User talk:Ian Rose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to 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 * Jan-Jun 2016 * Jul-Dec 2016

Contents

Military Historian of the Year[edit]

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For "...[your] continued high quality content work (especially with our biographies), as well as [your] ongoing project work as a coordinator and with the Bugle", I have the honor of presenting you with this WikiProject Barnstar. For the Military history WikiProject, TomStar81 (Talk) 09:24, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Tom, and Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:17, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year, Ian Rose![edit]

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

Thanks Donner -- best to you and yours too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Siberian accentor[edit]

Hi Ian, I'm going to Cornwall for a few days next week, and I intend to nominate the above article shortly after I get back. I've included a weather map for the first time, created by me using the NOAA/ESLR database. I don't think there are any issues with copyright since it's self-made using a PD database, but I'd welcome your advice on two issues

  • Have I licensed File:Noaa wind map 20161016-2.jpg correctly?
  • The weather map is used as reference for "with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]", which it clearly supports. Do you think that the way I've referenced this is correctly formatted?

I'm assuming that you see enough image and source reviews to be able to guide me on this, but if you think I should ask elsewhere, please point me in the right direction, thanks Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:45, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Jimfbleak: With regards to licensing, correct me if I'm wrong, but the image is produced when you select data from the NOAA/ESLR database and an algorithm of their site produces the map output based on that data? In other words, your only input was to select the data from the dataset? If so, I'd suggest adding a NOAA tag, as dual credit to you and NOAA would be more appropriate. (I'd also suggest scaling up the map in the article itself, as it's difficult to read at default size). As to citation, the formatting is fine, but in context I'd question that cite. The full sentence is "The UK Met Office suggested that the influx of accentors was driven by strong and persistent easterly winds from Siberia,[21] partially driven by a high-pressure area centred over Scandinavia,[22] with a further anomaly producing easterlies in western Asia.[23]" This wording suggests that the entire sentence is the interpretation of the UK Met Office, but the last cite at least (I haven't checked the middle one) is a primary source. If the Met Office said all of that, just cite them for the whole thing; if they didn't, we need to be careful about what sort of interpretation we're applying to the primary source. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:59, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, many thanks!. I've changed the source line of the image file to "Own work using NOAA data and algorithms", is that what you had in mind, or is there a special template? I've separated the last statement from the Met Office sentence, "Another weather system produced easterlies in western Asia during the same period." which is, I think, an interpretation-free description of what the weather data shows. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:16, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
{{PD-USGov-DOC-NOAA}}? The wording isn't quite right though... Nikkimaria (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Nikkimaria, that looks good, although I take your point about it not being a 100% fit. I think it covers attribution and transparency though, which is what I'm trying to achieve here, thanks again Jimfbleak - talk to me? 06:40, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── What can I say? Thanks Jim for thinking of me with this query, and thanks Nikki for jumping in with your greater knowledge of the situation -- Happy New Year to you both... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

2016 Year in Review[edit]

BoNM - Australia.png The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
For your contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF, Reg Pollard (general), No. 91 Wing RAAF, and Dick Cresswell, all of which are related to Australia, you are hereby awarded The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
this WikiAward was given to Ian Rose by TomStar81 (Talk) on 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
World War II Barnstar.svg The World War Barnstar
For your contributions to the Featured Articles Reg Pollard and Dick Cresswell, both of whom served in World War II, you are hereby presented with this World War Barnstar. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
WikiChevrons.png The WikiChevrons
For you contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF and No. 91 Wing RAAF, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Wiki medal.jpg The Featured Article Medal
For your contributions to No. 90 Wing RAAF, Reg Pollard (general), No. 91 Wing RAAF, and Dick Cresswell, all of which were promoted to Featured Article status in 2016, you are hereby presented with The Featured Article Medal. Congratulations! For the Military history WikiProject Coordinators, TomStar81 (Talk) 05:50, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
You are very thoughtful, Tom -- thank you so much. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:11, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Petrovich Petrov (general)[edit]

This FAC, which you commented on, was archived yesterday. What are your suggestions for material to be added to the article to make it FA? Kges1901 (talk) 10:26, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Kges, I don't have too much time to add to my FAC comments right now but would like to revisit as soon as I can -- pls give me a few days and ping me if you haven't heard from me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Ian Rose: Comments? Kges1901 (talk) 11:50, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi again, tks for the ping. I'll comment here for now but pls feel free to transfer this to the article talk page to centralise if you like. Having stopped pre-war in my FAC review, I quickly went through the rest of the article just now and made a couple of small edits. I think the flow and the level of detail in the WWII/death section is adequate but my concerns re. the lack of career info from 1925 to 1932 and the confusing account of 1937 are still an issue for me. I realise that you may simply not be able to find the info for 1925-32, or to reconcile conflicting info for 1937, but in that case I have to question whether this is ready for FAC (to be honest I don't think it was really ready for ACR with those issues but I didn't participate in that review so it's a bit of a moot point). Not being very well-versed in Soviet military history, I can only compare the article to what I'd expect (and generally see) in say Allied or German military FA-level bios. If you are able add material or tweak what's there I would be happy to revisit and make further suggestions before another FA nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:35, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Since I can't add the information now, I'll wait for the necessary information to be added on the Russian sources I use. Perhaps some Russian will obtain Petrov's record in the CAMD archives and post it on the internet. For now, I'll let it sit at GA/A, which is also the highest level it got on the German wiki.Kges1901 (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Source reviews...[edit]

I'm not sure that people will be happy with me returning to source reviews.... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Well I'm happy if it makes you feel any better... ;-) Seriously, it's very good to have you back to augment Nikki's and others' efforts, especially as Brian's had to cut down recently. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly Milhist Reviewing Award: Oct to Dec 16[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 14 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2016. Your ongoing efforts to support Wikipedia's quality content processes are greatly appreciated. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXIX, January 2017[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) 23:08, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Bugle Article?[edit]

@Nick-D: I don't know if The Bugle is the place for this, but do y'all be think there would be interest in an article on copyright?

Background: Since becoming a coordinator, I have done much/too much Wikignome work focused on editing references (with some weight on those that are linked to the internet). In the course of this, I have come across a lot of (what I believe to be unintentional) failure to comply with Wikipedia's copyright rules. Two thirds of these rules (and the ones most editors are usually familiar with, even if they are violated) has to do with not quoting copyrighted information and with giving citations to copyrighted sources in general. There are other Gnomes who patrol this issue, and compliance is good, if not ideal. There is another element, however, and that is giving proper credit for the use of the material. I have found in the process of verifying, adding archives, etc. that it is rare for the author to be properly credited (which is a requirement). I have found this is true not only for IP editors, who may use the styles [http://website] or, at best [http://website Name of Website], but editors who have enough experience to use templates.
I would include a couple of other items in the article, that I have noticed and are associated (even if not, like the general subject contrary to copyright): 1) Making up your own name for the website (an example would be citing 56 OG Fact Sheet, when the page cited was Factsheet: 56th Operations Group) 2) Using the Wayback Machine -- since I've noticed a lot of articles have a short half-life and this can create a "permanent' link.--Lineagegeek (talk) 23:54, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
That sounds like a great topic for a Bugle article. If you wanted to narrow in on frequent areas of copyright problems in military history articles, you could cover the problems with copying and pasting news stories (a major problem in articles on modern topics) and material from websites in articles on historic topics. Nick-D (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Alan Rawlinson[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 11 January 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Alan Rawlinson, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Australian World War II fighter ace Alan Rawlinson had "Sweet FA" in the Middle East before he got "up you" in the South West Pacific? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Alan Rawlinson. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Alan Rawlinson), 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) 12:01, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

a question, part deux[edit]

Hello Ian. Sorry to bother you. If I may ask... I am really unable to decide between text options. The list of "causes" of the Bengal famine of 1943 is very distressingly long. I have two overlapping, alternate versions of a summary, either for the lede or.. for little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text. One version is boring and tends to induce googly-eyed torpor, but is also somewhat more accurate, at the expense of detail. It is the first para here. The other is more interesting but less accurate. It is "The demand for rice was..." here. An example of the "little intro sections I have sprinkled throughout the body text" is the first para of Background, beginning with the words: "From the late nineteenth century..."

Um. So. Do you... have any thoughts or suggestions? A million thanks, and sorry again for pestering you.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 15:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Hiya, no bother, let me try and have a look later today or on the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
...only if you have free time, and "thanks!"  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 08:15, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Lingzhi, had a look. Have to admit I'm a bit out of my depth here but I don't see a particular issue with the sandbox version -- when you characterise it as "less accurate", do you perhaps mean "more general"? I don't think we ever want "less accurate" info in WP but I think it's fine for a lead to discuss things at a high level or in a general sense, as long as the main body goes into appropriately nuanced detail. One other thing if this is going to FAC eventually, I think one should always clearly attribute quotes, e.g. who says "a vast cremation ground", "bodies in all states of decay...[were] dragged through the lanes of abandoned villages by hungry jackals", "massive escalation", etc? As it is one can't be sure if the author of the source says it or if it's someone the source is quoting... An alternative would be to paraphrase some of these, e.g. "vast cremation ground" is a graphic phrase that I think you might well retain, but unless the other two were said by someone notable, perhaps they could be put in your own words (just a thought). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:07, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for spending time on this, and for your comments. I think the misc version is... more compact... and more academic... so it covers ground more efficiently but does not read as well... I like the idea of having a higher proportion of quoted text than is perhaps considered standard or average in WP, for two reasons: 1) I live in fear of POV warriors, and quoted text is relatively less assailable. 2) More importantly to me, quoted text... seems to... lend a sense of immediacy (without shrillness); it seems to personalize the text without POV-ifying it. Or at least I think so. [But I will try to clarify ambiguous citations, at least to some degree].. I will probably resist more than a few attempts to impose a standard format on the article. Another forex, the lede is long. Well, [insert exclamation here], the topic is über-complex, and many people will read only the lede. And so on. Many thanks...  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 11:21, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

History of science fiction and fantasy magazines to 1950, again[edit]

Ian, if you have time I'd appreciate your input on this. I've followed your earlier advice and kept it all in a single narrative, rather than separating the publishing and reception histories. The article isn't done yet, but it's getting closer (no images or copyedit pass yet). I have a couple of questions.

  • The article is already 7,412 words of prose, and that doesn't include the table, which is huge. I haven't done overseas (non-English-language) magazines yet, nor have I done much on UK magazines or on the period 1945-1950, which would be a few hundred words more. Should I cut it to end at 1945? Ashley ends at 1950 for good reasons: that's the best date to pick for the pulp/digest switch, with F&SF launching at the end of 1949 and Galaxy the following year. But it would be awfully long. Or should I cut the UK and non-English stuff to another article, and take it up to 1950, and change the title to indicate it's North America only?
  • If you have time to skim the article and tell me if the structure works as I have it, that would be much appreciated too.

Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, I think I'd stick with the 1950 end date because although 1945 would make perfect sense to the uninitiated, I think 1950 is more appropriate in the life of the field, and the fact that a key source, i.e. Ashley, uses it makes it an even easier decision. I don't think including the extra five years should make it too detailed. If you felt you had to cut then I would reduce the scope to the US rather than reduce the timeframe, but my feeling is that even with the UK and non-English sections you can justify the length. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:29, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
OK, 1950 it is. I think I knew that was the right answer; I was just worried about the length. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 22 January 2017. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 22, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:56, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Good to see it today, "the story of the RAAF's greatest workhorse", service in collaboration, thank you! - Never too late to say happy new year, I guess. Thank you for keeping Yunshui's peace bell all last year! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Hey![edit]

I wanted to ask something about FACs. Am I allowed to nominate another article for FAC if another one have multiple supports like FLCs? BTW Snuggums has given his support to the FAC and the image in question was recently verified.Krish | Talk 20:57, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hey! There is a new problem. The picture which was reviewed yesterday, now has been nominated for deletion. So I removed it from the article. Is is okay? I don't know what to do now.Krish | Talk 06:23, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi Krish, I ended up copyediting and therefore recusing from coord duties so I'll have to defer to fellow coords Laser brain or Sarastro1 on that... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: Given that there has been a fair amount of recent activity on your nomination and there is potential for more attention, I would prefer that you stick to one open nomination at this time. Hope this helps! --Laser brain (talk) 14:36, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Laser brain: I don't understand. Does it mean the article will not pass? I was hoping otherwise. Since everything has been resolved and the article is in good shape. Is there something which I am missing here?Krish | Talk 15:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
@Krish!: No, I'm not making any statement about ongoing consensus at the nomination. I'm just saying that you've had a fair bit of activity there and I think there's a potential that reviewers may add comments that will require more attention from you. When that is the case, we'd generally prefer folks have just one nomination open. --Laser brain (talk) 16:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
Okay. Now I understand. I misunderstood it earlier, sorry.Krish | Talk 16:19, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
For how long you think the FAC will be kept open? Nothing new is happening there.Krish | Talk 22:10, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Reviews?[edit]

Ian (and also pinging Laser brain and Sarastro1): I'm able to do at least three more FAC reviews over the next week or so; is there anything you'd particularly like to see another reviewer on? Looking at counts of support it looks like nothing is being ignored, from the older list, at least. I've done three of the four urgents -- I see Laser brain is in the middle of reviewing the remaining one so I was going to wait for him on that. Or I can pick something from the top half of the list. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:33, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Mike, tks for grabbing the Russells, which I felt needed more work -- as well as the others you've done recently of course. I wouldn't mind you checking Unlocked (Alexandra Stan album) from the top half of the list, as it's the third time at bat. God of War: Ascension also comes to mind -- I'll leave Andy and Sarastro a recommendation or two now... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
@Mike Christie: If you get a chance, could you have a look at Yesterday's Enterprise (FAC here). It's nearly there, but I think the prose needs a last look/polish. Sarastro1 (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sure; probably tomorrow or the next day. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 20:57, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
Sarastro1: Just FYI, it might take me longer than I thought to get to Yesterday's Enterprise; I've signed myself up to try to help out with the source review issues at Nike-X, which I'd like to see promoted, and I think that will slow me down a bit, so you may want to ask someone else to take a look. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:34, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Mike Christie: No problem, I'll see what we can do tomorrow. My weekend has been a little more hectic than I'd expected! Sarastro1 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Prince Romerson[edit]

Hello, Ian - I saw your recent edit to Prince Romerson, and I'd like to ask you about something. I saw you changed "a number of" to "several". In the course of a lot of reading and copy-editing articles, I have several times seen people changing "a number of" to "several", and maybe even a few discussions about it. I know that, for the sake of conciseness, using one word instead of three is often a good choice, but at the same time I have always thought of "a number of" as an acceptable alternative to "several". I'm just curious to know whether you consider it an unacceptable alternative to "several" or are merely changing it because it reduces the number of words. If the former, I would be interested in knowing why you consider it unacceptable. I often think the prose in WP lacks variety, and the same words are used over and over again, and if a bit of variety in the vocabulary could be introduced here and there, it would be a good thing. I'm interested in your point of view.  – Corinne (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi Corinne, thanks for asking. I like to see variety too and I don't consider "a number of" to be unacceptable, it's just something I see so often in the course of walking through articles as a FAC coord that I do like to consider other -- and, as you rightly surmised, shorter -- possibilities. Of course it's not as a bad as "a large number of" (why not "many"?) or "a small number of" (why not "some" or "a few"?). So you may well find me leaving "a number of" when there's already a "several" in the vicinity, because repetition is something else I tend to pick up on! I guess the bottom line is that I consider word usage to be a somewhat subjective thing anyway, so I try not shoot any expression "on sight" and am always happy to discuss copyedits if people have another point of view. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
O.K. Thanks, Ian!  – Corinne (talk) 15:44, 22 January 2017 (UTC)

Henry III[edit]

Please do not revert my edit to say "discuss". Leave it in place, and then say "discuss" Wjhonson (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Not the way it works, mate, especially regards a featured article -- when there's disagreement the status quo should remain while discussion takes place, and change afterwards if/when there's consensus for it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Spot checks[edit]

Hi Ian, I'm having trouble persuading someone to take on the spot check on the Henry Morgan FAC; HJ Mitchell pencilled himself in, but it looks like RL has kept him away from WP for a while. As I wouldn't like to see this fall off the bottom of the page over this additional step, do you know of anyone I could ask to step in to undertake it? All the best, The Bounder (talk) 10:30, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Bounder, as a rule, if a nom has a fair amount of commentary and support then it won't be archived while it awaits image or source checks. I know we'd all like to see it wrapped up though -- Nikkimaria or Laser brain, would either of you have a chance to take on a spotcheck for this first-time nominator? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd be happy to do it. --Laser brain (talk) 15:01, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you both so much. Laser brain, If you need me to send over scans of pages, please message me and I'll email them across. Thanks again and all the best, The Bounder (talk) 15:08, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXX, February 2017[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) 04:45, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

FA sourcing[edit]

I've posted a response to you on The Bounder's page, but he usually removes posts he doesn't like, so I'm repeating it here.

The Daily Mail is used in that article as a key primary source. The Daily Mail and Guardian published early photographs of Tomlinson showing him in contact with the police just before he died. This was important in the early investigation—which for a week was journalist-led—because the official story was that Tomlinson had simply had a heart attack.

Ian, I'm surprised to see you respond to his attack as you did. If the coordinators won't stand up for reviewers under attack, then no one is going to want to leave a negative review. SarahSV (talk) 05:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Sarah, if by "his attack" you're referring to his characterisation of your comments, a coordinator (Andy) had already responded to that and it's pretty evident that he is set in his opinion, whether we like or not. This coordinator was moving on and pointing out there's a process for raising concerns about sources (or any aspect) of FAs if he truly believes that other articles are not receiving -- or have not received -- the same scrutiny as his. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:48, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
You implied that his comment had merit. The point is that nominators shouldn't act vengefully against reviewers. It's normal to be upset, and everyone understands that (I've been in both positions, so I understand it very well), but acts of revenge against a reviewer's FAs or searching their edits from years ago to find things to disagree with, cross the line. The Bounder is not a new editor; he understands the FA process. Editors who leave critical reviews are your most precious commodity as an FA coordinator, and they need your strong defence. It isn't easy to leave one. But without them you'll be waving through problematic articles. SarahSV (talk) 05:58, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm sorry if you inferred that, Sarah, the observation was intended to point out, as even-handedly as I could, that sources that might be considered controversial now (i.e. the Daily Mail, as evidenced by the current RFC) were not necessarily so in 2009. I value all participants at FAC, whether they be critical commentators like yourself, in-depth source reviewers (see my response to Ealdgyth above), image licensing experts, experienced nominators, or first-time nominators (like The Bounder). IMO, if FAC is to maintain its quality and relevance we can ill afford losses among any of these groups. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:20, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator.
The use of the Daily Mail has nothing to do with standards having changed since 2009. I keep the article reasonably well updated, so if there were inappropriate sources I'd remove them. The tabloid images [1][2] were used because they're primary sources showing Tomlinson's contact with police shortly before he died.
But we shouldn't be discussing my FAs as a result of my review of an FAC. That is the point, and it would be nice if coordinators would put a stop to that kind of linkage as soon as they see it. SarahSV (talk) 19:04, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
@SlimVirgin: I'm not sure much of this is ideal, and I'm not sure there are too many wrongs to right, but can I just check "The Bounder isn't a first-time nominator" and he "is not a new editor". I'm possibly being thick, but which other articles has he nominated? And the account is only 4 months old. Am I missing something? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
Sarastro1, this isn't his first account. If someone wants a clean start, I don't want to get in the way of that. On the other hand, when an editor claims to be a first-time nominator, it means reviewers might treat him differently. It also means that editors who might otherwise have chosen not to interact are denied that choice. That's all I want to say. I'm obviously wishing at this point that I hadn't reviewed the article. SarahSV (talk) 20:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Garage rock article[edit]

I thought you could take a look at the Garage rock article and see how things are coming along there. Do you think it is near ready for review? I could take a little time and wait if need be. But, I'd be interested in any feedback you could provide. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:48, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I'll have a quick look now, and if I feel I can spend longer on it later then I will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Garagepunk66 (talk) 16:44, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

About the revert on Marvel Science Stories[edit]

To explain my edits:

  • sf was SF for clarity in the title of the person. It might otherwise be mistaken for a typo of "of". It's also because when I google "sf," it pops up the abbreviation capitalized, so I acted accordingly.
  • The placement with the punctuation in the quotation is to be consistent with the American English spelling and punctuation style on the page as it is an American pulp magazine. In American English, the punctuation is within double (") quotations, if that helps clear things.
  • I can understand the table formatting being unnecessary, though I do want to space the text from the file embed link so it doesn't look fused together.

Anything to add? Cheeseskates (talk) 10:12, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cheeseskates, appreciate the opportunity to discuss the edits further:
  • Perhaps I missed something but not sure what you mean by "in the title of the person"... In any case I grant you "SF" is valid, but so is "sf" (just checking the two detailed histories of science fiction I have, one uses SF and the other uses sf). The lower-case format seems to be the style that's been adopted and accepted in not just this article but most or all of the similar articles in WP.
  • Being Australian I wouldn't presume to debate AmEng conventions with you, but I believe that MOS:LQ recommends that while full sentences should always be wholly within quote marks, fragments should take quote marks before punctuation.
  • Sorry, I didn't see that you added the spaces in a few cases, no objections to that.

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Concerning Hans-Ulrich Rudel[edit]

Hello, I noticed you reverted an IP when he removed the mention of the "Wehrmachtsberichte". Actually there was a discussion at Talk:Wehrmachtbericht#Military commendation?. I am with the IP here, as the Wehrmachtsberichte are primary sources. I took the liberty of undoing your edit. Cheers and happy editing. Lectonar (talk) 08:23, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi, primary sources are not forbidden in WP, especially when used to cite simple facts (they should not be used to interpret facts). The Rudel article has been through peer review and MilHist A-Class Review, and the mentions in the Wehrmachtsberichte were considered acceptable. Consensus can of course change, but you need to discuss that on the Rudel talk page, or bring it up at a wider forum (e.g. the MilHist talk page). Until the consensus does change, the article should remain as it was, so I've reverted to the earlier version. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:32, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I am aware that primary sources are allowed, with caveats; the problem I see here is in labeling being mentioned in the Wehrmachtsbericht as a military award (which imho is an interpretation of the primary source which should not be done; neither the English nor the German article Wehrmachtsbericht does make a mention of it being a military award (as a sidenote: this is different from being Mentioned in dispatches, which is explicitly one). That is why I linked to the discussion above). Just passing peer review for a "good article" and being A-graded in a Wiki-project does not concensus make for every detail in the article. Lectonar (talk) 12:04, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Promotion[edit]

I see that you have promoted Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Corvus (constellation)/archive1 but several of my comments in my source review remained unresolved/not replied to. Had it been in a nomination of someone like me, it would have been a very big deal, big enough that, if unresolved, could even result in archival. – FrB.TG (talk) 17:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Well, no, three outstanding formatting questions isn't as big a deal as say a reliability issue, and wouldn't result in a nom's archival, but I admit I had formed the impression that because Casliber had responded to most points, and you hadn't followed up after several days, that they had all been actioned. If not, I'm sure Cas can revisit them and either action them or discuss with you on the article talk page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi folks, I have been really busy so answered there to tidy up Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:32, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Consolidated PBY Catalina in Royal Australian Air Force Service[edit]

Ian, you will be interested in the new article Consolidated PBY Catalina in Royal Australian Air Force Service. Just wondering also whether it be renamed Consolidated PBY Catalina in Australian service for consistency? Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:00, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Good to see someone working on such an article... I agree it should be renamed though -- we have the following already utilising the alternate wording:
Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Thanks for creating this article Newm30! Regarding the title, given that Qantas also operated Catalinas during the Second World War ([3]) a RAAF-specific title is workable if that's all the article will cover. I'd suggest extending it and tweaking the title to also cover the Qantas aircraft though given they were a part of the war effort. As a random note, there's an interesting display on the Qantas Catalinas in the Qantas museum at Sydney Airport. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Credit for the creation of the article belongs to @SamHolt6: Regards Newm30 (talk) 22:28, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Cricket books[edit]

I don't suppose you happen to have a local library with a (very) well-stocked cricket section do you? I've been looking at an article that could potentially be very good, but the lack of access to two or three books on Australian cricket are rather hampering things. Sarastro1 (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

There are a couple of major libraries in Sydney I get to every so often, as well as the local up the road -- what are you after? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
This and this. The article would survive without them, and they might not have anything in, but you never know! Sarastro1 (talk) 12:44, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi Sarastro, I checked the online catalogues of the major libraries in my general area and Pollard's book should be available from Macquarie University, while 200 years looks like it's in the State Library (which also holds his Complete Histories of Australian cricket, 1803-1989 and 1803-1995, if they're of any help). I may not be able to borrow either book but if you let me know what you're after specifically I can try and look at them in the next week or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Anything at all about the Tasmania v Victoria cricket match of 1851; the first intercolonial game and apparently the first first-class game in Australia. Anything on the game, or the teams in the built up to it. Thanks! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:07, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Active editor with song FAs?[edit]

Do you (or a TPS) know an active editor who has a string of FAs on popular songs? I'm working with Carbrera on improving Make Me Like You, which has failed at FAC a couple of times, and I'd like to get additional input on the talk page from someone who's done several of these to FA level. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 17:52, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Dan56 has taken quite a few popular music articles to FA... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Maybe I'm being thick...[edit]

Although we restarted Mit Fried und Freud ich fahr dahin and moved it to the top of the list at FAC, and I've reset the dates of the nomination, FACbot keeps moving it to the top of the Older Nominations section. Possibly I'm missing something, and maybe Hawkeye7 can tell me where the bot looks to decide where to put the nomination, but we might have to leave it there as we can't keep putting it back! Sarastro1 (talk) 23:17, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nothing jumps at me, I might let Hawkeye take the first pass at this... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The FACBot looks at the date on which the nomination was created. In this case, that was 5 December 2016. So it's an older nomination. Normally when you create a new nomination, it would be archive2. Hawkeye7 (talk) 02:55, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah. In that case, I suppose we'd better leave it at the top of "older nominations". Sarastro1 (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Palais Rohan, Strasbourg FAC[edit]

Ian, I happened to look at the nominator's talk page. this charming edit suggests that Nikkimaria got off lightly! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 17:05, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, the attitude doesn't seem like a recipe for longevity at WP in general, let alone FAC...! Cheers, 00:08, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

BMPL[edit]

Hey you might have been eyeing that the Briarcliff Manor Public Library fac has been open for just over a month. At the very least it still needs a source review, and nobody's seemed to come. Any ideas on people I should reach out to? Much appreciated, ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:57, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
As well I have oft wondered about family. A few of my relatives, some immediate, have Wikipedia accounts. I don't think I ever spotted a rule against such users contributing to GA or FA reviews, and the quality of work always matters while identity doesn't, on Wikipedia at least. What are your thoughts on this? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 05:05, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Actually no, I hadn't seen it because it looks like you didn't transclude the page to WP:FAC... Before we look at doing that, though, a formatting issue: L4 headers should be used to demarcate reviewer comments, not L3. Even then, we wouldn't be at the stage of seeking a source review because the opposing reviewers from the previous FAC need to have a chance to check and see if their concerns have been addressed. Lastly, re. family and friends reviewing, I couldn't see where WP:COI went into that (it seems to focus more on editing articles about family and friends) but I certainly wouldn't be soliciting input from WP editors who happened to be family or friends; happy to hear thoughts from my talk page stalkers on this... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:13, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I could've sworn I had transcluded, that's odd and somewhat silly. Should I reformat the headers? The reviewers did that, so I didn't want to touch it. Done, as the transcluded copy messed up the TOC w/ L2 headers. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:38, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Eve Russell - featured article candidate[edit]

I've nominated the article about the episode Eve Russell for Featured Article consideration. The FAC currently three "support" votes and image and source reviews, but I have received a note that it could use more commentary on comprehensiveness and source reliability. I was wondering if you could help me with this. I would really appreciate any comments or feedback on this nomination. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Eve Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. Aoba47 (talk) 23:53, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Tks for asking, Aoba, I might be able to recuse coord duties and review, let me see how I go in the next day or two. Just keeping my coord hat on for a minute, though, I think I may have mentioned once before to try not to think in terms of "votes", as the depth of commentary is considered more important than a simple declaration of support (or opposition). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:27, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Thank you, and I will be more considerate of it in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 02:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

March Madness 2017[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout March 2017 the Military history Wikiproject is running its March Madness drive. This is a backlog drive that is focused on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • updating the project's currently listed A-class articles to ensure their ongoing compliance with the listed criteria
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various task force pages or other lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the military history scope will be considered eligible. More information can be found here for those that are interested, and members can sign up as participants at that page also.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 March and runs until 23:59 UTC on 31 March 2017, so please sign up now.

For the Milhist co-ordinators. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:23, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Allan Moffat[edit]

Don't have a reliable source regarding Allan Moffat's wife as he's a famously private person. His sons Andrew and James are half-brothers and a real estate website said Moff's wife was called "Sue" in 2011. He's not been with Pauline for awhile. --Falcadore (talk) 09:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tks for taking the time to explain -- I have to admit I haven't followed things for several years, it was still Pauline last I time I did... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:06, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
Well James Moffat is 32 so it has been at least that long since they were married. --Falcadore (talk) 02:23, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Heh, well it hasn't been quite that long since I was following Moff's career (though admittedly most of my interest in professional sport was a childhood thing) but clearly I missed that bit...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Fair Use in Australia discussion[edit]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery

FAC William Pūnohu White[edit]

Hello, I don't know if you came across Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/William Pūnohu White/archive1. It was closed today because of no traffic and only 1 review after a month. The quality of the article is FAC material in my opinion. I did not ask anybody (except two users) in the initial run to review it since I was trusting that it will receive reviews. Now I am asking a couple of people here and there to see if there is enough interest to renominate it again. I will only go ahead once I find a few people who wants to give it a review. Please let me know if you are interested, Thanks either way.--KAVEBEAR (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) KAVEBEAR, the best way to attract reviewers is to return the favour. Your previous FAC attracted several reviewers, but it's a fact of life that good will is limited. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 07:24, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXI, March 2017[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) 23:20, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

Question[edit]

Do I have to ask for more reviews for my FAC? It has 5 supports and a withdrawal oppose, and it's almost a month since it's been open. I ask because I have another article in the queue that I've been working on. MCMLXXXIX 15:45, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi 1989, sorry I took a while to respond -- RL intruding...! On a quick scan it looks like you could probably sit tight on it, I'm sure one of the coords (perhaps me) will be able to look it over in more detail soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Simone Russell - featured article candidate[edit]

Thank you again for your help with the Eve Russell FAC. I have recently nominated the Simone Russell article for Featured Article consideration, and it has received a lot of attention already (and I am very grateful for their suggestions/comments). I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience.

The link is here if you are interested: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Simone Russell/archive1. Thank you for your time. I am only going to be nominating one more article from this topic, and I apologize for putting a lot of these articles up for FAC in such a short time frame. Aoba47 (talk) 17:39, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Aoba, tks for asking -- yeah, things are very busy but I'll have a look if I find time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:20, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
  • Hello, I apologize again for the intrusion. I was wondering if you could possible look at my FAC to gauge the commentary on it? Aoba47 (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2017 (UTC)

Bobby Gibbes[edit]

Hi Ian, While out and about today, I was interested to see that Bobby Gibbes is interred at St John the Baptist Church, Reid in Canberra, in a plot shared with many other members of this family. I can't find a reliable source to back this up to add so it can be added to the article though... I've uploaded a photo of the grave stone at File:Gravestone of Bobby Gibbes April 2017.jpg, though unfortunately the plot needs a bit of maintenance. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Tks Nick -- very nice shot, clear and crisp. I don't think we can fit it into the article but at least people can find it in the Commons link. Yeah, bit unusual none of the papers mentioned where he was buried... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXII, April 2017[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) 23:50, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

FAC source review fyi[edit]

Hey there Ian! Long time no talk. Hope all is well in the land down under. I'm here with regards to the sourcing review in the recent FAC for Sino-Roman relations, which was ... well, possibly not as strong as it could have been. See Talk:Sino-Roman relations#Ref issues and [4]. No blame being assigned, just an FYI. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:12, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Note that in the spirit of SOFIXIT, I went ahead and reviewed Pericles' current FAC. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 07:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Tks Ed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Faces (Star Trek: Voyager)- featured article candidate[edit]

Thank you again for all of your help and feedback from my FACs. You have definitely helped me and encouraged me to be more active in the FAC process (though I have a lot more to learn and I am still a novice). I would be extremely grateful if you could provide any comments or suggestions to my current FAC? I am very fortunate to have received such extensive feedback after only putting the FAC up a couple of days ago. I was wondering if you could possibly help me again by provide a more thorough commentary on the comprehensiveness, source reliability, and general prose for the article. I think that everything is up to shape, but I would greatly appreciate your feedback on this. I understand that you are busy so it is completely okay if you are unable to do this. I apologize for any inconvenience. I hope you have a wonderful rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 03:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, tks for asking, I have it on my watchlist, will see what I can do time permitting. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 21:33, 21 April 2017 (UTC)
  • I believe the nomination has received enough feedback/commentary for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 21:27, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Word count[edit]

Hey Ian, can you give me a link to the word count template? I had it installed on my user page while ago and I want to implement it on the Macedonian wiki edition. Thanks for the help.--Retrohead (talk) 08:53, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi, do you mean the page size script? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Yes. Though I'm not sure it can count prose written in Cyrillic script. I tried passing prose from articles in Cyrillic here, but the DYK counter only shows number of characters in the text. It seems it can't count the words.--Retrohead (talk) 13:07, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Retrohead, very sorry for not following up sooner -- if you're still interested, this is the page size script. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Kom (film)/archive1[edit]

Would you please take a look at the FAC? Thank you!Krish | Talk 07:37, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Featured Article Candidate[edit]

Hi Ian! I'm a student working on a wikied project, and my group is hoping to get the page we edited onto the featured content page. We've put a lot of work into the Indigenous Environmental Network page, and would greatly appreciate if you could look it over and give us some feedback. Thanks!

Gmhardesty (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

William Henry Bury scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the William Henry Bury article has been scheduled as today's featured article for May 18, 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. Note that as per the discussion on the TFAR page, I have not deemed it appropriate to run it on his birthday. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 18, 2017, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. I have notified the other main editors. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:52, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Just noticed your comment here, while putting together the April stats; thanks -- I appreciate it. I do think the increased discussion of reviewing has helped. As with so many things in life, the things that get talked about are the things that get done, so I suspect that periodic renewals of the discussion will be necessary to keep up the review volume. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:38, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I daresay. Tks again for your efforts, and for stopping by. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:00, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it looks like I'll have time for more source reviews...[edit]

But I'm still going to avoid pop culture stuff if I can. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:29, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

No prob, anything you can manage will be a big help! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:31, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIII, May 2017[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) 03:02, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Naruto[edit]

Hi Ian Rose,

I'm having trouble with how the prose is supposed to look in Naruto for FA standards. Would you be able to help me with it and add comments to the FAC if needed? If not, please reply. Thanks. -- 1989 01:05, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I will be fairly busy this week but will try and take a look in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:19, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I did a lot of copyediting over the last 2 days, so it should look okay. -- 1989 20:28, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
I don't think Mike is going to comment any further on what's wrong with the prose, that's why I'm asking for your help. Hopefully you'll be active soon. -- 1989 11:53, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

FAC for The Demi-Virgin[edit]

Hi, Ian. Normally I would wait my turn for FAC closings, but I started thinking ahead to possible TFA dates for The Demi-Virgin and realized that one option is as soon as June 3. Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Demi-Virgin/archive1 has three supports with no opposes or unresolved comments, plus completed image and source reviews, I'm hoping it might be promoted sooner rather than later, so I can jump into a TFA/R discussion before it is too late. But if it needs longer, then I can focus on other date options. --RL0919 (talk) 07:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi, I did check it when I was doing the rounds over the weekend and, although everything is going very well, I felt it was a bit soon to close given it's only been open around ten days. I'd prefer to give it at least another week to see if anyone else has thoughts -- if we still have consensus for promotion then and it's closed, I think you'd still have time for the TFAR you mention. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
OK, we'll see how it goes. It's not a dealbreaker either way, but I thought I should at least ask. Thanks for the prompt reply. --RL0919 (talk) 21:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Evita FAC[edit]

Hey Ian, how are you? I was wondering did you get a chance to look at the spotchecks for the above FAC? I had pinged you there while writing a response, but not sure whether you got the notification. Or maybe you got it and will look at it afterwards (in that case please feel free to ignore this message). I know with Laser brain retiring, FAC load might be more for you and Sarastro. Thanks for all that you do. —IB [ Poke ] 07:06, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm well, tks for asking -- a lot on this week RL-wise though so I may not be able to get to check things properly till the weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Just a little nudge on this one! If you don't have time to do another spot-check, Giants2008 had a look and found no other problems. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:22, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Heh, was preparing to have another look at sources when I found several new issues with the prose, but will try and button everything up tonight... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Hey Ian, just gently reminding you, this one was addressed long ago. Perhaps you missed the notification. —IB [ Poke ] 16:05, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Nah, I saw it, just forgot that I hadn't struck the oppose since -- done now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Roy Phillipps scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Roy Phillipps article has been scheduled as today's featured article for 12 June 2017. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 12, 2017. Thanks! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:08, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for another one! - I don't know what to say (probably nothing) in a thread that has "Which confirms once again how meaningless FA review often is." on WT:RSN. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Captains Table IJN Soryu[edit]

Do you want English Sources or if I copy the ones from the Japanese page is that sufficient?

-JustRadical 29 May 2017 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.211.52.188 (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

IN case you didn't see....[edit]

this Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:51, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

Belated tks mate-- not too much free time lately, hope everyone had a good time! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
A nice dinner at the East Ocean was had by all...and plenty of Carlton Black draught beers...but did get a tad soaked by the deluge....sighCas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIV, June 2017[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) 12:52, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

You've got mail![edit]

Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Marvellous Spider-Man 03:54, 10 June 2017 (UTC)


strategy[edit]

At this stage I am in process of writing a report about discussions in Australia about https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017 the cycle 2 of the broader wikimedia strategy -

You may well have responded elsewhere - but if you at all interested - not the slightest bother if you are not - please feel free to contact on or off wiki - thanks JarrahTree 05:15, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Melbourne Castle[edit]

Hi there, I just want to draw your attention to my question at Talk:Melbourne Castle § Unexplained revert as I have yet to hear from you. 142.160.131.202 (talk) 02:40, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Withdraw Astronomica FAN[edit]

A few weeks ago, I nominated the article Astronomica for FAN. I thought I had responded to all the points raised during the pre-FAN peer reviews, but I noticed just today that I completely missed the comments raised by groupuscule about two months ago. I would like to withdraw the article from FAN at this time so as to implement groupuscule's excellent comments. Thanks.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 02:15, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Disneyland Railroad featured article nomination[edit]

Greetings, Ian. I see that you are one of the administrators in charge of closing FACs, so when you have a moment, I would like you to observe this one: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Disneyland Railroad/archive1. It has passed reviews for its prose, images, and sources, and has five confirmed supporters, so I believe that this one is ready to be closed. Jackdude101 (Talk) 03:32, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXV, July 2017[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) 07:34, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Apr to Jun 17 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 7 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Apr to Jun 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 05:54, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Cheers Rupert! Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

@*&# Misclicks grrr[edit]

Hello IR. Misclicks happen all the time to me. Mine are usually a screen jump and they drive me bonkers. Cheers to ya. MarnetteD|Talk 04:40, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

FAC removals[edit]

Hi Ian + RHaworth, I noticed you removed the FAC for the Megan Rapinoe and Abby Wambach articles. Can you clarify what the problem is? — Hmlarson (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

  • I don't know - why can't you just say? Hmlarson (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • (talk page stalker) @Hmlarson: The problem was that you nominated two FACs at the same time, with a third FAC already open. The FAC instructions only allow an editor to nominate one article at a time by themselves, with the possibility of one more if it is a co-nomination. This has been the case for a long time now. Any nominations that are out-of-process like this are deleted as standard procedure. I noticed before the FAC pages were deleted that a reviewer had also pointed out that the nominations were out of process. Sarastro1 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2017 (UTC)
  • Aah, thanks for clarifying. "Out of process" isn't really clear. Hmlarson (talk)

Thanks for catching that[edit]

Thanks for catching that on the B-52 page. SomewhatSpurious (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

King John's children[edit]

Hello, Ian Rose and thank you for your message about the last edits on King John's page!
I've been having a few problems with my computer lately - couldn't log in to make edits. I just thought it would be better to make a "list" of John's children. It's usually done for most royalty and I thought it would make a more "lightened" presentation of John's descendants.--Aziliz Breizh (talk) 16:13, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Randall Flagg FAC[edit]

Is there any way to bump this up or should I ask other editors for their thoughts? It's received only two editors so far. Thanks.--CyberGhostface (talk) 03:00, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Hi CyberGhostface, sorry but not quite sure what you mean by "bump this up". TBH, given only one reviewer has supported promotion during a review that's been running six weeks, and Cas has suggested further analysis is required (and provided possible sources), I think the best course would be archiving this nom, giving you a chance to address his point, and then returning with pings to all the previous reviewers to take another look. I say that knowing how many times the article has been at the plate, but others have been through more noms and still achieved the bronze star in the end... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:16, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Moving ahead[edit]

As Benedetto Pistrucci seems to be there, I trust there's no objection if I move forward with the next? All the best,--Wehwalt (talk) 23:04, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

FAC[edit]

Thank you for your recommendations and patience since this is my first time that I am nominating an article here for FA consideration. If I were to follow your guidelines, what needs to be done to initiate a copyedit and a PR? And who would do this process?--Seiya (talk) 09:48, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Re:Timeline[edit]

Was actually just coming back to do this today since I guessed that the newsletter would be going out in the next few days. I was going to do the op-ed too, but I guess I got beat to that this month :) Should have it done in about a half an hour. TomStar81 (Talk) 05:36, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Thanks for this Tom. Ian, just to confirm I think that this issue is now good to go Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVI, August 2017[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) 13:38, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Station to Station[edit]

Hi Ian, Please check your mail. This is getting way too complicated. :) --47.138.242.130 (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2017 (UTC)Harry Maslin https://www.facebook.com/mazster mazster@verizon.net — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mazster (talkcontribs) 01:25, 13 August 2017 (UTC)

Air Power Development Centre website[edit]

Hi Ian, I just spotted that the APDC has developed a new website - today I think given I was browsing it yesterday. The good news is that it looks more functional. The bad news is that it appears that all of our links are broken, though none of the PDFs are loading at the moment... Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Heh, not just today but this arvo I think, I was accessing something from the old site only this morning! Yes, I wouldn't be surprised if all the links are broken, no-one in government seems to believe in redirects -- look at AWM... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:59, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
I sent the AWM an email to alert them to problems with the official histories (eg, the page numbers for the chapters not being listed in the index and the URLs changing), and the reply stated that the new URLs will be permanent. I'll believe that when I see it though! They're going to re-add the page numbers too. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
Great minds as usual -- I sent them an email a while ago asking for the page numbers too -- it all helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:08, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the correction[edit]

Thanks for you correction of my (mis)-edit of the entry Robert Oppenheimer. I did not notice the "references" section. Woops.PloniAlmoni (talk) 11:18, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVII, September 2017[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) 23:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Macedonias and Greeks[edit]

Hello, in my opinion its better to undo your last change because now it's seems that the Macedonias were not Greek. 3brothers1sister (talk) 18:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


Mail-message-new.svg
Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Douglas MacArthur[edit]

Thank you for this edit. I'm having quite the time with that editor creating categories and haphazardly adding them to biographies. Magnolia677 (talk) 19:37, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military history WikiProject Coordinator election[edit]

Greetings from the Military history WikiProject! Elections for the Military history WikiProject Coordinators are currently underway. As a member of the WikiProject you are cordially invited to take part by casting your vote(s) for the candidates on the election page. This year's election will conclude at 23:59 UTC 29 September. Thank you for your time. For the current tranche of Coordinators, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2017 September 15#King who died with a hot poker up the ass. Hello Ian. As one of the most prolific editors of the Edward II of England article, would you mind leaving a comment or a !vote as to whether King who died with a hot poker up the ass should be deleted? Thanks. --Nevéselbert 13:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Re:Checking[edit]

Yeah, I can see that. I just added +1 for the people I voted for so that's where the weird tally numbers came up. Sorry about that, it'll be something I'll have to keep in mind int he future. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:51, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations![edit]

Coordinator of the Military History Project, September 2017 – September 2018

In recognition of your election as one of the Military History Project's Co-ordinators, please accept these Co-ordinator's stars. Thank you for your ongoing efforts in support of the project. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:30, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Cheers Rupert! Ian Rose (talk) 06:27, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Jul to Sep 2017 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period Jul to Sep 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:27, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:02, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXVIII, October 2017[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) 23:42, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Signpost[edit]

Hello! Would you be interested in doing an interview for The Signpost?Eddie891 Talk Work 00:30, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I was interviewed a couple of years ago but if you'd like me to do another I'd be happy to. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Happy First Edit Day[edit]

Nuvola apps cookie.svg Happy First Edit Day, Ian Rose, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Slightlymad 03:57, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Unlocked[edit]

Hi there, Ian! I pinged you here yesterday, but I think you missed it. In any case, I saw you're an experienced FAC editor. With that in mind, I thought of asking you to look over the article above and to kinda copy–edit it (it isn't long, so it shouldn't take that much). Unlocked, a FAC, has received some support, but an experienced user complained over the article's prose, with his main issues being "chopped" sentences (and maybe some other minor stuff you could correct). With that being said, would you have time to edit it? Best regards! Face-smile.svg Cartoon network freak (talk) 20:31, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Request...[edit]

Given the glacial pace of waiting for a source review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Northern rosella/archive1, are you ok with me popping up another one now? I promise to go and do some more reviews in the meantime... ;) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:24, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi Cas -- it looked to me that Brian had already done a source review... I was mainly waiting to see if RileyBugz would return... Perhaps give him one more ping but in the meantime no issue with you starting another... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:59, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
I have pinged him twice so far...but will sit for a bit longer.....meanwhile....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

Now Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Black honeyeater/archive1 chugging along at leisurely pace...are u ok if I pop up another? have been reviewing here and there...cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 25 November 2017 (UTC) nevermind, it has been promoted now Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:00, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

And now Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Southern boobook/archive1 is moving really slowly but almost there. Are you ok with me nominating another? (I also figure if I post this here, Murphy's Law will come into play and maybe reviewers will turn up....) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 09:00, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Hi Cas, actually in this case I would prefer to see at least one more review/declaration before we start another nom, if that's okay -- is there anyone you could bug to take a look? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:27, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
no problem at all.....will take a look at some others.....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:06, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXXIX, November 2017[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) 13:29, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svgHello, Ian Rose. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

2017 Military Historian of the Year and Newcomer of the Year nominations and voting[edit]

As we approach the end of the year, the Military History project is looking to recognise editors who have made a real difference. Each year we do this by bestowing two awards: the Military Historian of the Year and the Military History Newcomer of the Year. The co-ordinators invite all project members to get involved by nominating any editor they feel merits recognition for their contributions to the project. Nominations for both awards are open between 00:01 on 2 December 2017 and 23:59 on 15 December 2017. After this, a 14-day voting period will follow commencing at 00:01 on 16 December 2017. Nominations and voting will take place on the main project talkpage: here and here. Thank you for your time. For the co-ordinators, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:35, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXL, December 2017[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) 11:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Reg Pollard (general) scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Reg Pollard (general) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for January 20, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/January 20, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 13:40, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Saturnalia![edit]

Pompeii - Osteria della Via di Mercurio - Dice Players.jpg Happy Saturnalia
Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free and you not often get distracted by dice-playing. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:55, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you Ealdgyth -- I really appreciate all you do round here. Have a great Saturnalia yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:48, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's greetings[edit]

DeathofEnglishCricket.jpg Seasonal Greetings and Good Wishes
Seasonal greetings for 2017, and best wishes for 2018. Heartfelt thanks to you for your contributions, which have done much to enhance the encyclopedia and make me feel it's worthwhile to keep contributing. So here's to another year's productive editing, with old feuds put aside and peace, goodwill and friendship for all! Brianboulton (talk) 23:39, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

- and if I hear even the hint of a chuckle... Brianboulton (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Why Brian, the merest thought of the possibility of the inkling hadn't begun to even contemplate crossing my mind... ;-) Seriously though, thank you for the good wishes and I wish you and your family the very best over the festive season. WP is fortunate to have your contributions. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:52, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm, did I miss something? There's certainly been nothing of any interest cricket-related in the world recently. Definitely not. No. Nothing. Not a thing. Move along. On a completely unrelated matter, maybe someone should block Brian for blatant vandalism. Some things should not be placed on talk pages. Sarastro (talk) 20:07, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Air Board (Australia)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Air Board (Australia) 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) 06:01, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Precious anniversary![edit]

Precious
Cornflower blue Yogo sapphire.jpg
Four years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

I have an interesting DYK today, Wolfram Röhrig, who was a jazz pianist, headed a broadcaster's department for light music, composed film music, and recorded giant choral works with an amateur chorus, including my latest FA, first as it seems. But not only that - and that's why I come here: he also played a (minor) part on 20 July 1944, so is a character in a film series about it. It's rather broadly covered in the German WP article that he was part of the telecommunication that day, but I wasn't able to find a source, so left it out. Any chance that you might find something? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the sapphire Gerda, and best wishes for the festive season. Re. Rohrig, I can't promise anything but will check what literature I have on the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:40, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for Reg Pollard, written "almost spur-of-the-moment", and for mentioning "sense of humour" ("biblical" Enobsra), - dangerous, very dangerous, humour I mean, - the ultimate weapon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Henry Wrigley, a "veteran of World War I and founding member of the RAAF, Henry Wrigley was one of aviation's deeper thinkers as well as a top pilot, credited with developing a de facto air power doctrine and also first to fly across Australia in 1919, south to north (but not back again, and you'll have to read the article to find out more)... During World War II he was largely responsible for organising the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force, the first women's service in the country."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:12, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for that Gerda -- I appreciate your appreciation... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for today's Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer), saying "though his status as an ace may have given him his prime case for notability on WP, I found him more interesting and admirable as a leader the more I researched him"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

User group for Military Historians[edit]

Greetings,

"Military history" is one of the most important subjects when speak of sum of all human knowledge. To support contributors interested in the area over various language Wikipedias, we intend to form a user group. It also provides a platform to share the best practices between military historians, and various military related projects on Wikipedias. An initial discussion was has been done between the coordinators and members of WikiProject Military History on English Wikipedia. Now this discussion has been taken to Meta-Wiki. Contributors intrested in the area of military history are requested to share their feedback and give suggestions at Talk:Discussion to incubate a user group for Wikipedia Military Historians.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

WikiprojectBarnstar.png The WikiProject Barnstar
For your content work and continuing efforts as one of The Bugle's editors I am pleased to personally award you with this barnstar and add you to my 2017 New Years Honours List. Thank you for your contributions to WikiProject Military History. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:03, 21 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much for that, Rupert, and for everything you do for the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:37, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Air Board (Australia)[edit]

The article Air Board (Australia) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Air Board (Australia) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas to all![edit]

Johansen Viggo - Radosne Boże Narodzenie.jpg We wish you a Merry Christmas and a prosperous New Year 2018!
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas, and a Happy, Glorious, Prosperous New Year! God bless! Face-smile.svg  — Ssven2 Looking at you, kid 10:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Thank you very much Ssven -- hope you have a great Christmas and New Year too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:24, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Season's Greetings[edit]

The Great White North.jpg

...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 23:44, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Bzuk, all the best to you and your family! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:59, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Greetings[edit]

Thanks Krishna, Happy Christmas and New Year to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:12, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and All That[edit]

Merry Christmas, Happy Holidays, and best wishes in all things.  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 01:24, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Many thanks Ling, and my best to you and yours over the festive season! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018![edit]

Wikipedia Happy New Year.png Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Ian Rose, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Chris Troutman (talk) 00:34, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Thanks Chris, hope you had a great Christmas and that you have an enjoyable and safe New Years! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

October to December 2017 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of six Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period October to December 2017. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:07, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLI, January 2018[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) 13:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Sydney meetup[edit]

Short notice but there will be a meetup in Sydney on the 13 January 2018 at 6:30pm, still looking for a venue and open to suggestions. I hope you're able to make it but understand that this is very short notice. Bidgee (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Air Board (Australia)[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 13 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Air Board (Australia), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian Air Board (inaugural members pictured) chose 31 March rather than 1 April as the founding date of the Royal Australian Air Force to avoid being called "April Fools"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Air Board (Australia). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Air Board (Australia)), 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) 12:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Bat FAC[edit]

Hello, its been over a week since the last review and support. The article currently has four supports and reviews have covered everything from sourcing to images to the text. Is there anything else needed? LittleJerry (talk) 20:24, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your civility[edit]

In the reversion of my Kubrick edit. It was appreciated. --Volvlogia (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

Question about FAC[edit]

Hello! I apologize for intruding on your talk page, but I was wondering if you could provide a status update on my current FAC (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/3 of Hearts (album)/archive1)? I believe that it is ready for promotion as it has received feedback from other users and had an image review and source review. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far! Aoba47 (talk) 20:06, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aoba47, sorry, I did mean to respond to your query at WT:FAC yesterday when I was actioning another FAC request -- I haven't gone closely into the status but at first glance it looks reasonably close to promotion so would have no issue if you'd like to nominate another now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! I always bad for messaging you as I bet you are juggling a lot of work both on here and in real life so I do not mean to be an inconvenience. Hope you are doing well. Aoba47 (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

I apologize for interrupting again, but I was just wondering if there was any movement on this as a little over a week has passed since I initially put up my request for a status update. Aoba47 (talk) 01:31, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

Bugle[edit]

Hi Ian, I think that the February Bugle is now done aside from the updates on featured content :) Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Tks Nick, aiming to get to it this evening. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Ugh, busy day/night, have to postpone 24hrs... :-( Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

FAC Margaret[edit]

Hey, sorry to bother you here. My FAC Margaret (singer) received 10 supports, the image review has been carried out and the sources review is complete. I think it is ready for promotion. Do you think you could look into it? Hope you have a good weekend. Best wishes. ArturSik (talk) 11:12, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Replied at nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF[edit]

Hi Ian, It looks like the RAAF has recently replaced its website (no doubt breaking all our links...). I just noticed that the structure page lists No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF as being an active part of the Air Training Wing. I can't find any sources on this, but presumably it's been re-raised as part of the Australian Defence Force Basic Flying Training School moving to Victoria? (and is probably that school under a new name?). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Tks Nick, I think I saw this in an issue of Air Force News last year but if I remember rightly it was the new name for a totally different school, and the report made no connection with the old 1FTS, so I left our 1FTS article as is pending further info. I'll try and take another look soon (after I do the FA blurbs for the Bugle and despatch!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:00, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
From a quick search, the 25 February 2016 edition says that the School of Air Warfare was renamed No. 1 Flying Training School that month. There's also some coverage in later issues. Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one I saw (time flies!), and I've checked the later ones and again no mention of the earlier incarnation. I don't think we can say that the 1FTS we discuss in our current article has been re-formed as such, because there's no connection between the old 1FTS and the SAW, or with the SAN, as SAW was called formerly. I'd like to see the crest of the new 1FTS, if it has one, that would tell us something... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:24, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Yes, the wording is all very vague. It might be worth noting that the name at least lives on? On a different subject, I've also noticed that the Williams Foundation has posted the first three of interesting series of articles which were published in Australian Aviation on the history of the RAAF's higher organisation - there's links to them here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:28, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLII, February 2018[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) 07:16, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Australian Air Corps[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Australian Air Corps you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 08:01, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

And another[edit]

Polk not having generated any comments in some time, and likely ripe for promotion, would you mind if I nominated the next one?--Wehwalt (talk) 17:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Also, I've scheduled Henry Wrigley as TFA for March 7, 2018. You know the drill.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:00, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Hmm, I was going to say that after contributing or co-contributing 36 articles to TFA over the years I'm finally starting to get a bit jack of working through the inevitable changes that arise, well-intentioned as many are... Are you really desperate for another Australian military one...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Regardless of your response re. Wrigley, no issue with you nominating another FAC given Polk's progress. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:42, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd really appreciate it it you let Wrigley run. It's in place of one where the nominator objected, you see. Thanks on Polk.--Wehwalt (talk) 10:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
  • I noticed that there were some cs1 maintenance tags - I think someone had fiddled with the cite book template at some point causing it to not like having (ed.) in the author/first/last name parameters - so I tweaked some of them; please revert if I've made a mess of it. I didn't do anything with the Stephens/O'Loghlin entry under 'Further reading', which is showing the same error, as I wasn't sure if they are also authors? And (sorry) IaBot has marked the present ref #55 in the Notes section as a permanent dead link but it's the same as the Helson link in the References which does seem to work - I didn't like to fiddle with that in case I messed it up, so perhaps you could have a look when you get the chance? SagaciousPhil - Chat 17:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Australian Air Corps[edit]

The article Australian Air Corps you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Australian Air Corps 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) 08:41, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Many edits at 2001[edit]

Recently, I noticed your many edits at the film for 2001, and couldn't help noticing the Kubrick quotation on your user page. For the past 2-3 weeks, I've been thinking of moving the main article for 2001 towards featured article and was wondering if you might be interested. Do you have any interest in possibly joining in and moving this article forward? JohnWickTwo (talk) 05:06, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

desperately needs attention for external validation![edit]

stop deleting my edits dude I am only doing it for a class grade I need the edit to get a good grade if you don't like it leave it up for a week and delete it then I don't care geesh you are too serious about wiki edits — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athsquare (talkcontribs) 23:19, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

(by talk reader) @Ian (Wiki Ed): I think this student needs your help. Chris Troutman (talk) 23:24, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

177th Fighter Aviation Regiment ACR[edit]

G'day, Ian, sorry to bother you. If you get a chance, could you please take another look at this ACR: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/177th Fighter Aviation Regiment PVO? It looks like PM pinged you, but you may have missed it or it may not have worked. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk)

I hope I'm not hassling you, but would you mind looking to see if Kges1901's latest comment satisfies your concerns about Seidov? I think that's the only thing holding up promotion at this point. Parsecboy (talk) 18:40, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi guys, tks for being so patient, I did get close to completing my re-review during the week but kept getting waylaid before finishing -- will have another go now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIII, March 2018[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) 10:36, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Australian Air Corps[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 16 March 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Australian Air Corps, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Australian Air Corps has been described as "Australia's first independent air force, albeit an interim one"? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Australian Air Corps. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Australian Air Corps), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 00:02, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Congratulations from the Military History Project[edit]

WPMH ACR (Diamonds).png The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Air Board (Australia), Peter Drummond (RAF officer)‎, and Australian Air Corps MilHistBot (talk) 20:38, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Margarita With A Straw[edit]

Hey, Ian. I am not sure if you have been able to revisit the FAC, but I've resolved all of Mike's comments. Could you take a look? Thank you. VedantTalk 16:29, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Will try and do so today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:02, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Dealt (belatedly). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:27, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

April 2018 Milhist Backlog Drive[edit]

G'day all, please be advised that throughout April 2018 the Military history Wikiproject is running its annual backlog elimination drive. This will focus on several key areas:

  • tagging and assessing articles that fall within the project's scope
  • adding or improving listed resources on Milhist's task force pages
  • updating the open tasks template on Milhist's task force pages
  • creating articles that are listed as "requested" on the project's various lists of missing articles.

As with past Milhist drives, there are points awarded for working on articles in the targeted areas, with barnstars being awarded at the end for different levels of achievement.

The drive is open to all Wikipedians, not just members of the Military history project, although only work on articles that fall (broadly) within the scope of military history will be considered eligible. This year, the Military history project would like to extend a specific welcome to members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red, and we would like to encourage all participants to consider working on helping to improve our coverage of women in the military. This is not the sole focus of the edit-a-thon, though, and there are aspects that hopefully will appeal to pretty much everyone.

The drive starts at 00:01 UTC on 1 April and runs until 23:59 UTC on 30 April 2018. Those interested in participating can sign up here.

For the Milhist co-ordinators, AustralianRupert and MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:53, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Mass message[edit]

I can see that the last mass message had an error message as the edit comment. You may wish to fix that, or ask about it at meta. Thanks -- (talk) 11:12, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Signpost interview[edit]

MHIST is being featured again. You are welcome to respond here. Eddie891 Talk Work 22:36, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC[edit]

The Carolwood Pacific Railroad FAC is ready for your final review. Sarastro was the coordinator for this one at first, but he switched roles and became a reviewer to complete the review, and he has since supported it. Unless you see anything that he missed, I believe this review is complete and ready to go. Jackdude101 talk cont 00:30, 31 March 2018 (UTC)

Dealt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

WestJet Encore FAC[edit]

I am a first time nominator for FAC WestJet Encore. It is now under "older nominations". Is there anything more that I need to do? So far, there are several reviewers that have left comments. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:20, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind leaving this open a bit longer to see if we can't get at least one more comprehensive review -- it's been open three weeks and that's not excessive -- in any case I think we still need an image licensing review (you can post a request at the top of WT:FAC for that). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Fair enough. I wasn't trying to nag. I am merely a FA newbie. As far as images, they are all free use, no fair use ones. Fair use might be allowed but I wanted to see if free use only could be done. Thank you for your comments. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
Heh, you're not nagging, I've been pretty busy in RL and haven't been able to keep quite as close an eye on things as I'd like recently but that's slowly improving. I'm always glad when new people give FAC a try and hope they find it a good experience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
There's been some progress! Image review and a very detailed additional reviewer. Vanguard10 (talk) 02:37, 17 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for editing and promoting the article to FA. I feel that I can now make small edits to it because before I didn't want to touch it while it was being considered, unless absolutely necessary. The FAC process also has taught me how to edit better after I followed some advice made in the FAC reviews. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

That's really good to hear. Actually I think that one of the most important lessons to be learnt in FAC (or any WP assessment process) is to try to keep revisions to the minimum and as much as possible only in direct response to reviewer suggestions -- something along the lines of no. 3 in Robert Heinlein's Rules of Writing: "You must refrain from rewriting, except to editorial order". ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Editors Barnstar.png The Editor's Barnstar
Bestowed to Ian Rose for efforts in the FAC process, helping make Wikipedia better. Thank you for your service. Vanguard10 (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you -- it's great to be part of the coord team. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:36, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Bugle[edit]

Hi Ian, I'm finished editing the Bugle for this month. When you're happy with it, I think it's good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:22, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIIV, April 2018[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) 09:55, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Select Survey Invite[edit]

I'm working on a study of political motivations and how they affect editing. I'd like to ask you to take a survey. The survey should take no more than 1-2 minutes. Your survey responses will be kept private. Our project is documented at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Research:Wikipedia_%2B_Politics.

Your survey Link: http://uchicago.co1.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_9S3JByWf57fXEkR?Q_DL=56np5HpEZWkMlr7_9S3JByWf57fXEkR_MLRP_cOc03qrmdKtc8Dz&Q_CHL=gl

I am asking you to participate in this study because you are a frequent editor of pages on Wikipedia that are of political interest. We would like to learn about your experiences in dealing with editors of different political orientations.

Sincere thanks for your help! Porteclefs (talk) 12:40, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Question regarding FA archive on David Meade (author)[edit]

Does this mean that it closed as a "did not pass" for FA? I still have a chance to improve the article. --LovelyGirl7 talk

Sorry for belated response LG, yes archiving effectively means that it did not pass assessment this time; as I think I mentioned in my closing comment you're welcome to re-nominate after a minimum of two weeks from the closure (though I think the suggested improvements, and my recommendation for a de facto peer review after that, might take longer anyway). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:Featured article candidates#John de Mowbray, 3rd Duke of Norfolk[edit]

What say you, Ian Rose? We seem to have ground to a halt somewhat; I've pinged people, but obviously can't keep doing that (It might annoy them!). Cheers! —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:27, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's been quite a while now, I've tried another knowledgeable reviewer, if no joy I'll just go ahead and make the prose pass I'd planned earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
I see, nice one—would you, though, then have to recuse as a coordinator, d'you think? —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 08:19, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
Depending on the depth of the copyedit, yes. I often make a few tweaks to articles before I promote them but if I do serious copyediting -- and especially of course if I feel I should oppose or support -- then I recuse. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Question about Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/All Money Is Legal/archive1[edit]

Hello again! I apologize for the intrusion, but I was wondering if the FAC had enough comments to be promoted as a featured article? Thank you for your help. Aoba47 (talk) 05:28, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

January to March 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

CRM.png Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period January to March 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 08:13, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Ford Piquette Avenue Plant FAC[edit]

When you have a moment, this article's FA nomination is ready for your review here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Ford Piquette Avenue Plant/archive1. Jackdude101 talk cont 01:11, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Noted, tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
Yeah, Ian Rose, I didn't realise we were allowed to hurry you along on your own talk page :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 14:16, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Featured Article work: Appreciation[edit]

Dear Ian, just a note of appreciation for all your hard and skillful work at FAC and in the Featured Article process. It is an important part of what makes Wikipedia such a wonderful resource for so many people around the world. Thank you! -- Ssilvers (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Very kind -- thank you too for your continued participation in the process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Blamey[edit]

I wondered how long it would take before it was reverted. (Answer: 15 minutes) ;-) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:07, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

Heh, would been quicker but I spent a few minutes checking if the other changes made much difference either way (didn't look like it)... ;-) Hope you and yours are keeping well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:09, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
LOL! Yes, I did much the same. At first I didn't spot any difference, but now I see the second row doesn't line up, (whereas in the IP's version it does). I might look again.
My youngest graduated last month. (First time I've worn a suit and tie for a while! We seem to be past the weddings, and fortunately the funerals don't seem to have started yet.) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2018 (UTC)
Tks for your changes. Congrats re. the graduation, and let's hope the funerals are a long time coming... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:39, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

A Class Cross[edit]

The existing award is very nice and I'm keeping it. Face-smile.svg The Bot will run tomorrow morning. It won't be bothered by the existence of an award on the page, so there is no need to remove it. This will be a good test of the Bot. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:42, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

That all works for me -- it's a fantastic achievement and you should have the award any way you choose...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
The MilHistBot had four pages to update, and had trouble with Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Awards/ACC. This has now been rectified. (I also changed the text from "has not yet been awarded" to "has been awarded to the following editors".) As the higher awards accrue, we'll need to add place holders for them. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:40, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLIV, May 2018[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) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Monterey Bay Aquarium[edit]

That FAC is turning into a bit of a marathon and I don't have the energy to stick with it. Is it ok to bail out or am I obligated to stick with it? Basically my sense is that it's not quite there but I'm on the fence about whether the work can be done while at FAC or to archive, get the work done, and then bring it back. Victoriaearle (tk) 17:21, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, sorry for belated response -- pls don't feel obligated, you've put a lot of effort into the review and it shouldn't have had to go on this long. Some time tonight I (or perhaps Andy if he has time sooner) will try and have look and determine whether to archive or not. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
No worries about belated replies - I'm not here that much these days. I noticed you archived it, so I'll leave a message on the article talk page. Happy to keep working there (it's an interesting place), but not in the confines of FAC. Victoriaearle (tk) 12:14, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/XVIII Tranche Project Audit/Academy.
Message added 16:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

As you've written highest number of the FAs than any other editor from the Military history project, and you're the coordinator of the FAC process and also the project, kindly review the three pages related to FAs, as part of the ongoing audit. They are – Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Writing Featured Articles, Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Initiating a featured article review and Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Academy/Today's Featured Article requests Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk • mail) 16:33, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

My FAC nomination of Jill Valentine[edit]

Hi. I nominated Jill Valentine for FAC nearly 48 hours ago, but the nomination still hasn't appeared at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates. It's only my third nomination, so I'm sure it's me who did something wrong. Do you know how to fix it? Cheers. Homeostasis07 (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Yeah you did everything right except transclude the nom page to top of WP:FAC -- this is a manual operation and the last part of the nom process. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:23, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVI, June 2018[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) 10:35, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Kreuzstab[edit]

I understand you, but did you see that Victoria is ill and apologized? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:32, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Gerda, I didn't see that particular exchange but I was aware Victoria is ill based on her comment at another FAC; hers was not the only extant oppose though so I feel I have to stand by my closing note. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I said that I understand. I'm not going to nominate that article again anytime soon, and if I do (but I hope you noticed my comment that we never know how much more time we'll be given), I'll ask you for a review. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:30, 12 June 2018 (UTC)
I think this was a good decision because it's best to get the work done outside of FAC. I'm willing to continue with Gerda (I'm hooked now), but my time is extremely unreliable so it's best to do it slowly on the talk page. Victoriaearle (tk) 16:06, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) scheduled for TFA[edit]

This is to let you know that the Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 6, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 6, 2018, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1100 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:01, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

New Page Patrol?[edit]

Hi Ian Rose,

I've recently been looking for editors to invite to join New Page Patrol, and from your editing history, I think you would be a good candidate. Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; we could use some additional help from an experienced user like yourself. It would be good to have an editor with your background on military topics on call as a reviewer for when pages come up in your area of expertise (that list of articles on your user page is impressive, well done).

Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. If you choose to apply, you can drop an application over at WP:PERM/NPR.

Cheers, and hope to see you around, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 13:03, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) Since the NPR is about the only permission short of WP:FOUNDER that Ian Rose doesn't have, I imagine they would have asked for it by now had they wanted it...Anyway, as one of only 2.5 FAC coordinators, I don't think we can afford to let him out of there :) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 13:20, 16 June 2018 (UTC)


Nomination template problems[edit]

Hello Ian Rose. I just attempted to nominate the George Washington article for FA but some how have messed things up.

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Washington/archive3

When I attempted to fix a red link things just got worse. Could you look into it and see where the 'money wrench' is? It would be gretaly appreciated. Best, Gwillhickers (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2018 (UTC)


Update : Evidently I was able to resolve the problem, which turned out to be 'simple math'. Anyway, all the best, once again, -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Status update for FAC[edit]

Hello! I hope that you are having a great week so far. I was wondering if I could have a status update for my current FAC. It has already received an image review and a fair amount fo commentary. I believe that it is ready for promotion. Aoba47 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, I'm hoping to walk through the list this weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Black Friday (1910)[edit]

Same question as I had about an earlier FAC - am I obligated to continue and continue and continue or may I be done? I'm beyond not having energy and at some point it feels abusive. Victoriaearle (tk) 21:41, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi Victoria, I don't think anyone's health or RL in general should ever be compromised by their work here. Important as many of us consider WP, it's not worth that. I and the other coords will do our best to give appropriate weight to all reviews that offer actionable criticism regardless of how 'complete' those reviews are. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Hope youll read[edit]

My last post before this one. wp:consensus is pathetically easy to game under the current regime/system.... Then as a private homework assignment, make a table and keep score win-lose- draw- not on wiafa (that's four columns) for every oppose reason on the Bengal fac You don't need to share your results with anyone else,ever. It's personal. But you might wanna do it just to consider the possibility that I may be in the right....Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axylus.arisbe (talkcontribs) 08:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC) Oh ps I deleted my ling.nut email acct and scrambled lingzhi password NOT because the fac failed. If you had examined the merits of the arguments and said which oppose reasons were pathetic, but then said we need an outside review, I would have very cheerfully accepted a Fail. But since you didn't, all those Oppose reasons ill be recycled and reargued next time around, with the comment "nothing has been changed". If you were me, would you be discouraged Axylus.arisbe (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Peter Jeffrey[edit]

Hi Ian, is this a RS for date of death of 6 April 1997 to fix Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer) article and for tomorrow's TFA blurb? Thanks, JennyOz (talk) 07:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Jenny, tks for this -- I'd forgotten we didn't have his precise death date in there. Have to admit I haven't considered squadron websites as RSs at FA level. I just did another search in Gale and Factiva to see if there was anything but no luck. Ryerson tells me 6 April 1997 as well, citing the Brisbane Courier Mail from 9 April 1997 but they don't offer a page number and it doesn't look like their search engine allows a direct link to the result to be cited. Nikkimaria, do you have an opinion on all this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's probably reasonable for uncontroversial facts. This source says 6 April 1997 as well: Chris Coulthard-Clark (23 April 1997). "Air ace of Pacific and N Africa". The Australian. p. 14. . Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh thank you Nikki, I'll use that -- for future reference (literally) can I ask how you happened to access it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)
It's available via LexisNexis. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:20, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

April to June 2018 Milhist article reviewing[edit]

Wiki-stripe2.svg Military history reviewers' award
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space

Thanks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vance Drummond[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vance Drummond you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 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) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVII, July 2018[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) 12:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Gallimimus FAC[edit]

Hi, you closed the Gallimimus FAC, but it is stll waiting for a source review? FunkMonk (talk) 12:13, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Ugh, yes, got a bit carried away there. I've gone through everything myself now and saw no reliability issues, and only one minor formatting inconsistency that I fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
Ok, thanks! FunkMonk (talk) 15:33, 22 July 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vance Drummond[edit]

The article Vance Drummond you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Vance Drummond 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) 10:01, 25 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding the featured article candidate Saving Light[edit]

It is a shame that the nomination for Saving Light failed, but regarding re-nominations, would I be allowed to re-nominate the article now (or soon as possible) as it failed because of only having only one (supporting) vote and that all issues listed were fixed and addressed? Micro (Talk) 07:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Micro, I would not be averse to waiving the usual 2-week waiting period given there wasn't much commentary, but I'd like you to wait to re-nominate till we tick over into August, as I expect we'll be closing some more in the next day or two and it may benefit you to re-add when the list is shorter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the response, I've now planned to re-nominate it on the 2nd or later. Micro (Talk) 00:22, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The Infinity Gauntlet[edit]

Hi Ian,

[This] isn't the first time one of my FACs have stalled. Aside from reaching out to related wikiprojects and specific editors I think might be interested, do you have any suggestions for attracting commenters? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not easy sometimes. Peer Review might get some people along, and if so it's fine to ping them with neutrally worded notices when you come to nominate the same article at FAC. As a longer-term strategy, you can try and review more FACs to help more editors notice your work. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Question about FAC[edit]

Thank you for archiving my previous FAC. I believe that I would have to wait the standard two-week period before putting up another FAC, but I wanted to clarify that with you. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Aoba, yes I think the usual 2-week waiting period is appropriate as this wasn't a case of the nom attracting little or no commentary. Pls take the time to consider/implement improvements to the article or to others you're looking to nominate based on what you've gleaned from the withdrawn nom's review. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the response! I did not have any immediate plans for another FAC, but I was just curious about it. Aoba47 (talk) 00:40, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXLVIII, August 2018[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) 08:35, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

No. 33 Squadron RAAF TFA for 19 September 2018[edit]

This is to let you know that the article mentioned above has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 19, 2018. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 19, 2018.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:55, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

DYK for Vance Drummond[edit]

Updated DYK query.svgOn 21 August 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Vance Drummond, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that New Zealand-born Vance Drummond won the South Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry as a Royal Australian Air Force pilot serving with the United States Air Force? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Vance Drummond. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Vance Drummond), 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) 00:03, 21 August 2018 (UTC)