User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2012

Big Two-Hearted River
Hi, I've changed my mind, can you please close this Featured article candidates/Big Two-Hearted River/archive1. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 08:31, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Is there a mechanism or system or something by which it's possible to indicate that a FAC was abandoned, or that archiving was requested? The closing here, not promoted, seems to indicate that's it not worthy of promotion, which is now part of the permanent article history. Clearly there's more going on to make me walk away from a 4000 word article about a short story. Anyway, just wondering. Btw- this is cross-posted from Raul's page, and maybe I should place at FAC talk for discussion, but adding it here since I requested the closing here. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:09, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * "Not promoted" is simply the wording automatically added by the closing bot. I can understand that perhaps the term "archived" might seem more appropriate since that's the term we generally use for closing something that's not promoted, but we don't currently have a mechanism for differentiating between the various reasons a FAC might be archived, e.g. opposition to promotion from reviewers, or lack of interest and therefore no consensus for promotion, or the nominator requesting archival, as in this case. Your note requesting that the nomination be archived is preserved where you placed it, at the bottom of the FAC, and if you'd requested the archive on my talk page only I would have included the diff in the FAC when closing, so it was clear for posterity why the archive took place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:54, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Isaacson
By all means have a go. I've only put a couple of nights into it so far, and a lot of that was re-learning wiki code. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fallingwithstyle (talk • contribs) 12:30, 27 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Nice extra work on the article. The Australian Lancaster Q-Queenie was named Queenie VI by Isaacson and his crew in honour of the five other Queenies they had fought in. It's in one of the cites, can't remember which one. Worth adding? There's also precious little about his post war career - he was an Icon of sorts in postwar publishing. I'll see what I can dig up at the next Library I stop at (my wife and I are both full-time travellers). RichardH (talk) 07:31, 29 June 2012 (UTC) One other thing- I was wondering why you changed all the ranks to lower case from initial capitals. I would have thought that ranks had the status of proper names. For example, John was a wing commander likely means he was a GPCAPT in Australian service, whereas John was a Wing Commander states the rank but makes no implication about the formation, if any, he commands. RichardH (talk) 07:38, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Good on you re. the travelling! Re. libraries, yes, I would've gone to the Mitchell myself this week if I could have -- wasn't possible. I think it should pass B-Class assessment without much trouble, but more on his post-war career will probably be necessary for GA, which would be nice to go for at some stage. Even Who's Who would help finetune some of the dates.  There's always the biography of course, but that's getting serious... ;-) Re. Queenie, pretty sure one source I have claims she was scrapped after the war -- will double-check... Re. ranks, actually I tend to agree with you and for a long time always capitalised ranks in all cases in "my" articles. However the manual of style, which insists ranks are capitalised only when used as a person's title, has won out lately. To avoid confusion, I try to make it very clear when someone is commanding a wing, as opposed to ranked wing commander... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I will be near a library tomorrow. I'll try to get some more info about Isaacson and his publishing career, unless you are already chasing that down. He's also been a significant figure in Victoria's (Australia's?) Jewish community. Worth including if verifiable? Cheers RichardH (talk) 08:58, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, let's demarcate! I'll be checking Who's Who for date ranges on things in the later life section, plus Units of the Royal Australian Air Force for anything on his RAAF Reserve unit commands. I'll leave the rest to you and, yes, I think verifiable info on contributions to the Jewish community is worthwhile. My main recommendation is not to spend too much time on it -- as long as we capture the main points of anything extra that seems significant we really shouldn't need much more detail to have a satisfactory GA-class article. In fact it might even pass GAN as is, I just think a quick pass through some additional sources tomorrow will make it even better. So I reckon we draw a line in the sand that we add what we can tomorrow, and then let CanadianPaul go ahead with his review on a stable article the following day. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Update: have got all the details from Who's Who, lots of dates and directorships, which I'll review and add as I think useful; already added in RAAF Reserve unit and ADC dates, the rest will do later tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:52, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, added/updated what I think is worthwhile. There were other dates/positions but none notable in WP terms, and I didn't want to just rehash his resume from Who's Who. I think it's fine to submit to the GA review now but if you have some more to add, pls do so -- IMO, however, we should try and let our GA reviewer loose on it ASAP so things don't drag... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:16, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Richard, if I don't hear from you tonight, I think I'd better ask the GAN reviewer to go ahead. I'm confident it'll pass as is, and we can always expand it further afterwards with any info you find, or even get hold of his biography and go for broke with MilHist A-Class Review and then perhaps FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:10, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, yes please send up for GA nomination. I've found some fascinating material in Firkins' book on 460 about Isaacson being shunned to a degree on return to Australia, as apparently 'Europe men' were disliked by CoC back home. If I can find a second reference, I'll add it. There were also some interesting remarks about his flying prowess, apparently great in the air but not so good close to the ground...  Still haven't found anything extra re the Jewish angle, but will keep looking.  FAC would be fun, and it would seem fitting to get at least one Bomber Boy there while he was stil alive.RichardH (talk) 11:03, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. Funny you mention "Europe men" being shunned... I recently took an article to FAC on James Rowland -- Pathfinder, Chief of the Air Staff, and NSW Governor -- and found a source quoting him as saying that when he returned to Australia he felt that he'd been in the "wrong war". Yes, be good to get a living Bomber Boy to FA next. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Slightly OT, but Firkins also says that in 1943 some 460 members received white feathers in the mail, with 'Jap Dodger' being written on the accompanying note. Pretty horrifying, considering. I think there's an untold story there.  I note that there's no 'Australian involvement in Bomber Command' article yet.  I might start one. Buckets of material, and since more than 3,000 Australians died, surely worth an article in its own right? RichardH (talk) 13:20, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I think I've heard of that "Jap Dodger" thing somewhere -- yes, bloody awful. Your idea for an article sounds good, I'm sorry I didn't think of it myself! Be more than happy to be involved if you want a collaborator, since I've started to become familiar with the subject through my articles on John Balmer and William Brill, as well as Isaacson. Re. title, there are a few "Australian contribution to..." articles, including Nick-D's Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy, which might serve as a good model since it's been promoted to MilHist A-Class recently and a lot of the material closely relates to Australia's Bomber Command involvement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes thanks, it would be terrific to have an experienced collaborator. I'll start some work on it and let you know when I have a first draft. My initial thinking would be six main sections - Basis for Australian Involvement, RAAF SQNs, RAAF members serving in RAF SQNs, Australians in RAF Service, Notable Figures (e.g. Ron Middleton, Hughie Edwards), and Home Front reactions.  The White Feather thing could be a great DYK hook for it.  Apparently it was a big enough deal to make the front page of the Argus in March 1944 - right during the worst of the Bomber Command times.RichardH (talk) 14:27, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Richard, in case you missed it, we now have a GA to our credit here... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:35, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Mold
Thanks for the image and source review. Hopefully, I've addressed the points in the source review. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher
G'day Ian, if you are free, would you mind taking a look at WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher and maybe providing a review? It has been open since 27 May and has only received one review. I would like to review it for Adam, but as I helped copy edit the article during its GA review, I'm probably ineligible now as a reviewer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, I've got a bit of a list on right now but will definitely try to get to it by end of week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:29, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC being ignored?
I remember you had closed my first FAC for Ra.One and encouraged me for a second time. My second time failed too, unfortunately. Right now, its the third nomination for the article, and is on the verge of moving to the "Older nominations" category. I had pinged some editors regarding this, asking them for some help with the FAC and some concrete movement after only one comment was left. I'm trying to AGF, but the responses have been baffling.

In the beginning, two editors rebuffed me with a "Not interested" and then a third editor gave a rather silly and false excuse to pull himself/herself out. I have since pinged a couple of other editors, and they have not even bothered to respond. I get this sort of treatment a lot; is this being done intentionally? I've often asked unknown editors to take a look at some article I've been working on, and they don't deem it fit to reply even though they go about talking to others and editing generally (one can see their contributions). I find this extremely rude and insulting, and I'm being increasingly disillusioned and discouraged by the FAC process. Please help in any way you can. ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 16:43, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it must be frustrating, particularly when you've put a great deal of effort into a particular article. Unlike the job of FAC delegate, there's no assigned position of 'FAC reviewer', so we're always at the mercy of people being willing to undertake that task. I would however caution against inferring rudeness or insult when people don't feel they can participate, as everyone's a volunteer. If you've already pinged previous FAC, GAN or peer reviewers, have you also left neutrally worded notices at relevant Wikiproject talk pages? Aside from that, reviewing others' FACs is good practice; not only can it sometimes generate interest in one's own articles (noting of course that we need to avoid quid-pro-quo supporting) but the more reviews other articles get, the quicker people like me can determine consensus and remove them from the FAC list, meaning the chance of a drive-by review of remaining FACs is a little higher. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice :). ~*~AnkitBhatt~*~ 18:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

More WikiChevrons

 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:51, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Dave Shannon
Hi, I have reviewed Dave Shannon and placed it on hold for up to seven days with some concerns. You can see my review here: Talk:Dave Shannon/GA1. Canadian  Paul  00:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

iPad FAC
Hi Ian, I think that Featured article candidates/IPad (3rd generation)/archive2 might need more attention than is typical from the FA delegates. The nominator appears to be highly unfamiliar with FA processes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate -- I've watchlisted it for now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

A beer for you!

 * Cheers mate! Ian Rose (talk) 02:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Spotchecks on FAC candidates
Hi Ian, sorry for my dumb question but maybe you can help me understand better. Are spotchecks of sources for accuracy and avoidance of close paraphrasing a mandatory item on every FAC review? Thanks MisterBee1966 (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate -- there are no dumb questions, only dumb answers... ;-) No, unlike image checks, spotchecks of sources aren't required for every FAC. Generally I'd expect them if:
 * It's the nominator's first FAC, meaning they've never had a spotcheck there.
 * There's been issues of inaccuracy or close paraphrasing with a nominator's previous FACs.
 * The nominator's an established FAC editor who hasn't had a spotcheck in a while (say 6--12 months).
 * There's multiple nominators / main editors, not all of whom are experienced at FAC.
 * Ideally I think we should probably spotcheck every FAC, as even the best editors can make honest mistakes, but that isn't exactly practical... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian I am in great need of assistance to create a page for Robert Thomas Jr, percussionist, formerly of Weather Report, Zawinul Syndicate
Greetings Ian, I am in great need of assistance to create a page for Robert Thomas Jr., famous percussionist, formerly with the ground breaking Jazz-Fusion group Weather Report, Weather Update, Zawinul Syndicate, Jaco Pastorius, Stan Getz, Ahmad Jamal, Herbie Mann and many others. Unfortunately, I am very old school and do not have the skills to write a page on Wikipedia. I understand members of the Wikipedia Community might be willing to create a page for those that are not able to do so. Could you please point me to the right place to get assistance in this regard? Please write to me at Agencynouveau@gmail.com Please let me know.AgencyNouveau (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

With best regards,

Stephen Alvin Agency Nouveau Agencynouveau@gmail.comAgencyNouveau (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Dave Shannon
Yngvadottir (talk) 08:02, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian, running in the day slot in the UK, this got 8,500 page views. You should be pleased with that. Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:02, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I am, and already added to DYKSTATS... ;-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:34, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:51, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Peter Isaacson GA
Sorry I haven't had time over the past few days to do the review for Peter Isaacson, but it's up and ready now... not much in the way of concerns either! Canadian  Paul  04:13, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oops, just realized that there's another section on your talk page on this article, so I've changed the heading. In regards to completeness, I see no problems in regards to the GA standard for completeness, although FA would certainly have a higher bar to clear as you well know judging by your user page, haha. When I read it, every time I had something I wanted to know more about, the information was available in the next paragraph, so that's a pretty good sign for me. Canadian   Paul  04:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on getting this article to GA status. Truthanado (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Re: Featured article candidates/Microsoft Security Essentials/archive1
Hi, Ian Rose

Thanks for info. I'm putting the reply here in your talk page because I don't think it is a good idea to bother Graham by conversing in his talk page. I have a couple of notes, which I'd be grateful if you addressed:
 * 1) I tried to search "three" and "3" in WP:FAC, WP:FA and the signpost FAQ, but I cannot find your statement. (However, I do not deny that I have not secured that criterion.) Could I please have a link to the page where your statement comes from?
 * 2) I can manage writing a high quality article. But how do I gain support without being kicked out of Wikipedia for canvassing?
 * 3) I did not quite understand the part about two week before re-nomination. It is ambiguous. Please clarify: Can I renominate the article now or should I wait for two weeks?

Thanks in advance. Last, I have no doubt that Graham was meant to be both polite and helpful. But he is obviously busy; or else, if he had read my message, he would have not sent me to a page titled "Oppose rationale". (After all, I have no "Oppose" problems; they are all satisfactorily addressed.)

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Lisa, despite what may have seemed an unfortunate title, the page Graham recommended did provide what I also consider to be useful info re. why articles are not promoted, which is not simply because of opposition. Anyway, addressing your points above:
 * To use a legal analogy just for a second, I'm probably the worst person to ask about "statutes", I tend to do things on WP by "precedent". In more than 6 years of editing and a lot of FAs, I've rarely done things by the book, but rather through observation of what seems to work. If you check recently promoted FAs, e.g. at this month's Featured log, I think you'll find that they invariably have three clear supports and often more. As I hope WP:FAC makes clear, however, declarations of support are just one part of how consensus to promote is determined; three is not a magic number, as delegates will look for indications that supporters are familiar with FAC criteria and are judging the article against those criteria when they declare.
 * It's okay to leave neutrally worded notices re. a particular FAC for people who have reviewed the article previously (e.g. at GA, Peer, or earlier FA reviews) and also at relevant project talk pages. Here's an example.
 * There is a guideline spelt out on WP:FAC that nominators whose FAC has been archived (i.e. not promoted for any reason) may not renominate the article within two weeks, unless the FAC director or a delegate agrees. The two-week limit is to enforce breathing space while any outstanding comments from the previous FAC are addressed by the nominator. You can ask for leave to re-nominate without the two-week waiting period if you believe there are no unaddressed comments. I think this is probably the case with Microsoft Security Essentials, however if you want to pursue that you might check with Graham since he's in a slightly better position to judge, having closed the earlier nom (I promise he won't bite!)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

FAC consensus and Kappa Kappa Psi
On GrahamColm's talk page, I saw that you said that the standard for determining consensus for a FAC is three supports. I've nominated Kappa Kappa Psi and there are currently only two supports, despite posting on the related WikiProjects about its candidacy and the length of time it has been a candidate (three weeks under the current nomination, but effectively two full months given GrahamColm's exemption after its first nomination failed to garner many replies). Are there other ways I should go about bringing this to editors' attentions, or is it doomed to be archived due to a lack of consensus? Sycamore (talk) 02:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Sycamore, as I've mentioned in my reply to Codename Lisa above, three isn't a magic number, and I don't think I suggested it was on Graham's page. Again, as mentioned above, neutral notices to editors who've previously reviewed an article are acceptable, as well as notices on relevant project pages. Pls also help review others' articles at FAC. The more solid reviewers we have at FAC, the easier it is for delegates to determine consensus and remove articles from the backlog, which can mean a slighter higher chance of people cruising through FAC noms stopping at yours. When reviewing, however, just remember that it's comprehensive checking against the FAC criteria that really counts. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:00, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi
I nominated "S&M (song)" for FLC, Featured article candidates/S&M (song)/archive8, 10 days ago and no one has left comments on it. Every other nomination posted after have had comments, some extensively. I've posted it on the reviewers needed on the WikiCup page but that doesn't seem to have helped either. Aaron  &bull; You Da  One 10:26, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a fairly frequent FA reviewer, your nomination statement is doing you no favours. Given that this article has been through a highly unusual number of previous FACs (including three this year), prospective reviewers are going to want some strong assurances that all the problems identified in the previous reviews have now been fixed. From reading the lead, I have to say that I'm not sure that this is in fact the case - I'll post some comments in the review. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I know, but I've said that 7 times before lol. Aaron  &bull; You  Da  One 10:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

A-Class assessment
The quality scale (under "More detailed criteria") of the country wikiprojects point to the military history wikiproject for assessment. It satisfies everything necessary to be classified as an A-class article. -- ◅PRODUCER  ( TALK ) 14:36, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, looking as WP:Yugoslavia as an example, it's certainly pointing to MilHist as an example of a project with an ACR system, I'm not sure that's the same as the project accepting MilHist ACR results for WP:Yugoslavia's assessment. I mean it's fine by me, I think all relevant projects should accept MilHist's ACR assessment but it probably should be more explicit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:59, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Revelation FA close
I'm not sure why you closed as not promote given every concern was addressed or responded to, but when can I re-nominated the article? There was very little feedback which may allow another nomination.  Toa   Nidhiki05  20:19, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Discussion and resolution of comments is a very important part of the FAC process, but clear consensus to promote, through explicit declarations of support, is still required. In any case, however, as the review had been quiet for some time and all comments were, as you mention, acknowledged, I have no objection to you renominating before the usual 2-week gap. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, that makes sense. Thanks. :)  Toa   Nidhiki05  13:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Typo fix

 * I fixed this, a missing "}", hope that's okay. Pumpkin Sky  talk  16:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Most certainly, thank you. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:21, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Request for speedy nomination
Could I have permission to nominate ? (film) before the two week period is up, since the Chinese Indonesians FAC was dead in the water for a month? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I wouldn't say it'd been inactive for the past month, and based on your own response to the spotcheck it'd benefit from the usual two-week timeframe to go through and get set for another nom, however as I'm sure you'd undertake that before renominating and ? (film) is a different article anyway, I'm okay with you nominating the latter at your convenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The main difference being that ? was guided by me from start to finish, so I'm pretty much 100% sure that there are no issues. I'll do work on the Chinese Indonesians article's issues on the side, but that will be a pretty big undertaking. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, just clarifying, I meant working on the Chinese Indonesians article before nominating that article again, not before nominating ?... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeppers. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:08, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:07, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

John Slessor
Hi Ian. Many thanks with your help inserting the London Gazette references to the article on John Slessor. I have removed the table of honours and awards as most of them are now referred to and properly referenced in the main text. I hope you are OK with that. Best Wishes, Dormskirk (talk) 15:01, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, you did the lion's share, the article is much fuller now. Re. the honours/awards section, I didn't put it there and I certainly prefer articles not to have them, since it duplicates what should already be in the main body and a lot of what's already in the infobox -- plus it's just one step from such a list to rows of ribbon images, which I think from previous discussions at MilHist you can also do without. I normally edit RAAF bios rather than RAF ones but I got interested in Slessor because he chose Donald Hardman to become Chief of the Air Staff for the RAAF when the Australian government decided it wanted a Brit in charge for a while. I took the Hardman article to B-Class and am working in the background on taking it to GA or higher some time. It occurs to me that the Slessor article is almost GA-ready, and if you'd like to join me we could co-nominate it. The only things I'd like to do beforehand are expand the lead to about twice its current length (standard for an article of this size) and go to my local library which has the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, to expand what I can from that. What I'd like to do is substitute ODNB info for the existing Air of Authority references. The latter is a great piece of work, but it could be challenged as a reliable source since it's essentially an enthusiast's site as opposed to something official or commercial. Finally, I tend to prefer family/personal life integrated into the main body of the article unless there's enough info to really justify its own section (which isn't really the case here). WDYT about all that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That's great. I am pleased you agree re the honours / awards section. I would be delighted to co-nominate Slessor for GA status (if you explain to me in due course how to do that!) In the meantime I would be grateful if you would go ahead with expanding the lead, inserting the ODNB references and integrating the family section as you will know best what you have in mind. Many thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have now expanded the lead, inserting the ODNB references (or in some instances references to Probert's book) and integrated the family section and would welcome your further edits or suggestions before we co-nominate Slessor for GA status. Best wishes. Dormskirk (talk) 11:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just on a short break and couldn't get to the work we discussed before I left -- looks like you did most of it, will have a look when I'm back end of week and perhaps nom for GA then, eh? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:14, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Great. Thanks. Dormskirk (talk) 17:31, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Intervention needed
On this FAC, the nominator and a new account are edit-warring about the presence of a comment by the new account. I've already opposed the FAC so don't want to intervene either way. (Cross-posting to Graham's talk). Nikkimaria (talk) 17:38, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have archived the nomination. As you know, in the past heated content disputes at FAC have gone on for months. I have asked the editors to resolve their issues on the article's talk page. Graham Colm (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks guys, further illustration on the value of having delegates on opposite sides of the world -- close to round-the-clock coverage... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Bugle op-ed
Hi Ian, Did you want to post Bomzibar's article as a review essay? In a discussion with him here, I suggested presenting the article as a review essay, and Bomzibar seemed to be comfortable with this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:28, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I think both Hawkeye's and Bomzibar's pieces could probably be either op-eds or review essays, I was pragmatically going to use them for the former, this month and next month, so we don't have to chase up any op-eds for a while. We're heading up to Byron for a week this Saturday, and aiming to be o/s all September and half of October (if it all comes together) so I'm trying to take the line of least resistance for a bit... ;-) That reminds me, if we head off in September I'd need someone to help out on the Bugle that month in my absence, how'd you feel about that? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:44, 24 July 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, that makes sense (particularly given that the late northern summer tends to be the quietest time of the year). I'd be happy to help out with the Bugle if you're not available. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Washington v. Texas comments
I want to thank you again for looking over the article and listing some suggestions on my talk page. I appreciate that you took the time to help out. Best, Lord Roem (talk) 14:48, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Ian Fleming at FAC
Hi Ian, Further to my recent request on the Fleming review page I wonder if you could please do the necessary for me? Many thanks - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 12:31, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Done -- per general FAC practice, the article can be renominated once two weeks has passed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:51, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ian, but you can't get rid of me that easily! ;) Cheers - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 18:26, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries -- as a MilHister who always goes through ACR before FAC, this is probably a good idea. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 3 Aircraft Depot RAAF
Orlady (talk) 16:03, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Long Tan
Gday Ian. I've been working on rewriting Battle of Long Tan since December 2011 and finally uploaded a draft today. By most standards it is too long and I have struggled for quite a while to try and reduce it. Unfortunately I am now probably too close to the subject to be objective so I'm hoping to enlist some support. If you're interested I would welcome any assistance you might be able to provide in going over the article with a fresh set of eyes. Thanks in advance. Anotherclown (talk) 08:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just stopped in at a cafe while in Lennox Head for a few days -- be back home towards the end of the week and would love to go through it then if you can wait. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries at all. The good thing about wiki is their are no deadlines. Hope you have a safe trip. Anotherclown (talk) 12:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just letting you know that I haven't forgotten this -- and it wasn't just the cross coming here that reminded me...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVI, July 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 09:24, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just an FYI, the Bugle postings by EdwardsBot all link to articles in the May issue rather than July. -Mabeenot (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Blackford County Courthouse
The Blackford County featured article nomination has been archived. What does that mean? What should I (I nominated it.) do? All of the few concerns were addressed. TwoScars (talk) 16:22, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Concerns were addressed but promoting to Featured Article status requires consensus from reviewers, which involves comprehensive declarations of support for promotion. Those had not been forthcoming. Now, because there were no outstanding issues, you can renominate for FAC again without waiting the usual two weeks between archive and re-nomination, however I'd urge you to nom for GA first, then when that's successful, re-nom for FAC. At that stage you could let previous reviewers at GAN, Peer Review, and FAC know that the article is again ready for their perusal, using neutrally worded notices (example here). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks—I will wait two weeks and nominate for GA. TwoScars (talk) 13:08, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Istanbul FAC
You might want to keep your eye on the Istanbul FAC, because there is beginning to be a bit of a WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT issue. It might be wise to have some extra eyes on this. Mitch 32 (There is a destiny that makes us... family.) 17:52, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks for your note to Graham and me, I've just logged on and see he's actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:06, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Operational Conversion Unit RAAF
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:03, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

September Bugle
Ian, do you know who creates this? I created a stub version when I passed a couple of A class reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, the article page was created okay. Usually I find Kirill creates the other pages but Ed or I could so shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:15, 12 August 2012 (UTC)

Samsung Galaxy S III FAC
Hi Ian, Can you please close Featured article candidates/Samsung Galaxy S III/archive1? You might also want to ask an uninvolved admin to delete it given the tone of the discussion and the lack of substantive comments in relation to the nomination. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree -- tks for the heads-up, mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:05, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

Request for permission to nominate
Hi Ian, I was wondering if you'd allow me to nominate Albertus Soegijapranata before the two weeks is up (my last nomination having passed yesterday). Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 02:30, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Go ahead -- for future reference, the 2-week thing only applies when your prior nom has been archived, not when it's been promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:39, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Kewl, that makes it much easier. Thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

issues with the just-passed Osiris myth
Hi. I just noticed the list of FAs updated with Osiris myth, so I looked. You're surely aware that I'm a. A key issue I see is that the focus of the process and the reviews is biased against classes of issues. I immediately noticed two issues that should have been caught before this article was classed as an example of 'our best'.

First, there was an invalid ISBN being used: ISBN 0-500-39030-6 is simply wrong; click it and you're told so, in red. ISBN 0-500-39030-4, however, seems correct. This is quite likely a result of a truncation of the ISBN-13 form: ISBN 978-0-500-39030-6. I've.

Second, the list of references wasn't a list. I mean this in a fairly specific definition "list"; HTML's. The bulleted references were given with a blank line between each one, which is specifically proscribed by the MOS at WP:BULLETLIST, "In particular, do not double-space the lines of the list by leaving blank lines". What occurs when this is done is MediaWiki generates a series HTML list structures containing a single item each, instead of generating a single list structure containing 17 items (in this case). This renders with a slightly more spaced-out look which was probably thought appealing (or it may have been thought easier to read in the editbox), but it creates a serious barrier to anyone using a screen reader as they will be advised of the beginning of a new list for each item, and the rendered markup, which is scraped by Google and all manner of other software, is semantic gibberish resulting on our exporting poorly parsable information out into the world. Also.

Many simply don't care about such issues. They're looking at a subset of the proper criteria of 'our best'. The FA process needs to be much more open to wider concerns than have long been the focus. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 08:53, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Well thank you for pointing those out for future reference, and fixing the immediate instances. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If you install User:Cameltrader/Advisor it will alert you to invalid ISBNs. Google, Worldcat, and other uses of the source on wiki can usually suss-out the right isbn. The truncated isbn-13 issue is a fairly common mistake. The issue with the lists is fairly common, too. I fix a lot of such things in a lot of articles, and hope more would see them as simply a standard part of the process. Br&#39;er Rabbit (talk) 10:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

 * Thank you, but even the best articles can languish at FAC so the kudos for it passing quickly really goes to a bunch of reviewers performing the necessary checks and declaring their support in such good time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers to timely FA reviewers! TRLIJC19  ( talk  •  contribs ) 05:18, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Belated congratulations (not my fault!)

 * Tks Dan! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Metropolitan Railway/archive1
Hi Ian, do you think this is ready for closure? Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, done it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
 Ma &reg;&copy; usBr iti sh {chat} 20:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXVII, August 2012
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 Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 00:54, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

QF1, Bangkok
Hi Ian. You might be interested in contributing to Articles for deletion/Qantas Flight 1. Dolphin ( t ) 07:53, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

MilHist's awards and competitions in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Military History's various awards, competitions, and other ways of motivating contributors. 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, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. -Mabeenot (talk) 16:07, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

In honor of your service as a Milhist coordinator

 * Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:53, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Brian Eaton
May I nominate Brian Eaton, for a featured main page article?--Lucky102 (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Lucky, I appreciate you asking. Have to admit that I like to be around when article I've taken to FA goes through the TFA process so, as I'm on holiday and only infrequently checking in at WP, if you're able to hold off until say mid-October when I'm back, I'd prefer it. Not precious about it though, so if you just can't wait, I won't object -- maybe send me an email message if you do... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:07, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'll wait till October, and I do not have email enabled.--Lucky102 (talk) 07:10, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Military history coordinator election
The Military history WikiProject has started its 2012 project coordinator election process, where we will select a team of coordinators to organize the project over the coming year. If you would like to be considered as a candidate, please submit your nomination by 14 September. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact one of the current coordinators on their talk page. This message was delivered here because you are a member of the Military history WikiProject. – Military history coordinators (about the project • what coordinators do) 09:11, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

Coordinator election
Hi Ian, I hope that you're enjoying your trip to the US. As a quick reminder, the period for posting nomination statements for the coordinator election formally closes tomorrow (14 Sept). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)
 * G'day, Ian, I've taken the liberty of putting a placeholder nomination on the election page for you based on what you said in this diff: . If this was counter to your intention, please accept my apologies and feel free to revert. I hope the trip is going well. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:50, 14 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Many tks for the reminder, Nick, and for the placeholder, Rupert. I've now updated my nom, and feel very fortunate to have you guys watching my back while I bask in New York's balmy autumn weather... ;-)  Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:16, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: William S. Sadler
This is a note to let the main editors of William S. Sadler know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on September 12, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/September 12, 2012. 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:



William S. Sadler (1875–1969) was an American surgeon, psychiatrist and author who helped publish The Urantia Book, a document that resulted from his relationship with a man whom he believed to be channeling extraterrestrials and celestial beings. Mentored by John Harvey Kellogg, he became a doctor and practiced medicine in Chicago. Sadler and his wife were speakers on the Chautauqua adult education circuit in 1907. He became a highly paid, popular orator and wrote over 40 books on medical and spiritual topics, advocating a holistic approach to health. Sometime between 1906 and 1911, Sadler attempted to treat a patient who spoke to him in unusual voices while sleeping. Sadler spent years observing the sleeping man and eventually decided the man had no mental illness and that his words were genuine. The man's communications were eventually published in The Urantia Book, and the Urantia Foundation was created to assist Sadler in spreading the book's message. Although it never became the basis of an organized religion, the book attracted followers who devoted themselves to its study, and the Urantia movement continued after Sadler's death. (more...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations
In recognition of your election as a co-ordinator of the Military history project for the September 2012 to September 2013 period, please accept these co-ord stars. Thank you for standing again and I hope it will be a fruitful year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 04:59, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert -- he said, basking in the warm glow of a Waikiki sunrise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a classical music edit-a-thon Saturday week (13 October) in Sydney. The theme will be Music of France, to coincide with the ABC Classic FM countdown between 8-14 October. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online during the countdown. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/October 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

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

The Bugle: Issue LXXVIII, September 2012
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project and/or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Nick-D (talk) and Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Belated tks, Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:03, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Albert Ball article
The lead to this one seems to have crept out until it was pretty much a medium size article in its own right - which is not necessarily the function of a lead. In fact someone put in a template to that effect. I have "been bold" and cut the lead a bit. If you feel I have been either too gentle, too harsh, or that the lead was quite all right as it was, then by all means have a swing at it yourself. I am certainly not in the mood to enter any controversy over this one! --Soundofmusicals (talk) 15:42, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just returned from 6 weeks in the US and Canada so haven't been up to much on WP. I keep Ball on my watchlist to revert outright vandalism or misinformation but to be honest my heart isn't in the article anymore. We have or have had four strong-willed editors with quite different ideas on what's best for it, and that's at least two too many for things to run smoothly, IMHO. So for now at least I'm sidelining myself as far as Ball goes, much as I'd prefer not to following the work put into it, and the fact that I actually liked the guy the more I researched him. Appreciate you stopping by to discuss but at this stage I'll just leave you to do what you think is best. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I copyedited this one at A-class, and I'll be happy to have another look if it goes up at FAC. Btw, Ian, how was Hawaii? - Dank (push to talk) 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, warm and sunny on all our stops -- Oahu, Maui and the Big Island -- quite a bit like the DC we'd recently left... ;-) Took advantage of the weather by upgrading our rental cars to Mustang convertibles, one of my all-time favourites -- neat that after decades of models that bore no resemblance to the classic 60's styling, they're finally making one now that does justice to the marque. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:52, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I hope there are pix. - Dank (push to talk) 23:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Surplus EATS airmen in the UK in 1944 and 1945
Hi Ian, are you aware of any references which discuss this in greater detail? Herington has about half a dozen pages on the topic, but they're very dry and evade the question of what it is that these many thousands of airmen spent the last year of the war doing (I suspect that he deliberately skirted the topic as it was rather embarrassing to all concerned). The presence of thousands of essentially unemployed airmen in the UK in the closing months of the war is a fascinating topic. Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, don't know if any of this will help but here goes... David Evans takes aim at the Brits for not warning us in time to cut back on training so as to avoid surplus EATS aircrew, but his focus is mainly on what it was like here, not in the UK. You might still want to check his autobiography -- I reference the surplus, using Evans as source, in the last para of No. 8 Service Flying Training School RAAF. Also, in Henry Wrigley, AOC RAAF HQ London during and immediately after the war, I link to a long AWM interview transcript hosted on the 3SQN Association website -- you could see if he mentions anything there about the surplus. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:49, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for those suggestions Ian. I'm hoping that someone will one day write a history of the RAAF in Europe which is more up to date and accessible than Herington's rather dense volumes of the official history. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Bowie The Secret Life of Arabia
Hello Ian,

You were absolutely right to correct my edit. Buckley's comment shouldn't be excised on its own; all of them should go - it doesn't matter who any of these writers are, their aesthetic judgement comments are all just commentators' POV opinions (of no greater weight than yours, mine or anyone elses, though Buckley's is particularly ridiculous, let alone in a Wikipedia context) and therefore not encyclopedic in nature and therefore not Wikipedia compliant.

Even worse is the completely uncited statement above: "Like Bowie's 1971 song "Life on Mars?", it evoked a world where film and reality become merged and confused". Says who?? And indeed who cares, Wikipedia isn't the place for editors' potentially endless subjective comments.

The only quotes that would be acceptable (and of any interest) would be one's directly attributable to Bowie, Visconti, Eno etc i.e. the creators themselves. It would be extremely productive to seek any out. What the article needs is properly cited facts e.g. details of where recorded and on what dates, who the personel were etc etc.

In the meantime, all of these comments must go and hopefully be replaced by encylopedic content as and when it can be found. Better to have a short but acceptable stub than one filled out with non-Wikipedia acceptable POV padding.

Do you agree?

(Lewvalton (talk) 13:50, 21 October 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, no, I don't agree with your last absolute. Certainly uncited statements, like the "Life on Mars?" comparison should go, but I see no reason to lose comments by critics when there are none (that I'm aware of) by the creators. If you can find some in reliable sources, please add them -- these were all I could find among Buckley, Carr/Murray, and Pegg at the time I wrote most of this. In any case, however, there's no need for WP articles to be dry and devoid of opinion my recognised commentators. Of course if you want to raise this on the talk page and see if you gain support on your stance from other editors, feel free. I'll always abide by consensus, as I'm sure you will too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:20, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXIX, October 2012
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, Nick-D (talk) and Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Nice job with [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:EdwardsBot/Spam&diff=519496312&oldid=519485380 this] and messing up the book review link. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:43, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trying to make you feel better about the last time you messed it up, Ed -- obviously I succeeded... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:00, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Aw thanks pal, I couldn't ask for a better parting gift.. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 06:20, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Request to nominate additional article
May I nominate Muhammed Ali Jinnah (conom with Inlandmamba) in addition to present nominations? If not, I'll pull Isabella quarter, but as it already has a support, it seems like a waste.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Mmm, much as I'd like to see the Jinnah article at FAC, I'm not sure the way the instructions are worded allows for multiple co-noms in addition to a sole nom. Of course if my learned friend could point me to a precedent then that would make things simpler... ;-) I just can't think of a similar situation off-hand where a current nom wasn't close to completion. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * I've placed a note on the FAC for Isabella quarter asking that it be withdrawn. Please do so.  I will nominate Jinnah instead.--Wehwalt (talk) 14:15, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Now that I've seen the Jinnah FAC, and find that you're only one-third of the nomination team, I think the system can stand Isabella quarter staying put... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:19, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Ian, I understand that you took issue with Wehwalt's nom of Isabella quarter for FA? Seems this is following the form of the rules without the content; Wehwalt is easily one of our best writers and can handle the pressure of multiple nominations, especially because I think his other two both have co-nominators, BUT different people in each case, so it seems there is room for the "two max with co-noms" rule. I'd hope you'd reconsider this. WP:IAR when it benefits the encyclopedia as a whole. Montanabw (talk) 23:30, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I think the general one-nom-a-time rule is more designed to take the pressure off reviewers and delegates, not writers...! That said, I'm more into the spirit than the letter of the law myself, which is why I responded to Wehwalt as I did, not ruling anything out. In any case, I'm doing my weekly walk-through of all the outstanding noms, so will look at this when I get to it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Folding@home FAC
You may have noticed that I asked GrahamColm this, but is there anything else remaining on the Folding@home FA nomination that needs fixing? I'm just trying to finish it off and take care of any issues that remain. Not sure if Hekerui is done, but it seems like the whole article has been thoroughly examined. What are your thoughts on this? &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 01:12, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Jesse, looks like comments have effectively been addressed but pls note the housekeeping points I've just raised. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:43, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I saw them. I'll see what I can do about addressing them. Thanks. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 04:51, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Responded. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 05:05, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

On a related note, if you could please give your opinion on the Folding@home nomination in Today's featured article/requests, I'd sure appreciate it. :) &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 23:40, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Never mind, it was abruptly scheduled for November 1st. Anyway, I'm happy with that. :) &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 00:36, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The speed with which it was scheduled, I should think you would be! Anyway, tks for the barnstar, though as a delegate it was really just doing the job... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:22, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah it was there for an hour or so. Then all of a sudden, in the middle of our discussion everything disappeared! Ah well. Being the FA delegate is demanding in and of itself, and that deserves recognition. Plus you helped me out, and that was nice. &bull; Jesse V.(talk) 05:34, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:16, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Sydney edit-a-thon invitation
Hi there! You are cordially invited to a disability edit-a-thon Saturday week (10 November) in Sydney. If you are unable to attend in person, we will also be collaborating online before, during and after the meetup. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/November 2012. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 15:04, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

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

Dudley Clarke
Hi, you recently contributed to an A-Class review for Dudley Clarke (thanks!). I've just renominated it for FAR, if you have any further comments to help improve the article. Cheers! --Errant (chat!) 14:16, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Ian, are you going through the list at the moment? I don't want to tread on your toes. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 10:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

PS. It's November :-) Graham Colm (talk) 10:21, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, I did get distracted midway through the process -- my wife always tells me blokes can't do two things at once... ;-) Tks mate, I walked through most of the list this morning (Sydney time) and have eyed off a few for promotion or archiving, which I was going to continue in an hour or two. If you're keen, don't let me stop you, but if you've better things to do, relax and I'll get to them a bit later tonight... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll relax and let you get on with it. It'll be interesting to see if my list is similar to yours (not that anyone will know). All the best mate, and it is good to have you back. I hope you enjoyed your travels. Graham Colm (talk) 10:45, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Travels were great, tks -- and tks for holding the fort! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:40, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Early onset alzheimers?
Hi Ian! 1) Where's the Oz Milhist discussion page these days? 2) Because there are so many of them, and because I can never remember what they are, I've started a List of Australian military operations. Some of your colleagues may wish to do a better job of, and on, the page than I can. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:32, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi there. While old task force main pages (e.g. Australia, New Zealand and South Pacific military history task force) still exist, a decision was made some time ago to redirect all the task force talk pages to the main MilHist talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Which is the main MilHist talk page? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * WT:MILHIST Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 12:03, 5 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks Ed. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:44, 5 November 2012 (UTC)

Command in the South West Pacific Area
Ian, I created a Good Topic on Command in the South West Pacific Area nomination. It includes a number of RAAF articles that you wrote, including William Bostock, Harry Cobby, George Jones and Frederick Scherger, so I listed you as a co-contributor. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:41, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks mate -- I've watchlisted the nom so I can also respond to comments if need be. Well done, it's not a GT that had ever crossed my mind, but in retrospect was pretty well inevitable given our interest in those bios. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

FAC minutiae
Hi Ian. I've been back for a month or so and have started monitoring for and handling some of the administrative FAC stuff I used to process, like incomplete nominations, clearly premature noms, drivebys, and withdrawn FACs. I have been letting Graham know on his talk page when I've taken care of one of these, assuming you would see my notices there, but it occurs to me that it was rather rude not to mention it to you specifically, so here I am. Would you prefer if I not handle these sorts of things? Or perhaps I should ping you as well when I do? Let me know (I'll see a response here). Thanks. Maralia (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hullo stranger, I thought I recognised this name I was starting to see floating around FAC when I got back from my trip overseas last month. I remember your helpful reviews (and copyedits) from some of my FAC noms over the years. Welcome back! I'm happy for you to continue doing whatever administrative stuff you used to do at FAC, and no particular need to ping me when you do, I'll see things pop up on WP:FAC and the archived log. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:18, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Imagine" criticism
Your opinion came up here. If you can find the time, I would appreciate if you would weigh-in on this matter. Thanks and cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 03:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Will you please at least weigh-in on whether you think there is currently enough criticism in the article? ~ GabeMc  (talk 07:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to weigh-in, its much appreciated. Cheers! ~ GabeMc  (talk 02:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle
Hi Ian, I've just pinged Bomzibar‎ to check if he's still going to be provide an op-ed; if not I can complete this essay and post it. The reviews are done, and I'll fill out the recently promoted FACs later today or tomorrow. Would you be able to write the 'from the editors' section? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:25, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, can do. The essay looks very good, can I make a few suggestions or tweaks? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:53, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Please do! Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, just got a first draft of From the Editors done in time for Red Dwarf -- feel free to have at it... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, that looks great. I'm finished with the op-ed - I'd appreciate it if you could give it another once over for typos, etc, though. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great work, and the pics make it even more accessible... ;-) Okay, I think we're done -- who's despatching it?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:37, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Operation Barras
Hi Ian, the FAC for the above doesn't seem to be attracting much attention but I'm pretty confident the article meets the FA criteria. Do you have any suggestions for how I can attract another couple of reviews? Thanks, HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  16:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Harry, you could place some neutrally worded review requests on the pages of those who've looked at it at GA/A/PR (as applicable), similar to how ACDixon does it. At FAC though I like to see at least one review from outside of the relevant project, so if all the earlier reviewers have been primarily MilHist, you might try another project's talk page, e.g. WP:UK, or simply another editor who's not steeped in MilHist and can give it a decent general critique. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey Ian. I've just written British military intervention in the Sierra Leone Civil War and I'm just waiting for some more research material before I start nominating it for things. Like Operation Barras, it's almost entirely based on offline sources. Will I have the same faff with spotchecking when it makes its way to FAC? And if so, what can I do to reduce the hassle? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  11:58, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Heh, well if the editor is good and careful, I think spotchecks are more of a hassle for the "checker" than "checkee". Seriously though, they are a fact of life at FAC (and should be so, if perhaps a little less rigorously, at GAN and ACR also) and I think that's to the good. However FAC doesn't expect them to be applied to the same people over and over again if they have a solid record -- once Tim's done with Barras, assuming there's few if any issues re. accuracy or paraphrasing, I wouldn't be looking for another on one of your articles for at least six months, maybe a year. In Barras' case, we not only had a reviewer who specifically asked for one, but it was more than a year since your last -- not a common occurrence... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind the spotchecks—at worst, they're a minor hold-up and at best they keep me on my toes—but spot-checking offline sources (when the article is based almost entirely on them) seems to be a pain for everyone, and I was wondering if you had suggestions for making it easier on reviewers/delegates (and thus my quiet life) in future. How do other nominators handle such situations? HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  14:43, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry mate, guess I misunderstood the thrust of your query (I have been a bit under the weather the last few days)... ;-) Actually as both an editor and a delegate, I don't generally find people feel it's too much trouble dealing with offline-source spotchecks. In my experience there's usually someone who has at least a few of the necessary books either at home or in their local library (witness the speed with which Tim accomplished the Barras spotcheck). Where that isn't possible, I believe some nominators who own or otherwise have easy access to their book sources have asked the spotchecker to give them a few random page numbers they'd like to check, and then sent on scanned copies of those pages via email. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:57, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXX, November 2012
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) 01:22, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

In recognition of your continued excellent work

 * Tks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Big Two-Hearted River
Hi Ian, unfortunately for the second time I'll have to ask you to archive the FAC. My father died four days ago and I cannot, at this time, rework the page. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for your loss, TK. The non-essentials in life really pale into insignificance at a time like this.  FWIW, the FAC has only been open a couple of weeks, there's no hurry about it... Best, Ian Rose (talk) 13:30, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I need to take a break and have only been checking in because I had a FAC going. At this point, if it's not worthy of promotion, I don't see any sense in continuing the agony. Maybe I can bring it back some day, or maybe I'll leave it as it is. Truthkeeper (talk) 15:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Name change?
I wasn't aware that Sturm [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Contest&curid=10261194&diff=526116213&oldid=526115559 changed his name]. ;-) Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 03:46, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well I anglicise as well as abbreviate it -- actually we have a local critter called a stormbird... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:10, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney Opera House
You recently reverted an edit to Sydney Opera House with the edit summary "Rv uncited addition". That edit included the words "an interview, published in the Sydney Opera House Monthly Diary in June 1978", "a major interview to The Weekend Australian in December 1983", "Ava Hubble's book, More Than An Opera House (Lansdowne Press 1983)" and "Letters written by Utzon and his daughter... in the NSW State Library's Utzon collection", any or all of which may be reliable sources, so I have restored it. Please treat edits by new editors with more consideration, and work to improve, rather than remove, them. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Andy Mabbett left a similar note on my talk page. You may care to check out my response before writing one of your own. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 10:14, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks AL. AGF, it'd be nice to think that Andy didn't realise that three editors (admittedly only experienced ones!) had taken issue with the edits in question, and that you'd in fact asked the new editor to reconsider how he was going about his changes. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I did indeed take into account all the relevant edits, and all the experience, of all the editors involved; and stand by all my comments based thereon. I note that you do not address the removal and description of a cited addition as "uncited". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are guidelines for citing material, which require more than mentioning in passing a book or paper with no page numbers, or letters; further, I'm afraid it doesn't engender an impression of good faith to see the same person persistently making the same problematic changes, especially on a page that's a magnet for dubious edits. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no guidelines which justify your removal of content cited in the manner used in the case in question; much less doing so while describing it as "uncited". Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Come off your high horse, mate -- we've spent enough time on this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Your article about US Bases in South Korea
Hi there down under What's going on with your article? Why your co-author is gone ? What you think about Your content? Isn't it time to review and refresh, add some important things?

--Cosy-ch (talk) 15:27, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Cosy-ch. I'm afraid I don't remember working on such an article myself (or with anyone else) -- can you give me a link? Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Bismarck
I've semi-protected the page for a week. Hopefully that will force the IP editor to the talk page. Mjroots (talk) 08:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate. Not sure why this particular battleship above all others should attract the odd ones, it just does... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Pisco Sour
Thank you for the closing notes. I have been too busy with largely unexpected personal matters these past few weeks. I think two weeks is a good time for me to further improve the article and re-nominate it. Until then, best regards.-- MarshalN20 | T al k 15:31, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem -- good luck! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:17, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

James B, Conant
Ian, I would like a fiat to nominate James B. Conant for FAC. His 120th birthday is on 26 March 2013 and there hasn't been a chemist on the front page since... errr... Joseph Priestley in March 2008. Since I currently still have Stephen Colbert at FAC, I need a fiat to get the ball rolling. Hawkeye7 (talk) 17:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A fiat? Hell, have a ferrari! Okay, seriously, Colbert looked pretty close to promotion last time I checked so feel free to launch Conant... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Spotcheck of sources
Dear Ian. Thank you for your comments on the FAC review of Shunzhi Emperor. I've addressed them all except for the spotcheck of sources you requested. Because this is my first FAC review, I'm not sure how to proceed. Could you let me know how this is done so that I can satisfy your requirements? Thank you! Madalibi (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
 * A spotcheck is something carried out by a reviewer, and it could be one who's already commented on the article or someone new to it. Generally you don't have to do anything until someone else does the spotcheck and requests responses to any issues found. We have a section at the top of WT:FAC where we list such requests, although I don't generally list something there till about 24 hours after noting it on the FAC itself, to see if one of the current reviewers will pick it up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nomination
Thanks for the nomination for newcomer of the year. It is nice to know that one's efforts are noted - not that we do it for the recognition of course! Cheers. Zawed (talk) 00:34, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well of course we don't do it for the fame (only the money, right?)... ;-) Seriously, it's been great to see another dedicated military biographer (and occasional unit historian!) on the scene... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle
Hi Ian, this month's Bugle is just about good to go. Could you please add the awards to WikiProject Military history/News/December 2012/Project news, run your eye over my stuff and arrange for distribution? BTW, EyeSerene replied to my email a few days ago and would be happy to be interviewed, so that's a feature for the January edition taken care off (once we post the questions!). Regards (and Merry Christmas!) Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Good, tks mate. Have a happy and safe one... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Swami Vivekananda/archive1
Hi Ian, can you take charge of this please? Thanks. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:21, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Season's tidings!
To you and yours, Have a Merry ______ (fill in the blank) and Happy New Year! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 00:18, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Tks mate, you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert at the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner
Ian, you closed the review of this article five days ago, but the GimmeBot has not been through. Is there something more that needs to be done? Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks like it has now -- squeaky wheel...? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Not the first time I've been shot down at A-class
I'm not sure what section title to use for the shooting down of a passenger plane at WP:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825. Cliftonian likes "Shooting down and crash" and "Shootdown"; I replied there. - Dank (push to talk) 20:39, 22 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Responding at ACR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:55, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXXI, December 2012
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) 09:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Merry Christmas / Happy Holidays!

 * Heh, thanks mate, and the same to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

'Tis that season again...

 * Many thanks, Ed -- likewise! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:02, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Sydney meetup invitation: January 2013
Hi there! You are cordially invited to attend a meetup being held on Thursday 10 January 2013. Details an attendee list are at Meetup/Sydney/January 2013. Hope you can make it! John Vandenberg 09:42, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

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

Sydney Opera House
Your involvement at Talk:Sydney Opera House would be appreciated, as you have been mentioned in the discussion. --AussieLegend ( ✉ ) 15:09, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Bugle
G'day Ian, Dobroslav Jevđević must have just missed the cut for the A Class articles in the December Bugle. Will it get a run in the January one in lieu? Peacemaker67 (send... over) 07:43, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, in the Bugle we deliberately run a month 'in arrears' WRT awards, the monthly contest, and A/FA articles, i.e. articles promoted to A-Class in December will appear in January's issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:34, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Doh. Of course you do... (facepalm). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 13:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

 * Likewise, mate -- many tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 30 December 2012 (UTC)