User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2013

Ping!

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

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

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

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

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

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

DYK for No. 2 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF

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

June 2013 backlog reduction drive

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Coral Island/archive1

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

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

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

Alan McNicoll FAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Courtesy note

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

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

Request for nom permission

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

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

DYK for North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)

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

Proper ping

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

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

Source check

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

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

Drowning Girl FAC

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Whaam!/archive1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Norman conquest of England

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

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

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

Congratulations

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

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

New incarnation

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

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

North-Eastern Area Command GA1

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

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

I-496

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

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

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

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

When God Writes Your Love Story

Hi Ian,

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

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

Hi Ian,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email?

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

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

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

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

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

Panic in Detroit

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

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

Doubt

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

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

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

Graham

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

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

Werner Voss

G'day, cobber,

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Talkback

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

Request

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVIII, July 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

CVA

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

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

God of War II FAC

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

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

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

Concerning assessment

G'day, cobber,

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

---

Toes

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

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

Nomination

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

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

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

User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/FOURRFC

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

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

Apr to Jun 2013 Milhist content reviewing

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

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

FAS

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

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

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

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

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

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

William Hely

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

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

RMAS Melbourne

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

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

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

Article Alerts bot

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

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

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

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

Perseus (constellation)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Pending your action

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

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

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

Hi

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

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

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

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

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

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

4000th FA

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

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

Heads up

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

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

Post-nom template

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

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

Ah ha! So you spotted the deliberate error!

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

WP:FOUR

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question on FA nominations

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

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

Request for a favour

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ringo Starr FAC

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

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

WP:FOUR RFC

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

The Werner Voss foulup

G'day, cobber,

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

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

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

WP:FOUR for William Hely

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

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

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIX, August 2013

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

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Law school of Beirut FAC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1

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

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

Editathon

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

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

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 5 Service Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:06, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 10:56, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Operational Training Unit RAAF

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

No. 38 Squadron FAC

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

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

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

Your GA nomination of Frank Headlam

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Frank Headlam you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 09:17, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Help with the Never Let Me Down FA review?

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

It's certainly tempting but I'll have to see how I go as reviewing means that I'd be recusing myself from delegate duties, and I've already done that for a few active FACs. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I totally understand - was just reaching out to a few folks knowing it was a shot in the dark. Until we cross paths next time! 87Fan (talk) 15:51, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Not so much

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

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

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

DYK for Frank Headlam

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

Another A-class medal to recognise your fine work

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

Tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Is there a problem?

Hi, Ian. Not wishing to press you in any way, but with nine supports, no opposes, no significant comments in 10 days and no outstanding issues, I'd say that Symphony No. 8 (Sibelius) is ready to go. If there is a reason for holding it, perhaps you'd let me know so that I can deal with it. Brianboulton (talk) 07:26, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Nah, I'm just making you sweat lest it all become fatally too easy for you... ;-) Seriously, I walked through about half the open FAC list last night, Sydney time, as I enjoyed the election results coming in, and I'll hopefully get through the second half tonight or tomorrow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Right, like you want us to sweat during your soon-to-be-over winter. I sweat enough in the land of the neverending summer. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Thanks, Ian, I don't mind waiting, just so long as you're not waiting for me to do something. Brianboulton (talk) 22:19, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

Older nominations sections

Are there supposed to be two "Older nominations" sections on the FAC page? You restored the second one here, but without comment, so I can't tell if that was intentional. Curly Turkey (gobble) 03:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

That was accidental, I was looking at an older version of the page to check something else and saved it when I fixed the nom without an archive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

UcuchaBot has been adding one instead of moving the header; I left him a note. Maralia (talk) 04:30, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I sent him an email earlier as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:32, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Whaam! FAC

this edit seems to have gotten lost (due to the fact that it did not have a : or a * to force a return.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:27, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Eisenhower dollar

Hi, Eisenhower dollar's been at three supports for a week now. I am anxious to nominate Adam Eckfeldt since it is rather short and I will be at the ANA library on Friday and Saturday, and I'd like to give reviewers some opportunity (I was frankly hoping for longer but did not want to rush a promotion with Sherwood on the clock) to ask sourcing questions and have me on the spot able to answer them. If it is OK, I will nominate Eckfeldt.--Wehwalt (talk) 13:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, this must've just missed me last night my time. Sure, go ahead with the new one. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:46, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Thank you for your work.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Likewise. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Kellie Loder

Hi Ian,

Thank you for your comments at the Kellie Loder FAC. I have made the changes you recommended to the article and have responded on the FAC page. I would be glad to address any further concerns you have regarding the article.

Neelix (talk) 14:12, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

I appreciate your additional clarification at the FAC. There have been five supports and no opposes for about a week and a half now. Is there anything else I should be doing with respect to this FAC?

Neelix (talk) 12:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian,

Thank you for clarifying your suggestions. I believe that I have correctly implemented them now and have responded to your comments at the FAC. I would appreciate any further directions you have to offer.

Neelix (talk) 20:53, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Area Command (RAAF)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 16:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

About your recent edit on WP:FA

I noticed that you bolded Grace Sherwood on WP:FA, however it has never been on Main Page (Talk:Grace Sherwood claims that this article has been on main page's today's featured article section on 31 October, 2010, however I've checked Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 2010 and found out that the article which appeared on TFA section on that day is Tropical Storm Chantal, not Grace Sherwood). If you can't find evidence to support your claim, then I'll revert your edit.--RekishiEJ (talk) 16:12, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Grace Sherwood did appear on the main page that day, but was replaced by Chantal part way through after issues of plagiarism and copyright violation were raised. --Laser brain (talk) 16:17, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

(ec) Heh, tks Andy. I was going to say that, if I recalled the story correctly, Grace Sherwood was placed on the main page and then pulled owing to plagiarism claims. Sounds like I recall correctly... Rekishi, you may wish to raise the question of whether it should or should not be considered to have been on the main page (and therefore eligible or not for appearing on the main page in the future) at WT:TFA. I'm not fussed one way or the other but I suggest you not revert the edit until a discussion is had. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

See WP:Today's featured article oddities. Both Grace Sherwood and Frederick Russell Burnham, the other FA to have appeared for only part of a day as TFA before being pulled, have been treated at WP:FFA and in their {[tl|article history}} as articles that have appeared on the main page. Bencherlite^Talk 16:33, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I my friendly talk page stalkers... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:27, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

• I note that User:PumpkinSky disagrees they should be treated as such. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:03, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Area Command (RAAF)

The article Northern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 08:32, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

How 'bout a bit of press celebrating the FA process, by using the recent FA promotion of Jesus as an example?

Greetings Ian Rose. Would you please see my idea here? Maybe you and/or other FA delegates might be interested in helping draft or review the proposed draft, when it's ready? I've never tried this before. But I figure the attention is deserved. =) Thanks for all your work here. Biosthmors (talk) 11:00, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry for the belated response. I have to admit I've never been involved in something like this either. I'll at least try and stop by to look at what you've written. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Gordon Steege obits

Hi Ian, In case you haven't seen it, the Canberra Times published an obituary of Gordon Steege earlier this week. It's online here. The most recent edition of the Air Force News also had an obituary. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:45, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Tks mate -- I've been subscribing to Air Force News for a little while now so I saw that one and have in fact made use of the solitary new fact I gleaned from it (why he received his MiD). Will check out the Times one too, tks again. BTW, more than happy to see reviews from you at Headlam or Steege, or Gibbes at FA for that matter since you commented on its ACR... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, there is some additional info in the Times obit (written by the same bloke who did the Air Force News obit, incidentally) that I'll make use of when I get a chance to revisit the article. I particularly enjoyed the paragraph on Korea, which very much reminded me of the related passage I wrote in the WP article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:18, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

The similarities do seem uncanny... Nick-D (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I had to check Stephens to make sure I wasn't the one borrowing too closely but apart from the words "following discussions", the WP article phrasing is my own... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pengkhianatan G30S/PKI/archive1

Hi Ian, curious what the holdup here is. 5S, image and source review (not spotchecks), open for almost a month. Not sure what else I need. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:37, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Only hold-up is that I'm effectively running FAC myself right now, although that should change in the next few days. In any case I'm planning to make my weekly walk through the open noms shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

• Right, right. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Some FAC-information

Hello Ian, articles Rapunzel (Disney) and Botany could be closed as withdrawn (see nominator statements in nominations). And Calculus needs some fixing of it's FA-category and talkpage status. Not sure, what happened (or i'd fix it), but maybe the nomination was closed out of process somehow. Just notifying you, in case you haven't seen the messages about it. Thanks for your great work on FA-nominations, let's hope one of your colleagues soon comes back from break to help :).GermanJoe (talk) 14:20, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Tks for that Joe, and for all the work you do around FAC as well. I'll have a look at those tonight or tomorrow. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Calculus was the only pending close after the bot ran on 09 September, so its not being fully closed could have meant the bot was AWOL, but I just checked the bot code and discovered the more likely reason: he hardcoded it to only act on closes by Ian/Graham/Ucucha. Frustrating, since the original specs indicated that a few other people (myself included) occasionally close withdrawals and out-of-process noms, and that they should be handled like the others. I'll finish the close on Calculus manually. Thanks for pointing it out, Joe, and for all your reviews. Ian, I didn't realize you were flying solo—let me know if anything gets sticky and you think I might be able to help. Maralia (talk) 18:44, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Guys, I have just arrived home from my tour of India. As soon as I recover from the jet-lag, I'll be back at FAC. I'll start to catch up tomorrow. As always, any help Maralia will be most welcome. Best, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 19:29, 14 September 2013 (UTC)

Ditto from me, Maralia, tks as always. Welcome home Graham, you deserved the break, hope you had a great time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian

Hello! Can you please tell me what is the status of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Talk That Talk (Rihanna song)/archive1 at the moment? Thanks. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 09:31, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi, this was one I didn't have time to go through properly in my last walk-through of open noms; I notice another reviewer has now left some comments in any case. Allowing for those to be resolved, I expect one of us will get to it this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:33, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Thank you on your feedback. — Tomíca^(T2ME) 18:18, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election

Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election, which will determine our coordinators for the next twelve months. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September! Kirill ^[talk] 16:20, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Assessment request

VB Stubbie

First, let me thank you for taking the time to assess the article Frederick C. Billard. I had intended to write a lead, but I guess it got lost in the shuffle. If you could take a peek at the lead I have written and re-assess the article I would be grateful Any other suggestions would be helpful. Thank you again... Cuprum17 (talk) 17:07, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I've read the new lead. It's good, I just have a few suggestions. As I said, a lead should summarise an article's content and one way to do that is to check the sections in the article and ensure something from each is included. The lead as is emphasises his activities and accomplishments as Commandant, which is great, since that demonstrates his notability straight up, but there could be more life details. For instance I'd suggest saying when he joined the Cutter Service (a precursor to the Coast Guard) -- that gives you something from Early Life. Then mention a fact from Early Career. Then say he was promoted to rear admiral and became Commandant of the Coast Guard in January 1924 and then you can present his accomplishments in that post. Finally you could mention that he died in office soon after being appointed to a third term as Commandant. BTW, I think "He emphasized integrity in the Coast Guard's dealings with the public and expected his officers and men to be honest in order to preserve the image of the Coast Guard." is probably too much detail for the lead. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

I fleshed out the lead a little and now it looks quite plump. I believe I have followed your excellent suggestion, but you may want to give it a peek when you get a minute. Thanking you again for the help. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:38, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that's certainly a decent-sized lead now, which summarises the article nicely. I have a few thoughts on tightening its prose here and there and would be happy to copyedit it accordingly if you like, but have in any case re-assessed the article as B-Class for all projects. I think in fact it might be worth going for GA with it (I would probably not review it myself as I'm a bit close to it now). My only other suggestion before that would be that if there are one or two other images of him at various stages of his career they'd be worth adding. Failing that there may be an image or two of ships, institutions or events that involved him, which could be used as context. Not essential though... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:04, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent suggestions! I will try to add an image or two shortly. I have also found some more material that I need to integrate into his service during 1927 that was significant, but what I have needs a little polish. If you want to copyedit my stilted writing style, by all means have at it! I have a writing style that conveys information, but is sometimes hard to read. Any improvements in the article would be appreciated if you are so inclined and have the time to spare. In the meantime...a bottle of VB for you...sorry, I'm currently out of Foster's and as I understand it, VB is very popular. Cheers, Mate... Cuprum17 (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, more a Coopers man myself, but VB is indeed popular in Oz (Fosters is more for the export market) so I do appreciate the gesture... ;-) Let me know when you're finished adding to the article and I'd be more than happy to give the prose another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:37, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Barnstar of Diligence
	I just wanted to offer you my sincere thanks, on behalf of the whole FA community, for your continuous efforts keeping the Featured process running smoothly. It's a great service for Wikipedia, and I'm personally very grateful that you continue to do it. Thanks a million! – Quadell (talk) 13:00, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Very kind of you and much appreciated on behalf of myself and my colleagues. Conscientious reviewers like yourself are vital to the process, and make the job of determining consensus that much easier. So thanks a million back! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:09, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

Sydney September 2013 edit-a-thon invite

Hi there! You are cordially invited to an edit-a-thon this Saturday (21 September) in Sydney at the State Library of New South Wales (SLNSW), where you can collaborate with other Wikipedians throughout the day. Andy Carr, a senior librarian at SLNSW will also be helping out. The theme of the edit-a-thon is paralympics sports, but you are free to come along to meet other wiki contributors, and edit other topics.

If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online. Details and an attendee list are at Wikipedia:Meetup/Sydney/September 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

(this automated message was delivered using replace.py to all users in Wikipedians in Sydney)

About inviting discussion with a template during an FA

The guideline WP:PROSPLIT says; "If unsure [about spliting], or with high profile or sensitive articles, start a "Split" discussion on the article talk page, and consider informing any associated WikiProject." and "If unsure, then use a template, and start a discussion on the article talkpage." I followed the guidelines on the Sea article (which is at FAC) and I added a "split" template at the to of the article and started a section for discussion on the Sea article talk page and provided an update on the FAC. I did this to invite discussion without canvassing. Splitting off the "Sea in culture" section shorted the article from 78 kB to 62 kB. Following that, incremental expansions and improvements increased the article size to the currently size of about 68 kB and there are more possible omissions to be discussed. Being objective about what the guideline says about the suitability of an article for splitting at WP:TOOBIG, it seems to me that another split is indicated and that "Humans and the sea" could be split off. Of course, a summery of it would be written for the "Sea" article, which would then be mainly on the topic of the basic sciences of the seas. The Sea article is currently at FAC and some of the reviewers had finished their review before the article expanded far above the 60 kB size, and they may not realised how large the article has become. Seeing a need for more discussion, I displayed a template at the top of the Sea article, but one of the nominators soon left me a message on my talk page asking me to remove it, which I have done. However, I would like to ask if you are aware of anything wrong with using maintenance tags or templates on articles to invite discussion when they are at FAC? Would it be reasonable to ask for opinions on article size on relevant WP talk pages during an FAC? Snowman (talk) 14:58, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

On a related topic, I would be interested to know what would be the outcome of an FAC, if a large portion (about 50%) of an article was split off during an FAC. Presumably, a huge split would make most of the discussion in the FAC up to that point out-of-date. Could the FAC be restarted? If the FAC is void, would the nominators be able to nominate the article again, and if so are there any guidelines on how soon? Snowman (talk) 19:36, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Okay, a few things... Firstly, we really should be able to expect that an article is in a stable and agreed structure before ever getting to FAC; in this case I would've hoped such concerns would have been raised and dealt with at Peer Review. Secondly, I'd tend to agree that if an article undergoes major structural change during FAC then it might well need to be restarted, if not archived and left for the usual two weeks to 'bed down' before renominating. Thirdly, however, looking at the article as it is now, I don't find it overly long considering the subject. I've just been copyediting the article on Nasser at MilHist A-Class Review and that's even longer but doesn't, I believe, go into unnecessary detail. In any case, I expect that I or one of my colleagues will look over the Sea FAC in detail in the next day or so. Cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The peer review was rather short and did not focus on article size; see Wikipedia:Peer review/Sea/archive1. I would tend to agree that opportunities to shorten the Nasser article are narrow. It depends on what an FA article is supposed to be; nevertheless, the guideline at WP:ARTICLESIZE suggests a certain article size depending largely on the topic of the article and I presume any inherent opportunities to shorten long articles. Snowman (talk) 14:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXXX, September 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at the American Civil War

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) 23:31, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC

Hi, user ViperSnake151 has withdrawn his FAC on HTC One. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 02:02, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Actioned -- tks for letting me know, Phil. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Kosciuszko review

Hi Ian, there is talk on the Kosciuszko review page about adding an image. Your opinion would be appreciated. -- Gwillhickers 15:29, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

Worth G. Ross article

Oops! I will remove the construction tag. An oversight... I've done enough damage to the article as it is. It had to be on of the toughest article I ever worked on due to a definite lack off references at covered the man's life. Cuprum17 (talk) 23:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Area Command (RAAF)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Frank Lukis

That's standard infobox conventions / parameters, why the revert? GiantSnowman 08:39, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I gave you a perfectly legitimate reason. Just because parameters are there, doesn't mean we are forced to use them and clutter things up. BTW, you made a bold edit, I reverted (partially only, incidentally), your next move should have been to discuss -- why didn't you? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Per WP:IAR - your edit went against standard conventions. There is no 'cluter'. GiantSnowman 09:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

IAR works both ways, mate. There's an extra, unnecessary line there now, and there is in any case no "standard convention" of the sort you suggest. The convention I employ has been accepted in many articles at GAN, A-Class Review and FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

There's no "unnecessary" line - there's a parameter that's included in {{Infobox military person}} for a very good reason. His name is not "Francis William Fellowes (Frank) Lukis", it is either 'Frank Lukis' or 'Francis William Fellowes Lukis'. GiantSnowman 09:40, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

This is getting lame. That parameter is indeed useful if someone's birth name changes significantly in adulthood but "Francis" to "Frank" is hardly such a change, and you've seen that another editor seems to agree. As I've said in my edit summary, putting a common diminutive or nickname in brackets is perfectly normal; this convention is not just used in other quality WP biographies but in bios outside WP, e.g. these examples from the Australian Dictionary of Biography: William Lloyd (Bill) Hely; Francis (Frank) Field; and Geoffrey Clark (Geoff) Hartnell to highlight just a few. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

The convention on Wikipedia is WP:FULLNAME and is to use "name" not (name) for the shortened version. I've changed it to match MOS; I eagerly await you or your mate to revert me. GiantSnowman 11:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Believe me, 'my mate', as you call him, is big enough and ugly enough to think for himself and to do whatever he deems appropriate without any prompting from me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You might also want to look at FAs such as Malcolm X. GiantSnowman 12:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Or, keeping in line with Australian pilots, John Plagis. GiantSnowman 13:19, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Last things first, I'm not sure that an example like Malcolm X bears much relation to Frank Lukis. Going back to your comment immediately above that, and your most recent edit to Lukis, we seem to be moving closer. I can see that the Clinton example puts quotes around the common diminutive "Bill", as opposed to brackets. I note also, however, that the MOS page makes no special mention of using quotes vs. brackets, i.e. the latter are not by any means forbidden. I happen to think that quote marks should be used sparingly, so I follow the standard of using brackets around common short forms like Frank for Francis, Bill for William, Bob for Robert, etc. I've taken (and continue to take) many articles all the way to FA using this convention so I think we can say it's quite acceptable. If that were not the case my talk page would be littered with conversations like this and clearly it isn't. So, to compromise, I have no particular issue with your latest change at the top of the infobox to employ his full (birth) name minus Frank in brackets. For the sake of standardisation with similar military bios I've written (and that's a lot), I'd still like us to go back to brackets around Frank in the opening sentence. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Why does the Malcolm X example not apply? It is a FA, we have a MOS which all should follow - not one rule for Australian pilots and one for political activists! You haven't mentioned John Plagis. GiantSnowman 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

You seem to be getting a little hot under the collar about this. The point about X is that his naming is a lot more complicated than Lukis. Plagis you threw in just as I was trying to respond to you. I think you're missing the point. I don't say the quotes are wrong to use, and you won't find me going around other articles removing them even though I think they're used too often. What I'm drawing to your attention is that the brackets are not forbidden by the MOS and seem to be acceptable by virtue of the fact that I've continued to use them in biographies and reviewers continue to support such articles for promotion to GA, A-Class and FA. I guess I'm just wondering where you got the monopoly on wisdom here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:42, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Not at all. Basically your argument was "this is a GA, therefore it is correct" - but I have found anothr GA on the same topic, and a FA on a different topic, both of which use the conventions indicated in the MOS. While brackets are not explicitly forbidden, it is clear by the examples that quotes should be used. GiantSnowman 14:01, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Um, no, I haven't said that because something is GA (or even FA) it's correct, what I've said is that if the MOS does not forbid a style convention (especially one that obviously has its adherents in the 'real' world, as I've demonstrated further above) and a great many people over the years and right up till now have reviewed and supported articles in WP that employ said convention, then we can say that the convention has acceptance, even though slightly different conventions clearly have acceptance as well. You probably won't find that many articles in WP that employ the citation convention of using a reference's author and title, as I prefer, instead of author and year of publication but, guess what, the former is not forbidden by MOS and has also been accepted by a long line of reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Oh, I must have imagined when you said "the convention I employ has been accepted in many articles at GAN, A-Class Review and FAC" then... GiantSnowman 15:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

He said that. But you pointing out a couple of counter examples does not negate what he said .. "many" does not mean "every single one". You pointing out a few examples of articles that use another convention doesn't mean that those examples are the only way to format this information either. Why is it so hard for people to just accept that some things will be done differently by different editors???Ealdgyth - Talk 15:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

That's all well and good - but not when we have a MOS which is intended to make articles look the same, and other editor don't seem to know and/or care about that. GiantSnowman 15:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

I stand by what I said earlier. I'm drawing a distinction between "correct/incorrect" (what MOS clearly says you must or must not do) vs. situations where things aren't so black-and-white and most people don't seem to have a problem either way. To use a different example, we have an ongoing issue when it comes to "medal farms" in military biographies. Several editors strongly favour their use, and others (myself among them FWIW) do not. The MOS (even the MilHist MOS) is not clear on this point, so we tend to give way to the view of the 'primary editor(s)' of an article in the absence of a clear right or wrong answer. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Congratulations on your success with Bobby Gibbes. I enjoyed reading the article immeasurably and I'm happy that my vote of support counted for its well deserved promotion! CassiantoTalk 12:43, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- that means a lot coming from such an accomplished Wikibiographer as yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Bobby Gibbes

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Bobby Gibbes. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Tks Tony. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Permission for 2 simultaneous solo FACs

Since I have a fairly good track record at FAC, I'd like to be able to nominate two articles simultaneously if I have two ready to go. Most of my normal collaborators are going to be busy for the foreseeable future and I'd like the ability to run two noms without any collaborator if necessary.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I know your FACs are generally pretty quick and trouble-free (Warrior was the exception that proved the rule!) but if I make an exception here I may open the floodgates for similar requests from regular nominators with equally good track records. Admittedly we've got the active FAC list down a fair bit recently but I'd like to keep it that way. I've generally had no issue when people request staggered solo noms, that is commencing a new one as a previous one is winding down (to use a current example, Hiryū isn't at that stage yet) but I think that's probably as far as I'd want to go. Of course feel free to check with GrahamColm and/or Ucucha as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:43, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, I'll just ping you whenever a nom's reached the tipping point for another one. I know Hiryu's not there yet; very frustrating waiting for reviewers.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Problem with a FAC nominator removing my comments

I commented on the FAC for Peru national football team. The nominator, User:MarshalN20 then stalked one of my GA reviews that I asked him not to interfere with. I raised the issue at the GA discussion page, and that user became belligerent. I withdrew from the FAC and stated that my comments stand. The nominator twice removed my comments improperly from the FAC:

• First time [2]
• Second time: [3]

I have mention this and related matters at WP:AN/I#Please advise. I raise this to your attention for whatever action or sanction you may see fit.--ColonelHenry (talk) 16:57, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

I've restored the comment because it should be up to third parties to determine if such things ought to be removed. That said, I wouldn't say you did yourself any favours expressing it as you did -- we need cooler heads all round, at FAC and anywhere else. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:49, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

If you might be interested...

Hi Ian, if you might be interested, it would be privilege to nominate you for adminship. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 18:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Very kind of you, Wifione, but delegate/coordinator duties at FAC and the MilHist project are enough to keep me occupied beyond my general editing work. I suppose I should have one of those 'this editor is not an admin and doesn't wish to be' thingies on my page but I'm not into user boxes... ;-) Seriously, the only admin tool I think I'd ever use would be uncontroversial page deletion of out-of-process FAC nominations, and putting people to the trouble of an RFA for that alone seems a bit much... Anyway, thanks for thinking of me! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

Coordinator of the Military history Project, September 2013 – September 2014

G'day, in recognition of your successful election as a co-ordinator of the Military History project for the next year, please accept these co-ord stars. I look forward to working with you over the next year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:30, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Likewise and congrats on your well-deserved first place, Rupert. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:35, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

"on yer" Ian. Your sterling efforts compensate me for any guilt I may feel for not being as involved as I might. More seriously, I'm fairly confident that Rupert and I are not the only ones who appreciate your skills / abilities / efforts / judgments / etc. Congratulations! Pdfpdf (talk) 09:47, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

(BTW Rupert: I would have thought this one more appropriate.)

Many tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the six-star would've been appropriate too, if only I'd got another dozen votes or so... ;-)

666!

As one of a highly select international group, you are hereby invited to join me in celebrating my 666! (Let the games begin!) Pdfpdf (talk) 11:17, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Featured Article Review of Albert Ball

Hello, cobber,

I have nominated Albert Ball as a Featured Article candidate. Because you were a major influence on the present text, I have mentioned you on the FAR nomination page as such, with a notation that you are are being invited to become a co-nominator. I would be delighted to have you on board as such, though not at the expense of compromising your other WP duties.

Georgejdorner (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, well I've always wanted to be part of any FAC, given my prior involvement, but I would've liked us all to discuss and review the article before it was actually nominated... ;-) Anyway I'll have a look... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've completed a quick copyedit (the sort of thing I'd like to have done before FAC!) and refained from making any major structural or informational changes, but pls see edit summaries and diffs for more detail. I think the lead might've been pruned a bit too much, and a few other paragraphs are possibly also too short, but suggest we wait on comment from third parties before making further changes. As long as you're reasonably happy with my mods, I for one will be pleased to officially add my name as a co-nom and assist in fielding comments -- let me know! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

---

Hello, Ian,

Welcome aboard! My apologies for not thinking to ask you to give the text one last once-over. To mine eyes, it read fine. Your edits prove otherwise. I do promise you, I will not repeat this neglect if we share future FARs.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:48, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, will add myself as co-nom, while leaving the invite open to our other post-ACR collaborators. Two questions though: 1) do you still have Pengally in case any clarifications are needed by reviewers and 2) does he mention the fair maiden at the scene of the crash, either as fact or even simply as rumour/legend? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:39, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Ian - I purchased a copy of Pengelly a while ago (during the nomination for GA controversies) - although it didn't arrive for some months. On re-reading Chapter 12 (The last patrol) which is where we would expect to find any mention of the "fair maiden" myth - I certainly can't find any mention at all - either endorsing it, debunking it, or even commenting. I have also checked the (rather poorly done) index and it isn't mentioned there. In view of my strong bias it may be even better if someone else checks too (might I NOT be seeing what I don't want to see? I hope not, but...).

Pengelly, page 196: "When Hailer and his companions reached the site they found that Ball had already been lifted from the wreckage by a local French girl, Mademoiselle Cecile Delorffe."

Bowyer, pages 211-212: "Hailer and his three companions immediately hurried to the site of the crash, to find Ball's body had already been removed from the wreckage of his machine and laid on the ground by a local French girl. The girl, Madame Lieppe-Colon, had been the first to reach the wrecked aircraft...."

My followup research on these young women did not help me distinguish the actual identity of the woman in question, although it revealed they were both married women with children, and not the dewy maiden of legend.

Nevertheless, if we don't want to keep what I found as a corrective to the romanticized legend, we could drop mention of her entirely. If only to get on with article development.Georgejdorner (talk) 18:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Okay, so the latest bio does mention it as well but we have what appears to be contradictory info on name and marital status -- in view of this messy situation, I'm still inclined to leave it out and address it only if/when a reviewer brings it up. I've always tried to be pragmatic when this article has been under review and my (self-imposed) absence from any post-ACR re-development has only strengthened that attitude... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

The other thing I would like to see is a section specifically on Ball's attitude to the S.E.5. I will write this myself unless you'd rather do it? His strong pig-headedness and prejudice (at least initially) is I think important for a balanced view of his character. --Soundofmusicals (talk) 00:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi SoM, I've always found you honest about your POV so if you say the girl ain't there, I don't doubt it. I'd prefer he said "yes, this is rumoured but I don't believe it" or "yes, it happened", then we could report either of those perspectives. If he doesn't mention it at all, I don't mind if we don't either now. If a FAC reviewer brings it up, we may have to mention the tale in a footnote as "some authors state..." or some such. We just can't inject our own scepticism into the article unless a reliable source has done so, otherwise we'd be guilty of original research. Re. the S.E.5 attitude, I think it's reported already in the article but if you think it needs a little more, feel free as far as I'm concerned. I'd suggest only adding/changing a sentence or two, however, as significant modifications or a whole new section may make reviewers nervous of the article's stability, which is part of the FA criteria (I know I copyedited throughout but added nothing and only dropped one statement (re. the maiden). Per George, be happy to see you add yourself as co-nom if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:07, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I would hope you have no reason to doubt my integrity when it comes to things like material being, or not being in a chapter - just being as realistic about my own failings (if such there be, hem hem) and the normal human capacity to miss what one does not want to see. I have just gone through it again without noticing anything. I DO notice you have "remmed" the "offending sentence" out of the article. (Good-oh, and may it never return!!) I would STILL be even happier (being the very humble, modest, self-effacing and and altogether marvelous person that I am) if someone else without my very strong 'anti-Ball-and-the-fair-young-maiden-myth' POV could also read the chapter and check I am not being psychologically blinded.

On the S.E.5 front - as I think you may have heard, I am working on a complete rewrite of the S.E.5 article, on the lines of my rewrites of Fokker Scourge and Synchronization gear. Among other things, I am dredging up a good deal about Ball and the S.E. - as well at (notoriously) hating it (not to mention dying in one) he "crossed its path" in several other less known ways. I think that at least an abbreviated version of the "Ball and the S.E.5" section of my S.E.5 article also belongs in the Ball article, and that it will add substantially to what we already have. Whether it goes in ahead of the FA application or after I leave up to you. I will in any case finish it, complete with full citations, before thinking of putting it in.

As for "co-nominating" the Albert Ball article for FA with you and George, you certainly have my full support, but will my presence as a "co-nom" make a difference? (I mean, does the number of "co-noms" tend to sway whoever is assessing it? If not I would rather keep out of it, as my own contributions to the article have been so minor compared with yours and George's.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 08:28, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Being a co-nominator means you receive the shared 'credit' if the article is promoted to FA, you're prepared to help field questions/comments from reviewers, and you recuse yourself from reviewing and supporting/opposing the article's promotion. The number of co-nominators shouldn't make any difference to reviewers, or to the FAC delegate who determines if/when consensus to promote has been reached. So if you'd rather keep out of it, it shouldn't hurt the nomination in any way. If George and I are stuck about a query from a reviewer and want to confer with you, we can still do that on your talk page or the article's, even if you're not down as a co-nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:00, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The S.E.5 bit I will add as soon as it is ready - although this could very well be after the FA assessment is over anyway, as I will make sure it is at the very least as well documented etc. as the main article. May I interpret your remarks to mean that I can help at least as much if I'm NOT a co-sponsor? If so I may just stay that way, as I am (sincerely, in spite of joking about it above) most diffident about copping "credit" for the work of others. Will of course be following things in a supportive frame of mind anyway.--Soundofmusicals (talk) 23:15, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, editors who are not part of the nomination team can still assist in fielding/actioning reviewer comments -- that happens. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:48, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Help test better mass message delivery

Hi. You're being contacted as you've previously used global message delivery (or its English Wikipedia counterpart). It doesn't feel so great to be spammed, does it? ;-)

For the past few months, Legoktm has built a replacement to the current message delivery system called MassMessage. MassMessage uses a proper user interface form (no more editing a /Spam subpage), works faster (it can complete a large delivery in minutes), and no longer requires being on an access list (any local administrator can use it). In addition, many tiny annoyances with the old system have been addressed. It's a real improvement! :-)

You can test out MassMessage here: testwiki:Special:MassMessage. The biggest difference you'll likely notice is that any input list must use a new {{#target:}} parser function. For example, {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales}} or {{#target:User talk:Jimbo Wales|test2.wikipedia.org}}. For detailed instructions, check out mw:Help:Extension:MassMessage.

If you find any bugs, have suggestions for additional features, or have any other feedback, drop a note at m:Talk:MassMessage. Thanks for spamming! --MZMcBride (talk) 05:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the other coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I'm very pleased to award you the A-class medal with diamonds to recognise your excellent work in developing the Gordon Steege, Frank Headlam and No. 36 Squadron RAAF to A-class status. This makes you only the second person to ever receive this award. Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Many tks Nick -- being second to Hawkeye is an honour in itself, hey... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:56, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Very belated congratulations!

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the June 2013 Military History Article Writing Contest with 121 points from 17 entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:17, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Why thanks mate, much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

September 2013 Milhist article writing contest

		The WikiChevrons
		The WikiChevrons are hereby bestowed upon Ian Rose for his fine efforts in the September 2013 Military History monthly article writing contest, placing first with a total of 61 points from seven articles. Well done! Cheers, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:21, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Tks man -- one ACR's worth of points in it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:13, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Dear me!

And all I did was invite you to share the celebration of my anniversary. Clearly, totally inadequate!
What can I say? Ah!! I know: "It may have taken a few years, but clearly, others, too, are now starting/continuing to acknowledge your truly impressive abilities". Pdfpdf (talk) 12:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC) (And no, this is not just the cynical response of a grumpy old man.)

Talk:John Lansdale, Jr./GA1

Ian, you opened this review page over three weeks ago, but haven't yet been back to start the actual review. Will you be able to commence soon? If you're not going to be able to do it, we can put it back into the GAN reviewing pool for you. Please let us know. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:41, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Heh, I hadn't forgotten it but have been otherwise engaged -- will get to it before end of week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:25, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

Operation Tungsten FAC

Hi Ian, I'm currently hitting up all the editors who reviewed Operation Tungsten at its ACR to see if they could also review it for FA status. If you have the time, I'd appreciate it if you could also post a review. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Yep, on my list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Prashant

Hi Ian, I've raised some concerns about this editor to Graham Colm, can you view my post on his talk page? You might remember him from the Priyanka Chopra first nomination. I don't want to make Graham's talk page a battleground, but I was wondering if you think that the weight of his actions at FAC and FLC to date would be enough to ban him from contributing to the FA process? I think it's clear that he's too immature to deal with the process and that he's incapable of addressing criticism. And it's not as if he's a star FA contributor, I think his lack of basic English in his posts is proof that he's clearly had a lot of help on his articles.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Noted, but having seen little of him since that FAC it'd take me some time to go through this, which I don't have right now, especially since I still have my weekly FAC rounds to make later today. I'll try to look into it when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:09, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I don't want to put anybody off contributing to articles of course, and Prashant does have an enthusiasm for wikipedia and genuinely wants to improve Indian cinema articles. But I don't think FAC is for him because of his inability to deal with criticism and opposition and it isn't fair on the people who bother to review his articles and have to put up with his accusations and silly behaviour on talk pages.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Surprisingly Graham hasn't responded on this.♦ Dr. Blofeld 19:50, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your email. With regard to the above, I haven't responded because I haven't had the time and, like Ian, I have more than enough to do at FAC and with content creation and we have to ration our time. Prashant can be difficult, but I don't think this is an issue that you should be asking the FAC coordinators to resolve. As an admin, I am reluctant to intervene unless there is an immediate problem with an active FAC nomination because I have had to tell him off in the past and find it difficult to be objective. I think the best course of action is to find others admins to take a look at the issue with fresh eyes. A topic ban requires a wide consensus, Graham Colm (talk) 21:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Graham for the response. Well, Prashant appears to have begun a course at a university so is unlikely to be anywhere near as active as he was on here. Perhaps he'll mature in university. If he's going to be largely inactive then I don't think its worth the trouble to try to get consensus on the matter. But seeing his further recent remarks and disruptive reverting of the list [4] perhaps it's for his own good that he's banned. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:51, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Why are you doing this Blofeld? I thought were good hearted. But, you are trying to get me blocked. So that you can take over my flc. Huh? It's very painful. Also don't you think you are over reacting and presenting a story by adding spices. FYI, I was calmly addressing all comments and got 4 supports. Then, one oppose came and you started to show that your version was better and article was yours. Then, I got angry over you not those reviewers. You only tells one side of the story, which is very bad to do. Try to be be a honest man first. You're my idol on Wikipedia and you'll always will. let put aside our tiff and become friends and you are right I'll not be active like begor as I have started my university life, also my English is improving (I'm an engineering student). I'm also improving as a person and surely will be mature enough to deal with all kind of pressures here and in my life too. Thanks.—Prashant 19:13, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm being as honest as I possibly can. Your further actions this evening which include disruptive reverting and edit summaries attacking other editors over the list and then proceeding to "strongly oppose" an article I'm involved with at FAC with no real justification for doing so on top of the way you've already acted with the Chopra article and list clearly states that you're too immature to deal with the difficulties that FAC throws at you. I'm not suggesting a block of you from editing wikipedia, just a banning from the process of FA in which you've repeatedly shown yourself to be disruptive and unable to learn from your mistakes. Your anger is uncontrollable and it isn't fair on other editors who contribute there in good faith. Anyway let's not continue this here, I'll be opening an RFC on you tomorrow.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

I have blocked Prashant for two weeks. His behavior has become irrational, uncivil and unacceptable. I hope he takes this opportunity to reflect on his attitude towards other editors and our policies. Perhaps you could postpone the RFC? Graham Colm (talk) 21:21, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. OK I will postpone it for now, but I've already given him about 5 chances to stop behaving like this. Given that he's repeatedly shown himself unable to learn from his mistakes, I'm certain that he'll continue to act like this. I don't know how long it will take before he's mature enough to not react in this way to people and understand that wikipedia isn't a personal competition. He's only 19, but even for that age his level of maturity is well below average. He admits to Rambling Man that he has anger issues and personal problems but that isn't an excuse for taking out his problems on here. Perhaps the block will shock him and he'll think twice about doing this sort of thing again. But if I see one instance of disruption at FAC again from him and incivility towards contributors then there really is no alternative but to ban him from the process.♦ Dr. Blofeld 20:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)♦ Dr. Blofeld 21:32, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

And now indefinitely blocked for socking. As I said on his talk page, it is possible that another admin or the community may decide to give him one last chance, but it's too soon to discuss that. --Rschen7754 07:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I think he needs to be blocked indefinitely until he convince us that he's over his personal problems as if he isn't blocked now he'll continue to dig a deeper hole for himself. But be wary of him. He can issue can apology and then within minutes do something completely the opposite. I think he needs to learn a lesson that he can't act like this here and get away with it. He's been almost entirely disruptive the last few weeks on here aside from addressing the FLC comments.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

@Dr. Blofeld: The CU came up negative, so I've restored the original length - it's still possible that he could have evaded CU, but we can't prove that. Obviously the supposed sock is up to no good, so it's still blocked. I wouldn't oppose someone going and re-extending the block, but I don't think that's a call I should be making. --Rschen7754 23:54, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: George Jones (RAAF officer)

This is a note to let the main editors of George Jones (RAAF officer) know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 26, 2013. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/October 26, 2013. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

George Jones (1896–1992) was a senior commander in the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF). He served as Chief of the Air Staff from 1942 to 1952, the longest continuous tenure of any RAAF chief. During World War I, Jones fought as an infantryman at Gallipoli before transferring to the Australian Flying Corps. Posted to a fighter squadron in France, he achieved seven victories to become an ace, and was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross. After a short spell in civilian life, he joined the newly formed RAAF in 1921, and rose steadily through training and personnel commands prior to World War II. Jones was a surprise appointee as Chief of the Air Staff, and his achievements in the position were coloured by a divisive relationship with the head of RAAF Command, Air Vice Marshal William Bostock. This was partly the result of a divided command structure, which neither man had any direct role in shaping. After World War II, Jones had overall responsibility for transforming what was then the world's fourth largest air force into a peacetime service that was also able to meet overseas commitments in Malaya and Korea. He was promoted to air marshal in 1948, and knighted in 1953. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Terrific article. Well deserved TFA. Silent Billy (talk) 09:11, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much -- first one I took to FA, so I guess this has been a long time coming... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

FAC-talk - sub-pages?

Hello Ian, just a quick question. Is it OK to create sub-pages for discussions to Wikipedia_talk:Featured_article_candidates or would it disturb some bots? I have compiled a laundry list of possible suggestions and ideas at User:GermanJoe/sandbox2 and would like to copy it over for discussion. The list is just too long and unwieldy to use the regular talkpage. GermanJoe (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Joe, to be honest I'm not sure if creating a subpage would harm any bots. I wouldn't have thought so but who knows? Worst case, you could simply link your sandbox page (perhaps rename to something more meaningful) to a regular post at WT:FAC, as you've done here. Incidentally, having had a quick glance at the page, there are some good topics for discussion there, although perhaps a few that are already covered by the FAC instructions, and I think any talk of RFCs is premature given we've just had one -- my opinion of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Thanks for the advice, Ian. In my opinion a RFC would only be needed for very basic questions and aspects under dispute. I hope, that most minor or uncontroversial ideas could be implemented with simple, informal consensus building. GermanJoe (talk) 07:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, in recognition of your dedication in reviewing 24 Military History good article nominations, peer review requests, A-Class nominations and/or Featured Article candidates during the period July to September 2013, I hereby award you the WikiChevrons. Well done and thanks, Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Can I nominate a 2nd article at FAC?

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tadeusz Kościuszko/archive1 has been open for over two months now and it still doesn't look like it's going to finish soon, as other editors keep tweaking the article. Can I nominate another article, since two months have passed, and there's little I can do to improve the stability of TK's article? Disclaimer: I am a WP:CUP participant, and I'd like to have a chance at getting one of my articles FA-ed before this years CUP ends :> PS. I intend to nominate Casimir Pulaski. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:07, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Piotr, I realise it's been frustrating, it's one of those articles that seemed on the cusp of promotion a few times and then someone else came along with something. I think GrahamColm or I will have to have another look at the review (which I may not be able to do till tonight, Sydney time) before we agree to another article being nominated. This is generally agreed to if an article looks like it will be promoted shortly. If OTOH the article is still unstable and might instead be archived, then we're into the two-week waiting-period process that is generally applied to the nominator when any article is archived (which of course can also have exceptions). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:56, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Yet another FA?!?

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of No. 36 Squadron RAAF to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 10:14, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

36 squadron history

Hello, I have been reading and watching the WP article on the No. 36 Squadron RAAF for a few weeks and notice your obvious interest and work on the subject.

Reading the history section, I note that the squadron was formed on 11 March 1942. My late father joined that squadron as a flight mechanic just one month later, on 20 April 1942 and he served with it until the end of 1944. He flew and worked within Australia and between Australia and New Guinea moving supplies and troops. My brother and I recently donated a small amount of memorabilia that I had, to the RAAF Museum (three 36 squadron Christmas cards from 1943 and 1944 , a 1943 36 squadron printed 'Message to home' memo). They were pleased to receive these items and regard them as rare. There is also a photo of our dad servicing 'his' DC-3. It was Tony Moclair that suggested I contact the museum.

I thought you may be interested in our family connection to the squadron. Regards Greg. Melbourne3163 (talk) 16:52, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

That's great, Greg -- love to have seen the Xmas cards, I'm sure the museum will give them a good home. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Categories used as lists

Hello, cobber,

I can't seem to find WP guidance on the above, and decided to call upon your vast experience. Someone has added a couple of categories on Lists of World War I flying aces to serve as lists. The problem arises that these lists never shall be complete, as non-notable aviators will never show up on them. I have marked the category/lists with that information, and added a note to the anchor page that they are incomplete. That has led to a bit of a bun fight, as another editor claims warning the reader of incompletion is vandalism!

At any rate, as I gen up replacements for these atrocities, I also wonder if you are aware of any consensus, MOS entry, etc. concerning the use of categories as lists. It seems to me this usage will spawn misinformation amongst the readers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:33, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, I'm probably not the best person to ask about lists because I rarely edit or review them. However I've checked this case, and I do find it very odd to call a category a list. A proper list should have a decent chance of being exhaustive, whereas a category is entirely dependent on people creating the articles to fill it. My question would be, why aren't these links going to actual list articles instead of categories -- don't the lists exist? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nos. 13 and 450 Squadrons RAAF

G'day, Ian, as you probably know I'm spending a bit of time trying to reference a number of the RAAF squadron articles. I've hit a snag with No. 13 Squadron RAAF and No. 450 Squadron RAAF, both of which have information for which I can't find a ref. I have a feeling some of it might be in the official history, so I will eventually try to go through those, but I wonder if you might have a ref for some of the statements I've marked with citation needed tags? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Funnily enough I've got a strong connection with 450 Sqn, as my father was one of the flight commanders. I have a pic or two from those days in the desert, one of which I thought might be a good one for the infobox, since it features the ops room (or tent, to be exact!) with the sqn number clearly visible. So I was actually planning on editing the article some time anyway. Perhaps I can go through it and join you in taking it to B or even GA... I'll have a look for 13 Sqn refs too but otherwise might stay arm's length on that one, we'll see. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian, that would be great. I really enjoyed working on 2/3rd Battalion because of my family connection. My main goal with these articles is B class, but No. 450 Squadron has potential to go further. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:10, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Looks like you've done all right with 13 Sqn anyway! I got through a bit today with 450 but there's still some to do even for B. The amount of info on it is pretty good, enough for GA easily at some stage, perhaps higher, but not so much as to be overwhelming. I'll leave some comments on the talk page presently so anyone else who's interested knows where I'm up to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Cheers, Ian, that would be great. I found another ref this morning and will look through Herington a bit more later today. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:35, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPhone 5S/archive2

Hi Ian, If you haven't seen Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/IPhone 5S/archive2 you might want to look in - I think that it should be closed. Nick-D (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

‎Graham has just closed this. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Niels Bohr

Ian, I don't want to deal with personal attacks. Can you please take care of this for me? Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:02, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

For the benefit of friendly talk page stalkers, commented at the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:05, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Reviewing checklist

Hey Ian, this is a bit dusty and in need of expansion, but you're welcome to use or adapt it if you'd like. Nikkimaria (talk) 21:58, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Tls Nikki, it's still a good guide as is so I think I'd prefer to see you update as (and if) you think necessary, and then perhaps we can remind people of its existence (along with a few other extant guides to writing and reviewing FAs). Nick-D also happens to writing his own guide to reviewing A/FA candidates as an op-ed for the Bugle this month. The guide Graham and I were/are working on is slightly different again in format. Taken together they should provide a comprehensive approach to the subject. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Albert Ball FAC

Hi Ian. I noticed this edit to the Albert Ball article. I saw the comment at the FAC by Dank that led to that edit. I can drop by the FAC to explain that wording, or I can restore the wording and make it clearer. I originally added the text in question here. I'm leaving this note here, as if I drop by the FAC myself I may get drawn into reviewing the article or adding the older talk page material that was discussed some years ago, and I can't really spare the time for that. I was also reminded of that e-mail I sent you at the time (this was two years ago now!) where you asked for some sources. Did you ever do anything with those? I could add those as well if I get time. Carcharoth (talk) 00:49, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Ah, oops... I see the FAC was closed earlier today. That will teach me to leave a note about something I saw earlier in the day without checking for updates first. Let me know what you think is the best way to sort out what the text should say. Carcharoth (talk) 01:27, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Facepalm. Doh! I'm an idiot, the FAC isn't closed. I almost certainly had the MilHist ACR open from 2011 (I would have been reminding myself what was said there) and while looking at that (late at night) I mistook it for the FAC having been closed... Sorry about that. As the FAC is still open, and I now have a little bit of time, I'll comment briefly there. Carcharoth (talk) 01:01, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Dropping this note back here, as I don't want to overwhelm the FAC with it. The position I'm in here Ian, is that I spent time (a lot of time) going over this with you and George on the talk page two years ago, and you were quite open to at least some of the material being added, but everyone seemed to drift away to do other things. What has changed?

I accept the fact that I never got round to adding the detail is entirely my fault, but I had in part assumed you would actually use those sources you (Ian) asked me to e-mail you. Did you ever get that e-mail two years ago? I would also have returned to this article if I had been aware that it was going to be put up for FAC, but the first I heard of it was when George dropped me a note on my talk page. I should at the time, instead of declining the proposed co-nomination, have said that there was unfinished discussion on the talk page and maybe asked for the review to be put on hold for a few days (I am used to co-nominations being sorted out before a review is started, not after it has started). But by the time I had thought of that, things had moved on. Surely I was not the only one who remembered those discussions?

I think one of the less common points of FACs is precisely to make sure that there are not unresolved issues hanging around on a talk page. Certainly when I was reviewing, one of the things I tried to remember to do was to check the talk page of the article under review for such things. <shrug> Maybe it is acceptable to leave things until after the review has concluded, I don't know. I just want to be sure that the time I invested two years ago looking up various things isn't wasted. Carcharoth (talk) 00:53, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I hear you, I'm used to co-noms being sorted out beforehand too and I had no foreknowledge of the FAC nomination. Once that occurred, however, I had to make a decision as to whether to join in or try to head it off. I had effectively withdrawn from the article some time after the MilHist A-Class Review as we had four quite strong-willed editors involved and, while discussions were always cordial and stimulating, I frankly couldn't afford the time and felt that I'd done my bit for king and country. When George nominated it at FAC and invited us all to join him, I have to admit I didn't go back over the talk page (I had clean forgotten the emails too, sorry about that) and simply walked through the article itself. I recognised a fair bit that I'd written, it looked like it was FA-worthy content/reference/style-wise, so I quickly copyedited to smooth out what I saw as a few rough edges and joined in the nomination. As I said elsewhere, no article, even a featured one, is frozen, so I don't see an issue with adding things afterwards as long as what's in the reviewed article (which is after all supposed to be a summary, not exhaustive) is correct and reasonably comprehensive. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry to take so long to get back to this, Ian. I was caught up dealing with some other things (which are now close to finishing, so I will have more time for article work again). Thanks for your reply here and at the FAC and on the Albert Ball talk page. The sticking point may be summary vs exhaustive. We may differ on what that means. What you think verges on exhaustive, I may consider to still be only a summary, if that makes any sense. Anyway, I'll try and get back to that soon (congratulations on the article being promoted), but while I'm here I noticed the message you were left below about a WWI editathon. I've been to several of those in the UK and they can be excellent. One of the Australia-related articles I've been considering for a while is the Australian Historical Mission, currently a red-link at Charles Bean. I have the book on this by Janda Gooding (Gallipoli Revisited, 2009), but haven't got round to doing an article yet. When I do, do you know of editors who are interested in the post-war aspects in and related to Australia? I have a page where I try and keep track of things (see here), but need to update that. The other thing I remember noticing is something at WT:MILHIST about the talk pages for various taskforces being reactivated, including the one for WWI (actually, it was here at the co-ordinators' talk page). That should have been done much earlier, IMO, but if it has now been done, I am going to try and help out much more there, as there is easily enough activity in this area to benefit from more co-ordination, or at least more visibility. Should I say something over there? Carcharoth (talk) 15:04, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks re. Ball, likewise to yourself for your contributions. I agree we have somewhat different ideas on 'summary' vs. 'exhaustive'. I mean, you should add what you think is vital, I'd just suggest doing it gradually so the other interested parties can review easily, and be careful not to overbalance the article (not singling you out here, I'd say the same to anyone editing it, and try to abide by that myself). I may try and get along to the editathon if I can. Re. post-WWI, I can't think of too many people focussing on that area, but AustralianRupert, Anotherclown, Nick-D, Hawkeye7 and myself may well touch on it in their articles. Re. the task force (or workgroups, whatever), I think they're to be reactivated on a 'squeaky wheel' basis -- fell free to join in any discussion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:45, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Pedro Afonso, Prince Imperial of Brazil

The article is good now, regardless what some editors who opposed said. I can provide you good reasons to why the article couldn't pass before and why it can now. Regardless, you should pay attention to people with no knowledge of the subject. --Lecen (talk) 02:03, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCI, October 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks Austro-Hungarian battleships of World War I Op-ed: Advice on reviewing Featured and A-Class articles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:17, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Books and Bytes: The Wikipedia Library Newsletter

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 1, October 2013

by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

Greetings Wikipedia Library members! Welcome to the inaugural edition of Books and Bytes, TWL’s monthly newsletter. We're sending you the first edition of this opt-in newsletter, because you signed up, or applied for a free research account: HighBeam, Credo, Questia, JSTOR, or Cochrane. To receive future updates of Books and Bytes, please add your name to the subscriber's list. There's lots of news this month for the Wikipedia Library, including new accounts, upcoming events, and new ways to get involved...

New positions: Sign up to be a Wikipedia Visiting Scholar, or a Volunteer Wikipedia Librarian

Wikipedia Loves Libraries: Off to a roaring start this fall in the United States: 29 events are planned or have been hosted.

New subscription donations: Cochrane round 2; HighBeam round 8; Questia round 4... Can we partner with NY Times and Lexis-Nexis??

New ideas: OCLC innovations in the works; VisualEditor Reference Dialog Workshop; a photo contest idea emerges

News from the library world: Wikipedian joins the National Archives full time; the Getty Museum releases 4,500 images; CERN goes CC-BY

Announcing WikiProject Open: WikiProject Open kicked off in October, with several brainstorming and co-working sessions

New ways to get involved: Visiting scholar requirements; subject guides; room for library expansion and exploration

Read the full newsletter

Thanks for reading! All future newsletters will be opt-in only. Have an item for the next issue? Leave a note for the editor on the Suggestions page. --The Interior 19:53, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Please, sir, may I have another?

Shinano looks like it's almost ready to be promoted. Can I go ahead and nom another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:36, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Another?! Well, awright -- the list isn't that long at the moment... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:32, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

The rime of the modern mariner

Thank you for your closing verse,
I think that many could do worse.
I promise this, dear Mr Rose,
my next attempt will be in prose.

Cheers, Jimfbleak - talk to me? 15:00, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Contest

G'day, Ian, I'm just in the process of verifying the entries for the October contest and just wanted to clarify your Bobby Gibbes entry. The article history seems to show it was promoted to FA in late September, so I think it wouldn't be eligible for the October contest. Have I misinterpreted this, or did you mean to list a different article? Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:44, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ian! I have removed Bobby Gibbes entry in the October contest tally because the upgrade from A-class to FA-class appears to have taken place in September, and the improvement was actually tallied in September contest. Did you mean to enter a different article?--Tomobe03 (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks guys, just a slip of the keyboard... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. I figured it must be a copy-pasted placeholder meant for something else. :) --Tomobe03 (talk) 13:45, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Invitation

There is a backstage pass coming up to be followed by an editathon in the State Library of New South Wales on 23 November. This is the first time that an Australian cultural institution has opened its doors to us in this way and will be a special opportunity because the Library is providing: one of its best rooms; its expert curators (along with their expertise and their white gloves); a newly launched website (containing new resources); and of course, items from its collection (including rare and usually unavailable material) which we can look at, learn from, and use, to improve WP articles. For example, on the chosen topic (Australia and WWI), the Library holds many diaries and manuscripts from the period.

As you can see from the Library's project page, they have connected this editathon with their own work. They have already set out a wide range of resources to make things easier for us. Please sign up on the editathon project page if you can participate either online or in person with other Wikipedians. Hope to see you there! Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:22, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

This message has been delivered using AutoWikiBrowser to all users in Category:Wikipedians in Sydney.

Any chance that you or some of the other Aussie military historians can make this? I fear it's in danger of being short on military editors! --99of9 (talk) 02:40, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

The Half Barnstar

		The Half Barnstar
		On behalf of the article's future audience, I hereby award Ian Rose The Half Barnstar for collaborating with Georgejdorner on Albert Ball. Thank you for getting the article to FA class. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 07:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

For those interested, this was the original comment, "On behalf of the article's future audience, I hereby award Ian Rose The Half Barnstar for collaborating with Georgejdorner on Albert Ball. Thank you for going getting the article to FA class. Regards" --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 14:21, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Shhh... When you corrected yourself, I edited my response too, so it looked like nothing had happened... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a quick note to congratulate you on the promotion of Albert Ball to FA status recently. I know you know all about WP:TFAR and the "pending" list, so this is just a reminder to use them as and when suits you. Many thanks. Bencherlite^Talk 11:11, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks Phil, it was a pleasure getting it to FA with George and co...

Tks also Bench, I think I've had enough articles on the main page not to be that fussed about nominating more at TFAR, however I can always give you a short list of those I'd most like to see used when you're looking to fill a spare slot -- in fact if you pick one and give me a few days notice I'd be happy to write the blurb for you too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

A list of possibles would be more than enough - I'm quite happy to take the blame for the blurbs... ;-) Bencherlite^Talk 14:26, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Following up, Bench, I've created a short list of what I see as prospective TFAs here... FTR, I notice Georgejdorner has listed our two collaborative efforts to date, World War I aces Albert Ball and Stan Dallas, under pending TFARs, which is fine by me -- I'll step through them to ensure currency of style, formatting, etc, as their dates approach. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Presented to my exemplar of Wikipedianism. Albert Ball would not be a Featured Article without your efforts. Georgejdorner (talk) 15:44, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proud to have helped, George, but it was always your 'baby' -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Question regarding FA nomination

Hello,

About a month ago, I nominated the article AdS/CFT correspondence for FA status. Since then, I've gotten a lot of helpful comments from other editors, and everyone has been quite supportive of the project. However, it's been a week since anyone left a comment, and I'm not sure that there will be more comments unless I recruit more people. Please let me know if there's anything I need to do to make sure the article gets the attention it needs. I wouldn't want it to be archived just because there weren't enough reviews.

Thanks. Polytope24 (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

I haven't checked this nom for a while; I'm aiming to do a mid-week walk-through of the FAC list in the next day or two so will see how this one, among others, is looking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Polytope24 (talk) 17:17, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser

Gday Ian. Are you comfortable with the ACR for this one being listed for closure as successful? I note its got 3 spts (counting your provisional spt). It has also been reviewed by a few other editors who have just made cmts. Been open since 24 Aug so its been around for a while. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 03:50, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Taking a Melbourne Cup break too...? :-) Yeah, my support was conditional on a spotcheck of sources. I asked one of the more experienced FAC spotcheckers to join in but he was out of town, so I'd like to have another go myself -- was planning to do it last night but and didn't have time, hopefully tonight... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Yep - they gave us 4 days off... its Victoria after all. No worries will wait until you've done the spot check for sure. Anotherclown (talk) 07:53, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Given the issues you have quite rightly raised do you feel this might need to be closed without consensus to promote (it has been open for quite some time)? Regards. Anotherclown (talk) 10:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, I've withdrawn my provisional support without having declared an outright oppose. The issue is not the points I've identified, which can be easily fixed, but the likelihood (IMO) that there's more to find. As far as the length of time the nom's been open, I have to take some of the blame because even when my preferred spotchecker mentioned he couldn't do it, I ended up leaving it a while before I made my own check. Anyway, bottom line is I personally wouldn't like to see it promoted until the nominator (and any collaborators) had re-checked all the citations for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing, and that'd take a while all right... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Gamal Abdel Nasser – spot-check

Hello, Ian. I've finally made it back to London after six weeks' exile. Happy to do the Nasser spot-check now or to wait till FAC, whichever you prefer. Tim riley (talk) 18:27, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Oops! Just spotted previous sub-section. I'll shut up forthwith. Tim riley (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Welcome back Tim! No need to shut up, now you're here you could still do me a favour by just looking over the article's current A-Class review, searching for "spotcheck" and giving me your opinion as to whether a full double-check by the nominator (and any collaborators) seems warranted before it gets to FAC. My concern is that out of my dedicated spotcheck plus a couple of other checks (all using GoogleBooks) during my general review, about half seemed to reveal at least a minor accuracy or phrasing issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Having looked at your comments I certainly see what you mean. But as I was at the British Library this morning I ordered two of the printed sources and did a spot-check, which was, with one exception (possibly due to a discrepancy between British and American printings) wholly satisfactory. I have a short report on my researches; kindly exercise the utmost restraint in answering this question: where would you like me to put it? If, following the double-check the authors have undertaken to do, you'd like me to do a wider check of sources at FAC I should be happy to do so. – Tim riley (talk) 14:25, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Tim, apologies for belated reply. As the A-Class Review has been closed, nothing more to do on that for now (it could be renominated at some stage, and I hope that occurs because the sourcing concerns I found seemed to be the only thing preventing its promotion). I'd suggest therefore that you put your report on the article talk page, perhaps referencing this conversation. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Nefarious: Merchant of Souls

Hi Ian,

Thank you for your comments at the Nefarious: Merchant of Souls featured article candidacy, for pinging Cliftonian on the subject, and for soliciting a source check. Cliftonian has completed his review and Quadell completed the source check. Please let me know if you have any remaining concerns.

Neelix (talk) 21:48, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Question about Fuck readiness

Hi there, Ian Rose, I hope you're doing well!

Over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fuck (film)/archive1, I think we're ready for closure, what do you think?

1. Prior forms of review on the article have included: Promotion to GA, a Peer Review, and Copy Edit from the Guild of Copy Editors.
2. The FAC has had a successful Image Review and Random Source Check.
3. Nine (9) editors have commented, with all comments addressed by myself without objection.
4. Zero opposes at the FAC.
5. Five (5) editors commenting in Support of promotion at this time.

Do you think it could be closed at this time?

Thank you,

— Cirt (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Cirt, fine tks, hope likewise. I walked through the entire FAC list on the weekend (eventually closing a dozen of them) and felt this one, barely a week old, could stand remaining open longer; as it happens, it's garnered further support since then. I prefer to go through a number of noms at once rather than on demand but I'm sure Graham or I will get to it before too long (right now, in any case, I need to concentrate on some reviewing, given I have my own nom active). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Fuck yeah, that's no problem, makes total sense. And you're right, the FAC garnered some more support, now up to six (6) in Support, with lots of other kind comments at the FAC about the quality of the page! :) Have a great day, — Cirt (talk) 14:09, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

• Update: After addressing some helpful comments from Indopug (logged-out comments while on a self-imposed wikibreak), the lead now looks much better.
• Overall FAC summary: Ten (10) total users commenting, six (6) in support, all outstanding issues by Indopug addressed but he's on that self-imposed wikibreak so can't depend on him to regularly reply or come back.
• Do you think the FAC can be closed soon? I only ask because I have another FAC potential I'd like to focus on, instead. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 18:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

• Well I'd like to see that Indopug's happy with the changes and, more particularly, doesn't raise any concerns re. the remainder of the article -- I know you pinged him so let's give him a little more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

• Understood, it's just I don't know how likely it is for a user on self-imposed wikibreak to be that responsive to stuff like this. I've got another article or two waiting in the wings, is the only reason why I bring it up. Well, we'll give it a little more time as you say. I did my best to address his concerns, point-by-point, and after I addressed his suggestions the article does indeed look better. However, please keep in mind that multiple other editors have gone over the article and Support the quality of the writing, mentioning specifically the lede, for example by Quadell: "Also, the lead, images, and sourcing all seem satisfactory.". Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 01:18, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

These comments by Quadell may explain a bit more: "I don't see any further problems with the lead. It effectively summarizes the article, and provides a proverbial "hook". Yes, it does feel a bit choppy to go from one celebrity's random thought to the next loosely-related thought, but I've seen the film; it's a choppy mishmash of themes around a charged word. I don't think any accurate, brief summary could seem much more fluid than what this lead provides." So, you see, the contents of the film itself progresses in a bit of a "choppy" manner, so if the reader gets that impression from the Wikipedia article text, that means it is an accurate representation of the film itself, and that is a good thing! You see? — Cirt (talk) 19:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Cirt, I can see that you're understandably proud of the work that has gone into this article, and you're eager to see it pass. But I really don't see that process as "stalemated" at all. It isn't unusual for a coordinator to ask for another set of eyes, making sure the prose is fully ready, especially when someone formerly expressed concern about that aspect. If it still seems to need a prose review by Thursday, I'll go through it then. (Though if it can be safely promoted without the need for that, that's fine with me too.) All the best, – Quadell ^(talk) 19:31, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Okay, Quadell, sounds good, thank you. I guess it's just that I'll be less available for a while soon due to going somewhere with limited Internet access, so I'm a bit worried about that, as well. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 19:35, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Update: Thanks very much, Ian Rose, for your suggestion to ask John to help with some copy editing, the article looks much better for his efforts! I've addressed all the concerns he raised, and he has since commented with an additional "Support" at the FAC page. Cheers, — Cirt (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

• Cirt, I'm pretty sure Ian will get there with or without constant updates on his talk page. Last I checked, he usually promotes/fails once a week. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Sure, sure, alright, no problems. It's just I'm heading out of town soon and will have limited Internet access for a while. But I understand your point, Crisco 1492, and I'll give it a rest for a while. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 01:01, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Spotchecks of AdS/CFT correspondence

Hi Ian,

I was just wondering if you're satisfied with the recent spotchecks of this article. I believe the article is well cited, but it looks like people so far have had trouble confirming this due to the technical nature of the topic. Please let me know if there's anything I can do. Thank you. Polytope24 (talk) 02:43, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Replied on nom page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

How do I pot a flying redirect?

G'day, cobber,

If one looks at Rudolph Berthold, it becomes apparent it should be Rudolf Berthold. The redirect that switches the latter to the former should be eradicated. I know there is an instruction concerning the procedure, but darned if I can locate it. Given that you are the most brilliant admin I know, I thought I would ask if you know where that procedure can be found.

Cheers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 16:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, if I really were an admin I could do the page move myself but since I'm not (and have no desire to be!) I've put a request on the talk page and supported it (you can do the same). Just FTR, if the correct article name didn't already exist as a redirect page, either of us could do the move ourselves but since it does, we need assistance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

I took care of it. I'm probably not the first to be dumbstruck that this "most brilliant admin" is not an admin at all. I would think that being able to see deleted pages, the image history of deleted images, etc., would make your job as a FAC coordinator easier. You sure you have no interest? – Quadell ^(talk) 19:47, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks very much for making that move, Quadell. Re. the admin thing, I suppose I should have a message at the top of my user page for those kind souls suggesting I become an admin but I'm not the userbox type... Yeah, I'm afraid I'm not interested in putting the community through an RFA when the only tasks I'd really want it for are uncontroversial page deletes (like out-of-process FAC noms) or moves like this. I've no interest in most of the admin powers so it seems a waste -- if they want to create a subset of admin tools such as I've mentioned, for which people need to be elected to possess, I'd probably jump right in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:04, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

FAC Palairet

Ian, I hope you can keep this open a few days longer. I am dealing with Harries's replies to my review points but I'm involved with a few other things as well, on and offline, so it may take me a day or two. PS: I haven't forgotten the sources review. Brianboulton (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Tks for the note, Brian -- if there's light at the end of the tunnel, I'm in no special hurry! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCII, November 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Hawkeye7 looks at US industry in World War II Op-ed: AustralianRupert offers a soldier's perspective on editing Wikipedia

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) 05:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Greetings. I note that the Jefferson Davis article, which I got up to FA status recently, does not appear in the Bugle... Omnedon (talk) 13:59, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Omnedon. JD was promoted this month, so it will be in next month's issue of The Bugle. Congratulations—must have been a lot of work! Maralia (talk) 14:15, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I see. My misunderstanding then -- thanks! Omnedon (talk) 14:16, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

Beginning of MassMessage, end of EdwardsBot

Hi. You're being contacted as you're listed as an EdwardsBot user.

MassMessage has been deployed to all Wikimedia wikis. For help using the new tool, please check out its help page or drop a note on Meta-Wiki.

With over 400,000 edits to Wikimedia wikis, EdwardsBot has served us well; however EdwardsBot will no longer perform local or global message delivery after December 31, 2013.

A huge thanks to Legoktm, Reedy, Aaron Schulz and everyone else who helped to get MassMessage deployed. --MZMcBride (talk) 02:36, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciated being recommended as a copyeditor. This recognition of my efforts by you meant more to me than most of my Barnstars. Thanks! --John (talk) 21:34, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Well your appreciation means a lot to me in return, John. In this case, a number of (I mean several!) very good reviewers had offered comprehensive commentary but I know from experience that you can often find places to improve prose in prospective FAs (and this one will no doubt attract plenty of attention if it gets to main page) that the rest of us miss -- keep it up! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:59, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

(TPS butting in here) I've recommended you too in the past, John. Your copyediting efforts are exemplary. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:28, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pritzker GLAM

Hi. What do you think about an article on the Pritzker Military Museum & Library's GLAM project (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:GLAM/Pritzker ) for a future issue of The Bugle? I don't think that many Wikipedians interested in military history know that they can use the Library's resources (which can be found at www.pritzkermilitary.org) for editing Wikipedia articles on military history topics. TeriEmbrey (talk) 17:59, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi Teri, yes, be happy to run something on this in the December Bugle. It could either be a short news item that appears on the main Project News page, or a longer review/opinion piece that appears in our occasional Review Essay department or our regular Op-ed section. What did you have in mind? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Article or list?

Hi Ian, Just a quick note about a page that could qualify either as article or list (although I think it may be more in your bailiwick than mine). It's The Office (U.S. season 9), which is currently at FLC. I think Crisco has probably called it right in saying article, but before I fail the nom, can I just check he won't get advised to come back to FLC is he tries the list avenue? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 22:58, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

• Good idea, Schro. Yeah, Ian, a little feedback from "the F to the A to the C" would be appreciated. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:10, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
  • Commented at the FLC, tks for alerting me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 26 November 2013 (UTC)
    • Cheers Ian, much appreciated. - SchroCat (talk) 08:53, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw FAC nom

After consideration of some of the reviewers comments, I feel I need to withdraw the nom for Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl to allow it to go through a copy edit. I also dropped this same note at the other FA coordinators talk page. Thanks, GregJackP Boomer! 17:24, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Afd notice…and a request

G'day, Ian,

The following articles of interest to you have been listed for deletion:

• James Victor Gascoyne
• Arthur William Hammond
• James McKinley Hargreaves
• William Drummond Matheson
• John Russell (aviator)

Additionally, I have held in abeyance the nomination of Patrick Gordon Taylor in hopes that you might have reliable source(s) for his acedom.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:15, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I don't have any sources at hand that list Taylor among Australia's air aces (that is, Garrisson's Australian Fighter Aces doesn't include him, and I'd have to check Newton's Australian Air Acs at the library). In any case, however, I think he is notable in WP terms if only for his interwar flights; the fact that he has an entry in the Australian Dictionary of Biography and was knighted for his services to civil aviation bears that out. I'll try and check the others when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Having checked the article just prior to coming here, I independently came to the same conclusion. Thought it fair dinkum to give you a heads-up about that, but you have already "twigged to the lay".

Cheers.Georgejdorner (talk) 20:21, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

1924 Rose Bowl FAC

I should be able to take another look at the article tonight. Please don't close the FAC until I've had a chance to return; I've had several FACs closed in the past right before I was planning to comment again, and I want to avoid that this time. Giants2008 (Talk) 18:43, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm signing off for the night, but I'll review Giants2008's changes in the morning and presumably support or oppose then. – Quadell ^(talk) 23:44, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

34 Squadron

Ian, it is doubtless an exceptionally minor point, but the reference to Flight Royal that you have just amended was copied directly from the cover and inner pages of the book. Whilst the ISBN reference capitalises the title, I think that the error lies in that place. Indeed, if you look at http://www.isbnsearch.org/isbn/0850594901 (which is the book I have) you will see how the title is presented on the cover. CheersLexysexy (talk) 10:57, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there, I see what you mean but I'm pretty sure the WP manual of style -- which for this requires title case -- trumps how it appears on the work itself. I've seen the same concept applied to newspaper article headings -- frequently the originals involve upper case or odd capitalisation but sentence case is, to my knowledge, the WP standard so that should be used instead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I find that passing strange - that the author's decision should be subject to editorial change in later years - but if that's the way it is, so be it. Incidentally, this book is an illustration of one of the weaknesses of the Wikipedia philosophy. When I discovered the book in London in 1983 (on another Royal mission, Prince Charles, Princess Di and Prince William to Oz), I found it to have errors and omissions relating to the 1970 Royal visit to Australia. In 1983 correspondence with the author, he agreed to correct the data in the next edition, if there was one. As far as I know, there hasn't been a second edition, so the apparent authority of the printed word leaves us with incorrect information. Cheers, Lexysexy (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, that's a more serious issue that I see no way around, unfortunately, unless of course the info could be found in another published source... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:57, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Lexy, just on the bit about 1970 being the first time an RAAF plane carried Queen Elizabeth, is it exactly that or was it the first RAAF jet? I ask because this suggests that an RAAF Metropolitan carried her at least as early as 1962... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Ian, I think you are correct - another example of incomplete data being published. I have searched the book that I quoted re the 1970 tour, but no mention of the 1963 tour. I should have remembered, I was in the Royal parade for her visit. I see that Bill Fitter was awarded LVO for his part in the 1963 tour as Captain of the Royal aircraft http://www.itsanhonour.gov.au/honours/honour_roll/search.cfm?aus_award_id=1106643&search_type=quick&showInd=true, so I think there can be no doubt about it. So the 1970 flight was first jet, as you say.Lexysexy (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Tks -- so the book actually says "first aircraft" as opposed to "first jet", does it? If so I think we should probably just ditch the mention/ref, because 34SQN's official web page explicitly says 1963 was the first time she travelled with the unit, so I can mention/cite that w/o any charge of original research being levelled at us. OTOH if Flight Royal does mention anything particularly interesting (and accurate!) from the 1970s that'd be great to know, as that decade is a bit thin in the WP article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian, I've scanned the book. So far as quotes re 34 go, the first is (ref 1956): "Even the actual journey to the opening of these games had been made by air when a Convair 440 of the Royal Australian Air Force had flown the Duke from Canberra to the stadium at Melbourne." The mind boggles! Where did they land? And apart from the inaccurate reports of the BAC1-11 and HS748 duties in 1970, that's it in respect of 34. QANTAS gets a bit of negativity, but that's not our problem right now! Cheers Lexysexy (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 05:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Gemini FA review

The article Gemini (2002 Tamil film) is currently a FAC. Would u like to suggest improvements? ---- Kailash29792 (talk) 15:55, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Before closing the FA review page for Gemini, u could have notified the nominator (User Sriram Vikram) or given some final comments. -- Kailash29792 (talk) 08:40, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid this request got lost in the plethora of comments that come my way but in any case I wouldn't have been able to take it up. As a FAC coordinator I rarely review nominations unless I have a decent knowledge of the subject; I then have to recuse myself from coordination duties, i.e. closing the nomination in question. The rationale for archiving this particular nom is on the review page. I don't notify the nominator directly as they're expected to watchlist the review. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:33, 27 December 2013 (UTC)

May I know why the FAC was not promoted? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 03:10, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

As I said in the closing comment at the nom page, there was no consensus to promote after it had remained open a month, nor the likelihood of consensus manifesting itself anytime soon given there had been no activity for a couple of weeks. In such circumstances, FACs are archived and the article can be renominated after two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:56, 28 December 2013 (UTC)!

There was one editor supporting the nomination. Is there any no of votes need to be gained for consensus? -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:04, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi again, yes that isn't spelt out in the FAC instructions, for reasons that I hope will become clear as I explain further. Firstly it's not supposed to be a vote. Generally a nomination requires a minimum of three clear declarations of support, but the number of support statements is just part of the process; reasoning has to be provided, and I as a coordinator have to be satisfied that the reviewer is familiar with the FAC criteria and has judged the article against those criteria -- just saying 'support' doesn't count (nor, conversely, does 'oppose' by itself count against the nomination). The waters can be muddied further by reviewers supporting on some criteria, e.g. prose, but not on others, e.g. comprehensiveness. Finally, a mix of support and oppose declarations can render the numbers almost meaningless in determining consensus -- four support declarations do not nullify one carefully reasoned oppose, for instance. So it can be complicated, but I hope this helps and that you have another try at it in the future. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:19, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I just find the procedure really complicated to understand. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:28, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I get that. What I found useful when I got into the FAC process years ago was to spend time looking at FA-level articles similar to the ones I was editing, and at their FAC nominations, to understand better how they navigated the process and what was necessary to gain promotion. Note however that the process has changed a bit over the years in terms of what is emphasised so it's always best to look at recently promoted articles and their nominations (say from the last three years or so). You can always ask me specific questions as well. Good luck -- it can be frustrating but also very rewarding! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:38, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

I just wish there was a group similar to GOCE that works exclusively in FACs and GANs. Its a little disappointing that a FAC is not promoted due to lack of activity. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 06:49, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the thing with a volunteer project is that most do only what they want to do or can do. You did the right thing by taking the article through GAN and PR prior to FAC, though I note the PR garnered little attention. Perhaps another PR is in order, with notices to film and Indian projects, plus to those who took part in the FAC. Then when you return to FAC you can notify all those who've reviewed previously that it's back for another try and can they pls comment (just 'comment' of course, not 'support', so it's all expressed neutrally). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yeah. Its mainly due to my inexperience in wiki. Since I joined wiki only in May 2013 and don't have much pals here, Kailsh was the one who invited his colleagues over for the FA review. If not for him, even the FA review would have had the same result as the PR. -- Sriram ^{speak up} 07:14, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 34 Squadron RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 34 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Typing General -- Typing General (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF

The article No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 12:42, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 34 Squadron RAAF

The article No. 34 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 34 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Typing General -- Typing General (talk) 06:12, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 14:47, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Permission to start another nom?

As I think it's pretty clear that Asahi will be promoted, can I nominate another article?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Mmm, Asahi was on my list of FACs to review in earnest so I guess I'd rather complete that before someone (well, Graham really) makes a judgement on how close it is promotion, and whether another nom is appropriate before that's finalised. Will probably get to it in the next 24h or so... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

OK, no problem.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 06:41, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

List of World War I aces credited with 5 victories

Hello,

The above article seems to have no pending issues; thus, it is a candidate for closing its A Class review. As one of the reviewers, could you please take appropriate action?

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:14, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi mate, as a reviewer and thus "involved" I can't close it but I will revisit and see if I can support. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

37 Squadron

Hi Ian, Yes, am a beginner (obviously), but have much enthusiasm for the page 37 Squadron and also the broader topic Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. I will have a look through the pointers you sent me and start trying to make it better. Appreciate the feedback. Trojan Historian (talk) 19:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

No problem. I had 37SQN on my list for further improvement, perhaps even taking it as far as MilHist A-Class Review or Featured Article Candidacy, as I did for 36SQN and (with collaborator Nick-D) the Hercules in Australian service article. It's always good to know someone who's personally familiar with a subject -- we just have to be able to cite everything we mention to reliable published sources, like the ones used in 36SQN or Hercules in Australian service. For instance I know you're correct about the single-ship callsign for 37SQN because I've spend time at Richmond myself, but I'm not aware of it being published in a source we can use unfortunately... Anyway, pls feel free to chat, either by talk page or e-mail (clicking the "Email this user" link on the left of the page here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:18, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Sega Genesis FAC question

Hey there, I hope this isn't rude or out of line for me to ask, but how are we looking so far over here? Do you think we hurt ourselves having three nominators?--SexyKick 21:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi there -- no, not at all out of line... :-) On first glance at the nom page it looks to be progressing okay -- I usually walk through the older FACs on Friday nights so will have a closer look then. Three nominators isn't the most I've seen, so as long as you're working together it shouldn't be an issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Alright sweet. Thanks for your time. : ) SexyKick 00:11, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

A Parthian shot.

Hello, cobber,

Just a final note as part of tidying up my departure.

If the assessment rubrics are to be supplemented by a check list of required usages, listing such in a public place within WP would benefit all editors. Nominating editors could actually be prepared for their assessments, and the reviewers' work load would be lessened. I realize this recommendation is too simple and commonsensical to be enacted, as it provides no opportunities for whiz-bang coding, but I thought I would mention it.

Of course, actually letting nominators know what the rules are would take all the fun out of "assessment via ambush", but the reviewers so deprived could find a dog to kick for their amusement.

Now, on a personal level, the only thing I shall miss about no longer being here in WP is you. Your geniality, common sense, and even temperament have made you a joy to know. While we have crossed swords at times, I have always had the greatest respect and admiration for your expertise.

If the assessment department ever does decide on transparency in its assessments, please drop me an email. Under those circumstances, I would be tempted to return and resume my drive to promote bios, preferably all the way to FA.

Best regards, George.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:32, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh mate, don't go. I knew the list ACR was frustrating but I hoped you were just jack of that and not WP as a whole. In the end, that article has passed its review so you know the intricacies of that format, as with the bio articles we've worked on together or you've done solo. That's very kind what you say, and the feeling's mutual. You aren't alone in your concern for how assessments are laid down on WP but I guess it hasn't bothered me so much because I've tended to do things by observation rather than rules. Why not just take a short break and regroup? Your contributions to the scholarship and presentation of WWI ace articles here has been huge, but there's still plenty to do and you're the best bloke for the job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:50, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I don't really know the intricacies of ACRs. I know what a certain group of reviewers required, up until the time I quit the review in frustration. I don't know what requirements still remained, nor do I know what the next batch of reviewers might require. And as for the List passing review...that was a result of my tantrum, and not necessarily because it was ready to pass review. The only thing I really learned out of this review is that I am never again going to deal with lists.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:05, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Well no, I don't think Hawkeye promotes things because of nominator "tantrums" ("tantra"? No, that's something else... ;-) ) Consensus to promote doesn't necessarily entail unanimous agreement among reviewers. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Your GA nomination of No. 482 Squadron RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 482 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIII, December 2013

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Carcharoth and Hawkeye7 look at World War I cemeteries and the British Army in World War II Interview: Less-represented areas of military history – part 2 Op-ed: TomStar81 and Nick-D look back on 2013 and ahead to 2014

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) 00:00, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

A request

Could you archive the FA nomination of How Brown Saw the Baseball Game? Consider it a withdrawal. Thanks in advance. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 04:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Any reason why, aside from the upcoming holiday? Tony's concerns weren't quite actionable, and if that's all that is available, then that is all that's available; asking for more without showing that something has been left out is poor show indeed, and I fail to see how "Can you give me a complete list of lost film FAs." is constructive at all when the nominator has provided two already. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:16, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• It's because I won't have time to edit Wikipedia much in the upcoming while, and certainly will have no time for serious writing. I'll probably try again sometime in January after my real life is less busy. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 11:54, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

• Alright. If you do, ping me. I enjoy reading articles on lost or presumed lost films. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:30, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Why/how a checklist would benefit WP.

Hello, cobber,

"Assessment by ambush" is basically an unfair system of random requirements, for which the newbie cannot prepare. If the excuse for not codifying requirements is that they are constantly evolving, well, so are Wikipedia's articles. If the articles can be written down subject to change, so can the checklist.

Right now, the assessment system is swamped. A checklist would help alleviate that problem. Reading through the checklist would give pause to the unprepared, and delay nominations that are bound to fail until they are truly ready. The actual assessments that are nominated could be processed much more quickly. Better prepared nominations would lessen the assessors' work loads, and speed up the assessment process. Cripes, assessments might even become sort of fun.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi George, I've seen your posts re. checklists for A/FA assessments at TomStar81's, Auntieruth55's and MisterBee1966's talk pages. As I'm currently the only MilHist coordinator who's also a FAC coordinator, it might be worth concentrating any discussion here, hence my pinging them. If it goes any further then it would obviously transfer to a wider project talk page. I have an initial response to this, it'll be a little while before I have time to get it down here though -- more later... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Broadly speaking, you could say that the B-class checklists serve this function, although understandably they are not as useful in an GAC, ACR, or FAC environment since those are higher level processes. Still, it could be worth looking into. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:22, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

We had the issue which spawned this discussion in similar context before. Back then it reminded me much of Douglas Adams ("make way for a bypass; you could have known if only you had looked in the right place"). Our more senior editors believe that our MILHIST A-class criteria suffice. In theory this may be true, but just like jurisprudence, the law is simple but it takes lawyers and judges to interpret the law, in practice the translation of these criteria to real day to day editing is a challenge. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:29, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

All fair points. I guess I've felt that the elasticity of interpretation is one of WP's strengths but it's a double-edged sword. Aside from observation of recently promoted articles for a clue to what is expected, the other thing I like rather than detailed instruction/criteria is guides from experienced editors, e.g. Nick-D's in the Bugle last year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:16, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Maybe, this is just a vague idea right now, we could survey the community for feedback on how easy it is to understand and follow our various criteria, procedures and processes? Are we confronted with a single problem or are we facing a broader issue? The people should rate themselves as newbies, low, mid, and highly familiar with our project. Maybe the solution to the problem needs to be tailored to the level of experience. The question would be if people would even consider participating in such a survey. MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Rudolf Berthold for A Class review

Hello, cobber,

Please archive the above nomination, as I am no longer working on it.

Thank you.Georgejdorner (talk) 19:07, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

You wouldn't want to continue it with me as co-nom, would you, to help in the review process? I realise that doesn't address your concern re. the assessment process in general... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:55, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

I am indifferent as to the future of this article. I asked for withdrawal of the nomination as part of tidying up my departure.Georgejdorner (talk) 22:27, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, George. I wouldn't feel right -- or competent for that matter -- to pursue it singlehandedly so will archive as requested. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

AV-8B FAC

Hi Ian, the nomination of McDonnell Douglas AV-8B Harrier II has stalled. I'm wondering if you could give it a look and provide some insight to get the nomination rolling again. Regards, --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:23, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi Phil, since I have an active FAC nom myself, I was planning to comment on a couple of others (as a reviewer, not a delegate) and I'd be happy to make this one of them. In terms of generating additional interest, it's fine to ping previous GA/PR/A-Class reviewers with neutral requests if you haven't done so already. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:38, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

2nd FAC

Since my FAC for Lieutenant Governor of New Jersey hasn't been too intensive (2 supports, and a successful image view check), and likely would be done in the next week or two, could I begin a nomination for another article (A Song for Simeon)? Or would you prefer I wait? I do have the time to handle both.--ColonelHenry (talk) 17:49, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand but I'd prefer to see at least one more review helping it on its way beforehand, plus the size of the FAC list is creeping up... I expect Graham or I will be walking through the open noms this w/e and closing a few, so perhaps next week, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

• Sounds good by me. It seems two of the people I usually ask to take a look at articles I put up for FAC have retired.--ColonelHenry (talk) 20:53, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Precious

featured articles
Thank you for quality articles, such as Oswald Watt, and standing for the quality of featured articles in general. responsible for the best Wikipedia has to offer, for serving as project coordinator and co-editor of its newsletter, for recognising "outstanding achievement", looking for the "profound, absurd or simply amusing" and seeing that "roads lead everywhere", - repeating: you are an awesome Wikipedian (7 October 2010)!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much Gerda, I appreciate it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:06, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 482 Squadron RAAF

The article No. 482 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 482 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 07:42, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy Holidays...

		Happy Holidays
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and troll-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 23:48, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your good wishes, Ealdgyth, and for your continued great work -- may all your horses be winners, and your bishops incorruptible (though I realise the latter may make for less interesting reading)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Good Tidings and all that ...

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 19:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks Bzuk, have a great festive season yourself! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
	May 2013 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls or vandals! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Hear hear -- thanks mate, have a happy and safe one too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:06, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Season's Greetings

Merry Xmas!

Best wishes for a great Christmas, and for a happy, healthy and prosperous 2014! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:06, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks mate -- best wishes to you and your too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

(I guess there won't be much to watch by the time the fifth test happens in Sydney ...

(I went down to the newly renovated Adelaide Oval for the fifth day, and thoroughly enjoyed the hour - was in the office by midday, well in time for my 1pm meeting! Pdfpdf (talk) 13:43, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

I wish you a Merry Christmas and Happy New Year 2014! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year! — ΛΧΣ21 Call me Hahc21 21:02, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Hahc, Happy Christmas and New Year to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Happy holidays

Many thanks, Victoria -- hope your hols are happy and safe, and that you have a productive 2014. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Another request

Don't want to be the beggar during the holidays, but my life will get much less busier in the next few days. Can I have permission to renominate my FAC of How Brown Saw the Baseball Game? Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 02:07, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Fair enough, however the FAC list is pretty long at the moment so I'd prefer Graham and/or I complete our weekly walk-through first, to see if a few can be closed. I expect to get on to this today/tomorrow so just be patient...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:54, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Happy holidays, Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 23:44, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

My two week waiting period ended, so I renominated it. Hope that won't be an issue. Taylor Trescott - ^{my talk} + _{my edits} 01:36, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Not at all, tks for being patient and Happy New Year to you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Happy holiday season....

	Cheers, pina coladas all round!
	Damn need a few of these after a frenetic year and Xmas. Hope yours is a good one....Cheers, Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:13, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Thanks Cas, wishing you a good 'un too... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Units of the RAAF

Hi Ian, In case you haven't spotted it, the RAAF Airpower Development Centre has recently posted digitalised copies of the Units of the RAAF series on its website at http://airpower.airforce.gov.au/Publications/List/45/Air-Force-Publications.aspx @AustralianRupert: I think that you might also be interested. Nick-D (talk) 05:41, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I did see that, tks Nick! The quality of the scanning isn't crash-hot, however, so I'll probably continue to use the copies in the Mitchell Library unless I'm desperate. Might be useful for Rupert if he has no access to printed copies like you and me and Anotheclown though, tks for pinging him. BTW, Frank Headlam's still looking forward to your critical eye if you have a chance... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

Oops: I forgot that one. I'll post a review later today. Nick-D (talk) 06:13, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

William H. English

Ian, I left a note on AcDixon's talk page, but he hasn't been on wiki in a week or so. I know he said before that he's busy in his off-line life. I'm not sure how to proceed with the nomination. --Coemgenus (talk) 15:25, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yep, will post something at the nom page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 486 Squadron RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 486 Squadron RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Nick-D -- Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

FA nominee

Hi, Ian. Can you put List of awards and nominations received by Megadeth on the FA candidates list and start the discussion since there's that "Please feel free to initiate the nomination" on the talk page. It's my first FA nomination and some help would be welcomed. Cheers and Happy New Year!--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Happy New Year to you. The nomination page is on the FAC list, although I note on the article talk page the "Please feel free to initiate the nomination" is there, which isn't right, though off the top of my head I'm not sure what the problem is. That aside, this would be more appropriate as a Featured List Candidate, not a Featured Article Candidate. We'll need to remove the nomination from the FAC list, revert the FAC nom on the article talk page, and delete the actual nom page (I can organise all that). Then you could initiate an FLC nom and if there are problems with that you could ping one of the FL delegates to assist you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the nomination from the FAC list and reverted the FAC nom on the article talk page. I won't arrange deletion of the FAC nom page itself until you create your FLC, so you can copy the nom statement if you want to. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 31 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I'll re-nominate it right away.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:42, 1 January 2014 (UTC)