User talk:Ian Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
    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 * Jan-Jun 2015 * Jul-Dec 2015

Contents

2016 year of the reader and peace[edit]

2016
RyoanJi-Kane.jpg
peace bell

Thank you for for all you do for FA, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! Click on "bell" for celebratory music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I look forward to more of your music articles in 2016! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
On their way, women in music right now, TFA for Easter in the planning, GA right now. I am proud to have an article among the DYK for the 15th (had one for the 10th already), - sad reason that the subject died. Thanks (in prose) for the TFA No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, - flying and training are also good mottos ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
More thanks in prose for No. 77 Squadron RAAF "one of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out the service's air combat commitment to the Korean War", but not to forget much more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Tks Gerda, your good wishes for TFAs are always appreciated! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Here comes the next: John Balmer. I also had a TFA on 3 July because of a birthday once, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 July 3, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
You seem to be on TFA wings, No. 90 Wing RAAF, thank you! (My next one on Saturday, and writing BWV 161, informal look welcome.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Reger, Zwei Gesänge, Op. 144.jpg
16 July 2016
Thank you for the promotion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
... and for someone with your given name, Ian Dougald McLachlan! - For simple peace, and also, - needed after the shock of the Munich shootings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
... and for Alexander Pentland! - Did you see yesterday's, a composer with an infobox? I should have signed it 10 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 11:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

Wiki-stripe1.svg Military history service award
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamworth (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity[edit]

Give me your contact details and I will send you the 1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity. What you are doing is crazy because the 1969 version is from Bowie's first album and doesn't sound anything like the 1973 version that today would be known as a remix. If you cannot provide contact details then buy the album "Space Oddity". In fact, I think that both versions 1969 and 1973 were released on one of the Bowie compilation albums. But your removing that information is crazy. Dickie birdie (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked for a written reference in Google books and it does not exist in print. When the 1973 version was released it was never promoted as a re-recording because I was collecting Bowie's singles during the 1970s in my mid-20s. I only found out about it when I bought the album "Space Oddity". What are you going to do --- remove the information again because it does not appear anywhere in print and mislead people? Dickie birdie (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity Original Version - From Amazon[edit]

The original version can be bought and downloaded from Amazon, here [ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WLNVO4?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0]. The 1969 version is 3:46 long. The 1973 re-recorded version is 5:14 long. Dickie birdie (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dickie, it looks to me like you condemn yourself out of your own mouth -- the track available from Amazon appears to be a demo version of the song recorded for the Love You Til Tuesday film, not the original single release from 1969 produced by Gus Dudgeon, which also appeared on the 1969 David Bowie album and was reissued in 1973 and 1975. This is precisely why WP works by reliable sources, not anecdotal information. As well as ignoring that guideline, you've also failed to observe BRD, whereby you should Discuss after your Bold edit has been Reverted, not simply keep adding the same material over again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree, I made a mistake. But see message below, I have clarified what caused the confusion. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity - Solved[edit]

I have corrected the article after checking the David Bowie material uploaded on YouTube that gave the following:

1969 promotional film [[1]] and David Bowie - Space Oddity (Full Album 1969) [[2]]. Again, need to listen exclusively to the songs because what exists in print does not clarify the fact that these are 2 different songs. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the song was re-released at different times during the 1970s in different countries. Full details are given here. [[

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/david_bowie/space_oddity___changes___velvet_goldmine_f2/]] Dickie birdie (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC nominations[edit]

Hi Ian, I hope all is well, and a slightly belated happy new year to you. I've just posted this on Graham's page, but seen he is on a Wikibreak. As you will probably have seen, Tim riley and I have co-nominated Albert Ketèlbey‎ at FAC: although only five days old, it has five supports and one set of open comments which (I think) we've dealt with fully. I also have Isabella Beeton ready to go into the FAC process as a sole nominator. Are you happy if I nominate Beeton now, or would you rather I leave it for a little longer to see if any other large blocks of comment and criticism come along? There is no rush on putting Beeton up for FAC and I'm entirely happy to be guided by your thoughts on this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

HNY to you too Gav -- based on past performance and the current comments I doubt they'll be any issue with Ketelbey, but perhaps if we leave a new nomination till I clear a few around the end of the week since the list is on the long side right now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Ian, Not a problem at all - I'll give Beeton another couple of read throughs and a ce in the meantime to lessen the pain of the FAC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ANZAC[edit]

So, I've found what's apparently quite an iconic photo in New Zealand of the Maori Battalion. Thinking it would be a good ANZAC day FP, if I get it done in time, and that'd probably be different enough to get an Australian FA in the article list. Sound good? Adam Cuerden (talk) 13:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds very good! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie[edit]

If in arguing against BOLD you would "suggest discussion/consensus before any further change" then, by all means, jump right in. The "accepted for quite some time" image sucks even harder. Face-grin.svg 🖖ATinySliver/ATalkPage 03:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree with that last sentiment but I welcome further discussion on it and have now found time to have my say at the talk page... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit changes the assertion that people "have forgotten how to reproduce".People CANNOT forget how to reproduce. What has been lost in the post-apocalypse is the (as I stated) the notion of courtship. The ravers are watching romantic films, not pornography, with naive ideas of awkwardly shrugging, putting one's arms around someone, turning off lights, uncertainty, and love. Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops (talkcontribs) 02:22, 24 May 2016

As I said at the article talk page (where this discussion belongs), your interpretation isn't supported by the cited source; if you have a source that says something different to what's there, you can always add it as an alternative interpretation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Initial Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:AshesToAshes3.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AshesToAshes3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum[edit]

Although my own FAC, I request it be closed because it's been open for long. I don't care whether its a pass or fail, but based on the number of supports and opposes, you may close it. If the final outcome is "archived", please note what FA criteria was left unsolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd like to think we can resolve it one way or the other, and have left a note at the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubt[edit]

Hi, Ian. Why Juan Manuel de Rosas hasn't been promoted to FA? The nomination is three months old. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Things do get slow around Xmas / New Year; in this particular case though, has anyone conducted the source review I mentioned a while back? If not best put a note at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much, Ian. I didn't know we could ask for a review. I just did that. Have a great day, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
We're done with the source review! --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful resource[edit]

I just spotted that this newish RAAF publication has the first comprehensive order of battle for the force I've seen in years - including several new entries for List of Royal Australian Air Force wings! Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, ammunition with which to revisit/verify all the current wing articles -- tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
It also looks useful for all the new/renamed squadrons Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

help needed[edit]

dear mr rose, can you help us reach a conclusion on this long debate going on about freemasonry's goals please? [3] thank you much Grandia01 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2016/Articles[edit]

You might need to clean it up a little, but the FPs are done.

The only note is that I've presumed "Your Motherland Will Never Forget" will pass - It has five supports (a quorum) and no opposes, so it's almost certainly going to. There's nothing else that can pass in time to matter for January. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

The article No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA[edit]

Thank-you-word-cloud.jpg Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Some advice on FAC[edit]

Hey mate. I've began restoring "All I Want for Christmas Is You" to its former GA quality, and have been expanding it further to possibly nominate. I have only one concern, which is if you look at the bottom of the article, there's a long list section of celebrities, singers etc. that have covered the song over the years (live and on record). Mind you when I wrote this thing over 6 years ago, it was written out in text in a few paragraphs like "During a 1998 holiday appearance on TODAY, Shania Twain sang an acoustic version. the song was included on ""s" album in 2002" etc. it's repetitive and is gonna be a stumbling block either way. The list is pretty long lol. How do you suggest I present that section to the FAC process? Cheers bro. Ps. Maybe create a new article list page and expand on all the covers and be able to alleviate that messy burden off the main article--PeterGriffinTalk2Me 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm afraid I'm not up on the preferred layout for covers lists (FAC would usually defer to the song project's standards for such things, or you could check some recently promoted song FAs) but at the very least it passes the test of everything being cited (though I haven't checked the reliability of the sources). One thing on a quick scan of the article, I couldn't see a review/rating table, which seems to be standard for song and album articles, usually in the Critical Reception section from memory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support[edit]

Peace dove.svg Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas White (Australian politician)[edit]

The article Thomas White (Australian politician) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Thomas White (Australian politician) 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 Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Prashant/Krish![edit]

You, Cassianto and SchroCat may remember this editor from the Indian FACs such as Priyanka Chopra and her filmography I think and remember that he behaved extremely childishly and demonstrated basically that he didn't have the mentality for FAC or wikipedia in general. Years down the line, he continues to display absolutely no indication that he's growing up, and still acts the same way. Again his edit warring with Krimuk90 has resulted in Krimuk requesting an indefinite block for himself in frustration. This comment too in which he calls my fair attempt to mediate the situation at Talk:Shahid Kapoor "an outburst", blaming me for it all basically, which I also find most infuritating. What should we do about him? IMO he's demonstrated on enough occasions that he lacks the maturity to edit here and frequently clashes with other editors. I don't know what he's been contributing of late but overall to me it seems he's outstayed his welcome here as time and time again he demonstrates that he just can't discuss things maturely and interact with people. As you might remember he takes the smallest things personally, such as failing to respond to a review request within 48 hours. I've really had enough of him, and however much I think Krimuk90 overreacted with him, I do understand how infuriating this Prashant can really be. Do we think his overall contribution to the project is more valuable than his frequent clashes with people?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Prashant, should be blocked for a substantial amount of time until he learns how to behave in a mature way. I've never liked him, and have found him to be more of a hindrance to the project than an asset. Unfortunately, he is not the only one; Caden, who some of you will know for being my number 1 troll, echoes many of the hallmarks that Prashant possesses. And Caden has been allowed to pray continue for months now. CassiantoTalk 14:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Ah yes, Caden. The commenting against in discussions for the sake of it, whether or not he really cares about the issue or not. Just read the tone of Prashant's message here though, you can tell from that alone the immaturity in his thinking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
Dear Dr. Blofeld I didn't say your outburST. I meant Krimuk's outburst, so correct yourself. And, I was discussing as per the guidance of Wikipedia and Krimuk over-reacted. Plus Kailash called me a "LUNATIC", which is against wikipedia guidelines. I just reminded him that has was bad mouthing about me since a long time. I don't know why people are misinterpreting everything in which there was not my fault. Any answers Blofeld?Krish | Talk 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
You said "The discussion on Shahid Kapoor was started by Dr. Blofeld and everything was going smooth until his outburst to what he thought was right." Clearly you're referring to me as Krimuk didn't give an outburst on what he thought was right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say to Kailash (he was calling me a lunatic, Vensatry warned him not to) that whatever Krimuk dis was not my fault but Krimuk's own fault. Dr. Blofeld started the discussion and everything was going smooth (me and you had discussed the need of that claim in two separate relies), until his outburts (Krimuk's): "I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck.". I never meant for you. Why I would in first place because you and I had a smooth discussion. I think my text was confusing so you thought I was referring to you.Krish | Talk 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is, does Prashant's work on here override the negative aspect of his personality and inability to interact with others without conflict or taking things personally?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)
No, it does not. I have been following his interraction all throughout his time here in Wikipedia, and it has never changed, rather I would say it has worsened. Previously it was just childish, now it has borderline become intolerable. —IB [ Poke ] 23:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Advertising an FA source request on a WikiProject talk page[edit]

Hi Ian, I asked this over on the nomination page for Black American Sign Language but haven't gotten a response from Laser Brain (and just assuming they're busy). Anyway, my request for a source audit has been sitting for about a month (probably because they're mostly offline sources on a specialized topic) and want to know what the general feeling about asking for input at WikiProject talk pages is. Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pls feel free to ask there, tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: The Man Who Sold the World[edit]

I've opened an RfC regarding your concern --> Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? Dan56 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

FA review[edit]

Hey Ian, can you review Ride the Lightning for an FA on its nomination page? The image and source reviews are done so far, but I haven't received a prose review yet. I think it won't take you much time to read it. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tks for asking -- I can't guarantee I'll find the time to do it but if I can I will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nom rq[edit]

Hex Enduction Hour‎ has been hovering at the end of the pile, this last week waiting for a source review now supplied by Wehwalt, with demands met. Can I go again please basically; I want to get in tonight so I have tomorrow and monday to respond to first comments, should I be so lucky. Until Friday I'm really stretched with RL job stuff. Article is Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I expect I'll be closing Hex and others this morning (Sydney time) anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok, many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo requests in Sydney[edit]

Hi! Do you do photo requests in Sydney? There are some articles on Wikipedia about Sydney schools that need pictures.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I'll have much time to oblige for a while but if you let me know some specifics I'll keep them in mind... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Ok! I have two in Terrey Hills, one in Maroubra, and one in Meadowbank
WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm afraid I don't get to Terrey Hills much but Maroubra and/or Meadowbank are certainly possibilities -- will let you know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
Dammit...I just drove past that place in Maroubra....will be working there next week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bugle subscription[edit]

Hi, Ian. I know you're a busy man but next you update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News as you do often, please also update {{Bugle-subscription}}. There's a comment in the former to update the latter and that code is meant for editors like you. The ed17 made the Bugle subscription template and although I'm probably the only user, your actions aren't encouraging wider use. Thanks for what you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this was a colder message than it needed to be, Chris. A simple request might get a better response. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 17:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
I thought this was a "simple request". I actually made the verbiage nicer than my initial thoughts which I guess goes to the disconnect I'm feeling with humanity as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
It could have just been me? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Well there you go, that comment never registered with me for some reason -- surprised no-one mentioned it before. Anyway, noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question[edit]

Do you think some readers will take "In the Battle of Greece, he became the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in battle" to mean "He was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in the Battle of Greece"? I think it's possible, but I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I recall that the previous wording included "ever" to emphasise "only" but I felt that wasn't necessary (like "best ever" instead of simply "best"). I reckon it's clear that the key part of the sentence is that he was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS, and the opening clause simply gives the context, i.e. in which battle this unique confrontation took place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas White (Australian politician)[edit]

Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges[edit]

I feel like a bit of a doofus, but can you point me to the policy on page ranges in citations? ie is it 181–182 or 181–82? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Never feel that way about WP policy... ;-) Seriously, I can't point you to a guideline, but I'm quite sure that either format is acceptable provided consistency is maintained within the article. I always use 181–182 and have never had it questioned in reviews, but I often see 181–82 in FAs that I'm monitoring and similarly there seems to be no issue as long as it's consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, I have a feeling it has been organic in the past, but someone keeps changing it in articles I watchlist, so I've suddenly become aware of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
If someone arbitrarily changes the established format within an article then it might come under WP:CITEVAR, meaning consensus should be sought for the blanket change since there's no simple right-or-wrong answer regards the style... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)... I've even seen ranges omit the "p." and "pp." so it looks like this "Bloggs, 87." My preferred style, like Ian, is the full page range. CassiantoTalk 09:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

C/e on RTL[edit]

Thanks for the work so far on the album Ian, I really appreciate it. If you can find some free time and check the other sections it would be awesome. I'll understand if you're busy.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

King Kong Plot[edit]

So I noticed that you reverted my edit on the plot for the 2005 remake of King Kong. Just thought I'd let you know that I replied to your comment in the article's talk page that explains the whole thing. You might want to check it out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal filmography[edit]

Hi Rose, I have nominated this list to FLC. Can you help with that. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Air Defence Areas[edit]

Presumably you are intending to delete the article not the talk page.--Grahame (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I got a big message in red on the talk page when I saved -- sorry you got that spurious notification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppenheimer image[edit]

Must we employ the same image used in the J. Robert Oppenheimer infobox for the sake of the 'looking inwards' guideline (not policy AFAIK) when we already had a good-quality image that was judged acceptable at FAC?
Certainly not. I regarded the change as an improvement, but I don't believe that it "must" be carried out (and while my reasoning is described in the aforementioned guideline, I didn't perform the edit for the sake of compliance therewith.)
Suggest get consensus first...
Fair enough. However, if your main concern is image variety, you might consider self-reverting for the remainder of the day (given that the current photograph accompanies the main page blurb, which most of today's readers will see first.) Your call. —David Levy 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, David. I'm kind of used to blurb images being from the article (though I know that's not required and wouldn't try to enforce it for its own sake) so when I said I liked the variety of images I was thinking of between this article and the dedicated Oppie article, rather than between the mainpage and article images for the hearing page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivor McIntyre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 05:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind.[edit]

I'd like to put The Phantom Tollbooth up even though Huguenot-Walloon half dollar remains pending. Although there's an editor who started a review but did not return to it, aside from that I see no impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- wasn't sure anyone had checked source formatting but I had a quick look at that myself so I don't think there's anything standing in the way; I'll probably do a closure run later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
I took the last line of Ceoil's review as a source review. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC ...[edit]

"FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC." I was not aware of any such policy at FAC? Have I been out of touch that long? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, not that I know of -- responded accordingly at the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre[edit]

The article Ivor McIntyre you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Ivor McIntyre 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF[edit]

The article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 4 Operational Training 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reg[edit]

Hey Ian, I noticed that your latest nom isn't on the FAC page. I would do it for you but I wasn't sure if you were holding off for some reason. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an oversight actually -- must've got distracted after penning the nom -- slotted it in now, tks Andy! Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your close at Austen[edit]

The late Wadewitz plan for the featured article for Austen was based on the FA for Chekhov and not the FA for Ian Flemming. If you meant to endorse the opposition stated against using the FA model for Chekhov in the Austen article, then this would bring to an end the late Wadewitz plan for the form of the article to be based upon the Chekhov FA approach if that was your intention to replace and restructure the article toward the Ian Flemming form of a featured article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure how picking up on a reviewer's comment about the format of recent author FAs by offering a specific example (and only an example -- as I said, there are probably others) that includes a style and themes section should constitute some sort of assault on Wadewitz's vision. I think she would recognize that things might have progressed since Chekhov attained FA status way back in 2007 and that perhaps there's scope to build on its format. I suggest you re-read the commentary at the FAC and consider it in terms of good faith attempts to help you improve the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Certainly in good faith, and I have read all the comments along with the separate FA article which Wadewitz wrote on the Austen Legacy at Reception history of Jane Austen. In the spirit of Wadewitz, she realized that the extensive legacy of Austen could perhaps be more effectively served by writing it as a separate sibling article first. In case you did not know, she did successfully bring the Austen legacy article to FA status (it is a fine article) and sadly passed away before being able to complete her plan to bring the Biography article to FA status on the model of the Chekhov article. It is my high regard for the quality of the FA article of the Austen Legacy that draws me to this point of giving her ideas for Austen a full assessment. If you did not know of the Reception history of Jane Austen Legacy article then its well-worth a read. Wadewitz realized that the very large size of the Legacy article made it impractical to include in the Biography article. She took the sibling article approach out of her love of Austen in the best sense of improving her Biography article. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

FRWL[edit]

Hi Ian, Many thanks for your comments and edits on From Russia, with Love. As you've probably spotted, it's now at FAC should you have any further comments to make. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 13 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping[edit]

Hi Ian, I think you might have missed my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom#April edition :) Could you please handle that? (obviously OK if you don't have time until the weekend though! - neither do I). Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick, should be all done now but if you get a chance to check first thing Saturday, pls feel free, as I'll be aiming to despatch mid-morning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Thanks Ian, that looks good to go. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC[edit]

Ian, FYI [4]. Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

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) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2016[edit]

I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi mate, I spent a fair bit of time finetuning the blurb during its TFAR nom and would prefer to leave as is, but it is admittedly a little bit longer than the preferred length of 1150. I suppose if I had to lose something then "Born in the Riverina district of New South Wales" could go, I just happen to like the name "Riverina" so I enjoy seeing it displayed prominently...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Sure ... I'm happy to defer for any number of reasons, but I don't need to defer in this case because it's already perfect ... except for the post-nominals. (Two reasons: the broader Main Page readership, and I never repeat information unless necessary.) Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
God, that was complete oversight on my part... I know full well we don't use post-noms in TFA blurbs, I'd just forgotten when I did this one -- tks for that, it cuts a few more characters too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg

Precious again, your "country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, ... managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)[edit]

The article Northern Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Northern Command (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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

a question[edit]

Hey. I'm working on a project. It will take months to finish; it is still in the initial stages after months of work. I have downloaded & read scores (not kidding) of journal articles etc. The topic could very certainly be dealt with in a surface, dramatic way. But I keep digging and digging and digging, and in the end (if I do it right & well), I'm practically gonna end up writing a deep textbook-level analysis. So... in the end, will reviewers be put off by talk of semi-feudalism, subinfeudation, Anglo-Indian legal system, Ricardian rent, etc etc etc?Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;-)
The trick with that kind of article is to make it understandable for someone who is not an expert in that topic area, since this is meant as a general-audience encyclopedia. If you can do that, you'll get a lot more reviewer interest than if it's ultradense and a slog to read through. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. :-) The thought just suddenly struck me like lightning, as I looked at Nikkimaria's reply, that the densest bit is in the Background section.... explaining why India never had an agricultural revolution, why there were so many millions of people whose lives hovered at or near the starvation level even in the best of times. In theory, that discussion could (and.. a purist might even say "should") be moved to History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent#Colonial British Era (1757–1947 CE), and put a {{Main}} atop the Background section of the famine article. But that article sucks sucks sucks. It has had 50 (count them, 50) edits in its entire lifetime. I dread walking into that morass... BUT... the 2 million deaths discussed in the famine article are not done justice unless the agricultural history is laid out. Argh. Super argh.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg listed for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

William Brill (RAAF officer)[edit]

Thank you for writing the nice article on William Brill (RAAF officer). Extremely well done! --♥Golf (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think though that the edit re. the military panel wasn't really an improvement so as the article's still on the front page I've gone the BRD route and hope that if you disagree with the reasoning I've given in the edit summary then we can discuss further on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2016[edit]

And here's another one. Feel free to do the TFA summary if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2[edit]

Sorry, I didn't read the edit history. I was under the impression that Australia is like Britain when it comes to the definite article. Thanks for educating me! Yoninah (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably is, most of the time, but the military has its own ways. I mean you might get away with "the 1st Brigade", but not "the No. 1 Brigade", for instance... ;-) Anyway, tks so much for changing it back promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Command (RAAF)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern Command (RAAF), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that RAAF Northern Command was going to be an area, then became a command, then became an area, and then became nothing at all? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Command (RAAF). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northern Command (RAAF)), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe[edit]

The writing of this biography is sexist and I am surprised you felt it necessary to keep it that way. Okay improve what I wrote fine, I just think to assume blondes are thick is particularly offensive. It is written that way and I personally think it needs improving to remove the negative male approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrypinkwoman (talkcontribs) 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Monroe played dumb blondes is not the same as saying all blondes are dumb, and reporting that Monroe was famous for playing a sexist stereotype is not in itself sexist. The article has had several reviews, the latest resulting in its Featured status, and while that status doesn't mean it can't be improved further, I think you should consider whether your edits are improving its prose while accurately reflecting mainstream sources, or are instead attempting to right great wrongs. In any case, the best place to discuss it would be the article talk page, where more eyes are likely to see any concerns and weigh in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugle[edit]

I started work a little late on my MILHIST images for this month (I'm trying to get at least two a month), and it looks like only Birney will actually pass this month, but McCallum (presuming it reaches quorum - it's at 3 out of the required five supports at the moment; see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Daniel McCallum) should pass on 1 June, and I could easily put him into this month. Should I?

For next month, I've found a treasure trove of notable Meiji-era Japanese photos, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/乃木希典 for an example. =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add McCallum. Encourages me to do more MILHIST stuff in June. Checked and found a couple reasonably MILHIST-y other FPs, so added them =) Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
Tks for note, Adam. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
No worries! Anyway, that's my part of next month's Bugle done. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A yes for No?[edit]

Hi Ian, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another of my fave Bond novels, will certainly drop by PR if I have time, otherwise I'll see it at FAC and comment there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey[edit]

1999 had to be the year the movie picked up right after the Dawn of Man scene. With 2001, the title, being the year the odyssey itself actually occurs. Eighteen months before 2001 had to be sometime in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talkcontribs) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Had to be" is original research, no matter how obvious it may seem to you (or me for that matter). Since we don't generally cite information in a plot summary, it's always best to relate only what is explicitly stated or clearly shown in the film itself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

engvar B[edit]

I hope the command article engvar change wasnt an affront to great articles - it was something that when I see an obvious au being stated as a B - I tend to get stroppy in my edit summaries - nothing personal - they are indeed good articles !! JarrahTree 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and no offence taken -- admittedly I tend to be a bit less concerned with the diff between BritEng and AusEng than that between either of those and AmEng, but at the same time I can't think why offhand I had BritEng instead of AusEng in these. Thanks for your diligence! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
np - maybe some high edit awb usual suspects were applying brit eng for a lot of oz arts until very recently JarrahTree 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 7 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)'s last C-47 departed Iwakuni in 1956, it left ground staff and Flight Lieutenant Raleigh, a small dog who liked flying and had been at the base since 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RAAF Transport Flight (Japan). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)), 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.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz[edit]

A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue circles with A in the middle[edit]

On the top of your userpage you have given links to articles with symbols. I have seen other userpages where they keep these links. I know that the brown star symbol links to featured article. The Green circle with + sign in the middle links to good articles. But the blue circles also link to good articles. Then why are they different from green circles? X-Men XtremE 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, that symbol means the article has been assessed as "A-Class". The A-Class assessment system is not Wiki-wide like the FA and GA assessments, but is run by individual Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the Roads project, and so on. Not all Wikiprojects employ the A-class review system, so it kind of runs parallel to the GA system (although A-Class assessment has higher standards than GA, particularly regarding depth of coverage). The upshot is that an article can be both GA and A-Class simultaneously, but both are trumped by FA. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FAC and citation styles[edit]

Hi Ian; I'm contacting you in your capacity as FAC coordinator with a rather tedious issue (also tagging Laser brain for the sake of completeness). A particular user with whom I have not previously had dealings has commented over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/archive1 with some rather odd citation-related concerns. In addition, the user twice changed my citation style on the article without discussion (mine, theirs, the result is inconsistent) and repeatedly denied that they had done this (see my talk page). (There were, and probably still are, a variety of other issues; the page history and talk page discussion will illustrate some of them, but this is the particular problem) After a rather long, frustrating discussion, it became clear that the user in question literally didn't/doesn't know what a citation style is. (Two choice quotes from this user: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." and "I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand that there are two basic ways to cite: (1) By template (2) By plain text".) I certainly don't want to drag you into the discussion, which I think both of us (for different reasons...) are now happy to abandon as a lost cause, but I have two comments/questions/concerns: First, I'm asking for permission to remove/strike the user's comments on the FAC page. Second, somewhat concerned about the fact that this user is making similar edits on other FA candidate articles and similar comments on other nomination pages, despite the pretty clear misunderstanding. I've tried to make clear the issues, but I'm not sure if they will be taken on board (this might be down to me; I'm no diplomat), and I'm stepping away from this now. As such, I just wanted to make my concerns known. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not normally the type of thing I'd think to get involved in as an FAC coordinator, but there is actually a pattern here that extends beyond your nomination. I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
Tks Josh and Andy. I spent a bit of time after this was posted looking at relevant FAC and user talk pages. I've seen the user in question at many FACs, and in most cases hadn't noticed unusual concerns being raised, but as an editor I believe guidelines like CITEVAR should be respected. It also looks prima facie in this case that there's a fair bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the user's part. Because the user doesn't seem to actively oppose noms based on citation style (not that I've seen anyway), I would normally expect this issue to be handled by BRD and, if necessary, admin action (I notice Ed has become involved at the article per BRD). OTOH I agree with Andy that FAC seems to be a magnet for them, we may need to weigh in at Josh's nom to try and reign things in a bit. In answer to Josh's specific request to strike the comments from the current FAC, at this stage I think leaving the comments and responding as FAC coords would be preferable, WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Ed got involved on a different article; while I was trying to explain to the user the problematic nature of their edits, they started to deploy their scripts on another article linked to the one I have at FAC. The user was not happy that I reverted them, and left a template warning for edit warring after rolling back my edit. The user has also left further comments at the FAC page, so I'm not sure how sincere they were about disengaging. Again, I certainly don't want to drag you into anything, but I'm not particularly keen to engage with the user further at this time, on the FAC page or elsewhere. I'm happy with whatever actions you do/do not take; I'm glad that you are now aware of my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I see now that Checkingfax has again reverted me. While I suspect that you will not want to contribute to the thread (and I certainly don't expect you to), I have been forced to raise this at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkingfax. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Tks Josh, I don't usually visit AN/I but will try to keep an eye on it, as well as the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── (talk page stalker). Hi, Ian Rose, Laser brain and J Milburn. I have been very transparent in my edits and my motives. I edit in good faith. Laser brain said:

I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 4:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Laser brain: Please direct me to these cases for both of these points you reference that I have highlighted for your convenience. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, One edit I noticed is here, where you used a tool to make several changes to an article and ended up changing the Notes and References headings (an accepted and standard citation system) to References and Bibliography, which is incorrect and goes against the article editor's preferences. Your edit also added an extraneous "External Links" section which is not needed just to list portals. These edits indicate that you may not understand the capabilities of your tool, or may not understand citation styles. Either of those being the case, automated or semi-automated edits to FAC articles should cease. When I said the activity is focused on FAC, I meant that I have seen you participating on quite a few nomination pages. "Focused" was probably the wrong choice of words. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I was about to leave a note on Checkingfax's page when I saw this. I'm also concerned about his involvement in FACs – making unwelcome changes, asking for things not in WP:WIAFA. It wastes time and upsets nominators. SarahSV (talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for the Diff.
There was no good place to put the portals so I created the 2nd choice spot which is External links. The followup edit to delete that section and convert the portal box to a portal bar was an elegant solution and I concur with it. I will try to do that in the future. That is a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool.
One point about portal bars: Many Wikipedia editors hate their appearance (I do not). In this instance, on this article, I think the portal bar is the best looking way to integrate a portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talkcontribs) 19:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The Notes section did not have any page numbers that I saw right off so to me it is a Bibliography. That was a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool. I was not aware of the Wikipedia MoS for that. Please direct me to it so I can get it right. (e.g.- there is a Wikipedia MoS for section layout: MOS:LAYOUT).
You mention the "article editor's preferences" dictate section heading names. Where is this rule? I have never been afforded that level of ownership over an article. The ones I know about are overall datestyle and overall reference style. Those are not to be changed without general consensus.
I fully understand the capabilities of these Wikipedia tools and the need to check their output. They are not my tools. Issues with the tools should be taken up with the tool developers. When I see the tools causing trouble I report it and the developers adjust their tools.
I make a good faith effort to proof read after running tools by using the Changes button and the Preview button in the source code edit window. Sometimes they suggest changes that I do not completely agree with so I strike those manually. All in all, if I find something I do not care for I try to work with the developer to change it and if they agree with me they do.
I have my Wikipedia user Preferences set to enable wikEd Diff (wide Diff view) which integrates the view of changes so it is easier to see what the changes are.
Below that is the old style side by side Diff view and I check that too.
The edit summary is transparency to show which tools were run on the article and to attribute the tool developer for their assistance. It does not indicate which or if any edits were made by a tool. In this case, the changes by tool were minimal and the rest were done manually by me.
For instance, the date harmonizer was run, but no dates were changed. This means all dates were already in harmony and that can be checked off the to-do list.
I do not go to pages just to run tools. I run them as a helper to minimize repetitive tasks and to create harmony in the article and the underlying code while I am doing other refinements.
The only bot I run is the one that every Wikipedia editor has in their source code edit window. I still do a good faith proof reading of the changes to make sure I agree with them.
I manually fixed a couple of typos that I spotted.
I was expecting you to show me a Diff where some bad things were going on and I am relieved to know it is simple stuff.
To my knowledge I have never changed the citation style on any page on Wikipedia; at least not intentionally. Per WP:CITEVAR we are encouraged to improve citations and when I see opportunities for improvement I take action if I am so inclined and have the time.
I just checked the review page for the Mac Arthur page and Hawkeye7 did not express any umbrage with my edits, nor did he ever contact me about anything. I was pinged by Dank.
I hope my reply clears up some issues you have with my efforts to improve articles. I look forward to continuing this discussion so we can move forward collaboratively. Talk page stalkers are welcome to join in with constructive observations, suggestions, and criticisms. See you around the Wikis. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Reping J Milburn {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, I think the point of much of this discussion is eluding you. I accept that you have reasons behind all of your edits. However, I feel that various editors have been trying to convey to you that many matters of style boil down to personal preference. In those cases, it's just good manners to mind the preferences and prevailing style put in place by the principal editors at the page. This is especially important at a venue like FAC where nominators have put quite a bit of work into preparing the article and polishing it up. As SV pointed out above, making subjective and unwelcome changes to an article (at FAC or anywhere else) just wastes time and upsets those working on the page. I'd ask you to voluntarily stick to fixing clear, unambiguous errors and stop making subjective changes to articles at FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for another reply. Nothing is eluding me.
Who are these "various editors"?
Which styles are hallowed ground?
I was transparent and upfront in the edits I made.
SV has never pointed out any specific issues with my edits or suggestions.
I fix many unambiguous errors and while I am at it I do some polishing.
What are these "subjective changes"?
All my edits are made in good faith and to advance the project. If I make a mistake let me know so I won't make that mistake again. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Checkingfax, I'd suggest two things going forward. First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC. Or, if it's faster to show a change than to explain it, make the edit then revert yourself, or invite the nominator to revert you, perhaps in the edit summary. Second, read the featured-article criteria carefully and ask only for changes that comply with those criteria. I think if you were to follow those two suggestions, it would make your input at FAC more helpful. SarahSV (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SlimVirgin. Thanks for that but you did not answer a single question I put forth.
Then, your first option is for me to butt out of FAC.
Since I have nominated an article at FAC I feel it is my obligation and duty to do some QPQ. Nobody has complained before; even got a few "thank yous". Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't know how you managed to extract "your first option is for me to butt out of FAC" from my comment above. SarahSV (talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, SarahSV. Maybe I read too much into this: First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC.
Regardless, I do not think any other editors follow such a protocol. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2016[edit]

Hi, I'll start trimming this one later today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: my brain is fried from reading infobox debates, so I can't promise much until I recover, but it looks okay to me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Sure, that looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Tks Dan, sorry to hear about the infobox debates, I must've missed the latest round somehow... ;-) BTW Brian, tks for selecting the article for TFA -- I've gone through it today to ensure all links are up to date, should be good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
The latest is done and waiting for my close, at WP:VPP#Closing. Getting up to speed on the history of the mess is giving me a headache, but someone's gotta do it. - Dank (push to talk) 06:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for being the someone. It's not the typical infobox debate, - this Wikidata in+out. The typical was also closed, finally. (Can't help thinking how much more writing power could have gone into content if that harmless little box had stayed in place - where it was for 10 years - and just the debated nationality parameter had been removed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
Of course it goes both ways, Gerda -- think how much could've been saved if people weren't so wed to the little box that not all believe is useful in all articles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)
I don't feel addressed. I add infoboxes to operas where they are welcome, and to people I care about, accepting a revert when it happens, then discuss, see Peter Maxwell Davies and Pierre Boulez. The pro-infobox-flashmob is a myth I don't like, - unsourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
It's very much sourced, Gerda. If you want to remind yourself as to why you are associated with this name then visit your contributions list over the last two weeks and you'll see behaviour indicative of someone who has a twisted obsession with Infoboxes. CassiantoTalk 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Arnold Böcklin - Die Toteninsel III (Alte Nationalgalerie, Berlin).jpg
life is too short
I get associated with infobox, but how does that create a flash mob? I take "obsession" better than "morbid". My contributions today were mostly to the German Wikipedia. The image is on display there on the Main page, because someone translated an article I wrote, and I nominated it for their DYK equivalent. My contributions over the last two weeks were mostly compositions by Ketèlbey, music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3[edit]

Hi Ian, I've just posted a "strong oppose" review here which edit conflicted with your closure of the review. I've posted it after your comments as I wanted to get this on record, but please re-arrange if I've messed up the procedure! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never get tired of saying it -- great minds! I'm sure that review will be helpful and you've posted it before the bot went through so there should be no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA 10 July[edit]

User: EnigmaMcmxc, the nominator of the current FAC 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division, has asked about the possibility of reserving 10 July as a TFA date for this article, bearing in mind the centenary of the Somme and this unit's role in the battle. The article may well not be promoted before the required date, but if you or one of your MilHist colleagues are prepared to suggest a placeholder pro tem, I'll be happy to schedule that for the 10th, and to replace it should the 38th's promotion come in on time. Can you help here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure Brian, I could put up No. 90 Wing RAAF, which has the date connection but it's not a round-number anniversary so no worries if it gets replaced by the 38th. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, Ian, I'll use this when I schedule next week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Since this is a placeholder, I'll leave it alone for now. You're welcome to do the TFA, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Tks Dan, the lead is small anyway (as befits a shortish article) so all I changed for the blurb was adding the exact day of formation to make the date connection clear and it comes to 829 chars by my calculation. The only word I was considering changing was "overarching" for "umbrella" (could also use "superior" but I think one of the former two might be better) -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
WP:ITN has occasionally complained that they had to pull news articles if our column was too short, so my bargain with them is that I keep it a bit higher, generally between 1075 and 1175. Can you get to 1075? "Overarching" and "umbrella" both sound good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Heh, I don't like adding detail for its own sake but I guess we have to keep ITN happy -- I'll leave it for a while just in case 38 Div gets promoted and it becomes academic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1, it won't make it by the 10th. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, will have a go at expanding the blurb in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)[edit]

The article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations[edit]

WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png 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 for your work on promoting North-Western Area Command (RAAF), Ragnar Garrett, and Eastern Area Command (RAAF) to A-class. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service[edit]

Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your comment at the nom -- I probably can't return just at the moment but I'll see how I am for time later this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth filmography[edit]

Opened earlier this month, and only one user has posted comments (which have since been solved). If more editors don't comment on it, it may fail FLC. To avoid votestacking, I request you to alert more editors to post comments on its FLC page. Ditto for Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kailash29792: Ian Rose is an FAC delegate; even FLC delegates are not bound to do such things. Vensatry (talk) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

ISBN[edit]

Hi Ian, Thanks for fixing the ISBN error in the Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service article - I'd checked the ISBN but couldn't figure out how to fix it, and was hoping someone else would know once it went live! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

WWI directory and Bugle articles[edit]

Hi there. You may have already seen my note on the MilHist talk page, but I am sending this short note to the regular writers and the editors of The Bugle to point them to a WWI projects directory that I've started (in my userspace for now). Would you be able to look and see if there is anything you might be able to add or advice on what is most useful? You'll note that I've pulled together Tom's timeline articles (which are wonderful, along with the op-eds). Maybe a proper index on the archive page of The Bugle would be useful, plus links allowing readers to navigate through the series? I have also tried to list all the WWI-related book reviews (but only from 2012 onwards), so please feel free to add to or copy that somewhere as needed if not already listed somewhere else. (I also dropped off notes on Tom and Nick's talk pages) Carcharoth (talk) 22:23, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 37 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 06:00, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 75 Wing RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg 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) 07:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 37 Squadron RAAF[edit]

The article No. 37 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 37 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:01, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIII, July 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Timeline[edit]

Greetings Ian, I amended the Somme timeline to take out the French who weren't involved but I would add French captures south of Maricourt and on the south side of the Somme, such as the capture of the Flaucourt Plateau. Keith-264 (talk) 19:59, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Fine by me -- Tom? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:21, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
It's cool. @Keith-264: As an FYI, I take the information from the Timeline of World War I page, so if its there, it usually gets mentioned in the bugle. You may want to cross check the two just in case there is a discrepancy there as well. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:24, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Done; I was a bit puzzled because I thought you'd got it from the articles. French operations south of Maricourt aren't as well told in English but Philpott has done a lot to resurrect them. Even French books tend to use British writing as the framework, hence in the sections in the Somme articles about the Sixth and Tenth armies, the French don't seem to have named their battles. Shame I couldn't finish them all by 1 July but I've had so many health problems since last September, that I lost headway.Keith-264 (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 23, 2016[edit]

Another one of yours, Ian. Do you want to do the honors? - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed... Hope I'm (or rather the RAAF's) not getting too much exposure on the front page -- John Balmer on 3 July, No. 90 Wing RAAF on 10 July, Ian McLachlan on 23 July, and (assuming the nom I put in before McLachlan was chosen goes through), Jerry Pentland on 5 August -- you guys sure about all this...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
There's a big backlog on these Aussie articles, and I've been trying to push a few through in what was, until very recently, a rather quiet TFAR season. After Pentland we'll give you a break for a month or so. Brianboulton (talk) 08:05, 8 July 2016 (UTC)
Heh, no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:18, 8 July 2016 (UTC)

Next one[edit]

I'm not sure when you're going to wade through the pile of the FAC for the Hawaii half dollar, so would you mind if I went ahead with the next one? I think everything's done with the Hawaii.--Wehwalt (talk) 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

I did have a look at that one and it seemed to me that one support was only on sourcing, so I'd prefer to see someone else give the article a comprehensive review. It's certainly near the finish line, though, so given the list isn't huge right now I have no objections to you adding another. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF[edit]

The article No. 75 Wing RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:No. 75 Wing 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:21, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 37 Squadron RAAF[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 15 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No. 37 Squadron RAAF, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that No. 37 Squadron RAAF (C-130 Hercules pictured) transported the popemobiles on John Paul II's 1986 tour of Australia? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 37 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, No. 37 Squadron RAAF), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Ping for an update?[edit]

Mind having a look at my entry at the bottom here? I'd like to keep this one moving. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Noted, tks, will return when I get time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Question on FA review process[edit]

Hi Ian. I see you're one of the FA coordinators. I just nominated Gospel of John for FA status. It's my first FA nomination, and I see there's a bit of a backlog, so I was just wondering about how long the typical turnaround time is before the review might be started. I'm not in any particular rush, just looking to know what to expect. Thanks! Jujutsuan (Please notify with {{re}} talk | contribs) 06:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, if a FAC is particularly well-prepared, and well-patronised by reviewers, it can be promoted in less than two weeks. Generally it takes a good deal longer, at least a month -- there is in fact a discussion and some stats on the subject at the bottom of WT:FAC as we speak. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of No. 75 Wing RAAF[edit]

Symbol question.svg Hello! Your submission of No. 75 Wing RAAF at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Regards, KCVelaga ☚╣✉╠☛ 15:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

A class reviews[edit]

If you have some time, consider having a look at the A class reviews of McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service and Mark XIV bomb sight. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:35, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quick Question about FAC[edit]

Hello, I have a quick question about the FAC process. I have placed the episode "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" as a featured article candidate near the beginning of the month. Unfortunately, it has not attracted any attention after being open for a couple of weeks, and I have a feeling it will be archived soon. I was wondering if you have any advice or suggestions on how to attract more attention to a featured article candidate. I have voted on a few featured article candidates as I thought that would help. I understand that there is not much that can be done, as it is really up to a user's preference and interest on whether or not a FAC gets attention, but I would appreciate any advice (especially since I am still relatively new to Wikipedia). Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 07:16, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner, Aoba. You'd think that episodes from popular TV shows would attract more attention, wouldn't you? There's not a great deal more to do when you notify relevant projects, and try to do some FAC reviewing yourself (the return from which can take time to kick in). You could perhaps check recently promoted FAs for TV shows and try nominators or reviewers of those with neutrally worded requests for comment. If we do end up archiving the nom simply for lack of commentary, the usual two-week waiting period before re-nominating can be waived, per a clause in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC. If that did happen, though, I always like to suggest people get as many eyes on an article as possible before FAC, so although you've put it through GAN, I would try a Peer Review (again notifying relevant projects) before trying FAC again. We're not quite at that stage yet though, it will probably remain open a bit longer. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice, and I apologize for any inconvenience. I would like for the FAC to be kept up for now as there is still the possibility someone will respond to it. I just wanted to make sure I did not mess anything up for the nomination. Hope you have a wonderful day! Aoba47 (talk) 03:03, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No inconvenience at all, this is one of the things the coords are here for. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I apologize for the intrusion again. I have two quick questions about the FAC process. How many days will the FAC for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" be left open if there are not any additional comments/reviews? While I do not want to sound pessimistic or rude, but I highly doubt this is going to get any more comments as it is pushed further down the list and it is the summer where a lot of users may be away from their computers.
For my second question, could I immediately nominate a different article for FAC once the one about the Charlotte King episode is removed or is there a hold period? I have been prepping and expanding several articles for FAC consideration so I was just curious about that (and hopefully the future ones fare better). I hope you have an excellent day. Aoba47 (talk) 05:10, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi there. I have to admit it is looking more likely that we'd have to archive the nom simply because we don't have enough commentary to say there's consensus to promote. At the same time, we don't generally waive the usual two-week waiting period following archiving unless there's been little to no commentary, and this one is not necessarily in that category. Can I suggest that if you have some other articles that you think may be FAC-ready, try putting one or two of them through Peer Review now, along the lines of my recommendation above, to a) try and prepare them even more, and b) hopefully garner some interested reviewers who you could ping to take a look when you do eventually bring these articles to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your quick response. I will try putting some of the articles through Peer Review, but I am not that hopeful on that front to be completely honest. I do not have much luck with Peer Review with attracting feedback or comments in the past. I am also pretty disappointed in the FAC process where it seems that nominations receive more comments/reviews based on the reputation of the user rather than the actual work. I do not mean to come across as negative or pessimistic, but I was really proud of my work for "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?" so it is disheartening and disillusioning to see that it barely received any attention at all. Aoba47 (talk) 16:52, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I guess I spoke too soon as I have fortunately attracted a few comments and votes since the last message. I shouldn't be so easily disheartened. Aoba47 (talk) 15:25, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Quick question: how many votes are required for an article to be promoted to FA? Aoba47 (talk) 22:09, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Jack Verge - FAC[edit]

I've just seen your archiving of this FAC due to calls for a full copyedit. I think the call for a full copyedit is completely unreasonable, while I accept that some improvements can be made. We have one oppose and a few supports. As it's my first FAC, I don't know what it takes to be promoted, but the nomination was open a long time with nothing but supports and no further comments until the last reviewer popped up. The way you've handled this seems to me to be unfair not only to me, but to all the others who put in effort at this FAC. It's also completely ridiculous that you take a presidential approach to a collaborative process. You have made this an unpleasant experience. FunkyCanute (talk) 07:26, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

A presidential approach? Well, I've heard everything now... Anyway, I'm sorry if you've found the experience unpleasant, but it's not uncommon for one reasoned oppose from an experienced reviewer to derail a long-running FAC, as deflating as that can be. I offered a suggestion for helping prepare the article for another nomination -- there is unfortunately a fair distance between the GA and the FA criteria, and PR can be a useful way station; given his military service, MilHist A-Class Review might be an even better route, as it can often attract more reviewers than a PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award[edit]

WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 15 Milhist articles during the period March to June 2016. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:14, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Wolfgang Lüth[edit]

Hi, I've been thinking about reassessing the above article due to less than reliable sources being used:

Please also see: Wolfgang Lüth#In popular culture. I've tagged the article accordingly.

Since you reviewed the article back in 2009, I wanted to check in beforehand to see if there would be any concerns. If you could let me know that would be great. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Garage rock article[edit]

Hello, this is Garagepunk66. For over a year and a half, I've been working to expand and improve the Garage rock article. Last November the article became listed as GA. I have since done a lot of additional expansion and improvements. I am thinking about nominating the article for an FA review. But, before I submit the article to peer review, I'd like to first get some feedback on the article's prospects. Perhaps you could read it over and tell me what you think. Should I proceed with a peer review? Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:57, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I had a very quick look over it last night before I hit the sack. It's certainly appears comprehensive at first glance. Although a rock fan in general I don't know enough about the subject to comment too much on content. Some of the expression seems a bit journalistic rather than encyclopedic, although of course that can also make for more engaging prose -- it's a balancing act. There are some obvious MOS issues like the year ranges (we use ndash, not hyphen, and only the last two years in the second part, e.g. 1964–66, not 1964-1966) but that's pretty minor stuff. Taking it to PR before FAC is an excellent idea -- I think do that and let anyone you believe might comment (individuals interested in rock history plus relevant projects) know about it. Good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, one other thing before even taking to PR... If you haven't done so already, I'd take a look at a recently promoted similar article, New Wave of British Heavy Metal, just to get a comparison on structure, level of detail, and so on. You could also do worse than check the article's FAC nom to get a better understanding of how the article reached its current form. After that I think you should be armed with all you need for PR and, later hopefully, FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks mentioning the New Wave of British Heavy Metal article--I'll definitely take a look at it. Throughout the peer review process and candidacy phases, we will have a chance to iron out any imperfections in the Garage rock article now has. I know that it is a process and will work for the best. My first step, of course, was to do what I could for the expansion, which is now pretty much done. That effort was such a huge undertaking, that I'm sure I overlooked a bunch of things. So, now is a chance to look back over it objectively. In the coming stages, we can go back and improve and refine what is there (and of course add anything that needs to be added) in order to make it the best article it can be. Thanks, Garagepunk66 (talk) 06:41, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 75 Wing RAAF[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg On 26 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article No. 75 Wing RAAF, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that an officer appointed by North-Eastern Area Command to investigate Vultee Vengeance aircraft accidents at No. 75 Wing RAAF, crash-landed in a Vengeance on his return? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 75 Wing RAAF. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, No. 75 Wing RAAF), 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.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:17, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
On behalf of the Wikiproject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your great work on North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF), No. 37 Squadron RAAF, and Western Area Command (RAAF). Keep up the good work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:46, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

My recent changes to the Serong article[edit]

Gday Ian. Sorry to make changes to the article whilst it is being reviewed, I hope they haven't caused you any issues. I have to admit that one of the reasons for a few of the changes was because I ran the Earwig tool (which I should have done before putting it up for review in hindsight) and it detected that some of the language used in places was a bit too similar to that of one of the sources (the Obituaries Australia source). I'm unsure if I added this text or if it was in there from a previous editor to be honest. Hopefully the changes I've made are now sufficient but it is probably an area you will need to check as part of the review now in light of this (if you didn't plan on doing this anyway). All the best and apologies for any inconvenience. Anotherclown (talk) 05:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

No prob AC, I still hope to review this w/e but hadn't begun in earnest yet so no inconvenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:10, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

The Dawn of Love[edit]

Hi Iain; just to say my comments at the end were not grandfathering; these articles represent an uniquely unfortunate period in English art history which I am recently captivated by. Especially the contemporary critical analysis is worth reading, though I wish Iridescent might now release us all from this hell. Ceoil (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Heh, no prob -- the subject may be painful but the FACs are generally mercifully smooth... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
A fear amonst the 1980s art wank community is that a series of lesser Julian Cope albums will follow from this editor. Do you know any admins. Ceoil (talk) 02:18, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIV, August 2016[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

"Wholesale changes" under Wikipedia policy/77 Sqn RAAF[edit]

Hi Ian,

I have left a message to you regarding the above matters at User:Grant65/sandbox.

Regards,

Grant – 05:24, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


Hi Ian,

Thanks for replying.

My response is at the same place.

Grant | Talk 08:08, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


I'm happier with the general content of that section now. I think I'll leave the article alone for a while.

Thanks for your help.

Regards,

Grant | Talk 10:14, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Problem with FL[edit]

See Talk:List_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients#Herbert_K._Pililaau. I've asked the MOH society to send me a list of the 33 names. Pililaau being added should not be a problem. If they send me the list how would the article get fixed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:ad00:9c9d:6ab3:cbf8:a317 (talkcontribs) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert on US military history or MOH awardees, but generally speaking it would be reasonable for you or any editor to add a name to a Wikipedia list such as this, as long as the award (and in this case, I'd assume, the recipient's heritage) can be cited to a reliable source. I don't know if the CMOHS is counted as such a source, but it may be. Let's see if anyone replies to your message of the article talk page while you wait for the list to be sent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:23, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I got an answer already! They sent a PDF with 34 names on it. I said a big thanks and suggested they update that web page from 33 to 34 or even put up web pages with the lists. The email they sent explicitly said 34 is the correct number. I only dabble in wiki by making small helpful edits but will see what I can do about getting the article up to date. The list they sent says 4 are "native Hawaiian" and also has an ethnic Chinese (Franics Wai) who was born in Hawaii. 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9C9D:6AB3:CBF8:A317 (talk) 13:19, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AList_of_Asian_American_Medal_of_Honor_recipients&type=revision&diff=734901475&oldid=734844598 no wonder — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:5800:AD00:9CA3:541A:7FB0:A1A8 (talk) 12:09, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

C/E advice[edit]

Hey Ian, is it correct to use "a three-bill tour" for a tour that features three bands? Asking in case if can be interpreted as paying three tickets for the tour or something else.--Retrohead (talk) 13:12, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Hmm, good question... I wonder if "triple-bill" might be preferable to "three-bill" -- I'm sure I've heard the former term used to mean three bands in the one show, so if you added "tour" to "triple-bill" I think it'd get the point across reasonably well. Perhaps even "triple-header"... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:28, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Just checking[edit]

Ian, I noticed your edits and wanted to make sure you knew that number was the number of FAs at the time of the nomination, not as of now. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:08, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Mike, you mean the number I corrected for myself at the time of 90 Wing? Yes, I assumed it's as you said and it was just an error before -- did I get that right? BTW, the reason I wanted to update is to get Brian's percentage at the mentoring proposal up-to-date as of 1 Aug noms and earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that was an error; thanks for fixing it. (I was trying to decode the diff on my phone, so I misinterpreted it.) FYI, I will probably keep that table up to date for a few months after we start the mentoring, just to see if it makes a difference. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 00:20, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

FAC closing same day as latest reviewer?[edit]

Ian Rose, it was in quite bad form the manner in which you closed the FAC Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Gog and Magog/archive1. Your comment that "after six weeks or so I'd expect this to be closer to consensus" as if issues raised weeks ago remain ignored. But that is not the case here.

In fact, you artificially made the archived review look like 20 issues were left open-ended; they were only posted yesterday by JFH and you closed the FAC the same day! --Kiyoweap (talk) 12:43, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

I'll just mention I thought about saying the article is not ready for fac but didn't because I'm a little new to these reviews. I can see how the fact that someone brought up so many issues late in the process made it clear that it won't pass any thing soon.--JFH (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Tks JFH. As for Kiyoweap, your wild interpretation of a straightforward note that offered explanation for the closure and guidance for a future nomination does you no credit. If I believed that the nominator was ignoring comments I'd have said so plainly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Finding a solution[edit]

Hi. @SchroCat:, @Cassianto:, @Laser brain:, @We hope:, @Tim riley:, @Brianboulton:, @Ssilvers:, @Sagaciousphil:. I think it's become very clear that this infobox warring situation has got out of hand. It seems to drain most of the energy of a lot of us on a daily basis now. Rarely a day goes by when I don't see a mention of an infobox. It's become an impossible situation to deal with and has grown out of control, especially when articles written by one or two editors are systematically targetted. It's become a form of bullying on here. Even more concerning is that the way that articles are targetted especially once they're promoted to FA/GA. We're in danger of losing FA contributors because of it. I think it's high time we did something about it and propose a change to the arb ruling which protects quality content contributors from non contributors trying to "force" an infobox. I think we need a serious discussion on what we can do to address this problem because it is a problem, a permanent one, and the only way things are going to change is if it is formally identified as disruptive behaviour on here and content contributors protected from the "cult". Or at least something to start with which changes what one can do with "infobox proposals" once an article is promoted to FA. Editors who work hard to promote articles don't deserve to have to deal with this. How do we put an end to this current situation?♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Would it be appropriate for me to comment here whilst there is yet another bloody ANI thread that has just been started for saying "lol" and, perhaps more embarrassingly, spelling "playwright" wrong (auto spell, honest). CassiantoTalk 21:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yup, I spotted the ANI thread after I posted here, even more justified now, and it's more potential time wasting! I'm sure the pro infobox lot think an infobox is of vital importance and that the site is better off with one in every article like a uniform. That's fair enough. But what's not fair enough is targetting articles by a small groups of editors who dislike them in arts bios and non editors ganging up to try to force something that people who've spent weeks and months improving something don't want. The time wasting, hostility and disruption it causes is the reason that it should be stopped, not that people aren't entitled to their opinions.♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I asked for Discretionary Sanctions to be authorized for this area and was supported by several editors, but I'm rather unimpressed with how ArbCom has (not) dealt with this. One of them requested that the call for DS be its own amendment request, so I may do that this week if I can find the time. There are several behaviors going on that I believe would be sanctionable under a DS system, and the problem would go away quickly. I've said before that the real loss is the distraction from creating content. --Laser brain (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Would something like an INFOBOXVAR, along the lines of CITEVAR, be useful, if it had Arbcom support? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:09, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I agree Lazer brain. Perhaps I am an uncivil sod at times, but nobody is willing to look at the reasons why I'm an uncivil sod. There's only so much bullshit one person can take. The infobox mess needs addressing. The pro-infoboxers cry WP:OWN at every opportunity, yet it is them who appear to want to OWN the soddin' article when they try and force a box on. The Coward RfC is a complete joke: a bunch of people turn up (who know nothing of the subject, know nothing of its construction, who call the featured text "stupid", and admit that they will probably never look at the article again) and try to force a box on to it for the sake of the poor "reader". They vote "support", and then give sweeping generalisations for justification, not taking into account the actual article they are looking at. Then, when someone challenges that support, or calls it out to be a generalisation, the WP:CIVIL card is played which then gets the backs up of the challenger, which then leads to ANI. In fact, as shown in the last ANI, someone doesn't even have to be uncivil to be reported, as was the case with me. It's a bloody farce! CassiantoTalk 23:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, I proposed INFOBOXVAR in 2012 on WT:MOS (though not by name), but it didn't gain support. It would be a good solution. That and discretionary sanctions. SarahSV (talk) 01:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Solution-wise I agree with Sarah (and by extension Mike and Andy). FAs are not set in stone, and are subject to change by local consensus like any other article, but those that were promoted to FA without IBs have two aspects that weigh against an IB being added largely through the efforts of otherwise-uninvolved editors: consensus, implicit or explicit, for the IB-free version of the article that achieved the necessary support to promote to FA; and the evident preference for the absence of an IB by the editors who improved the article to FA-level. I disagree with those who say that an IB counts as "content" -- by its nature, an IB should not generally contain info that isn't available in other parts of the article, most often the lead, which is itself a summary of the article. To me it's always been a style consideration, like the format of citations, the variation of English used, and so on. If IBs are not required in every article -- and they weren't last time I checked -- then we should treat them the same way as the citation style and the variation of English: all other things being equal, respect the preference of the main editors and only overturn that after achieving consensus on the talk page. Now, though, it seems like that sort of AGF is losing out to a sledgehammer approach on the part of those who think that in fact every article needs an IB no matter what. So I agree, time for a new approach so those who care about content can get back to building an encyclopedia. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Sarah, it seems one thing that shot down your proposal was the "first major contributor" language. How about some language such as "consensus of active content editors of the page"? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 01:36, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Mike, yes, that wording would be good. The "first major contributor" principle is intended as a fallback position, in the sense that, if no consensus on talk can be reached, then defer to the first major contributor. See WP:CITEVAR: "it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page ..." But if that's a sticking point, then "consensus of active content editors of the page" would work. SarahSV (talk) 02:03, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Infobox warring has shown to cause contuining disruption and time wasting. As Laser says it's a clear problem which should be dealt with by arb primarily because it distracts people from writing content, and puts people off wanting to produce FAs and dreading TFA because it means dealing with infobox fanatics. I suggest we come up with a proposal to this because this really can't go on. It drains most of our energy and enthusiasm! What SV proposed should have been enforced years ago. I'm going to approach a few arbitrators and ask them about it anyway. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Before a formal arb request is made, I've brought it up here. I'm sure not exactly what we should do here. Something like SV proposed is much needed, but the fanatics will only turn up in their droves and oppose it again. Ideally we need some sort of intenvention which the fanatics can't control.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:28, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

If anyone proposes INFOBOXVAR anywhere, please let us know. I would like to participate in the discussion. -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:06, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
As would many of us on the pro-infobox side. We have rather similar emotions and sense of being drained, we too feel the opposition has an OWNership problem. The Pro-Infobox view is, most likely, the position of the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors, but those who feel strongly about the issue, well... are here, and I think, almost all of them. While a minority view is entitled to respect, there is also a question of whether we have a walled garden problem or people who are holding back the tide. We have seen articles with perfectly good infoboxes be challenged at TfA by a reviewer who demands their removal (one of the Catherine Zeta-Jones FACs was an example). Another problem is the phrasing "consensus of active editors" when we are talking about the question of what constitutes an "active" editor -- the first person to start the edit-war by changing an article that has been stable, but ignored, for several years? My take is that one solution would be an RfC that goes up on the big banner we all get when there is a need for a community-wide discussion. We could get the input of hundreds of editors and maybe from there we could have a crowdsourced solution. Montanabw(talk) 16:50, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

The difference though is that we don't systematically go across the site removing infoboxes. And removal of an infobox is usually when we've significantly improved an article and see it of no use. On the contrary, the infobox warriors go from one article to the other commenting on infoboxes and trying to impose them on articles they've contributed bugger all to. And it's the same small group of editors targetted time and time again. That's by far more irritating.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:19, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

As a totally uninvolved person - for sake of all the gods - can ya'll (on both sides) just ... drop the freaking issue. The world will not end if there is or is not an infobox. If you didn't actively work to improve an article - don't "join up" just because you like or dislike infoboxes. At this point, I'm thinking the "silent majority" of wikipedia editors is probably a lot like me - where I just want ya'll to stop it and quit squabbling. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Erm, Ealdgyth, that's exactly what I'm trying to do, by getting arb to alter the current ruling to stop this happening time and time again. It's not as if the issue is going to go away, it needs to be enforced, so I'm trying to start to do something about it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:35, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
I think, Ealdgyth, that if one looks at the issue carefully, one will see that a guideline like INFOBOXVAR would solve the issue and discourage the drive-by shooters. "Active editors" could be defined as the top *content* editors of the article, not counting infobox edits. The fact that Montanabw would define it as s/he proposes above should make it crystal clear that the IB adders are acting in bad faith. -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:49, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King? - featured article candidate[edit]

Hello! I have noticed that you are a very active member of the FAC process, and have done a lot of work with television-related articles. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on my FAC ( "Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?"). I would greatly appreciate a fresh pair of eyes with this article as I have put a lot of work into it and want to make it the best that it can be (regardless of whether or not it is promoted). I understand that you are busy, so it is completely okay if you are unable or would not like to do this. I have had a few reviewers provide comments to it already (most recently Mike Christie).

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Did You Hear What Happened to Charlotte King?/archive1. Aoba47 (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, thanks for your post. As one of the coordinators for the FAC process (along with Laser brain), I do tend to be fairly active in it! While I sometimes make small tweaks to an article before it gets promoted, I don't do too many in-depth reviews because it means I have to recuse from my coordination duties -- in other words, if I review an article in depth, and especially if I then explicitly support or oppose promotion, I can't be the one closing the review (i.e. promoting to FA status, or archiving as not promoted). When I do comment at FAC it tends to be an article I've reviewed previously (e.g. at GAN, or at the Military History Project's A-Class Review, as I'm active in that project). I think the "Charlotte King" FAC may well have had enough eyes on it now for you to just sit tight, I'll probably walk through the FAC list in the next couple of days to check. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:26, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your response, and I apologize for the intrusion. I still have a lot to learn about the FAC process lol, so I greatly appreciate the message. Aoba47 (talk) 01:22, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
No intrusion at all, pls ask anything, anytime -- you seem to be finding FAC a worthwhile experience and that's always good to know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you again. I like learning as much as I can about Wikipedia, and I want to try to improve the content that I work with as much as possible. I do find FAC to be a very interesting and worthwhile experience. Aoba47 (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2016 (UTC)