be in a category that would earn them their wikinotability alone, and most if not all astronauts would not tend to fall into the military category for that, even though many had a military background (Glenn might be an exception but as far as 'secondary notability' goes his political career would challenge his military one). For the primary category I wonder if even Physics & Astronomy is appropriate -- I notice the Apollo missions are under Engineering & Technology so does that work better? Perhaps my tps' would like to weigh in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Having slept on it, I guess one could argue that although the US space program was a civilian operation, most of the astronauts were in the military at the time of their flights so perhaps it's as good a category for them as any. Armstrong is an exception, I believe he'd resigned even his commission in the reserves by the time he became an astronaut, so probably best he remain in Physics & Astronomy (or Engineering & Technology if that works better still) -- Hawkeye, what's your thoughts on this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
FLC
Hi, I had a question about an FLC of mine which has been open for 5 weeks with 4 support votes and no opposition. Can it be promoted as I’d like to devote my attention to other projects.—NØ10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! I hope you are doing well. My current FAC has attracted a substantial amount of commentary, and I was wondering if I would be allowed to post a second FAC. I am on the fence on whether or not I would do so as there is something nice after taking an FAC one at a time and I am honestly not in a rush for the current one. I am grateful for the editors that took the time to comment on it and help to improve it as that particular article has gotten immensely better since the FAC started. I was just curious if it was an option? Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, I think we're pretty close to where I'd say go ahead with a second FAC, but I wouldn't mind seeing BLZ's initial source comments first if that's okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, In Hewitt's article, prose says Keith while References say co-author with Alan Stephens is Jeff. (Ditto on Allan Walters). I can see it's Jeff here but are they 2 different aviation writers or same fellow using both names? JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ealdgyth wants to run this one at TFA on the 6th. Thoughts? I'm having a hard time getting it done. Feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ian, there are a stack of references on the Gurney page relating to his death. Is it necessary to repeat them given that he is linked to the 33 article?Lexysexy (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, according to WP guidelines it is, especially in a Featured Article. The references there already, Gillison and the WW2 roll, support that he died in a crash, as the article says now -- if we want to add that he was flying with the yanks at the time then it'd need a further citation, and that's up to whoever wants to add that snippet (which I don't think is that vital, Gillison obviously didn't think so either). Best, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
April FP
Hi Ian, the only FP promoted in April which might be in scope for The Bugle is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brest, 1700. It doesn't seem to be included in any military-related articles, but does pretty clearly show that the town was fully enclosed by fortifications. I think that this probably puts it in-scope, but what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kinda on the fence (or the wall!) with that one -- does Adam Cuerden have an opinion? I'm aiming to despatch the issue tonight or early tomorrow so I guess we'd better decide soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Look, given Brest's military significance I think why not -- will add it in and then I think we can despatch the issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC it states, "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." IOW the same process as if one nominated the same article immediately after it was archived. The first time your statue nom was archived I said let's waive the two-week waiting period because there was little commentary (again per FAC instructions), but this time there was a reasonable amount so I didn't feel a waiver was justified. Cheers, 22:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
I see. I was under the impression that the two week hiatus applied to individual articles, not nominators. Should have read more closely. Ergo Sum22:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
June FP report
I've included a few borderline ones (they're explained in hidden comments), as I figure it's better to be a little broad than too narrow. I haven't added any of them into the showcase yet. I believe the space race is considered in scope for us, right? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs03:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I think so -- part of the Cold War, mainly military crews, etc. Will have a look when I can, many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it's really just Tarbell and maybe Bohr - people with definite connections to military history, but who are vastly more famous for something else. I think Fawcett's Boer War investigations push her beyond doubt, though. The Japanese-American internments of WWII presumably count, and the only other thing I can think of that might be questioned is Mary Jackson, who's definitely part of the space race, but maybe engineers are one step too far removed from MILHIST? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 6.5% of all FPs01:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Adam and Nick, sorry it's taken so long to properly review the FPs in this month's issue. Taking a hard look at each case, I do think we might be going a bit too broadly. I remember posing the question once, when we were deciding what should go in one month, if we could determine inclusion according to whether an image was tagged by the MilHist project or not, and was informed that images don't get projects assigned. Well fair enough but could we decide it based on whether the subject is claimed by the project or not? Many of these aren't and I think we need to ask ourselves which of them could fairly be tagged as MilHist? I don't think Jemison could be -- no military career I can see and in the space program just as the Cold War was ending. Hosokawa seems a stretch despite his internment -- his career as a war correspondent occupies a sentence in the article. I know what I said about the Space Race above but Tranquility Base never had a military career as such like the early astronauts did. Of those remaining, if we include them in the Bugle I think we should put our money where our mouth is and tag the subject articles for MilHist if they aren't already. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian and Adam, Firstly, thanks for putting this together Adam - it's best to cast the net widely given that the project's inclusion criteria tend to be both broad and somewhat vague. Regarding the images here, I agree that the Jemison and Hosokawa images are out of scope. While the US military was involved with the Apollo Program, the Tranquility Base image doesn't depict a significant aspect of this, so I'd suggest omitting it as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I wonder if I could query the status of my FAC nom for Battle of Crécy. It has had four supports and image and source reviews for two weeks, and four days ago picked up a fifth support. I am not feeling especially impatient given that you let me nominate my next FAC ten days ago, but I am wondering if there is anything which I should or could be doing to move it along? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to do it, your resilience in the face of what seems collective shortsightedness -- including even some whose work and opinions otherwise command deep respect -- is quite an inspiration. Thanks for your continuing commitment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiproject Military history coordinator election nominations open
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Goldfinger
Hi Ian, I trust all is well with you. You may have seen that I've been working on the Goldfinger (novel) article recently. This is now at PR, if you have the time and inclination to give it a once over? No problems if you can't - entirely understandable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Gav, guess what went onto my watchlist almost as soon as you opened it...? ;-) That said, RL has been busy, and I can't promise I'll get to it, but if not PR then certainly the FAC that will presumably follow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Apologies for always messaging you. I was just curious about my current FAC. It has received comments from several editors and has received a source review and an image review. I would think it is ready for promotion, but I was wondering about your opinion. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I hope that you are going to be nominating yourself to be a MilHist coordinator again. If you are undecided, can I urge you to take two paces forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks guys, not playing hard to get, just aware that owing to FAC and RL I haven't been able to spend much time on MilHist coord duties this past year, and not sure that will change in the foreseeable. If it looked like we were short of candidates I would've come on board but I think we're pretty okay there, and if one or two drop out during the year I'm open to being drafted... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Just to clarify, I meant it hasn't had any comments since that date. It has had 4 reviews, a source review, and a media review. NoahTalk21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You've gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Andy qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian and Laser brain, I currently have SS Politician on the go (five supports and image and sources both passed); would I be able to nom a second? Politician has only been on the go for ten days, so I won't mind if you'd prefer I wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Gav, well yeah, I prefer to let things go about a fortnight before considering closure or a second nom so suppose we leave till the weekend and then feel free to kick off a new one, as long as nothing major has come up with Politician? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the exemplary work you have done as a MilHist coordinator. I, for one, appreciate it. Do feel free to keep glancing over my shoulder and applying correction as necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Gog -- you've been a great asset to the project as an editor and, as I said during the vote, you'll be a fine coord too. I don't think you'll need much in the way of advice but if you do, always feel free to ask. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I want to say thank you Ian to help us, the project and Wikipedia in general in your co-ord terms. We were happy to have you in the team and we want to continue the legacy you made in the last three years. Hopefully, we will continue them, I bet we would, you'll see mate. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
I've roughed in the FPs. There's a ten-day lead time on FPs, so you can usually tell the list of what's going to pass before the end of the month. The only one in the slightest bit of doubt is File:Maréchal_Canrobert_by_Nadar.jpg, which only has four supports so far, but almost certainly will get five in time, as it's so new.
Now, I'm trying to write a little more about each person this month, but I'd like you to go in and trim out anyone you don't think relevant before I really get into it. I think the justifications are all there, it's down to things like, "Is a major supporter of Alfred Dreyfus who was otherwise minimally involved in MILHIST suitable? What about someone who painted military history?
Thank you for the prequel to that of Clare Stevenson, the long-serving director of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF), the first and ultimately largest women's military service in wartime Australia. Mary Bell led the WAAAF for the first three months of its existence but, more importantly, had played a significant role agitating for its establishment. One can imagine her reaction upon being passed over for permanent command of her baby in favour of corporate executive Stevenson, but Bell was persuaded to put aside her disappointment and ended up serving in the WAAAF for most of the war, if in a minor capacity."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you today for the companion piece to No. 36 Squadron RAAF, "Australia's sole air-to-air refuelling unit. It operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus.! - see also - arbcom season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, looks like it! BTW, I think 33SQN might need some updating for the last couple of years -- I'll check Air Force News but if you have any important info from say Australian Aviation or other sources, pls feel free to add. I'm not thinking of an exhaustive search, just anything the absence of which might be considered an omission of up-to-date events. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The main thing to add to the 33 Squadron article is that the extra KC-30As have both now been delivered (I think), with the VIP aircraft commencing in this role recently. It would probably also be worth noting that the KC-30s are now deployed to the Middle East on an alternating basis with the E-7s (the Operation Okra article has a cite for this from memory). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Boy these TFAs creep up on you! It was on the front page before I even got a chance to add that the sixth has definitely been delivered; I daresay the seventh has too but couldn't see anything on the web in my cursory look, so left open for now. No time for anything re. Okra now, maybe tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:The Easybeats - Friday on My Mind (alternative cover).jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Easybeats - Friday on My Mind (alternative cover).jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hi Ian, Andy, I hope all is good with you both. I've currently got Baker Street robbery going through FAC; it's been going for three weeks, got five supports and a clear image and source review. Would you mind if I opened a second nom? No problems if not - I can always hold off for a while if you're prefer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, go for it. Given both your current FACs are co-noms, the new one can be solo or shared and it'd stay within the guideline. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
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.
G'day, Ian, I hope you are well. It seems a long time since we've talked. Anyway, I had some time this afternoon after my flight home to expand and reference the Battle of the Nek article. I seem to recall many years ago you expressed an interest in potentially working on this. (Apologies, if I have gotten this wrong -- I have a bad memory). Anyway, if you are keen and you have some time, would you mind taking a look at the article? Happy for you to adjust whatever you see fit. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Rupert, great to hear from you. I don't actually recall talking about it either but if army types like you and AC can do so much to improve air force articles it seems only fair I help with a land battle if I can -- will at least give it a ce over the w/e. Cheers, and tks for asking! Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Hi Ian, I hope all is well. Would it be OK if I added another nom? I have had this one on the go for over three weeks, with five supports and clear image and source reviews. No problems with waiting a bit, but just thought I'd ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, was wondering when you'd ask -- didn't want to be seen to be playing favourites by suggesting it myself... ;-) Go ahead of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's great - all done. It's about a rather grotty character, but an interesting insight into the porn-peddling world of 1960s and 70s London. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
2OCU and the F-35
Hi Ian, This story notes that several F-35s with 2OCU markings recently arrived in Australia. It doesn't say that the unit is now formally operating them - presumably this will happen sometime next year(?). BTW, the December Bugle is done except for the FAs and any FLs and FTs if you have time this weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks mate. Yeah, been very busy work- and otherwise so tks for all the effort on this month's issue, should be able to finish up and despatch in the next 24... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
By now you've no doubt realised I meant the next 24 days, not the next 24 hours... :-P End-of-year deadlines and all but it should improve by the w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true.
No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well IR. MarnetteD|Talk11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks Marnette, I know things are being looked after when your name shows up on my watchlist... Cheers to you and yours this festive season! Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian, I saw your ping and have answered you at the above. Best wishes, and if I don't speak to you before then, have a lovely Christmas. CassiantoTalk11:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Ian Rose, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Jenny, actioned now by a friendly TPS it seems -- best to you for the coming year as well, always good to see you around! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk·contribs·email), Godot13 (talk·contribs·email), Vanamonde93 (talk·contribs·email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Zabararmon, if you go to the top of any Wikipedia article page (in fact most WP pages in general, including this one) you should find a tab marked "Talk", just to the right of one marked "Article". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. Hello Ian. As one of the most prolific editors of the Edward II of England article, would you mind leaving a comment or a !vote as to whether King who died with a hot poker up the ass should be deleted? Thanks. --Nevé–selbert 13:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)Template:Z48
Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
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 Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
; see Talk:Air Board (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
.png)
Resolved
Buttinsky)....I actually got the idea from an admin. 😊 Atsme📞📧 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
![[1]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/09/article-1168315-04607B4E000005DC-246_468x300.jpg){kind=link}
![[2]](http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2009/04/09/article-1168315-04607D73000005DC-487_468x286.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.jpg)
.jpg)
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)