Ian Rose

This is to inform you that No. 1 Squadron RAAF, which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 12 January 2015. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 11:20, 27 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wondering how we could get an article written about the U.S. Army's only Brigade dedicated to recruiting Healthcare and Chaplain professionals--the U.S. Army Medical Recruiting Brigade. I work for them (Chief of Advertising and Public Affairs) so obviously I could not author an article due to a conflict of interest. However, they have an interesting and unique history--created only 7 years ago to recruit physicians, dentists, nurses, veterinarians and other healthcare professionals as well as chaplains to serve our active and reserve Army personnel and their families. They have a unit 'special designation' of 'Allgood's Highlanders', named for COL Brian D. Allgood, the highest ranking Army Medicine officer to die in the Iraqi war. We are a subordinate command of U.S. Army Recruiting Command, and we have five battalions spread across the United States. We also provide administrative oversight of the Special Operations Recruiting Battalion (SORB). You can find several articles about our command by using Google or other search engines, and we are included in the Army's official history. Many thanks for the consideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rancault (talk • contribs) 15:59, 30 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry for belated response (busy time of year of course!) -- will look into this and come back to you as soon as I can. Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to ping me with {{ping|DerHexer}}. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 00:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

Thanks SNUGGUMS, Happy New Year to you! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks Bzuk, a happy 2015 to you too! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:26, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article No. 82 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:No. 82 Squadron 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 Peacemaker67 -- Peacemaker67 (talk) 05:01, 4 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey there Ian, I was wondering what, as a coordinator, your feelings are on this FAC right now. I notice it still hasn't been closed despite what seems like all of the concerns being addressed. Is there not enough support or not enough reviews? If there is anything that needs to be done that I can take care of, I'm more than happy to. Gloss 06:44, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

As a matter of course, I sometimes like to let an article 'bed down' after an oppose is resolved, and then look it over myself, before considering promotion. Checking the review, however, there is something specific and I've noted it there accordingly. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:48, 11 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Oops, I never remembered to check back here for a reply. I believe everything has been addressed though, including Nikkimaria's comments (I hope). Gloss 04:17, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, Happy New Year. I have just created a stub article on Battle and theatre honours of the Royal Australian Air Force. I am not sure if this is the correct wording so if it needs moving, please do so. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, tks Newm. Reckon the title wording is okay but there'd be more honours than that around, although I'm not sure where we'd get a definitive list in one place. If you're feeling energetic you could go to the Australian War Memorial and work through the air force units, as each entry lists the honours awarded. For instance the WWII entry for No. 77 Squadron lists its honours for the Pacific War, and the Korean War entry mentions the honour from that conflict. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay, I've been working on the 2015 Fort Bliss shooting article and was frankly a little upset that neither of my two main page suggestions made the page. I'll get on this tomorrow probably since thats when I get back to my house since I like to do my thinking while on the desktop tower, so look for some progress on that in the next 24-36 hours. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:06, 15 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Got it put together, but it needs a little spit and polish. Still, I hope its good enough for publishing in the Bugle. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:35, 16 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm sure it'll be good as usual, Tom -- will have a look and ce when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

You closed out the FAC for Steve Zakuani since it was sorely lacking. In the last week it as been expanded by almost 30% (word count), puffery has been cut, and there has been some general gnomish cleanup. If you get the chance, can you take a look to see if it is on the right track to renominate in the future?Cptnono (talk) 09:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will try to have a look this weekend. Pls feel free to ping me if I don't! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! No major rush or anything but I wanted to give it another go. Let me know if anything strikes you as a complete nonstarter.Cptnono (talk) 05:56, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi, sorry it took a while to look over. I think it’s certainly gotten better since it was last at FAC -- better balanced for one thing -- but I did see some expression that I felt could be improved. It could probably do with another pair of eyes on the prose -- have you tried to engage an independent copyeditor (ideally perhaps one who does a few sports articles) to have a go at it? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks! I'll run it by the FOOTY projct to see if I can get another set of eyes on it.Cptnono (talk) 18:47, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ian, I pinged you at Talk:Texas Revolution. Your input on a timeline turn around with a WPMH review would be appreciated.— Maile (talk) 16:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks, responded there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I really am sorry, I spent most of yesterday sleeping and/or in pain. Seem to have gotten over it now. I don't think it was anything major - it felt more like the volume control was turned up, so that minor discomforts were suddenly incredibly painful. Particular downside: I have three cats. They like sleeping on me. When you're highly pressure-sensitive, this becomes a big problem. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 00:14, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I can imagine! We have one cat and two labradors, but fortunately they all prefer sleeping on their own beds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:25, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Anyway, Bugle's tonight's goal. Will do my best. Hate illnesses. Still sleeping about 14 hours a day. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 19:54, 22 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just in case there's any problems:

• File:Hendrik_Merkus_Baron_de_Kock_by_Cornelis_Kruseman.jpg
• File:BOH&MOR-1-Protectorate_of_Bohemia_and_Moravia-1_Koruna-(1939)ND.jpg

and the set at

• Wikipedia:Featured_picture_candidates/Japanese_invasion_money_of_the_Netherlands_Indies_(gulden,_1942)

are the only MILHIST FPs for this month's bugle. December is always kind of dead. I'm going to add them to the showcase now, then Bugle. Had I realised how dead December was... this would have been done Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 03:54, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

If I haven't written anything incoherent in the Bugle, we're good to publish. I'll do what I can about the book review for next month, but it may push to March. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 04:22, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for this Adam, and I hope that you're on the mend Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yep, tks Adam. Now we have those, and I've finished off the quarterly reviewing totals, I think we might be about ready to publish... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:53, 23 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, as I already have something at PR, I am having an unofficial PR on the talk page of a subject you may be tempted by: Casino Royale (novel). The hoped for outcome is a trip to FAC (unless I get comments to the contrary!) No problems if you're tied up on other things tho. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 11:05, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, Schro, I have spies everywhere, and have been watching participation with interest... ;-) Seriously, tks for asking, but with the talent involved already I might save myself for when it gets to FAC (as I'm sure it will) and recuse from coord duties to review. OTOH it's still on my watchlist from the GAN so if I spot something I really think needs my input I'll feel free to weigh in...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:59, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's great – even better, in fact, many thanks. Depending on how this one goes, I may try slowly working my way through the series, although some are more suitable than others for the level of in-depth examination needed at FA, but we'll see! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:44, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

G'day Ian, I've started drafting a section about the Quarterly Reviewing Awards here. Could you have a look and add any information about the easiest ways to tally the reviews? I'm going to ask Nikki and Rupert to have look too. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 03:31, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks PM, will have a look when I get a sec. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:10, 25 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I first learned about this formation today as well. It explained some confusing stuff I've seen over the years about "joint" Australian-UK transport squadrons in 1945 as well - I never understood what they were, or what they were doing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

There you go -- good stuff! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:31, 26 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'm overwhelmed -- tks Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 30 Transport 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:01, 1 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ian. Been very busy since the start of the new month, but will review your article tomorrow when I'll have a lot of time for Wikipedia. Best, Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 01:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article No. 30 Transport Unit RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:No. 30 Transport 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 Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 13:12, 10 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just doin' me job mate ;) Nice article. Cheers! Irondome (talk) 02:06, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ian,

Can you give some sort of advice as how to get Falcon's Fury a census? I've been losing faith in the FAC process; I will nominate it one more time but after that I'm giving up all efforts to get any articles I work on to FA status. --Dom497 (talk) 23:15, 12 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I understand the frustration, but you've successfully taken articles to FA before, so you know it's doable! I mentioned at the Falcon's Fury FAC some time before archiving that it was perfectly acceptable to ping previous reviewers of the article with neutrally worded requests for re-reviews. It'd also be fine to let reviewers of related articles (like SheiKra) know that there is an open FAC on a similar subject (e.g. "A while ago you commented on the SheiKra FAC -- there's another article on an amusement park ride that you might also like to review at FAC, namely..."). Neutrally worded requests for comment at related projects is also an acceptable method for getting eyes on a FAC. Hope this helps! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

FAC review seems to be a very slow process. I'm bringing this up because I'm not sure how this works. Cucurbita is now almost at the bottom of the list. People who said they'd review haven't done so. People who started never finished. When it's at the very bottom for some time, what happens? Does it fail for lack of reviews or what? HalfGig talk 13:16, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's okay to leave neutrally worded requests for review at project or user talk pages. You might try Casliber, who writes and reviews many biology articles. Also have you pinged Sasata about finishing the review? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:35, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've pinged Sasata twice. I'll try Casliber. Thank you. HalfGig talk 21:52, 14 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Done, but are there really no FAs? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 23:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Prob'ly are, am doing those today - tks as ever for prompt attention, Adam! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I'd apologise for being a little slow, but if I'm done before you are... Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 06:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rm promoted FA -- not sure if MilHistBot should be doing this but it's had time I think...

The problem was with Wikipedia:Peer review/Exilant Technologies/archive1 - a peer review of a non-existent article. I have told the Bot to ignore these in future. Hawkeye7 (talk) 09:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks for that Hawkeye -- BTW is the bot supposed to create placeholders for promoted FAs (and indeed other Featured Content) in the previous month's Bugle articles page, the way it does for promoted ACRs? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:24, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

No, the MilHistBot only handles A class articles; the FACBot handles Featured Articles. I will add to the FACBot's task list. Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Okay, tks. The reason I thought MilHistBot might do it is that's project-specific, but I realise it's got to be triggered by an event and that event has to do with FAC, so whichever way is easiest for you -- very grateful for the way your stuff is automating time-consuming processes! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

As I somewhat expected, February's going to be a much busier month for Milhist FPs than January was. Tempted to put a couple early February FPs into the January report to help balance it out. What do you think? Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 16:06, 17 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Not too fussed -- Feb looks okay to me as it is now, anyway. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:08, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ian, I forgot to ask at the time ... why did we remove the rank and "Sir" before Blamey but not before any of the other people mentioned? - Dank (push to talk) 00:36, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

(I'm thinking of Wikipedia:Today's featured article/March 5, 2015 in particular.) - Dank (push to talk) 02:13, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, yes, spot the inconsistency... ;-) I was proceeding from the understanding that we didn't use ranks, honorifics or post-nominals to introduce the subject, i.e. we just used the name. I wasn't around when that guideline was decided, but went with it as I assumed it was to save space. One would similarly assume, however, that the same rule should be applied to other military personnel mentioned in the lead, e.g. Monash, so just call that an oversight... :-P To be honest, I think we should just use commonsense and consistency. There's never a need to use post-noms for anyone in a blurb, but it could be argued that it helps to use rank and "Sir" as applicable, consistently. OTOH we could say that anyone with an article in WP and therefore linked (especially someone as famous as Nelson, who's mentioned in the 5 March TFA) shouldn't desperately need the rank and honorific if it helps save space. I guess what I'm saying is that consistency matters more to me, not whether we use rank/honorific or not. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:30, 20 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Nobody seems to have responded to my request a week ago for a source review of Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1, which is rather disappointing. What do you suggest? Prioryman (talk) 19:48, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I'll do it at some point in the next few hours. —  Cliftonian (talk)  20:13, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

That's very kind of you, thank you. I'll work my way through your list of issues. Prioryman (talk) 09:18, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks guys. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I just wanted to let you know that you closed this nomination before this user could review my work on his comments.--Earthh (talk) 21:31, 21 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, I did take that into account when making my closing comment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 22 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Cwmhiraeth has done a source and paraphrase check. I think that now all the points you brought up in your "coord notes" section have been covered. Plus Dudley has done a regular since then. Please let me know if there are other things that need done. Thank you. HalfGig talk 22:38, 23 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks, will probably walk through the older FACs in the next day or so. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:26, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ian, Cwmhiraeth did a detailed spotcheck, the definition of each check is probably still confusing sometimes :). I have checked the sources for formatting problems, all look OK. The missing "subscription" templates are a trivial cleanup point - which has been fixed already. GermanJoe (talk) 17:08, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Happy Dance! Thank you! It only took me 1yr, 6mos, 2days, haha. HalfGig talk 02:29, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I edited on WP for a couple of years before I felt I had something FA-worthy, so you've done better than I...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

I left a question about who is a main editor on the talk of Laurence Olivier. Is the main author someone who rewrites an article which existed for years and eliminates info that was in for many years (from 2006, to be precise) because he doesn't like it? I miss respect for those who created the article, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Replied there. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

So did I, but think it is a much more general question than of that particular article, - here's another approach you may want to join, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello, Ian. I nominated the Gary Cooper article as an FAC and its received support from six editors to date, with no outstanding change requests. It's been almost two weeks since the last comment. This is my first nomination and wanted to check if there is anything else I need to do at this point. I see there is quite a backlog for the coordinators. Regards, Bede735 (talk) 15:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Left note at the FAC page. Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:24, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, just letting you know that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Exhumation of Richard III of England/archive1 now finally appears to be completed. If you could do the necessary this weekend I'd be grateful - I'd like to get the date secured on WP:TFAR as soon as possible, given that it's less than a month away now. Prioryman (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

This is a new proposal, but...

Can I suggest that no article with discussion of medicinal use be allowed to pass without an explicit WP:MEDRS check? I was looking at Cucurbita, and the "Medicinal uses" section was utterly appalling, mentioning a host of claims that even their sources said were fringe. E.g. They were talking about the use in Traditional Chinese Medicine, and their own source - highly questionable in and of itself - nonetheless stated " It is not officially listed in the Chinese Pharmacopoeia." - so even if we accepted the source - again, I don't think we should - we'd have to reject inclusion of the claim. Another of the claims was pure original research around the

Requiring an explicit MEDRS check, and such would help check this sort of unjustified claims. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:09, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Intend to finish the Bugle FPs after I get through this Signpost. The Signpost is on a strict time limit. Adam Cuerden ^(talk) 18:10, 10 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian. I was wondering if you could withdraw the FL-nomination of the article. It was been decided by the articles editors to do further improvements before nomination it for FL-status. Cheers, Jonas Vinther • (speak to me!) 17:55, 11 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian. I have nominated the article for FAC. It has received a neutral, two supports and one big oppose from SandyGeorgia (mainly relating to MOSNUM and Citation issues) Many editors requsted me to withdraw the FAC to better shape it. Please state your opinion on whether I should continue the FAC or withdraw it. Thank you. — Ssven2 ^{Speak 2 me} 04:05, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

The FLC of Vikram filmography ain't progressing well. I wonder what happened to its nominator. Either way, please archive it because it has been active for long with no progress. Kailash29792 (talk) 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

• Erm, Ian doesn't do FLC. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 16:13, 18 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

May I renominate Giant mouse lemur, which you recently archived? The WP:FAC says that exemptions are granted for cases such as this (due to insufficient feedback). – Maky ^« talk » 07:18, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, that's true. The list is still a bit long at the moment, so if you could wait till after mid-week then we should have had a chance to close some more, which might work out better for everyone. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, I have much impressed by your work on RAAF biographies and other topics and I wondered if I could persuade you to cast your attention across the The Ditch? RNZAF topics are generally not well-covered. I have been doing a bit of work on Leonard Monk Isitt and wondered if you might be able to lend a hand? Thanks. Greenshed (talk) 14:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks for asking, Greenshed -- it looks quite nicely laid out on first glance and I'd like to help make it even better. I'll probably be busy till Easter if you can wait a bit, but I'll also stop by beforehand if I get a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:51, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Gday Ian. I recently came across some interesting (to me) information about No. 2 OCU which Nick mentioned during a discussion here Talk:Royal_Australian_Air_Force#Number_of_B_model_F.2FA-18s_currently_in_service. I've gone an added it now to the No. 2 OCU article but am not sure if that paragraph is the most ideal spot. If you could pls review my edit at some point and test and adjust as req'd that would be appreciated. Anotherclown (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks mate, that was a very useful addition. Tweaked expression a bit, but I can't think of a better place to put it. Re. that discussion, I've monitored it briefly and wanted to join in but just haven't yet found the time to go through everyone's comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:43, 23 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, You were kind enough to comment at FAC on Casino Royale; could I ask for a similar favour for the next instalment of the Bond series: Live and Let Die, which is now at PR? Any thoughts or comments would be greatly appreciated, although if you wish to keep your powder dry until FAC I understand entirely. Cheers – SchroCat (talk) 12:03, 24 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks Schro -- oddly enough this was never one of my faves among the books, but I'll certainly try and review at FAC at least. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:08, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Mine neither, actually, for what it's worth! As you've probably seen flash up on your watchlist, this is now at FAC, should you wish have a closer look. No worries if you're not able to, as always. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 09:37, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian, I was wondering what you thought of Ulysses S. Grant's chances of promotion. Is there something lacking that I should take care of? Thanks, Coemgenus (talk) 14:09, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

It's on my list to look over this weekend. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:10, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, sorry to pester you! --Coemgenus (talk) 22:26, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ian. Can you provide some input at the Master of Puppets peer review here? Some advice on what prevents the article from becoming FA would be much appreciated. Thanks in advance.--Retrohead (talk) 18:30, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks for asking -- can't promise I'll have the time, but I have bookmarked the PR. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:11, 28 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:An014908Dowling&Son1952.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. 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. B (talk) 13:25, 1 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hey Ian, I have three supports and an all-clear from Nikkimaria on the Bazy Tankersley FAC here. When is it appropriate for me to ping you or one of your colleagues to do the FAC promotion magic pixie dust review? Now or do I need a couple more reviews? Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Well, I don't usually close reviews that are only two weeks old unless there's above-average support, so I'd tend towards leaving it at least another week or so to give it a chance to garner some more commentary (if it doesn't so be it). Plus it looks like it there's still an image review to do. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:53, 17 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I added two new ones... so thanks for pinging the image reviewers! Forgot about that part! Montanabw^(talk) 02:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

• OK. Six supports now (at least four of them VERY extensive, and the other two reliable reviewers with FAs of their own) and all of Nikkimaria's magic pixie dust (refs and images) is now completed. I figure your own assessment (and anything you ask me to fix) may run another few days, which will give you that extra week to allow anyone else who cares a chance to stop in. I do apologize if I seem impatient, I simply have assorted other dramas I'm dealing with and don't want to be distracted from shepherding this FAC through by them...  :-P Montanabw^(talk) 02:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply
  • I'll be walking through the list tonight or on the w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thank you so much for your review and promotion of the article! Montanabw^(talk) 16:55, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ian, can you rescue me at Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates, please? I tried to add a request for an image review at the FAC of Maurice Ravel, but managed to make the entire request section vanish. I have reverted and scuttled away seeking the aid of someone who knows what he's doing, and you immediately came to mind... Tim riley talk 16:30, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Dr Kiernan has kindly done the necessary to rescue me. Tim riley talk 16:35, 23 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

No probs! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ian, a summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I changed very little from the lead section. - Dank (push to talk) 02:16, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks Dan. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:23, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks, I think seven is probably a record in one pass for me, but since I hadn't had a chance to walk through the list for a week the prospective promotions had been piling up... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:37, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I received this notice from Mike_Christie. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:48, 24 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've never had occasion to reopen a review I've closed and I don't see a reason to change that practice in this case. I said when I closed it that owing to the minimal feedback I was prepared to waive the usual two weeks before you could renominate. However, now that Mike has offered to review I think it'd be far preferable to let him do so on the talk page, as he's suggested, to help get the article into the best shape before renominating at FAC. That would not in any way preclude him from commenting and/or supporting at a future re-nomination. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:33, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

HI, may I suggest adding a ping? I didn't know you had replied. Moot point now I guess, but that's just the problem. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah, I think that if one initiates a conversation then it's reasonable to expect them to keep an eye on the conversation. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, Ian Rose, which is precisely why ping was created. Its no good if people don't use it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:57, 2 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello Ian Rose, as that article was in the backlog for almost a month, I have done a source review for formatting and general referencing. But if you were looking for a more in-depth check of the sciency details, it would probably be better to directly ask the previous content reviewers for a comment on sourcing. GermanJoe (talk) 16:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks Joe, will have a look when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I re-nominated "Only Girl (In the World)" for FAC 8 days ago, but I haven't had any comments. As you commented in the previous one, I was wondering if you wouldn't mind re-reading and seeing if I have address your comments from the previous nomination. Thanks.  — ₳aron 10:06, 26 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Will try to have a look when I can. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks.  — ₳aron 09:22, 29 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi Ian,
Can I reopen the FAC for it? It was closed on 12th. It means by today, its a fortnight...~~

Yes, you can re-nominate that article now. BTW, you don't have to ask permission if it's been a fortnight since your previous nomination was archived, but tks anyway. :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:26, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Just a confirmation. Don't wanna tangle up my first FA..-The Herald • ^{the joy of the LORD}_{my strength} 12:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please reopen this FAC. I can fix the issues in no time at all, but you closed it before I had the chance to reply to EddieHugh! – PeeJay 08:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

There is too much work needed. The nomination was premature. You can renominate in two weeks time. I the meantime, I suggest you address the issues raised. Graham Beards (talk) 09:18, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The nomination wasn't premature. The article went through all the appropriate copyediting channels before arriving at FAC. If reviewers had been more forthcoming at the peer review phase and earlier in the FAC, the article would have been passed by now. Not to mention the fact that only one editor seemed to have a real problem with the detail there. – PeeJay 10:05, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Tks for stopping by, Graham, I was offline for a while there. PeeJay, I was actually going to archive the nom after Eddie's first round of comments/objections, especially noting the initial oppose, but wanted to see if your responses allayed his concerns. They did not, and with the further points he raised, especially re. referencing, I could see this going back and forth for some time, and the review had already been open a month. So as Graham says, please work on the points raised (perhaps discussing with Eddie in the process) and by all means bring it back to FAC after the regulation two weeks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Wilton (general) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria.   This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 13:00, 3 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article John Wilton (general) you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:John Wilton (general) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 08:01, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article No. 20 Squadron 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) 21:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fighter Squadron 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) 21:42, 5 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, PM. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:14, 6 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article No. 20 Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:No. 20 Squadron 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) 19:21, 9 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Panyd^{The muffin is not subtle} 07:55, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Harrias ^talk 12:03, 18 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

The article Fighter Squadron RAAF you nominated as a good article has passed  ; see Talk:Fighter Squadron 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) 03:01, 20 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

I am interested in participating in the WikiProject Military history group. However, my interest are in the use of the military in the US during domestic disorders. Specifically, during the civil rights movement. Would this fall within the scope of this project? Thanks. Mitchumch (talk) 08:21, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hi there! We're pretty inclusive in the Military History project, so I think you'll find a home for articles on domestic political or civil rights actions, even those with a relatively tenuous military connections. Take for instance Vedaranyam March, which is a MilHist Good Article. Please feel free to initiate or join in discussions at the project talk page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:54, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply

For this. I know I'm about 32 months late, but I really appreciate the thought. Best, EyeSerene^talk 20:51, 21 May 2015 (UTC)Reply