User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2013

Infobox question

Hi Ian, A very happy new year to you and I hope you have had a very plesant and relaxing Christmas. I have a quick question on military infoboxes, specifically on Operation Golden Eye, which I'm just updating slightly. I had planned to use an infobox there, but not sure if there is an appropriate one, or even if one is needed or desirable on such an article. I've had a skim over the various other milhist articles for operations and they all seem to use the {{Infobox military conflict}} template, which seems excessive (especially as there was no conflict in this case). Would that still be the best one to use, or is there something better suited to an intelligence operation? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ps. The article is still classed as a stub: I don't like re-classifying things I've worked on, so could you let me know how you would think it should be rated? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 06:48, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, thanks and the same to you! I don't think I'd be bothering with an infobox at this stage, given the level of coverage in the article. It almost seems like a detailed snippet from Fleming's biography, rather than a stand-alone article on an Allied op, interesting though it is. If you were to use an infobox, I can't think of another apart from military conflict that would fit the bill, as you could put dates and participants (belligerents) in there; the main issue is that it seems to be difficult from my reading of the article to discern a clear result from the op. Re. assessment, you can rate your own articles to at least Start-Class. Not sure if it's kosher to rate your own to C-Class but definitely B-Class should be left to someone else. At this stage, because of my concerns with the large influence of Fleming on the article (unless it was a one-man show of course), I'm not sure I could rate it above Start or perhaps C at this stage (I could have another look when I get time, though). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:01, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in, while I agree that there isn't a need for an infobox here, if you want to add one Template:Infobox operational plan should work. As a general comment on the article, after reading it it's not clear to me what exactly the plan would involve - was this a plan to establish 'Stay-behind' posts? Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to both of you for your thoughts - I'll have a play around with the Template:Infobox operational plan to see if it makes the article a bit lop-sided. In relation to the Fleming-influence, because this was largely only ever a contingency plan (although there was an office in Gibraltar) it was largely just Fleming's baby. Because it was small (but mildly interesting) and never went into operation, there is little coverage outside the Fleming literature, although I'm still digging round to find more. In terms of what was involved, details are very vague, apart from it being to handle communications and sabotage (again, I suspect the vagueness is because the info is in Fleming-focussed, rather than military-focussed sources). It wasn't a stay-behind op: that was Operation Tracer, which was run in parallel by Fleming's NID boss, John Henry Godfrey. I think I need to re-write a fair chunk of it to clarify all of this and go back to the books to see what else I can dig up! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:42, 1 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question about FAC

Hi Ian, hope the new year finds you well. Is a copyedit like this enough involvement to disqualify me from !voting at the article's FAC? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:52, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it is, I'm in deep trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 01:53, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I generally don't do as much reworking at other people's FACs, so I just thought I'd be safe and ask. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be in trouble if copyediting to that extent disqualified one from making a declaration at a FAC. Just do what Dank and I do and note in your comments that you've done the ce, and it'll be fine -- tks for checking! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:04, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K, thanks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:23, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/California State Route 56/archive1

This review seems to be stalled - is there anything I should be doing to get it moving? --Rs chen 7754 01:56, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm heading out now but am planning to walk through at least the older noms later today so will get back to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:18, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't gotten a response yet from Maralia. --Rs chen 7754 02:36, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know Graham did a bit on it after I did so if we haven't heard from Maralia soon I'll give it the once-over myself so we can put it to bed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:48, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Best wishes for the New Year!

Wishing you and yours a joyous, healthful, and productive 2013!

Please accept a belated thank you for the well wishes upon my retirement as FAC delegate this year, and apologies for the false alarm of my first—and hopefully last—retirement; the well wishes extended me were most kind, but I decided to return, re-committed, when another blocked sock was revealed as one of the factors aggravating the FA pages this year.

Maintaining standards in featured content requires vigilance, dedication and knowledge of people like you, who are needed; thank you for all you do in here! Somehow, somehow we never ever seem to do nothin' completely nice and easy, but here's hoping that 2013 will see a peaceful road ahead and a return to the quality and comaraderie that defines the FA process, with the help of many dedicated Wikipedians!

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the good wishes, Sandy -- at a personal and a WP-wide level -- and thanks for making that the shortest retirement I can remember... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Kind of embarrassing that retirement thingie, but not long after I quit, the sock situation came to light, so I got re-motivated! Keep up the fine work, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Another military question

Hi Ian, Sorry to pester you again, but a fairly quick question relating to the use of capitals in military titles. I'm updatng the article of H. C. McNeile, better known as Sapper, and writer of the Bulldog Drummond novels. I've just written that, "In November 1916 he was promoted to Acting Major"; I seem to remember being pulled up on Fleming for the capital use on titles, but couldn't find the background to it. Should this read "Acting Major", "acting Major", or "acting major"? Many thanks once again! - SchroCat (talk) 18:06, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"acting major". - Dank (push to talk) 18:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Much obliged Dank—and a very happy new year to you, albeit slightly belated. All the best - SchroCat (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Wikipedia Day. - Dank (push to talk) 18:23, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA-checks - formal opposes needed?

Hi Ian, i was just wondering - if an image check (or another basic copyright/plagiarizing check for that matter) shows a clear problem, do you need a formal "Oppose"-vote or is it clear enough without it? Obviously an article with basic "legal" (kind of) problems should not be promoted - just checking, what is the best handling to help the delegates keep the overview. GermanJoe (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Joe, speaking for myself, if you clearly label your check (Image check, Source spotcheck, etc) then I'd be looking carefully to see that any issues had been satisfactorily resolved whether or not it was accompanied by an outright oppose. What it comes back to is that while declarations of support or opposition are indeed good for catching one's attention, at the end of the day the comprehensiveness and reasoning of the associated comments is what we're really looking for. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Favourite / most representative FA of 2012

Hi Ian, as an active delegate ~~(who is on break right now, admittedly)~~ would you be willing to give a write up about your favourite new FA of 2012, or the one you consider most representative of Wikipedians' work during the timeframe? Something like this maybe, but for articles. Ed said it would fun to do, and I agree it would be interesting. If you're interested, just reply here and I'll set some space aside. (Note: I am also asking Graham and Brian, because the more the merrier). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 08:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I don't blame you for copying/pasting (I would too) but I'm not the one on a break... ;-) So no excuses from me, I'll be happy to trawl the FACs I've been directly involved in as a delegate and see if I can't come up with something... First things first: when do you need it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Blast, I misremembered who was on break! Ed's usually ready to publish around Tuesday, so... Monday? — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

How does a popularity contest benefit FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's not meant as a popularity contest, Sandy, nor is it explicitly for the benefit of FAC. We're hoping to highlight examples of featured content which a) have been memorable and may be interesting for readers, b) are representative of trends in 2012, and/or c) have been remarkably well written and researched and thus may serve as examples for hopeful writers to follow. Can FAC benefit? Yes, in theory. Will it? We'll see. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, I'm asking for some input from other editors partly because I think the readers may be bored after getting two write-ups from me in as many weeks. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:22, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that I really need to justify participating in this, but I'd see a popularity contest as something that invited opinion from the general community, not a few experienced individuals, and my first thought on this was to consider some of the better-prepared FACs, as well as some of the more unusual subjects. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds perfect. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- If you're able to turn it into something that also shows what a well prepared FAC looks like, that would be a win-win. It's the straight-up "favorite" that is a minefield. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:50, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Fair point, perhaps favourite is too subjective a term. One which Ian consider(s/ed) good, perhaps, would have been better phrasing. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    - And then if he's also able to turn it into an example of excellent reviewing, FAC wins even more by gaining potential reviewers ... which it seriously needs! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of the Bismarck Sea

I just realised that the 70th anniversary Battle of the Bismarck Sea is on 2-3 March 2013, so I would like a fiat to take it to FAC, although James B. Conant is still at FAC. Hawkeye7 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead -- Conant looked fairly close to completion last time I looked at it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Columbian half dollar

I've fixed that.--Wehwalt (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

October to December 2012 Milhist Peer, A-class and FAC reviews

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period Oct-Dec 2012, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. AustralianRupert (talk) 09:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Skye

I'm interested in your closing this as promote. My comments were clearly only partially addressed; moreover I was working on reading the rest (I rather gave up at the magnitude of the task of the prose issues & lack of comprehensive coverage) and commenting in detail on the remaining two-thirds; I shan't bother now. It might have been polite to have notified me on my talk page that you were planning on closing it shortly.

If this is how the new FAC delegates deal with good-faith reviewers then I'm not surprised FAC as a process is getting criticism. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:58, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There was a clear consensus to promote the article and I would have promoted it. It is customary for the closing delegate to request minor remaining issues to be resolved on the article's talk page. Ian has been in post for nigh on a year – to call him a new delegate is not appropriate. Delegates are not required to notify anybody when they promote or archive FACs; this would entail a superfluous level of bureaucracy and even more work on top of the high demands of the job. Graham Colm (talk) 20:24, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nor would I call the FAC delegates "new"-- they are all experienced. Anyway, FWIW, based on what is on that FAC page, I also would have promoted, as it had been five days since you visited and you didn't oppose. In the future, Espresso, entering an Oppose if you have serious concerns will be more likely to result in the delegates making sure you've been pinged for a revisit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Graham and Sandy for weighing in while I slept peacefully on the other side of the world... ;-) Espresso, aside from what the guys have noted above, the comments you made were all addressed, and there was no indication that after five days you were planning to add more. Had there been a note to that effect I would have asked you on the FAC page to get those comments in because promotion was imminent (per EdChem and myself on James Conant, for example). If you do have further suggestions for improvement I hope you'll reconsider and discuss them with Ben on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to be unhelpful, but as an outsider to the FAC process this has left me unwilling to review again. I genuinely thought I was being helpful reviewing an article on which I have substantial knowledge and references. To be honest, I was utterly gobsmacked to find the FAC had closed. My comment were not all addressed; I stated clearly I intended to come back and review the later parts of the article; some of Ben's comments in response to mine are plain incorrect; I understood "Comment" to mean "Oppose unless commments fixed". Independent of my concerns, closing an article that was nominated between Christmas & New Year with only a little over ten days of non-holiday discussion strikes me as allowing inadequate time for discussion. I read all over the place that people are encouraged to contribute to FAC, yet this is not at all encouraging. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You were being helpful, and I hope you'll continue to be involved. To address your latest points: I think the FAC instructions make it pretty clear that "oppose" and "comment" mean just those things, we delegates need reviewers to be explicit in their declarations; and there's no set minimum or maximum time for a FAC to remain open, some last year were promoted in just 3 days because consensus was apparent, which is what delegates look for. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 07:03, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Espresso, because I think you are a very good reviewer, I do hope you'll continue, but delegates can't read people's minds, and different reviewers have different customs. There are, yes, times when a Comment can be weightier than an oppose, but I didn't read yours as in that vein. Please continue, but with a clear declaration ... if you feel uncomfortable opposing because you think the article can make it, you can enter something like " Oppose for now, but I expect to strike my oppose if these issues are addressed". I hope you'll continue. On the timing, it has always been common for FAs to be promoted within five to seven days ... that the page is lagging now (reviewer shortage?) and some noms are lasting a month is not the historical norm. Also, try to revisit at least within three days if you haven't entered a declaration. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:14, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. If I do try my hand at reviewing again, I'll try the "Oppose for now" formulation for clarity. I think it might be helpful to non-regulars to revise the page boilerplate to make it plain that FAC reviews are sometimes completed within 3 days, and often within 5–7 days, because that really surprises me. Based on the reviews I've tracked in the past and general acquaintance with the FAC process over many years, I thought three or four weeks was the norm. Espresso Addict (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to hear you are encouraged! It's hard to codify the norm because it depends on so many factors, including how many noms are on the page, reviewer availability, etc. The trend towards gynormous long-running FACs is a relatively new one; in times past, if a FAC didn't have sufficient support within a few weeks, it was closed, and if the FAC was running longer than the article, it was likely to be closed as unprepared, needing to come back cleaned up for a new start. Articles were expected to appear at FAC prepared, and be promoted or achived in a week, and two weeks was a lengthy FAC... 20 supports in two days, and I was disappointed it took five days for close! Now it seems that the trend is getting longer, with articles being extensively rewritten while at FAC as if it were peer review, rather than the old norm where it was expected that articles would not come to FAC unless they were prepared. I don't recall a time where three or four weeks was ever the norm, although we may be headed that direction! Anyway, it would be hard to codify any standard time into the instructions. Hope to see you back there soon! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker)FYI and btw, as I experienced with the FAC for Folding@home, some FACs contain a month's worth of active discussion, but all the while staying focused and leading towards eventual promotion. It does happen, and I think more thorough reviews can be better sometimes. Being too hasty can be problematic of course. • Jesse V.^(talk) 03:14, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA content this week

Hey Ian, I hope you don't mind these copyedits. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis your privilege (and duty!) as editor -- I have tweaked you back, so to speak, though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have tweaked your tweak of my tweaks. Do you think we are even now? ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 07:32, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm confuzzled. I think you're all even. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:04, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds, Crisco, you just made the edit I was about to (well almost)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:27, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd rather use an, as I (personally) read it as /ef-eh-see/, not /fak/. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:29, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, I can honestly say I've never thought of it as anything but /fak/ -- is there a consensus on this?! Just the other day I was thinking of a new user box: "I give a FAC, how about you?"... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one way to solve this—a fight to the death. Whoever survives gets their preferred word. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that might be arguing about the number of angels on the head of a pin... Alternatively we could just make the problem disappear -- allow me... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I have an unfair advantage. It wouldn't be sportive. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:48, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

here you go , ed — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or Ian. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go earn my keep — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so proud of you both. ;-) Y'know Crisco, you could start that article in a sandbox, like my current pet project. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 12:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I usually do, but a couple editors expressed interest in the project at Talk:Saudi Arabia so, for fairness... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner FAC

Greetings, Ian! I shall be happy to do a spot check, but I'm about to go away and won't be back till 24th Jan at the earliest. If you and the nominator are happy to wait, I'll gladly do the honours. (I'll have internet access while away and will enjoy contributing to the main FAC review meanwhile.) Thine, Tim. – Tim riley (talk) 23:42, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I'm away for a few days myself so we'll see if someone gets to it earlier, but I don't think leaving it till the 24th or so is a big deal. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:05, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is appreciated on Jaws film article.

OMG, are those FA and GA stars I'm seeing at the top of your user page? O_O

That said, there's a discussion going on on Jaws film article. A user insists on adding Quint's struggle right before he was killed, and claimed that he knew Quint dealt some brain damage to the shark. Should the brain damage be included? Should the struggle be mentioned? I would appreciate your input there. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, responded there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

LS-FAC-Q

Hi Ian, I have what looks like the latest in a long string of FAC questions that you receive here. I am a bit worried about the article I nominated Lady Saigō, with FAC-Discussion at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Lady Saigō/archive1. It has some support, but I don't know if it's enough and it's getting near the end of the list. Should I be soliciting additional reviewers at project Talk pages? Thanks for your time. Boneyard90 (talk) 11:44, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned from a short break... Yes, it's getting on and will need some more comprehensive review/support but the FAC is still active (e.g. Lemurbaby's recent check and your prompt response). It's always legit for you to ping with neutrally worded requests participants in earlier reviews of the article (e.g. GAN, PR, prior attempts at FAC), like this for instance. Neutrally worded requests at project pages are also okay, remembering that the delegates like to see a mix of project-relevant and non-project reviewers, to help ensure that the article is critiqued from a reasonably broad base. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:29, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC question

Hi Ian, I seem to be a bit rusty at choosing non-controversial topics. An IP has posted at my current FAC that (s)he believes the content section is too long and a "potential Wikipedia:No_original_research#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources violation". Could you weigh in there, regarding whether or not this is a legitimate and actionable comment (i.e. if a logged in editor were to oppose over such an issue, would it be legit) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick response to you here for the moment, Crisco, I'll respond at the FAC later. At first glance, however, I don't see it necessary to action this comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:45, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks. I'll await your comment there. (hope your break went well) — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OpEd

Something like this? Nothing all that brilliant... — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:59, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Very good, mate -- tks! I just tweaked a tiny bit so if you're happy let me know and I'll xfer to the January Bugle draft... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:54, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

K, I'll try and hunt down a free image or two first (Why We Fight comes to mind). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, an image or two wouldn't hurt... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:03, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, gave it a poster from Wings, which is under scope. We don't have any of the full Why We Fight films on Commons... probably because of the (seemingly surpassed) 100mb file size limit — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:15, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ready whenever you need it. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Tks mate, xferred to the Bugle page here -- just make sure you're happy with the title and the byline... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. Gave a bit of a tweak — Crisco 1492 (talk) 11:30, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Catching up

Ian, sorry, I had a lot of Opposes out and then got really busy IRL ... I'll catch up today. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, just back myself from a short break. Good timing right now, I'm dragging myself off to bed down here, so run wild in my absence and I'll look forward to seeing any updates when I resurface... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:02, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXII, January 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: The month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Mongol naval power
Op-ed: Crisco 1492 on war films

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) 12:57, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:11, 25 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, same to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:42, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fraternity?

I've been wrapping this around my head for a while. What you said right here just perplexes me. What exactly do you mean by calling us a fraternity? Like, we're characters from Animal House? Or is it just a downright insult? Because its been bad enough hearing people complain that Video Game articles are always on the main page when it only happens once a month but a delegate calling us a group of people who has been characterized as drunk slackers thanks to pop culture feels degrading. But you probably do this to other editors from other projects so I'll assume good faith. However, this gamer bias as I call it comes off as unprofessional. GamerPro64 16:19, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If I may interject, IanRose's comment does indeed appear to be in good faith, and I don't think it has anything to do with the narrow stereotype you favor. To me, his comment implies that gamers are a group of like-minded people who support each other. The collegiate version you take as an insult is one subset of the many fraternities out there. Think of the Fraternal Order of Police, the Sons of the American Revolution, or academic fraternities like Sigma Xi. See Fraternity and List of general fraternities for more information. Boneyard90 (talk) 17:27, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Boneyard, you've got the general idea. Where I come from, and used in the context I did, fraternity indeed simply means a group of like-minded people (who may often be sober!) FWIW, GamerPro, I'd be interested to see if anyone could find an example of me complaining about games on the main page, or gamers in general. Furthermore, I do "do this" to editors from other projects (e.g. roads/highways, military history, etc) if their's are the only comments on a FAC, for precisely the reason I mentioned in my note -- as a delegate I want to see a reasonably broad base of reviews, from within relevant projects and outside, so we come out with a well-rounded article that's accessible to the widest audience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say that you complain about Video Games being on the main page so I apologize for mentioning that. Secondly, its just that some editors from the project are concerned by this. Mainly, its the fact that sometimes editors outside the project usually don't review the articles at FAC. I don't know. Maybe I'm just paranoid. GamerPro64 00:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qeshm FAC

Thanks for the comments. I think Mikenorton and I have fixed them all. ceranthor 17:08, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Promoting now but see my last comment before that and alter (or leave!) the infobox as you see fit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Fortress of Mimoyecques

Hi Ian, thanks for making those changes to Fortress of Mimoyecques - they're a definite improvement and you've not broken anything. I think the article's probably good to go now. Prioryman (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:12, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Dostoyevsky

Hello,

you commented at its FA nomination, so I thought you would be interested commenting here. Regards.--Tomcat (7) 12:43, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner

Dear Ian, I must admit to having difficulties with the comments of GabeMcC (who I see now opposes the FAC), most of which really do seem to me to be over the top, although I have gladly concurred when I found them appropriate - but even these were minor. This is the first time I have ever gone for an FAC -can you advise me on the procedure from the present stage? As already mentioned, I can't I'm afraid deal with the citation queries until 16th or 17th February. Best, --Smerus (talk) 15:48, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, hopefully the posts from Graham and me have provided some guidance. Treat each comment as it comes on its merit; objections based on the FAC criteria affect whether an article is promoted or not, those based purely on preference for this or that phrasing do not. As I mentioned earlier, the minor citation issues shouldn't hold up promotion by themselves. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:19, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for this. I will give myself a day or two in real life, and to give others a chance to comment, and then return to the fray. Best, --Smerus (talk) 20:37, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable source question

Hello, I'm looking into listing Magnum XL-200 for FAC, do you think this source would pass? It contains some good information for the article. I'm not sure how reliable you guys regard it as.-- Astros4477 (Talk) 01:49, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find a reliable source that confirms what they say about themselves ("... has grown to become one of the most widely known and frequently updated sources of industry information."), it would be reliable. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:31, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: John Francis Jackson

This is a note to let the main editors of John Francis Jackson know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on February 23, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 23, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia: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:

John Jackson (1908–42) was an Australian fighter ace and squadron commander of World War II. He was credited with eight aerial victories, and led No. 75 Squadron during the Battle of Port Moresby in 1942. A grazier and businessman who operated his own private plane, he joined the Royal Australian Air Force Reserve in 1936. Called up for active service in 1939, Jackson served with No. 23 Squadron in Australia before he was posted to the Middle East in November 1940. As a fighter pilot with No. 3 Squadron he flew Gloster Gladiators, Hawker Hurricanes and P-40 Tomahawks during the North African and Syria–Lebanon campaigns. Jackson was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross and mentioned in despatches for his actions in the Middle East. Subsequently posted to the South West Pacific theatre, he was promoted to squadron leader in March 1942 and given command of No. 75 Squadron at Port Moresby, Papua, operating P-40 Kittyhawks. He earned praise for his leadership during the defence of Port Moresby before his death in combat on 28 April. Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby, is named in his honour. His younger brother Les took over No. 75 Squadron, and also became a fighter ace. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Hope you don't mind Squadron Leader Jackson taking centre-stage soon! Bencherlite ^Talk 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, not at all -- I'd planned to nominate him last year for 28 April (death date) but dropped the idea when Hawkeye nominated Harry Chauvel for 25 April, which I wholeheartedly supported. Blurb looks fine to me, BTW. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Homework (Daft Punk album)

Hey Ian. How much time will we wait for Wesley? Last time he looked it up was on January 29 (Almost a week ago). I think that I can handle any comments he may have in the talk page, so that we don't postpone the nomination much longer (It has around 50 days by now). Regards. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that's long enough... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yay. Thanks for the response Ian ^^ Have a nice day. — ΛΧΣ²¹ 14:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Flying Corps

Greetings. I have just started the Australian Flying Corps article. Any help you can provide would be appreciated. Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 10:02, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Just to jump in, I had a long-dormant stub in my userspace which I've dropped in. Great work starting this article. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, that's great -- I'd love to have kicked it off myself but have had little time for new articles over the past year. Anyway I've watchlisted and will contribute as/when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wagner FAC (b)

We could use your input regarding critical commentary at the Wagner FAC. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:12, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Request for opinions

Hi Ian. I think I'm becoming obsessive about wp (again). Before I take a few steps back, there are a few open topics I feel guilty about abandoning. Hence, if it's not too much trouble for you, I'd appreciate it if you cast you eye over a few things, and if/where you think it's necessary and/or useful, I'd appreciate you adding your 2c worth.

First, there has been a suggestion that the name of the article Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia be changed to Australian honours system. What's the best way of informing interested people, and getting them to to express their opinion? The relevant conversations-so-far are:

I'd be asking in two places: the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and the Military history project talk page. Incidentally, I don't have a strong opinion either way, and I see there are plenty of precedents for both terms elsewhere, just to make it tougher... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What's a suitably laconic Australian reply? "Jeez. Thanks mate."? Good. So it comes down to consensus. (Yes? / No?) Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The second is Australian Honours Order of Precedence. I've made what I expected would be provocative changes, and am astounded to find there has been ZERO reaction - in either direction! Could you have a look and inform me of your opinion?

Mmm, guess I'm not the right person to ask, as I thought order of wear and order of precedence were effectively he same thing... :-P Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, although outside the range of answers I was anticipating - actually, BECAUSE it is/was outside the range of answers I was anticipating, that is a very useful reply. Thanks. Pdfpdf (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:59, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(P.S. I think it might be time for you to archive Jul-Dec 2012 ... Pdfpdf (talk) 12:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC))[reply]

I know, I've been meaning to do it but it's always the last thing on my list in any of the (rather abbreviated) WP editing sessions I've found time for this year (including this one)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking input

Your input would be greatly appreciated here. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:28, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail!

Hello, Ian Rose. Please check your email; you've got mail!
Message added 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

— ΛΧΣ²¹ 02:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Main page appearance: David Bowie

This is a note to let the main editors of David Bowie know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on March 11, 2013. You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 11, 2013. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director Raul654 (talk · contribs) or his delegates Dabomb87 (talk · contribs), Gimmetoo (talk · contribs), and Bencherlite (talk · contribs), or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you can change it—following the instructions at Wikipedia: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:

David Bowie (born 1947) is an English musician. After "Space Oddity" reached the top five of the UK Singles Chart in 1969, he re-emerged during the glam rock era with "Starman" and the album The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust and the Spiders from Mars. In 1975, Bowie achieved his first major American crossover success with the number-one single "Fame" and the album Young Americans. The soul-inspired sound was a radical shift in style that initially alienated many of his UK devotees. He then recorded the critically acclaimed "Berlin Trilogy" of albums with Brian Eno, all of which reached the UK top five. After uneven commercial success in the late 1970s, Bowie had UK number ones in the early 1980s with "Ashes to Ashes", its parent album Scary Monsters (and Super Creeps), "Under Pressure" (a collaboration with Queen) and Let's Dance, which yielded several hit singles. Throughout the 1990s and 2000s, Bowie continued to experiment with musical styles. He has not toured since the 2003–04 Reality Tour and has not performed live since 2006. Throughout his career, he has sold an estimated 140 million albums. In 2004, Rolling Stone ranked him 23rd on their list of the best singers of all time. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC Closings

Because of GimmeBot's inactivity, you and others have been manually closing Featured Article Nominations. However, VoxelBot has been coded to replace Gimmebot and is currently on trial, so please just add promoted or not promoted articles to the appropriate logs as before. Thanks! Vaca tion 9 16:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Look Mickey

I responded on my talk page. Neutron (talk) 22:41, 23 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Question

Hi Ian, currently I'm a co-nom with Ceoil this FAC. I'd like to renominate Big Two-Hearted River that I couldn't finish in December and I'd like to have Ceoil as co-nom because he's worked hard to bring the prose up to snuff. Is that okay to do now, or do we have to wait for the other one to close? Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 12:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi TK, glad to see you back. Yes, I think that's fine, especially given how close BTHR was last time -- tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:17, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, it'll be there soon. Truthkeeper (talk) 00:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIII, February 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at US Army leadership since World War II

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) 07:12, 27 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Apologies, I wasn't ignoring you - I just don't often check that email account. Anotherclown (talk) 11:33, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Figured that must be the case -- no prob. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:04, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FA notice

Hi Ian, i think the nominator of this FA-nom Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Theodora_Cormontan/archive1 is willing to withdraw (not sure), but maybe could use some procedural advice from a delegate. GermanJoe (talk) 08:54, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actioned -- tks Joe! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nathuram Godse: 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung'

Hello. I've created a talk section at Nathuram Godse to help sort out the 'Hanged' vs. 'Hung' debate. Cheers. —Waldhorn (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for taking action, not sure there's much to discuss on that particular question though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Agreed, except that it remains a sticking point even after your reverts. Establishing consensus seems preferable over the continuing reverts. —Waldhorn (talk) 05:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but consensus for changing the term needs to be gauged on a much wider scale than this one article. IMO Godse should simply be protected as is and those who want to see "hung" used for "hanged" should propose it in a more general forum, where the outcome could be effective Wiki-wide (I don't believe it would have a snowball's chance in hell, but if it gives them satisfaction)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus?

I've addressed all of Nikkimaria's concerns. The Oblivion FAC has been on for a long time. Is something still missing? Can you check if there is a consensus yet? --FutureTrillionaire (talk) 02:52, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time tonight to check on each of those points myself, hopefully Nikki can do so otherwise I'll see how I'm placed tomorrow night. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nikkimaria has confrimed that the article's sourcing meets the FA criteria. Is there anything left to do?--FutureTrillionaire (talk) 04:30, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pony!

Pony!
Congratulations! For your kindness in promoting the William Robinson Brown to FA, you have received a pony! Ponies are cute, intelligent, cuddly, friendly (most of the time, though with notable exceptions), promote good will, encourage patience, and enjoy carrots. Treat your pony with respect and he will be your faithful friend! Montanabw^(talk) 23:10, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To send a pony or a treat to other wonderful and responsible editors, click here.

Well it's really the reviewers who permit the delegate to promote, but I certainly appreciate the thought... :-) Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone wants a pony! But only the nice folks DESERVE one! Montanabw^(talk) 23:40, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost op-ed

Hey Ian, would you and the other delegates want to write a Signpost op-ed on getting an article to FAC, what you guys typically find wrong, and how to fix it? It could help you all in receiving better-prepared nominations. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:37, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well your mind-reading abilities are certainly up to par, Ed, I was thinking just last week of putting together my thoughts on this subject, perhaps as a new Dispatch, but an op-ed would be an even better forum. Will discuss with the other guys... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are certainly free to revive the Dispatch name if you'd like, even if it's only for one issue. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:33, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have you heard back from them yet? :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 11:37, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Graham's interested and we've nutted out a few points -- prefer not to commit to a delivery date at this stage though... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good then! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:12, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Poke. ;-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 19:48, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ack... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Bugle interview request

Thanks for the former Yugoslavia interview request, Ian - I'll certainly provide something for you to use.

On a separate issue, you might be interested to know that later this month Wikipedia's first-ever triple Today's Featured Article will run - three linked articles I wrote on German V-weapons sites in north-east France. See WP:TFAR#March 25. This will be quite a significant achievement for the MILHIST project; might be worth a mention in the next Bugle? Prioryman (talk) 20:55, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) That will certainly warrant a mention in the next edition. If you have any interest in/time to write an article (of any length) on how you researched and developed these articles it would also be really interesting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. What sort of length would you prefer? Prioryman (talk) 22:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Any length would be great. If you have time to flesh the article out, 6-8 paragraphs or so (which seems to be the standard for our op-eds). But shorter or longer would also be great - I'm looking forward to reading it. Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agree all above. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

IHi Ian and Nick, I've written it up now - you can see it at User:Prioryman/Bugle article. Let me know what you think. Prioryman (talk) 00:21, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tks mate -- had a quick read and it flows well to me, will have another look later. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:44, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That's an excellent article. Are you happy for it to be this month's op-ed? (which should be distributed sometime around the 25th). Nick-D (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Muaharhar, I'm glad I have this page watchlisted. The Signpost would have included a small mention of the triple TFA anyway, but now we can include a quote from that article too (crediting Priory and the Bugle, of course). :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:11, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's fine! 08:41, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

OK, great. I've moved it to Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/March 2013/Op-ed. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Nick. Prioryman (talk) 09:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

An Award for you!

	The Aviator's Award of Excellence
	A quite staggering number of FAs and GAs on aviators! Thanks for all you do with FA promotions too, you're an invaluable wikipedian, keep it up! ♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld 12:11, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Like — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:38, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Heh, once you've got one aviation bio FA under your belt, the rest follow pretty naturally -- the editors who really deserve kudos IMO are those who succeed across a broad spectrum of form and content... Really appreciate the thought though, especially coming from such hard-working and talented individuals. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:01, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

KFC

I was (mistakenly) under the impression that the KFC review had already been archived. It looks as if the KFC one won't go through because whilst there are no valid opposes, there are no supports either, so I'd rather keep the Paul S Walsh page up for review. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to archive the review myself? Farrtj (talk) 12:20, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I wouldn't classify as invalid the oppose of an experienced FAC editor and reviewer like Nick-D. Also, if the FAC had been archived, the nomination page would have a note to that effect from myself or one of the other delegates, and the page wouldn't appear among the active nominations at WP:FAC. Anyway, all that aside, since you've confirmed you prefer the Walsh nomination to stand, I'll archive the KFC one shortly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:44, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Source spotcheck

Hi Ian. Don't mean to rush you or anything I just wanted to know when you will have time to do the spotchecks on Cry Me a River (Justin Timberlake song)? Thanks for the understanding. Cheers! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 20:18, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for not replying sooner, I try to stay away from WP, or at least FAC, during the week. If no-one's got to it before tomorrow I'll certainly look at it then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:13, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Sorry for bothering you, but I have put so much energy in the article so I can't wait till I see the bronze star. Lol :) ! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 13:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist Admin

If you feel like doing some MilHist admin, there are a number of A-class medals that need looking at. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, see what I can do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete DYK nomination

Hello! Your submission of Template:Did you know nominations/No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF at the Did You Know nominations page is not complete; see step 3 of the nomination procedure. If you do not want to continue with the nomination, tag the nomination page with {{db-g7}}, or ask a DYK admin. Thank you. DYKHousekeepingBot (talk) 14:38, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Selfe

Hi Ian,
I saw just now that you've closed the nomination I made for FA status for Norman Selfe (nom) as rejected - on the basis that not enough people had commented. I find this quite frustrating as, as I noted in the nomination, this was my first FA nomination. As you saw, there were no negative reviews and all in the nomination and all requests for improvement were addressed by me in timely fashion. I don't think it's fair that without anyone giving a negative assessment that this should be knocked back. If I had known that it was about to be rejected on the basis of lack of commentary then I would have gone about asking people to jump in, but I assumed that's not considered good form as it would be seen as "canvassing" for support. What can be done now? Surely that doesn't mean the article is now un-FA-able? Witty lama 10:34, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the frustration but lack of consensus to promote, whether from opposition or simply lack of commentary, has always been grounds for archiving, and it's often done well before a nomination has been open as long as Selfe was. We try not to let the list of nominations grow too long by leaving things open for extended periods, as we have a limited number of active reviewers to go round. You've done the right things by taking it to GA and PR, and it's okay to ping those reviewers with a neutrally worded note that something they've previously looked at is up for FAC. Failing that, neutrally worded notes at relevant project talk pages, simply asking for input into the review, are okay. Normally we'd want at least two weeks between archiving a FAC and having you re-nominate, but given the lack of input to the last one I'd make an exception in Selfe's case. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So you're saying that I should go ahead and re-list it directly, and leave a note on the previous reviewers' & relevant project talkpages? Seems to defeat the point of having it removed in the first place, but if you think that's ok... Witty lama 00:08, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to post a review of this article when its renominated (I normally don't do biographies, but this guy looks really interesting). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not getting back sooner, WL -- yes, go ahead re. your last post. I understand how it seems to defeat the purpose but we have found that effectively restarting a review in this fashion can help. I sometimes think old reviews with little activity just have a stale feel that people don't want to be around, like a house that's been on sale for yonks -- people think there's something wrong with it and continue to stay away... You know what they say, fresh is best! Plus if it hadn't been archived and we hadn't had this discussion, you mightn't have scored Nick as a potential new reviewer... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:26, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've taken your advice and relisted it: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Norman Selfe/archive2 :-) Witty lama 09:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination has now apparently stalled - with no new comments (substantive or otherwise) for quite a while. Even though this time it received significantly more comment than the first run through I'm worried that it will suffer the same fate - of being "rejected" on the basis of not enough people overtly saying "yes" (even though there are no outstanding concerns). Should I do anything specific to ensure it doesn't just disappear? Witty lama 07:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it's in imminent danger of closure right now, but of course further comment ASAP would be welcome. Have you pinged those who have commented earlier but not declared a position? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:11, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

VoxelBot

Hi Ian, I've noticed that the bot is making a few errors when archiving. I have left a note here User_talk:VoxelBot#FAC_archiving. In the meantime, we need to keep an eye on it. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 11:04, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, after that flurry of FAC closures earlier today I've just been spending some time on MilHist coord work. I spotted you nipping from one nom to the other so figured something must be up and was going to check you'd left a message about the bot, which obviously you have -- tks for the link. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:52, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

New FA added to Bugle list

Hi Ian, I just added a new MILHIST FA that's just been promoted [1] - hope that's OK. Prioryman (talk) 23:24, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tks for your diligence but in the Bugle we do awards, monthly contest results and A/FA articles "in arrears", so anything promoted in March should appear in the April edition... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no problem - let's hold that over to April then. Thanks for the explanation. Prioryman (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXIV, March 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Nick-D looks at refugees during the Battle of France
Interview: Editors discuss writing articles about the former Yugoslavia
Op-ed: Prioryman on German V-weapon sites and the historian's responsibility

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) 03:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Little help requested

G'day, cobber,

A quick click on Corpo Aeronautico Militare directs one to Regia Aeronautica. However, in line with my interest (obsession?) with World War I aviation, I have completed an article on the Corpo itself. Could you please delete the redirect so that I can move my article into main space to be the target of the Corpo links? Of course I will fashion a redirect from the RA article to the Corpo one.

I might add that a number of my rough draft squadron histories depend on the Corpo article. Once I bring forth the Corpo article, I will also unleash them upon an unsuspecting public...lol.

Thanks for any help. It's been way too long since we communicated.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:04, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George. Actually you can overwrite the redirect yourself by just cutting and pasting in your new article on the Corpo. The trick is this: if you click on Corpo Aeronautico Militare, it indeed directs you to Regia Aeronautica. However once you're in the latter, at the top underneath the Regia Aeronautica heading, it says "Redirected from Corpo Aeronautico Militare" -- click on Corpo Aeronautico Militare there and you'll be on the page with the redirect, so you simply edit that page and overwrite the redirect code with your article text. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, mate. Your explanation above even works. You should think about emending the WP instructions for editing Redirects; I found them as clear as the driven mud.

Georgejdorner (talk) 17:48, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF

On 30 March 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that in addition to aircraft maintenance, No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF was responsible for research flights in Australia and the Pacific, such as the 1927 Papuan Survey Flight (Seagull III pictured)? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 1 Aircraft Depot RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 08:02, 30 March 2013 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/John William Finn/archive1.
Message added 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Peer review/John William Finn/archive1.
Message added 16:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GE peer review

Greetings. Can you recommend a reviewer for a second peer review to prep the Gospel of the Ebionites article for FAC? I'm having difficulty finding an independent reviewer who has both a knowledge of the category and the specialized skills needed for FA-level peer reviews. Thanks. Ignocrates (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have to admit no-one springs to mind who fits both those requirements -- I know a few of the latter of course, e.g. Brianboulton, Tim riley and Wehwalt, but none of the former. On the other hand one or two of the latter, especially Tim, may at least be able to spotcheck sources to help determine the accuracy of the content. My suggestion for the moment would be to try and engage one or two of the above-mentioned for their general FAC-level experience, plus relevant project people with deeper knowledge of the subject for content/detail review. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This helps a lot. Thank you. Ignocrates (talk) 03:36, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Resurrectionists in the United Kingdom/archive1

Hi Ian, I have reviewed this one and I also took part in the GA review, so I recuse wrt closing. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:40, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter

Hi Ian, In case you haven't seen it, APDR has posted full-text versions of all its back issues to 2008 here. Unfortunately there isn't an index, but the price is right! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neat -- tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:41, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ODM of Oz => Oz honours system

In case you were not aware, there is a proposal to rename "Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia" to "Australian honours system" at Talk:Orders, decorations, and medals of Australia#Proposal to rename article to Australian honours system, and it has attracted (unexpectedly to me) lengthy discussion. Even if you disagree with me, I'd appreciate it if you looked at it and added your opinion. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alcohol laws of New Jersey

Ian, I addressed your comments about the featured article review of alcohol laws of New Jersey. I removed a lot of duplicate links, and unnecessary commas. DavidinNJ (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks David. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

She Has a Name

Hi Ian,

I noticed that you closed the second She Has a Name featured article candidacy as "not promoted". I thought I had adequately responded to all the concerns that had been raised. What more must I do?

Neelix (talk) 15:30, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I think in fact it was Graham who closed this one and the new FAC bot has made an error in attribution. That said, I'd agree with the closure; you do seem to have responded to comments but when an article has been open a month or so without consensus for promotion looking like it's going to be achieved anytime soon, the delegates will archive it. There's quite a backlog of nominations at this time, so we can certainly use more people reviewing what's still there to try and establish the necessary consensus, otherwise we'll be closing more for the same reason as yours. As the backlog gets reduced, the chance of each open FAC gaining a passing reviewer goes up a bit. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:47, 13 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge nudge...

Now, about that review...;) Zawed (talk) 09:33, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not forgotten -- next thing on my list, honest... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:00, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. When you can is fine. Zawed (talk) 10:12, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FA

I see you are going through the FAC list now. I'm done with my fixing of redirects at WP:FA—sorry if I caused any edit conflicts! Maralia (talk) 16:15, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

CA 67 FAC

Do you have any suggestions for who could copyedit CA 67? I've posted to WT:FAC and asked someone else and haven't found anyone yet.

Also, do you have any suggestions in terms of prose? I feel bad having to make others copyedit my work each time I go to FAC... --Rs chen 7754 05:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I asked someone but they were unable, so for now let's see how the WT:FAC request goes. Otherwise, why don't you check diffs of a couple of previous FAC noms of yours that people like myself or Graham have copyedited a bit, and see if the same issues might apply to CA 67 -- I'm pretty sure the 3-time repetition of "state" in the first line was something I'd seen in an earlier article... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:45, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've made another pass through the article, if that helps. From what I've gathered most of the issues are using extra words - hard to switch from writing for school to more technical writing! --Rs chen 7754 09:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXV, April 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Sturmvogel 66 and Hawkeye7 look at aspects of the Pacific War
Op-ed: ErrantX considers the rabbit hole of research

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) 15:08, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service

On 24 April 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that the Lockheed C-130 Hercules (pictured) entered service with the RAAF in 1958, making Australia the first country after the United States to operate the aircraft? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Lockheed C-130 Hercules in Australian service. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 08:02, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

Garfield Finlay

G'day, cobber,

The above article has just been edited by a grand-daughter of this Australian ace, and she is so completely new to WP that she does not understand the editing process. While I am trying to aid her in getting started by fending off a mad deletionist, it occurred to me that Australian aces, and the sources of information for their bios, is your specialty. Could you take a look at it, and see if you might help her?

For instance, she has a photo of a trophy awarded to Finlay, in support of one of her edits. Couldn't she donate that to Wiki Commons, where it could be used to illustrate the Finlay bio?

Best regards,Georgejdorner (talk) 16:47, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, appropriate you should drop by today... I've checked one of my Australian aces books and confirmed Finlay was credited with 8 victories as an observer. Unfortunately that source is biased towards pilot aces and doesn't include a dedicated bio for him. I should however be able to check a couple of other sources at the library next time I go in. If she takes a picture of the trophy she can upload to WP Commons with (I think) a Creative Commons Share-Alike licence and use it in the article. I'll also double-check to see if there's any PD images of him on Australian databases. I'd be happy to join in the editing of this -- the anecdotal stuff will I'm afraid have to go unless it appears in a (relatively) reliable source in the big bad world, plus some of the wording needs to be toned down a bit. Definitely a worthwhile article in general though -- tks for letting me know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:40, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

G'day,

I believe I have finally convinced Dr Finlay that the anecdotes will perish if not properly sourced. Do you have access to his military records? And can you check newspaper files concerning him?

And as for Anzac Day...I have the same reaction as I do with our Memorial Day...a heartfelt salute for those who fought for democracy and paid their price in blood, boredom, and bullet wounds.

Georgejdorner (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate, appreciate that. My wife and I attend the march every year. Being in Sydney on a glorious sunny day, among a huge and diverse crowd of good-natured people, really helps one appreciate what we've been given by this country's defenders. Re. Finlay, I checked another aces source but again it's biased towards pilots. I'll try and see what I can find elsewhere in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews January–March 2013

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:51, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Rupert. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC query for Michigan State Trunkline Highway System

Michigan State Trunkline Highway System is at FAC, and if possible, it could run as the TFA on May 13 for the centennial of the system's creation. So far the nomination is sitting at 5 supports with an image review from the ACR noted. (The ACR also included a spotcheck of sources as all newer WP:HWY articles reviewed there have spotchecks done prior to promotion.) Of the supports at the FAC, two are from the ACR, one is a new review from within the project, one is from outside the project, and then Juliancolton (talk · contribs) also did some copyediting and supported. (He's a sometimes member of the USRD project, but he has not been active there as of late.) I'm curious if you could let me know if you'd like to see more reviews or not since there is a touch of a deadline involved if the article is going to get to TFA in time. Thanks, Imzadi 1979 → 16:06, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Imzadi. These days I generally walk through the list of FACs during the weekend so will get to it then unless Graham does earlier. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 90 Wing RAAF

On 1 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 90 Wing RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 90 (Composite) Wing (Avro Lincoln pictured) was formed so that RAAF units in the Malayan Emergency would not be absorbed by the RAF, as happened in Britain during World War II? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 90 Wing RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:02, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

New page formalities

Greetings Ian, can I have some advice please? I put Operations on the Ancre, January – March 1917 up yesterday but have forgotten the new page formalities and can't find the place to request acceptance. Can you direct me to it? Thanks.Keith-264 (talk) 09:11, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Keith, when you say "acceptance as an article" do you mean getting it assessed (as C- or B-Class, for example)? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet, I thought there was a process to have it accepted as a Wiki article in the first place? ThanksKeith-264 (talk) 11:35, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No, no, it's in article space now so it would be up to someone to some along and say it shouldn't be there, not for anyone to accept it per se. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I must have got confused, it happens a lot these days;O)Keith-264 (talk) 12:01, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To all of us, so worry not... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Denny LIst

Hey, whenever you get the other two volumes, could you dig up the info for HMS Engadine (1911) as well as Nairana's? I don't know that we'll ever be get the article up to B status because of the vacuum of information on her interwar service, but it seems silly not to take advantage of the info coming into our hands.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 14:30, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:40, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for HMS Nairana (1917)

On 4 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMS Nairana (1917), which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that after surviving service as a aircraft/seaplane carrier in World War I, the Nairana was twice almost capsized by rogue waves during her career as a Bass Strait ferry? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/HMS Nairana (1917). You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 00:03, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

FAC for Duino Elegies

Your colleague GrahamColm archived the FAC nomination for Duino Elegies claiming there was no consensus even though I had 2 supports, a third support coming, no objections, and other reviewers comments were fully addressed but who didn't follow through to say "support" (although indicated the issues were resolved). I've asked him for an explanation on his talk page. Could you please weigh in on this? I ask since you promoted my previous FAC nomination this past month, Alcohol laws of New Jersey, under the same scenario: 4 supports, no objections, and fully-addressed comments from reviewers who didn't have further comments/complaints but didn't follow through to explicitly say "support" (although some indicated their issues were resolved). I'm failing to see consistency here and I'm a little taken aback by it.--ColonelHenry (talk) 15:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You should have allowed me the time to respond to your comment on my talk page before posting complaints here and on Raul's page. This is bad form on your part. Graham Colm (talk) 17:12, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:82WingLincolnsAmberley1954.jpg

I've marked this image as non-free. Please provide a fair use rationale (of course, someone may challenge it, but that is neither here nor now). If you don't believe it merits one, please mark it as {{db-g7}}. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm just curious why this one should be treated differently to File:AllanWalters1954a.jpg, which is from exactly the same source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond to this when I have a bit more time. I only have like 10 minutes today. I honestly don't have any idea why I decided one was free but not the other. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 17:01, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Take your time, and I appreciate your involvement with these files. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate - restart?

Freedom for the Thought That We Hate
- Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Freedom for the Thought That We Hate/archive1

I was wondering if we could get a restart for the FAC at Freedom for the Thought That We Hate?
There's quite a bit of helpful comments there that have all been addressed at this point in time.
I'm just worried that the sheer level of text at this point might be scaring editors off from voicing their opinions about the article's potential to be promoted to Featured Article quality.
Do you think a restart would be helpful at this point in time? Is there any chance for this article if we just let it run its course the way the discussion is going, as is, now, or would a restart be the best way to go?

Thank you for your consideration in this matter,

— Cirt (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cirt, I have seen longer sets of FAC comments, and I don't find it too hard to follow myself. I prefer to see reviewers acknowledging resolution of their comments and then ideally moving them to the talk page, rather than starting things all over again. It's only a little over a week old, so I think it can safely continue as is for a bit and we'll see what happens. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Neelix has just supported, and barring any serious issues I don't see myself that far behind. Nikki rarely supports on non-Canadian subjects. I don't think this needs to be restarted either, Cirt. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:13, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose (talk · contribs), at the FAC page, Crisco 1492 (talk · contribs) raised a helpful point - might it make sense to move addressed comments to the talk page of the FAC, or at the very least, use strikeout to note addressed comments ? — Cirt (talk) 17:34, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Was just thinking about Ian's comment here, actually. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, quite right, Ian Rose (talk · contribs) said that first, sorry, been preoccupied with friend's kitty-cat in the hospital lately. :( — Cirt (talk) 00:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Update: So far a couple users with addressed comments have agreed to move them to the talk page, so things seem to be proceeding alright. Two (2) of them have even added a Support. :) — Cirt (talk) 01:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The FAC page and its talk page are better organized now (much less TL;DR), and we're up to four (4) Supports. I think this issue is resolved. Thank you for your advice, — Cirt (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I generally go through the FAC list with a view to promoting or archiving towards the end of the week, so will check it again then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good, — Cirt (talk) 08:04, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 5 Flight

I'm pleased to see that you interpreted that somewhat cryptic RAAF News article the same way I did! It would have helped if they'd specified the wing the flight was transferred to! Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, if I'd been charged with OR I'd just have to say in my defence that that's how I interpreted the picture caption saying OC 82WG handed over 5FLT to OC 92WG -- you would indeed think they could make it just a little bit more obvious... ;-) I realise now that after hurrying to update the relevant wing articles I clean forgot to update the flight article -- tks for taking care of that...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2012 tour of She Has a Name

Hi Ian,

I feel like I might finally be getting the hang of how to run an FAC. All three reviewers of my current FAC have supported here. Is that enough discussion and support or would you recommend that I hold out for more?

Neelix (talk) 18:12, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, note my review included both sources and images. If you need spotchecks too, let me know. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:14, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A spotcheck would be great if you can manage it, Nikki -- I think one was suggested in the article's first FAC but never eventuated. So Neelix, let's at least await that -- as I mentioned to Cirt further above, I generally go through the FAC list for possible closures around the weekend anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:15, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The spotcheck is complete. Should I advertise the FAC further to generate more discussion? Neelix (talk) 15:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Commented there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:47, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for explaining your reasoning behind leaving the FAC open a week ago. Do I understand your comment correctly that the FAC has sufficient support provided that no dissenting comments arise? Neelix (talk) 15:14, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is certainly towards promotion at this stage; if no dissenting opinions arise I'd expect Graham or I to close it some time this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:58, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It has been another week now without any dissenting opinions arising. Are you sure there's nothing else for me to do to bolster the FAC? Neelix (talk) 14:24, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, not trying to string you on -- I left a note at WT:FAC to just get another set of eyes for a source review; Brian Boulton has been doing a lot of these lately so I'd hope it won't be long before he gets to yours. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:33, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Five days have passed since you posted the note on WT:FAC. Would it be helpful if I contacted the reviewers who have already reviewed the FAC to see if either of them would be willing to perform the second source review? I am concerned that the FAC will fail yet again due to another month's lack of discussion and that I will have to wait two more weeks and start yet a fourth month-long FAC for this article. Any advice you can provide in how I can avoid this eventuality would be greatly appreciated. Neelix (talk) 18:22, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's no danger of it being archived if no dissenting opinions arise, I'd just prefer Brian or someone else to have a quick look as a second opinion following Nick's comments. However if that doesn't occur by the w/e, I expect it will be promoted anyway as the notice has been there long enough. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your guidance throughout all of this; the communication made the wait much easier. Neelix (talk) 11:51, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, and I appreciate that feedback. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:05, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

April 2013 Milhist article contest

		The Writer's Barnstar
		For placing second in the April 2013 Military history WikiProject Contest with 58 points from seven entries, I am delighted to present you with The Writer's Barnstar. Well done! AustralianRupert (talk) 23:34, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Drive proposal for June

FYI I've started a proposal for a drive in Jun here [2]. Was hoping to get some more co-ord opinions before I look to implement this. If you are able to have a look I would be interested in your opinion. Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 11:26, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hercules ACR

Hi Ian, My A-4G Skyhawk ACR passed yesterday, and I'm thinking of nominating either the C-130 or C-17 in Australian service for A class status. Are you planning further changes to the C-130 article? If so (or if you'd rather hold off with the Hercules article until your current ACRs pass), I'll go ahead with nominating the C-17 article. There's no rush with either article. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a couple of snippets I can add to the Herc article (admittedly I was holding off to see if you added similar via Wilson, etc!) and I was still planning to go over the new stuff and copyedit or offer suggestions... Also I seem to be on an ACR roll lately so why don't you strike while the iron's hot and get the C-17 article into circulation and guarantee yourself at least one prompt review? ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, C-17 it is. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on TFA images

Hi Ian, I'm sure you'll see my talk-page spam at WT:FAC and elsewhere, but in case not, you may be interested in a discussion that I've started at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article#Request for comment - images in TFA blurbs. All views welcome. Bencherlite ^Talk 16:35, 15 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Greg LeMond FA renomination in absence of peer review? Or where/how can we find peers who'll review?

Hi - I'm writing concerning the article Greg LeMond, which I previously nominated for FA-status. My co-collaborator and I have continued to edit the article during the past several months with the aim of preparing it to be re-reviewed for FA-status. However, we have found no other editors interested in committing to the development of the article into a FA-candidate, who will also participate in peer review. We would like to receive feedback that will lead to the article being improved such that the FA-review will be almost a formality, but absent a group of peers who'll review the article, is our only option to resubmit the article for FA-review, and if it's rejected again, address whatever issues are raised and resubmit a third time? Thanks for any insight/guidance. joepa^T 22:12, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, have you in fact tried submitting it for Peer Review? That doesn't appear to be so from the Article History... One thing from a very quick glance at the article, by the way: is every item in the Palmarès section cited in the main text? If not, those that aren't would need citation in the Palmarès list. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly useful photo for Canberra articles

Hi Ian, I spotted this AWM photo of No. 2 Squadron in Vietnam in the book The RAAF in Vietnam (p. 202). The interesting thing about it is that its credited to the US National Archives, which means that its almost certainly PD as a result of being a work of the US Government. Given that you've worked on a few Canberra-related articles I thought I'd point it out. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good shot, eh? Ought to be PD with that attribution -- tks for pointing it out. While I've got you here, you don't have the Maritime and Transport volume of Units of the RAAF do you? Not a big deal if not, can check it in the Mitchell next week... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful, not all records at NARA are PD. You may want to search their site when it's back u to see if the record has been digitized or if its catalog information (including copyright) is online. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:42, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that advice Ed. Ian, I do have that edition. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:22, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto, Ed. Nick, not sure but I think No. 17 AOP Flight might be in that volume -- if so, can you provide me the relevant page range and confirm the unit disbandment date? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 17 AOP Flight is covered on pages 173-173, and the unit was formed on 2 October 1944 and disbanded "in the field" (eg, on Bougainville and mainland New Guinea) on 7 December 1945. Regards Nick-D (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many tks mate -- I actually read the entry last week and thought I'd noted those details but clearly forgot. Cheers again, Ian Rose (talk) 23:29, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, just realised -- assume you mean 172-173, or is it 173-174? (I think the former from my recollection of the page layout)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:43, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's 172-173. My brain doesn't work well at this stage of Sunday mornings! Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope not -- why should you be any better off than the rest of us... ;-) Okay, I guessed right -- anyway, that's permitted me to finalise the first cut of another wing expansion, No. 84 (a long time coming...!) Cheers, again, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK great. Once the B-class drive gets going I plan to have a crack at the unstruck articles at User:Nick-D/RAAF sqns, and the AOP Flights would be a good starting point. Nick-D (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good list! Do you mind if I take 33SQN? I've got it fresh in my mind with its 84WG association... Also I'm afraid I downgraded 36SQN 'cos it seemed awfully thin when I considered its exploits as part of 86WG, so I should take that one as well. Others I've spotted on the B-Class drive 'help needed' lists that I might do are 114MCRU, 2OCU, 41/42/44WG, Air Command, and perhaps also take a crack at an intro/exposition for List of RAAF Wings... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:15, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to both of those. I've got a few references on the saga of re-equipping with A330s which would be useful for the No. 33 Sqn article. Nick-D (talk) 00:18, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, when I've done what I can I'll let you know... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:09, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Gallipoli Campaign

G'day, Ian, I've requested a peer review for Gallipoli Campaign. If you have a free moment, would you mind taking a look? The review page is hear: Wikipedia:Peer review/Gallipoli Campaign/archive1. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:08, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Will try! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:16, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Ian. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources reviews

Hi, Ian. I can't help noticing how few FACs are getting sources reviews at the moment. Some of the oldest noms don't have them yet. I'm prepared to spend a bit of time on this, so can you identify any of the long-standing noms which are on the verge of promotion? I'll do the source reviews for these, and also start work on some of the more recent. Please ping me. Brianboulton (talk) 23:03, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks very much for that offer, Brian -- a number on my 'pending' list for this week do have them but some time today I'll note those that don't at the top of WT:FAC, with the image and spotcheck requests. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:45, 20 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Listed a few to start with. Tks/cheers. Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

My sources are ready and on hand in case anyone wants to start soon (surprised it's taken a year for a new spotcheck, but that's a different issue). — Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Crisco, I understood Brian to be talking about source reviews for reliability, and formatting within the article -- the sort of thing he and Nikkimaria often do -- rather than spotchecking the actual sources to check they've been used accurately and close paraphrasing avoided (Brian, correct me if I'm wrong). That said, it's always been my preference that everyone, no matter how experienced at FAC, be spotchecked occasionally, so if someone is able to undertake that for your current FAC, I'd of course be happy to see it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, he. But yeah, if anyone's up to it I've got the book right next to me. I'll prepare it as scannable text so Google translate works better. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:07, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Yes, I had in mind the basic reliability and format checks, though when time allows I will often chuck in some spotchecks as well. I'll do what I can over the next week or so. Brianboulton (talk) 23:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the clarification. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good Article nomination of Capital punishment

Capital punishment is listed as an good article nominee.It would be of great help,if u could review this article.If any improvements are to be made,it is highly welcome. Suri 100 (talk) 11:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 84 Wing RAAF

On 21 May 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 84 Wing RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 84 Wing RAAF (Boeing 707 tanker pictured) received a Meritorious Unit Citation for its part in the war in Afghanistan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 84 Wing RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Spinning Spark 10:25, 21 May 2013 (UTC) 17:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVI, May 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Dumelow on the French Foreign Legion and Nick-D on New Zealand military history
Op-ed: Nick-D on military history tourism

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Norman conquest of England ACR

G'day, I am thinking about closing Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Norman conquest of England. Have your comments been addressed to your satisfaction? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:25, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see how we go w. my latest suggestion... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

File:82WingLincolnsAmberley1954.jpg

The PUF discussion on this image led to its being tagged as non-free. When you have a moment could you drop by there and add an appropriate rationale? It's not within my field of expertise so I'd just be copying boilerplate stuff. (ESkog)^(Talk) 13:23, 23 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals

Hi Ian. I've opened a peer review for List of Royal Australian Air Force air marshals with the aim of improving to to A-Class and possibly FL standard, and was hoping that if you had a spare minute you could take a look? Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

On my list, can't promise when...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:37, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. I'm in no rush, so no issue whenever you get around to having a look. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 12:18, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Slight nag...

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Middle Ages/archive1 is sitting at five or six supports and no opposes. I realize it's a bit of mess (but its such a huge article and topic that it was probably going to be messy no matter what I did...) but is there anything else you think I need to address before you can promote? It's been up three weeks. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:03, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be walking through the FAC list over the next couple of days and will let you know at the nom if there's any concerns from my perspective. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I"ve whacked away (it's a constant battle to keep out unneeded duplicate links) ... thanks for the help! Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:52, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Good Girl Gone Bad: Reloaded/archive1

Hi Ian! I hope you remember me from "Cry Me a River" FAC :). Well you did the source spotcheck there, can you do the ones here for this article? The FAC has 5 supports, an image/media spotcheck was done and everything seems to go well. Thank You! — Tomíca^(T2ME) 19:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be going through all the FACs in the next couple of days, so will have a look then. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewing the nomination, I don't need to see a spotcheck of sources for this because your previous one was not problematic, what I've asked for at WT:FAC is a source review that's more about reliability of sources and consistent formatting of citations and references -- Nikkimaria and Brianboulton are the experts here... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:24, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

King Charles I of England - Portrayal in fiction

My list of Portrayal in fiction was never meant to be an exhaustive one; instead it was meant as a starting point to invite contributors to add other works of literature that fit the criteria. How often have I come across contributions (be it a singular item or lists) where the historic character is mentioned in works of fiction, not just a suggested further reading list. I for one am always interested in historical novels where real-life characters make an appearance. Unless you can come up with a good reason why the list should not be featured on the page, and I don't think your argument "I think there must've been consensus in the past to avoid such a section" is good enough, then I'd like it to be restored, please. Petaurist (talk) 10:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well it'd be nice if you considered that an experienced Wikipedian might have a memory for this sort of thing, but whatever... Let me point you to Cultural depictions of Charles I of England, where I'm sure your additions will be more than welcome -- just please leave them out of the main Charles I article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll try that. I just like to point out that Thomas Wolsey (redirected from Cardinal Wolsey just to pick a quick example) has a section entitled Fictional portrayals - are you going to delete these too? As you're a so-called experienced Wikipedian (how should I know?), you should also know that it's common courtesy to at least contact the contributor before you delete some of their material without good reason; editorialising isn't your job! Petaurist (talk) 11:56, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think a glance at my user page would've provided evidence of experience. In any case, I did all that common courtesy required by assuming that your edits were in good faith and giving you an explanation for deletion in the edit summary. BTW, I think the only editorialising going on was your expression in the Charles I additions, e.g. "memorable" and "He cuts a rather more pitiful figure" -- best to avoid wording like this in the encyclopedia, particularly when the opinion isn't cited to a reliable source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:06, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Again, may I direct you to Thomas Wolsey - Fictional portrayals, where you'll find expressions like "portrayed somewhat more sympathetically", "rather comical" and "depicts him as an arrogant power-grabber"; "editorialising", as you call it, and none of the contributors provide what you term "a reliable source". I was just taking my cue from contributors who have come before me. If you had taken the time to look up my contributions page, you would also have realised that I'm still very new to this, so a gentle and polite message would have done the trick. Now I can't help feeling that this encyclopaedia is patrolled by the Wikipedia police, such as yourself, hardly encouraging newbies to contribute further. If you're so serious about keeping the King Charles article clean of all the low-brow stuff, may I suggest that you insert a link on the main page to direct future visitors to the other article; it's not like Cultural depictions of ... is at the forefront of most people when they look up a historical figure.

Yes, I realised you were new, which is why I assumed good faith and explained my actions. I know it's not always easy to spot what should be used as a guide and what perhaps should not. I had the same issue when I started editing. One tends to learn around here by doing, and occasionally making mistakes. Everyone is, after all, a volunteer. For future reference, the best things to emulate tend to be the Featured Articles (particularity ones that have achieved that status recently, you can find that on their talk pages) as they've been through a fairly extensive review by other users. Failing that, Good Articles and A-Class articles are also worth checking as a guide. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the hat note you've added to Charles I doesn't actually belong there. The cultural depictions article link goes under the "See also" section at the end, where it in fact already is. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 17:40, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I-96

I'm taking a lunch break here at work, and I played with the links. It's quite confusing that that tool doesn't highlight the initial links as well. Either way, tweaks have been applied. Imzadi 1979 → 07:20, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Broken promotion?

Could I please direct your attention to this topic? I'm a bit concerned the BOT may not be able to promote Prometheus as it's been about 9 days since it's discussion was closed. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 09:21, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No. 38 Squadron RAAF

Hi Ian, I've just nominated this article for GA status. I might start an article on "Operation Pig Bristle" if I can find sufficient sources! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that'd be good for a DYK...! I'll review 38SQN if no-one else picks it up soon -- no worries about QPQ as Sturm has already taken 36SQN. As discussed, I nominated it for DYK with a ref to Corbould -- looks to already have someone ready to approve it but feel free to tweak the hook or suggest an alt if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:42, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already used up the DYK opportunity for this article, noting the squadron's use of Caribous for 45 years - the article itself received 2000 extra views, but the Caribou article got more than 5000, so I think I should have come up with something more interesting ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I meant if you can write an article for Pig Bristle you'd get a good DYK there... ;-) BTW, tks for spotting my slip of the brain at the 36SQN DYK -- glad I asked you to have a look...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done!: Operation Pig Bristle (probably the strangest topic I've written an article on, but establishing notability was easy thanks to Trove). Nick-D (talk) 11:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could whip up a decent (not to mention off-beat) article that quickly -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:49, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, would you mind reviewing the DYK? It's at: Template:Did you know nominations/Operation Pig Bristle. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Good Articles Recruitment Centre

Hello! Now, some of you might have already received a similar message a little while ago regarding the Recruitment Centre, so if you have, there is no need to read the rest of this. This message is directed to users who have reviewed over 15 Good article nominations and are not part of WikiProject Good articles (the first message I sent out went to only WikiProject members).

So for those who haven't heard about the Recruitment Centre yet, you may be wondering why there is a Good article icon with a bunch of stars around it (to the right). The answer? WikiProject Good articles will be launching a Recruitment Centre very soon! The centre will allow all users to be taught how to review Good article nominations by experts just like you! However, in order for the Recruitment Centre to open in the first place, we need some volunteers:

Recruiters: The main task of a recruiter is to teach users that have never reviewed a Good article nomination how to review one. To become a recruiter, all you have to do is meet this criteria. If we don't get at least 5-10 recruiters to start off with (at the time this message was sent out, 2 recruiters have volunteered), the Recruitment Centre will not open. If interested, make sure you meet the criteria, read the process and add your name to the list of recruiters. (One of the great things about being a recruiter is that there is no set requirement of what must be taught and when. Instead, all the content found in the process section is a guideline of the main points that should be addressed during a recruitment session...you can also take an entire different approach if you wish!) If you think you will not have the time to recruit any users at this time but are still interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still add your name to the list of recruiters but just fill in the "Status" parameter with "Not Available".

Co-Director: The current Director for the centre is me (Dom497). Another user that would be willing to help with some of the tasks would be helpful. Tasks include making sure recruiters are doing what they should be (teaching!), making sure all recruitments are archived correctly, updating pages as needed, answering any questions, and distributing the feedback form. If interested, please contact me (Dom497).

Nominators, please read this: If you are not interested in becoming a recruiter, you can still help. In some cases a nominator may have an issue with an "inexperienced" editor (the recruitee) reviewing one of their nominations. To minimize the chances of this happening, if you are fine with a recruitee reviewing one of your nominations under the supervision of the recruiter, please add your name to the list at the bottom of this page. By adding your name to this list, chances are that your nomination will be reviewed more quickly as the recruitee will be asked to choose a nomination from the list of nominators that are OK with them reviewing the article.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me. I look forward to seeing this program bring new reviewers to the Good article community and all the positive things it will bring along.

A message will be sent out to all recruiters regarding the date when the Recruitment Centre will open when it is determined. The message will also contain some further details to clarify things that may be a bit confusing.--Dom497 (talk)

This message was sent out by --EdwardsBot (talk) 14:54, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi Ian, I've nominated Isabeau of Bavaria again with crossed fingers that my schedule will be a bit more forgiving this time around. Just wanted you know, because I've had a name change, in case that's confusing. I have been to FAC before, but not under this name. Formerly Truthkeeper88, now Victoria (talk) 14:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Victoria, welcome back! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

SheiKra FAC

Hello, just out of curiosity, is the only thing stopping SheiKra from getting promoted is the fact that a spot-check hasn't bee done (as you mentioned on the review page)?--Dom497 (talk) 00:22, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that should be about it. If no-one else has done it by the w/e then I'll probably take care of it myself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:33, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC nomination

Hey there. My last nomination didn't go anywhere (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Stephen Lynch (politician)/archive1)—would I be able to nominate a different article today, or should I wait two weeks? Thanks. —Designate (talk) 10:33, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there were no complete reviews of the last FAC, I've no objection to you nominating another sooner than the normal two-week waiting period -- if you've one in mind that's been through PR (or A-Class review if applicable) as well as GAN and might therefore have some 'ready-made' interest, even better, but I'll leave that to you... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1

I have responded to your final concern at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tommy Amaker/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Have to hit the sack down here now but expect to promote this tomorrow, feel free to nom another now. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:05, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

God of War: Betrayal FAC

Two reviews with support were added from non-experts. I don't know if it's enough to promote though. --JDC808 ♫ 18:16, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for No. 36 Squadron RAAF

On 16 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 36 Squadron RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that No. 36 Squadron (C-17 Globemaster pictured) became the first RAAF flying unit to be led by a woman when Wing Commander Linda Corbould was appointed commanding officer in 2006? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/No. 36 Squadron RAAF. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

The DYK project (nominate) 01:02, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

Nice work Ian. I'm waiting for someone to complain about the run of antipodean military air transport DYKs over the last month! (at least five by my count). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, yes, it could be a risk -- chalk another up today! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pisco Sour

Dear Ian,
I have contacted the three users who provided a commentary on the page and had not yet decided on support/oppose. One of them, Cambalachero, has written a support statement (although he asks if his contribution might be a conflict of interest). Lester might not comment given his primary contributions take place in the Spanish WP, but I expect that he will do it. However, in the case of SandyGeorgia, I fear that the user might be a little bothered by the FAC due to a minor squabble with SpinningSpark.
It is worth noting, nonetheless, that none have opposed the Pisco Sour FAC. Consensus is currently in favor of a support.
Best wishes.--MarshalN20 | ^Talk 02:21, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks, will review again later this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:34, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DYK for William Hely

On 17 June 2013, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article William Hely, which you created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that Flight Lieutenant Bill Hely crash landed a Dragon Rapide in the Northern Territory in 1936, and later used the same aircraft to locate missing flying doctor Clyde Fenton? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/William Hely. You are welcome to check how many hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check) and it will be added to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

— Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:19, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Well, thanks, mate. Instant fame!Lexysexy (talk) 23:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah-ha -- secret's out... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:33, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

GEbi FAC

Hi Ian, the Gospel of the Ebionites FAC nomination has been open for seven weeks. What more must I do to bring this process to a successful conclusion? Cheers. Ignocrates (talk) 03:50, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing more really, I'll review again later this week and if no problems crop up I'd expect to promote. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for letting me know. Ignocrates (talk) 13:19, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with your editorial changes to the last paragraph. I was trying to convey a sense of why this topic matters by speaking directly to the reader. However, I understand the point of your edit summary: the wording I chose makes the conclusion seem more like an essay than a report. Thank you for promoting the article to FA. Cheers! Ignocrates (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, hope you're encouraged to produce more work like this. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, most definitely! This was quite a learning experience. Ignocrates (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you might want to be aware of this post today to the article talk page. I assume a FAR will be following shortly. Ignocrates (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Ian Rose. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Millennium Force/archive2.
Message added 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

I have addressed your comments. Astros4477 (Talk) 17:23, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

FAC

Hello! well I just want to tell you that I haven't asked any of the supporters by email. The people I asked didn't even reflected to the fac page. I was not knowing about Canvassing in particular but Dr. Blofeld had told me not to ask anyone regarding the review. I thought if I directly ask them, then It should be helpful for the benefit of the article. As, Brain was also a part of First FAC...so i asked him to participate in this too. For, Crisco...well i noted his comment on another Indian FAC that's why. I have even apologized to both Brain and Crisco. If you want to ask each supporter, i don't have any problem because they were supporting it themselves. Do you think someone like Jimfbleak, Tim riley and Cassianto would come just by seeing email? I haven't asked any of the supporters. In fact, I asked Yoy to archive the nomination but, I can't compromise that it got support just because of canvassing. The article is in a very strong position, it doesn't need canvassing. Please, reach a consensus. Thank You.—Prashant 02:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Title caps

Hi Ian, I hope you are well. I wonder if you could clarify a minor formatting point for me? Do you know if the correct title a Vice admiral or a Vice Admiral? (And is it hyphenated for a British officer)? Many thanks for any pointer you can give. - SchroCat (talk) 20:11, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi mate, I'm good, hope likewise. If it's used as a title then it's all caps, e.g. "Vice Admiral Bloggs". If it's used in more general terms then it's all lower case, e.g. "Bloggs was promoted to vice admiral". As far as I'm aware it's never hyphenated, at least not in the Commonwealth system (I can't think offhand of any double-barrelled Commonwealth ranks that are hyphenated, and even triple-barrelled ones like air vice marshal sometimes appear with it, i.e. "air vice-marshal", and sometimes not). Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All good here thanks. It's officially the start of Summer in Britain today (rain is forecast) and midsummer is on 24th: by my reckoning that makes the British summer officially six days long, which is what most of us have always suspected anyway. Anyway, many thanks for the caps advice: for some reason I thought it was "Vice admiral Bloggs", so it's nice to get the correct version. Cheers, as always - SchroCat (talk) 08:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FOUR for Allan Walters

		Four Award
		Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Allan Walters. TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:30, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Tony -- I've missed these... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 22 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with swords
		By order of he coordinators of the Military History Project, I am very pleased to award you the A-Class medal with swords for outstanding work on No. 86 Wing RAAF, No. 81 Wing RAAF, and No. 78 Wing RAAF promoted between April and June 2013. Anotherclown (talk) 02:42, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:43, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bugle: Issue LXXXVII, June 2013

Your Military History Newsletter

Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results
Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content
Book reviews: Works on the RNZAF, World War I in the Baltic, and British battleship construction
Op-ed: Anchors Aweigh for the Majestic Titans

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) 08:38, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

33 Squad Review

Hi! I've begun a review of the article, there are a few points you may want to look at when you get a chance. Thanks, 14:27, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

I've passed the article, best wishes, ★★Retro Lord ★★ 18:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Thank you very much for reviewing HMS Aldenham (L22) GAR. I appreciate your time and effort. Cheers! Tomobe03 (talk) 14:47, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, nice work! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!

I just thought I would let you know that I found a source about the swapped planes for our discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Whaam!.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:48, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]