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

Ping!

We now have three supports at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Horse Protection Act of 1970/archive1. I think that means it's time for a FAC delegate to take a peek and close/promote? Just FYI. Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:10, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Now, with a totally different team of co-noms, there is also Oxbow (horse) up as well. We have four supports and a fifth with all issues addressed, waiting for them to verify. Of note, Nikkimaria has reviewed and supported, "pending spotchecks" if the delegates request them. Care to peek? Montanabw^(talk) 20:56, 7 July 2013 (UTC) Follow up: Fifth supporter signed off. I think it's ready for you. Montanabw^(talk) 22:56, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

I think Froggerlaura and I have addressed your comments. Let us know if we have more work to do. I also made a few content edits for style and flow, reviewing the wikilinks drew my eye to some punctuation and awkward prose I wanted to tweak, hope all is OK. Montanabw^(talk) 21:41, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the promotion to FA! Much appreciated! Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Pony!
Congratulations! For promoting Oxbow (horse) to FA, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 22:36, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

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

DYK for No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

Orlady (talk) 16:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

		Military history service award
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your contributions to the WikiProject's June 2013 backlog reduction drive, I hereby award you this Military history WikiProject award. Anotherclown (talk) 12:56, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:05, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive1

Hi Ian, I've archived this after an email request from Drmies. Is there anything else that needs to be done beyond adding the template and removing it from the main FAC page? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:05, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

I have moved the transclusion to here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Archived nominations/July 2013. Graham Colm (talk) 20:16, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graham, much appreciated. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 20:17, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Alan McNicoll FAC

Hi Ian. I have an FAC delegate query I wanted to run past you, if that is okay? Alan McNicoll has been at FAC for a month and a half now and, despite two supports and no outstanding issues or comments, has not attracted attention of any kind since its last review (by you, that is) on 12 June. Considering the review is so close to gaining the required support, yet edging closer and closer to potential closure due to the time it has been open, I am of course anxious to try and get a few editors to have a look and possibly review the article. I was thinking of leaving a note on the talk pages of the editors who reviewed the article for A-Class to see if they would be interested in having a look. However, I wasn't sure if such a thing was okay or a giant no-no, so wanted to run it by you first. Other than that, I'm not sure what I can do. I have already posted a note to Milhist, but that didn't work unfortunately. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Brice. On this one I've of course recused myself from delegate duties since I'm reviewing (and supporting), so as courtesy I'm going to ping my fellow delegates who'll have to make the decision on closing it at some stage anyway. That said, there's no rule against letting previous reviewers of an article know (in a completely neutral manner of course, and all of them not simply the supportive ones) that it's nominated for FAC. In this case, however, your current reviewers/supporters are MilHist people, and those who reviewed previously are MilHist people, so the other delegates would probably like to see a non-MilHist review for balance (I tend to, and you'll find me holding road, video game, milhist, etc, noms open expressly because they've only had reviews by project people; it's not that I regard the like-minded as suspect -- on the contrary, I value their expert opinion -- but we should have other eyes to at least check general readability, jargon, esoteria, etc). For the moment, then, I'd say it's fine to leave notes for previous reviewers. As for a non-project one, well, I've just found as a delegate that when I leave a note on FAC noms that I'd like to see an "outsider" reviewing, such people seem to pop out of the woodwork, and perhaps that will occur this time. In any case, the other delegates will make the call on whether that's necessary or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:12, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. Of course, but I figured you'd be able to point me in the right direction at least. :) The only issue is that the article has not really received any exposure outside of Milhist. As you were the one who reviewed it for GA, the four editors who reviewed it for A-Class are primarily Milhist editors, and aside from the source review all comments thus far during the FAC have been from Milhist editors, there has been a rather limited audience. I would greatly appreciate a review or two from editors outside of the project, but it would be rather poor form for me to harass random editors for such. I'll wait off notifying the A-Class reviewers until Ucucha and Graham have weighed in, to see what they think. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:40, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• (talk page stalker) Have you tried reviewing other people's noms? There are editors who will take a quasi-tit-for-tat approach: if you review theirs, they'll review yours. Not necessarily support, mind you, but they will review. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:21, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, Crisco. I've reviewed four or five FACs during the time the above has been under review, partly to repay reviewers for their efforts in looking at one of mine and partly in a subconscious attempt to gain a reciprocal review, but haven't gained much success with that so far. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:55, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ah, now that does bite. I'll see if I can do something this week, but I'm technically MilHist as well (I'm a member, but 99% of my articles are well outside that project's scope... case in point). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:01, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

• Ucucha and Graham will make the final call but I think you're distant enough from the regular MilHist crowd to count as independent, Crisco...;-) At the very least, you have no prior involvement as a GA or A-Class reviewer of the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:41, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Sorry to be a pain again. Crisco has kindly reviewed the article and, during the process, completed an image check. As is always the case, the post-1945 images have been questioned. As someone who has kept abreast of the image debates over the last couple of years and is thus likely to know where to point to, I was wondering if you'd mind popping over and having a look? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:20, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

• I've also left a question for you, Ian, although it's more of a question about loopholes than anything else. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
  • Heh, it's always nice to be wanted -- will stop by shortly... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:13, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Courtesy note

Hi Ian, I've started an RFC on proposed adjustments to the governance of the featured-article forums. Tony (talk) 11:22, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:50, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

Request for nom permission

My Garden Warbler has three supports, no opposes or outstanding issues, is it premature to throw Pacific Swift to the wolves? Thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 12:17, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

I spoke too soon, new comments, please ignore above for now Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:04, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

DYK for North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

The DYK project (nominate) 08:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

Proper ping

per #Ping! above, Oxbow (horse) appears to be ready for your review and potential promotion to FA at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxbow (horse)/archive1 when it arrives in the proper spot in your work queue. Thanks Montanabw^(talk) 19:29, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I may have delayed the bot by upgrading the project assessment, I removed that, is that all that's needed to get the FA bot to update the talk page, add the star, etc.??? Mea culpa if something got screwed up... bot was slow to begin with and I got impatient... Montanabw^(talk) 22:41, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Source check

Hey Ian, I requested a source check on the talk page of Wikipedia Featured Artcle Candidates. But, no one has yet reviewed the sources. Would you pls, ask an experienced source reviewer to review it. Thanks.—Prashant 03:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Potential source reviewers do watch those announcements and I expect one of them will get to it before too long; it's only been a couple of days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl FAC

I see 5 articles were promoted today, but not Drowning Girl FAC, which has 3 supports, an image check and a source check in its 30 day under review. What gives? Can I nominate Whaam! now? I am working towards a 9/28 50th anniversary for that work and would like to get the FAC started.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:23, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

This was posted during the night down here but I see Graham has responded, and I agree with him. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

Since you are a participant at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!‎, I am informing you that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1 is now open.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:16, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Drowning Girl at WP:FOUR and Whaam! at A-Class

I noticed this edit. It was curious, but it seemed like you were going to award the FOUR. However, you have made no edits since. What is going on? Also, why did you close Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam! yesterday? Is there a policy against an article being at FAC and MILHIST A-Class?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:08, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re. first question, the instructions are to remove the nom statement before making the award (which incidentally I made before you posted this message) so I'm not sure why the impatience... ;-) Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

If you award a FOUR award and it is either the first for the nominator or the 10th or higher, edits also need to be made at Wikipedia:Four Award.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Well, I think the addition you've just made to the instructions will certainly help avoid any omissions in future... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Re. second question, since FA 'trumps' A-Class, what would be the point of running ACR and FAC for the same article simultaneously? It's no different to ensuring an article has no GAN or PR running when it's nominated for FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

The point would have been to get MILHISAT recognition. The A-Class review was a month old and would have likely concluded before FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 12:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

No, it's never worked that way, at least not in my memory -- everyone in MilHist (and in other projects with ACR as far as I'm aware) waits for the ACR to complete before nominating at FAC. The last time someone nominated at FAC while their article was still at MilHist ACR, we archived the ACR immediately as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

O.K. my mistake. Well it could have taken another 5 weeks just to get an A-Class and this needs to be promoted to FA by early September to be WP:TFA-eligible in time for the 50th anniversary. FA is what is important now.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:37, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Norman conquest of England

Hasn't gotten its bright shiny star... Ealdgyth - Talk 12:23, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I can assure you the article's still FA though... ;-) Yeah, the bot seems to be on strike, I believe they've been notified... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:31, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot does seem very slow of late..Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 19:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the other coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I'm very pleased to present you with this medal in recognition of your work in developing the No. 84 Wing RAAF, Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, and William Hely articles to A-class standard - thanks also for writing the sections of the C-130 article which reviewers didn't complain about in the FAC! Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks Nick! Heh, if more reviewers complained about your stuff then it was only because you supplied more of the article's info than I did -- IOW I'm sure it was only proportional... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:57, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

New incarnation

Just so you know at FAC I'm the artist formerly known as Dr. Blofeld. Am editing under this account at least for the near future.Tibetan Prayer ^᧾ 19:10, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Tks -- peace and blessings be upon your new incarnation... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

North-Eastern Area Command GA1

Gday Ian. Just letting you know I've added the review here: Talk:North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)/GA1. When you get a chance pls have a look at my comments. Apologies for the delay I was called out of town for a while. Anotherclown (talk) 19:41, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob -- replied/actioned. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

I-496

Interstate 496 received a spotcheck at its ACR, like all newly promoted articles coming out of the Highway/USRD projects. Imzadi 1979 → 05:38, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Source spotcheck and source review are not the same thing, despite the apparent similarity of terms. "Source spotchecks" are to try and determine how accurately sources have been employed without copyvio or close paraphrasing. "Source reviews" are about reference formatting and reliability; this is an example. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:43, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

TCN7JM did one already, although it is his first. All of the sources come from AP/UPI wire stories, state or federal highway agency documents/maps, a book published by the former chief archivist of the State of Michigan, the local newspapers and a TV station doing original investigative reporting or human interest pieces, or a pamphlet from the Michigan Historical Center. Imzadi 1979 → 06:28, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

• It is absolutely harmless to have a second or third opinion on sources, so I don't see why you are arguing against another at FAC so much. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Ian,

Thank you for your advice with regards to the 2012 tour of She Has a Name FAC; it was good to see the article go up on the main page. I have had another FAC up for just under a month now and, while there has been a fair bit of discussion and I believe that all actionable objections have been resolved, only two editors have given their explicit support for the promotion. Of the seven editors who have contributed to the discussion, two have supported, one has decided to abstain, and four have no outstanding concerns but have neither supported nor declined. Of those remaining four, I know that at least one has simply been away from Wikipedia since their initial comments. Is the current level of support sufficient? If not, would you recommend that I contact the editors who have already commented to request that they make their stance explicit, or should I simply encourage more editors to contribute to the discussion? Any advice you are willing to provide would be greatly appreciated.

Neelix (talk) 18:58, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

I was glad to see the When God Writes Your Love Story FAC close as "promote". It has been almost a week since the promotion, and the bot has still not processed the close. Is that normal?

Neelix (talk) 21:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi, and sorry for not replying to your previous message, though perhaps that was because the article was promoted not long after you posted. The bot usually goes though in a couple of days and has been working lately but looks like it is missing the odd one or two (including one of my own, William Hely, see alert below) -- I'll mention it to the bot gurus. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for speaking to the bot gurus on this subject. It looks like the bot has processed the William Hely article now, but has not yet gotten around to the When God Writes Your Love Story article. Is there anything I can do to help make this happen? Neelix (talk) 02:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Earlier today I followed up my talk page messages to the guys with an email to one of them, so I think we just give him a chance to respond (as he has on previous occasions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:07, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

I would like to submit this article for a TFA slot. Should I wait for the bot to go through before nominating this article at TFA? Neelix (talk) 14:55, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Still no response to my last email re. the bot, somewhat unusually. As far as TFA goes, best check with Bencherlite as the process delegate. If worst comes to worst we can perform the bot's tasks manually before the day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Email?

Hi Ian, I just recieved an odd looking email from your account with nothing but some odd text and a link to a URL - I fear that your account may have been hacked. If so, I hope the damage isn't too bad. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:42, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Me too and many others here. Graham Colm (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Yep, that's how it looks -- I certainly can't remember giving my password to anyone in Bulgaria... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Might not be a bad idea to disable wiki mail for a bit if you've been hacked. (Unsolicited advice). Victoria (talk) 00:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Ugh. So now we know the email addys of the entire Wiki :) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Panic in Detroit

hello Ian. Why did you revert my edits in this article? The whole album is classified as glam in the articles about the songs so why not this one. And have you ever heard Panic in Detroit? It's maybe the most typical glam rock song on the album. Just listen to it. And almost all the songs of Bowie from 1971 to 1974 is called glam in their articles. Far from all of them really is typical for this genre. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.157.72.4 (talk) 12:54, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

I've owned the album for about 30 years, so I know it quite well. You may be confusing image and musical style. The album belongs to Bowie's glam rock period but it's an eclectic blend of Stones-style rockers, latin, R&B, cabaret, and other styles. This is not simply my opinion but that of many critics. "Panic"'s basic beat predates glam by almost 20 years, going back to Bo Diddley in the '50s, which is why simply "rock" is a more appropriate label. By the way, if you want to hold a conversation, why not get yourself a user ID so I have something to call you -- no need to be scared, I'm quite polite... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Doubt

Ian, are you sure that the Uruguayan War FAC nomination was closed correctly? It has been almost ten days and the bot hasn't archived it. --Lecen (talk) 19:15, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Bot issues. See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#VoxelBot. Ealdgyth - Talk 19:50, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Ealdgyth. --Lecen (talk) 21:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Graham

Hi Ian, I won't be available from August 16 to September 16. I will be traveling around north India and the foothills of the Himalayas. I hope you're not planning to be away at the same time. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 20:43, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Shouldn't be a prob, if I'm away this year it shouldn't be before October. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Werner Voss

G'day, cobber,

I should like to ask a couple of favors from you. I would like you to look at the above and recommend any changes/improvements for its betterment. If you should happen to assess it as a "B" level article at the same time, my feelings wouldn't be hurt.

Many thanks,Georgejdorner (talk) 17:42, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Rather than recommend I've just done everything I think was necessary, hopefully not so much that it precludes me independently assessing as B-Class, since I finished up by doing just that. Of course feel free to let me know it I've stuffed anything up or you feel things were better before. Nice work anyway! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Wow and gazow! Way beyond expectations...many thanks.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:17, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

---

Talkback

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Talk:Battle of Kupres (1994).
Message added 16:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Request

Could you please respond to my request here? Thank you. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Australia's frontier wars Interview: What Wikimedia chapters can offer military history editors

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) 15:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

CVA

Apologies for my breach of etiquette at the Alkan FA page, and thanks for your assurance.--Smerus (talk) 08:36, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:55, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

God of War II FAC

Hi, just curious, is this soon to be promoted? --JDC808 ♫ 03:26, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

I was waylaid while walking through the article but at this stage I expect to promote shortly, yes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. --JDC808 ♫ 05:27, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Concerning assessment

G'day, cobber,

Spot of trouble here. I want to submit Werner Voss for A-Class review. I followed the assessment instructions and posted the template on the Talk page as "A-Class=current" and waited for the magic "currently undergoing" popup to appear...which it didn't. After chuntering about through the various help links and not finding a solution, I have turned to the Aussie godfather of WP aviation for help.

Can you show me what I did wrong in this process? I should like to learn it, as I have some more articles I would like to promote.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:03, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate. If you unhide the MilHist project banner on the talk page I think you'll see "currently undergoing" there in red. Click on that and you open a nomination page that you fill in and save. That said, I'd suggest going for Good Article Nomination first. Even though I think Voss could probably make it through A-Class, GAN is a useful first step (I probably wouldn't do the GAN review because I was involved in the B-Class assessment and would like to see someone else's perspective on it, but if/when it gets to A-Class I'll definitely try to comment there). Just a suggestion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:01, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

---

I rummaged through everything, in edit view and in plain view, before messaging you, searching for that key to the nomination page. Now another editor has been editing the banners, so I looked again. Still no luck. This A-Class nomination process is such a pain in the ass I think I will give up the effort.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:13, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

---

Toes

Ian, I hope I'm not stepping on any toes, but Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tales of Graces/archive1 was withdrawn by the nominator a few days ago, so I removed and archived it. Back in the day (which was a Tuesday, by the way) before I was a delegate, I and a couple others used to do these maintenance tasks occasionally to help out Sandy. --Laser brain (talk) 13:56, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

No objections at all, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Djaoeh Dimata/archive1 looks to be essentially done. Could I nominate something before it is promoted? Boenga Roos dari Tjikembang shouldn't be too much of a burden on the queue. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:42, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I'll be reviewing a few noms for possible promotion tonight in any case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:56, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:57, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

FYI, I will agree to a WP:CONSENSUS determined at an RFC after User:Rjanag gets back to me with some statistics on the project. I understand that it will take at least a week after he creates the new category to have the data. I am drafting the RFC here. You can follow along.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 08:14, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Good-oh. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Apr-Jun 2013, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 10:11, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers Rupert! Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

FAS

Hey, Ian, I'm so glad to see you updating FAS! But there's an error somewhere: [1] I don't have time to track it down ... perhaps a removal, perhaps an error at WP:FA, or perhaps a missing promotion (was it 36 or 37?) Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I tried to locate the error but gave up ... Gimmebot used to check the tally monthly to make sure it was right. Besides the missing Gimme, two things are making it very hard to check the page: a) Graham adds new FAs in a separate edit from updating the tally, and; b) several delegates sort old entries at the same time they add new entries. If we had Gimmebot, he would determine easily if the error is in the total number of elsewhere ... without GimmeBot, someone could put them all into a spreadsheet and count them, or alternately, go diff by diff through July until the error is found. Out of time, but it's important to be sure the page is accurate ... Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:43, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

I don't have time to check right now either but there's definitely 37 promotions in July's log and none of them looked suspect to me. Will have to check edits/total in WP:FA later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:20, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

On first glance could be something to do with the redirect of Military career of Ian Smith to Military service of Ian Smith, will have to check further. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

OK, that was it, it is sorted now ... have other redirects been put in archives? That shouldn't be happening ... getting name changes right at FAC is a challenge, and Gimme set up articlehistory so that it could handle name changes and this wouldn't happen, but nominators mess it up. If there are other redirects in archives, then archives will be wrong ... I 'spose I shouldn't worry any more about this, but we always kept very clean records ... :/ ... So, that FAC hasn't been botified, but then most aren't any more anyway ... so ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:27, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

No, don't you worry, you've earned a rest... ;-) I'll review the archives for the past year or so and see what turns up; just checked WP:FA and the actual number of articles seems to be out by one from the total given at the top (3,979 actual as opposed to the reported 3,980 -- could be worse I suppose!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC))

William Hely

G'day Ian, something needs doing on the talk page, as it is not showing as FA. Bot should have run by now, surely... I'm marking it as checked in the July contest, but you might want to follow up. Regards, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate, I noticed a coupla' days ago the article history wasn't updated but haven't had a chance to investigate -- will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

RMAS Melbourne

Would you be able to explain why, as part of your recent edit to the above article, you appear to have reverted my edit? My change was within policy and justified, so I can see no valid reason for its reversion. I assume that this was a simple mistake, but in so doing, you reverted the sentence in question to a version which does not make grammatical sense. I would be glad if you could correct your error, or let me know that I can do so without further reversion. Thanks. 188.220.73.163 (talk) 17:40, 7 August 2013 (UTC) (aka. Adrian M.H.)

Hi Adrian, I think the main prob with that sentence (and your edit highlighted it to me) was two instances of "during". In my experience, "which" is a somewhat overused word. I don't see that it's necessary where you used it and, in any case, it would usually be preceded by a comma. If you insist on a word there then "that" would be better, but even that (!) seems a bit superfluous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for replying. I can assure you, however, that it is not superfluous. Part of the problem, which seems almost as widespread among WP articles as it is in other contemporary media, is that many people seem to think that complementisers are not necessary to clarify meaning and maintain good grammar. Yet they frequently are necessary to meaning and correct grammar, and this was the case in the article in question. "Which" is the correct word in that context, rather than "that", because it ties the noun to the active verb. Anyway; I shall not bother to change it again if you really want it that way and shall put it down to cultural variation. 188.220.73.163 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Article Alerts bot

G'day Ian, I'm wondering if we need to chat with the Article Alerts bot guys about the A-Class results, some of those articles should have shown up in the bot run last evening (Australian time), but didn't. Do you think that might be the problem? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:27, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I have to admit I don't use Article Alerts myself, I watchlist the A-Class assessment page and the tasks template so if someone puts something in one spot I can cross-check it's in the other. OTOH, that's the most out-of-sync I've seen them yet... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I've left them a message anyway in the hope they can work out what is going on. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:44, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Sounds fair. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Perseus (constellation)

Hi Ian, I still have a few concerns, which I have raised at the FAC a few moments ago. Graham Colm (talk) 05:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:27, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you! (consider it a cute trout)

Meh, i was still typing at the FAC for Takhiagiin_Elbegdorj.
But no worries, just copied it to talk - see Talk:Tsakhiagiin_Elbegdorj (agree with your close).

GermanJoe (talk) 08:47, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, thanks -- I know I don't usually go through the FAC list during the working week but it's damn long and there's a fair few that are ripe for closure... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Yeah 70+ is quite the list to work on. If you need quick image reviews for something to finish, just let me know. GermanJoe (talk) 09:04, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

• Great -- based on my run-through so far tonight, I've added one image check request to WT:FAC and there may be more to come... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Pending your action

As Stone Mountain Memorial half dollar seems in good shape, is there objection to my moving ahead and nominating Eisenhower dollar?--Wehwalt (talk) 14:31, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

I was trying to think of a smart-alack remark about loose change and deep pockets but it's getting past my bedtime down here... Anyway, feel free. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah. Two-cent piece, which you could have put in, is third or fourth in line. Thanks for that.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:53, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi

Just thought I'd let you know that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10 has 7 supports and 0 opposes. All media and source checks have been done and dusted.  — ₳aron 18:10, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

I note Graham has actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Diamonds (Rihanna song)/archive1

Hey Ian! Can you revise the nomination please? Thank you. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 10:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Hey, I'll be going through various noms for closure later today, this one among them. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice script! There are definitely no more overlinks. Thanks! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 14:37, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

4000th FA

You should probably mention the 4000th FA milestone at WP:POST, WT:FA and WT:FAC.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/WP:FOUR/WP:CHICAGO/WP:WAWARD) 16:01, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Heads up

Hamiltonstone responded to your comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parity of zero/archive2; I'm not sure you saw. ceranthor 22:40, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, did see that, tks -- will look over again this weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Post-nom template

Sire, Your smallest wish is my command! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you, my friend -- that's an improvement (although I'd have thought a "delimiter=comma" parameter or something similar would be more elegant than having to type the commas in)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Ah ha! So you spotted the deliberate error!

Yes, I agree, but I couldn't get that to work. i.e. it was a trade-off between an inelegant solution that works, and an elegant solution that doesn't work, and "copy & paste" has been in my "toolkit" since well before the days when MS Windows went WYSIWYG. (Yes, I know - showing my age again ... ) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:12, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR

Hi, this is a note to inform you that a page in which you have previously shown interest, WP:FOUR, has been nominated for deletion. Your comments would be appreciated. Thank you! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:33, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Tks, commented there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

How are concerns about neutrality and accurate uses of source "non-actionable under FA criteria"?

I'm puzzled by your comments on the Jesus FAC. One of the FA criteria is neutrality, and the objections I raised were primarily aimed at neutrality. They are normal objections (within a non-normal subject), and actionable in the usual way. Sources that aren't predisposed to one side can be supplemented or replaced with more neutral sources. More balanced representation of the various views can be added. Some of my objections had to do with flat out misrepresentation of sources. If that's not actionable, Wikipedia should shut down right now. It's not helpful (for example, doesn't help me improve future FAC contributions) to just dismiss objections as "not actionable." Strangesad (talk) 04:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way but it appeared to me when judging consensus, as it appeared to the other reviewers, that your idea of neutrality is to put in more information and sources to support a fringe theory, which is not what WP is about. I say that having some sympathy at a personal level for the myth position, being an intransigent, though not militant, atheist (to borrow Ayn Rand's phrase). The bottom line is that the article as a whole appeared balanced to me, as it did to a long list of reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

I said absolutely nothing at all about supporting a fringe theory. I said, repeatedly, that I don't think Jesus never existed. I said, repeatedly, none of my suggestions have anything to do with whether Jesus really existed. I said, over and over, that the concerns were with sourcing not the content. None of the sources are peer-reviewed. All are popular books. The sources are dominated by priests, ministers, and publishing houses with a stated mission of promoting jesus. They, themselves, say so. My suggestion was to find more sources that aren't inherently bound to a certain conclusion. My suggestion was to improve compliance with RS policy.

Of course the "mythicist" view will be considered a fringe theory when the majority of sources are predisposed to believe in Jesus as their savior. That was the point of my suggestions to improve the article. It is a much stronger debunking of the mythicist view to have non-biased sources

The source most widely accepted as credible by every editor on the article is Bart Ehrman. Bart Ehrman said, in the exact same source that is already used in the article, that "bona fide scholars" doubt the existence of Jesus. Ehrman said some mythicst arguments are "intelligent and well-informed." A fringe theory is intrinsically not something considered intelligent, well-informed, and bona fide by a reliable source.

One what grounds could you possibly consider something a fringe theory, when your only sources are precisely those being questioned? What is your basis for considering anything about this article a fringe theory? It seems like taking a position on the content.

I said the article flatly misrepresents what the sources say. That's a factual matter, and essential to the question of whether this is a FA-quality article. Do you care whether it's true, or just whether the mere concern can be construed as "promoting a fringe theory"? Did you even check sources to see whether it is true that the article misrepresents them? Do you actually know or not?

"the main thrust of the process is to generate and resolve critical comments in relation to the criteria, and why such resolution is given considerably more weight than declarations of support." There was no effort to resolve critical comments whatsoever, and they did not receive "more weight than declarations of support.". Strangesad (talk) 02:49, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• As a card carrying apatheist (portmanteau much?), I have a single question for you: do you have any sources from "bona fide scholars" that note the Christ myth theory or other Jesus-denials as mainstream, or do they recognise that their views are in the minority? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:09, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

I'm not the one making any claims about "bona fide scholars." A reliable source is. I'm not saying the mythicists are right. I'm saying our representation of them is misleading. We represent the mythicist view as "Christians made the whole thing up", and many mythicists don't hold that view. My suggestion for improving the article is to make it accurate, fair, and balanced. I really can't imagine what is so hard to understand about this. Saying an article is biased towards X does not mean you are against X. It is an editorial opinion, That is exactly the kind of opinion we are supposed to have. Yet, the community seems intellectually incapable of accepting that an editor could object to "pro-Jesus" (for lack of a better term) sourcing without objecting to a "pro-Jesus" view. Strangesad (talk) 03:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• I don't recall asking your own standing anywhere in my reply. Let's try that again. You are complaining about a "pro-Jesus" bias in the Jesus article, one which (seemingly) you think could be remedied by including sources which most of the editors of the Jesus article consider fringe. You insist they are not fringe. Do you have any "bona fide scholars", as opposed to the "popular books ... dominated by priests, ministers, and publishing houses with a stated mission of promoting jesus" (or, rather, in this case, saying Jesus was mythological), who consider their views mainstream? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:40, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

That is not my view and I've said so about a million times. Nowhere have I said that we need more sources saying Jesus was mythological. I've said we need more sources that are peer-reviewed (in this case, a single one would be more than we have). We need more sources that are historians; we have a lot of religion scholars, yet this is not a religious question. We need a lower proportion of sources that will never, ever conclude Jesus is a myth because it is against their religion to do so. I don't care what the sources say. I've said this a million times.

We also need to represent the sources we do have accurately. The section on the "argument from silence" misrepresents what the sources say. Apparently, fraudulence in sourcing doesn't violate the FA criteria. Strangesad (talk) 04:05, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

• "That is not my view..." and yet you return to "We need a lower proportion of sources that will never, ever conclude Jesus is a myth because it is against their religion to do so" (emphasis mine). Mixed messages much? Also, where are the sources I've asked you for, twice already? Sources you'd think useful, at the very least? Proof of "fraudulence"? Where? Ian, I'm beginning to think you were right to consider this editor's comments unactionable; I'm seeing a lot of heat without any light (rather, I'm seeing a lot of heat and an all-enveloping darkness... here be dragons). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 04:21, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

The sources you asked for are not sources I said the article needs. A source who agrees with me, but is religiously biased, is not a good source. Objecting to sourcing has nothing to do with objecting to the source's view. How many times does this need to be said? As for the proof of misrepresentation of sources: it is in the sources, which I quoted in the FAC. Strangesad (talk) 04:32, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Question on FA nominations

Hi Ian Rose, I'm the main author/nominator of Stanley Bruce and this is my first time nominating something for FA status. I'm a bit lost on the nomination process because a lot of articles nominated after me have a lot more reviews/consensus being built but mine seems relatively untouched, though I've been diligent as I can fixing identified problems. I've realized now there is no set work order for the nominations and people review as they please, so does that mean I should be soliciting reviews from senior/knowledgeable types from around Wikipedia? I'm just worried my nomination will lapse for lack of consensus, which would be a shame after all the work I've put in. Unus Multorum (talk) 07:41, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, it's a bit surprising there's been so little interest. I'm assuming there was no Peer Review, whose participants you could request to join the FAC commentary. If you haven't done so already, there's no reason you shouldn't put some neutrally worded notices on project talk pages such as WT:MILHIST or WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Request for a favour

G'day, Ian, I'm thinking of taking 15th Battalion (Australia) to A-class review. Before I do, though, I'd like someone who isn't so close to the topic to take a look. Would you mind taking a look and letting me know if it all makes sense? Any tweaks would be most welcome, too, of course. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Do my best, although I have FAC and Bugle commitments this w/e so unfortunately can't promise. Looks like Dan said yes, anyway... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:03, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

G'day, Ian, thanks for the review at ACR. I've made a couple of changes and will look to see if I can write something for the lead over the next few days. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:11, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, no hurry till you're ready to take it to FAC. BTW, I scanned Gordon Bennett. If you weren't planning to already, I think you should definitely take that to A/FA, although it needs a fuller lead as well of course. Happy to see the medal farm has disappeared too, referenced or unreferenced... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:54, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Cheers. Your comment spurred me to expand Bennett's lead a little. Hoping to take that one to GA soon, but waiting for a couple of extra sources. Also thinking about taking Raymond Leane to GAN some day (that one still needs a bit of work, though). Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:55, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive10

It hasn't been archived and the history hasn't been updated. Nominations promoted after this was promoted have already had the gold star put on the article.  — ₳aron 16:41, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the bot seems to have missed a few promoted around the same time, for some reason. Messages have been left with the bot maintainers; if they can't assist we may have to do things manually for those articles, we'll see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Great minds, I notice Maralia has kindly done so already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Ringo Starr FAC

In case you missed it. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I expect to go through the FAC list on the weekend, unless Ucucha gets to them first. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR RFC

There are two WP:RFCs at WP:FOUR. The first is to conflate issues so as to keep people from expressing meaningful opinions. The second, by me, is claimed to be less than neutral by proponents of the first. Please look at the second one, which I think is much better.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Werner Voss foulup

G'day, cobber,

Upon rereading the leadup to Voss being nominated for A Class review, I realize that I may seemed somewhat churlish in my comments concerning you. When I bemoaned the lack of aid from you, it was more in the sense of, "If Ian can't help me, then I am beyond help," rather than, "Ian has given up on me." If I gave the impression I felt shunned by you, I apologize profusely. Such was not my intent. Certainly, over the years, you have given me more aid than any other WP editor or administrator. For that, I am thankful.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:20, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

No problem -- I appreciate that. Glad it got there in the end -- I haven't forgotten I said I'd review it, hopefully will do so by the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:59, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for William Hely

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on William Hely. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:44, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the death of Osama bin Laden Op-ed: Sturmvogel_66 presents his secrets of prolific contribution

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) 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut FAC

Hello Ian, could you please archive the candidancy for that article? I don't think it will pass for now and i need to get a peer review to do some C/E. thanks a lot -Eli+ 10:55, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's done -- best of luck with the article in the future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:22, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :) -Eli+ 12:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Ribbons (again) (again) (again) ...

I should say "I'm sorry", but the fact is, I'm not. However, I am feeling somewhat guilty ...
I thought it only polite to warn you that I've conscripted you into a discussion. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:11, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Heh, thought it was only a matter of time... ;-) I'll join in when I can, tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

<grin>Hey! What can I say? You were right? (OK. You were right.) Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1

Have we addressed your concerns? (please reply there) --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for not responding sooner... Hard to see at a glance all that's been done as entire paragraphs have been shifted in places -- I'll aim to revisit this weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:34, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Editathon

Hi Ian, I hope you can come to this WWI editathon on 23 November. It will be an opportunity to get access to some of the less easily available resources of the State Library. The event would really benefit from the application of your editing skill and subject knowledge! Cheers, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 00:08, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 5 Service Flying Training School RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 5 Service Flying Training School 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 GA bot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Operational Training 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 GA bot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF

The article No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 02:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

No. 38 Squadron FAC

Hi Ian, Would you be interested in posting a review in the FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 38 Squadron RAAF/archive1? It's been open for a couple of weeks now and hasn't attracted many comments. Please post a critical review if you don't think that the article is up to scratch! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, don't worry, it's always been on my list... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Ian :) Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frank Headlam

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frank Headlam 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 GA bot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with the Never Let Me Down FA review?

Hi Ian, I've submitted this article for FA review and have addressed some concerns by one reviewer but am looking for more feedback so the article can be promoted (or not, I suppose). Would you mind taking a look and chiming in on anything you think needs addressing?The FA review page is here. Thank you! 87Fan (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Not so much

Don't know what it is about stacked images, but they rarely play nice with my setup...Nikkimaria (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've dropped the stack, wouldn't do it for anyone else... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:29, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Better, thanks Ian. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Frank Headlam

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Another A-class medal to recognise your fine work

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		On behalf of the other coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am very pleased to present you with this A-class medal with swords to acknowledge your success in developing the No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF, No. 33 Squadron RAAF, and Bobby Gibbes articles to A-class status. Please keep them coming! Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 7 September 2013 (UTC)