User talk:Ian Rose

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

Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014 * Jul-Dec 2014

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that No. 1 Squadron RAAF, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 12 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and Season's Greetings!

Wondering how we could get an article written about the U.S. Army's only Brigade dedicated to recruiting Healthcare and Chaplain professionals--the U.S. Army Medical Recruiting Brigade. I work for them (Chief of Advertising and Public Affairs) so obviously I could not author an article due to a conflict of interest. However, they have an interesting and unique history--created only 7 years ago to recruit physicians, dentists, nurses, veterinarians and other healthcare professionals as well as chaplains to serve our active and reserve Army personnel and their families. They have a unit 'special designation' of 'Allgood's Highlanders', named for COL Brian D. Allgood, the highest ranking Army Medicine officer to die in the Iraqi war. We are a subordinate command of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and we have five battalions spread across the United States. We also provide administrative oversight of the Special Operations Recruiting Battalion (SORB). You can find several articles about our command by using Google or other search engines, and we are included in the Army's official history. Many thanks for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancault (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for belated response (busy time of year of course!) -- will look into this and come back to you as soon as I can. Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Ian! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ian Rose!

Happy New Year!

Ian Rose,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Snuggums (talk / edits) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.

Thanks SNUGGUMS, Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Ian Rose,
HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions!
From a fellow editor,
--FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").

Tks Bzuk, a happy 2015 to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 82 Squadron RAAF

The article No. 82 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 82 Squadron RAAF 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2

Hey there Ian, I was wondering what, as a coordinator, your feelings are on this FAC right now. I notice it still hasn't been closed despite what seems like all of the concerns being addressed. Is there not enough support or not enough reviews? If there is anything that needs to be done that I can take care of, I'm more than happy to. Gloss 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

As a matter of course, I sometimes like to let an article 'bed down' after an oppose is resolved, and then look it over myself, before considering promotion. Checking the review, however, there is something specific and I've noted it there accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Oops, I never remembered to check back here for a reply. I believe everything has been addressed though, including Nikkimaria's comments (I hope). Gloss 04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Air Force

Hi Ian, Happy New Year. I have just created a stub article on Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Air Force. I am not sure if this is the correct wording so if it needs moving, please do so. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, tks Newm. Reckon the title wording is okay but there'd be more honours than that around, although I'm not sure where we'd get a definitive list in one place. If you're feeling energetic you could go to the Australian War Memorial and work through the air force units, as each entry lists the honours awarded. For instance the WWII entry for No. 77 Squadron lists its honours for the Pacific War, and the Korean War entry mentions the honour from that conflict. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:Op-Ed

Sorry for the delay, I've been working on the 2015 Fort Bliss shooting article and was frankly a little upset that neither of my two main page suggestions made the page. I'll get on this tomorrow probably since thats when I get back to my house since I like to do my thinking while on the desktop tower, so look for some progress on that in the next 24-36 hours. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Got it put together, but it needs a little spit and polish. Still, I hope its good enough for publishing in the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sure it'll be good as usual, Tom -- will have a look and ce when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani

You closed out the FAC for Steve Zakuani since it was sorely lacking. In the last week it as been expanded by almost 30% (word count), puffery has been cut, and there has been some general gnomish cleanup. If you get the chance, can you take a look to see if it is on the right track to renominate in the future?Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Will try to have a look this weekend. Pls feel free to ping me if I don't! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! No major rush or anything but I wanted to give it another go. Let me know if anything strikes you as a complete nonstarter.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi, sorry it took a while to look over. I think it’s certainly gotten better since it was last at FAC -- better balanced for one thing -- but I did see some expression that I felt could be improved. It could probably do with another pair of eyes on the prose -- have you tried to engage an independent copyeditor (ideally perhaps one who does a few sports articles) to have a go at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll run it by the FOOTY projct to see if I can get another set of eyes on it.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been pinged at Talk:Texas Revolution

Ian, I pinged you at Talk:Texas Revolution. Your input on a timeline turn around with a WPMH review would be appreciated.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks, responded there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugle

I really am sorry, I spent most of yesterday sleeping and/or in pain. Seem to have gotten over it now. I don't think it was anything major - it felt more like the volume control was turned up, so that minor discomforts were suddenly incredibly painful. Particular downside: I have three cats. They like sleeping on me. When you're highly pressure-sensitive, this becomes a big problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I can imagine! We have one cat and two labradors, but fortunately they all prefer sleeping on their own beds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Anyway, Bugle's tonight's goal. Will do my best. Hate illnesses. Still sleeping about 14 hours a day. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugle

Just in case there's any problems:

• File:Hendrik_Merkus_Baron_de_Kock_by_Cornelis_Kruseman.jpg
• File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia-1_Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg

and the set at

• Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Japanese_invasion_money_of_the_Netherlands_Indies_(gulden,_1942)

are the only MILHIST FPs for this month's bugle. December is always kind of dead. I'm going to add them to the showcase now, then Bugle. Had I realised how dead December was... this would have been done Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

If I haven't written anything incoherent in the Bugle, we're good to publish. I'll do what I can about the book review for next month, but it may push to March. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for this Adam, and I hope that you're on the mend Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Yep, tks Adam. Now we have those, and I've finished off the quarterly reviewing totals, I think we might be about ready to publish... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Jonas Vinther on Hitler and Cliftonian on the Rhodesia Regiment Interview: 2014 Military History Newcomer Award nominees Review essay: Nick-D on the Australian War Memorial Op-ed: TomStar81 on the birth of strategic bombing Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done!

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds to recognise your great work developing the No. 77 Squadron RAAF, No. 91 Wing RAAF, and No. 450 Squadron RAAF articles to A-Class status. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 02:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial PR

Hi Ian, as I already have something at PR, I am having an unofficial PR on the talk page of a subject you may be tempted by: Casino Royale (novel). The hoped for outcome is a trip to FAC (unless I get comments to the contrary!) No problems if you're tied up on other things tho. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Schro, I have spies everywhere, and have been watching participation with interest... ;-) Seriously, tks for asking, but with the talent involved already I might save myself for when it gets to FAC (as I'm sure it will) and recuse from coord duties to review. OTOH it's still on my watchlist from the GAN so if I spot something I really think needs my input I'll feel free to weigh in...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

That's great – even better, in fact, many thanks. Depending on how this one goes, I may try slowly working my way through the series, although some are more suitable than others for the level of in-depth examination needed at FA, but we'll see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		For completing 11 reviews during October–December 2014, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 22:45, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft section for Milhist Coordinators' Handbook

G'day Ian, I've started drafting a section about the Quarterly Reviewing Awards here. Could you have a look and add any information about the easiest ways to tally the reviews? I'm going to ask Nikki and Rupert to have look too. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tks PM, will have a look when I get a sec. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No. 300 Group

I first learned about this formation today as well. It explained some confusing stuff I've seen over the years about "joint" Australian-UK transport squadrons in 1945 as well - I never understood what they were, or what they were doing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

There you go -- good stuff! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to the Featured Articles Frank Headlam, No. 34 Squadron RAAF, Elwyn Roy King, No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, Roy Phillipps, 1940 Brocklesby mid-air collision, Henry Burrell (admiral), No. 1 Squadron RAAF, and Garnet Malley, all of which achieved FA status in 2014, you are hereby awarded this Featured Article Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

		The Epic Barnstar
		For your 2014 contributions to multiple history related articles you are hereby award this Epic Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history Wikiproject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

For your outstanding contributions to numerous aviation articles during 2014 you are hereby awarded the WikiWings. For the Military history Wikiproject, TomStar81 (Talk) 06:41, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm overwhelmed -- tks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Hey Ian. Been very busy since the start of the new month, but will review your article tomorrow when I'll have a lot of time for Wikipedia. Best, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF

The article No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF

Just doin' me job mate ;) Nice article. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FAC

Hey Ian,

Can you give some sort of advice as how to get Falcon's Fury a census? I've been losing faith in the FAC process; I will nominate it one more time but after that I'm giving up all efforts to get any articles I work on to FA status. --Dom497 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

I understand the frustration, but you've successfully taken articles to FA before, so you know it's doable! I mentioned at the Falcon's Fury FAC some time before archiving that it was perfectly acceptable to ping previous reviewers of the article with neutrally worded requests for re-reviews. It'd also be fine to let reviewers of related articles (like SheiKra) know that there is an open FAC on a similar subject (e.g. "A while ago you commented on the SheiKra FAC -- there's another article on an amusement park ride that you might also like to review at FAC, namely..."). Neutrally worded requests for comment at related projects is also an acceptable method for getting eyes on a FAC. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Valentine Greets!!!

Valentine Greets!!!

Hello Ian Rose, love is the language of hearts and is the feeling that joins two souls and brings two hearts together in a bond. Taking love to the level of Wikipedia, spread the WikiLove by wishing each other Happy Valentine's Day, 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 love on the eve, Happy editing,  - T H (here I am) 12:06, 13 February 2015 (UTC) Spread the love by adding {{subst:Valentine Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Cucurbita FAC

FAC review seems to be a very slow process. I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure how this works. Cucurbita is now almost at the bottom of the list. People who said they'd review haven't done so. People who started never finished. When it's at the very bottom for some time, what happens? Does it fail for lack of reviews or what? HalfGig talk 13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

It's okay to leave neutrally worded requests for review at project or user talk pages. You might try Casliber, who writes and reviews many biology articles. Also have you pinged Sasata about finishing the review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

I've pinged Sasata twice. I'll try Casliber. Thank you. HalfGig talk 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugle

Done, but are there really no FAs? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Prob'ly are, am doing those today - tks as ever for prompt attention, Adam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I'd apologise for being a little slow, but if I'm done before you are... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Announcements Page

Rm promoted FA -- not sure if MilHistBot should be doing this but it's had time I think...

The problem was with Wikipedia:Peer review/Exilant Technologies/archive1 - a peer review of a non-existent article. I have told the Bot to ignore these in future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks for that Hawkeye -- BTW is the bot supposed to create placeholders for promoted FAs (and indeed other Featured Content) in the previous month's Bugle articles page, the way it does for promoted ACRs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

No, the MilHistBot only handles A class articles; the FACBot handles Featured Articles. I will add to the FACBot's task list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Okay, tks. The reason I thought MilHistBot might do it is that's project-specific, but I realise it's got to be triggered by an event and that event has to do with FAC, so whichever way is easiest for you -- very grateful for the way your stuff is automating time-consuming processes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/News/March_2015/Articles

As I somewhat expected, February's going to be a much busier month for Milhist FPs than January was. Tempted to put a couple early February FPs into the January report to help balance it out. What do you think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Not too fussed -- Feb looks okay to me as it is now, anyway. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 24, 2015

Hey Ian, I forgot to ask at the time ... why did we remove the rank and "Sir" before Blamey but not before any of the other people mentioned? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

(I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 5, 2015 in particular.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Hmm, yes, spot the inconsistency... ;-) I was proceeding from the understanding that we didn't use ranks, honorifics or post-nominals to introduce the subject, i.e. we just used the name. I wasn't around when that guideline was decided, but went with it as I assumed it was to save space. One would similarly assume, however, that the same rule should be applied to other military personnel mentioned in the lead, e.g. Monash, so just call that an oversight... :-P To be honest, I think we should just use commonsense and consistency. There's never a need to use post-noms for anyone in a blurb, but it could be argued that it helps to use rank and "Sir" as applicable, consistently. OTOH we could say that anyone with an article in WP and therefore linked (especially someone as famous as Nelson, who's mentioned in the 5 March TFA) shouldn't desperately need the rank and honorific if it helps save space. I guess what I'm saying is that consistency matters more to me, not whether we use rank/honorific or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on the British Pacific Fleet Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the advent of chemical warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review

Nobody seems to have responded to my request a week ago for a source review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1, which is rather disappointing. What do you suggest? Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll do it at some point in the next few hours. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

That's very kind of you, thank you. I'll work my way through your list of issues. Prioryman (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) FAC

I just wanted to let you know that you closed this nomination before this user could review my work on his comments.--Earthh (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, I did take that into account when making my closing comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC status

Cwmhiraeth has done a source and paraphrase check. I think that now all the points you brought up in your "coord notes" section have been covered. Plus Dudley has done a regular since then. Please let me know if there are other things that need done. Thank you. HalfGig talk 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Tks, will probably walk through the older FACs in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello Ian, Cwmhiraeth did a detailed spotcheck, the definition of each check is probably still confusing sometimes :). I have checked the sources for formatting problems, all look OK. The missing "subscription" templates are a trivial cleanup point - which has been fixed already. GermanJoe (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Main editor

I left a question about who is a main editor on the talk of Laurence Olivier. Is the main author someone who rewrites an article which existed for years and eliminates info that was in for many years (from 2006, to be precise) because he doesn't like it? I miss respect for those who created the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)