User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2011

79 Sqn World War II battle honours
Hi Ian, an editor has asked in the FAC for 79 Sqn why its World War II battle honours were awarded in 2010. I've poked around for information on this, but come up with nothing. Do you know the answer to this question? I presume that it's the result of an honours review process like the one the RAN conducted which resulted in many of its ships receiving battle honours for long-past wars and conflicts, but can't find confirmation of this. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mmm, I don't know the reason in this instance, I can only note that it seems to be part of a retrospective honours trend that's also recently seen the actions of people like Simpson, Waller, and Sheean being revisited with a view to possibly awarding VCs (I know this pops up occasionally anyway but the most recent mention looked more serious, and hopefully it was). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:15, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Nice job Ian, I thought we were going to tie for second behind Parsec :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:19, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise, Ed -- I wonder if this is the record for lowest winning score... ;-) Tks Rupert as well! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

WT:WikiProject Military history/Strategy
Interested in your thoughts. - Dank (push to talk) 16:18, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thanks mate. Generally simpler, except I first pasted in a diff of recent additions instead of just the Wikilink, so perhaps that could be spelt out (or maybe I misread) -- still showed up as external link something but looked odd with extra brackets being thown in by the template... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

New RAAF book due in August
This looks really promising: Whispering Death: Australian airmen in the Pacific War Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed -- if its depth matches its apparent breadth, I can see updates to a whole swag of articles, from the ace and senior officer bios to Morotai Mutiny and (naturally) No. 1 Wing... ;-) Just not sure how they figure "the first one-volume history of the RAAF's immense conflict with Japan" -- what was Odgers then?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Gillison covered the period up to the end of 1942 ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point -- a year is a long time in war, even if there was some overlap between the two... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Australia triple crown



 * Many thanks mate, and thanks Bryce Abraham for the nom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

ACR Issue
Hello. You closed an ACR that did not meet consensus today. This proves most awkward, as I have been running about like a blue-arsed fly asking people for an ACR for ages, due to a lack of seeming willing reviewers. Now I'm in the position where that effort has gone to utter waste: 2 reviewers had given Support and I have just gotten a message from someone willing to offer another ACR after 2 other requests have been ignored or unseen, and another turned down. Perhaps, given that you closed my ACR without warning, you might advise me how I'm supposed to go through the notoriously time-consuming procedure or reopening a repeat ACR and starting all over again, much to my annoyance. Ma &reg;&copy;  usBr  iti  sh '''  (talk) 22:47, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, figured it out myself.. Ma  &reg;&copy;  usBr  iti  sh '''  (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Apr–Jun 2011

 * Thanks very much for the gong, and especially the tallying beforehand...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIV, June 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Love that roundel -- many tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

SF magazines
I have a lot of sf references (see the library link in my sig); I've been collecting them for years. There are only three or four that are really critical for a good article, though: they are the Tymn/Ashley Science Fiction, Fantasy and Weird Fiction Magazines, and Ashley's series The Time Machines, Transformations, and Gateways to Forever. They're not that cheap second hand; for some reason Time Machines is running at $50 on used.addall.com, which is the best secondhand book site I know of; the other two Ashley's are around $20, and the cheapest Tymn/Ashley I can see is $93. If you're interested in these titles let me know and I'll let you know if I see keep copies for sale (I do some second-hand book dealing on the side).

If you see a magazine article that you would like to work on, let me know -- I've done varying amounts of work on New Worlds, Astounding Science Fiction, Famous Fantastic Mysteries, and Tales of Wonder, each of which I think could get to FA, though Astounding would be hard because of the lack of sources covering the more recent decades. Ashley's next volume won't be out for at least a year, so there's little coverage after 1985. Or there are plenty of other magazines: F&SF, Asimov's Science Fiction, Future Science Fiction, Science Fiction Adventures (actually there are three of those), Other Worlds, and many more. If you're interested, let me know; if not, I'll just keep ploughing through them gradually. Thanks for the review and support at FAC, by the way! Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 23:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, at my house it's not so much the expense of books as the number we already have... ;-) I might look around here first but tks for offer.  Re. the articles to work on, I guess the defunct ones are always easier, though Astounding/Analog would be a great one to get to FA, as would F&SF.  FFM is tempting, but let me look at the others, there's plenty to work on as you've said, which would keep anyone busy while waiting for a new edition of Ashley's history to help with the extant titles.  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Thanks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Arthur Bedford - Assessment?
When you have time User:Ian Rose, could you assess the article located here Talk:Arthur Bedford? I've added the Military History template. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Added my comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:06, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Avichai Rontzki - Assessment?
User:Ian Rose,

Could you please do another assessment of Avichai Rontzki and add any Military banner stuff to the template? I feel the part where he fought in a war after training should be under "Cold War" period. Once again, it would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 02:23, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for pointing the errors in my entries. What a pity, regarding the XF-108 – you could have passed it on 1 August, instead of 29 July :P As with the AV-8B, I updated the class from C to B myself; in hind sight, that was pretty stupid. What's more stupid is the fact that I didn't enter last month's contest, when I had at least five GAs. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 07:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No not stupid, not at all -- the bit about not assessing "your" articles to B-Class (Stub and Start, and I think C-Class, are cool) is not that obvious except by convention, and we've all wished we entered things in contests when we didn't, me included! If you keep up your efforts you'll do well no matter what... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:04, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Good Article promotion

 * Heh-heh, you're very kind and I'm sure Bill Anderson would appreciate the gesture as well... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Morotai Mutiny

 * Thank you very much Tony, I assume this must've become eligible due to rule changes -- if so the main award page needs to be updated as this is still given as an example of an ineligible article... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Coordinator notice
Hi Ian, I've posted a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators saying that the article McDonnell XF-85 Goblin is ready to be promoted. I see that you are a MilHist coordinator, so I'm wondering if you think the article is ready to go. Cheers! Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:27, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I did see it listed and from memory it looked ready to close/promote when I glanced at the nom page, I just haven't been able to guarantee myself the requisite time to do these things lately -- however if no-one gets to it beforehand I should be able to take care of it by the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yay! Thanks for the reply. Cheers! Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 08:05, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the promotion! Cheers! Sp33dyphil  "Ad astra" 23:34, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Balmer
Hi Ian, The following book has a rather good four page biography of John Balmer: The downside is that it might not be a reliable source as it's self published. The book appears to be heavily based on the squadron's war diary, and the bio of Balmer appears to have drawn on his official file or similar so it's not a bad source, I just don't know if it would pass the standards in an ACR, much less a FAC. Nick-D (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Very kind of you to let me know, mate. I might have a look for it anyway, as well as the Beaufort one you pointed out, when I get some more time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXV, July 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. BrownBot (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

talkback
- Dank (push to talk) 19:17, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Ashes to Ashes
Hi Ian, New to all this but wanted to comment on the discussion about the Video for Ashes to Ashes, hope this is the right place. Slightly miffed by suggestion that pictures were the result of a camera fault as I was the video engineer on the shoot. Neither was it Quantel Paintbox which was still a year away! The cameras were Bosch Fernseh KCR40s which allowed for easy adjustment of the individual colour channel gammas. That was the main 'effect' used. The black sky was a luma key done by another engineer on the miniscule mixer in the Ewart TV truck. All this was done before it went to tape (and produced some whinging from the VT record engineer!) I had worked with David Mallet before and the direction was 'Make it look interesting'. David Bowie looked at the result and OK'd it. Next shot I was told 'Make it look different interesting' A lot of fun, I still remember first hearing Ashes to Ashes booming out over that Beach. The padded cell was used for years afterwards as a makeshift voice booth in Wandsworth. My guess for budget would be rather nearer £25k than £250k. The catering truck worked miracles though. Let me know if I should add this or send something via you. I could also dig out a couple of stills I took on the shoot. All the best Adrian7077 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Adrian, thanks for stopping by! To be honest the £250k figure sounded high to me when I put it in, but it was cited in David Buckley's bio. On the other hand Nick Pegg said £25k so as far as Wikipedia goes, the smaller figure is just as verifiable... ;-) As the guy who created this article way back and has tried to maintain it, I'd welcome getting the facts straight and I fully understand you might feel miffed at misinformation in the article, given personal involvement. The thing with Wikipedia is that it wants third party sources so can some of this be sourced from any magazines or press cuttings you might have? Unfortunately the rules round here don't allow anecdotal stuff, no matter who might be writing it. If the stills are your personal property and you're prepared to effectively give them to the world, I can help you with the licensing if you'd like upload them and add them in. Hope to hear back from you, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Sadly the only third party source I can think of is a trade magazine which was always so inaccurate when talking about anything I was involved with I long ago gave up trusting it. But if that is where our history is to come from so be it. Just don't believe a fault or an unreleased piece of kit created Ashes to Ashes. Thinking about it I'd better forget the stills as we weren't supposed to use cameras during the shoot so I don't know if I would have copyright. Thanks for your guidance though. Cheers Adrian7077 (talk) 21:11, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I understand re. the pics. Re. the errors, I re-read the article and now I think back, the bit about Quantel Paintbox was inserted into the middle of that sentence by a later editor. I've removed it since, apart from being, as you say, plain wrong since it wasn't even around then, it naturally wasn't cited in either of the sources used at the end of the statement. For now I've left the inflated budget sourced to Buckley until I can get a quick look at Pegg's book to confirm the page number for his lower figure. I'm not sure where the bit about an accident is in the article -- or was it on the talk page? Anyway, if you do want to add more that can be sourced to the trade mag, feel free -- I can help out with the citation format if necessary. Needless to say, I envy your experience on this shoot...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

WP:Military History and WP:Espionage Merge?
On the WikiProject Military History disucussion page there is talk about a merge and eliminating WP:Espionage altogether. Would like your feedback there. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 08:26, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Stylized infoboxes
Hello Ian - Neutral party here. I was visiting Horatio Nelson and noticed the infobox. It does have precedent. JMOprof (talk) 14:35, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there, sorry for not responding sooner. Yes, I have seen it around occasionally, but the the most common formatting for military person infoboxes that I've seen is the simpler one with just the name. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * Heh, witty as ever, Quadrell -- thank you very much, your acts of recognition and kindness are much appreciated as well... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Four Award

 * Many tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:18, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

G'day, mate!

 * Heh, that image was always one of my faves from the Australian War Memorial site... ;-) Many thanks for the thought, HJ, especially coming from an accomplished MilHist biographer such as yourself...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Battle of Battle Mountain
We're edit-conflicting on this one; I'm discovering some significant problems. - Dank (push to talk) 14:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Mate, it's been sitting there for ages waiting to be closed and there was nothing in the review or coord's talk page to indicate issues -- I think if one is reviewing at this stage then the onus is on them to flag it when the notice has been there so long. I don't want to undo the closure procedure; perhaps we just need to deal with the issues on the talk page... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:01, 5 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see, I thought I had posted more on the review page than I had. I had to do some research on this one and was just posting the results when we edit-conflicted.  Not a problem, I'll continue on the talk page. - Dank (push to talk) 15:17, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan. I'm sure the queries can be resolved fairly quickly on talk. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugle
Hey Ian, I'm totally swamped right now with real life stuff (yay college!). Is there any chance you can get the blurbs for the articles formatted for me? I should be able to write the editor's note on Wednesday, and the book reviews are done and in Nick's userspace (all I'll need to do is move them in). We don't have an op-ed for this month, so I guess we just won't run one? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:17, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I was going to close out a few more ACRs tonight but happy to transfer my efforts to the article blurbs. I've always planned to submit an op-ed some time but never got round to it so unfortunately I don't have one up my sleeve -- but if the inspiration strikes on Wednesday, you never know... ;-) Anyway, article blurbs first...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:45, 6 September 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just moved the book reviews to WikiProject Military history/News/August 2011/Book reviews - I suspect that the content would benefit from a fresh pair of eyes reading through it for grammatical problems. Nick-D (talk) 07:29, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, Ed, I think the article blurbs are pretty much done; I may tweak a bit further tomorrow but they could probably go out more or less as is if need be. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, both of you. I'll finish it up tomorrow and get it out asap. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 15:06, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RE:Semi retirement
Hi Ian, thanks for your kind words, I'm scaling back due to real-life commitments that severely limit my time on Wikipedia. I will hopefully be popping in from time to time and I haven't taken any of the MILHIST pages off my watchlist (I did halve it from 2,000 though) so I should pop in occasionally. All the best, Woody (talk) 09:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That's good to hear mate. Halving the watchlist from 2,000? Now that's something I should aspire to...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:18, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied again. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:20, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Bugle Op-Ed
Hi, Ian. I added a comment to the ten-year anniversary of the 11 September attacks. However, I must confess that my English is far from perfect. Could you read my message and correct any error you might find, please? Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 02:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I could find nothing that needed correction -- thank you for contributing! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

If you think this is worth posting please feel free.

"I remember September 11 very well. Due to the 6 hour time difference it was already early afternoon in Germany when the attacks occurred. I had left work early to take my son to the dentist, something he didn’t enjoy very much so I promised him that we would go shopping afterwards. Boys being boys all over the world he took me to the local shopping mall wanting to buy a new computer game, CD or something. When we entered the electronics and media store we noticed groups of people standing around the various television sets, watching what we initially believed to be Independence Day. We walked over to the computer games section when we starting asking ourselves why this normally so crowded store is so empty. My son settled for some CD and we walked over to the cashier again passing the television section. People were still watching, standing, debating in shock. Only then did we realize that some important had happened. We kept staring at the television set for minutes that turned into hours in disbelief." MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have posted it -- thank you for that! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVI, August 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 18:04, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Ziggy Stardust
I'm sorry. I'm new to Wiki-Editing. What would you consider a reliable source? Wiki Factualizor (talk) 04:29, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying sooner -- here's some info on WP's guidelines for that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:24, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Re: Bugle Op-Ed
Hi, Ian. I appreciate the invite. I could not have made it though; I was taking a Wiki-break during the weekend and I have little to add to recollections of the event. Thank you for the offer nonetheless. Jappalang (talk) 05:48, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob. A weekend without Wiki, eh -- I admire your will power...! ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

'Abd al-Ilah Article
Ian Rose,

I've come across an article named 'Abd al-Ilah. I find the Notes and References are mixed up (See my comment on it's discussion page). I'll see if WikiProject Biography can help fix it up somehow. Adamdaley (talk) 11:09, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Should be okay now, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I think you may need to install extra shelf space... EyeSerene talk 16:31, 15 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Woo-hoo -- tks mate...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for Your Support
I would like to take this opportunity to briefly thank you for your vote in the ongoing Military History election. I would like to thank you for your kind comment about me as well. Both are greatly appreciated. LeonidasSpartan (talk) 14:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A pleasure, good luck for the remainder of the election! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

David Evans
Ian, please see David Evans Talk.Lexysexy (talk) 01:12, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Mary Bell GA review
Hi Ian, I've started this review and left comments at Talk:Mary Bell (aviator)/GA1. As an aside, when I was researching the Women's National Emergency Legion I came across a bizarre file in the NAA's online collection which basically comprised a series of letters from the WNEL to PM Menzies repeatedly asking him to intervene in the organisation's internal politics and explicitly endorse it (and its uniforms, of course) and disendorse the various splinter groups. From memory, the WATC was one of the groups they took a set against. The interesting thing is that Menzies' personal secretary seems to have gotten caught up in this (as he seems to have had a family relationship with the head of the WNEL), and forwarded minutes about the feuds to the PM! - Australia was clearly a much smaller country in those days, though having 'society' links would have helped. While OR, I think that this helps explain why the RAAF air board wanted to steer clear of Bell and the in-fighting of the women's paramilitary organisations. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:41, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, politics -- fascinating stuff, eh? Tks for the review, will get to it shortly.  Glad you got a few volunteers for Air raids on Japan -- would've liked to but had just put my name down for another and doubt I could do justice to yours in the time available due some external commitments in next week or two. I'm sure I'll get to look over it in a subsequent ACR and/or FAC, though... ;-) BTW, let me know if there's anything outstanding on Nicky Barr if you get a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Done - I missed your response to my comments. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:20, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR 10 recognition

 * Actually I hadn't received one of those -- tks for thinking of it, Tony! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

Military Infobox Branch flag
I'm trying to get the US Navy flag to appear in the infobox I'm creating for a "Stub" class article. I've been told by the #Wikipedia-en-help it's not a good idea to have a flag. Could you please tell me how I can do it? It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 06:56, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Just heading out, will have a look later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. The article is: A. J. Carpenter. I've just done the Infobox and tags at the top. Adamdaley (talk) 07:13, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, sorry it took a while. Have a look now -- I've used the latest templates to produce allegiance and branch names/flags. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

A. Peter Dewey Article
Ian Rose,

I was going through the WikiProject Military History "Stub" class and came across A. Peter Dewey. It has quite a few references, but still needs a couple. It's currently classed as "Stub", I feel it should be classed as a "Start". Just asking what your opinion would be? Adamdaley (talk) 00:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, there's definitely enough content in there for Start-Class at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:30, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Marcognet
Thanks for your review and comments for the Pierre-Louis Binet de Marcognet article. I could find no information about the period 1815 to 1830. Like many officers who were in ill-favor with the Bourbons, his career was finished. I was able to rake up some information about his wife and about his blue-blood family. His three brothers apparently died fighting against the revolution. All the new material is included in the first two and final paragraphs. I could find no information about whether he had children. The only time I applied for A-class review, the effort went nowhere, so I've been sticking to B-class. Djmaschek (talk) 23:50, 18 September 2011 (UTC)
 * That additional info helps, mate. I can understand how that ACR experience would be discouraging but I think you have enough in articles like this to try again -- its prose and referencing seem fine, detail seems quite adequate now, and you've found some appropriate illustrations. Alternatively, you could go for GAN with a couple like this -- I'm sure they'd do well there, and that could be a natural progression to ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Casino Royale
Many thanks for the copy edits you've done on Casino Royale: they really are much appreciated! Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 17:42, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob -- I have comments to put on the review page, will get to that before long... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I've made a number of changes based on your comments. Please let me know if you think I still need to do more (esp around the quotes) and I'll see what I can do.  Cheers -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:53, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

George II of Great Britain
I note your comments in the talkpage. But what about the "titles in pretence" issue? Shouldn't that be resolved before re-rating? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:51, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
 * If this is still a concern, I suggest bringing it up at the article's current FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:48, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

My sandbox
Hi Ian, I'm working on the Tu-142 right now at my sandbox. I invite you to participate in the development of the article, so less work would be done down the track and that you and Dank will both feel central to its development. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 06:07, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate. Although military aircraft are among my interests (as you've no doubt gathered) I think this model is a little specialised for me to be able to contribute much in the way of references. However I guess you're looking more for input re. expression than content, and I'm happy to be involved there. Just ping me when you've reached a point where you're ready to take a breather so I can go over it without us edit conflicting... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article promotion

 * ...as are your thoughtful acts of recognition, thanks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Albert Ball
Hello, cobber,

Good to hear from you again. Hope you've been well and happy.

While making a quick cleanup pass through the article, I recalled some items you might heed.

1) I found two different names for the French woman who fished the dying pilot from the wreckage. Beware of naming one over the other without conclusive proof. 2) I believe the headers to the medal citations could be eliminated in the Honours and Awards sections could be deleted. 3) Beware the differences in editions of "Albert Ball VC". Cheers, Georgejdorner (talk) 16:35, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, let's just not name her, then... ;-)
 * Must be a wise choice; it's the one I made...lol (as we Yanks say)
 * Sorry, not sure I followed that. Do you mean (for example) delete the line "2nd Lt. (temp. Lt.) Albert Ball, M.C., Notts. & Derby. R. and R.F.C." from the DSO citation under Other Awards & Honours, or delete the whole Other Awards & Honours section (I had considered that, and just adding excerpts from the citations to the relevant spots in main body of the article, but decided not to bother for the moment).
 * Yep, those lines...that I always eliminate when I insert award cites. I like award cites; they not only give a martial flavor to the text, but also sometimes give insight into the hero's actions.
 * Yes, everything in the article citing that book is based on the original 1977 edition at the moment (do you have the book, by the way?).
 * 'Fraid not, and I could not get it via my library the last time we discussed improving this article, which is why I mentioned it. I'll put in another interlibrary loan request.
 * Thanks mate. I think we're about ready to go for Good Article status now, I just need to go over it once more and replace one Aerodrome ref (or drop that bit entirely) and see if any stuff I've commented out can be restored with reliable sources I have -- do you see any other pressing issues before GA? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Please let me check out the Aerodrome reference. (Thought I had gotten all those already.) I often use the Aerodrome as a temporary cite until I can dig up a more reliable source. And with that, I think we're fair dinkum, digger.

Also, how about a victory list? I've been tinkering with those recently, and would compile it out of my copy of Above the Trenches. Probably should be one of those "tuckaway" lists.

Georgejdorner (talk) 15:03, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Hi mate -- from the top:
 * I just killed the last Aerodrome ref, and have added a few more tidbits with another ref or two, and tidied a few more things. Feel free to kill those citation lines we discused above...
 * Given the current (IMO satisfactory) shape, I've nominated for GA, with you as co-conspirator... ;-)
 * Don't worry about Albert Ball, VC for now, I should be able to access if we need it further.
 * I have no prob with a victory list if it comes from Above the Trenches, though we'd better work on it in isolation at first and double check that the existing text in the article agrees with it before adding it in (like we did with Dallas, from memory)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:15, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the Dallas list was much more difficult; it was collated from several sources. On the other hand, Ball's list can be easily assembled; I could produce it in a couple of days. I have only hesitated because of the impact of its size upon the length of the article.

When I have produced smaller lists, as I have been doing, I checked them against the text to avoid embarrassing errors. I can construct the list in isolation and let you view it first. So what do you say, my Australian buddy?

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * That'd be great, mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:27, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

This link to the draft of Ball's victory list may seem familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Georgejdorner/Stan_Dallas_claims

I compiled it ten claims at a time, and have temporarily left the intermediary headers in for ease of manipulating the data. The one red link, for Wilhelm Cymera, will disappear in the next few days as I whack out a stub on him. Other links have been checked out.

There is one potentially controversial entry–the last. The propaganda claim that Lothar von Richthofen shot down Ball is reversed, with Richthofen listed as an unconfirmed victory of Ball's.

Cheers, cobber.

Georgejdorner (talk) 19:47, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Whoops, Cymera lacks notability. No gongs.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:28, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I say, cobber,

Draft list is in blocks for ease of handling. Transfer of list will eliminate excess headers. Its just my feeble attempt to preserve such remaining sanity that I might have.

Cheers.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, okay mate -- didn't realise it was only temporary... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:59, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Hello, Ian,

Didn't spot your comments at the bottom of the draft until you alerted me to them. I think your citation idea is a good one; you're the expert on formatting cites.

I took the base list from the Aerodrome, cross-checked it with "Above the Trenches" and found no variation, then added the other minor cites from "Albert Ball VC". And of course, I did not cite the Aerodrome; it's just that its format makes it more easily worked with.

Now its pretty much up to you to push it through assessment, though I will pitch in and help if I can.

Cheers from the land of the redwoods.

Georgejdorner (talk) 02:18, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Done, tks buddy! As with Dallas, I'll naturally make all the review nominations joint, and let you know when they get under way. GA's up now, then MilHist ACR, then FAC... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

As our Pommie cousins say, "Jolly good, old chap."

Georgejdorner (talk) 07:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

You know, there is one poignant little detail about Ball that haunts me, and I did not include it because it probably isn't encyclopedic. That's the Boy Scout honor guard at his funeral because Ball was one of the original Boy Scouts.

I must admit an emotional attachment to Ball because he reminds me so much of many of us who went to the Vietnam War. He was an idealistic kid overpowering his inner nature so he could serve his country, and he paid the price for it. So were many of us, and so we paid our own prices.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I appreciate that, didn't know you had served in Vietnam. I was 10-15 years too late for that, my key personal connection to all this is a father who was a pilot in WWII (my siblings and I were spread out over 25 years!)... Actually I have no prob including the bit about being an original Boy Scout and the guard of honour if it's from (as usual!) a reliable source.
 * On a related subject, the first thing the ACR has thrown up relates to copyright on some of the images (e.g. are they known to be UK government or, if not, who took them and when did they die). I've fixed up the licensing for the S.E.5 image but have to check on the origins of the infobox portrait, the Caudron shot (which is on the cover of Bowyer's book), and the Austin-Ball image -- do any of your sources have these pictures and, if so, what credits/origins are given for them? Cheers mate, Ian Rose (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Update, found the Caudron portrait in the Imperial War Museum online so hopefully fixed that one's licence now as well. That leaves the infobox portrait and the Austin-Ball. Not so fussed about the infobox portrait as we could easily shift the painting currently under Legacy to the infobox instead. Like to get a public domain shot of the Austin-Ball though, although if we can't I'll just use a fair-use rationale, i.e. no available free image and no chance of obtaining one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Shipped out on 13 October 1967; came home on 19 August 1971 (although there was a nine month stretch back in California at Beale AFB). Did a year on the staff of William Westmoreland. Served 18 months with Raven Forward Air Controllers in Luang Prabang. Larked about northern Thailand for a bit and came home.

I'll let the Boy Scout bit slide, at least for now; it's in Albert Ball VC.

I don't know a blessed thing about illustrations. I leave that to others. Belatedly signed Georgejdorner (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't like to leave you doing the heavy lifting whilst I lounged by the wayside, so I pitched in on the ACR review and tried to address some of Carcharoth's concerns.

Cheers, mate.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:43, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Ian,

I have been perusing the web pages that Carcharoth found. Number 8 is especially enlightening, with its assertion that he used Lord Northcliffe's influence to rig his (Ball's) return to combat. Mentions elsewhere of Ball's direct contact with generals shed light on the extent of his contacts with senior officers; a second lieutenant having the ear of generals is well-nigh unknown. The claim that he mulled over returning to his regiment, thus giving up flying duty, is one I have seen nowhere else. The overall tone of his letters is invaluable in showing Ball's boyish personality.

What a pity we can't use any of this because of reliability issues! If only we had access to that collection of his letters....

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Well maybe a blessing in disguise for the article; if we used all we have I think between us we could write another book! By the way, pls feel free to let me know if you think any of my recent additions/mods can be improved. As I've said elsewhere, I have a few more things to add to the main body as I think a little rebalancing is in order after everything what's been added to the legacy section, excellent material though it is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:04, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wonder if those archives have a record of how many letters there are? They were (some of them at least) bequeathed by Lois (his sister) in the 1980s to the Nottinghamshire Archives (mentioned in one of those pages at the WWI Resource Centre). Talking about the legacy section, the post-war stuff could be broken out into a subsection. Though I've managed to find yet more stuff, which I've put on the talk page. Of course, it might all be in Bowyer already, but I've not seen this hostel mentioned anywhere before. The one thing I forgot to put on that talk page was that a Bishop we have an article on gave the eulogy at the memorial service (just as we have articles on those present at the opening and unveiling of each of the memorials - the hostel, the statue, and the homes). Anyway, I've been reading about this for days now, and need to take a proper break from this for a week (hopefully), but wanted to touch base here with you two and let you know. Two points: (1) I'm not really clear on what should be done for the ACR (A-Class Review) and what can be left until before FAC (Featured Article Candidates) - that is something Ian will need to work out, and I'm happy to leave that to him (though I got the impression once that everything except a pre-FAC copyedit should be done at ACR level, but maybe not). (2) It might be worth trying to rustle up help from others if the literary references and academic analyses in a social history context are a bit difficult to summarise - I read through bits and it is not easy to distill accurately and succinctly. Anyway, hope the material on the article talk page is of use, and if the detail is excessive I suggest that some parts can be put in footnotes so as not to disturb the balance and flow of the main text. Carcharoth (talk) 07:40, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Frank Bladin

 * Tks Tony! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Air Force book review
Hi Ian, Are you likely to be in a position to provide a review of Air Force by the cut off of next month's edition of the Bugle? (eg, the first few days of October). I've got the review section drafted at User:Nick-D/reviews, and it would work well along side the review of Mark Lax's book on the F-111s (with the book on Walcheren being held over until November). I'm not planning on writing up any review while I'm travelling, so having a 'spare' review in this way would be useful, or alternately if you are able to review Air Force it could appear in November's edition. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:52, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, again great minds -- was planning to ask you what you had lined up what with your trip and whether it'd work better to run my review in September's or October's Bugle. Numbers-wise it doesn't really matter but I agree Air Force would work well beside Lax's book.  I'll aim to have mine done for September's but if I have to delay it till the next edition then we still won'r be short while you're away... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:43, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, that sounds great. An all-RAAF September edition would work well. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 29 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Ian, I've started the review section at WikiProject Military history/News/September 2011/Book reviews. I'm flying out later today and am very unlikely to do any editing while I'm travelling, so could you please take it from here with the review section? Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob -- have a great time! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:52, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That review is really great Ian. I think that I'll borrow rather than buy that book on the basis of your assessment. Nick-D (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Likewise with From Controversy to Cutting Edge -- anyway you can always ask me to check something in it. So where are you now, and how's the trip going? Say, if you find anything more on Alan Rawlinson's post-war career in Britain, make notes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm in Leipzig, Germany, and having a great time. I'll be visiting the RAF Museum at Hendon in London and will keep an eye out for mentions of him ;) Nick-D (talk) 18:09, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
I am pleased to inform you that you have been elected as a coordinator of the Military history WikiProject. Congratulations on your achievement, and thank you for volunteering!

Discussions of our plans for the coming year will no doubt begin in the next few days. In the meantime, please make sure that you have the coordinators' discussion page on your watchlist, as most of the relevant activity happens there. If you have not already done so, you may want to read the relevant courses in the project academy, as well as the discussion page and its recent archives.

If you have any questions about your work as a coordinator, or anything else, please don't hesitate to ask me directly. Kirill [talk] [prof] 02:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks Kirill -- I'll try not to think of any questions to ask... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias, merci, vielen Dank and many thanks for your trust and voting me into the team of coordinators. MisterBee1966 (talk) 07:48, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
 * My pleasure, MB -- as I said during the election, great to have you back again...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

MilHist IRC
Hi Ian, I'm not sure you're aware of it, but MilHist's got an IRC channel at. I'm getting some people to join it, and because you're a coord, I'd like to ask you to join to make yourself available to others who need help. Dank, The Ed17, Adamdaley and a few guys are on it, so please join and tell others about it as well. Sp33dyphil "Ad astra" 23:57, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Congrats on your election as Coordinator of the Military history Project! In honor of your achievement, I present you with these stars. Parsecboy (talk) 22:06, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Jul-Sep 2011

 * Thanks Buggie! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bond novels
Hiya, Cheers for offering to look over the Bond novels. I've now gone over Live and Let Die (novel) and Moonraker (novel) and I think they're OK now. I'll have a look over Diamonds Are Forever (novel) soon and let you know when that's done too. Thanks again. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 09:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Cool. Can't promise how many I can do in the near future (I always review one article for every one I nominate and I have one at GA at this moment) but I'll do at least Live and Let Die in the next few days. If someone else gets to the others before I do, at least those articles will be well prepared... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:21, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I see SilkTork has just picked up Live and Let Die so it's on to Moonraker now for me -- never mind, always preferred the latter as a novel anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Russian battleship Sevastopol (1895) again at Featured article candidacies
Hey Ian Rose, I see you were a reviewer at one of Sevastopol's many reviews. As it's last FAC was closed due to low participation, I"d like you to come and review it for it's current FAC, in order to get a better picture of its current situation. Thanks, Buggie111 (talk) 02:17, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

A humble request
Ian,

On your User's page, I found that you were kind enough to not only credit me with co-authorship for Stan Dallas, but that you linked to my User page. Unfortunately, I use my User page as my messy little cyber-workshop. Instead, could you possibly link to usher them into my web-parlor at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Georgejdorner/User_page:_The_brag_wall ? It would be a much pleasanter visit for those that might drop by.

Again, many thanks for helping me reach the stars when I am stuck in the mud. After Albert Ball clears assessment, it seems only fair that you propose the next cooperative effort, if you wish.

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Changed link; will think about another collaboration, a third would be good. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:26, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Muchas gracias for the link change.

Georgejdorner (talk) 14:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Austin AFB 1 Outside Longbridge Works.jpg
Hi there, perhaps you can advise... The above image is in Commons but during a review on Albert Ball, where it's used because he helped design the aeroplane, the Crown Copyright / Public Domain claim was questioned because there's no credit on the original image. I daresay this is a fair observation. However given the fact that only one example of this aircraft was built, back in 1917, I was considering that it might be a candidate for uploading on WP with a FUR. If so, can the Commons copy just be speedily deleted by an admin or does it have to go through a delete request process? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:49, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * It would have to go through a deletion request. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

How Soon Is Now
Hi,

I didn't really think a citation was needed. It's fairly easy to listen to all three songs on youtube and decide for one's self if there is some evolutionary linkages.

Here are the youtube links:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=luMQUzJzZLQ Bo Diddley - Mona

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NcEjz1NZdDY Rolling Stones - Mona

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U5HpeA_WSo The Smiths - How Soon is Now

I can also point to several discussion on the internet: http://www.songfacts.com/detail.php?id=403

http://dailyvault.com/toc.php5?review=4654

http://youtubedoubler.com/?video1=La_o91SpBtQ&start1=0&video2=HUMh8GQnDW8&start2=0&authorName=Not+Sure

in the last link, you can actually compare the Bo Diddley and The Smiths songs... I'm not sure how to turn these into a citation, I'm not that experienced with that kind of thing. Any help is appreciated. Tomkost (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, I understand and you don't have to convince me of the similarities, it's just that WP requires citations to reliable sources, in this case where the author of a book or a music paper article or a professional website like AllMusic has made the connection. So those examples above, though worthwhile in themselves, don't solve the 'citation needed' issue. However I'm sure I've seen the "Mona" / "How Soon Is Now" connection made in at least one book on The Smiths so let me scout around and see if I can find it. Take care and tks for stopping by to discuss. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found a pretty good source I think. If you look near the bottom of this page: http://foreverill.com/disc/howsoon.htm


 * "How Soon Is Now? was the one, though. I wanted to write a track with an intro that you couldn't forget, something that you knew straight away was The Smiths. In that regard it was very 'worked on'. I arrived at the studio with a demo of the whole thing, apart from the tremolo effect - though that was bound to surface on a Smiths track sooner or later, 'cos at that time I was playing Bo Diddley stuff everywhere I went. I wanted it to be really, really tense and swampy, all at the same time. Layering the slide part was what gave it the real tension. As soon as I played that bit on the second and third strings, John Porter put an AMS harmoniser on it. Then we recorded each individual string with the harmoniser, then we tuned the B string down a half step and harmonised the whole thing. The tremolo effect came from laying down a regular rhythm part (with a capo at the 2nd fret) on a Les Paul, then sending that out in to the live room to four Fender Twins. John was controlling the tremolo on two of them and I was controlling the other two, and whenever they went out of sync we just had to stop the track and start all over again. It took an eternity. God bless the sampler, 'cos it would have been so much easier! But it was just one of those great moments. When Morrissey sang the vocal it was the first time we'd all heard it. John Porter said, 'Oh, great - he's singing about the elements! I am the sun and the air...' But of course it was really, 'I am the son and the heir/of a shyness that is criminally vulgar'... A great track."
 * - Johnny Marr, The Guitar Magazine, January 1997


 * So that is a direct quote from Johnny Marr that Bo Diddley was the influence. My italics in the above to highlight the key quote.
 * Tomkost (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi, that's a good quote, however I found an article in Spin where the writer actually mentions "Mona", as opposed to just Bo Diddley in general, so used that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Peter Jeffrey (RAAF officer)

 * Wow, that was proactive, didn't even get round to nominating it -- tks Tony! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:31, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Akagi ACR
Ian, I think that I've addressed all of the remaining issues with the WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Japanese aircraft carrier Akagi.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:13, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed you did, and congrats on a successful result. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

A-class medal

 * Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:07, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Lester Brain
This is a note to let the main editors of Lester Brain know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on October 29, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/October 29, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Lester Brain (1903–1980) was a pioneer Australian aviator and airline executive. Born in New South Wales, he trained with the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) before joining Qantas as a pilot in 1924. He was awarded the Air Force Cross in 1929, after locating the lost aircraft Kookaburra in northern Australia. As a member of the RAAF reserve, Brain coordinated his airline's support for the Australian military during World War II. He earned a King's Commendation for his rescue efforts during an air raid on Broome, Western Australia in 1942, and was promoted to Wing Commander in 1944. Brain left to join the fledgling government-owned domestic carrier Trans Australia Airlines (TAA) in June 1946. Appointed its first General Manager, he swiftly built up the organisation to the stage where it could commence scheduled operations later in the year. By the time he resigned in March 1955, TAA was firmly established as one half of the Commonwealth government's two-airline system. After his departure from TAA, Brain became Managing Director of de Havilland Aircraft in Sydney, before joining the board of East-West Airlines as a consultant in January 1961. Appointed an Officer of the Order of Australia in January 1979, Lester Brain died in June the following year, at the age of seventy-seven. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVII, September 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please go to this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 02:17, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle in the Signpost
"WikiProject Report" would like to focus on the Bugle for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to WikiProject Military History. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

1=2, right?
Nice catch, thanks. Nikkimaria (talk) 18:37, 31 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, you were probably just making sure I was awake... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

New Article, A A Koch
Ian, I mentioned some time ago that I wanted to add an article about an Aussie aviator. You gave me some advice at the time, particularly about the use of the sandbox. That methodology seems to have disappeared now. I have more or less finalised the words, which I would like you to review, but will probably take a while to get the pictures sorted out. How do you suggest that I proceed?Lexysexy (talk) 10:24, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I'd be more than happy to review if it's somewhere I can see it in its Wikipedia format. What form is it in at the moment? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It's in Word at the moment, but with all the Wiki necessaries, so awkward to read. I'd rather mount it somewhere on Wiki so that the references and so on work. That's really what I'm asking you about.Lexysexy (talk) 22:42, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, I've done some more research, and the draft article is now in my sandbox. I haven't figured out how to sort the infobox yet, and there are three photos I have in mind to add, including one of Koch. These will be uploaded to commons in due course. I'm interested in your view of the article.Lexysexy (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, didn't see your final comment last night before I hit the sack... I've looked for your sandbox but couldn't find it by the path I'd have expected -- can you give me a link here? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lexysexy/sandbox Lexysexy (talk) 21:08, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I'd swear I searched with that exact path without it showing up... Anyway, I know where it is now and will try and have a decent look this w/e. On first glance, a bit of the phrasing seemed a tad informal/anecdotal for WP; however it also looks well referenced. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:12, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised that you would say that - "...a tad informal/anecdotal for WP..." - in that I read a lot of WP bios before putting pen to paper. I think I've more or less matched the norm, and I think it's more readable than some. CheersLexysexy (talk) 09:34, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, don't worry, it may have only been one snippet that stood out like that. When I get to review in detail, would you like comments alone, or copyedit plus comments? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:32, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Comments, thanks, Ian, I'll try to sort the mess as far as I can!Lexysexy (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, done I think -- interesting read. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much, Ian, I appreciate it. I'll just have to drag my writing style and punctuation away from Staff College! You've given me plenty to do. Mind you, some of the nitty is a bit gritty, we historians like accuracy, for example, McMaster was still using Q.A.N.T.A.S. into the forties (I know, I didn't have the stops in!), and "Member of the Civil Division of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire" is the "proper" appointment, or was then, anyway. I know, I know, it's not my sandpit, so I'll play by local rules, but it grates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexysexy (talk • contribs) 02:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, I know the feeling, I was still contracting with Defence when I started writing for WP and had to ween myself off uppercase ship names and nnSQN format and so on. You're quite right about the proper OBE wording but it's one of those things I just couldn't be bothered trying to change... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian. The article is now mounted under Aubrey Koch. I adopted almost all your editorials, in particular the change to aviator. One or two I didn't change (eg MBE) as they reflect either the style of the reference, or my own style. Re your notability comment, in comparison with the plethora of bios about eg wannabee actors and sometime politicians, Aub leads by a country mile. As an aviator myself, I have no doubt that his career was notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lexysexy (talk • contribs) 01:54, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, in case you missed the above.Lexysexy (talk) 06:36, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, I did see that and should have replied that I was a bit under the gun -- will aim to look through in next day or two. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:47, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

A vandal in the works
Hello, cobber,

I am calling on you in your capacity as an adminstrator to deal with a persistent and consistent vandal. I have checked the entire edit history of the User at 38.116.202.8, and it is 100% vandalism. Can you block this ignorant destructive sod?

Georgejdorner (talk) 13:14, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be happy to block such a vandal but I'm not actually an admin (just a coordinator at MilHist, and we don't have special powers). Parsecboy and Hawkeye7 are both admins and may be worth a try... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Damn! Done.

Georgejdorner (talk) 01:35, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

A temporary pause
Hello, Ian,

My concentration is shattered by the distractions of my pending move. I find myself hindering instead of helping you. I intend to withdraw from developing Albert Ball until after my life settles down after the move. I anticipate a pause of a week to ten days. I feel rotten for abandoning you, but think it best.

Please understand.

Your Yankee cobber,

Georgejdorner (talk) 22:08, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah don't feel bad (or "rotten" as Albert would say -- he has got to you hasn't he...!) I moved 3 months ago for the first time in 15 years and understand well the stresses, and the time it consumes. Take care and don't worry about the article for a bit. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:38, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Harry Cobby
Hi Ian, I just visited Today's featured article/November 2011 to see if it was too late to nominate an article for 11 November, and was pleased to see that Harry Cobby is lined up for the day - great work. I strongly recommend the RAF museum in London by the way - it has an amazing collection of World War I-era aircraft. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:52, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, tks mate -- I wanted to get Cobby on that date last year (or was it the year before even?) but missed out, so nice that it proved painless this time round. Hope you had a great time away -- yes, I didn't go to the RAF museum in the heart of London when I was there but did get to see the Battle of Britain Memorial and another military aviation museum somewhere west of London (on the way to Stonhenge, which I never got to due to spending too much time in the museum!) Cheers and welcome back, Ian Rose (talk) 23:19, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Main page appearance: Harry Cobby
This is a note to let the main editors of Harry Cobby know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on November 11, 2011. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/November 11, 2011. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegate, or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:



Harry Cobby (1894–1955) was the leading fighter ace of the Australian Flying Corps during World War I. A bank clerk when war broke out, he was prevented by his employer from enlisting in the military until 1916. After flying training, he was posted to the Western Front with No. 4 Squadron AFC. In less than a year of combat he achieved 29 victories, all flying the Sopwith Camel. Acclaimed a national hero, Cobby transferred to the newly formed Royal Australian Air Force in 1921. He commanded No. 1 Squadron and RAAF Station Richmond, before leaving to join the Civil Aviation Board in 1936. Re-joining the RAAF at the outbreak of World War II, Cobby was awarded the George Medal in 1943 for rescuing fellow survivors of an aircraft crash. The following year he was appointed Air Officer Commanding No. 10 Operational Group, but was relieved of his post in the wake of the "Morotai Mutiny" of April 1945. Retiring from the RAAF in 1946, Cobby served with the Department of Civil Aviation until his death on Armistice Day in 1955. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 00:02, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi Ian, Thanks for reverting this rather odd question on my talk page. I like the irony of someone editing using a one-off IP account criticising me for not editing under my full name ;) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * So did I, mate, so did I... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:16, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Request to help close RSN dispute
May I request you to please participate in closing this reliable sources dispute. I request that the arguments be considered on its merits alone. I would like to point out that both sides of the argument feel that retaining/removing the source is important as regards NPOV. Indo-Pakistan disputes are often avoided by editors who hate being drawn into the hassle but we need experienced and dedicated neutral parties to participate, otherwise the augean stable can never be cleaned out. This corner of WikiProject Military History needs people to clean it up. The only way to do it is first of all kill non-reliable sources. (Disclaimer: I am an involved party and I approached you due to your prominent track record in WikiProject Military History). AshLin (talk) 11:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. The matter has been resolved. The discussion has been closed by The ed17. Happy editting. AshLin (talk) 04:54, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Cobby
I made the change to eliminate the placement of a short line between the two images on the left of the page, where it was "lost" to the reader. Feel free to try another fix if you can devise one. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 21:27, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I realise these layout issues are browser and screen dependent. The method that seems to work best is: (1) Leave space for several lines of text between images. (2) Where possible, keep most images to the right. Cheers. Downsize43 (talk) 21:44, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

The no-internet black hole
Hello, cobber,

I was disappointing myself with my paltry contributions to the improvement of Albert Ball even before I fell into this black hole of no internet service. In any event, I should not be named as a co-nominator when you put the article up for FA Review. I try to live by a code of integrity in the Wikipedia world, and I know my contributions toward FA status are not substantial enough for me to hog up unearned credit. I will contribute what I can whenever I can, but there's no way to make up the deficit when my local library affords me just three hours internet per week. That's not saying that I won't be aboard for another run at Featured Article status with some other article the next time around–just that I don't qualify this time around.

No drama now. My ego will survive quite nicely without false laurels.

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:33, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey, don't feel like that, even if you haven't been able to do as much as you'd like between ACR and FAC, your historical association with the article's improvement, and ability to weigh in on questions during reviews, means you should still be there. Anyway, I think it will be a while before any of us are fully comfortable with nominating for FAC. The main thing I do need to clarify with you is if you still expect to get Pengally's new bio from the library, because if you can do that, and even just skim through it to confirm major items in the article, and see if he presents any important revelations or just alternate takes on things, that will be a great contribution towards fireproofing it for FAC, and Carcharoth and I can look after the other things we've discussed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:28, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Bravo on Cobby!
My congratulations on hitting the front page on Veterans Day...all while beavering away diligently on Albert Ball. A very impressive achievement indeed!

Georgejdorner (talk) 21:39, 12 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh well, it had been a Featured Article for a while and I wanted to get it to TFA on Armistice/Rememberence/Veterans Day as much as 2 years ago, so nice we made it this year. I recall your strong support for it at its FAC nomination, and still appreciate it... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:37, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Sydney meetup
You are listed here as interested in Sydney meetups, so I thought I'd let you know about one on this Saturday at 5pm at the Alexandria Hotel. Details here: Meetup/Sydney/November_2011. It would be great to see you. --99of9 (talk) 00:58, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured article review for Sunset Boulevard (film)
nominated Sunset Boulevard (film) for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. You're receiving this message because you've been identified as one of the top four editors of the article by edit count. Brad (talk) 06:05, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of She's Got Claws


A tag has been placed on She's Got Claws requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject of the article is important or significant: that is, why an article about it should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you can assert the importance of the subject,. Clicking that button will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit |the article's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. You may freely add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

See the guidelines for specific types of articles: biographies, websites, bands, or companies. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:28, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Stormtrooper in Drag


The article Stormtrooper in Drag has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Not Notable. See Notability_(music).

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. GeorgeLouis (talk) 05:36, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Featured Article page Hits
Have you seen this? Apparently, the featured articles with the least hits are articles on mushrooms, rodents and RAAF air marshals. Wikipedians are looking at the connection between the three... Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes I did see that. I even made a point about so-called "vital articles". My only concern now is that I may get mistaken for someone who cares... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am reminded of the mathematician G H Hardy, who was very proud of the fact that after a lifetime on the academia, Nothing I have ever done is of the slightest practical use. Alas, after he died someone found a use for his work in the telecommunications industry. But them's the breaks. Continue painting the RAAF er blue. Hawkeye7 (talk) 03:44, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that the period covered in that slide didn't include my nomination of John Treloar (museum administrator) for FA status. It averages about 10 pages views a day. ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

The above Power Point presentation confirms what I have already figured out–that the assessment process is essentially useless because the technical aspects of presenting information are more important than the information's validity. In print world, that would be glorifying footnotes over articles.

The final incident that drove me to quit submitting articles for assessment came when I pointed out a contradiction between WP stating that cites were needed only when there is a change of source versus the assessors' insistence on at least one cite per paragraph. I was informed that a change in my writing style would make the contradiction magically vanish. SCREW THAT! I am a professional writer, with a long publication history in "real" life. And I definitely can spot a contradiction when I see one.

I related the above incident face to face with several WMF employees at the Wicnic in San Francisco. I received a universal blank look. They just don't get it. Instead, they keep on trying to recruit techies who can write, instead of looking for writers and supplying them with support.

Having ranted myself out, I return to my self-appointed task of creating bios on every WWI ace not covered. Have fewer than 50 to go.

Georgejdorner (talk) 03:50, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Bugle 2
The first section is "From the Editors", but Cam hasn't edited since August, so I recommend either changing the section title or listing more than one editor ... I opted for listing you as an editor, feel free to revert. - Dank (push to talk) 13:45, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be more than happy to join Ed as co-editor on this and future issues in light of Cam's prolonged absence, if Ed has no objection and if no-one else among the coord wants the job. CCing Ed on this in the first instance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:03, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Oddly enough, I asked Cam via Facebook yesterday if he'd be okay with this exact scenario. He messaged me back just now, saying he's fine with this change. Thanks for steeping up, Ian. :-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 18:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Nick's contributions, especially to the current Bugle, add a lot of class. Would it make sense to ask him if he wants to be a co-editor?  Up to you guys. - Dank (push to talk) 18:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Do we want three co-editors? It seems like a lot, is all, and I feel like that feeling will be shared by those who look at it. (I love Nick and would have no objections, but...) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 19:09, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXVIII, October 2011
To receive this newsletter on your talk page, join the project or sign up here. If you are a member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. EdwardsBot (talk) 08:15, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

New Worlds
Ian, thanks again for the offer of help. Nikkimaria has offered to help with the part I was really concerned about -- the literary criticism. I will certainly take you up on your offer of a copyedit and review prior to FAC; when we get to that point I will get back in touch. Thank you very much. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:01, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yep, that would be best -- content first, copyedit afterwards... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

USS Arizona FAC
I'd appreciate it if you could find time to look over this FAC in the next couple of days and offer your comments.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, sorry I wasn't able to help out here but with my limited availability lately I couldn't have done it justice. Anyway, very glad to see you and Ed have succeeded in your aim to get this promoted in time for 7 December -- a tremendous effort, well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Not a problem, I was just hoping to get an experienced reviewer who might be able to react quickly. It would have been great to have your input, but we managed to get it done regardless. As penance, I assign you three GANs, two ACRs and somebody else's FAC. Just kidding!--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, many a true word spoken in jest -- with my current ACR and FAC noms I still owe myself at least one review at each level to make my usual 3-reviews-per-nom 'quota', and I'm currently committed to at least one GAN (not MilHist) somewhere in there as well... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:24, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Helmut Wick
Thanks for all the work you had to do on the article. I appreciate this very much. I didn't think that it was that bad before either. I hope you enjoyed the read and work a little. I will have a look at you comments ASAP. Thanks again MisterBee1966 (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, when I get going... ;-) Seriously, I thought it was a fine piece of work -- not everything I altered was a real issue, more I thought the wording could be mixed up a little. I just wish I could contribute in German as well as you do in English! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Hector Waller
Hello Ian Rose, thanks for your note about the Hector Waller article. I've replied on my talk page, and am happy to continue discussion there if needed. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 11:41, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations on the article's promotion; that has to be the fastest GA review I've seen! Janggeom (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Me too -- well done yourself. I'll nominate it for MilHist A-Class shortly and send you a link to the review. So would you like me to put you down as co-nominator? I'm happy to field most of the points as they're raised -- it generally works better in my experience to have one person primarily responsible for that so we don't edit conflict and stuff, but you could still chip in and you'd get credit for it once it's passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:39, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind invitation; I think that given the relative amount of work you've put into the article (far more than me, I believe), and also my time and priorities at this stage, it would be only fair for you to take the sole lead on further promotion efforts for this article in the near future. I am, of course, interested in seeing the article become as good as it can be, and will aim to help however I can. If it turns out that I am able to put in a significant contribution from this point on, I would be more than happy just to be able to indicate that I have helped, without needing recognition as a co-nominator. Thanks. Janggeom (talk) 14:51, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * No prob, tks for letting me know -- FYI, nom is here. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your note, and I appreciate the word of acknowledgement; trust things will proceed well. Janggeom (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas for 2011
Ian Rose,

Would like to say "Merry Christmas" for 2011! Hope you have a wonderful day and have good memories with family and friends. Adamdaley (talk) 00:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much, Adam -- the same to you, and here's to a great 2012! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:09, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

'Tis that season again

 * We are having a fine time, thanks, hope you have a great day as well! As for the Bugle, well the project has been very lucky to have you looking after it for all this time, with Cam's assistance initially and then solo for quite a while too, so I'm more than happy to join in... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:16, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:14, 25 December 2011 (UTC).
 * Tks mate, have a terrific day! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXIX, November 2011
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Ian Rose (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:37, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Tks mate, we're indeed fortunate to have you around for your dedicated reviewing and article writing, not to mention your generous spirit...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 31 December 2011 (UTC)