User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2008

Happy New Year
BTW, have you seen the SBS series "Real Top Guns" at 8pm on Wednesdays about the RAAF? All the best with the FAC on the RAAF officer... I should probably write something up about Keith Miller's RAAF career.  Blnguyen  ( bananabucket ) 06:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

PD-because is bad because...
There are a number of reasons why PD-Australia is better than PD-because. The most obvious reason is because PD-because actually requests on the template itself that it is replaced by a more specific license tag. The less obvious reason is that it actually helps automatically classify images - say we want to produce a print copy in Australia, we know that PD-Australia images are okay along with various other cats, but fair use images and PD-because images would probably not be okay (since we cannot be sure that the reasoning is compatible with Australian copyright law). Likewise if Australian copyright law changes and (god forbid) introduces a retroactive life+70 clause - it points us to all the images that need reviewing.

To forestall any counter-argument - consider that he same reasoning might be applied to article categories. Why bother with Category:Royal Australian Air Force air marshals, why not just have Category:Air marshals or even better Category:Marshals or further Category:Military leaders or too far Category:People associated with war or heck even Category:People.

I have no objection to you uploading the images as PD-because, but reverting back to that category seems to me very strange. The bottom line is specific categorization of images is useful - I can't see why you wouldn't want to categorize the images. Megapixie (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Mate, I think you misunderstood me...! I agree fully with PD-Australia. Pls check my original comment, the only thing I disgreed with was the small references, nothing to do with the images... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh - small refs - sure feel free to revert. Sorry. Sometimes I should read before I think. Please proceed. Megapixie (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

1959 Turkish Airlines Gatwick crash
Hi!. Thanks a lot for your wikiediting. Cheers. CeeGee (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - congrats on the DYK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

George Jones
Well done on George Jones making FA. Now we wait for Gimmebot to do his job!! Congratulations, a suitable reward for your hard work. Woody (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, and thanks for your support. Heh, they even promoted it on Jan 7, me ole' Dad's birthday - somewhere I've got a newspaper photo of him as a Wing Commander with Jones as CAS... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Detroit Rock
It does not repeat stuff from Music of Detroit, it actually send them to the Music of Detroit page, but instead of sending them to the top it send them to the section that actually talks about Detroit Rock. I feel this is better for the user —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rembiesa (talk • contribs) 18:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob mate - my concern (and my reversion) was when it did simply repeat stuff in Music of Detroit. I have no particular issue with where the info sits, either in Detroit Rock or a section in Music of Detroit, as long as one there aren't two copies of the same info - which there aren't anymore, thanks to your recent efforts. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:32, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to David Bowie
Hi, Ian. Are you happy with the recent edits (from 20:02 19 January 2008) to David Bowie? I think there is some fancruft pushing going on, or at least OR-based freeform "journalism". See what you think. Best wishes. Ref (chew) (do) 23:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there, Ref. The 19 Jan 08 edits just looked like reorgs to me, apart from the deletion of "Since the mid-1980s only a handful of Bowie’s recordings have entered public consciousness", which is no great loss. Admittedly it's been a long day - have I missed something? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


 * My mistake - so they are. Apologies. Ref (chew) (do) 16:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gibbes
Hi Ian, you might want to check your screen brightness settings, because he looks pretty tanned in the new version to me. I also think "developing local industry" is a bit grandiose; he was in it to make a buck (just like Caldwell and his import/export business). But whatever, I'm probably taking it all a bit too seriously, and that's the main reason I'm on a wikibreak. Happy editing, Grant 16:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, half suspected it was you. Glad you're still keeping an eye on things, even on wikibreak. Don't worry about about taking things too seriously, or about what inspired the break. As Boy Browning said to the Intelligence Officer in A Bridge Too Far, "I wouldn't be too concerned about what people think... You happen to be somewhat brighter than most of us - tends to make us nervous." Personally I take your point about making a buck, I just think my wording reflects the way it's seen rightly or wrongly, what with them giving him an OAM for it and all. As far as the pic goes, I still think the previous version was too light, but I might brighten my version up a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough.
 * As it happens, I'm a big fan of ABTF and that scene in particular, so it's very nice of you to say that. Cheers, Grant 05:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC) PS In the book and real life, the intel oficer is identified as Brian Urquhart, although they call him another name in the movie.
 * Yeah, I think they did the only thing they could do so as not to confuse him with Sean Connery's character (glad to see the Brian Urquhart article makes reference to that). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

No. 450 Squadron RAAF
I have just finished a major expansion and put it up for DYK. Would you mind having a look? Cheers, Grant  |  Talk  17:38, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Will have a look as soon as I can - with great interest as me dad was one of its founding officers... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:21, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I came to the right person then! I just noticed the reference to him on your user page. I seem to recall mention of a RAAF fighter pilot called Rose in one of Herington's official histories....in 92 Squadron RAF if memory serves me correctly, or maybe that was another Rose? Grant 03:23, 10 February 2008 (UTC)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.28.37 (talk)
 * Not the 92SQN bloke (good thing for me, too, as I'm afraid he was KIA). You'll find mine mentioned in Air War Against Germany & Italy on p.231 (downing an Me109) and pp.255-6 (sinking an F-Boat with 459SQN - first time with bombs rather than depth charges). He was also in 250SQN RAF when Caldwell got his 5 Stukas in one sortie (Dad got one) but can't remember where that is in the Official History, or if I just got it from his log book... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It seems to me that it would have been quite a leap from Hudsons to Kittyhawks, and vice versa(?) Grant 04:02, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Heh, he didn't plan it that way... Started in Tomahawks and Kittyhawks in 450 and 250 (and then 450 again) before he got shot up one day and had to pancake in a wadi. Threw his back out so they transferred him to Hudsons in 459 - much to his disgust at the time but reckon the F-Boat made up for it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:58, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Great story. BTW I'd never heard of F-boats (Flottenbegeleiter; "fleet escorts") until I came across several references to them in Herington. After some digging I discovered that that there is no article on this unfortunate class of small warships, so I've added a bit to Frigate (as that is basically the role for which they were designed) and listed them at Requested Articles, under Flottenbegeleiter. Grant 14:52, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Read the paragraph - good job. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Rv to Gary Numan
I noticed that you reverted an edit to Gary Numan by User:6 synth pop. Just so you are aware this individual's Modus operandi, is to change early 1980 artistes article's to New Romantic with absolutely no research other than his own opinion. And will continually change back after Rv action until 3RR warning. You may want to educate him on his talk page (which he has blanked) about Gary Numan’s music genre, but expect to be told that Gary Numan was New Romantic "Because he wore make up"? see Talk:The Human League to get an idea of his rationale. As I only look after The Human League on Wikipedia I'm not getting involved in this one. Regards andi064 T. C 12:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC).
 * Tks for letting me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Bowie FUR
I was puzzled by the bad fur notices for some of the Bowie artwork I uploaded in My Talk. Then I noticed that you had already added the proper fur. In some cases, I downloaded and reduced any Bowie artwork (only that which I had uploaded) to 300x300 (or smaller) and reuploaded it. --Fantailfan (talk) 01:23, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, I think I got to 'your' images because I had the relevant Bowie articles on my watchlist and got the messages via their talk pages. Now that I know you're still around (wasn't sure for a while back there) I don't tend to action ones that only come to my attention via your talk page.  However they'll always be a bit of cross-over given some similar musical interests...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

2001 Film
Re: 2001: A Space Odyssey (film) -- Hello. Why did you remove my "Title" section from this article? I have every intention of putting it back in, but I am giving you the courtesy to ask you first. Thanks. Please reply at my Talk Page.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC))

RE:milhist elections
Thanks for that Ian, as ever, if you need anything, just ask! Bring on 6 months of reviews and backlogs. ;) Woody (talk) 11:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks from me as well. --Nick Dowling (talk) 11:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:DYK
Hi, please be patient and I will add the article in the next DYK. --BorgQueen (talk) 11:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Squeaky wheel, aren't I ?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:19, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Denis O'Regan
Hi Ian. Please let me know if you are happy for the above person to have his website featured in the External links of David Bowie. I have reverted twice here, on the grounds that the link appears promotional and is indirectly related to Bowie (sometime photographer at his concerts. So why doesn't Mick Rock get a link then?) rather than a direct link to an official website. I do not edit war nor 3RR, so I will have to leave it myself. However, if you feel it's not proper, please feel free to discuss it with 82.43.133.156. Thanks. Ref (chew) (do) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Sinead O'Connor
I hope I'm doig this right. Listen, Ian, I wish you would stop reverting my edit of Sinead O'Connor's page. There is false information on there that I am trying to correct. Sinead does NOT live in that Victorian house in Bray as the article states, yet you keep deleting my update on that matter - why?

here is the "proof" that what I wrote is correct information:

‘Fruitcakes and weirdos’ drive Sinead out of her home in Bray NIAMH HORAN Sunday Independent September 2, 2007

CONTROVERSIAL singer Sinead O'Connor has said that she has to sell the new home that she never moved into because “fruitcakes” keep calling to the door. The mother of four said she doesn't feel comfortable moving in to the stunning 1860s period house on Strand Road in Bray because of concerns for the welfare of her children. Speaking to the Sunday Independent, Ms O'Connor said she has had to abandon plans to move into the €1.7m house after stacks of letters started arriving at the new address along with a number of unwanted callers. “When I bought the house all the media here decided to publish stories, which involved photos of my house and details of my address despite the fact that it's in breach of the Data Protection Act, because my children live there, and as a result I've had all manner of weirdos writing or turning up at the door,” she said. “Every time I was going up there to do the work, there was a stack of letters. Some people wanted a hundred grand to pay their granny's hospital bill, some people wanted to know could we meet up for coffee [saying] ‘I'll be in Bray next week'.” She continued, “You want your privacy, your children have a right to you as a mother, not as Sinead O'Connor, and they have a right not to be drawn into that world and you just don't want to be dealing with that at home, you want to be a private person. But more importantly there is the odd f ***in' fruitcake out there and, as a mother, you do have to be aware of that.” The singer went on to say that she has also been the subject of unwanted calls at her current home and will be moving from the premises when she finds a suitable alternative. Ms O'Connor explained how one particular woman called ‘Julia' had left cakes containing knives and “nasty” letters on her doorstep. “She used to come to the kitchen window and leave cakes and then underneath there'd be a really nasty letter and then a few weeks later there'd be another cake and another letter. And then one time there was a knife in it. I got a gate and a lock and a lawyer to write to her and she hasn't been around since. “It was your actual ‘Stan' situation — you know the Eminem song. Someone who writes you a lot of letters and then they get angry that you haven't replied and then they get angrier that you still haven't replied.” The singer bought the sixbedroom house on Strand Road in Bray after it was withdrawn at auction for €1.65m. Known as Montebello, it has views of Bray Head, Killiney and Dalkey Island. A bright and airy sunroom overlooks a Victorian garden, complete with fishpond. The house, which contains a games room and a gym, has been on sale through a housing website for the last two months.

http://www.independent.ie/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Toylikepeople (talk • contribs) 12:14, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi there. You say in your last edit summary Added the source of the info - is that "encyclopedic" enough?. Well, no, not the way you've done it. If you've spent any time reading the O'Connor article you'd get a pretty good idea of how this info should be presented if it's indeed correct. First off, you don't write it like a news flash, you just do it in normal prose, like the rest of the article. If earlier info is no longer current, you can modify it. You also have to cite your source properly, with a named, dated, and page-numbered source, or better still a link to the exact online source (not just the website it appeared on). Since you've given the text of your source above, I assume it's an online article - include a link to it. Sorry if this seems excessively regimented to you but this is not a blog, and it's up to the person adding information to provide a reliable source for it. Furthermore, O'Connor is a living person and articles on living people have to be treated particularly carefully. For more info on all this you could see WP:RS, WP:Cite and WP:BLP, for starters. I'm happy to give you a little bit more time (and advice) to get this addition right, so why don't have another go at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

thanks & praises
i think i've managed that subpage - thanks for taking an interest. Sssoul (talk) 16:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * My pleasure - keep up your great work. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:07, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ziggy Stardust: The Motion Picture: the film
It would appear the film link is about the album, not the film. Since I have no intention of watching it, should I even bother with it? Fantailfan (talk) 19:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Service chiefs
Reply at User talk:Pdfpdf. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2008 (UTC) And again. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC) Replied. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

You may think it's basic, but I think it's impressive! (i.e. Good stuff. Well done.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:29, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Minor point: Order should be CN, CA, CAF Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 29 March 2008 (UTC) Well, I think you've solved that one. (Now on to the next problem, whatever that may be?) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 14:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

CDF
rm superfluous glossary - Why is the glossary superfluous? Pdfpdf (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Because all the terms have links that explain what they are. In any case, I reduced the rank abbreviations and spelt them out. The only ones left should be the decorations. No other military page I've seen has its own glossary, why should this one? You find these abbreviations everywhere in MilHist articles and generally each and every one is linked for those who what to know more about them.  BTW, thanks for the feedback about the template, I think you're right about the order and will update. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Improving Star Wars to Featured Article status
I am currently working on improving Star Wars to Featured Article status, and I noticed that you have made a substantial amount of contributions recently. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could help out and improve the article. Right now, the primary thing that needs to be done is the addition of more references - the article simply is not referenced enough. I have added tags on the page, which shows up as   to make it easier to find what information needs references. Thanks for your time! Gary King (talk) 04:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Drinks and a wiki chat?
G'day sydneysider - fancy a 'not quite a meetup but a few drinks' sort of thing? - We can chat about the new aussie chapter, the price of eggs and have our very own 2020 Wiki Summit! - or just sink a couple of cold ones and gass bag about the good 'ol days of wiki, when an editor could get some repsect (not a typo)! I've suggested something here so take a look and sign up if you're up for it... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 02:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Lori Maddox article vandalised
Ian, the Lori Maddox article which I edited a few weeks ago has been vandalised.I haven't been able to fix it. I keep trying and nothing happens.jeanne (talk) 12:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

FA Keith?!
heya Ian Rose - hope you're well and prospering, and that i can barge in with a question about the featured-article-candidacy thing that's been placed on Keith's article. it puzzles me because a] the article is so very far from complete, and b] the template was placed there by an IP address with no other contributions. the article in its current state has some very good points, of course, but with about four decades of biography still to be created/referenced it really really seems premature to nominate it for something like this, so ... i'm puzzled. thanks for any insights, and swing on Sssoul (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I've reverted it - there's a process for nominating articles for FA status (see WP:FAC) and just tacking that template onto the article page (it's actually supposed to go on the talk page anyway) isn't all there is to it. That said, Keef's a clear B-class and might well fit the criteria for GA pretty well as is. Suggest you check the GA criteria and seriously consider nominating it for that level as a milestone on the way to FA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:46, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
 * thanks Ian Sssoul (talk) 08:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

List of atheist RfC
Hello. Your views here would be much appreciated. Thanks. Rohirok (talk) 17:26, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Here Come the Warm Jets
Thanks! Most of those edits are because I can't make up my mind! Often when I've done big edits of a page I click "preview" or "save" and then it quickly jumps to a blank page due to a time out or something, so I go by the old high school stand by of "save often"! I did go a bit overboard, but it's mostly tiny changes and you may have seen!

Thanks for the support on my geeking out on Eno Andrzejbanas (talk) 04:38, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

ADF office succession boxes
Hi Ian. I have checked out many of the Australian military bios, and most do have the rank contained within the box. Thanks for the check up, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:27, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

If you have a look at the current Australian defence leaders pages you will notice BOTH ranks and postnominals have been used, and not just by myself either. So I have continued on with that. I will admit, I am willing to relinquish the use of postnominals in the boxes, but not the ranks; I believe they should be placed in the boxes. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:17, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, I do see your point. I was actually debating at the time whether I should include the postnominals. So, I suppose the case is decided in that area; I will remove them from the boxes. As for the ranks, I still believe they should be included but I am open for discussion. Regards, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Wild One (Johnny O'Keefe song)
I know that the picture might look better on the right hand side, in that otherwise it cuts into the heading 'References' - it's just that placing it on the right hand side results in a big gap under the heading 'Popular culture' before the text starts - thought it was a better fit on the left hand side. Dan arndt (talk) 04:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, you've solved the problem by moving the Iggy/Rage mention into Pop Culture, so I'm satisfied...! One thing, in doing so you 'unwikified' a couple of song titles, but I'll sort them out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:29, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ooops didn't mean to do that - sorry. Dan arndt (talk) 10:30, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

June 2008
Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Carter | Talk to me 10:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the patronising format of your complaint, the item in question was not a legitimate comment on the article, but an opinion on the subject - see your own cited piece of wikipolicy: "Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments ... Deleting material not relevant to improving the article". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Air Combat Group RAAF
Thank you for all the work of making this article look better! I really appreciate it, as it makes my job of making the article larger and more comprehensive easier. Again thanks! CyclonicWhirlwind (talk) 00:44, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Gary Glitter
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -Stlemur (talk) 13:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know where you're coming from putting threatening notices about edit-warring or blocking on my talk page - the only reversions I have made on this page are in response to obvious or suspected vandalism, as I think any review of my history on that page would indicate. The last edit I made was to revert suspect edits to a previous version by Rodhullandemu. I have not been on WP for the past two days and therefore had not seen your posting on the Glitter talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The vandalistic nature of a typical edit like this is, to me at least, not obvious. Your edit summaries are also very generic. Finally, this has been going oon froa month with no change, just ping-ponging reversions back and forth; if it is vandalism then I suggest you request the page be semi-protected, but it seems like some of it is a content dispute ("glam metal", the uncited birth year...) --Stlemur (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Going on for a month? Undoing other people's edits repeatedly? Come now, in the past month  I've made three edits to this article, two of which were reverting clear vandalism. This last I admit may have been a bit hasty, though when anon editors remove fact tags with no explanation I suspect the worst, but in any case your response is way over the top.  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2008 (UTC)


 * More than a month in various forms, it looks like, involving lots of editors and lots of IPs. I don't mean to single you out particularly but you were at the top of the list. --Stlemur (talk) 14:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirects
I think I may have mentioned this before but WP:R2D suggests that we do not "fix" redirects which are not broken (particularly if it's the only reason for editing an article) - but rather use the more natural language, link or whatever (obviously if it's a redirect from a spelling error or whatever, then do fix it). David Underdown (talk) 09:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, mate. I had a few open to make another generic change which I then decided against but carried on on autopilot with the redirection bits - you're prob'ly right to point it out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Commonwealth pics
You can claim fair use for post-1955 photos, but that's not generally considered acceptable for photos of people, especially where PD photos are available. If the photo is on the AWM's website it will have what the AWM believes its copyright status to be. I sent the Commonwealth copyright people a question a few years ago about the rights and wrongs of claiming fair use ('fair dealing' in Australian law) but never receieved a reply, but they're probably more savy about Wikipedia now... Nick Dowling (talk) 10:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing and citing
Thank you for the assistance on Hunky Dory. Since I only have the Pegg (4th edition) plus the gorgeous but factually nugatory Moonage Daydream, I was reduced to googling the other sources. Fantailfan (talk) 00:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No prob,I was planning to leave a brief note to you but had to race out. Naturally I wanted to make sure the sources cited were the editions I had actually used, with their particular page numbers. My edition of Pegg is the one before yours but unless we want to duplicate either your research or mine in one edition only, we'll have both cited. I have the same situation in Scary Monsters where I've used the Buckley edition I own (1999/2000) for almost everything but found a neat new quote in the latest (2005) edition in the library that I just had put in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)