User talk:Ian Rose/Archive Jan-Jun 2016

2016 year of the reader and peace

2016

peace bell

Thank you for for all you do for FA, - thanks with my review, and the peace bell by Yunshui! Click on "bell" for celebratory music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda, I look forward to more of your music articles in 2016! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

On their way, women in music right now, TFA for Easter in the planning, GA right now. I am proud to have an article among the DYK for the 15th (had one for the 10th already), - sad reason that the subject died. Thanks (in prose) for the TFA No. 1 Flying Training School RAAF, - flying and training are also good mottos ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:21, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

More thanks in prose for No. 77 Squadron RAAF "one of the most famous units in RAAF history, mainly for the way it single-handedly carried out the service's air combat commitment to the Korean War", but not to forget much more! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Gerda, your good wishes for TFAs are always appreciated! cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Here comes the next: John Balmer. I also had a TFA on 3 July because of a birthday once, Wikipedia:Main Page history/2013 July 3, did you know? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be on TFA wings, No. 90 Wing RAAF, thank you! (My next one on Saturday, and writing BWV 161, informal look welcome.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:47, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

16 July 2016

Thank you for the promotion! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 16 July 2016 (UTC)

... and for someone with your given name, Ian Dougald McLachlan! - For simple peace, and also, - needed after the shock of the Munich shootings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

... and for Alexander Pentland! - Did you see yesterday's, a composer with an infobox? I should have signed it 10 August. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You are on TFA wings ;) today No. 91 Wing RAAF, thank you! I had the sweet hour of death yesterday, thank you for watching over it. - What can we do about the "reader and peace idea"? Precious people left, and I can't see more than the little difference between this and this, which I fail to see as a reason for so much emotion, activity and lack of good faith. The calling of group names gave way to using just my name as the source of all that evil. I had happy real life to do all summer long until last week and would not even have had the time to concoct and run a conspiracy, and I had no time for defense. Strange war that is. For your amusement (in case you don't know): my first infobox discussion is still on a talk, I was against it (took me half a year to arrive at serving the "idiots" also) ;) - Wish we could have peaceful conversations like that now! - The bell tolled for death more than for peace this year, sadly, but a recent memorial concert for which I had an idea I found a bit crazy myself, but they liked it and realized it, was three great hours of some of the greatest music ever written! "Draw the trace of your life with a smile." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

More wings: James Rowland (RAAF officer), thank you! Together with an image I took, of OREYA singing. They introduced me to Barber's Agnus Dei in 2009 (which we dared to sing the following year, difficult but rewarding). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:38, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 11:20, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Oct - Dec 15 Quarterly Article Reviews

		Military history service award
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 1 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:44, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Tks Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:55, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tamworth. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:12, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity

Give me your contact details and I will send you the 1969 and 1973 versions of Space Oddity. What you are doing is crazy because the 1969 version is from Bowie's first album and doesn't sound anything like the 1973 version that today would be known as a remix. If you cannot provide contact details then buy the album "Space Oddity". In fact, I think that both versions 1969 and 1973 were released on one of the Bowie compilation albums. But your removing that information is crazy. Dickie birdie (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I looked for a written reference in Google books and it does not exist in print. When the 1973 version was released it was never promoted as a re-recording because I was collecting Bowie's singles during the 1970s in my mid-20s. I only found out about it when I bought the album "Space Oddity". What are you going to do --- remove the information again because it does not appear anywhere in print and mislead people? Dickie birdie (talk) 01:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity Original Version - From Amazon

The original version can be bought and downloaded from Amazon, here [ https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000WLNVO4?ie=UTF8&*Version*=1&*entries*=0]. The 1969 version is 3:46 long. The 1973 re-recorded version is 5:14 long. Dickie birdie (talk) 02:09, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Dickie, it looks to me like you condemn yourself out of your own mouth -- the track available from Amazon appears to be a demo version of the song recorded for the Love You Til Tuesday film, not the original single release from 1969 produced by Gus Dudgeon, which also appeared on the 1969 David Bowie album and was reissued in 1973 and 1975. This is precisely why WP works by reliable sources, not anecdotal information. As well as ignoring that guideline, you've also failed to observe BRD, whereby you should Discuss after your Bold edit has been Reverted, not simply keep adding the same material over again. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, I made a mistake. But see message below, I have clarified what caused the confusion. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:16, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Space Oddity - Solved

I have corrected the article after checking the David Bowie material uploaded on YouTube that gave the following:

1969 promotional film [[1]] and David Bowie - Space Oddity (Full Album 1969) [[2]]. Again, need to listen exclusively to the songs because what exists in print does not clarify the fact that these are 2 different songs. Dickie birdie (talk) 03:14, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, the song was re-released at different times during the 1970s in different countries. Full details are given here. [[

http://rateyourmusic.com/release/single/david_bowie/space_oddity___changes___velvet_goldmine_f2/]] Dickie birdie (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

FAC nominations

Hi Ian, I hope all is well, and a slightly belated happy new year to you. I've just posted this on Graham's page, but seen he is on a Wikibreak. As you will probably have seen, Tim riley and I have co-nominated Albert Ketèlbey‎ at FAC: although only five days old, it has five supports and one set of open comments which (I think) we've dealt with fully. I also have Isabella Beeton ready to go into the FAC process as a sole nominator. Are you happy if I nominate Beeton now, or would you rather I leave it for a little longer to see if any other large blocks of comment and criticism come along? There is no rush on putting Beeton up for FAC and I'm entirely happy to be guided by your thoughts on this. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

HNY to you too Gav -- based on past performance and the current comments I doubt they'll be any issue with Ketelbey, but perhaps if we leave a new nomination till I clear a few around the end of the week since the list is on the long side right now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi Ian, Not a problem at all - I'll give Beeton another couple of read throughs and a ce in the meantime to lessen the pain of the FAC! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:18, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

ANZAC

So, I've found what's apparently quite an iconic photo in New Zealand of the Maori Battalion. Thinking it would be a good ANZAC day FP, if I get it done in time, and that'd probably be different enough to get an Australian FA in the article list. Sound good? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 13:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Sounds very good! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

David Bowie

If in arguing against BOLD you would "suggest discussion/consensus before any further change" then, by all means, jump right in. The "accepted for quite some time" image sucks even harder. 🖖ATinySliver/^ATalkPage 03:31, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Well obviously I disagree with that last sentiment but I welcome further discussion on it and have now found time to have my say at the talk page... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:44, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

My edit changes the assertion that people "have forgotten how to reproduce".People CANNOT forget how to reproduce. What has been lost in the post-apocalypse is the (as I stated) the notion of courtship. The ravers are watching romantic films, not pornography, with naive ideas of awkwardly shrugging, putting one's arms around someone, turning off lights, uncertainty, and love. Please revert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spycoops (talk • contribs) 02:22, 24 May 2016

As I said at the article talk page (where this discussion belongs), your interpretation isn't supported by the cited source; if you have a source that says something different to what's there, you can always add it as an alternative interpretation. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Initial Flying Training School RAAF

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 12:01, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

File:AshesToAshes3.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:AshesToAshes3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC) -- Marchjuly (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Mullum Malarum

Although my own FAC, I request it be closed because it's been open for long. I don't care whether its a pass or fail, but based on the number of supports and opposes, you may close it. If the final outcome is "archived", please note what FA criteria was left unsolved. Kailash29792 (talk) 07:50, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I'd like to think we can resolve it one way or the other, and have left a note at the FAC page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

Doubt

Hi, Ian. Why Juan Manuel de Rosas hasn't been promoted to FA? The nomination is three months old. Kind regards, --Lecen (talk) 12:07, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Things do get slow around Xmas / New Year; in this particular case though, has anyone conducted the source review I mentioned a while back? If not best put a note at the top of WT:FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ian. I didn't know we could ask for a review. I just did that. Have a great day, --Lecen (talk) 14:50, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

We're done with the source review! --Lecen (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Useful resource

I just spotted that this newish RAAF publication has the first comprehensive order of battle for the force I've seen in years - including several new entries for List of Royal Australian Air Force wings! Nick-D (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Great stuff, ammunition with which to revisit/verify all the current wing articles -- tks Nick! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:38, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

It also looks useful for all the new/renamed squadrons Nick-D (talk) 09:07, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

help needed

dear mr rose, can you help us reach a conclusion on this long debate going on about freemasonry's goals please? [3] thank you much Grandia01 (talk) 08:34, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXVIII, January 2016

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 review: Nick-D on Jefferson Davis; Hawkeye7 on Australia's war in Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 discusses British World War I conscription Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 11:24, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/February 2016/Articles

You might need to clean it up a little, but the FPs are done.

The only note is that I've presumed "Your Motherland Will Never Forget" will pass - It has five supports (a quorum) and no opposes, so it's almost certainly going to. There's nothing else that can pass in time to matter for January. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:19, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:No. 4 Service Flying Training School RAAF for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Peripitus -- Peripitus (talk) 09:21, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:01, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

The article No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 8 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:41, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my RfA

	Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Some advice on FAC

Hey mate. I've began restoring "All I Want for Christmas Is You" to its former GA quality, and have been expanding it further to possibly nominate. I have only one concern, which is if you look at the bottom of the article, there's a long list section of celebrities, singers etc. that have covered the song over the years (live and on record). Mind you when I wrote this thing over 6 years ago, it was written out in text in a few paragraphs like "During a 1998 holiday appearance on TODAY, Shania Twain sang an acoustic version. the song was included on ""s" album in 2002" etc. it's repetitive and is gonna be a stumbling block either way. The list is pretty long lol. How do you suggest I present that section to the FAC process? Cheers bro. Ps. Maybe create a new article list page and expand on all the covers and be able to alleviate that messy burden off the main article--PeterGriffin • Talk2Me 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi Peter, I'm afraid I'm not up on the preferred layout for covers lists (FAC would usually defer to the song project's standards for such things, or you could check some recently promoted song FAs) but at the very least it passes the test of everything being cited (though I haven't checked the reliability of the sources). One thing on a quick scan of the article, I couldn't see a review/rating table, which seems to be standard for song and album articles, usually in the Critical Reception section from memory. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:42, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your support

	Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
	Thank you for participating and supporting at my RfA. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Thomas White (Australian politician)

The article Thomas White (Australian politician) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Thomas White (Australian politician) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hawkeye7 -- Hawkeye7 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for No. 4 Elementary Flying Training School RAAF

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:02, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

User:Prashant/Krish!

You, Cassianto and SchroCat may remember this editor from the Indian FACs such as Priyanka Chopra and her filmography I think and remember that he behaved extremely childishly and demonstrated basically that he didn't have the mentality for FAC or wikipedia in general. Years down the line, he continues to display absolutely no indication that he's growing up, and still acts the same way. Again his edit warring with Krimuk90 has resulted in Krimuk requesting an indefinite block for himself in frustration. This comment too in which he calls my fair attempt to mediate the situation at Talk:Shahid Kapoor "an outburst", blaming me for it all basically, which I also find most infuritating. What should we do about him? IMO he's demonstrated on enough occasions that he lacks the maturity to edit here and frequently clashes with other editors. I don't know what he's been contributing of late but overall to me it seems he's outstayed his welcome here as time and time again he demonstrates that he just can't discuss things maturely and interact with people. As you might remember he takes the smallest things personally, such as failing to respond to a review request within 48 hours. I've really had enough of him, and however much I think Krimuk90 overreacted with him, I do understand how infuriating this Prashant can really be. Do we think his overall contribution to the project is more valuable than his frequent clashes with people?♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:42, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Prashant, should be blocked for a substantial amount of time until he learns how to behave in a mature way. I've never liked him, and have found him to be more of a hindrance to the project than an asset. Unfortunately, he is not the only one; Caden, who some of you will know for being my number 1 troll, echoes many of the hallmarks that Prashant possesses. And Caden has been allowed to pray continue for months now. Cassianto^Talk 14:05, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Ah yes, Caden. The commenting against in discussions for the sake of it, whether or not he really cares about the issue or not. Just read the tone of Prashant's message here though, you can tell from that alone the immaturity in his thinking.♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:17, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear Dr. Blofeld I didn't say your outburST. I meant Krimuk's outburst, so correct yourself. And, I was discussing as per the guidance of Wikipedia and Krimuk over-reacted. Plus Kailash called me a "LUNATIC", which is against wikipedia guidelines. I just reminded him that has was bad mouthing about me since a long time. I don't know why people are misinterpreting everything in which there was not my fault. Any answers Blofeld?Krish | Talk 15:01, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

You said "The discussion on Shahid Kapoor was started by Dr. Blofeld and everything was going smooth until his outburst to what he thought was right." Clearly you're referring to me as Krimuk didn't give an outburst on what he thought was right.♦ Dr. Blofeld 15:04, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

What I meant to say to Kailash (he was calling me a lunatic, Vensatry warned him not to) that whatever Krimuk dis was not my fault but Krimuk's own fault. Dr. Blofeld started the discussion and everything was going smooth (me and you had discussed the need of that claim in two separate relies), until his outburts (Krimuk's): "I'm not interested in editing this article anymore. I'm sure Mr. Krish can do a much better job at this than a fucking retard like me! Good luck.". I never meant for you. Why I would in first place because you and I had a smooth discussion. I think my text was confusing so you thought I was referring to you.Krish | Talk 15:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

The question is, does Prashant's work on here override the negative aspect of his personality and inability to interact with others without conflict or taking things personally?♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:24, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

No, it does not. I have been following his interraction all throughout his time here in Wikipedia, and it has never changed, rather I would say it has worsened. Previously it was just childish, now it has borderline become intolerable. —IB ^{[ Poke ]} 23:05, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Advertising an FA source request on a WikiProject talk page

Hi Ian, I asked this over on the nomination page for Black American Sign Language but haven't gotten a response from Laser Brain (and just assuming they're busy). Anyway, my request for a source audit has been sitting for about a month (probably because they're mostly offline sources on a specialized topic) and want to know what the general feeling about asking for input at WikiProject talk pages is. Thanks, Wugapodes (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Pls feel free to ask there, tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:07, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

RfC: The Man Who Sold the World

I've opened an RfC regarding your concern --> Talk:The Man Who Sold the World (album)#RfC: Should the 1971 British cover be shown first rather than the original 1970 American cover? Dan56 (talk) 19:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

FA review

Hey Ian, can you review Ride the Lightning for an FA on its nomination page? The image and source reviews are done so far, but I haven't received a prose review yet. I think it won't take you much time to read it. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 13:36, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Tks for asking -- I can't guarantee I'll find the time to do it but if I can I will. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXIX, February 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on nuclear weapons in Britain and Nick-D on Australia's war in the Pacific Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Kamurun Campaign of 1914–16 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 14:15, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Nom rq

Hex Enduction Hour‎ has been hovering at the end of the pile, this last week waiting for a source review now supplied by Wehwalt, with demands met. Can I go again please basically; I want to get in tonight so I have tomorrow and monday to respond to first comments, should I be so lucky. Until Friday I'm really stretched with RL job stuff. Article is Saint Luke Drawing the Virgin. Ceoil (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead, I expect I'll be closing Hex and others this morning (Sydney time) anyway. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, many thanks. Ceoil (talk) 18:38, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Photo requests in Sydney

Hi! Do you do photo requests in Sydney? There are some articles on Wikipedia about Sydney schools that need pictures.

Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 06:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Not sure I'll have much time to oblige for a while but if you let me know some specifics I'll keep them in mind... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok! I have two in Terrey Hills, one in Maroubra, and one in Meadowbank

• Lycée Condorcet - 758 Anzac Parade, Maroubra, NSW 2035 AUSTRALIA
• German International School Sydney - 33 Myoora Road Terrey Hills NSW 2084
• Sydney Japanese International School - 112 Booralie Road, Terrey Hills, NSW 2084 Australia
• Italian Bilingual School (no Wikipedia article yet) - 30-32 See St, Meadowbank, 2114. - Map

WhisperToMe (talk) 17:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid I don't get to Terrey Hills much but Maroubra and/or Meadowbank are certainly possibilities -- will let you know. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Dammit...I just drove past that place in Maroubra....will be working there next week. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 02:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Bugle subscription

Hi, Ian. I know you're a busy man but next you update Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News as you do often, please also update {{Bugle-subscription}}. There's a comment in the former to update the latter and that code is meant for editors like you. The ed17 made the Bugle subscription template and although I'm probably the only user, your actions aren't encouraging wider use. Thanks for what you do. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I think this was a colder message than it needed to be, Chris. A simple request might get a better response. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 17:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I thought this was a "simple request". I actually made the verbiage nicer than my initial thoughts which I guess goes to the disconnect I'm feeling with humanity as a whole. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

It could have just been me? Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Well there you go, that comment never registered with me for some reason -- surprised no-one mentioned it before. Anyway, noted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian. :-) Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Grammar question

Do you think some readers will take "In the Battle of Greece, he became the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in battle" to mean "He was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS in the Battle of Greece"? I think it's possible, but I'm not sure. - Dank (push to talk) 03:38, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Dan, I recall that the previous wording included "ever" to emphasise "only" but I felt that wasn't necessary (like "best ever" instead of simply "best"). I reckon it's clear that the key part of the sentence is that he was the only Australian general to face the Waffen SS, and the opening clause simply gives the context, i.e. in which battle this unique confrontation took place. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Thomas White (Australian politician)

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:04, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Page ranges

I feel like a bit of a doofus, but can you point me to the policy on page ranges in citations? ie is it 181–182 or 181–82? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:34, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Never feel that way about WP policy... ;-) Seriously, I can't point you to a guideline, but I'm quite sure that either format is acceptable provided consistency is maintained within the article. I always use 181–182 and have never had it questioned in reviews, but I often see 181–82 in FAs that I'm monitoring and similarly there seems to be no issue as long as it's consistent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:28, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, I have a feeling it has been organic in the past, but someone keeps changing it in articles I watchlist, so I've suddenly become aware of it. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

If someone arbitrarily changes the established format within an article then it might come under WP:CITEVAR, meaning consensus should be sought for the blanket change since there's no simple right-or-wrong answer regards the style... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)... I've even seen ranges omit the "p." and "pp." so it looks like this "Bloggs, 87." My preferred style, like Ian, is the full page range. Cassianto^Talk 09:11, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

C/e on RTL

Thanks for the work so far on the album Ian, I really appreciate it. If you can find some free time and check the other sections it would be awesome. I'll understand if you're busy.--Retrohead (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:57, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

King Kong Plot

So I noticed that you reverted my edit on the plot for the 2005 remake of King Kong. Just thought I'd let you know that I replied to your comment in the article's talk page that explains the whole thing. You might want to check it out.--Paleface Jack (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Mohanlal filmography

Hi Rose, I have nominated this list to FLC. Can you help with that. --Inside the Valley (talk) 16:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Australian Air Defence Areas

Presumably you are intending to delete the article not the talk page.--Grahame (talk) 12:57, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Heh, yes, I got a big message in red on the talk page when I saved -- sorry you got that spurious notification. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:07, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Oppenheimer image

Must we employ the same image used in the J. Robert Oppenheimer infobox for the sake of the 'looking inwards' guideline (not policy AFAIK) when we already had a good-quality image that was judged acceptable at FAC?
Certainly not. I regarded the change as an improvement, but I don't believe that it "must" be carried out (and while my reasoning is described in the aforementioned guideline, I didn't perform the edit for the sake of compliance therewith.)
Suggest get consensus first...
Fair enough. However, if your main concern is image variety, you might consider self-reverting for the remainder of the day (given that the current photograph accompanies the main page blurb, which most of today's readers will see first.) Your call. —David Levy 05:32, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the above, David. I'm kind of used to blurb images being from the article (though I know that's not required and wouldn't try to enforce it for its own sake) so when I said I liked the variety of images I was thinking of between this article and the dedicated Oppie article, rather than between the mainpage and article images for the hearing page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:37, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXX, March 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 discusses a Panzer general and a "mercenary mum" Op-ed: TomStar81 on the terrible battles of 1916 Timeline: This month in World War I

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) 12:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ivor McIntyre you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:01, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

If you don't mind.

I'd like to put The Phantom Tollbooth up even though Huguenot-Walloon half dollar remains pending. Although there's an editor who started a review but did not return to it, aside from that I see no impediment to promotion.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:22, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead -- wasn't sure anyone had checked source formatting but I had a quick look at that myself so I don't think there's anything standing in the way; I'll probably do a closure run later today. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

I took the last line of Ceoil's review as a source review. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 05:22, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

FAC ...

"FAC has a specific policy that there are a limited set of people whose opinions matter regarding NFCC." I was not aware of any such policy at FAC? Have I been out of touch that long? Ealdgyth - Talk 17:06, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Heh, not that I know of -- responded accordingly at the nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:35, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ivor McIntyre

The article Ivor McIntyre you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Ivor McIntyre for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 01:21, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF

The article No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:No. 4 Operational Training Unit RAAF for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Reg

Hey Ian, I noticed that your latest nom isn't on the FAC page. I would do it for you but I wasn't sure if you were holding off for some reason. --Laser brain (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Just an oversight actually -- must've got distracted after penning the nom -- slotted it in now, tks Andy! Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Your close at Austen

The late Wadewitz plan for the featured article for Austen was based on the FA for Chekhov and not the FA for Ian Flemming. If you meant to endorse the opposition stated against using the FA model for Chekhov in the Austen article, then this would bring to an end the late Wadewitz plan for the form of the article to be based upon the Chekhov FA approach if that was your intention to replace and restructure the article toward the Ian Flemming form of a featured article. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sorry but I'm not sure how picking up on a reviewer's comment about the format of recent author FAs by offering a specific example (and only an example -- as I said, there are probably others) that includes a style and themes section should constitute some sort of assault on Wadewitz's vision. I think she would recognize that things might have progressed since Chekhov attained FA status way back in 2007 and that perhaps there's scope to build on its format. I suggest you re-read the commentary at the FAC and consider it in terms of good faith attempts to help you improve the article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Certainly in good faith, and I have read all the comments along with the separate FA article which Wadewitz wrote on the Austen Legacy at Reception history of Jane Austen. In the spirit of Wadewitz, she realized that the extensive legacy of Austen could perhaps be more effectively served by writing it as a separate sibling article first. In case you did not know, she did successfully bring the Austen legacy article to FA status (it is a fine article) and sadly passed away before being able to complete her plan to bring the Biography article to FA status on the model of the Chekhov article. It is my high regard for the quality of the FA article of the Austen Legacy that draws me to this point of giving her ideas for Austen a full assessment. If you did not know of the Reception history of Jane Austen Legacy article then its well-worth a read. Wadewitz realized that the very large size of the Legacy article made it impractical to include in the Biography article. She took the sibling article approach out of her love of Austen in the best sense of improving her Biography article. Cheers. Fountains-of-Paris (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

FRWL

Hi Ian, Many thanks for your comments and edits on From Russia, with Love. As you've probably spotted, it's now at FAC should you have any further comments to make. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

January to March 2016 Quarterly Article Reviews

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 13 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:45, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks AC! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ping

Hi Ian, I think you might have missed my post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom#April edition :) Could you please handle that? (obviously OK if you don't have time until the weekend though! - neither do I). Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Hi Nick, should be all done now but if you get a chance to check first thing Saturday, pls feel free, as I'll be aiming to despatch mid-morning. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, that looks good to go. Nick-D (talk) 23:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Withdrawn FAC

Ian, FYI [4]. Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXI, April 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies, Nick-D on the German Army Op-ed: TomStar81 on the 1916 Easter Rising Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 17, 2016

I'll start work on this one today. You nominated the article at WP:FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 13:00, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi mate, I spent a fair bit of time finetuning the blurb during its TFAR nom and would prefer to leave as is, but it is admittedly a little bit longer than the preferred length of 1150. I suppose if I had to lose something then "Born in the Riverina district of New South Wales" could go, I just happen to like the name "Riverina" so I enjoy seeing it displayed prominently...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:13, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Sure ... I'm happy to defer for any number of reasons, but I don't need to defer in this case because it's already perfect ... except for the post-nominals. (Two reasons: the broader Main Page readership, and I never repeat information unless necessary.) Thanks. - Dank (push to talk) 13:30, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

God, that was complete oversight on my part... I know full well we don't use post-noms in TFA blurbs, I'd just forgotten when I did this one -- tks for that, it cuts a few more characters too... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:41, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Precious again, your "country boy who became a World War II bomber pilot, ... managed to get out of all manner of scrapes in the air war over Europe, survive the conflict, and play a part in the post-war RAAF, but still died quite young"!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Northern Command (RAAF) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:21, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Northern Command (RAAF)

The article Northern Command (RAAF) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Northern Command (RAAF) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:01, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

a question

Hey. I'm working on a project. It will take months to finish; it is still in the initial stages after months of work. I have downloaded & read scores (not kidding) of journal articles etc. The topic could very certainly be dealt with in a surface, dramatic way. But I keep digging and digging and digging, and in the end (if I do it right & well), I'm practically gonna end up writing a deep textbook-level analysis. So... in the end, will reviewers be put off by talk of semi-feudalism, subinfeudation, Anglo-Indian legal system, Ricardian rent, etc etc etc?Tks  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 12:17, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes ;-)

The trick with that kind of article is to make it understandable for someone who is not an expert in that topic area, since this is meant as a general-audience encyclopedia. If you can do that, you'll get a lot more reviewer interest than if it's ultradense and a slog to read through. Nikkimaria (talk) 19:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. :-) The thought just suddenly struck me like lightning, as I looked at Nikkimaria's reply, that the densest bit is in the Background section.... explaining why India never had an agricultural revolution, why there were so many millions of people whose lives hovered at or near the starvation level even in the best of times. In theory, that discussion could (and.. a purist might even say "should") be moved to History of agriculture in the Indian subcontinent#Colonial British Era (1757–1947 CE), and put a {{Main}} atop the Background section of the famine article. But that article sucks sucks sucks. It has had 50 (count them, 50) edits in its entire lifetime. I dread walking into that morass... BUT... the 2 million deaths discussed in the famine article are not done justice unless the agricultural history is laid out. Argh. Super argh.   Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 00:45, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

• ygm  Lingzhi ♦ (talk) 06:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg listed for discussion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:FlyingOfficerDavidEvans1948.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for discussion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:52, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

William Brill (RAAF officer)

Thank you for writing the nice article on William Brill (RAAF officer). Extremely well done! --♥Golf (talk) 05:54, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I think though that the edit re. the military panel wasn't really an improvement so as the article's still on the front page I've gone the BRD route and hope that if you disagree with the reasoning I've given in the edit summary then we can discuss further on the talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 3, 2016

And here's another one. Feel free to do the TFA summary if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 16:40, 18 May 2016 (UTC)

Prep 2

Sorry, I didn't read the edit history. I was under the impression that Australia is like Britain when it comes to the definite article. Thanks for educating me! Yoninah (talk) 10:39, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

It probably is, most of the time, but the military has its own ways. I mean you might get away with "the 1st Brigade", but not "the No. 1 Brigade", for instance... ;-) Anyway, tks so much for changing it back promptly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Northern Command (RAAF)

On 22 May 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Northern Command (RAAF), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that RAAF Northern Command was going to be an area, then became a command, then became an area, and then became nothing at all? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Command (RAAF). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Northern Command (RAAF)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 May 2016 (UTC)

Marilyn Monroe

The writing of this biography is sexist and I am surprised you felt it necessary to keep it that way. Okay improve what I wrote fine, I just think to assume blondes are thick is particularly offensive. It is written that way and I personally think it needs improving to remove the negative male approach? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Merrypinkwoman (talk • contribs) 13:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Saying that Monroe played dumb blondes is not the same as saying all blondes are dumb, and reporting that Monroe was famous for playing a sexist stereotype is not in itself sexist. The article has had several reviews, the latest resulting in its Featured status, and while that status doesn't mean it can't be improved further, I think you should consider whether your edits are improving its prose while accurately reflecting mainstream sources, or are instead attempting to right great wrongs. In any case, the best place to discuss it would be the article talk page, where more eyes are likely to see any concerns and weigh in. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Bugle

I started work a little late on my MILHIST images for this month (I'm trying to get at least two a month), and it looks like only Birney will actually pass this month, but McCallum (presuming it reaches quorum - it's at 3 out of the required five supports at the moment; see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Daniel McCallum) should pass on 1 June, and I could easily put him into this month. Should I?

For next month, I've found a treasure trove of notable Meiji-era Japanese photos, see Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/乃木希典 for an example. =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 12:47, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and add McCallum. Encourages me to do more MILHIST stuff in June. Checked and found a couple reasonably MILHIST-y other FPs, so added them =) Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Tks for note, Adam. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:04, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

No worries! Anyway, that's my part of next month's Bugle done. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:18, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

A yes for No?

Hi Ian, You have previously been good enough to review one of the previous Bond novels; I have recently filed Dr No, Fleming's sixth Bond novel, at PR for further consideration. If you have the time or inclination, I'd be grateful for any comments you may have. No rush and no compunction at all, obviously. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:58, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

Another of my fave Bond novels, will certainly drop by PR if I have time, otherwise I'll see it at FAC and comment there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

2001: A Space Odyssey

1999 had to be the year the movie picked up right after the Dawn of Man scene. With 2001, the title, being the year the odyssey itself actually occurs. Eighteen months before 2001 had to be sometime in 1999. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dizzzer (talk • contribs) 03:29, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Had to be" is original research, no matter how obvious it may seem to you (or me for that matter). Since we don't generally cite information in a plot summary, it's always best to relate only what is explicitly stated or clearly shown in the film itself. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2016 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CXXII, May–June 2016

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 review: Hawkeye7 on Australian spies (part two) Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the Battle of Jutland Timeline: Events of World War I

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) 12:05, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

engvar B

I hope the command article engvar change wasnt an affront to great articles - it was something that when I see an obvious au being stated as a B - I tend to get stroppy in my edit summaries - nothing personal - they are indeed good articles !! JarrahTree 07:04, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, and no offence taken -- admittedly I tend to be a bit less concerned with the diff between BritEng and AusEng than that between either of those and AmEng, but at the same time I can't think why offhand I had BritEng instead of AusEng in these. Thanks for your diligence! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:36, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

np - maybe some high edit awb usual suspects were applying brit eng for a lot of oz arts until very recently JarrahTree 07:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

DYK for RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

On 7 June 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that when RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)'s last C-47 departed Iwakuni in 1956, it left ground staff and Flight Lieutenant Raleigh, a small dog who liked flying and had been at the base since 1945? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/RAAF Transport Flight (Japan). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Good article reassessment: Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz

A community good article reassessment has been started for the article on Hyazinth Graf Strachwitz, the review of which you commented on. The reassessment page can be found here, if you would like to comment on whether the article still meets the GA criteria, or to provide suggestions about how it could be improved so that it can retain its GA status. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:47, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Blue circles with A in the middle

On the top of your userpage you have given links to articles with symbols. I have seen other userpages where they keep these links. I know that the brown star symbol links to featured article. The Green circle with + sign in the middle links to good articles. But the blue circles also link to good articles. Then why are they different from green circles? X-Men XtremE 15:25, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, that symbol means the article has been assessed as "A-Class". The A-Class assessment system is not Wiki-wide like the FA and GA assessments, but is run by individual Wikiprojects, like the Military History project, the Roads project, and so on. Not all Wikiprojects employ the A-class review system, so it kind of runs parallel to the GA system (although A-Class assessment has higher standards than GA, particularly regarding depth of coverage). The upshot is that an article can be both GA and A-Class simultaneously, but both are trumped by FA. Hope this helps. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

FAC and citation styles

Hi Ian; I'm contacting you in your capacity as FAC coordinator with a rather tedious issue (also tagging Laser brain for the sake of completeness). A particular user with whom I have not previously had dealings has commented over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/An Introduction to Animals and Political Theory/archive1 with some rather odd citation-related concerns. In addition, the user twice changed my citation style on the article without discussion (mine, theirs, the result is inconsistent) and repeatedly denied that they had done this (see my talk page). (There were, and probably still are, a variety of other issues; the page history and talk page discussion will illustrate some of them, but this is the particular problem) After a rather long, frustrating discussion, it became clear that the user in question literally didn't/doesn't know what a citation style is. (Two choice quotes from this user: "There are basically two kinds of citation styles: plain-text or template style. Changing from one to the requires consensus. One style should be used throughout." and "I have come to the conclusion that you do not understand that there are two basic ways to cite: (1) By template (2) By plain text".) I certainly don't want to drag you into the discussion, which I think both of us (for different reasons...) are now happy to abandon as a lost cause, but I have two comments/questions/concerns: First, I'm asking for permission to remove/strike the user's comments on the FAC page. Second, somewhat concerned about the fact that this user is making similar edits on other FA candidate articles and similar comments on other nomination pages, despite the pretty clear misunderstanding. I've tried to make clear the issues, but I'm not sure if they will be taken on board (this might be down to me; I'm no diplomat), and I'm stepping away from this now. As such, I just wanted to make my concerns known. Josh Milburn (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

This is not normally the type of thing I'd think to get involved in as an FAC coordinator, but there is actually a pattern here that extends beyond your nomination. I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 23:57, 14 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Josh and Andy. I spent a bit of time after this was posted looking at relevant FAC and user talk pages. I've seen the user in question at many FACs, and in most cases hadn't noticed unusual concerns being raised, but as an editor I believe guidelines like CITEVAR should be respected. It also looks prima facie in this case that there's a fair bit of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT on the user's part. Because the user doesn't seem to actively oppose noms based on citation style (not that I've seen anyway), I would normally expect this issue to be handled by BRD and, if necessary, admin action (I notice Ed has become involved at the article per BRD). OTOH I agree with Andy that FAC seems to be a magnet for them, we may need to weigh in at Josh's nom to try and reign things in a bit. In answer to Josh's specific request to strike the comments from the current FAC, at this stage I think leaving the comments and responding as FAC coords would be preferable, WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ed got involved on a different article; while I was trying to explain to the user the problematic nature of their edits, they started to deploy their scripts on another article linked to the one I have at FAC. The user was not happy that I reverted them, and left a template warning for edit warring after rolling back my edit. The user has also left further comments at the FAC page, so I'm not sure how sincere they were about disengaging. Again, I certainly don't want to drag you into anything, but I'm not particularly keen to engage with the user further at this time, on the FAC page or elsewhere. I'm happy with whatever actions you do/do not take; I'm glad that you are now aware of my concerns. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I see now that Checkingfax has again reverted me. While I suspect that you will not want to contribute to the thread (and I certainly don't expect you to), I have been forced to raise this at AN/I: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Checkingfax. Josh Milburn (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Josh, I don't usually visit AN/I but will try to keep an eye on it, as well as the FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:08, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker). Hi, Ian Rose, Laser brain and J Milburn. I have been very transparent in my edits and my motives. I edit in good faith. Laser brain said:

I've noted this user doing similar bot-assisted or semi-automated edits on quite a few nominations, and this isn't the first time I've seen them make mistakes that indicate they don't understand citation styles and the actions their tools/bots/scripts/etc are taking. The only reason I think it might fall under the remit of FAC coordination is because the activity seems focused on candidate pages. I'm interested in Ian's thoughts, and I need to spend a bit of time thinking about how to approach this. --Laser brain (talk) 4:57 pm, Yesterday (UTC−7)

Laser brain: Please direct me to these cases for both of these points you reference that I have highlighted for your convenience. Ping me back. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 07:01, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, One edit I noticed is here, where you used a tool to make several changes to an article and ended up changing the Notes and References headings (an accepted and standard citation system) to References and Bibliography, which is incorrect and goes against the article editor's preferences. Your edit also added an extraneous "External Links" section which is not needed just to list portals. These edits indicate that you may not understand the capabilities of your tool, or may not understand citation styles. Either of those being the case, automated or semi-automated edits to FAC articles should cease. When I said the activity is focused on FAC, I meant that I have seen you participating on quite a few nomination pages. "Focused" was probably the wrong choice of words. --Laser brain (talk) 11:57, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I was about to leave a note on Checkingfax's page when I saw this. I'm also concerned about his involvement in FACs – making unwelcome changes, asking for things not in WP:WIAFA. It wastes time and upsets nominators. SarahSV ^(talk) 16:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for the Diff.

There was no good place to put the portals so I created the 2nd choice spot which is External links. The followup edit to delete that section and convert the portal box to a portal bar was an elegant solution and I concur with it. I will try to do that in the future. That is a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool.

One point about portal bars: Many Wikipedia editors hate their appearance (I do not). In this instance, on this article, I think the portal bar is the best looking way to integrate a portal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Checkingfax (talk • contribs) 19:15, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The Notes section did not have any page numbers that I saw right off so to me it is a Bibliography. That was a manual edit by me. It is not suggested or implemented by any tool. I was not aware of the Wikipedia MoS for that. Please direct me to it so I can get it right. (e.g.- there is a Wikipedia MoS for section layout: MOS:LAYOUT).

You mention the "article editor's preferences" dictate section heading names. Where is this rule? I have never been afforded that level of ownership over an article. The ones I know about are overall datestyle and overall reference style. Those are not to be changed without general consensus.

I fully understand the capabilities of these Wikipedia tools and the need to check their output. They are not my tools. Issues with the tools should be taken up with the tool developers. When I see the tools causing trouble I report it and the developers adjust their tools.

I make a good faith effort to proof read after running tools by using the Changes button and the Preview button in the source code edit window. Sometimes they suggest changes that I do not completely agree with so I strike those manually. All in all, if I find something I do not care for I try to work with the developer to change it and if they agree with me they do.

I have my Wikipedia user Preferences set to enable wikEd Diff (wide Diff view) which integrates the view of changes so it is easier to see what the changes are.

Below that is the old style side by side Diff view and I check that too.

The edit summary is transparency to show which tools were run on the article and to attribute the tool developer for their assistance. It does not indicate which or if any edits were made by a tool. In this case, the changes by tool were minimal and the rest were done manually by me.

For instance, the date harmonizer was run, but no dates were changed. This means all dates were already in harmony and that can be checked off the to-do list.

I do not go to pages just to run tools. I run them as a helper to minimize repetitive tasks and to create harmony in the article and the underlying code while I am doing other refinements.

The only bot I run is the one that every Wikipedia editor has in their source code edit window. I still do a good faith proof reading of the changes to make sure I agree with them.

I manually fixed a couple of typos that I spotted.

I was expecting you to show me a Diff where some bad things were going on and I am relieved to know it is simple stuff.

To my knowledge I have never changed the citation style on any page on Wikipedia; at least not intentionally. Per WP:CITEVAR we are encouraged to improve citations and when I see opportunities for improvement I take action if I am so inclined and have the time.

I just checked the review page for the Mac Arthur page and Hawkeye7 did not express any umbrage with my edits, nor did he ever contact me about anything. I was pinged by Dank.

I hope my reply clears up some issues you have with my efforts to improve articles. I look forward to continuing this discussion so we can move forward collaboratively. Talk page stalkers are welcome to join in with constructive observations, suggestions, and criticisms. See you around the Wikis. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:56, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Reping J Milburn {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 18:58, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I think the point of much of this discussion is eluding you. I accept that you have reasons behind all of your edits. However, I feel that various editors have been trying to convey to you that many matters of style boil down to personal preference. In those cases, it's just good manners to mind the preferences and prevailing style put in place by the principal editors at the page. This is especially important at a venue like FAC where nominators have put quite a bit of work into preparing the article and polishing it up. As SV pointed out above, making subjective and unwelcome changes to an article (at FAC or anywhere else) just wastes time and upsets those working on the page. I'd ask you to voluntarily stick to fixing clear, unambiguous errors and stop making subjective changes to articles at FAC. --Laser brain (talk) 21:50, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Laser brain (with courtesy pings to SarahSV and J Milburn). Thank you for another reply. Nothing is eluding me.

Who are these "various editors"?

Which styles are hallowed ground?

I was transparent and upfront in the edits I made.

SV has never pointed out any specific issues with my edits or suggestions.

I fix many unambiguous errors and while I am at it I do some polishing.

What are these "subjective changes"?

All my edits are made in good faith and to advance the project. If I make a mistake let me know so I won't make that mistake again. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 22:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Checkingfax, I'd suggest two things going forward. First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC. Or, if it's faster to show a change than to explain it, make the edit then revert yourself, or invite the nominator to revert you, perhaps in the edit summary. Second, read the featured-article criteria carefully and ask only for changes that comply with those criteria. I think if you were to follow those two suggestions, it would make your input at FAC more helpful. SarahSV ^(talk) 23:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SlimVirgin. Thanks for that but you did not answer a single question I put forth.

Then, your first option is for me to butt out of FAC.

Since I have nominated an article at FAC I feel it is my obligation and duty to do some QPQ. Nobody has complained before; even got a few "thank yous". Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 21:34, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how you managed to extract "your first option is for me to butt out of FAC" from my comment above. SarahSV ^(talk) 22:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi, SarahSV. Maybe I read too much into this: First, refrain from editing articles while they're at FAC.

Regardless, I do not think any other editors follow such a protocol. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 01:18, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 3, 2016

Hi, I'll start trimming this one later today. - Dank (push to talk) 16:46, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Disclaimer: my brain is fried from reading infobox debates, so I can't promise much until I recover, but it looks okay to me. - Dank (push to talk) 20:02, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure, that looks good. - Dank (push to talk) 06:00, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan, sorry to hear about the infobox debates, I must've missed the latest round somehow... ;-) BTW Brian, tks for selecting the article for TFA -- I've gone through it today to ensure all links are up to date, should be good to go. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:06, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

The latest is done and waiting for my close, at WP:VPP#Closing. Getting up to speed on the history of the mess is giving me a headache, but someone's gotta do it. - Dank (push to talk) 06:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being the someone. It's not the typical infobox debate, - this Wikidata in+out. The typical was also closed, finally. (Can't help thinking how much more writing power could have gone into content if that harmless little box had stayed in place - where it was for 10 years - and just the debated nationality parameter had been removed.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it goes both ways, Gerda -- think how much could've been saved if people weren't so wed to the little box that not all believe is useful in all articles... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:55, 16 June 2016 (UTC)

I don't feel addressed. I add infoboxes to operas where they are welcome, and to people I care about, accepting a revert when it happens, then discuss, see Peter Maxwell Davies and Pierre Boulez. The pro-infobox-flashmob is a myth I don't like, - unsourced. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:18, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

It's very much sourced, Gerda. If you want to remind yourself as to why you are associated with this name then visit your contributions list over the last two weeks and you'll see behaviour indicative of someone who has a twisted obsession with Infoboxes. Cassianto^Talk 19:28, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

life is too short

I get associated with infobox, but how does that create a flash mob? I take "obsession" better than "morbid". My contributions today were mostly to the German Wikipedia. The image is on display there on the Main page, because someone translated an article I wrote, and I nominated it for their DYK equivalent. My contributions over the last two weeks were mostly compositions by Ketèlbey, music! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Imelda Marcos/archive3

Hi Ian, I've just posted a "strong oppose" review here which edit conflicted with your closure of the review. I've posted it after your comments as I wanted to get this on record, but please re-arrange if I've messed up the procedure! Thanks, Nick-D (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

I never get tired of saying it -- great minds! I'm sure that review will be helpful and you've posted it before the bot went through so there should be no issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

TFA 10 July

User: EnigmaMcmxc, the nominator of the current FAC 38th (Welsh) Infantry Division, has asked about the possibility of reserving 10 July as a TFA date for this article, bearing in mind the centenary of the Somme and this unit's role in the battle. The article may well not be promoted before the required date, but if you or one of your MilHist colleagues are prepared to suggest a placeholder pro tem, I'll be happy to schedule that for the 10th, and to replace it should the 38th's promotion come in on time. Can you help here? Brianboulton (talk) 13:58, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Sure Brian, I could put up No. 90 Wing RAAF, which has the date connection but it's not a round-number anniversary so no worries if it gets replaced by the 38th. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Ian, I'll use this when I schedule next week. Brianboulton (talk) 22:17, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a placeholder, I'll leave it alone for now. You're welcome to do the TFA, Ian. - Dank (push to talk) 21:21, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Tks Dan, the lead is small anyway (as befits a shortish article) so all I changed for the blurb was adding the exact day of formation to make the date connection clear and it comes to 829 chars by my calculation. The only word I was considering changing was "overarching" for "umbrella" (could also use "superior" but I think one of the former two might be better) -- WDYT? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:37, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

WP:ITN has occasionally complained that they had to pull news articles if our column was too short, so my bargain with them is that I keep it a bit higher, generally between 1075 and 1175. Can you get to 1075? "Overarching" and "umbrella" both sound good to me. - Dank (push to talk) 23:39, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Heh, I don't like adding detail for its own sake but I guess we have to keep ITN happy -- I'll leave it for a while just in case 38 Div gets promoted and it becomes academic... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/38th (Welsh) Infantry Division/archive1, it won't make it by the 10th. - Dank (push to talk) 00:52, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Yup, will have a go at expanding the blurb in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:02, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of RAAF Transport Flight (Japan)

The article RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:RAAF Transport Flight (Japan) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Congratulations

		The Military history A-Class medal with Diamonds
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject, I am pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Diamonds for your work on promoting North-Western Area Command (RAAF), Ragnar Garrett, and Eastern Area Command (RAAF) to A-class. Thanks for your contributions to the encyclopedia! AustralianRupert (talk) 10:58, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that, Rupert! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom II in UK service

Please go ahead - I will hold off making any changes for now. Hammersfan (talk) 20:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your comment at the nom -- I probably can't return just at the moment but I'll see how I am for time later this week. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Rajinikanth filmography

Opened earlier this month, and only one user has posted comments (which have since been solved). If more editors don't comment on it, it may fail FLC. To avoid votestacking, I request you to alert more editors to post comments on its FLC page. Ditto for Kerala State Film Award for Best Actor. Kailash29792 (talk) 09:57, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) @Kailash29792: Ian Rose is an FAC delegate; even FLC delegates are not bound to do such things. —Vensatry _(talk) 11:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

ISBN

Hi Ian, Thanks for fixing the ISBN error in the Boeing CH-47 Chinook in Australian service article - I'd checked the ISBN but couldn't figure out how to fix it, and was hoping someone else would know once it went live! Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 28 June 2016 (UTC)