User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jul-Dec 2015

Your GA nomination of Ragnar Garrett
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ragnar Garrett you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ragnar Garrett
The article Ragnar Garrett you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ragnar Garrett for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paterson Clarence Hughes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Paterson Clarence Hughes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 07:00, 2 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Passed now—well done indeed. A really fine piece of work that you should be very proud of. I hope my thoughts on the GA review page are helpful on the way to FAC. Cheers! —  Cliftonian   (talk)  02:30, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Very much so, many thanks John! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:16, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Paterson Clarence Hughes
The article Paterson Clarence Hughes you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Paterson Clarence Hughes for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Cliftonian -- Cliftonian (talk) 02:41, 3 July 2015 (UTC)

Bugle
Sorry I've been absent from the Bugle for a bit. It's been a rough few months. I'll see what I can do for this month, and try to catch up any MILHIST images missed in the interim. Adam Cuerden (talk) 12:12, 4 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Think nothing of it, we're all volunteers here. Generally Nick has been checking on the FPs for each month and I've put the galleries together as best I can based on your previous work. Be good to have you back though! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

ACR for Oslyabya
At long last, I've been able to respond to your comments on WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Russian battleship Oslyabya. Whenever you get a chance, I'd appreciate your thoughts as to how well they satisfy.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I did see this, will have another look when I get a chance. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library needs you!
We hope The Wikipedia Library has been a useful resource for your work. TWL is expanding rapidly and we need your help!

With only a couple hours per week, you can make a big difference for sharing knowledge. Please sign up and help us in one of these ways: Sign up now Send on behalf of The Wikipedia Library using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:31, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Account coordinators: help distribute free research access
 * Partner coordinators: seek new donations from partners
 * Communications coordinators: share updates in blogs, social media, newsletters and notices
 * Technical coordinators: advise on building tools to support the library's work
 * Outreach coordinators: connect to university libraries, archives, and other GLAMs
 * Research coordinators: run reference services

Your GA nomination of Reg Pollard (general)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Reg Pollard (general) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 09:20, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

April–June 2015 MilHist reviewing award

 * Tks Nikki! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:01, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Reg Pollard (general)
The article Reg Pollard (general) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Reg Pollard (general) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

reviewing, etc.
Hi Ian, I've been plodding away on the assessment backlogs. Have kept the unassigned (TF) articles under control, and do a few hundred of the unassessed articles every week. auntieruth (talk) 18:14, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Ruth, sounds like you could use some assistance! Perhaps Nick and I could mention something in the next Bugle... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * that would be good! :) some of the unassessed articles have been there since 2012.  auntieruth (talk) 18:29, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * and I can do what I did today (about 80-100 articles) and when I come on tomorrow or Monday, there will be 80 more added to the list. auntieruth (talk)

DVA website -- orders of battle
you might already be familiar with it but I just found this useful site for establishment/disbandment dates of army and air force units while I was searching for the disbandment date of HQ RAAF North-Western Area (which wasn't explicit from the formation's ops book digitised at NAA). Nick, it looks like similar material to that monograph of units you found at AWM but this is conveniently online. Admittedly I've found a typo or two in the RAAF list but it still seems a helpful resource. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:23, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ian, I take it that you're referring to this? It does look really useful - I hadn't seen it before. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Heh, yes -- sorry, got distracted when posting and forgot the link... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Actually I haven't seen this before either, thanks for that - it could come in handy. Anotherclown (talk) 10:50, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that link, Ian, I also wasn't aware of it! Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 20:13, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

 * All part of the FAC coord service, but thank you for the thought and congratulations on your achievement. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:08, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Central Area Command (RAAF)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Central Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Question regarding featured article process
Hi there,

I'm hoping for a little bit of advice - I've done a fair bit of work over the years on 24 (TV series) and I'd like to nominate it for featured status. I'm aware that people should go through a peer review first, however the first one I filed a few years back didn't get any feedback, and the one I've opened recently still has none. In the past, I nominated a different article for FA, but I'm conscious of the fact that I might get yelled at/ripped to shreds for nominating right away to seek feedback. Can you give any suggestions on how I might be able to approach this? Steven  Zhang  Help resolve disputes!  06:42, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Steven, first of all, I'd hope you wouldn't get yelled at for nominating in good faith an article at FAC! I think you're doing the right thing going to peer review first though. It's true it can be frustrating waiting for comments but as it was only opened a little while ago I'd give it some more time. Have you advertised the peer review at related project talk pages?  Failing that you could check recent TV show FACs or PRs and perhaps ping a few of the reviewers at those (let me know if you need help locating the FAC reviews).  I could look at it myself but as I don't do much in the way of media article reviews I could really only offer points on style/expression.  One thing though, just scanning the article it appeared there were one or two paragraphs (e.g. one under Design) that did not end in citations, and that's a must at FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Paterson Clarence Hughes
Thank you for helping create Wikipedia Victuallers (talk) 00:01, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Gateway Protection Programme FAC
Hi Ian. I saw that you archived Featured article candidates/Gateway Protection Programme/archive2. I haven't had this happen before (I'm inexperienced at FACs in general). No one had posted any objections to the article being promoted, and I had resolved the minor issues that had been raised. Is there anything else I could have done/can still do to improve the article's prospects of promotion, or did it just fail due to lack of interest on the part of reviewers, and that's that? Cordless Larry (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Larry. First of all, nothing's "that's that" in FAC... :-) Consensus to promote, which would involve a few more reviewers commenting and supporting, plus image licensing and source checks, didn't occur this time but could well in a future nomination. I notice you recently put it up for Peer Review, which is something I generally advise before FAC, but unfortunately had no takers. If you go there again, or re-nominate at FAC (which you can after two weeks if you wish) then you could leave neutrally worded requests for comment at related WikiProject talk pages, or selected editors' talk pages if you think they might be interested (including those who previously commented at GAN or FAC). Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:23, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Ian, and for answering my next question, which was what I can do next. I'll do as you suggest and re-nominate it again in a few weeks. I found the peer review experience frustrating as I approach a few regular peer reviewers to ask if they would review the article, but they were either too busy or didn't reply. I'll try to be a bit more active in recruiting people to comment on the next FAC. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hello again Ian. Thanks for your advice before. Can I ask for your opinion on the current FA candidate discussion? Do you think that there has been enough discussion to avoid a closure without consensus this time? If not, do you recommend that I try to request input from more editors? Cordless Larry (talk) 23:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your help and advice with this, Ian. It's good to see the article finally make FA status. Cordless Larry (talk) 11:38, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Central Area Command (RAAF)
The article Central Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Central Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Adolph Galland
Hello Ian You reverted an edit or two I made here, but invited me to open a discussion on the matter if I wished. I have done, here, if you wish to comment further. Happy editing, Xyl 54 (talk) 20:41, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for opening that discussion, have replied there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:57, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

FA criteria
Hi Ian. I am peer reviewing Palmyra and the list of rulers is mainly red links. Am I correct in thinking that this is not a problem for FA approval? Dudley Miles (talk) 09:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley, I don't recall redlinks ever having prevented promotion, do you Andy or Graham? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * No, they haven't. But if editors have the time to create stubs, this can be useful. Graham Beards (talk) 15:00, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I've seen the odd objection if the sea of red creates readability problems, but it's never been a major issue. -- Laser brain  (talk)  15:44, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all. Attar-Aram syria please see. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:54, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks to all and specially to you Dudley Miles. I will try to create few stubs for some of those rulers.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 20:05, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

Medals
I was actually just getting around to linking medal ribbons to their articles like so:

Would the inclusion of ribbon/bars in the infobox with such linking be satisfactory? Seeing them, and having a link, is useful IMHO. Plus, with the link below to all decorations, one can find out quite easily.

 Spartan 7W  §  00:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. Speaking as someone who's been involved in the Military History project for a long time, I can tell you that the issue of medal ribbons is a vexed one!  My own opinion, which from past discussion on the MilHist talk page I know several editors share, is that we should minimise or eliminate their use in all bios.  OTOH I know that many US military bios display medal ribbons, though you generally find them in a section towards the end of the article, rather than in the infobox. Unfortunately we don't exactly have a policy on it because no discussion in the past has resulted in a clear consensus. I think it's fair to say that we've generally agreed that consensus should be determined on a case-by-case basis.  Patton and MacArthur went through several reviews, including Featured Article Candidature, and emerged without medal ribbons in the infobox or elsewhere in the article, and I think that should be respected. If you wanted to pursue, I'd suggest opening a talk page discussion in the MacArthur article, as that would probably attract even more comment than the Patton talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:58, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response. I can understand why the issue would be of such contention. I do think putting ribbons in the info box, even if just for the purpose of saving space is useful. I think I'll open up a discussion and get ready for the flak. I think the collapsible lists are very prudent, because MacArthur's infobox went on for miles before. I did the same treatment + medals to Omar Bradley, with the medals linking to their respective articles; I'd ask you not revert it, as I could show an example of the usage I propose in practice (Josef Stalin is so organized as well).  Spartan 7W  §  01:53, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * That sounds fine. As you would've gathered, I had no issue with the collapsible lists, only the icons. Anyway, Bradley is not on my watchlist (I'm assuming he hasn't been to MilHist A-Class Review or FAC) and I don't make a habit of seeking out articles from which to remove medal icons, just as I prefer others not to make a habit of adding medal icons to every article they find.  Let's see what discussion throws up... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks! I have to admit I'm a bit dubious about those redlinks though: I was planning to just redirect Nos. 1 and 2 Groups to Southern and Central Areas because I don't think there's much to say on them apart from what's already in the relevant area command articles. Similarly there seems to be little enough on the Training and Maintenance Groups, or on Maintenance Command, apart from establishment and disbandment dates (and not all of them either). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:18, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I don't fully understand. Are you saying there is not much data to add, or the data is not available? Personally I would like to see, at the minimum, fully referenced establishment and disbandment dates, higher HQs, commanders, at least one listing of units per command/group. Further down the track, activities, notable events, etc could be on the list for adding. Now I fully understand that much of this information may not be currently web-accessible. It's in the RAAF history office files, or central RAAF files. Australian National Archives may not have all of this data yet. But it's all very relevant and real: eg Maintenance Command IAF, not to mention RAF Maintenance Command etc. Australia is doing far better than the UK in going through and creating the inactive support groups and commands of the RAF/RAAF, but we shouldn't stop without the job being finished!! Buckshot06 (talk) 00:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure, it would be good to put together articles on all groups and commands, and I'd like to see that some time, but digital doco from the NAA seems to be lacking for all but No. 5 Maint Group, and I'd hope to do them both more-or-less simultaneously so I was going to wait for them to digitise No. 4 Group as well. Similarly there's naught I've found on the "extant Maintenance Group" or the Maint Command it became. Likewise in secondary sources, no doubt because the area commands were primarily operational and that's sexier for the historian... ;-) I'm just one who prefers to leave creating new articles until they can provide a decent picture, rather than stubs that might or might not get built up over time. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

 * Thanks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXII, July 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western Area Command (RAAF)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Western Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Hey from Ling

 * Hey. This is Ling.Nut. Back for a while, maybe. &bull; Lingzhi&diams;(talk) 06:15, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, hello again! Yes, for a long while I hope... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:17, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Western Area Command (RAAF)
The article Western Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Western Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 10:21, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
GregJackP  Boomer!   19:54, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southern Area Command (RAAF)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Southern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 21:41, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Southern Area Command (RAAF)
The article Southern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Southern Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 22:21, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MWSTWG1.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:MWSTWG1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:32, 26 July 2015 (UTC)

Tank Girl FAC
Hi Ian. As you've noticed, I currently have Tank Girl (film) nominated for FAC, and it's making its way toward the end of the older nominations list. I currently have two editors supporting it, and four other editors have brought up points that I have all addressed (or at least attempted to without them objecting to anything). At this stage, what are my chances of having the nomination approved? I ask as unfortunately i'm almost certainly going to be taking a long involuntary break from editing starting in early September, and i'd like this article to be approved before that happens, as this will probably be my last FAC for a long time. Freikorp (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, if the article didn't have sufficient support for promotion by early September then I think we'd have archived it anyway. It looks like you've had your image and source reviews, and a fair few eyes on it, so for now let's just see how the uncommitted reviewers respond to your actioning their comments. If none do in spite of your pings, you might try one or two other regular film FAC reviewers, or we could put in the FAC urgents list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Chetro Ketl spot check
Hello, Ian. It looks like all we need at Featured article candidates/Chetro Ketl/archive1 is a spot check. Which editors are considered particularly good at this? I'm not having much success recruiting random people for the job, so I wanted to see if there are any that you would recommend I contact directly. Thanks. RO (talk) 22:20, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I know you've left a message for Andy but he's been busy, so I hope Nikki won't mind me mentioning her as another possibility... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * She's been extremely helpful to me on several occasions, and she's already done the IR there, but I asked her at her page: . How many people are qualified to do this around here, because it's slightly frustrating to get to this point after 5 months of work only to stall for a lack of someone to do a spot check? Ever thought of designating a few folks as FAC spot checkers/source reviewers? RO (talk)  16:02, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * This is a volunteer project, people designate themselves... ;-) In theory almost anyone can spotcheck some references as practically every article uses web-based sources, or books with Google/Amazon preview, to a greater or lesser extent. So someone who's already reviewed the article, especially if they have knowledge of the subject, is a fair bet. Tim Riley has been invaluable because he often gets print books from the library to spotcheck, but this of course takes time and I'm not sure is necessary in this case because representative sources are online -- perhaps he could simply use web-available sources to expedite things. Casliber has also been doing some spotchecks lately. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Ian. As everyone knows, Tim riley is an exceptionally helpful Wikipedian, but I also worry about taxing his services too heavily. RO (talk)  23:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian. I noticed you promoted a few articles today. Is there anything else that needs to be done for the Chetro Ketl FAC? RO (talk)  17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Once Nikki is happy to sign off on the spotcheck, no there isn't. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:40, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Nikki has signed off on the spotcheck ! RO (talk)  15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Noted, I will probably take another walk through the list in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:11, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Reg Pollard (general)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:31, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

New nomination
Mary Margaret O'Reilly seems to be awaiting promotion unless I'm missing something. I'd like to move ahead with Warren G. Harding, if it's OK. Thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:13, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Wehwalt, sounds fair but since I've recused myself from coord duties to review/support this one I think I should let Andy or Graham make the call... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:20, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks I had forgotten you had reviewed the article.--Wehwalt (talk) 02:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RAAF area commands, Southern Area Command (RAAF), Central Area Command (RAAF)
Hello! Your submission of RAAF area commands, Southern Area Command (RAAF), Central Area Command (RAAF) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:27, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF area commands
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAAF area commands you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 22:01, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of North-Western Area Command (RAAF)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article North-Western Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF area commands
The article RAAF area commands you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAAF area commands for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 00:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1
Thanks for your review of Sieges of Taunton at A-class review. I've now listed the article at Featured article candidates/Sieges of Taunton/archive1 as a Featured article candidate. If you had any more critical comments, then your further input would be more than welcome. Harrias talk 14:44, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of North-Western Area Command (RAAF)
The article North-Western Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:North-Western Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 08:21, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for RAAF area commands
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Southern Area Command (RAAF)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Central Area Command (RAAF)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:42, 4 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Congratulations on your hat trick Ian! Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank Nick! I'm getting quite keen on combos, first the DYK for Fighter and Seaplane Squadrons, then this, and I'm now getting even more ambitious -- we'll just have to see how this last one goes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:02, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/August 24, 2015
Ian, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I'll get to work on it tomorrow. - Dank (push to talk) 03:08, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan, but maybe check this (which refers to this) beforehand...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:12, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay, nevermind! - Dank (push to talk) 13:53, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Request
Hello Ian,

I'm doing a collaboration with Wehwalt on the Kurt Vonnegut article (currently at peer review). The article is about done, and once the peer review is over, I would like to move to FAC as soon as possible. Meanwhile, though, I have an FAC over here (also a collaboration). I would like to ask if I could get an exception to the "one FAC per person" rule. Thank you, --ceradon ( talk •  edits ) 08:55, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi there. The rule is that you can only be the nominator of one solo FAC at a time, so co-nominator of two simultaneously (or solo nom of one and co-nom of another, as I think Wehwalt will be now) is fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:43, 7 August 2015 (UTC)

Money Inc. FAC
Yes, it had been open for a long time, but it spent most of that time with no comments. Why the rush to close it after it was fine sitting with no comments for weeks? I nominated it when I had plenty of time to work on it, and then a family vacation and the death of one of the most notable people covered by the project under which I edit took me away, but I made it clear that I had every intention of getting to work on the article when I had a few uninterrupted hours. Now you want me to wait and nominate it again just for it to sit without comments for weeks again? With the vast majority of concerns struck and/or dealt with, how can you say it wasn't moving toward consensus to promote? GaryColemanFan (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm very sorry for your circumstances but it's never been the convention at FAC to leave nominations open indefinitely, and the month-and-a-half mark is a fairly common one for us to take stock and make a call on whether consensus to promote is imminent. Although resolving comments is a vital part of the process, you also need several people to declare their support for promotion after comprehensive reviews, and that hadn't occurred, nor did it seem likely in the near future. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 07:08, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Thunderbirds (TV series)/archive1
I noticed your closure of Featured article candidates/Graduados/archive2 and am aware that time is running out on this nomination. Based on your 1.5-month typical timescale, would it be correct to assume that if activity does not resume within a week or so, the page will be archived?  Super Mario  Man  ( talk ) 07:29, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominations have survived past this sort of mark if promotion still seems reasonably likely, plus we don't generally archive nominations while they've waiting on source checks, so let's see how we go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1
Hi. I noticed you promoted several nominations this morning with either four or five supports. My nomination has four supports and has been open longer than some of the ones you just promoted. — Calvin999 09:15, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * It's not just about the number of supports -- aside from some suggestions that the prose has got more problematic, I've seen no image or source reviews. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Where is a suggestion that prose has got more problematic? If you're referring to Graham's comment, that was weeks ago and no longer exists in the article. — Calvin999  09:40, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well that wasn't clear, but the image and source reviews are required regardless. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:44, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I know, it's not. The editor hasn't returned to address it, but it has been changed. — Calvin999  09:45, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured articles
Why you adds not featured article here? --Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 11:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll bite -- what leads you to believe they're not featured? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:20, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Михаил Марчук, pls stop interfering with the FAC process -- read the FAC instructions if you don't understand. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:26, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

You know better, I'm sorry for the prosecution in vandalism. --Mr. Vladimirovic (talk) 11:33, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Uaat Vandalism
Hi, I notice this user user:Uaat always engage in lot of edit war. also Vandalism some article about Taiwan/Republic of China, please stop this guys, thanks. Цзинго (talk) 11:30, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

A question about where to place informaton
Hello Ian. Battle of Malvern Hill is at FAC, and there are quotes about the fact that all Confederate had so many stragglers (tired after six days of battle and marching) that some units were perhaps half strength. Since it applies to all infantry units, and applies to the situation before and during the actual battle, where would be the best place in the article text to place that info? Tks &bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:16, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Ling, I have to admit battle articles aren't really my thing (more military bios and unit histories) but my first thought would be in a 'before the battle' or 'preparations' section -- i.e. I'd tend to mention it the first time it was applicable and then perhaps say that it remained the case for the duration, to avoid repeating the info later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:26, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Tks! &bull; Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

U.S. v. Kagama FAC
Per our discussion a couple of weeks ago, I renominated the article for FAC. I also hated off the procedural discussion, if I was wrong to do so, let me know and I'll self-revert, or feel free to do it yourself if you prefer that. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   03:09, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No I think's fine how you've done it. I mean we could have deleted the page and started again but I think it's okay this way. Tks for your patience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Western Area Command (RAAF)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 04:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hastings Line FAC
Have you considered that the issue of sources and licencing of images being almost unraised by the reviewers is because there is not problem with either? The one source that was questioned is only being used for a very minor point, and I have stated the provenance of that source. Other than that, there seems consensus to promote the article now. Mjroots (talk) 18:03, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * That's not the way it works, every article is expected to undergo dedicated image and source reviews before promotion, yours is no different. You can add a request for these at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * An image review has been done, which raised an issue that had previously been brought up. I've responded to the query about the issue, but had no feedback as to whether or not the response is accepted or if any further action needs to be taken re the issue raised. What happens now? Mjroots (talk) 05:00, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * If you've already tired pinging the reviewer then we may need another to double-check given there's still a question there -- perhaps ? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Looks like Mjroots is not pleased with my reading of the copyright position of the images. I suspect there may be a request for a third opinion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:16, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * and : Speaking only for myself as a coordinator, I would consider this an outstanding issue and an impediment to promotion. It needs to be resolved one way or another (i.e. demonstration that we can use the images or removal of the images). It would be best to move further discussion to the nomination page. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:27, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * The issue will be resolved one way or another. The images have been nominated for deletion at Commons. A move which, if successful, will not preclude their use in the article. They are too important not to have there. Mjroots (talk) 16:33, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Sigh. Mj, did you read my comment on my talk page? The second one? Hosting some of these tickets on the English Wikipedia would probably be acceptable. Like File:Selsdon Road station platform ticket.jpg would definitely not pass the threshold of originality in the US. In the UK, almost certainly. But not in the US. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:39, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

What is still missing for promotion?
Once Nikkimaria finishes her magic, what else needs to happen for American Pharoah to be promoted at its FAC? This seems to be one of the quietest ones I've ever put up. Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 19:57, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Probably not much, I daresay one of the coords will be walking through the list in the next day or so -- FAC doesn't set its watch by the WikiCup, remember... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:38, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
 * True, but I've had it up for over a month now... OK, 32 days, but still...  ;-)   Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  05:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Nikkimaria sprinkled her magic pixie dust over the article and blessed it... Montanabw <sup style="color:purple;">(talk) 20:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Signpost entry
If you are online... would you like to write up the Squadron RAAF  entry for  this? We have to publish soon and still about 8 entries are unwritten, t wenty-eight Featured pictures, four Featured lists and fourteen Featured articles were promoted this week. That's a bit much. You MAY be funny, if you wish. Hafspajen (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I see there's a blurb there but I'd be happy to tweak it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:14, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Q on FAC
If a nom is successful and an article is promoted, does the nominator have to wait two weeks like he or she does when the article is not promoted? I read the procedure, but it's not clear to me. Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   08:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Greg, you can nominate a new article for FAC as soon as the last one is promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, GregJackP   Boomer!   17:53, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Area Command (RAAF)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Eastern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 06:21, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Eastern Area Command (RAAF)
The article Eastern Area Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Eastern Area Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 00:21, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

Source check
Hey Ian, can you clear the image/source check requests box at the FAC talk page and make a request if a source check is needed on Kill 'Em All? Have a nice day.--Retrohead (talk) 08:19, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Believe this has been actioned. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIII, August 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 22 August 2015 (UTC)

Featured article candidates/Man Down (song)/archive1
"I'm sorry but, again, it is not about numbers." Then what is the bloody point of having this support/oppose system? No consensus? It had 5 supports for the most part of the duration of the nomination. What a sheer waste of not only my time but of those who supported and copyedited. Delegates shouldn't get involved in commenting on nominations because you clearly felt compelled to side with Laser brain as to not go against him. A peer review will be of no helped what-so-ever. As I kept stating, but people kept conveniently ignoring, is that it's already gone through GOCE and been copyedited by Wikipedian Penguin and had input from an FLC delegate. Neither Efe nor Laserbrain, or even you in your closing summary for that matter Ian, have even told me what is "wrong" apart from saying "It's not FA standard". How am I supposed to assume good faith with the opposes when Efe hasn't even edited since December 2014 and comes back purely to comment on and oppose my nomination? Great, that's such a help to me. The bias presented in the FAC process is unbelievable. Meanwhile, others somehow manage to get four articles speedily promoted in the same time that my nomination has been open. This is the kind of experience that pushes me to think what even is the point of staying on Wikipedia because people don't even care. Completely reiterates my point I made a week ago on the nomination that neither Laser brain, Efe nor you have said one single thing that is positive or constructive about the article. — <b style="color:#595454">Calvin999</b> 10:24, 23 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid there's little more I can add to what I've said in my comments at the review in question. The result has nothing to do with you personally, if it was another review in the same situation I'd expect to archive it as well. Needless to say I reject the suggestion that I was influenced by Laserbrain because he is a coordinator.  He became a coordinator because those members of the FAC community who participated in his selection judged him to be highly experienced in the FAC process, and that experience is one of the reasons that his review -- and not his alone, in any case -- carries weight, rather than because of the hat he wears when he hasn't recused himself from the coord role.  I realise the result is disappointing but unless you can change your attitude I doubt there'll be any value in continuing the conversation after this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for North-Western Area Command (RAAF)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:35, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

User talk:Kierzek
Does this discussion ring any bells in you? Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 09:32, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I feel it should, but I'm afraid not... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:58, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries, Nick-D can me a link that could prove quite useful. I'll get back to you when (or if) I know more. Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 14:17, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Withdraw FAC
Hello, Ian. Per this comment: I would like to have the FAC archived. Thanks. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk) 15:18, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Will do. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:24, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Squeamish Ossifrage and I are now collaborating the Perovskia atriplicifolia article, do we have to wait the full two weeks before re-noming if it doesn't take us that long to finish? RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  23:26, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, we generally only waive the two-week rule when there's been little or no feedback for a nom, and I don't think that was the case with this article, so I'd prefer we stick it with even if you have a collaborator... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, no worries. RO <sup style="color:blue;">(talk)  15:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations

 * Many thanks MB! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Eastern Area Command (RAAF)
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 10:11, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

FAC guidance
Hi ! I wanted to seek your guidance on how best to navigate the Featured Article process. My nomination for Romney Literary Society is only my second nomination at FAC, and it has been lingering on the vine for awhile with two reviews, despite my reviews of several other FA candidates and seeking outside guidance from other editors, which have garnered no responses. Users are very selective as to which and whose articles they review. Do you have any suggestions or tips on how to proceed? Any information you could provide would be helpful. -- West Virginian   (talk)  17:21, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, Ian is currently travelling and might not be able to respond quickly. One option would be to post at WT:FAC and on the talk pages of relevant Wikiprojects. You could also directly approach editors with an interest in this kind of topic to review the article, but take care to word these posts neutrally. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Nick-D, will do! Thanks for the suggestion. -- West Virginian   (talk)  12:20, 5 September 2015 (UTC)

Signpost inquiry
Hi, Ian. I emailed you. Tony  (talk)  10:31, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIV, September 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:09, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/October 6, 2015
Hey, Ian, you're up on 6 Oct, I'll get to it in a minute. - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Is "He led the Reserve as a group captain" clear enough? I generally try to avoid acronyms (at TFA only) unless the text is unclear without them. - Dank (push to talk) 19:37, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi mate, the various reserve forces are usually distinguished according to service so prefer not to just say "Reserve", but if you want to avoid the acronym it should be fine to say "Air Force Reserve". Tks as always for your great work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that makes me feel good. - Dank (push to talk) 22:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for another personality! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:48, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history coordinator election
Greetings from WikiProject Military history! As a member of the project, you are invited to take part in our annual project coordinator election. If you wish to cast a vote, please do so on the election page by 23:59 (UTC) on 29 September. Yours, Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Q
Hi, Ian! I've a FAC on my hands, ununseptium, and I've got a question regarding the whole process. How long does it last? I've heard that the rule of thumb is "around a month, but it depends on how it goes"... is it so? if so, what does it depend on? Ununseptium was a FAC quite recently, and you closed the FAC after six weeks, saying it was too long to keep waiting (I guess it's some kind of FAC internal regulations, so no complaining here).

After the current nom has become almost a month old, I've spammed around WP:Physics members who were still active and could possibly help review the thing. For now, I've got one reply that said, "I'll take a look when I have a chance," and maybe there are a few similar replies to follow. So, in case what we have now isn't enough (maybe you'll say, "we can count this is enough"), is there a way to get some extra time? I wouldn't want to lose the current reception, and keep getting small separate amounts of support within the established terms, which could make enough combined but not by themselves.--R8R (talk) 16:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Ian is traveling currently, so I'll answer your question. In the current FAC climate, we usually leave things open for at least 3-4 weeks unless their is substantive opposition and/or it's not sufficiently prepared, in which case we may archive it sooner. If it's getting to be 3-4 weeks, we start considering archiving it. If it looks like the nomination has stalled (i.e. no feedback coming in for days or weeks), or if it has attracted little or no support for promotion, it is usually going to get archived. We might give it more time if feedback is still coming in, or if it's 95% there and minor issues are being worked out. If the backlog becomes overwhelming, we may get a bit more proactive in archiving things, but that hasn't been too much of an issue lately. Of course, your situation is trickier because you failed to add your nomination to the list (where everyone can see it) until it had been around for more than a month. Hope this helps. -- Laser brain  (talk)  16:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Aha, I get it in general, thanks. Considering the current situation (a saddest mistake of mine, never made it before), is there a way for me to stand a chance now? If so, what can I do to help it?--R8R (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2015 (UTC)

Query
Do you think it might be alright to close Featured article candidates/R U Professional/archive1 ?

It seems to have garnered sufficient unanimous Support -- and I'd like to focus on other Featured quality improvement drives.

Thank you for all you do in this area,

&mdash; Cirt (talk) 13:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Done by Graham Beards. Thanks very much for your services to Wikipedia, &mdash; Cirt (talk) 20:55, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXV, October 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Bar to the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

 * Thoroughly deserved, Ian. Thanks for your contributions. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:45, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, sorry I missed this one. Well done Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 22:30, 26 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks guys, much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:11, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

File:Bluealbum.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Bluealbum.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:19, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVI, November 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:26, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/December 10, 2015
Nicky Barr is headed to TFA, working on this one now. I haven't heard about your trip; how was it? - Dank (push to talk) 03:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan, I've checked the links and updated URLs/formatting accordingly, plus added one word to blurb. Trip was a blast -- did so much we need a holiday now! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:26, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As a suggestion, could the date when Barr escaped be added to the blurb? This might not be doable though given that there seems to have been a while between his final(!) escape and him reaching Allied territory. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Nick/Dan, yes he escaped several times between 1942 and 1944, which might be too much detail, but perhaps we could put a boundary of sorts in by adding "in 1944" after "Repatriated to England..."? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:30, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you Gerda, and thank you on behalf of all the TFA authors you acknowledge in this way. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * It's a little bit I can do to help focusing on content. I don't know if you noticed my questions to the arb candidates. I am pleased with the answers and the results, so hopefully the ratio between "discussion about a debatable violation of a restriction" and "article writing" will improve next year. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

FAC
Hi Ian, I won't have any free time for FAC this weekend. Will you have time to run through the list? Best wishes. Graham Beards (talk) 06:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sure Graham -- you closed several I had on my shortlist during the week so that lightens the load... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Palmyra fac
Hello, the article of Palmyra received a new review. The editor opposed and demanded a prose review !. This article was already copy edited by the copy-edit guild. It was also read thoroughly by the editors who reviewed it : Jonbod, Al-Ameer son and Dudley Miles (in his peer review). Is this really logical to ask for a fourth review ? isnt there a point where enough is enough ? How many times should this text be reviewed when the majority of the people who read it declared it very well written ?

This sound like just an attempt to find something wrong. The editor want a prose review (for the fourth time) but didnt offer to do the review and I already did one, so did 3 other editors. It just seems like a contribution for the sake of contribution.

Is this a reason to keep the article from being promoted ?? Can I go to an article and oppose it for this reason when it is in its final stages and already thoroughly reviewed ?. Can this editor just demand a prose review and oppose and go ? Because not many more editors will do a prose review for Palmyra since already 4 guys did it.--Attar-Aram syria (talk) 19:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I don't have time to look into this now but will try to do so during the week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:31, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Live and let die
Hi, I was going to put in a positive review from Empire magazine, do you object?Atlantic306 (talk) 13:34, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, it looked to me that the IP (which I guess was you but not logged in) had abandoned their planned changes so it was better to revert to the previous clean version of the article. I have no objection to further reviews being added as log as they're cited properly. Also I would recommended not editorialising by saying this review was "favourable" and that review was "unfavourable", but rather let the words of the review speak for themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks ,i've got the citation,,yes it was me due to losing connection.Iwas going to put quote under rotten tomatoes as its positive as well .I'll leave out favourable although it is quite common practiceI'm not very quick so it will take at least ten minutes.If you object to it can you message me first so it can be amended thanksAtlantic306 (talk) 13:56, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai
Hello Ian Rose, I believe the edition was right to link the date of an event. Cheers. JorGol2015 (talk) 20:14, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, that used to be common, but has been greatly discouraged over the last few years. Please see WP:DATELINK and MOS:UNLINKDATES. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:41, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Season's Greetings
To You and Yours! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

 * Thanks Bzuk, Gavin and John for your kind wishes, and the very best of the festive season to you and yours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

It's that season again...

 * Thank you Ealdgyth, and the best to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:19, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year 2015

 * Congratulations, Ian. Hope you are having a restful and enjoyable Christmas/New Year. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:49, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Rupert, but 'tis I who should be congratulating you on another fine effort and well-deserved Golden Wiki... Best of the festive season to you and your family! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVII, December 2015
The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here. If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 05:06, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year!
Warmest Wishes for Health, Wealth and Wisdom through the Holidays and the Coming Year! Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 12:43, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks Lingzhi, and to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Today's featured article/January 13, 2016
Ian, I'll get to this one right away. - Dank (push to talk) 18:55, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Tks Dan. I think it needed more emphasis on reorgs/renames and less on other details so hacked into it myself and we're left with 1230B of what I think is the right sort of info in this case -- see what you think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:48, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Almost all the TFAs are around 1150 chars these days; a few are shorter. Thanks for the work, but keep pruning. - Dank (push to talk) 23:54, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I thought they'd been some discussion about increasing the limit a bit over 1200 but perhaps I got it wrong -- is 1200 still the absolute if 1150 proves difficult? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:57, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Per the first section at WT:TFA, 1200 is the max. Per discussions at WT:MAIN about the value of not screwing around with the lengths of other columns, I have kept it under 1170. Doing 1200 once is probably a non-issue; if others start insisting on 1200, that will be a problem. - Dank (push to talk) 01:24, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Got it -- 1151B now. Pls feel free to change expression but the content should remain I think. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 02:25, 28 December 2015 (UTC)