User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2015

Today's Featured Article: Notification
This is to inform you that  No. 1 Squadron RAAF, which you nominated at WP:FAC,  will appear on the Main Page  as  Today's Featured Article on 12 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello, and Season's Greetings!
Wondering how we could get an article written about the U.S. Army's only Brigade dedicated to recruiting Healthcare and Chaplain professionals--the U.S. Army Medical Recruiting Brigade. I work for them (Chief of Advertising and Public Affairs) so obviously I could not author an article due to a conflict of interest. However, they have an interesting and unique history--created only 7 years ago to recruit physicians, dentists, nurses, veterinarians and other healthcare professionals as well as chaplains to serve our active and reserve Army personnel and their families. They have a unit 'special designation' of 'Allgood's Highlanders', named for COL Brian D. Allgood, the highest ranking Army Medicine officer to die in the Iraqi war. We are a subordinate command of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and we have five battalions spread across the United States. We also provide administrative oversight of the Special Operations Recruiting Battalion (SORB). You can find several articles about our command by using Google or other search engines, and we are included in the Army's official history. Many thanks for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancault (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry for belated response (busy time of year of course!) -- will look into this and come back to you as soon as I can. Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Global account
Hi Ian! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy New Year Ian Rose!


Happy New Year! Ian Rose, Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia.  Snuggums ( talk  /  edits ) 06:32, 31 December 2014 (UTC) Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2015}} to user talk pages.
 * Thanks SNUGGUMS, Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
 Dear, HAPPY NEW YEAR Hoping 2015 will be a great year for you! Thank you for your contributions! From a fellow editor, --FWiW Bzuk (talk)

This message promotes WikiLove. Originally created by Nahnah4 (see "invisible note").
 * Tks Bzuk, a happy 2015 to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 82 Squadron RAAF
The article No. 82 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 82 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Josh Hutcherson/archive2
Hey there Ian, I was wondering what, as a coordinator, your feelings are on this FAC right now. I notice it still hasn't been closed despite what seems like all of the concerns being addressed. Is there not enough support or not enough reviews? If there is anything that needs to be done that I can take care of, I'm more than happy to.  G loss  06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * As a matter of course, I sometimes like to let an article 'bed down' after an oppose is resolved, and then look it over myself, before considering promotion. Checking the review, however, there is something specific and I've noted it there accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, I never remembered to check back here for a reply. I believe everything has been addressed though, including Nikkimaria's comments (I hope).  G loss  04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Air Force
Hi Ian, Happy New Year. I have just created a stub article on Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Air Force. I am not sure if this is the correct wording so if it needs moving, please do so. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, tks Newm. Reckon the title wording is okay but there'd be more honours than that around, although I'm not sure where we'd get a definitive list in one place. If you're feeling energetic you could go to the Australian War Memorial and work through the air force units, as each entry lists the honours awarded. For instance the WWII entry for No. 77 Squadron lists its honours for the Pacific War, and the Korean War entry mentions the honour from that conflict. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Re:Op-Ed
Sorry for the delay, I've been working on the 2015 Fort Bliss shooting article and was frankly a little upset that neither of my two main page suggestions made the page. I'll get on this tomorrow probably since thats when I get back to my house since I like to do my thinking while on the desktop tower, so look for some progress on that in the next 24-36 hours. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it put together, but it needs a little spit and polish. Still, I hope its good enough for publishing in the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm sure it'll be good as usual, Tom -- will have a look and ce when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Steve Zakuani
You closed out the FAC for Steve Zakuani since it was sorely lacking. In the last week it as been expanded by almost 30% (word count), puffery has been cut, and there has been some general gnomish cleanup. If you get the chance, can you take a look to see if it is on the right track to renominate in the future?Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try to have a look this weekend. Pls feel free to ping me if I don't! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! No major rush or anything but I wanted to give it another go. Let me know if anything strikes you as a complete nonstarter.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry it took a while to look over. I think it’s certainly gotten better since it was last at FAC -- better balanced for one thing -- but I did see some expression that I felt could be improved.  It could probably do with another pair of eyes on the prose -- have you tried to engage an independent copyeditor (ideally perhaps one who does a few sports articles) to have a go at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'll run it by the FOOTY projct to see if I can get another set of eyes on it.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

You have been pinged at Talk:Texas Revolution
Ian, I pinged you at Talk:Texas Revolution. Your input on a timeline turn around with a WPMH review would be appreciated.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks, responded there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugle
I really am sorry, I spent most of yesterday sleeping and/or in pain. Seem to have gotten over it now. I don't think it was anything major - it felt more like the volume control was turned up, so that minor discomforts were suddenly incredibly painful. Particular downside: I have three cats. They like sleeping on me. When you're highly pressure-sensitive, this becomes a big problem. Adam Cuerden (talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I can imagine! We have one cat and two labradors, but fortunately they all prefer sleeping on their own beds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Anyway, Bugle's tonight's goal. Will do my best. Hate illnesses. Still sleeping about 14 hours a day. Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Bugle
Just in case there's any problems:

and the set at
 * File:Hendrik_Merkus_Baron_de_Kock_by_Cornelis_Kruseman.jpg
 * File:BOH%26MOR-1-Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia-1_Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg


 * Featured_picture_candidates/Japanese_invasion_money_of_the_Netherlands_Indies_(gulden,_1942)

are the only MILHIST FPs for this month's bugle. December is always kind of dead. I'm going to add them to the showcase now, then Bugle. Had I realised how dead December was... this would have been done Adam Cuerden (talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)


 * If I haven't written anything incoherent in the Bugle, we're good to publish. I'll do what I can about the book review for next month, but it may push to March. Adam Cuerden (talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this Adam, and I hope that you're on the mend Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Yep, tks Adam. Now we have those, and I've finished off the quarterly reviewing totals, I think we might be about ready to publish... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVI, January 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:27, 23 January 2015 (UTC)

Well done!

 * Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Unofficial PR
Hi Ian, as I already have something at PR, I am having an unofficial PR on the talk page of a subject you may be tempted by: Casino Royale (novel). The hoped for outcome is a trip to FAC (unless I get comments to the contrary!) No problems if you're tied up on other things tho. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, Schro, I have spies everywhere, and have been watching participation with interest... ;-) Seriously, tks for asking, but with the talent involved already I might save myself for when it gets to FAC (as I'm sure it will) and recuse from coord duties to review. OTOH it's still on my watchlist from the GAN so if I spot something I really think needs my input I'll feel free to weigh in...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * That's great – even better, in fact, many thanks. Depending on how this one goes, I may try slowly working my way through the series, although some are more suitable than others for the level of in-depth examination needed at FA, but we'll see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

October–December 2014 Milhist reviewing award

 * Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Draft section for Milhist Coordinators' Handbook
G'day Ian, I've started drafting a section about the Quarterly Reviewing Awards here. Could you have a look and add any information about the easiest ways to tally the reviews? I'm going to ask Nikki and Rupert to have look too. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks PM, will have a look when I get a sec. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

No. 300 Group
I first learned about this formation today as well. It explained some confusing stuff I've seen over the years about "joint" Australian-UK transport squadrons in 1945 as well - I never understood what they were, or what they were doing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
 * There you go -- good stuff! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

2014 Year In Review Awards

 * I'm overwhelmed -- tks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 30 Transport 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 Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hey Ian. Been very busy since the start of the new month, but will review your article tomorrow when I'll have a lot of time for Wikipedia. Best, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF
The article No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

DYK for No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF
— Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF

 * Just doin' me job mate ;) Nice article. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

FAC
Hey Ian,

Can you give some sort of advice as how to get Falcon's Fury a census? I've been losing faith in the FAC process; I will nominate it one more time but after that I'm giving up all efforts to get any articles I work on to FA status. -- Dom497 ( talk ) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I understand the frustration, but you've successfully taken articles to FA before, so you know it's doable! I mentioned at the Falcon's Fury FAC some time before archiving that it was perfectly acceptable to ping previous reviewers of the article with neutrally worded requests for re-reviews. It'd also be fine to let reviewers of related articles (like SheiKra) know that there is an open FAC on a similar subject (e.g. "A while ago you commented on the SheiKra FAC -- there's another article on an amusement park ride that you might also like to review at FAC, namely..."). Neutrally worded requests for comment at related projects is also an acceptable method for getting eyes on a FAC. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC
FAC review seems to be a very slow process. I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure how this works. Cucurbita is now almost at the bottom of the list. People who said they'd review haven't done so. People who started never finished. When it's at the very bottom for some time, what happens? Does it fail for lack of reviews or what? HalfGig  talk  13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * It's okay to leave neutrally worded requests for review at project or user talk pages. You might try Casliber, who writes and reviews many biology articles. Also have you pinged Sasata about finishing the review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I've pinged Sasata twice. I'll try Casliber. Thank you.  HalfGig   talk  21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Bugle
Done, but are there really no FAs? Adam Cuerden (talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Prob'ly are, am doing those today - tks as ever for prompt attention, Adam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I'd apologise for being a little slow, but if I'm done before you are... Adam Cuerden (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Announcements Page
Rm promoted FA -- not sure if MilHistBot should be doing this but it's had time I think...

The problem was with Peer review/Exilant Technologies/archive1 - a peer review of a non-existent article. I have told the Bot to ignore these in future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for that Hawkeye -- BTW is the bot supposed to create placeholders for promoted FAs (and indeed other Featured Content) in the previous month's Bugle articles page, the way it does for promoted ACRs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * No, the MilHistBot only handles A class articles; the FACBot handles Featured Articles. I will add to the FACBot's task list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, tks. The reason I thought MilHistBot might do it is that's project-specific, but I realise it's got to be triggered by an event and that event has to do with FAC, so whichever way is easiest for you -- very grateful for the way your stuff is automating time-consuming processes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject_Military_history/News/March_2015/Articles
As I somewhat expected, February's going to be a much busier month for Milhist FPs than January was. Tempted to put a couple early February FPs into the January report to help balance it out. What do you think? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Not too fussed -- Feb looks okay to me as it is now, anyway. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 24, 2015
Hey Ian, I forgot to ask at the time ... why did we remove the rank and "Sir" before Blamey but not before any of the other people mentioned? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * (I'm thinking of Today's featured article/March 5, 2015 in particular.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, yes, spot the inconsistency... ;-) I was proceeding from the understanding that we didn't use ranks, honorifics or post-nominals to introduce the subject, i.e. we just used the name. I wasn't around when that guideline was decided, but went with it as I assumed it was to save space. One would similarly assume, however, that the same rule should be applied to other military personnel mentioned in the lead, e.g. Monash, so just call that an oversight... :-P To be honest, I think we should just use commonsense and consistency. There's never a need to use post-noms for anyone in a blurb, but it could be argued that it helps to use rank and "Sir" as applicable, consistently.  OTOH we could say that anyone with an article in WP and therefore linked (especially someone as famous as Nelson, who's mentioned in the 5 March TFA) shouldn't desperately need the rank and honorific if it helps save space. I guess what I'm saying is that consistency matters more to me, not whether we use rank/honorific or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVII, February 2015
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) 22:50, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Source review
Nobody seems to have responded to my request a week ago for a source review of Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1, which is rather disappointing. What do you suggest? Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll do it at some point in the next few hours. —  Cliftonian   (talk)  20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * That's very kind of you, thank you. I'll work my way through your list of issues. Prioryman (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

City of Angels (Thirty Seconds to Mars song) FAC
I just wanted to let you know that you closed this nomination before this user could review my work on his comments.--Earthh (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I did take that into account when making my closing comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Cucurbita FAC status
Cwmhiraeth has done a source and paraphrase check. I think that now all the points you brought up in your "coord notes" section have been covered. Plus Dudley has done a regular since then. Please let me know if there are other things that need done. Thank you. HalfGig  talk  22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks, will probably walk through the older FACs in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello Ian, Cwmhiraeth did a detailed spotcheck, the definition of each check is probably still confusing sometimes :). I have checked the sources for formatting problems, all look OK. The missing "subscription" templates are a trivial cleanup point - which has been fixed already. GermanJoe (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Happy Dance! Thank you! It only took me 1yr, 6mos, 2days, haha.  HalfGig   talk  02:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
 * I edited on WP for a couple of years before I felt I had something FA-worthy, so you've done better than I...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Main editor
I left a question about who is a main editor on the talk of Laurence Olivier. Is the main author someone who rewrites an article which existed for years and that was in for many years (from 2006, to be precise) because he doesn't like it? I miss respect for those who created the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)


 * So did I, but think it is a much more general question than of that particular article, - here's another approach you may want to join, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Gary Cooper FAC
Hello, Ian. I nominated the Gary Cooper article as an FAC and its received support from six editors to date, with no outstanding change requests. It's been almost two weeks since the last comment. This is my first nomination and wanted to check if there is anything else I need to do at this point. I see there is quite a backlog for the coordinators. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
 * Left note at the FAC page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

Richard III
Hi Ian, just letting you know that Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 now finally appears to be completed. If you could do the necessary this weekend I'd be grateful - I'd like to get the date secured on WP:TFAR as soon as possible, given that it's less than a month away now. Prioryman (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

FAC
This is a new proposal, but...

Can I suggest that no article with discussion of medicinal use be allowed to pass without an explicit WP:MEDRS check? I was looking at Cucurbita, and the "Medicinal uses" section was utterly appalling, mentioning a host of claims that even their sources said were fringe. E.g. They were talking about the use in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and their own source - highly questionable in and of itself - nonetheless stated " It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia." - so even if we accepted the source - again, I don't think we should - we'd have to reject inclusion of the claim. Another of the claims was pure original research around the

Requiring an explicit MEDRS check, and such would help check this sort of unjustified claims. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)


 * P.S. Intend to finish the Bugle FPs after I get through this Signpost. The Signpost is on a strict time limit. Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

List of Adolf Hitler's adjutants
Hi Ian. I was wondering if you could withdraw the FL-nomination of the article. It was been decided by the articles editors to do further improvements before nomination it for FL-status. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Enthiran FAC
Hi Ian. I have nominated the article for FAC. It has received a neutral, two supports and one big oppose from SandyGeorgia (mainly relating to MOSNUM and Citation issues) Many editors requsted me to withdraw the FAC to better shape it. Please state your opinion on whether I should continue the FAC or withdraw it. Thank you. — Ssven2  Speak 2 me '' 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Vikram filmography
The FLC of Vikram filmography ain't progressing well. I wonder what happened to its nominator. Either way, please archive it because it has been active for long with no progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Erm, Ian doesn't do FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Exemption request
May I renominate Giant mouse lemur, which you recently archived? The WP:FAC says that exemptions are granted for cases such as this (due to insufficient feedback). – Maky  « talk » 07:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's true. The list is still a bit long at the moment, so if you could wait till after mid-week then we should have had a chance to close some more, which might work out better for everyone. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Leonard Monk Isitt
Hi Ian, I have much impressed by your work on RAAF biographies and other topics and I wondered if I could persuade you to cast your attention across the The Ditch? RNZAF topics are generally not well-covered. I have been doing a bit of work on Leonard Monk Isitt and wondered if you might be able to lend a hand? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for asking, Greenshed -- it looks quite nicely laid out on first glance and I'd like to help make it even better. I'll probably be busy till Easter if you can wait a bit, but I'll also stop by beforehand if I get a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

No. 2 OCU reference
Gday Ian. I recently came across some interesting (to me) information about No. 2 OCU which Nick mentioned during a discussion here Talk:Royal_Australian_Air_Force. I've gone an added it now to the No. 2 OCU article but am not sure if that paragraph is the most ideal spot. If you could pls review my edit at some point and test and adjust as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate, that was a very useful addition. Tweaked expression a bit, but I can't think of a better place to put it. Re. that discussion, I've monitored it briefly and wanted to join in but just haven't yet found the time to go through everyone's comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Another Bond moment!
Hi Ian, You were kind enough to comment at FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated, although if you wish to keep your powder dry until FAC I understand entirely. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Schro -- oddly enough this was never one of my faves among the books, but I'll certainly try and review at FAC at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Mine neither, actually, for what it's worth! As you've probably seen flash up on your watchlist, this is now at FAC, should you wish have a closer look. No worries if you're not able to, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CVIII, March 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Grant
Hi Ian, I was wondering what you thought of Ulysses S. Grant's chances of promotion. Is there something lacking that I should take care of? Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It's on my list to look over this weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, sorry to pester you! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Peer review on Puppets
Hello Ian. Can you provide some input at the Master of Puppets peer review here? Some advice on what prevents the article from becoming FA would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for asking -- can't promise I'll have the time, but I have bookmarked the PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. B (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)

Checking in
Hey Ian, I have three supports and an all-clear from Nikkimaria on the Bazy Tankersley FAC here. When is it appropriate for me to ping you or one of your colleagues to do the FAC promotion magic pixie dust review? Now or do I need a couple more reviews? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, I don't usually close reviews that are only two weeks old unless there's above-average support, so I'd tend towards leaving it at least another week or so to give it a chance to garner some more commentary (if it doesn't so be it). Plus it looks like it there's still an image review to do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I added two new ones... so thanks for pinging the image reviewers! Forgot about that part!   Montanabw (talk)  02:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)


 * OK. Six supports now (at least four of them VERY extensive, and the other two reliable reviewers with FAs of their own) and all of Nikkimaria's magic pixie dust (refs and images) is now completed.  I figure your own assessment (and anything you ask me to fix) may run another few days, which will give you that extra week to allow anyone else who cares a chance to stop in. I do apologize if I seem impatient, I simply have assorted other dramas I'm dealing with and don't want to be distracted from shepherding this FAC through by them...  :-P   Montanabw (talk)  02:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll be walking through the list tonight or on the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Thank you so much for your review and promotion of the article! Montanabw (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Treats!
  Treats!

As a previous recipient of the Pony Prize, here is some sugar for your pony, recognizing your assistance in promoting Bazy Tankersley to FAC. Ponies do not really need sugar because they are prone to be easy keepers, so this is a special treat, only given once! (Subsequent awards shall consist of carrots). Montanabw (talk) 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC) To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

SOS from blundering idiot
Ian, can you rescue me at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, please? I tried to add a request for an image review at the FAC of Maurice Ravel, but managed to make the entire request section vanish. I have reverted and scuttled away seeking the aid of someone who knows what he's doing, and you immediately came to mind...  Tim riley  talk   16:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Dr Kiernan has kindly done the necessary to rescue me.  <font color="#0A0A2A">Tim riley <font color="#848484"> talk   16:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
 * No probs! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/May 9, 2015
Ian, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I changed very little from the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

An award for you!

 * Tks, I think seven is probably a record in one pass for me, but since I hadn't had a chance to walk through the list for a week the prospective promotions had been piling up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Please reopen Nike Zeus FAC
I received this notice from. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * I've never had occasion to reopen a review I've closed and I don't see a reason to change that practice in this case. I said when I closed it that owing to the minimal feedback I was prepared to waive the usual two weeks before you could renominate. However, now that Mike has offered to review I think it'd be far preferable to let him do so on the talk page, as he's suggested, to help get the article into the best shape before renominating at FAC. That would not in any way preclude him from commenting and/or supporting at a future re-nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * HI, may I suggest adding a ping? I didn't know you had replied. Moot point now I guess, but that's just the problem. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I think that if one initiates a conversation then it's reasonable to expect them to keep an eye on the conversation. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Indeed,, which is precisely why ping was created. Its no good if people don't use it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Astatine FAC
Hello Ian Rose, as that article was in the backlog for almost a month, I have done a source review for formatting and general referencing. But if you were looking for a more in-depth check of the sciency details, it would probably be better to directly ask the previous content reviewers for a comment on sourcing. GermanJoe (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Joe, will have a look when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIX, April 2015
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) 06:32, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Only Girl (In the World)/archive2
Hello. I re-nominated "Only Girl (In the World)" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks. — ₳aron  10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Will try to have a look when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. —  ₳aron  09:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)

61 Cygni
Hi Ian,

Can I reopen the FAC for it? It was closed on 12th. It means by today, its a fortnight...
 * Yes, you can re-nominate that article now. BTW, you don't have to ask permission if it's been a fortnight since your previous nomination was archived, but tks anyway. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Just a confirmation. Don't wanna tangle up my first FA..-The Herald • <sup style="margin-left:0.5px">the joy of the LORD <sub style="margin-left:-47.5px">my strength 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

2008 UEFA Champions League Final FAC
Please reopen this FAC. I can fix the issues in no time at all, but you closed it before I had the chance to reply to EddieHugh! – PeeJay 08:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * There is too much work needed. The nomination was premature. You can renominate in two weeks time. I the meantime, I suggest you address the issues raised. Graham Beards (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The nomination wasn't premature. The article went through all the appropriate copyediting channels before arriving at FAC. If reviewers had been more forthcoming at the peer review phase and earlier in the FAC, the article would have been passed by now. Not to mention the fact that only one editor seemed to have a real problem with the detail there. – PeeJay 10:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for stopping by, Graham, I was offline for a while there. PeeJay, I was actually going to archive the nom after Eddie's first round of comments/objections, especially noting the initial oppose, but wanted to see if your responses allayed his concerns. They did not, and with the further points he raised, especially re. referencing, I could see this going back and forth for some time, and the review had already been open a month. So as Graham says, please work on the points raised (perhaps discussing with Eddie in the process) and by all means bring it back to FAC after the regulation two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Wilton (general)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Wilton (general) 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) 13:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Wilton (general)
The article John Wilton (general) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Wilton (general) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 20 Squadron RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 20 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fighter Squadron RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fighter 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

January-March 2015 Milhist reviewing award

 * Thanks, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 20 Squadron RAAF
The article No. 20 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 20 Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for No. 20 Squadron RAAF
PanydThe muffin is not subtle 07:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Wilton (general)
<b style="color:#00cc33">Harrias</b> talk 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fighter Squadron RAAF
The article Fighter Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fighter Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CX, May 2015
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) 23:04, 20 May 2015 (UTC)

Question about scope of WikiProject Military history
I am interested in participating in the WikiProject Military history group. However, my interest are in the use of the military in the US during domestic disorders. Specifically, during the civil rights movement. Would this fall within the scope of this project? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there! We're pretty inclusive in the Military History project, so I think you'll find a home for articles on domestic political or civil rights actions, even those with a relatively tenuous military connection. Take for instance Vedaranyam March, which is a MilHist Good Article. Please feel free to initiate or join in discussions at the project talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Thank you
For this. I know I'm about 32 months late, but I really appreciate the thought. Best, EyeSerene talk 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Not at all -- great to hear from you again! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:44, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seaplane Squadron RAAF
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Seaplane 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 Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:01, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

Source review

 * Whoa, I'm honoured -- tks again for all your hard work doing these, Nikki! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:49, 23 May 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/A Quiet Night In/archive1
Crisco's given a source review- everything now seems to be in order! (Mentioning because it's on the "source review needed" list.) Thanks, Josh Milburn (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Josh -- it's mid-week so I plan to make a run through the list some time today (Sydney time). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:16, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Fremantle Prison FAC
Regarding your close of Featured article candidates/Fremantle Prison/archive2, was there any particular restructuring or improvement you wanted? (I've already asked Cas Liber, who didn't see anything ) - Evad37 &#91;talk] 02:17, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The point about possible restructuring was referring to the statement immediately above my closing comment, i.e. "The lead is really long still and any other content we could relegate to daughter articles would be good", so if that's done or no longer considered an issue, well and good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:31, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Trimming the article – mostly sections that already had sub-articles – was done during and a bit after the FAC, so I think that comment is adequately addressed. Is it alright if I start another FAC now, rather than waiting the full two weeks? I don't think there's any more I can do for the article without further comments from reviewers. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 09:38, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry for belated response -- we're only a few days short of the two weeks so I'd prefer it if you just waited the regulation period. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Fighter Squadron RAAF
Your help is appreciated Victuallers (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Seaplane Squadron RAAF
Your help is appreciated Victuallers (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Seaplane Squadron RAAF
The article Seaplane Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Seaplane Squadron RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:02, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

FA nom exception
Hey Ian, can I ask for an exception on the FA nomination procedure on Master of Puppets? I was promised a review by few editors, but for some reason they didn't have the time to do it. The comments on the previous candidature weren't something I hoped for (mostly visual or aesthetical suggestions that hardly make a difference), so I'd like to ask if I'm allowed to make another try sooner than the required 15 days? All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 19:12, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there, the criteria for an exception is little or no feedback, and I don't think we can say that's the case here, but if Graham or Andy feel otherwise then I'm okay with it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, I agree with Ian on this one—I think it should wait the two weeks. -- Laser brain  (talk)  11:12, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, I guess I'll focus on other articles in the meantime.--Retrohead (talk) 20:07, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

FAC: xx (album)
I fixed those harv ref. issues, but wasn't sure what you meant about the long dashes... did you mean like in this sentence: "...other producers before then that had — and no discredit to them — I guess..." If so, I should replace those long dashes surrounded by spaces with short dashes with spaces or keep the long dashes but without the spaces? Dan56 (talk) 01:46, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Pollard
G'day, Ian, just having a quick look at the Pollard article, and something stood out to me: "51st Infantry Brigade in March 1925". I know the ADB entry talks about this unit, but I've never heard of it. I'm fairly certain that no such unit has existed in the Australian Army (not totally certain, but I believe that the post war Army was formed along the same lines of the 1st AIF, and there was no 51st Brigade in the 1st AIF that I'm aware of). As such, I wonder if this isn't a typo in the ADB. Perhaps they mean 51st Infantry Battalion? I wonder if there is any way to check this? Otherwise, a fantastic article. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:48, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks very much for the reality check, Rupert. I was a bit suspicious myself when I looked over the Army List for Pollard, as it didn't mention that unit, or indeed any posting before the 17th Battalion in July 1925 (I used the Army List as a reference for that sentence purely for his rank at the time, not the posting). So I've deleted the ref to that supposed brigade now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Ian. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Ragnar Garrett
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:31, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

1877 Wimbledon Championship
Hi Ian, could you have a look to see if the FAC for the 1877 Wimbledon Championship can be closed and the article promoted? The FAC was nominated by me on 8 May. All comments and issues have been addressed to the satisfaction of the reviewers and it has 3–0 support for promotion. I would like to nominate it for TFA on 12 July, the day of the Wimbledon men's final, while that spot is still available. Thanks. --Wolbo (talk) 13:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I think you're still missing a source review. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:21, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * What, jeez.. I'm still not done? Honestly was not aware, being a FAC noob, that there was such a thing as a separate source review. Obviously that cancels my request to Ian and I'll await the 'sourcing part' of the review. I'm confident that the sourcing of the article is up to par and hopefully that review will pass in time for a TFA on 12 July.--Wolbo (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Yeah. Every nom has a source review for consistency of formatting, organization, reliability etc. I touched on that, but I didn't go into much detail. First-time nominators also generally have to go through a spot check, in case there is any close paraphrasing or misrepresentation of the sources. There are a couple of people who usually do the former, though the latter can take a while, especially when the sources are mostly offline. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:59, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If nobody has picked it up before tonight (I'm busy all day) then I'll do the sources review this evening. Brianboulton (talk) 07:38, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The sources review was done by and completed exactly a week ago. There has been no activity since. If a spot check is the only step remaining is there anything I can do to facilitate that?--Wolbo (talk) 00:39, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you go to the top of WT:FAC, there's a spot where you can add requests for source spotchecks (as well as image/source reviews). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:36, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I have now carried out the required spotcheck. All is well. Brianboulton (talk) 10:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:04, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

Adventure Time FA nom
So, you rejected the FA nom for Adventure Time, saying that the nominator hasn't contacted the main editors. I agree with that, BUT you have said that he hasn't made any edits to the article. He actually has, multiple times. In fact, his first edit to the article was back in October 2012, a long time before the nomination. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Adventure_Time&oldid=520001179 states "This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gen. Quon", the person who made the request. So the only reason was not contacting the main editors, don't blame him for not making any edits. I'm just pointing out a mistake you made. I hope it's OK. TVShowFan122 (talk) 18:14, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
 * It'd be fine if there was a mistake, but I'm afraid I still can't see any edit you've made under this name in the article's revision history, nor under the name of the nominator. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:30, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

TFA
<div style="margin: auto; max-width: 26em; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba( 192, 192, 192, 0.75 ); border-radius: 1em; border: 1px solid #a7d7f9; margin-bottom: 1em; padding: 0.5em 1em 1em; color: black;" class="ui-helper-clearfix"> <div style="float: right; margin-left: 1em; background-color: #ddd; border: 5px solid #ddd; box-shadow: 0.1em 0.1em 0.5em rgba(0,0,0,0.75); border-radius: 0.5em;">
 * 9 June 2015
 * Carl Nielsen made
 * Main Page history
 * and you were part of
 * working for his works!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 10 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to see today another one that made it to Main page fast, precious again. - will get there eventually, in a year or two, - the one thing I learned here is patience, - a great weapon ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks again, Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:25, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

John Slessor
Hi - I would be delighted if you felt the article on John Slessor meets GAN requirements. I have now taken some 300 articles on Marshals of the Royal Air Force, Field Marshals and Admirals of the Fleet to B-Class on the quality assessment scale. I suspect a few others (beyond Slessor) might make the grade for GAN as well but I will leave that to others to decide. Is there anything I need to do on Slessor? Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Yes, you've done a sterling job on British chiefs of staff! My speciality is of course Australian officers but I happened to become interested in  Slessor as he put up Donald Hardman for RAAF chief when the Australian government of day requested a British officer for the position. Anyway, unless there's anything you feel needs changing re. Slessor, I think we can nominate for GAN as is -- I can do it and add you as co-nom, or the other way round, whichever suits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - Please go ahead and do it and add me as co-nominator. Many thanks, Dormskirk (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Chocks away! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi - That's great news about Slessor - GA and DYN! Thanks for the update. Dormskirk (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

FA
Hi, just so you know, I'm not going to be contributing much to FAC or reviews for a while. Given that I do a lot of work at basic level, to also be contributing to FA and reviewing is all a bit much. I don't think people really value a lot of the work we do. At the moment I think my time is better put into basic missing article development. Meryl Streep and Stanley Kubrick at some point I might consider though. Thanks for your involvement in the process anyway.♦ Dr. Blofeld  10:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Likewise for your involvement. I do sometimes wonder if it isn't better to spend the same amount of time developing several B-Class articles as opposed to one FA but ultimately you go where your passion leads you and if that isn't FAC right now, then by all means take time out. We'll miss you but I'd hope to see you back at it when you're ready -- I'm tempted to offer my services re. Kubrick but I doubt I'd retain my objectivity the same way I do (I hope!) with military articles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Kubrick is my favorite director. I guess Graham will have to handle coord duties on that one. -- Laser brain  (talk)  04:27, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Aye, even if we don't help out with the article directly, we'll have to critique... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Plimsoll ship data
I was a little surprised by your edit summary at HMS Nairana that you can't access the pages of Lloyd's Register as they are supposed to be public access. This is the home page, try entering "Nairana" in the search box. It should return two ships of that name, but you'll know which is which by the launch year. As I said, the pages are supposed to be accessible. Mjroots (talk) 06:28, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * BTW, both links work fine for me using Firefox. Mjroots (talk) 07:29, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, the links work for me now, so must've been something temporary with the site -- that's why I AGFed, you never know... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:37, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

HMS Nairana (1917)
Dear Ian, my edit was designed to oversome a problem in the existing article where mention is made that the ship's construction was suspended at the start of WW1. It was, but only for a few months, and on resumption she was completed to launch stage and launched in June 1915. The ship was then 'stored' (i.e. moored at the shipyard) and remained so until her purchase by the Admiralty in 1917. I thought it also important to add the words "in Scotland" as the casual reader might assume that, since this ship was ordered for an Australian ferry service, she might have been constructed in an Antipodean shipyard; in fact, she never saw Australia until well after her naval service finished. I know this data can be discovered from examination of the tabular material in the right-hand column, but many casual readers never bother to look at that column, so a few words in the opening paragraph would clarify the matter. If you believe that the resulting sentence is too long, I am quite happy to reconstruct it as two sentences. Rif Winfield (talk) 06:59, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Rif, I see your point and have tweaked the lead accordingly (minus "early" and "mid-", we know the 1914 ref is pre-war from the rest of the relevant sentence and nothing else happens in 1915 re. the ship). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, although I'd suggest that the third sentence might commence "Work resumed and she was launched ...". Leave this to you to consider and act as you will. Regards,Rif. Rif Winfield (talk) 20:21, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, did something along those lines. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:34, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXI, June 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Long Service Medal
Ian, request your assistance in the following. I have inserted a page Colonial Auxiliary Forces Long Service Medal and wish to illustrate it. The best illustration I can source is that on the Royal Australian Artillery Historical company website []. I have permission from the gunners in the following terms: "The RAAHC agrees to your request to use the Colonial Auxiliary Forces Long Service Medal images on the RAAHC website at http://artilleryhistory.org/gunners_past_and_present/awards/colonial_auxiliary_forces_long_service_medal/colonial_auxiliary_forces_long_service_medal.html for the sole purpose of inclusion on the Wikipedia website at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonial_Auxiliary_Forces_Long_Service_Medal . Yours John Cox (Chair History Committee RAAHC)" In what category and how should I upload these pictures?Lexysexy (talk) 06:36, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Lexy, good to hear from you. First off, no matter how long I spend with images on WP, I still sometimes find myself caught off guard by the intricacies of licensing, so I invite any of my image-savvy talk-page stalkers to weigh in here. My first thought here is that, assuming they do in fact own the images of the medals on the website, the permission they give doesn't cut it for WP, because WP can't guarantee that the images won't be shared/reused the same way as other content on WP. I would've thought in fact that fair use might be the simplest way to get such images on WP. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:09, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * The process to upload donated photos is overly complex. As Ian notes, what the RAHHC has granted here isn't sufficient I'm afraid. For images to be hosted on Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons as anything other than fair use, they need to be released for pretty much any purpose - the detonator can't set any terms other than to require that they be identified as the source. I can't find a good "how to" guide for what to do here, but Granting work into the public domain and Requesting copyright permission cover this topic. The process for uploading these images at Commons is explained at Commons:OTRS and Commons:Email templates (the template emails are particularly useful). I hope this is helpful. Nick-D (talk) 08:58, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That might be a bit discouraging and long-winded: the short version is that the RAHHC needs to release the image under a suitable Creative Commons license (sending you or Commons ORTS inbox one of the template emails is the easiest way to confirm this), and then when you upload the image you need to forward their email to the Commons' OTRS mailbox to confirm that everything is OK. The key thing is that they need to agree to allow the image to be used for virtually any purpose. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian and Nick. I thought there might be issues, given the fiddling that arose from my last attempt in an earlier article. Before I go back to the gunners for commons permission, what is the attitude to the other option? As it happens, my grandfather was awarded a GV version of the medal, which I hold. If I can generate a useable image myself, and give appropriate permissions, does that avoid the "original research" tag?Lexysexy (talk) 10:39, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * If you can take your own photo of one of these medals everything will be fine - if the design dates before about 1945 they'll be in the public domain in the US (where Wikipedia's servers are located) as well as Australia. It's not original research to self-identify the medal, though you could link to a reliable source which verifies that the medal is what you say it is when you upload it if you have concerns. I've uploaded a couple of photos of convoys my grandfather took during his service in the Australian merchant marine during World War II which are in my possession with no problems. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks for stopping by, Nick. Yep, your own photo would be even better, Lexy. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, gents, I'll try the second option. CheersLexysexy (talk) 11:45, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Seems to have worked, see .Lexysexy (talk) 12:05, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
 * That looks good. I've made some tweaks to the images at Commons (to put them in a category and tag the medal design as now being in the public domain). Nick-D (talk) 23:36, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Borodino#RfC:_Should_the_article_infobox_contain_the_result_.22French_Pyrrhic_Victory.22

I would appreciate your input here. Or perhaps you know an editor that is especially well-versed in the history of the Napoleonic Wars or Russian military history. Thanks. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, this isn't really my area of expertise, but perhaps Djmaschek or Auntieruth55 would like to weigh in? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit worried that the RfC starts with "A non-exhaustive list of high-quality sources that support my side of the argument". ZinedineZidane98, you should have reported what all the relevant sources you have access to said, and not just pick out those which support your position. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Nick-D, I've yet to find any high quality source anywhere - in any language (English, French, Russian) - that says anything other than the battle being a French victory of French pyrrhic victory. ZinedineZidane98 (talk) 14:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Featured article stars, etc.
Hi. I am not sure what is going on with this new user, but he has been placing the Featured article star on various articles that are not FAs. Here are his contributions. I think it is possible that all of his contributions should be reverted, but it is a mess. -- Ssilvers (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks, I walked through the article-space contribs and it looked to me that only Miranda Sings had the star (before you took care of it) or did I miss something? Will continue to keep an eye out in any case... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

DYK for John Slessor
Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Tom Simpson
Hi Ian, I'm the nominator of the Tom Simpson FAC. It's been right at the bottom of the Older nominations section for a while now and numerous others above have been promoted or archived since. Is there any reason for the delayed decision? This is my first experience with the process, so just need a heads up really. Thanks. BaldBoris 23:26, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Boris, my apologies for not welcoming you to FAC when you nominated! I did look over the FAC yesterday and noted Brian's concerns with prose, so as a FAC coordinator I will need a little more time to scan the article itself and see how it reads vs. Brian's comments. Also, for first-time nominators we generally require a reviewer to do a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing; I'll add a request for that at the top of WT:FAC. Best wishes, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)