Archives: 2006 * Jan-Jun 2007 * Jul-Dec 2007 * Jan-Jun 2008 * Jul-Dec 2008 * Jan-Jun 2009 * Jul-Dec 2009 * Jan-Jun 2010 * Jul-Dec 2010 * Jan-Jun 2011 * Jul-Dec 2011 * Jan-Jun 2012 * Jul-Dec 2012 * Jan-Jun 2013 * Jul-Dec 2013 * Jan-Jun 2014 * Jul-Dec 2014 * Jan-Jun 2015 * Jul-Dec 2015 * Jan-Jun 2016 * Jul-Dec 2016 * Jan-Jun 2017 * Jul-Dec 2017 * Jan-Jun 2018 * Jul-Dec 2018

		The Military history A-Class medal with diamonds
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the A-Class medal with Diamonds for Thomas White (Australian politician), Vance Drummond, and Lou Spence. MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Hawkeye/MilHistBot! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:50, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		2018 Military Historian of the Year
		As voted by your peers within the Military history WikiProject, I hereby award you the Bronze Wiki for sharing third place in the 2018 Military Historian of the Year Award. Congratulations, and thank you for your efforts in 2018. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:04, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks PM! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Die Zeit, die Tag und Jahre macht

Happy 2019 -

begin it with music and memories

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:16, 1 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What a good idea Gerda! Thank you, and a very pleasant and productive 2019 to you. cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Please check out "Happy" once more, for a smile, and sharing (a Nobel Peace Prize), and resolutions. I wanted that for 1 January, but then wasn't sad about having our music pictured instead. Not too late for resolutions, New Year or not. DYK that he probably kept me on Wikipedia, back in 2012? By the line (which brought him to my attention, and earned the first precious in br'erly style) that I added to my editnotice, in fond memory? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for William Bostock, on his birthday! I updated the above with a link to a 4 Feb birthday which includes the 3 Feb birthday, when we sang two compositions by that birthday child, closing with Jauchzet dem Herrn, alle Welt ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gerda -- and by the way, your pictures are beautiful! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you mean the calendar pics, but am quite proud that the one of Michael Herrmann appeared on the Main page in 2011, and the one of Werner Bardenhewer on the German Main page on his 90th birthday (which he spent in a monastery in Africa). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

... and then he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

April

Thank you today for Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer), "another Air Marshal, another interesting character"! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerda! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May

May

Rapeseed

... and today Bobby Gibbes, saying "I've made use of a good many sources to try and tell Gibbes' story in context, and to get behind the usual facade of the fearless fighter pilot and crack shot, neither of which he claimed to be. Still, "irrepressible" is the word I'd use to describe him: a dual ace who flew combat in a cast when he broke his ankle; went beyond the call of duty to rescue one of his mates who crashed in the desert; participated in the "Morotai Mutiny" of 1945; pioneered air transport in New Guinea; and built and flew his own light plane in his 60s and 70s."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, Gerda! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:57, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good afternoon Ian. Apologies if this is not the correct place for this request. My FA nom Siege of Berwick (1333) has five supports, an image review and a placeholder for the source review which has been there for two weeks. I have reminded the placeholding editor, but I wondered if I might have permission to nominate a further FA while we wait for the source review? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, yes, a coord's talk page is fine for this, or you can ping us on the extant nom page. I'd normally say yes straight away in a case like this but I'd like to see a spotcheck of sources for accurate use and avoidance of close paraphrasing (which we normally ask for at one's first FAC nom but apparently didn't through oversight) and therefore I'd prefer we hold off on a second nom until that happens. I'm probably being overcautious but this is a fundamental part of the process so I hope you're okay with that. I'll add a note to the FAC page re. the spotcheck as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:54, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian. No worries. I saw a mention of a relaxed attitude to granting permissions and thought it worth asking. As it happens the editor who said they would source review has come back saying they hope to do this tomorrow. I fully understand the quality control issues. I shall, attempt to, control my impatience. Cheers Gog the Mild (talk) 00:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again Gog. Yeah, not so much a relaxed attitude as just encouraging editors to make use of an existing convention -- which as I say I would've acted on immediately you requested it but for the spotcheck thing. Anyway, as that seems to have turned up no major issues, pls feel free now to nominate a second article at your convenience. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Ian. Battle of Auberoche coming up. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:59, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. Me again. With the same request again. Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Auberoche/archive1 seems, to my untutored eye, to only be waiting for Sturmvogel 66 to sign off on a couple of minor points in the source review. While we wait, could I have permission to nominate my next article? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't get to this till now -- busy day. Anyway, I think Sarastro has answered this one for you already... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly no need to apologise. I appreciate the smooth way in which the FA process is kept running, and don't expect special treatment for my impatience. I am impressed by the efficiency of your TPW though. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:33, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded this WikiChevrons. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded The Featured Article Medal. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Wikiwings
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), and Eastern Area Command (RAAF) I hereby award you the Wikiwings. Congrats!

		The Australian Barnstar of National Merit
		For your work on Henry Petre, Australian Air Corps, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), Eastern Area Command (RAAF), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby presented with The Australian Barnstar of National Merit. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
		this WikiAward was given to Ian Rose by TomStar81 (Talk) on 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The Biography Barnstar
		For your work on Henry Petre, Peter Drummond (RAF officer), and Ragnar Garrett you are hereby awarded The Biography Barnstar. Congrats! TomStar81 (Talk) 19:14, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much, Tom! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:47, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at Albert Speer Op-ed: Factotem on common problems affecting infoboxes Timeline: This month in World War I

		Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history)
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Content Review Medal of Merit (Military history) for October to December 2018 reviews. MilHistBot (talk) 01:06, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Hi Ian. I have re-nominated this and hope that is acceptable by the established process. The article's main authors have reviewed it very thoroughly and addressed every criticism we could find. It has been at least two weeks and I have no other nominations pending. Let me know if there are any concerns. Thank you for all your good work. Jehochman ^Talk 02:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Jehochman -- tks for checking. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, quick heads up, I've heard (unofficially) that this one will be at TFA on his birthday. Anything special you want to see in the blurb? - Dank (push to talk) 14:19, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, any chance you can unofficially get it canned...?! I'm kinda over seeing any of 'my' articles on the front page, even if they are relatively non-controversial and don't attract as much rubbish as some, but especially older ones like this that would need more attention before they went live. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:07, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging User:Ealdgyth. - Dank (push to talk) 22:44, 21 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.... I've been sick. Generally, it's not something we do. It's not like Wehwalt and I don't share your pain, but they have to go up sometime. It's the price we pay for doing good work. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:31, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cape May County, New Jersey/archive1 - could you withdraw/remove this FAC? It wasn't as ready as I thought it was. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:23, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Done. Sarastro (talk) 18:15, 22 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that William Bostock has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 5 February 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 5, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 16:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I already have one solo FAC and another co-nom'd with L293D. I'd like to add another one with Parsecboy, if I could.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 16:22, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mmm, the way I tend to judge these is that the instructions say you can't have two solo noms simultaneously, so anything that "adds up" to less than two is fine. Since you have a solo and a co-nom, another co-nom would effectively be the same as two solos... It'd be different if one of the current ones was close to promotion but I don't think that's the case so I think we should wait a bit. Of course if Andy or Sarastro think differently, I'm more than happy to reconsider... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:21, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Both Hiyo and Bretagne look to be just about done, so I'd like to re-nominate Albatros which was archived last month.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I didn't respond earlier -- that should be fine. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 16:23, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Review essay: Nick-D on the Japanese battleship Mikasa

I can probably do a review or two this week; I looked at the urgents and I think it needs updating, so any requests? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:12, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And pinging Sarastro1 and Laser brain since I just realized what time it is in Australia. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:13, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike -- there are actually quite a few at the bottom of the list that we can probably promote. Looking further up the list, if you could try Allison Guyot and/or Fall of Kampala, I think it'd help. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:36, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK -- I'll take a look at at least one of them in the next couple of days. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 03:13, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I was wondering if you could look at my current FAC. It has only been up for ten days, but it has received four support votes, an image review, and a source review. Since it has not been up that long (not even two weeks), I am not certain that is ready for promotion, but I was just wondering your thoughts on its status? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, it's looking pretty good so far but I like to leave noms open at least 2-3 weeks to give busy editors a chance to comment. I think we could do with one or two more people casting their eye over it. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:45, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Understandable, and I agree that is for the best. Aoba47 (talk) 08:00, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies again for the message, but I was just curious about the status of the FAC. It has been a little over a week since my last message, and one additional editor supported the nomination. Aoba47 (talk) 19:27, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, just wondering if you had anything else re: your review? Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Probably all good, will try and take a look soon. Now you mention it, how's Lou Spence look to you now? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder, have supported now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:43, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, noticing that you have an interest in first wave punk, have put "Cut the Crap" up for PR. Its a strange addition to their cannon that brings up a lot of heated emotions, with that in mind the PR is framed as a "safe space" were you can eff, blind, and vent about mid 80s music and where did it all go wrong to your hearts content. You input anyhow would be valued. Ceoil (talk) 12:24, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for thinking of me Ceoil, I've bookmarked article and PR and will try to comment when I can. You're right about the interest, though I'll admit I wasn't a big Clash fan -- perhaps that will allow me to be more severely objective than I might otherwise... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"severely objective"? haha / <gulp> - bring it on! Ceoil (talk) 12:57, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian

1. Thanks for tidying up Siege of Aiguillon prior to promoting it to FA. A little embarrassing that so many niggly bits were left, even if I can console myself with the thought that a lot of other eyes had missed them too.
2. Apologies that my attempted op-ed for The Bugle wasn't up to the mark. I think that it got a bit out of control. Let me know if you would like me to have an attempt at one in a more traditional style.
3. I help out a little at both the Four Awards and the Triple Crown. It has been noted that neither gets the traffic that it used to, and suggested that some gentle promotion may be in order. As a first step, would it be in order to put something in The Bugle making people aware of both awards? If so, would it be down to me to draft something and submit it to you for approval? Do you have any other suggestions re promotion, or an opinion as to whether this is a good idea in the first place?

Thanks.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog, on the go now so just replying to point 3 for now... I'm not sure about mentioning those things in the project news page but do you think it might be worth an op-ed? Perhaps you could go a little into the scope and history of the awards and how they motivate people (or even just yourself), as well as discussing how they could use more participation. Bugle op-eds can be (and have been) a forum for WP processes as well as broader military subjects... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if there is a good way to ask FAC coordinators a question, so asking you individually. Will Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Roger B. Chaffee/archive1 require a spot check? All my other FACs I co-nominated with Hawkeye, so this is my first solo-nom FAC. Kees08 (Talk) 04:39, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for that Kees. In that case I'd prefer to see a spotcheck -- I'm sure you both did your share of the referencing in your co-noms but if this is the first time you're bearing the whole load I think a spotcheck wouldn't hurt. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:04, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WP:FAC coordinators: I'm going to be taking almost a month off from editing to work on a project that I hope will benefit new editors. I want to be available for a week after I post any proposed blurbs, so the timing is a little tight. Would it be okay if I post my suggested blurbs (currently in User:Dank/Sandbox/5) to FAC talk pages before the articles get promoted? I'll add a disclaimer, of course, that I'm not trying to predict when or if articles will get promoted. (Just between us, I don't even think about doing blurbs until I see two solid supports.) I'm just trying to get people to look at the blurbs before I leave. It's fine to say "no", of course, if you have concerns about the blurb review process interfering in any way with the FAC process. - Dank (push to talk) 15:53, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any harm in this. Thanks! --Laser brain (talk) 21:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the Joe Hewitt (RAAF officer) article has been scheduled as today's featured article for April 13, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 13, 2019, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

We also suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors on the day before and the day of this TFA. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 16:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...so, ping! Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I want to start this off by saying it does not really bother me, so only take action if it bothers you :). I presume you place FAs into the various sections on Wikipedia:Featured_articles (if not please point me in the right direction). Warfare biographies has Alan Shepard and John Glenn, while Neil Armstrong is under Physics and astronomy biographies. With Aldrin, Collins, and Chaffee coming up, as well as Dave Scott I think, it could be useful to make the categorization consistent. GA puts them under Physics and astronomy (to be fair, I might have made that subcategory). Anyways, it does not bother me if they are not grouped together on the FA page, but I thought maybe it would bother someone, so just wanted to bring it up. Kees08 (Talk) 00:49, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Kees -- it's an interesting question, and there's probably no ideal answer but consistency is certainly desirable. I think people should be in a category that would earn them their wikinotability alone, and most if not all astronauts would not tend to fall into the military category for that, even though many had a military background (Glenn might be an exception but as far as 'secondary notability' goes his political career would challenge his military one). For the primary category I wonder if even Physics & Astronomy is appropriate -- I notice the Apollo missions are under Engineering & Technology so does that work better? Perhaps my tps' would like to weigh in... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:23, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Having slept on it, I guess one could argue that although the US space program was a civilian operation, most of the astronauts were in the military at the time of their flights so perhaps it's as good a category for them as any. Armstrong is an exception, I believe he'd resigned even his commission in the reserves by the time he became an astronaut, so probably best he remain in Physics & Astronomy (or Engineering & Technology if that works better still) -- Hawkeye, what's your thoughts on this? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I had a question about an FLC of mine which has been open for 5 weeks with 4 support votes and no opposition. Can it be promoted as I’d like to devote my attention to other projects.—NØ 10:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as I'm a coord for FAC, you might want to consult with the coords listed at the top of FLC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:43, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I’ll do so!—NØ 10:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 US Navy aviation safety and Australian war crimes trials

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for January to March 2019 reviews. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

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: Peacemaker67, Nick-D and Hawkeye7 look at three books focussing on the World Wars Op-ed: Indy Beetle on the fall of Idi Amin

Hello again! I hope you are doing well. My current FAC has attracted a substantial amount of commentary, and I was wondering if I would be allowed to post a second FAC. I am on the fence on whether or not I would do so as there is something nice after taking an FAC one at a time and I am honestly not in a rush for the current one. I am grateful for the editors that took the time to comment on it and help to improve it as that particular article has gotten immensely better since the FAC started. I was just curious if it was an option? Either way, have a great rest of your week! Aoba47 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, I think we're pretty close to where I'd say go ahead with a second FAC, but I wouldn't mind seeing BLZ's initial source comments first if that's okay. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, In Hewitt's article, prose says Keith while References say co-author with Alan Stephens is Jeff. (Ditto on Allan Walters). I can see it's Jeff here but are they 2 different aviation writers or same fellow using both names? JennyOz (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, tks Jen, my error -- there is a Keith Isaacs but nothing to do with this work AFAIK. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:48, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ealdgyth wants to run this one at TFA on the 6th. Thoughts? I'm having a hard time getting it done. Feel free to write the blurb, or if you prefer, let me know what you'd like to see in the blurb. - Dank (push to talk) 15:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Dan, busy lately but will have a look now... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:13, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blah, blah, you know what's coming... blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 6, 2019. Ealdgyth - Talk 20:51, 17 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well at least you picked one that wasn't ten years old... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, there are a stack of references on the Gurney page relating to his death. Is it necessary to repeat them given that he is linked to the 33 article?Lexysexy (talk) 10:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, according to WP guidelines it is, especially in a Featured Article. The references there already, Gillison and the WW2 roll, support that he died in a crash, as the article says now -- if we want to add that he was flying with the yanks at the time then it'd need a further citation, and that's up to whoever wants to add that snippet (which I don't think is that vital, Gillison obviously didn't think so either). Best, Ian Rose (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, the only FP promoted in April which might be in scope for The Bugle is Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Brest, 1700. It doesn't seem to be included in any military-related articles, but does pretty clearly show that the town was fully enclosed by fortifications. I think that this probably puts it in-scope, but what do you think? Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm kinda on the fence (or the wall!) with that one -- does Adam Cuerden have an opinion? I'm aiming to despatch the issue tonight or early tomorrow so I guess we'd better decide soon... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:23, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look, given Brest's military significance I think why not -- will add it in and then I think we can despatch the issue. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:54, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 Australia's leadership and medical services in World War II and Peacemaker67 on Israel's targeted assassinations Op-ed: TomStar81 looks at the fate of the German fleet at Scapa Flow

Hi Ian Rose, I saw you deleted my FAC nomination of James A. Doonan for being out of process. As far as I'm aware, I followed the FAC process. Can you explain? Ergo Sum 15:13, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, in the instructions at the top of WP:FAC it states, "None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator; if such an article is nominated without asking for leave, a coordinator will decide whether to remove it." IOW the same process as if one nominated the same article immediately after it was archived. The first time your statue nom was archived I said let's waive the two-week waiting period because there was little commentary (again per FAC instructions), but this time there was a reasonable amount so I didn't feel a waiver was justified. Cheers, 22:27, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

I see. I was under the impression that the two week hiatus applied to individual articles, not nominators. Should have read more closely. Ergo Sum 22:51, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've included a few borderline ones (they're explained in hidden comments), as I figure it's better to be a little broad than too narrow. I haven't added any of them into the showcase yet. I believe the space race is considered in scope for us, right? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 03:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think so -- part of the Cold War, mainly military crews, etc. Will have a look when I can, many tks mate. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, it's really just Tarbell and maybe Bohr - people with definite connections to military history, but who are vastly more famous for something else. I think Fawcett's Boer War investigations push her beyond doubt, though. The Japanese-American internments of WWII presumably count, and the only other thing I can think of that might be questioned is Mary Jackson, who's definitely part of the space race, but maybe engineers are one step too far removed from MILHIST? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.5% of all FPs} 01:17, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

One other question: Should notable peace campaigners (Aletta Jacobs in particular) be included under MILHIST? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.6% of all FPs} 06:56, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Adam and Nick, sorry it's taken so long to properly review the FPs in this month's issue. Taking a hard look at each case, I do think we might be going a bit too broadly. I remember posing the question once, when we were deciding what should go in one month, if we could determine inclusion according to whether an image was tagged by the MilHist project or not, and was informed that images don't get projects assigned. Well fair enough but could we decide it based on whether the subject is claimed by the project or not? Many of these aren't and I think we need to ask ourselves which of them could fairly be tagged as MilHist? I don't think Jemison could be -- no military career I can see and in the space program just as the Cold War was ending. Hosokawa seems a stretch despite his internment -- his career as a war correspondent occupies a sentence in the article. I know what I said about the Space Race above but Tranquility Base never had a military career as such like the early astronauts did. Of those remaining, if we include them in the Bugle I think we should put our money where our mouth is and tag the subject articles for MilHist if they aren't already. Thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian and Adam, Firstly, thanks for putting this together Adam - it's best to cast the net widely given that the project's inclusion criteria tend to be both broad and somewhat vague. Regarding the images here, I agree that the Jemison and Hosokawa images are out of scope. While the US military was involved with the Apollo Program, the Tranquility Base image doesn't depict a significant aspect of this, so I'd suggest omitting it as well. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:46, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You do realise the Hosokawa image is at Heart Mountain Relocation Center, right? I can't see how the WWII internment of Japanese-Americans isn't MILHIST. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 12:45, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, for now I'll remove Jemison and Tranquility only. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the North-Eastern Area Command article has been scheduled as today's featured article for June 17, 2019. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/June 17, 2019.—Wehwalt (talk) 16:32, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, this is one of your noms, you're welcome to do it if you like. - Dank (push to talk) 22:23, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wait, now I see WT:Featured article candidates/North-Eastern Area Command (RAAF)/archive1, so I guess we're good to go. - Dank (push to talk) 23:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dan, always good to hear from you -- not sure if I checked the blurb there, will do so in due course. Cheers Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no rush. - Dank (push to talk) 01:29, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at the Dambusters, and Hawkeye7 at Allied code breakers and Australia in New Guinea and Vietnam Op-ed: TomStar81 on the treaty that ended World War I

There's maybe one more: Keitel signing the German surrender after WWII - but unless you think Frederick Fleet is MILHIST then all the current ones are up. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 16:16, 18 June 2019 (UTC) Also Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov will end FPC on the 30th. So might get another. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 22:05, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one note. If Russian battleship Dvenadsat Apostolov does pass FP, be careful not to also use the image in the A-class section. Because I do TRY to grab FP candidates from recently promoted stuff when I can find a good subject. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 03:14, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Adam. Yeah I think Fleet's MilHist connection is pretty tenuous. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:34, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one last thing, and I realise this is an odd question: I was surprised to learn The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly was under MILHIST. Does that mean Marino Faliero (opera) is as well, and the FP for it counts? Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 6.7% of all FPs} 01:04, 22 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Haweye7, Peacemaker67 and Nick-D on recent books covering the world wars

Hi Ian. I wonder if I could query the status of my FAC nom for Battle of Crécy. It has had four supports and image and source reviews for two weeks, and four days ago picked up a fifth support. I am not feeling especially impatient given that you let me nominate my next FAC ten days ago, but I am wondering if there is anything which I should or could be doing to move it along? Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'll be there in the next few days to take a look. There must be something in the water... no pun intended. Cassianto^Talk 20:57, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There must indeed -- tks for the heads-up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Peacemaker67 look at Italian, German and Australian forces in World War II

My request for additional reviewers for Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMS Bulwark (1899)/archive1 was very promptly responded to and it should be promotable now. Might I add a new nomination in anticipation of its promotion?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:36, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that'd be fine Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In the month of September, Wikiproject Military history is running a project-wide edit-a-thon, Backlog Banzai. There are heaps of different areas you can work on, for which you claim points, and at the end of the month all sorts of whiz-bang awards will be handed out. Every player wins a prize! There is even a bit of friendly competition built in for those that like that sort of thing. Sign up now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/September 2019 Backlog Banzai to take part. For the coordinators, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my recent RfA. It was most appreciated. Especially from those who voted even when it was going west. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:18, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to do it, your resilience in the face of what seems collective shortsightedness -- including even some whose work and opinions otherwise command deep respect -- is quite an inspiration. Thanks for your continuing commitment. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:49, 25 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:38, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I trust all is well with you. You may have seen that I've been working on the Goldfinger (novel) article recently. This is now at PR, if you have the time and inclination to give it a once over? No problems if you can't - entirely understandable. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gav, guess what went onto my watchlist almost as soon as you opened it...? ;-) That said, RL has been busy, and I can't promise I'll get to it, but if not PR then certainly the FAC that will presumably follow... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian - no rush and if you can't make it, then not a problem. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:33, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. Apologies for always messaging you. I was just curious about my current FAC. It has received comments from several editors and has received a source review and an image review. I would think it is ready for promotion, but I was wondering about your opinion. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 06:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No prob, will try to look over this w/e. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see this has been taken care of -- tks Andy! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian. I hope that you are going to be nominating yourself to be a MilHist coordinator again. If you are undecided, can I urge you to take two paces forward. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks guys, not playing hard to get, just aware that owing to FAC and RL I haven't been able to spend much time on MilHist coord duties this past year, and not sure that will change in the foreseeable. If it looked like we were short of candidates I would've come on board but I think we're pretty okay there, and if one or two drop out during the year I'm open to being drafted... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just curious as to the status of Hurricane Sergio (2018)'s FAC since it has been without comment since August 26. Noah^Talk 22:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for the ping, Noah -- looking pretty good on first glance, will take a closer look soon. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I meant it hasn't had any comments since that date. It has had 4 reviews, a source review, and a media review. Noah^Talk 21:25, 16 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, voting for the 2019 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:37, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at the legacy of World War II

Image	Description
	You've gotten some of these Featured Article Medals for your writing. This one is for your work as a coord, with my thanks for your devotion, competence and good sense. It's awardable to people who have helped with three or more FAs ... so I think you and Andy qualify (awarded jointly). - Dank (push to talk) 02:19, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Quite right too! Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 17:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Hear, hear! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 03:52, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thank you Dan (and Gav/PM) -- much appreciated! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:55, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day everyone, the voting for the XIX Coordinator Tranche is at the halfway mark. The candidates have answered various questions, and you can check them out to see why they are running and decide whether you support them. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2018. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 22 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian and Laser brain, I currently have SS Politician on the go (five supports and image and sources both passed); would I be able to nom a second? Politician has only been on the go for ten days, so I won't mind if you'd prefer I wait a bit longer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:10, 24 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Gav, well yeah, I prefer to let things go about a fortnight before considering closure or a second nom so suppose we leave till the weekend and then feel free to kick off a new one, as long as nothing major has come up with Politician? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No probs at all. I'll leave it until Monday and then list. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 11:10, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Just a quick check on this: am I OK to list the second one now? Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 08:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent, cheers - SchroCat (talk) 14:32, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		The WikiChevrons
		By the authority vested in me by myself it gives me great pleasure to present you with this award in recognition of the exemplary work you have done as a MilHist coordinator. I, for one, appreciate it. Do feel free to keep glancing over my shoulder and applying correction as necessary. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:13, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Gog -- you've been a great asset to the project as an editor and, as I said during the vote, you'll be a fine coord too. I don't think you'll need much in the way of advice but if you do, always feel free to ask. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I concur. Thanks very much Ian for your long service as a coord, stretching back to March 2009 and including a year as lead coord! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:48, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Echoing the above. Carry on, and feel free to drop a line if you need anything. TomStar81 (Talk) 10:09, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to say thank you Ian to help us, the project and Wikipedia in general in your co-ord terms. We were happy to have you in the team and we want to continue the legacy you made in the last three years. Hopefully, we will continue them, I bet we would, you'll see mate. :) Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:21, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you all very much, and all the best in the coming year! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:22, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. I was just wondering about the status of my current FAC for "A Rugrats Kwanzaa". Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to get the FPs finalised in the next couple days. I think there's at least a couple, though it's not been a great month. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 20:55, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I just did it now. We could add Gina Krog since she participated in the Inter-Allied Women's Conference (or am I mixing things up?), but, given nothing about that's mentioned in her article, unless User:SusunW wants to update her article soon, I say we leave it. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7% of all FPs} 21:05, 30 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (2 stripes) for participating in 4 reviews between July and September 2019. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

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 and Nick-D look at three works Op-ed: Hawkeye7 on writing a military biography

Happy First Edit Day!

Have a very happy first edit anniversary!

From the Birthday Committee, PATH SLOPU 15:30, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Happy First Edit Day, Ian Rose, from the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've roughed in the FPs. There's a ten-day lead time on FPs, so you can usually tell the list of what's going to pass before the end of the month. The only one in the slightest bit of doubt is File:Maréchal_Canrobert_by_Nadar.jpg, which only has four supports so far, but almost certainly will get five in time, as it's so new.

Now, I'm trying to write a little more about each person this month, but I'd like you to go in and trim out anyone you don't think relevant before I really get into it. I think the justifications are all there, it's down to things like, "Is a major supporter of Alfred Dreyfus who was otherwise minimally involved in MILHIST suitable? What about someone who painted military history?

You get the idea. Adam Cuerden ^(talk)_{Has about 7.1% of all FPs} 07:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Mary Bell (aviator) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 10 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 10, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 21:51, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

November

Cassia javanica, Torremolinos
thanks from QAI

Thank you for the prequel to that of Clare Stevenson, the long-serving director of the Women's Auxiliary Australian Air Force (WAAAF), the first and ultimately largest women's military service in wartime Australia. Mary Bell led the WAAAF for the first three months of its existence but, more importantly, had played a significant role agitating for its establishment. One can imagine her reaction upon being passed over for permanent command of her baby in favour of corporate executive Stevenson, but Bell was persuaded to put aside her disappointment and ended up serving in the WAAAF for most of the war, if in a minor capacity."! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that No. 33 Squadron RAAF has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 15 November 2019. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 15, 2019. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 14:22, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for the companion piece to No. 36 Squadron RAAF, "Australia's sole air-to-air refuelling unit. It operated Boeing 707s for many years and has just finished re-equipping with aircraft from the other big commercial jet stable, Airbus.! - see also - arbcom season --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:38, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm logging off for the evening. I think that the Bugle is good to go once you're happy with it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:58, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, from the above I think that you and I almost have a monopoly on TFA at the moment! Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, looks like it! BTW, I think 33SQN might need some updating for the last couple of years -- I'll check Air Force News but if you have any important info from say Australian Aviation or other sources, pls feel free to add. I'm not thinking of an exhaustive search, just anything the absence of which might be considered an omission of up-to-date events. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:48, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The main thing to add to the 33 Squadron article is that the extra KC-30As have both now been delivered (I think), with the VIP aircraft commencing in this role recently. It would probably also be worth noting that the KC-30s are now deployed to the Middle East on an alternating basis with the E-7s (the Operation Okra article has a cite for this from memory). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boy these TFAs creep up on you! It was on the front page before I even got a chance to add that the sixth has definitely been delivered; I daresay the seventh has too but couldn't see anything on the web in my cursory look, so left open for now. No time for anything re. Okra now, maybe tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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: Willbb234 on Allied pilots, Hawkeye7 on the defence of Australia and logistics in Indochina, Nick-D on Australian commandos Op-ed: Hawkeye7 reports back on a high-profile history symposium

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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:40, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Andy, I hope all is good with you both. I've currently got Baker Street robbery going through FAC; it's been going for three weeks, got five supports and a clear image and source review. Would you mind if I opened a second nom? No problems if not - I can always hold off for a while if you're prefer. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:25, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@SchroCat: No problems here! --Laser brain (talk) 13:31, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi Gav, yeah I scanned it the other day and thought it looked close -- fine by me. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - many thanks to you both. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:37, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Soviet destroyer Nezamozhnik/archive1 looks to be about ready to go, can I make a new nomination?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go for it. Given both your current FACs are co-noms, the new one can be solo or shared and it'd stay within the guideline. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:16, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 23:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, Ian, I hope you are well. It seems a long time since we've talked. Anyway, I had some time this afternoon after my flight home to expand and reference the Battle of the Nek article. I seem to recall many years ago you expressed an interest in potentially working on this. (Apologies, if I have gotten this wrong -- I have a bad memory). Anyway, if you are keen and you have some time, would you mind taking a look at the article? Happy for you to adjust whatever you see fit. All the best. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:49, 20 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rupert, great to hear from you. I don't actually recall talking about it either but if army types like you and AC can do so much to improve air force articles it seems only fair I help with a land battle if I can -- will at least give it a ce over the w/e. Cheers, and tks for asking! Ian Rose (talk) 22:37, 21 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:JK0454HannahCropSharp.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the ((proposed deletion/dated files)) notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing ((proposed deletion/dated files)) will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I hope all is well. Would it be OK if I added another nom? I have had this one on the go for over three weeks, with five supports and clear image and source reviews. No problems with waiting a bit, but just thought I'd ask. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 19:45, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, was wondering when you'd ask -- didn't want to be seen to be playing favourites by suggesting it myself... ;-) Go ahead of course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:32, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's great - all done. It's about a rather grotty character, but an interesting insight into the porn-peddling world of 1960s and 70s London. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, This story notes that several F-35s with 2OCU markings recently arrived in Australia. It doesn't say that the unit is now formally operating them - presumably this will happen sometime next year(?). BTW, the December Bugle is done except for the FAs and any FLs and FTs if you have time this weekend. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:40, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks mate. Yeah, been very busy work- and otherwise so tks for all the effort on this month's issue, should be able to finish up and despatch in the next 24... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 15 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By now you've no doubt realised I meant the next 24 days, not the next 24 hours... :-P End-of-year deadlines and all but it should improve by the w/e... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:41, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Damon Runyon's short story "Dancing Dan's Christmas" is a fun read if you have the time. Right from the start it extols the virtues of the hot Tom and Jerry This hot Tom and Jerry is an old-time drink that is once used by one and all in this country to celebrate Christmas with, and in fact it is once so popular that many people think Christmas is invented only to furnish an excuse for hot Tom and Jerry, although of course this is by no means true. No matter what concoction is your favorite to imbibe during this festive season I would like to toast you with it and to thank you for all your work here at the 'pedia this past year. Best wishes for your 2020 as well IR. MarnetteD|Talk 11:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Marnette, I know things are being looked after when your name shows up on my watchlist... Cheers to you and yours this festive season! Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome and thanks back atcha for the kind compliment :-) MarnetteD|Talk 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Nick-D look at works on aspects of the Second World War and Cold War

A very happy Christmas and New Year to you!
May 2020 bring you joy, happiness – and no trolls, vandals or visits from Krampus! All the best Gavin / SchroCat (talk) 07:48, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much Gav -- keep up the great work (more Bond novels at FAC pls, need to keep my hand in)...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:46, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

		Io, Saturnalia!
		Wishing you and yours a Happy Holiday Season, from the horse and bishop person. May the year ahead be productive and distraction-free. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:30, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Victoria, hope it's a great festive season for you too, and look forward to working with you in 2020! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:00, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Precious

Six years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Gerda, happy 2020! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also to you, card in the making (please watch, I won't go around mailing). - Wikipedia won't be the same without Brian, so happiness is not the purest. Sad list, really. But I am determined to make illumination, enlightenment and vision 2020's topics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Clare Stevenson, "on the first commander of an Australian women's military service"! - A new year began, good wishes on my talk, for a year of vision! - I archive every year, hint hint ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for promoting Brian's expedition! I decorated my talk on the rare occasion of Rossini's birthday - feel free to take some of the February flowers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ian, I saw your ping and have answered you at the above. Best wishes, and if I don't speak to you before then, have a lovely Christmas. Cassianto^Talk 11:32, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks for responding so quickly, Cass -- I hope you and yours have a great Christmas and New Year too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWiW Bzuk (talk) 01:23, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Great card, tks mate, and best to you and yours! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:35, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2020!

Hello Ian Rose, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2020. Happy editing, Donner60 (talk) 07:13, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply] Spread the love by adding ((subst:Seasonal Greetings)) to other user talk pages.

Tks Donner, Happy Christmas and New Year to you too. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:36, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, Happy holidays! Can you please have a look at this FA promotion? There is a minor formatting error in a comment which has precluded proper closure. Best wishes for 2020, JennyOz (talk) 14:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Jenny, actioned now by a friendly TPS it seems -- best to you for the coming year as well, always good to see you around! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:52, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry Ian Rose, i thought you might be sleeping off the turkey by that time!  ;) festive greetings to ye! ——SN54129 22:30, 25 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think that Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/French battleship Iéna/archive1 is just about ready for promotion. Can I add a new nomination to fill my solo slot?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, Sturm. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year, Happy New Decade and Happy New WikiCup! The 2020 WikiCup began at the start of January and all article creators, expanders and improvers are welcome to take part. If you are interested in joining, you can add your name here and the judges will set up your submissions page. Creative editors like yourself seem to enjoy taking part, and many return year after year. Signups will close at the end of January, and the first round will end on 26 February; the 64 highest scorers at that time will move on to round 2. The judges for the WikiCup are Sturmvogel 66 (talk · contribs · email), Godot13 (talk · contribs · email), Vanamonde93 (talk · contribs · email) and Cwmhiraeth (talk). --Hanberke (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Jim Mattis

Thank you, kindly. Zabararmon (talk) 12:28, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, kindly Zabararmon (talk) 12:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, how do I find the discussion page? Zabararmon (talk) 11:55, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zabararmon, if you go to the top of any Wikipedia article page (in fact most WP pages in general, including this one) you should find a tab marked "Talk", just to the right of one marked "Article". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:15, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Clare Stevenson has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 24 February 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/February 24, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth - Talk 23:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's great to see this excellent article as TFA Ian Nick-D (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well a lot of people helped, including your good self, Nick. Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian. I was wondering if I can make a new section on the FAC talk page to find a new Featured Topic delegate. Feeling that only two delegates on there might not be enough for the project and hopefully can find someone more active to help out. GamerPro64 01:56, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi GamerPro64, do you mean an announcement in a new section at the (current) bottom of the page? I don't see why not... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:05, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at a failed German counterattack in the Battle of Normandy

The Wikipedia article on Arthur W. Vanaman and the Wikipedia article on Jonathan M. Wainwright each identify the subject of their article as the highest ranking American POW of WWII. I believe the Wainwright held the higher rank of the two, but I'm reluctant to go in and change the Vanaman article because maybe there is some nuance I'm not aware of. Either way, someone who knows should fix whichever article is incorrect. (User:Dog-519) —Preceding undated comment added 03:56, 24 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day all, March Madness 2020 is about to get underway, and there is bling aplenty for those who want to get stuck into the backlog by way of tagging, assessing, updating, adding or improving resources and creating articles. If you haven't already signed up to participate, why not? The more the merrier! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC) for the coord team[reply]

...both for promoting the article, and for your edits there - I never realised how attached I seem to be to the word 'various'! Hope to be back some time soon, I've learned a lot during the process. GirthSummit _(blether) 13:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, all those terms that I check for when preparing to promote an article -- "however", "in order to", "a number of", "various", etc -- I have been guilty of employing in the past. Anyway I hope we see you back at FAC soon as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:58, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Page Patrol needs experienced volunteers

• New Page Patrol is currently struggling to keep up with the influx of new articles. We could use a few extra hands on deck if you think you can help.
• Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; Wikipedia needs experienced users to perform this task and there are precious few with the appropriate skills. Even a couple reviews a day can make a huge difference.
• If you would like to join the project and help out, please see the granting conditions and review our instructions page. You can apply for the user-right HERE. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:36, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! I hope you are doing well. Since my current FAC has attracted a fair amount of attention, I was wondering if I could submit a second FAC? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 (talk) 00:19, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, go ahead. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Aoba47 (talk) 17:42, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the additional message. I was wondering what would be the best course of action for the "Drake Would Love Me" FAC? Sarastro has not been active on Wikipedia for some time, and their last comment for the FAC was over a month ago. I could try looking for another reviewer if necessary, but there already appears to be a healthy amount of commentary and reviews. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 19:53, 12 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll aim to stop by the w/e and take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 05:39, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Aoba47 (talk) 21:24, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, but are we done with wolf yet? Jonesey95 reviewed the formatting. LittleJerry (talk) 00:53, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No bother LJ, it just looks to me that Nikkimaria concurs that we've had a spotcheck of sources in the lead but not an article-wide source review for reliability. It also looks like F&F is offering to do that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please weigh in at the FAC? LittleJerry (talk) 10:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you suggested that I withdrew my FAC nomination for Le Gros the Younger. I'm happy to do so and work on the language which, you are quite right, got the better of me. I'd like to withdraw but have no idea how. Just simply delete the section?

As a suggestion: you might want to put a little paragraph of how to withdraw in the explanatory section of the FAC page. I'm sure others are equally unsure how to proceed. Gerbis (talk) 08:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerbis, you've actually done all that's necessary, which is to indicate your willingness to withdraw -- an uninvolved coord will action in due course. As for explanations, we've historically been leery of instruction creep at FAC but you might well be right that a few extra words wouldn't hurt... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:41, 14 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, is my FAC ready to be promoted? It has four supports, an image review, and a source review. It's only my second FAC, so I don't know when exactly it is supposed to be closed. L293D (☎ • ✎) 00:29, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's looking okay but I tend not to promote articles that are still in the process of being reviewed, as this is. Once Pendright has had his say and you've responded, I'll take another look. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, thanks. L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:16, 15 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews

Would it be possible for me to nominate a second FAC? The first one, Tropical Storm Ileana (2018), has been open for quite some time now and I have resolved the comments put forth by the reviewers. Noah^Talk 15:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah, I think I'd like to see a source review for reliability (and formatting but primary reliability) before another nom is opened (unless I missed one, if not you could add a request to the top of WT:FAC). I'd also like to see a review from someone outside the storm article fraternity, although I wouldn't necessarily stop you opening another nom on that account alone. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:32, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KN did a source review. His comments mainly pertained to the sources. Noah^Talk 15:36, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll need clarification on that, will mention on the nom page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it okay for me to nominate Hurricane Lane (2018) now since KN has clarified? Sorry if I am being a bit pushy. An FT is riding on Lane. Please let me know. Noah^Talk 12:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:50, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Military history reviewers' award
		On behalf of the Military History Project, I am proud to present the The Milhist reviewing award (1 stripe) for participating in 1 review between January and March 2020. Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply] Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste ((WPMILHIST Review alerts)) to your user space

Tks PM -- been such a whirlwind these past few months I'm going have to think very hard about what this was for...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for leaving another message on your talk page. I have a quick question about my current FAC. Although the nomination has been up for only a little over two weeks, I think it is time to archive it since it has not received any commentary and it is already being buried under a list of far more active FACs.

I do not mean this in a negative or bitter way as I am glad that more editors are putting up nominations and certain topics attract editors more than others. I just realistically do not see this getting any attention in the future. Rather than pinging the FAC coordinators on the FAC itself, I wanted to get your opinion about it. Do you think archiving it would be appropriate? I can always try again in the future. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at the logistics behind the Crusades and the USAF's early Cold War nuclear deterrant

Hi Ian

I hope that you are coping well with the various virus-related restrictions.

April's Bugle *Cough* Battle of Drepana; promoted 28 March; my 20th FAC. *Cough*.

Cheers

Gog the Mild (talk) 11:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, you're always in the naughty corner but this was, in fact, merely oversight. As you were... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers Ian. (I'm not naughty, I'm just ebullient .) Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian. I saw you archived the FAC for Open Here, which makes sense because unfortunately there just wasn't anybody reviewing it. But I saw you said "I appreciate you've tried to drum up some interest in this review, and of could it's not a great time for that anyway..." Forgive me if I'm just slow on the uptake here, lol, but what did you mean by "it's not a great time for that anyway"? Do you mean FAC isn't particularly active right now? Because of the pandemic, or some other reason? I only ask because I have other articles I'd potentially nominate, but if it's a bad time and they're just going to end up getting ignored like Open Here did, I'd perhaps wait... — Hunter Kahn 14:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, it's an interesting time because the virus thing is simultaneously giving some people more time for WP and others less, and perhaps for still others there's no change, so I guess all I'm saying is things are up in the air and we shouldn't be surprised if in some cases fewer people are reviewing. I'm not trying to discourage you nominating this one again (or a different one) in a couple of weeks; all we can do, as they say, is run it up the flagpole and see if anyone salutes... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Understood. Thanks Ian Rose! — Hunter Kahn 03:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @WP:FAC coordinators: since I just nominated a FAC I'm looking to do some reviews. I picked off a couple that looked like they needed another look, but there's nothing in the urgents list at the moment. Anything you want looked at? Otherwise I'll start at the bottom and look for ones that seem under-reviewed. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 12:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, always welcome -- I have to admit my main interest just this moment is a source reviewer for the Washington and slavery FAC, if that takes your fancy... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 10:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, and I hope you are well. Might I ask why you reverted my edit here? I was under the impression that changing [[Category:Stub-Class military history articles|51,000+]] to [[:Category:Stub-Class military history articles|51,000+]] took the category away from the page and presented it as a link... You'll note the same code was added by GELongstreet soon after again. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eddie, fine and hope you are too. Your guess is as good as mine! I notice it's a mobile edit so I guess finger trouble... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind me adding a by-line here. It was so I could run the fcimporter script for The Signpost'. If that's something I shouldn't have done, please rv and let me know. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've raised a few concerns about the article Vernon Sturdee on it's talk page. Just wanted to let you know. Aeonx (talk) 15:42, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, The current edition of the Australian Defence Business Review, which is available online for free here has a detailed article on 2 OCU which looks very helpful for updating the article how that it's ceased Hornet training and is about to start F-35 training. Regards Nick-D (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Nick -- be a fair bit of updating for a while to come but this gives us a very good starting point. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:56, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 and Hawkeye7 look at fortifications, the German Army, and post-Cold War conflict

Hi there, Ian Rose , good seeing you, I would really appreciate if you took note of (not necessarily responding) this discussion I started on the general FAC talk page. It's part a complaint and part a summary of the (frustrating; pardon my use of the word) FAC discussion surrounding just one word (in a sentence about her parents' religion which I was reluctant to add in the first place but when I did upon the user's demand, I was asked to remove parts of what appears in the source), and which led to this one oppose from a user who did not even read the article past this one sentence. I really didn't expect to have to deal with one line in the background section when the article covers almost five decades of film work. I'm not sure how much you closing coordinators read through chunks of text and that's why I started this discussion and am letting you know now. Shahid • ^Talk2me 05:48, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I haven't had a chance to go through the whole thread but, as KJP1 suggested at WT:FAC, don't worry about it for now, just deal with any other comments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:33, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wish it was easy. Other prolific editors on the FAC have told me to ignore him (and on my talk page as well), but now I'm forced into dealing with this user's behavior, which keeps going (which I'm told is just pure ego). It looks like he is now set on destroying this FAC once I haven't removed that word in the religion part (I know it sounds a bit too dramatic but that's really it) by adding big blocks of text which contain nothing constructive or actionable. Knowing how feeble his oppose is, he now moved to the next, short section of her film debut and attacked the sourcing in this section (which includes noted critics, authors and historians) by providing a random list from Google books, complaining none appears in the section. And why is this comment (which he says is another reason for his oppose) totally uncalled for? Because all the books he cited (which he clearly didn't care to even have a glance at) do not even mention the actress (the subject of the nomination)! Most of them hardly even mention the film. I had to go over the list of books just the prove it's fake. I think he's making fun of the entire process of FAC reviewing. And he turned everything into personal, throwing empty lines such as "Your article is nowhere near that level". First, it's not "my" article, but is this person really aware of the kind of constructive comments required on FAC? Where can I complain about this behaviour? Shahid • ^Talk2me 07:09, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your part in bringing Australasian Antarctic Expedition to the Main page today, in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have an article at FAC at the moment here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Robert Goff, Baron Goff of Chieveley/archive1. I've received some helpful critiques and I'm working on them. I unfortunately have exams until the 19th of June, and that means I'm very tight on time until then. Would you mind holding off on passing or failing the nomination until around then? I'd be very grateful. Many thanks, Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 14:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ian Rose: I hope I'm reading correctly from the silence that my request was out of line. If so, I apologise - I'm new to FAC and I'm still finding my way around. I will make sure that the changes are done soon. Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 02:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying, my silence (and lack of action re. the FAC) actually meant no problem for the moment. Obviously we like to keep reviews moving, and one could say in hindsight it's probably best not to initiate a FAC if you have exams on the horizon, but pls focus on those exams until the 19th and only stop in on the FAC if you can afford a few moments. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh oops - thanks for clarifying. You are right, I shouldn't have initiated the FAC with exams on the horizon - won't make that mistake again. I'll be back in a few weeks. Thanks so much! Kohlrabi Pickle (talk) 12:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be "legal" to ask for someone to review my article on the FAC talk page? Noah^Talk 20:43, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hurricane Noah, WT:FAC is not really the place for asking for reviews but it's okay to place neutrally worded requests for input your FAC on relevant project talk pages or individual users' pages. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

could you please add my nomination to the urgent list? Noah^Talk 19:46, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we're past adding it to the urgents list -- when noms have been open the best part of a month and received so little attention we generally archive and waive the usual two-week waiting period prior to a new nom, so we'll try that (though my advice re. neutrally worded invites for review stands). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given that it has been nearly three weeks, should the article proceed to the urgents list so it can garner additional feedback? I know two reviews generally isnt enough to pass. I did add a request for a SR given the two supports. Noah^Talk 01:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I think you may have the Aces High book by Shores and Williams as it is cited on some of the Australian flying ace bios you have worked on? If so, could you have a look for Edgar Kain, and in particular the page number for their claim that he had 16 confirmed victories. I currently have to cite it to Lambert who refers to their work in his book, but would prefer a firsthand ref. Much appreciated, cheers, Zawed (talk) 10:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, I can get the book next time I'm in the Mitchell Library but it so happens that Cobber Kain's entry is available for viewing in GoogleBooks... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:55, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Google link, that had the information I needed. Cheers, Zawed (talk) 11:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many's the time that book preview has saved me at trip to the Mitchell... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:29, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Mr Rose, Henry Belafonte 's story of Jesse Washington s killing is a central point in Blackkklansman. I think it is at least worth mentioning a link to imdb. Don t you think? To me, it s my disrt time I ve tried to add sthg. Surely I forgot to add the link myself. Or do you think it is not worth because the plot of the movie is inaccurate? With all respect, if you would explain this maybe I will understand it. Best regards V. Anogis VassiliosA (talk) 20:10, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I have moved into the final stages with my work on the Meghan Trainor article and am considering re-nominating it at FAC within the next few days. Can you have a look at it and tell me if there's anything I need to be worried about? I just want to be absolutely sure this time. Are there any red flags that it could be quickly failed/archived? Note that it has been successfully peer reviewed this time. Regards.--NØ 17:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Anything, Mr. Rose? Not asking for a full review, just a go-ahead or brief criticism.--NØ 08:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• (edit conflict) I think I would've left things a bit longer before the actual nom for people (like me) to look at it but if you got some traction at PR I'm sure that's helped. Now it's there I'll be leaving it to reviewers to look over and just remain as a coord on this. Best, Ian Rose (talk) 08:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 looks at the naval siege of Japan in 1945

Hi Ian, hope that you're well. I'm active in the peer review space and we often get review requests for articles wanting a pre FA check that are posted and then linger for some time unanswered. I was wondering if there's an appropriate and watched featured article talk page that I could post some of these reviews at? Not having that much familiarity with the FA process, I thought I might ask you for some help. --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:26, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom, we do mention PR in the second paragraph of WP:FAC but we don't maintain a list of specifically pre-FAC PRs anywhere from memory. We do have an active talk page, WT:FAC, which includes notices of FACs requiring urgent review pls FARs and FARCs. I don't know if, given the competition for reviewers, the FAC community would want a list of PRs sitting there as well, although as a coord I certainly like potential FACs to go through PR first. I'd have no problem with you posting at the bottom of WT:FAC something similar to what you've said above about the number of PRs there for pre-FAC review and that if people can stop by it'd be helpful. You could even float the idea of maintaining a limited list of the more lonely pre-FAC PRs on the page somewhere, if you like. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks have done. I think I'll just post sporadically as most pre FA reviews are attended by reviewers contacted by the editor. PS have you considered archiving your talk page? It takes quite long to load and is difficult to navigate because it's so long. Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 09:54, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sorry, I didn't get why my FAC was removed; the previous FAC for 1940 Mandatory Palestine v Lebanon football match was on 22 April 2020, so way more than 2 weeks ago. Or can I not nominate an article for FA before two weeks have passed from ANY of my FAC nominations being archived? Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 15:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nehme1499: Yes, per the FAC instructions, "If a nomination is archived, the nominator(s) should take adequate time to work on resolving issues before re-nominating. None of the nominators may nominate or co-nominate any article for two weeks unless given leave to do so by a coordinator" (my bold). Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the No. 37 Squadron RAAF article has been scheduled as today's featured article for July 15, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 15, 2020, but note that a coordinator will trim the lead to around 1000 characters anyway, so you aren't obliged to do so.

For Featured Articles promoted recently, there will be an existing blurb linked from the FAC talk page, which is likely to be transferred to the TFA page by a coordinator at some point.

We suggest that you watchlist Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors from the day before this appears on Main Page. Thanks! Jimfbleak - talk to me? 10:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is it allowed to have two nominations if both have co-nominators? In this case, there would be 2 total people on one (currently active) and 2-3 on another. Noah^Talk 02:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Noah, I think of it in arithmetical terms: no-one can have two solo noms (2.0), but you can have one solo plus be a co-nom with one other person an another (1.0 + 0.5 = 1.5). If you're a co-nom on two the most that you could add up to is 1.0 (0.5 + 0.5) so there you go... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

June

Vespro della Beata Vergine

Thank you for kind of a birthday gift ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I hope you are doing well. Apologies for the random message. I have a quick FAC-related question. I have recently received some excellent advice for the images in my current FAC, which I have brought up and linked in that discussion. I was wondering if that would qualify as an image review? I hope that I do not come across as impatient, but I've not come across a situation like this before so I was just curious about it. I am very grateful for all the comments left at the FAC so far. I hope you are staying safe and having a great week so far. Best, Aoba47 (talk) 21:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aoba, doing well thanks, if busy in RL as it tends to be when our Financial Year ticks over down here. Anyway, though certainly helpful, the external review is probably neither here nor there as Nikkimaria has checked the licensing and, in the FAC itself, pronounced herself satisfied. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you for the response. I'm not sure how I missed Nikkimara's review lol; apologies for that. Good luck with everything keeping you busy in RL! Aoba47 (talk) 18:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm Puddleglum2.0, a writer for the Wikipedia newsletter The Signpost. I was planning on putting together an interview with coordinators and delegates involved in the Featured Content projects for the August edition, but before putting together the questions, I wanted to gauge coords interest to see if it will be worth doing. Thanks for your work and thoughts! Cheers -- puddleglum^2.0 19:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Puddleglum, thanks for thinking of us -- I tend to agree with Ealdgyth's response re. timing... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		Editor of the Week
		Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week in recognition of your stewardship of the FAC process. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project)

User:Gog the Mild submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:

I nominate Ian Rose, who fulfils a high-profile and potentially contentious role so effectively as to be hardly noticeable. As one of the FAC coordinators they have the swan act down to a fine art: all serene grace on the surface, while occasionally paddling frantically underneath. Almost every part of the FAC process is questioned on a regular basis, other than the effectiveness and probity of the coordinators. In a project where on one agrees on anything, everyone agrees that FAC is safe in Ian's hands. Over and above this they are one of our most prolific FA writers, co-edit the MilHist Project newsletter, take an active part in all sorts of necessary but unheroic backroom activities and proffer sane and sage advice. I am at a complete loss to understand why they have not already received an EotW.

You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:

((User:UBX/EoTWBox))

Sydney Opera House

Ian Rose

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 12, 2020

Effective FAC coordinators, writers and protectors. Co-edits the MilHist Project newsletter. Participates in many necessary but unheroic backroom activities providing sane and sage advice.

Recognized for

co-editing The Bugle newsletter

Notable work

David Bowe

Submit a nomination

Thanks again for your efforts! ―Buster7 ☎ 14:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many many congrats on receiving this IR and thanks for all your work here at the 'pedia!! MarnetteD|Talk 15:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that's a nice surprise, thank you guys -- Gog, as one of the people who keeps FAC ticking over, your sentiment is especially appreciated...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is so cool! Many congratulations to you :)--NØ 16:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for No. 37 Squadron RAAF, saying "Following up my FAC noms over the past few years for other RAAF transport units, namely Nos. 33, 34 and 36 Squadrons... For 40 years, Nos. 36 and 37 were the RAAF's twin C-130 Hercules squadrons, until the former converted to C-17 Globemasters in 2006 -- No. 37 is expected to continue flying its C-130Js until 2030, and after that who knows? The C-17 may be superior in range and payload, the new C-27 Spartan might be able to get into smaller landing grounds, but no aircraft has spelt "disaster relief" in Australia and the region like the RAAF's Hercs, not to mention their combat support role from Vietnam to the Middle East. The "trashies" (trash haulers) may not have a particularly glamorous job, but unlike their fighter and bomber colleagues they’re “operational” all year round."! - Thanks also to all Wikipedia "trashiers" who see this, the gnomes to clean up and do other not glamorous jobs ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Hadrian's Wall and Hawkeye7 on the British military Op-ed: Nick-D on diversity and military history

Sometimes I float around and and look in on some of the long time editors, the forefathers of Wikipedia, if I may. One of the quotes on your front page sort of struck a chord. "Thank God I'm still an atheist". One of my favorite quotes comes from Admiral Nelson who was mortally wounded at the Battle of Trafalgar. His last words were, "Thank God I have done my duty". Hope you receive this in the spirit it was given. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 04:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm just wondering how Dorian's met is looking since it has been close to a month and a half now. I know the other nomination (Hurricane Willa) still needs an SR and has been listed for a while. Noah^Talk 15:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again for the help with the Hey Y'all FAC. Is it just me or does the FAC process seem less active lately? There have been a lot of nominations, but I feel like there has been a considerable decline in reviewers. I do not have any statistics to support this, as it is mostly just a feeling. It also just feels like the FAC's tone has changed in general, but that could just be my more melancholy mood as of late. Anyway, I wanted to ask to see if it was just me? Aoba47 (talk) 04:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aoba47 , the best way to answer your question about reviewer numbers is to look at the statistics Mike regularly posts to FAC talk and compare over time. Nikkimaria (talk) 10:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response, and apologies again for the random question. That makes sense to me. Aoba47 (talk) 19:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July

pale globe-thistle above the Rhine

Ian, do you happen to know about Featured topics, because I don't, and this nom looks supported enough to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have closed successfully, well done. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I came to tell you that, happy that it happened the day 10 years after both Brian and I received a star (which he deserved much than I did). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A first for me today: a featured list (= a featured topic in this case) on the Main page, see Wikipedia:Main Page history/2020 August 21, an initiative by Aza24 in memory of Brian. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ian, hope you are well. I just wanted to stop by and thank you for your closing note over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Game of Thrones/archive2. It is unfortunate that the nomination didn't get more reviewers. I'll definitely look into another peer review for the article. Thank you again. -- LuK3 (Talk) 16:51, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you're not discouraged, sometimes the big topics are a bit intimidating -- if you go for PR then perhaps try pinging a few projects and/or editors for a look, and if they comment there it's fine to let them know with neutrally worded requests when you bring back to FAC. Also if you review a few other FAC noms it can get you some exposure that might lead to people looking at your nom. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian-absolutely no apology necessary re. closing Hearst. It just didn't generate any interest. Not sure why given the subject matter, but there you go. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 05:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I thought it was ideal FAC fodder but you can't predict how these will go. No reason you shouldn't ping a few likely suspects next time you nominate (as I said, I'd love to have commented myself, but my reviewing time is limited these days). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I have Cardiff City F.C. 2–1 Leeds United F.C. at FAC but I'm looking to move the article to add "(2002)" to the title to satisfy some clashes that may exist. Do I simply move the article and ongoing FAC to the new title, or is there another process required? Kosack (talk) 12:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simpler if you leave the title change and move till after the FAC is wrapped up. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do. Thanks. Kosack (talk) 14:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. I would think that would upset the bot? Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 19:28, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Mike, will sort. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Op-ed: Nick-D on 1945

Hello, Ian,

Yes, I'm back from hiatus.

I have spotted a problem beyond my ability to fix...indeed, to truly understand. I hope you are still an admin, so that you can take care of the problem. The article concerned is Henry Woollett. It has been arbitrarily directed away from the most common form of his name, which is Henry Winslow Woollett. I created the article under this, his most commonly used name. Above the Trenches uses this form on page 389. Balloon Busting Aces agrees, as can be seen at https://www.amazon.com/Balloon-Busting-Aces-World-War-Aircraft/dp/1841768774/ref=sr_1_1?crid=3KS0AEC8XR31Q&dchild=1&keywords=balloon+busting+aces&qid=1597168630&s=books&sprefix=balloon+busting%2Cstripbooks%2C208&sr=1-1#reader_1841768774. Sopwith Camel Aces agrees, as seen at https://www.amazon.com/Sopwith-Camel-Aces-World-Aircraft/dp/1841765341/ref=sr_1_1?dchild=1&keywords=sopwith+camel+aces&qid=1597169051&s=books&sr=1-1#reader_1841765341.

To add to the confusion, the present iteration of the article is rated on the quality scale as Redirect-Class--whatever that is.

So, two requests.

1. Please change article title to Henry Winslow Woollett.

2. Please assess it on the Military Aviation scale.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:11, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi George, nice to hear from you and sorry for belated reply -- I've never been an admin so I wouldn't have any special powers for this but I can take a look... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not an admin? You are so cheerfully confident, I fooled myself into thinking you were.Georgejdorner (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian signed up for enough abuse as an FAC coordinator... --Laser brain (talk) 17:43, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that the above article has been scheduled as today's featured article for September 29, 2020. Please check the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/September 29, 2020. Congratulations on your work!—Wehwalt (talk) 23:52, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Hope you're well. For everything you do around here, even when it must be the biggest pain in the backside ever. ——Serial 12:14, 26 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey SN, sorry for belated reply -- thanks for the thought! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nominations for the upcoming project coordinator election are now open. A team of up to ten coordinators will be elected for the next year. The project coordinators are the designated points of contact for issues concerning the project, and are responsible for maintaining our internal structure and processes. They do not, however, have any authority over article content or editor conduct, or any other special powers. More information on being a coordinator is available here. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 UTC on 14 September! Voting doesn't commence until 15 September. If you have any questions, you can contact any member of the coord team. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

September

Dahlias in Walsdorf

I like today's Main page, with the TFA (which you promoted) on the anniversary day (of both dedication and our concert), a DYK, and a great photographer who didn't make it soon enough, Jürgen Schadeberg, - more on my talk, mostly about the tribute to Brian who shared his sources. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tks Gerda. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:31, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In contrast: matching colours music to the Dahlias, "brute loud and secretly quiet". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Valston Hancock, introduced: "From 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a remarkable series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force."! - My DYK bio today is Hainer Hill, and I like that I saw the mentioned production of Mathis der Maler, and that Hill was a painter like Mathis ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:12, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I should not miss telling you that I just quoted you (without name) in the Mary Shelley discussion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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: Recent external reviews Review Essay: Nick-D on the Historical Aircraft Restoration Society

G'day everyone, voting for the 2020 Wikiproject Military history coordinator tranche is now open. This is a simple approval vote; only "support" votes should be made. Project members should vote for any candidates they support by 23:59 (UTC) on 28 September 2020. Thanks from the outgoing coord team, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:17, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian Rose. I know the limit for FA noms is 2 weeks and I have about 3-4 days to go. Can I ask permission to put up a new one? Possible Trading Places which is a relatively smaller article than Groundhog Day. Might be a bit less intensive. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:25, 15 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DWB, if your last FAC was promoted then you can nominate anew anytime -- the 2-week wait only applies if your previous FAC was archived, i.e. not promoted. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:51, 16 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I know I pinged you about this article a while ago, and not hearing back from you could mean you are not interested in helping out, but I am afraid it may mean you ran the copyvio detector on it and found what looks like a serious violation and nixed it because of that. I assure you any copyright violation is a backwards violation. There are now three of them on that one article. The last two are apparently what's called clickbait--if you don't know what that is--I didn't--it's when someone who wants to sell you something posts something they think people will click on so they can then reroute the user to what the seller wants to sell. This last one appeared today and is a 'free download.' I'm afraid to download it for fear of what else it might put on my computer, but I have asked some others who are computer savvy to see if they can find a date of its online posting so I can prove the date they printed on the first page is false. The article was not online in 2010 or the copyright detector would have picked it up back then. I run the detector nearly every day on this article since I found the first backwards violation. Anyway, if you don't have the time or the interest, that's one thing, that's understandable, but please don't let that backwards violation be what puts you off this article. The plagiarism is in the other direction--of me not from me. Jenhawk777 (talk) 20:14, 23 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jenhawk, no I probably don't have time to look myself but I can quite believe there's reverse plagiarism; seen it before, even on one or two of 'my' articles. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanx for letting me know. Your input will be missed, but I understand. A. Parrot said he could review the sources for me in October so I am waiting to renominate until they have time to take a look at it. That seems fitting since it was in October two years ago that it was nominated the first time. It should have less to persevere through this time, and I am no longer being harassed, so I will see it through to the end. Thank you for all you did originally. Jenhawk777 (talk) 23:24, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

I see you have archived this FAC and I can see why. Other than peer review, is there a place where I can get more input on that article? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:14, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jo-Jo, apart from pinging relevant projects, which I think you did, I guess if I was putting it up for PR I'd just try telling about everyone who's ever reviewed one of these articles, and then of course once they've been at the PR it's fine to ping them when you return to FAC. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:01, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll try out a PR on the understanding that the FAC was archived mainly because of lack of comments in a reasonable time frame, rather than because of unactioned issues. I'll try to get some FACses reviewed too - Sandy is going to hate me for this, I know. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 14:08, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, so far I've received one comment about technical language. Now I am wondering whether to renominate it (after the two week waiting period, presumably) and hope there will be more reviewers then but need a third opinion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 18:18, 3 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, I'm not sure if this is a new development, but I've just noticed that the archives of RAAF News are now available via Trove. It's very handy to have this in a searchable format. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:25, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nick, pretty sure that's new -- the 1960-1997 date range looks eerily similar to how I'd find them listed for viewing requests at the Mitchell Library, so I guess they've been steadily scanning them over time and now we have this. Yeah, it used to be a matter of my grabbing a bunch of issues from around a date that interested me (the time someone prominent retired or died for instance, or the time a unit was created or disbanded) and then just going through the issues page by page -- not any more by the look of it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:31, 26 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

		The Coordinator Emeritus stars
		It is with immense pleasure that I pass on the unanimous decision of the members of the WikiProject Military History that as a mark of the great esteem in which they hold you and your judgement you be appointed a Coordinator Emeritus of the Project for as long as you should choose to remain one. Congratulations and many thanks for all that you have done for the Project. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:05, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations Ian. These are thoroughly deserved. Warm regards, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:25, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Congrats, Ian, and thanks for all the great work you have done and the work you continue to put into the project. This truly is well deserved. All the best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:28, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To join in with my fellow editors, congratulations Ian! I think your election as Coordinator Emeritus is a credit to you. When I first started editing in the Milhist space several years, your guidance and feedback was important in my development as a Wikipedian, so thank you! Cheers, Zawed (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks guys, I can honestly say I wasn't expecting this nomination -- remind me never to play cards with PM... ;-) FAC, Bugle and RL continue to prevent me committing to put myself forward for a full-time coord position so this is a cunning way to ensure I'll stop by when I can to help out...! Really not sure that I belong in the company of the other emeriti but hey, never refuse an assignment... Seriously, it's a great honour -- good luck to us all for the coming year. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again! Apologies for yet another random message. I just wanted to say thank you for archiving the Shannen Says FAC. I hope that I did not come across as rude or impatient, and if I did, then I apologize for that. I also want to apologize for my behavior at the Bluey FAC. I have already apologized directly to the nominator, but it was not my place to put up that message. I wanted to reach out to you about both of these things, and I hope you are doing well! Aoba47 (talk) 21:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No not at all, Aoba, you didn't sound impatient to me at Shannon Says and it was quite right at Bluey to query whether there was leave to open a new nom so soon after the previous one was archived. Sure the nom went ahead but we do have a process and AFAIC you were simply helping ensure that it was followed. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:04, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the response. Have a great rest of your week. Aoba47 (talk) 22:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, what was the problem here? [1] Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:49, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea, was just looking at stuff on the mobile, must've hit something by accident. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:54, 4 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ian, just wondering about a few of your FAs that have yet to be put up for TFA. Do you have a plan for them? For example, I'd be happy to generate a blurb for Dick Cresswell and nominate him for 23 November (first kill etc) given noms are open for Nov atm. Thoughts? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:54, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi PM, TBH I'm pretty well over getting "my" FAs on the front page. Even though not particularly controversial they still attract their share of trivial edits that just take up time reverting or tweaking, so I prefer to leave it to the TFA coords to do their worst in their own good time... ;-) One way or another I've contributed almost 50 articles to main page so I think I've done my bit...! That said, you have reminded me that I should update my list of prospective TFAs, something I've maintained in the past as my preferred articles for TFA if the coords must have some, and I'll include Creswell there. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 13:03, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for modesty, but the coords I know are thankful for hints. A nomination in the pending list is all it takes, but of course a worded blurb in TFAR helps even more, and we are close enough to the date to do that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:20, 6 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There oughta be a law...! But thank you very much Gerda... :-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 12:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"law"? - I don't get it. Festive day today, DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, just an old saying (that became a comic strip), meaning in this case I shouldn't have been allowed to stay this long... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"consensus" - I noticed your revert for Peter Sellers with so many "not" and "don't" that I am not sure I understand. Did you watch Frank Sinatra? - I came to think that a collapsed infobox is worse than no infobox when we discussed the topic in 2013, and a friend with a handicap pointed out how difficult it is for him to click on the little "show" button. (The discussion - in case of interest - was Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 7#Collapsed or hidden infoboxes, the edit in question 20:24, 6 March 2013) - Looking at who consents to helping such a user vs. those who decline shows - just by numbers - a rather strong consensus for help over the years, while the few who decline are the same names again and again. I know which side I support. I miss Brianboulton who said (treasure in the archives, where I read with interest that I refused to participate then already): "I thought we had a mission to educate and inform – silly me." 10:46, 2 July 2015 (UTC) that was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:20, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer no collapsed infobox too, but then my preference would be none at all in this article -- compromises frequently satisfy nobody, but the other options are generally considered worse by either side, so we end up retaining the status quo. It so happens that I believe education and information re. artists is better conveyed by leads than by infoboxes, but I bow to the established consensus on any individual page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You speak very generally, but the bad compromise has just been rejected by the community for the other artist, which - imho - changed the situation. I wonder why some argued (in the past, it seems to have stopped altogether, thank goodness) as if it was infobox OR lead, and will never understand why we can't have both, serving different readers with different interests. I am completely happy with Beethoven and Percy Grainger (by Brian), and need no more detail, just born where and when, died where and when, and why we have an article, these few things in one predictable place, which is something the typical lead doesn't provide, per the MoS. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:54, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Thomas White (Australian politician), introduced: "Tommy White had a remarkable career. He was one of the first military pilots trained in Australia and saw action in World War I in the Mesopotamian campaign, during which he was captured but escaped three years later. He married the daughter of Australia's second Prime Minister, became a Federal parliamentarian, resigned on the eve of World War II, and served in the RAAF before getting his second bite of the political cherry as Minister for Air in Bob Menzies' Liberal government." --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you today for Alister Murdoch, introduced: from 1954 to 1969, the RAAF was headed by a series of Chiefs whose most frequently cited common attribute was their status as former cadets of the Royal Military College, Duntroon—that is, they studied as Army officers before joining the Air Force."! - I'd agree to better no infobox than what we have for Hippolyte et Aricie. What do you think? I am sure it was meant to be a good compromise. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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 Franklin Roosevelt in World War II and Hog Farm on the Battle of Chancellorsville

Hey, Ian Rose. I'd like to wish you a wonderful First Edit Day on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day! Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Chris for that thoughtful -- if somewhat scary -- reminder! Best to you, Ian Rose (talk) 10:30, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Ian Rose,

I'd like to extend a cordial invitation to you to join the Fifteen Year Society, an informal group for editors who've been participating in the Wikipedia project for fifteen years or more. ​

Best regards, Chris Troutman (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, and thanks for your work on Wikipedia. In this article you included a quote under the Hurricanes section that includes the "word" exended. I suspect it should say extended, but as it is a quote and I could not verify, I'm asking for your help with it. Best regards --LilHelpa (talk) 00:03, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's been there a while -- tks for spotting, having checked the source it is indeed a typo for "extended". Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:27, 21 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is to let you know that Thomas White (Australian politician) has been scheduled as WP:TFA for 18 November 2020. Please check that the article needs no amendments. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/November 18, 2020. Thanks! Ealdgyth (talk) 14:54, 24 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]