My last post before this one. wp:consensus is pathetically easy to game under the current regime/system.... Then as a private homework assignment, make a table and keep score win-lose- draw- not on wiafa (that's four columns) for every oppose reason on the Bengal fac You don't need to share your results with anyone else,ever. It's personal. But you might wanna do it just to consider the possibility that I may be in the right....Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Axylus.arisbe (talk • contribs) 08:48, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh ps I deleted my ling.nut email acct and scrambled lingzhi password NOT because the fac failed. If you had examined the merits of the arguments and said which oppose reasons were pathetic, but then said we need an outside review, I would have very cheerfully accepted a Fail. But since you didn't, all those Oppose reasons ill be recycled and reargued next time around, with the comment "nothing has been changed". If you were me, would you be discouraged Axylus.arisbe (talk) 08:57, 1 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jenny, tks for this -- I'd forgotten we didn't have his precise death date in there. Have to admit I haven't considered squadron websites as RSs at FA level. I just did another search in Gale and Factiva to see if there was anything but no luck. Ryerson tells me 6 April 1997 as well, citing the Brisbane Courier Mail from 9 April 1997 but they don't offer a page number and it doesn't look like their search engine allows a direct link to the result to be cited. Nikkimaria, do you have an opinion on all this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably reasonable for uncontroversial facts. This source says 6 April 1997 as well: Chris Coulthard-Clark (23 April 1997). "Air ace of Pacific and N Africa". The Australian. p. 14.. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:31, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh thank you Nikki, I'll use that -- for future reference (literally) can I ask how you happened to access it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded these stripes for reviewing a total of five Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period April to June 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. AustralianRupert (talk) 06:51, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vance Drummond you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 10:21, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh, yes, got a bit carried away there. I've gone through everything myself now and saw no reliability issues, and only one minor formatting inconsistency that I fixed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)
It is a shame that the nomination for Saving Light failed, but regarding re-nominations, would I be allowed to re-nominate the article now (or soon as possible) as it failed because of only having only one (supporting) vote and that all issues listed were fixed and addressed? Micro (Talk) 07:48, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Micro, I would not be averse to waiving the usual 2-week waiting period given there wasn't much commentary, but I'd like you to wait to re-nominate till we tick over into August, as I expect we'll be closing some more in the next day or two and it may benefit you to re-add when the list is shorter. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
[This] isn't the first time one of my FACs have stalled. Aside from reaching out to related wikiprojects and specific editors I think might be interested, do you have any suggestions for attracting commenters? Argento Surfer (talk) 13:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not easy sometimes. Peer Review might get some people along, and if so it's fine to ping them with neutrally worded notices when you come to nominate the same article at FAC. As a longer-term strategy, you can try and review more FACs to help more editors notice your work. Hope this helps a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for archiving my previous FAC. I believe that I would have to wait the standard two-week period before putting up another FAC, but I wanted to clarify that with you. Hope you are having a wonderful week so far. Aoba47 (talk) 02:04, 10 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Aoba, yes I think the usual 2-week waiting period is appropriate as this wasn't a case of the nom attracting little or no commentary. Pls take the time to consider/implement improvements to the article or to others you're looking to nominate based on what you've gleaned from the withdrawn nom's review. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian (and Laser brain and Sarastro1), I don't want to nag the regulars at WT:FAC for more comments on my last post there, but given that the few comments made have been positive, how would you feel about opposes on prose that are not revisited? It seems justifiable to me, but it goes against a long-standing expectation that an opposer who does not revisit when asked may find their oppose taken at lower value. If I were a coord I wouldn't like to see suggestions that make it harder to determine consensus, but you're all reviewers too, and you've seen the kind of loop I'm referring to. I can continue as I have in the past -- not reviewing, if I'm not prepared to revisit any oppose that might result -- but if you think there is a niche for opposes that are not returned to, on the basis that the prose is not FAC-ready, then I may oppose in that way in the future. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 02:41, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Mike, tks for the poke. I have been watching that thread and planning to comment, just hadn't got round.... My first thought was/is that if an experienced reviewer believes the prose is not FAC-ready, and they can get in early enough in the process, it's a good reason to come straight out and recommend withdrawal, which is something the coords almost always act on (it's a bit harder to action a withdrawal request that occurs some weeks in, when other reviewers may have supported). More later, probably at the thread itself, but no issue continuing here first if you like... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only time I'd expect or ping for a revisit is if the nominator somehow completely overhauled the article during the FAC (something we discourage by practice; it should be withdrawn or archived). I might expect the oppose to look again, or at least strike their opposition as it was likely based on an irrelevant version of the page. I never favor requiring laundry-lists of action items to accompany opposition, or demands that reviewers continue to enumerate items unless the article is already at 95%+ and needs a little push over the hill. --Laser brain(talk)09:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian. I saw you closed the FAC nomination of San Junipero. I must admit that I'm quite confused by this. If I'm understanding correctly, you closed it because you think it will take at least two months to gather consensus (or enough responses to pass/fail). But there are plenty of FAC nominations open which were nominated in June (2–3 months ago) and are still open.
I have tried contacting people and WikiProjects about the nomination—see 1, 2, 3. I've also got a response from someone who planned to review the nomination imminently ([1]). These were all quite recent requests as I didn't anticipate that the nomination would gather no responses in three weeks.
If you re-open the nomination, I have three or four more people in mind I could contact (and a couple of active talk pages) and I can start doing some "here's an FAC review; I'd love it if you reviewed mine", though I've refrained until now because I dislike the practice. I hope you can understand that it's very disheartening to get no responses for a month, finally get a comment and within two hours (before I've even seen the comment) be notified that the FAC is closed. I have no interest in taking the page through a Peer Review or FAC mentorship, because (a) they're both optional processes, (b) I don't want this to take another four months, and (c) in my opinion, the article is ready for FA status now.
Hi Bilorv, I understand the frustration, particular as the archiving came just after the first comments, but noms in similar situations are often archived two or three weeks in. It's no reflection whatsoever on you, this happens pretty frequently. I realise some noms stay open longer than a couple of months but that's not by design, and those that are currently that old may well be closed the next time one of the coords looks at the list. I appreciate you may have people lined up to review, there's no reason they can't give you feedback at PR or even on the article talk page before another attempt at FAC. It's fine to ping previous reviewers with neutrally worded requests for comment when you get to FAC. Regarding your last three points: a) I'm afraid I must be missing what you mean by PR and FAC mentorship being optional processes -- so is FAC and so, for that matter, is WP in general; b) the time to get an article featured is elastic, but I've found through long experience that the best way to minimise the time at FAC is get s many eyes on the article before nominating; c) I don't doubt you feel the article is FA-ready, in fact we assume it of every nominator and their article -- but the process relies on editors reviewing the article against the FA criteria and supporting its promotion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:30, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With (a), I meant optional with respect to FA i.e. they're not necessary to get an article featured. I've found PR to be a waste of time in the past.
Can I renominate the article at FAC immediately? I see that this isn't supposed to be done within two weeks of a nomination being archived, but there's an exemption for nominations with little feedback. I just want to double check before actually doing it, and make sure it doesn't come across as rude. I understand you're just following procedure, and my frustration is at the lack of FA reviewers rather than your actions. — Bilorv(c)(talk)17:56, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bilorv, I'm sorry to hear you find PR a waste of time but I realize it can be a bit of a wasteland, and I can't force you to go there before FAC. As far as renominating early, it's true there was only one reviewer but there was a longish list of points -- I'd be happy to split the difference and say go ahead and renominate at FAC after a week has passed from the archiving, or when you've actioned Aobas' points (if you haven't already of course) -- whichever is later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for all your great work!!! has given you a puppy!Puppies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Your puppy must be fed three times a day and will be your faithful companion forever! Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a puppy, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.Spread the goodness of puppies by adding {{subst:Puppy}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message.
The FACBot added this notice to the article TP after I withdrew the nom. Can't we simply state the nominator "withdrew it as a candidate"? The template also states that Morgan le Fay is a former featured article, but I can't find when or why. Thanks in advance....Atsme📞📧00:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Atsme, the closing note on the article's FAC nomination page states that "this candidate has been withdrawn", after that the FAC bot treats it the same as other archived noms. As to the "former featured article" bit and the half-completed new FAC nomination, those seem to have been introduced by the closing bot -- Hawkeye7, would you mind taking a look when you get a chance? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:22, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
– In the latest version, although it looks like the Bot performs only a few simple operations, to do them, it actually breaks down the entire page and rebuilds it completely. This resolves problems we have had with template handling, particularly where templates contain templates (contain templates...) (1) The FFA was an error on my part. (2) Failure to remove the nomination template was caused by an error in the recursive template search method, which has been corrected. (3) Corrected a problem with display of default template parameters. Your forbearance is greatly appreciated. In answer to Atsme, "withdrawn" is not a valid parameter to {{Article history}}. Hawkeye7(discuss)05:29, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Hawkeye, it goes without saying that I'm very grateful for the hard work you've put into FACBot over the years -- the hiccups only stand out because it generally runs so effectively. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:09, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
+1 on the thanks to Hawkeye7 whose explanation I read and actually understood for the most part, but recursive threw me, as I thought it was a style of handwriting. 😆 I'll also fess-up and take responsibility for any actions I may have taken, either purposefully or inadvertently, that may have contributed to the bot issues, beginning with my initial screw-up by forgetting to save the TP template after nominating. I had opened too many tabs 🍻 in the browser, trying to follow instructions in proper order, and after completing all the steps, I accidentally closed the TP tab before saving it. I can sleep now that I've confessed.
Ian, thank you for following-up with my request. If I may make 2 suggestions (if not, stop reading now): (1) the word "failed" seems rather harsh. Won't you please consider replacing that parameter with "not promoted" which may prove to be a lesser disincentive than failed? (2) Regarding "withdrawn", if it's not too difficult, can it please be added as a valid parameter? Just my thoughts... Atsme📞📧16:33, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Atsme, pardon me for jumping in, but it's actually {{Article history}} that's the issue -- it requires the word "failed" in that position. If you suggest on that template's talk page that "unsuccessful" be added as a synonym, then the bot could start putting that instead of "failed"; "unsuccessful" is at least neutral (I believe that's why RfA uses it). To use "withdrawn" would require the FAC coordinators to add a parameter when closing, I would think, so that would be more complicated. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 18:00, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Mike - I'll see what I can do. In the interim, here's a little template that may save you some words....(Buttinsky)....I actually got the idea from an admin. 😊 Atsme📞📧18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Recursion is a mathematical concept. It occurs because templates can contain other templates - recursion. The problem for the Bot is then determining where a particular template ends. With the latest change this has been overhauled, and a recursive algorithm implemented, so that these problems will go away. We still have a problem with FAC nominations where the template is added to the talk page and then the nomination is not initiated, or is initiated but not added to the nominations page. The Bot detects these errors but lets them through in the belief that the editor may get around to it soon. It reports to me. In the former case I normally remove the template after a few days. In future I may get the Bot to do it automatically. Hawkeye7(discuss)21:24, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now I'm wondering IF...because of the various issues with the FAC process...we should consider not promoting it...😂. I do hope y'all know that I'm pulling your leg. [FBDB] On a serious note, thank you Hawkeye7 - your explanation was helpful. (And the explanation for my banter is that it's Happy Hour - which means my nose is no longer to the grindstone.) Atsme📞📧21:41, 11 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day everyone, voting for the 2018 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:22, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
Note: the previous version omitted a link to the election page, therefore you are receiving this follow up message with a link to the election page to correct the previous version. We apologies for any inconvenience that this may have caused.[reply]
Hi there, you seem to have added Bulgaria to the September Featured Article log by mistake.[2] It's also already on the star chart[3], but I don't think the nomination is over yet. Maybe that's why the bot can't run through. RetiredDuke (talk) 20:32, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that one snuck into the copy/paste from WP:FAC. I picked it up before adding to WP:FA but obviously didn't go back to fix at the Feature Log. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ian (and Laser brain and Sarastro1), can I ask what, if anything, you're planning to do about the FQSR workshop page? I was imagining that the coordinators would close nominations as successful, or unsuccessful, or prod for more details; I don't want to do any prodding myself since the point of the workshop is to see how the process might work in practice. Two of the reviews seem closable as successful, and one looks like it might be a fail; another might require a nudge.
Hi Mike, I believe we'd agreed among ourselves that Sarastro would be designated coord for the workshop and I did send an email prod the other day but haven't heard anything back. We still have to keep the main FAC list ticking over, which is what I've been doing -- perhaps Andy could look in on the workshop entries? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also (and pinging Hawkeye7 for this question), I've been going through old FACs to harvest support/oppose data, and ran into something odd. The August 2015 archived noms page had one of the archives transcluded without the "archive1" at the end. I've fixed that, but something is still not right. If you go here you'll see that the article title is the section header, outside the "archived FAC" box; this is not how they usually appear, as you can see elsewhere on the page. Perhaps nothing needs to be done about it, but I thought I'd ask. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 11:40, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi everyone, just a quick reminder that voting for the WikiProject Military history coordinator election closes soon. You only have a day or so left to have your say about who should make up the coordination team for the next year. If you have already voted, thanks for participating! If you haven't and would like to, vote here before 23:59 UTC on 28 September. Thanks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:29, 26 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Lou Spence you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Catrìona -- Catrìona (talk) 22:02, 27 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the members of WikiProject Military history, I present you with these Coordinator stars as a mark of the responsibilities you have volunteered to take on for the project for the next year. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:39, 29 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the Milhist coordinators, you are hereby awarded the Content Review Medal of Merit for reviewing a total of 8 Milhist articles at PR, GAN, ACR or FAC during the period July to September 2018. Thank you for supporting Wikipedia's quality content processes. Kges1901 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
I find it quite excruciating to watch ga/fa discussions where I have worked with the archival material (1942 and 1944), and am aware of the nuances of meanings for journalists and military officials of the time (1940s were a different age) - and the perceptions that this latter time and context have so little appreciation to nuances of then. Arrgghh. I think I should stay away from the discussion. JarrahTree01:26, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that. Look; I know the ink probably isn't even dry on the last one, but would there be any chance of receiving permission to put up another one? Hope all's well. ——SerialNumber5412910:16, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the two-week gap is only when a nom is archived, the rationale being that if there are issues preventing the nom being promoted then there should be a minimum time limit for those issues to be addressed before the nominator puts the article forward again (or indeed another article, as similar issues could well be present in the nominator's other work). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 7 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You reversed my edit requesting a reference to Shaw's preference regarding his name as it is mentioned further down in the article. You're right, but do you think it might be useful to add a note at the first place this preference is mentioned? I think it would. If you wouldn't mind, perhaps you could do it as I'm not terribly sure of the syntax. Thanks.
Páraic Maguire12:22, 16 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Páraic, my apologies for such a belated reply. In WP we generally try to avoid citations in the lead unless the cited statement is a quote, or the information is not cited elsewhere in the article. As Shaw's preference doesn't fall under either of those categories, I don't see a reason to cite it in the lead. Of course I'm just someone who happens to keep the article on his watchlist, not one of its main editors. If you feel strongly about it, I think the best thing would be to raise it on the Shaw talk page and see if consensus develops to add the citation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:12, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to withdraw my current FAC, and I was wondering if you could please archive it? I was disappointed by the following comment by one of the two support voters (Looks good. Not the best article, but it passes for FA and is pretty good for an obscure show), particularly the (Not the best article,). I know that I should not take it personally, and I would brush it off in a work context. However, since Wikipedia is purely for volunteers, that kind of backhanded comment makes it less enjoyable for me personally, and I should be devoting my time to other things anyway. Apologies for the long message. I just wanted to explain the rationale behind the request to withdraw and archive. Either way, have a wonderful rest of your day and/or night. Aoba47 (talk) 01:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, as you were away the last few days I hatted the recent thread on FAC talk - although involved it seemed to be the best thing to do. It's a bad result all round and I hope Tony decides to return to FA reviews at some point. The thread, although hatted, is a little sensitive and doesn't reflect the best part of many of the contributors. Rather like happens at ANI, it may be worth archiving the thread. I'll leave it to your discretion (and that of @FAC coordinators: your fellow co-ords) as to whether you think this the best course of action. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 07:42, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks Gav. Surprising as it may seem I didn't stay out of that thread by choice but heavy work commitments, coupled with two family members falling ill, meant I've had time for only the most cursory glances at WP, and no chance for any substantial edits appropriate for commenting on a situation like that. I regret the result too and have no problem with your closure (nor with the archiving that's since taken place). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ian, taking your other commitments into account, will you have capacity to add the featured articles and awards to the November Bugle edition? Everything else should be good to go. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Ian Rose. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
In recognition of the role you played in cleaning up my God-awful spelling and grammar in the World War I Op-Ed series published by the Military history WikiProject's newsletter The Bugle over the last four years, I hereby present you with this teamwork barnstar. It is thanks to so many different editors like you who took the time to copyedit the nearly four year long series that it ended up being as successful as it was, and I am grateful for your help since spelling and grammar are not my strongest suites. Yours sincerely, TomStar81 (Talk) 14:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Hi Ian, I spotted this photo on the Defence website today saying that No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF has been renamed. It's listed as an active unit on the RAAF page on RAAF Base East Sale [4], so presumably it was re-formed at some point recently and is now being redesignated? (which seems a shame). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tks for that -- funnily enough the second link didn't work for me either but when I opened the thread in my mobile instead of on my laptop, both worked... :-P The caption of the second image mentions a renaming ceremony but I couldn't see where it says it's renamed from 1FTS? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's in the "mid-caption" on the left-hand side when viewed on a computer ("On 6 December 2018, Royal Australian Air Force’s No 1 Flying Training School (1FTS) at RAAF Base East Sale, was renamed Air Mission Training School."). The supposedly permanent link isn't working for me now either! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:02, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah-ha! Yeah, shame though it is that such an historic unit is gone again almost as soon as it's reactivated, it wasn't the same institution/purpose -- I think they made an error using that name in the first place. The fact that it's now defunct again might actually make it easier for me to work a footnote about this latest incarnation into the current article, something I wasn't at all looking forward to otherwise, as there'd been so little fanfare/info about reviving it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Voting now open for "Military historian of the year" and "Military history newcomer of the year" awards
Hello IR,
Early in A Child's Christmas in Wales the young Dylan and his friend Jim Prothero witness smoke pouring from Jim's home. After the conflagration has been extinguished Dylan writes that
Nobody could have had a noisier Christmas Eve. And when the firemen turned off the hose and were standing in the wet, smoky room, Jim's Aunt, Miss. Prothero, came downstairs and peered in at them. Jim and I waited, very quietly, to hear what she would say to them. She said the right thing, always. She looked at the three tall firemen in their shining helmets, standing among the smoke and cinders and dissolving snowballs, and she said, "Would you like anything to read?"
My thanks to you for your efforts to keep the 'pedia readable in case the firemen chose one of our articles :-) Best wishes to you and yours and happy editing in 2019. MarnetteD|Talk22:50, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Ian, I'm not usually into this Xmas wishes stuff, but I really wanted to say thanks for all your work on The Bugle this year. It is an critical thread in the tapestry of the project. Thanks very much, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:03, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I find your decision to prematurely (in my opinion) close my FAC nomination extremely disappointing. I suppose that I'll only seek GAs, as is the unfortunate trend. I don't write about videogames, American TV shows or hurricanes. I suppose that means achieving an FA is impossible and I should just move on. What can I do? Asking for another peer review is absurd, the article has hardly changed since the last one and User:Yunshui's GA. Many experienced editors have helped improve the article such as User:Thnidu.
Deseret alphabet is really more about history than about the alphabet in any event. The idea that we need a linguistics professor to approve it just cements Wikipedia's systemic bias against certain types of articles. I'll not pursue this any further, I think I'll have much more luck getting Aglipayan Church to GA than ever getting a single FA unless I start writing about hurricanes. I should have listened to Yunshui. Psiĥedelisto (talk) 12:11, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Psiĥedelisto, I am a research linguist: not a professor— I retired from the University of Pennsylvania as a research administrator in the Linguistic Data Consortium— but a Ph.D. in the field (U of California, Berkeley, 1981). I've been a language geek all my life, which is related to my fondness for editing and my abilities in it, and is what drew me to the article in the first place. But I can't undertake a program of research on this subject. --Thnidu (talk) 19:58, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Just wanted to apologize for the above rant. I know it's not your fault the FAC system is how it is, you were just doing what the rules say to do. I was merely frustrated by the system itself, not necessarily your close. Cheers, Psiĥedelisto (talk) 09:09, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Okay tks Psiĥedelisto. To be fair, I can't say I disagree vehemently with any of the FAC instructions, otherwise I wouldn't feel right about performing coord duties. I do acknowledge the process can be frustrating though. Re. your article, I would still prefer to see formal or informal review of the article before you renominate because I'm concerned that it might again languish at FAC without a groundswell of prior interest, but you're completely at liberty to renominate. The FAC instructions say that you should wait two weeks from the time the previous nom was archived before starting another, but they give the coordinators discretion to waive that when the first nom attracted little commentary, as in your case, so you can bring it back any time you like AFAIC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Tuck into this! We've made about three of these in the last few days for various festivities. Supermarkets are stuffed with cheap berries. Season's greetings! Cas Liber (talk·contribs) 22:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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)
; 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)
Resolved
Buttinsky)....I actually got the idea from an admin. 😊 Atsme📞📧 18:48, 11 September 2018 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
