User talk:Nick-D

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Please leave new messages at the bottom of this page. I generally watchlist other editors' talk pages I comment on during discussions, but please also feel free to leave me a {{talkback}} template when you respond. If you send me an email, I'd appreciate it if you could also drop me a note here as they're sometimes automatically sent to my spam folder and I don't notice them. Please note that I may reply to emails on your talk page, though I'll do so in a way that does not disclose the exact content of the email if the matter is sensitive.

As a note to my fellow administrators, I do care if you undo my actions without first discussing the matter with me. I have no delusions of perfection, but it's basic courtesy to discuss things rather than simply over-ride other admins' decisions (it's also required by policy). I'm quite likely to agree with you anyway!

Toku by Shinki Kato in the Nara Peace Park in Canberra

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2014)

Awards people have given me


Thank you[edit]

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Awarded to Nick-D, as part of AustralianRupert's 2014 New Year Honours List, in recognition of his work as an administrator, reviewer and writer throughout 2013. Thank you and keep up the good work! AustralianRupert (talk) 21:24, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much. It was great working with you last year. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

admendment comment[edit]

"Which is a shame as I previously only issuing a strong warning or short duration block for the renewed edit warring" -- I think you're missing a word in there somewhere. NE Ent 12:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm doing that a lot at the moment... Thanks Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for bringing those issues to my attention. I've made a few adjustments to the page, and replied on the article talk page; do you think the page is now satisfactory? --benlisquareTCE 00:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Those changes look good to me. Depending on what kind of sourcing is available, you might want to describe the Polish Army requirements this concept has been developed to meet in more detail and emphasise the early stage of this vehicle, but neither are big deals. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:14, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

British Empire[edit]

I became curious about when the British Empire formally became an empire. You won't find this in the British Empire article, but it is all there in an article entitled Statute in Restraint of Appeals. The short answer is 1533. Henry VIII was still on the throne. Well, I thought it was worth sharing. Cheers. Hawkeye7 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Interesting: I would have guessed that it was some time in the late 1600s/early 1700s when the British started to get serious about having an Empire (as opposed to a bunch of colonies and overseas military bases). Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Very interesting, glad I saw this, thanks Hawkeye Cliftonian (talk) 11:30, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Mascot[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Mascot you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 07:22, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Book Reviews[edit]

The holiday period allowed me to catch up on my reading, and I wrote some book reviews. Since you already have a couple of reviews for the January Bugle, I placed the reviews here, and you can use them when you want. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I'll add one to the January issue and will run the other in February. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Oct–Dec 13 Milhist reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period October–December 2013, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook nine reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. AustralianRupert (talk) 04:14, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks very much Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Douglas Wood[edit]

Gday Nick - purely out of interest. This episode is also covered in Rob Maylors book SAS Sniper (2010) which details SASR involvement. Haven't read it yet but its on the shelf at home and will do one day when I get the chance. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:13, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I remember the government vigorously denying the story when it came out. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:14, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Yeah... Anotherclown (talk) 10:26, 9 January 2014 (UTC)


Silverwiki 2.png 2013 "Military historian of the Year"
Nick-D: As recognized by your peers, your contributions to the field of military history on Wikipedia over the last year have been significant and abundantly appreciated. By order of the members of the Military history WikiProject, I commend you for placing second in voting for the 2013 Military historian of the year. Keep up the stellar work. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:06, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Congrats, Nick. Thanks for all you've done this year, I've really enjoyed working with you. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you both very much, and thanks also to the people who kindly voted for me. Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
This result has of course done nothing to allay fears of total Australian domination of the project but hey, that's life -- well done! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:52, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki ACR[edit]

Gday Nick. Have your cmts been resolved here? Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, No, I just left a note for Hawkeye. I wouldn't have major problems with the article being promoted in its current state though. Thanks for the reminder. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 01:23, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Nick, would it be possible for you to semi-protect my archives? The archive bot should still be able to work that way. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 04:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've protected User talk:BilCat/archive17 which seems to be the only one being targeted - is that OK? (I can protect others if you think it appropriate). Please let me know if you'd like your talk page semi-protected for a while as well. @Dave1185: I'd also be happy to semi-protect your talk page if you'd like. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:14, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. If they strike again, then go ahead and semi my talk page and/or the archives. - BilCat (talk) 07:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Will do. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


  • Why? Because someone already opened an RfC on it; the similar thread on ANI was closed for that very reason (not by me, mind you). Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 06:42, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, The ANI thread was a report which ended up with the RFC so it made sense to close it off. The AN thread was a notification of the RFC with no request for any action to be taken so there was no need to close it - especially as other editors may wish to post in the discussions over whether such notifications should be left at AN. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Mascot[edit]

The article Operation Mascot you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Operation Mascot for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Sturmvogel 66 -- Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi Nick,

As you were the admin to respond to the edit conflict on Stab-in-the-back myth, may I request that you look at the following pages as I would rather not be the one to breech the three revert rule of three more pages:

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 08:33, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Given that I've had a long, and entirely positive, history of interactions with yourself and I think that I've worked with Beyond My Ken I'm a not entirely uninvolved admin here so I'd rather restrict myself to acting as a third party and performing uncontroversial admin actions. I'd suggest opening talk page discussions here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the advise, although could you confirm where "here" is? ;) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
In disputes involving either of yourselves. If you think that firmer admin action is called for than what I can deliver, please request this at ANI or one of the other noticeboards. However, I'd suggest that some talk page discussions might be a better option at this point. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
Gotcha! EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
No worries. The issue in the Liverpool Blitz article appears to be to be the combination of a somewhat ambiguously written source and the complex geography of this region (in which what would be localities in most cities are regarded as separate towns). Nick-D (talk) 09:21, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The suicide of James Stacy Adams and inquiries into the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse[edit]

In this comment I initiated Talk:302nd Military Intelligence Battalion (United States)#The suicide of James Stacy Adams and inquiries into the Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse -- the final sentence of which is the question "Is there really any question that an article that comprehensively covers the battalion should neutrally cover this aspect of the battalion's history?"

If you have a concern that attempts to neutrally cover this aspect of the battalion's history is biased, could you please explain that concern there on the article's talk page?

Similarly, if you have a concern that an article about the battalion should not mention the Fay-Jones Report's inquiries into its role in the Abu Ghraib Torture and prisoner abuse scandal, could you please explain them on the article's talk page? Geo Swan (talk) 20:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll reply on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

The Bugle: Issue XCIV, January 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 13:49, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Your thoughts?[edit]

I raised an issue regarding the boat arrival graph at Talk:Kevin Rudd and it got me looking for other graphs. What do you think of this and should it be updated? I can see how it's worth representing the GFC employment trend but i'm thinking it could be done in a fuller, time-larger graph with perhaps vertical lines indicating what major events took place when? Timeshift (talk) 03:26, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, a longer time series (for the Rudd/Gillard governments) would be preferable, and can be easily grabbed from the ABS data. I don't really like the idea of attributing shifts in unemployment to specific events: the impact of the GFC is obvious, but no single factor explains subsequent drop in unemployment or the slow but steady growth of unemployment over the last year or so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
Agree. Timeshift (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

WW1 reparations[edit]

Hi Nick,

I noted your comment that you have read widely on this field. I am working on a rewrite of the article, and I am wondering - if you have the time and interest - if you can help on one specific issue that has me stumped.

All the sources I have consulted agree that the initial reparation figure was established at 132 billion marks divided into a series of three bonds (A, B, and C), with the C bonds basically being written off. The following source notes that the Dawes Plan essentially ignored the whole issue (link) and by the time all the sources get to the Young Plan, they have dropped the subject of the bonds and establish that the plan lowered reps to 112 billion.

I have a feeling that, when I eventually nominate the article for GA and eventually FA, that this will stand out like a sore thumb and be brought up. Thus far, I have not been able to find anything that explains how the A, B, and C Bonds relate to the Young Plan or if they were dropped and replaced by the plan (which, it would seem, in fact make it an increase over the original payment plan rather than a decrease). During your studies, have you come across anything that could shed light on this?

Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with the details of the reparations arrangements: what I've read has mainly been around the negotiations at the end of the war and the results of the reparations in the 1920s and 30s. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no probs. :) EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 00:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Sorry to resurrect an old thread, but IIRC Tooze, The Wages of Destruction, and also The Pity of War and War of the World both by Ferguson, has some interesting and groundbreaking stuff on reps, Tooze talks about the bond aspect as does Ferguson. Dont have them to hand as my library is in storage at mo. Recent move. Hope that helps, if you have not already sorted it. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
Is Ferguson a reliable source? His recent writings have somewhat dented his credibility as an objective historian IMO (I read the Pity of War years ago and was mildly impressed by it though). Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
I have been re reading his bio again, and he has gone a bit off the rails lately, but I still think he is considered reliable amongst his peers, though with a large tablespoon of "controversial". He reminds of a ring-wing AJP Taylor, bit of an iconoclast, likes to shock. His economic analysis on bonds looks very interesting though, and Tooze is seriously cool on the German economy. I found War of the World a big letdown. Not read his most recent stuff. Irondome (talk) 14:23, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, that's probably a fair description. I was also really underwealmed by War of the World when I read it, and found out later when researching the Japanese prisoners of war in World War II article that a his material on Japanese POWs was a lightly paraphrased version of what another historian had written (he had fully attributed her in the notes so it wasn't plagerism, but it was a pretty lazy thing for such a high-profile historian to do). Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Mentorship Question[edit]

I have noted two editors busily removing content I wrote in 2007, alleging a copy violation with a paper written in 2008. Eg [1] and [2] am I currently muzzled from pointing this out? It seems that part of that paper may have used material I originally wrote on Wikipedia not the other way round.Wee Curry Monster talk 00:44, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The material in question seems to be the second paragraph, which isn't in "your" November 2007 wording. Did you add this at a later stage? I agree that the first paragraph looks OK (@Diannaa: you might want to look in on this conversation). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:32, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
User:Wee Curry Monster: Sorry for not noticing this conversation earlier; I never received the expected notification. The copyright content that was removed was added in 2012 with this edit. A small amount of this material ("Jewett had earlier crossed the line between privateer and pirate after taking the Portuguese ship Carlota as a prize") was actually present in our article in 2007 like you say, and did not have to be removed. Sorry for the mistake. -- Diannaa (talk) 04:13, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "HITLER's ROLE IN THE "FINAL SOLUTION"". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 1 February 2014.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 08:05, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Move like this[edit]

I liked your move like this, - one link goes to "awesomely weird", --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:14, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Gerda. Nick-D (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2014 (UTC)
On the 28th: a blue duck attacks the German Main page, right now, - a homage, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:18, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

U.S. National Museum of Naval Aviation photos[edit]

Hi, I replied on my page. Cheers, Cobatfor (talk) 14:16, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Weird edit to World War II[edit]

Hi Nick-D,

I don't understand this, but it looks like some weird find-replace event happened when you made this edit to World War II, as you can see from the diff. I've fixed it, but thought I should let you know in case you've got some kind of virus or malicious script or whatever.

Cheers, Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 03:22, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hi Adrian, Thanks a lot for catching and fixing that. It was the fault of this Google Chrome extension I installed yesterday which is meant to tone down click bait headlines on websites - clearly it's much too enthusiastic! I've just uninstalled it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ha, lucky that got caught before it did any more damage! Would've been great if it changed "Scientific Reasons" in someone else's talk page comment to "Vaguely Science-y Reasons". Neat idea though. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
I had high hopes for the extension, but it's clearly not Wikipedia-compliant ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Hello Mentor[edit]

Can I ask you look over User:Wee Curry Monster/sandbox and comment. Wee Curry Monster talk 23:02, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

That looks generally good to me, and volunteering for a 1RR restriction is a good idea. However, I'd suggest that the statement should cover the editing you intend to do if the ban were lifted: I'd suggest that you start small and in uncontroversial areas. It would also be best to not use the word "appeal" as you're actually asking for the ban to be lifted rather than nullified, and to give some examples of your recent editing. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:08, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Done, would you like to look over it again? BTW saw you'd edited the Warrior article, if you want to know anything let me know (I used to command one). Wee Curry Monster talk 10:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
BTW the link to the photo you removed was the WRAP2 UOR fit for Op Telic, the latest configuration for Op Herrick is very different. I think the WRAP2 fit has been removed from service. It certainly isn't the latest fit as claimed. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:15, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
That statement looks good: I've just replaced an instance of "appeal", but please feel free to change it back if you prefer. Re: Warrior, I had a look at that article via your editing history, and in my experience statements referenced to random photos are generally wrong. There seems to be rapid movement in how AFVs are configured at the moment, which is quite interesting. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
The main driving force has been what is known in the UK as Urgent Operational Requirements. The advantage of a UOR is that is can be rapidly introduced into service with the full qualification process being followed; typically less than a year. Warriors have seen a range of armoured fits based on the original system for mounting Chobham armour developed for Gulf War 1. Its a mixed blessing, the original fit was developed in 3 months and has its flaws but its soldiered on for nearly 15 years in various forms. The WCSP upgrade should fix some of those problems as its intended to have a modular armour fit built in. What a lot of people don't realise about UOR, is because they don't go through the qualification process they often don't get included in what is referred to as the core fit for the vehicle. When they get back the kit is stripped off and thrown away. In addition, because of the rush the kit often has flaws, for example it won't survive the full temperature range that the vehicle is intended to operate in or it uses commercial components that don't stand up well to the rigours of service life. The UOR air conditioning on Warrior for example is notorious for breaking down. Wee Curry Monster talk 10:37, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Launched it at WP:AN, wondered if as mentor you could make a neutral comment if you think appropriate? Wee Curry Monster talk 10:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Done. I received this surreal edit conflict for my trouble ;) Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Thank you, there is now a fairly surreal personal attack in the WP:AN thread against you. You may find this diff of relevance [3] from [4]. You might recognise one of the editors who is following. I take it, from previous experience, it is best to simply ignore this from my perspective? Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 21:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Petrillo Music Shell and Chicago Skyline[edit]

Hi there! I found what I think is a good secondary usage for this image. See what you think? Adam Cuerden (talk) 18:30, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Jim Sweeney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your comments at WP:AN. I will try and prove the community's confidence in me by editing in a productive manner and avoid entering into conflict with other editors as in the past. You may be interested to note I have just launched the article Esteban Mestivier as I promised and I would welcome your input if you have a moment. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:52, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

WW II[edit]

I'm not sure why you just reverted the changes I made. I removed the insignia images you had an issue with. Also, there were text changes ranging form grammar corrections, to adding a paragraph on NAZI war crimes in Poland, and a mention of the 1932 German Election. These changes are not radical. So, I ask that you revert to the compromise edit, I just posted.

Please explain why you object to the latest compromise edit? --Factor01 (talk) 09:35, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I've just done so on the talk page. Given that the WW2 article is among Wikipedia's highest-profile, it's not sensible to make significant changes without agreement on the content through talk page discussions. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please notice that the new image captions are shorter, and more to the point on the previous edit. Also, grammar and wording was changed in some paragraphs to be more clear. Please do not blindly revert back, and take time to review the changes! I think the compromise version is legitimate and includes your earlier recommendations. --Factor01 (talk) 09:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
@Factor01: Please discuss your changes first! This is a ridiculously high profile article, and can't sensibly be maintained and improved through "hot" editing as you propose. Please make a case for your changes on the talk page so that other editors can consider them, per the norms of working on this article. There's lots of scope to improve the article, but back-and-fro editing isn't sensible in this context. Nick-D (talk) 09:50, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please review now; I removed the 1932 election note. But, I did keep the Poland atrocities paragraph, and kept the new shorter image descriptions, and grammar corrections. Please review not just revert. --Factor01 (talk) 09:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Why don't you justify the material you want to add as requested on the talk page You haven't even bothered to provide citations! Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Just added an explanation on the WW II Talk page. --Factor01 (talk) 10:12, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please read Talk page comment. --Factor01 (talk) 10:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Ok, so where can I submit the material for review once I have the references? --Factor01 (talk) 10:46, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Please post it (including the references) on the article's talk page and ask for feedback. There are many examples of previous such discussions in the archives for the talk page which may be helpful. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
  • Ok, the new text, images, and reference are posted on the WWII talk page. Please review. --Factor01 (talk) 13:17, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Quality of the WWII Article; only 57% reader rating[edit]

I'd like to raise a significant issue regarding the WWII article. Please, I hope you get it… I hope you really get it.

The sad reality is that the much visited WWII article sucks, and you are the main administrator of it. It's not simply my opinion, look at the reader feed back that's only at 57% approval rating, for an article regarding one of the most important events in human history. Lets look at some of the comments:

* I 1 year ago | Details | This article doesn't tell the harrasing the Japenese have done to the Chinese! It is largely in the Japanese's favour! So Biased!

* | 1 year ago | Details | How, why, where, who started it; make it more clear for people to read easier.

* | 6 months ago | Details | it needs more pictures

* | 1 year ago | Details | this article needs a real timeline

* | 7 months ago | Details | more pictures :)

* | 8 months ago | Details | This page needs more about the soldier's who fought in the war.

* | 11 months ago | Details | things about women and children during the war

* | 1 year ago | Details | Who are the Big Four?

* | 1 year ago | Details | talk about how the children of the war were affected

* | 1 year ago | Details Role of India in WW2

* | 11 months ago | Details | More pictures/diagrams needed for occupation section.

So, when I added photos of various, military insignia, troops and wrote insightful photo captions to help and illustrate the events better; you show up and complain! Yet, clearly the readers feel that things are really lacking in this article. Well, it's on you MATE… wake up. You are the big boss in charge, that's screwing it up. --Factor01 (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

the old complaints are not very useful. I think Nick-D is doing a fine job here. However, I fear that Factor01 is so new here that he misunderstands the article and the proper role of editors. Please keep in mind that the article was largely written years ago and that since 2009 editors have been doing minor improvements. Rjensen (talk) 16:45, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I may be new, but I have a valid point. All anyone has to do, is compare the WWI article with WWII; to notice that this text is stunted in depth (only crudely listing the order of military engagements), and failing to catch the readers attention by showing the reality and consequences of this conflict. The article is so dry and one dimensional (as one reader comment points out), you lose perspective on who were the aggressors. But, that's just what some people might want; to blur the perspective of what really happened and turn WWII victims and aggressors into an indistinguishable mess.By the way, those "old" reader comments still have not been addressed. --Factor01 (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
In fact the old complaints are poorly founded. there is no pro-Japanese bias. Women and children, and India, are all very well covered in companion articles. Likewise the issue of who started the war. Pictures do pose a problem because of copyright issues. Rjensen (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm not the "big boss in charge of the article", and if you're so clueless about how Wikipedia works or the history of the WW2 article you really should stop trying to take the moral high ground. If you have concrete proposals to improve the article, please start discussions of them on the article's talk page rather than grandstand like you're doing here. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)As noted, nobody owns or "bosses" any page. Secondly, 'Reader Feedback' is...extremely unuseful because, as noted, most of those comments are from those who would prefer to have the article slanted to a particular point of view. - The Bushranger One ping only 11:09, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Revised photo submission; review[edit]

Hello Nick-D, please review the revised photo submissions on the talk page. They include an image of the Enigma machine for the Advances in technology and warfare (mentioned multiple times in the text), and an image of the civilians during the Battle of Leningrad, to replace the Soviet POWs photo in the Axis attack on the USSR (1941) section; in this case I think the image is a better choose highlighting the plight of the civilians during actual combat, without being too graphic. --Factor01 (talk) 16:28, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you![edit]

Cucciolo gatto Bibo.jpg

This wiki kitten wants to commend you on getting Operation Kita to the front page. Salute!

Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 19:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 11:28, 11 February 2014 (UTC)


WPMH ACR (Swords).png The Military History A-Class Medal with Swords
On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History WikiProject, I'm pleased to award you the A-Class Medal with Swords for your work on No. 38 Squadron RAAF, Operation Tungsten, and Operation Mascot. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:10, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Ian Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)


gday i am just composing now - sending soon satusuro 08:12, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Op. Tungsten[edit]

Hi Nick. I've just added a few bits to the Operation Tungsten article, regarding the Norwegian contribution to the operation. Manxruler (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot - that's really interesting material. I had noticed that none of the sources identified any civilian casualties, and it's good to have confirmation that there were none. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, the bombing was quite precise. Good job on the article, looking forward to seeing more in the future. I'll have a look at Mascot etc., and see if there is anything worthwhile I can add from the Norwegian perspective of things. Manxruler (talk) 09:45, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
That would be great. I should get round to doing an article on the Operation Goodwood attacks in August 1944 sometime soon. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Somali Civil War[edit]

Thanks for swapping out that TF Ranger pic - was on my lsit of things to do. Buckshot06 (talk) 03:43, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

No worries. The "new" photo isn't wonderful, but it's the best of the uninspiring bunch available through Commons Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unit disbandments[edit]

Hi Nick, was wondering when you might be able to head back to the AWM for another look-see at that unpublished monograph on wartime RAAF units. In particular I was after the disbandment date for Care & Maintenance Unit (CMU) Benalla, the former No. 11 EFTS. Units states that it disposed of all its aircraft in October 1948 but doesn't give an actual dissolution date -- I figure that must've been very soon after but nice to confirm if possible... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, but it probably won't be for a week or two. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dattatreya Laxman Patwardhan[edit]


This article was recently (speedily) deleted. I was wondering if I could get the original content of the page. Please note that I am not asking you to undelete it - yet.

Some background. I added this page for my dad (who is now 87) with the claim that DLP was the first Indian pilot. I explained the Wikipedia rules (as I understood them) to him, and he collected the references needed to push it from being a stub. It was originally proposed for deletion because supporters of the official Indian history claimed that there was no evidence that such a person ever existed. I was able to verify that there was evidence of DLP's existence, and that he was given an award for service in the RAF. I dont think DLP is family, although the last name is the same.

I note also that my original Wikipedia userid (niketkp) has gone into some kind of limbo status, and I am not able to log in to it, although a talk page for it still exists.

Niket Patwardhan (talk) 17:46, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Dang! After I put this in, my userid came back alive.

Niketkp (talk) 17:55, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

No, you can't have the content of a blatant hoax you recreated after it was initially deleted in 2007 so that you can recreate it again. Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Sanity Check Please[edit]

Could you please review Talk:Falkland Islands#Notes section, Talk:Falkland Islands sovereignty dispute#Things need to be sourced, content has to neutrally describe the conflict without dismissing one side over the other. and Talk:David Jewett#November 6th?

Couple of questions.

1. Am I being over sensitive as it appears to me my edits are being singled out for extra scrutiny and it seems to criticise by speculation?
2. Am I repeating any of the mistakes I made in the past? I'm trying to limit my replies and to ignore obvious baiting.

Just for info, I've started work on Juan Pinedo and was wondering if you were aware of anyone in Milhist familiar with the Argentine civil wars in the 19th Century and the Argentine-Brazil War. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 18:13, 21 February 2014 (UTC)

@Wee Curry Monster: The Jewett discussion looks fine, but I think that you're being overly defensive (and, as a result, a bit prickly) in the other discussions. I don't think that your posts and edits are being given greater scrutiny, though you should obviously expect some of this for the next little while given that you're coming off a topic ban. I hope that's helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:12, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Require administer for discussion in talk page of Nanking Massacre[edit]

I see you are an administrator. Can you administer the discussion of Nanking Massacre in its talk page? This discussion is totally mess. I hope there is at least two administrator to administer it for fair.
It is really a mess and endless discussion if no administrator to manage it. I hope at least two administrator to manage this. There will be no result to make everyone satisfy. I hope there is a vote which is managed by administrator. Otherwise, this discussion will be endless. Everyone is wasting their time. This discussion started from section "I see a significant change of the figure about people killed in this Massacre". Miracle dream (talk) 23:42, 22 February 2014‎

Hello, As the talk page discussion appears to have descended into an exchange of abusive posts there doesn't seem much prospect for a vote (and no other editors appear to have agreed to your suggestion that this is a good way forward). I'd suggest making use of the dispute resolution process by asking for uninvolved editors to join the discussion through neutrally-worded posts on relevant discussion pages. Regards Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
OK,I will strike some of my words which does not obey the rule of wiki. I apologize for my rude words.I am very sorry for that. By the way,I still worried about another thing. Kamakatsu claim he is not Banzaiblitz. Now Kamakatsu was proved as another ID (sock puppet) of Banzaiblitz and we know Banzaiblitz has multiple ID. It means someone can register a new ID to act another editor. I think it may be a problem to make discussion more complicated Miracle dream (talk)
If you're concerned that someone is using multiple accounts, please report this at WP:SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:47, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCV, February 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 23:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Help with formatting please?[edit]

Hi, I noticed that you removed "headings" in the AfD where we're participating, and that's ok with me. What I tried to do is put 2 lines to visually divide the discussion from the rest of the text (e.g.: the notes). Do you know if it's possible to draw a "line" in the way I intended? If so an you please explain me how-to? Thanks, DPdH (talk) 07:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hi, You can add lines by adding four or more dashes. For instance:

However, this kind of mark-up isn't really very useful in AfDs: simply posting Question (or similar) at the start of your post will have the desired effect. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the tips. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:44, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Latest Project[edit]

[5] Latest work. I translated the es.wikipedia article into English and expanded the Falklands Section with my own references, I've also had help from an old wiki-buddy User:DagosNavy. I've never translated an article before and am slightly concerned that though well sourced the es.wikipedia article lacks inline citations. I've managed to confirm some of the material but am concerned there are still gaps. Any ideas of where to ask for help on some of the Spanish language sources, in the UK they're not easy to find. Wee Curry Monster talk 22:59, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Not sure to be honest - I'm pretty much monolingual. The folks at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spain might be able to help. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tanks in the Australian Army[edit]

Gday Nick - any plans to incorporate User:Nick-D/Drafts3 into Tanks in the Australian Army which has recently been created? Think what you have there looks like it would be an improvement. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 13:42, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, that's on my to-do list for the weekend :) Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

New Article[edit]

Still working on Pinedo but in the mean time turned out Antonina Roxa, got plans to do articles on Lt.Smith, Lt.Lowcay and Lt.Tyssen next. As usual any feedback is welcomed. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:41, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks like nice work (and its good to see an article acknowledging the role women played in this frontier society). Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks Nick, seems not to be appreciated by everyone, just been nominated for deletion. Wee Curry Monster talk 21:13, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Taejon Christian International School[edit]

I work at Taejon Christian International School (TCIS) in the Admissions Office. There used to be a Wikipedia article about TCIS, but it was deleted for being spam or having vicious content or something. I don't know what was on the page and who put it there, but we would very much like to have an appropriate Wikipedia page. How do I go about doing that? FYI: Our website is

Please advise. Thank you, Barb Smith Jang

Smithjang (talk) 00:53, 4 March 2014 (UTC)Smithjang

Hello, Various versions of that article seems to have been deleted a few times in 2007 and 2008 for being spamy and containing personal attacks. However, if you have a relationship with this school you shouldn't be writing encyclopaedia articles about it: please see WP:COI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Timor Leste should come first[edit]

I do not believe we should be using the name East Timor. I have made a note on the Timor Leste talk page. The issue has not been discussed for more than a year, it looks like. ImproveByQuestioning (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

RE: Canberra Class Ships[edit]

I do acknowledge the fact that she is still called Nuship Canberra however she is due to be commissioned soon so I was writing that from a future perspective. Furthermore the ADF is a high technology force. It is true that some of its equipment it approaching obsolescence however it remains technologically advanced. Also the reference is out of date being from 2005. Since then new aircraft, ships, vehicles and radars have been acquired (I.E: C-Ram system for the Army, Super Hornets for the air force and new patrol boats and ASMD upgrades for the navy.). Also some of stuff you deleted namely the sentence stating that two of the minesweepers were acting as patrol boats were not written by me. I do admit that I said 57 ships, that is because I was including vessels such as ADV Ocean Shield. I have no issue with your edits regarding non-commissioned vessels and thank you for clarifying that however I do, with your permission intent to put back the edit regarding the Canberra and will leave a note saying it is undergoing sea trials. Finally I would like to point out that my edits were not dubious as you claimed them to be and were perhaps simply mis-understood.

Please Respond, Mft2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft2000 (talkcontribs) 08:00, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mft2000: I agree that the ADF article needs to be updated, but the ADF still has lots of ageing equipment (the F/A-18s and Adelaide class frigates for example), so labelling it as being simply a "high technology" force is not accurate. Please don't re-add Canberra: she's not in service and may not have even been formally accepted by the RAN yet. Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As I did say I would put a note regarding sea-trials next to it but I have no wish to get into what could be called an "editing war" despite the fact that the ship has been built and it is a mere technicality. However when she is commissioned and accepted into the navy I will add items regarding the Canberra. Also with regards to the capabilities of the collins despite the fact that it has a plethora of maintenance and crew problems it is very good in the hunter-killer role please see: .

Mft2000 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mft2000 (talkcontribs) 08:10, 11 March 2014 (UTC)


Thank you for your thanks (now, if you thank me for thanking you for your thanks, we'll really be in trouble!) Xyl 54 (talk) 23:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry about that[edit]

I am sorry to offend you. I said "I guess" and use word "may". Also I didn't say you are racist. I just said you may dislike "Chinese government". Maybe I don't know the definition of "racist" clearly. I am afraid I may offend you so that I didn't leave that message in public talk page. Whatever, I am sorry about that. Can you accept my apology? Now I just want to find a neutral way to deal with the words. - Miracle dream.

You just got an admin to swear after implying he was racist, a low form of argument. I think a good suggestion would be to immediately disengage with Nick-D, and the article(s) concerned, for at least 24 hours. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, I think my word is just about someone dislike something. I never wrote the word "racist". I didn't know my word may infer racist problem. I guess I misunderstand the word what I wrote.OK, I disengage you 24 hours and I am sorry about that but can we continue this discussion after this 24 hours. I know I offend you but I think it is necessary to deal with this discussion. Also, I am sorry and I hope you can accept my apology. Miracle dream
I loathe to re-add what Nick-D removed, but you said "I guess you may dislike Chinese, Chinese government or whatever". That implies Nick-D is a racist. And what? You think its necessary for this discussion to offend him?! Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
You said that "I guess you may dislike Chinese, Chinese government or whatever". That's a direct accusation of me being racist, and your argument that you didn't mean this is totally unconvincing given how clear the wording is. In the unlikely event that your English language skills are really so bad that you accidentally post extreme abuse such as this you really shouldn't be editing the English language Wikipedia. Please don't post on my talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

Book Reviews[edit]

Just a note that I still have book reviews at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 00:03, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll add the first two reviews to the upcoming edition. I agree with your views on Britain's War Machine: it's a good book in parts and a useful corrective to the notion that Britain took a big risk in deciding to fight on in May 1940, but was rather underwhelming overall. Nick-D (talk) 01:44, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Copyedit review[edit]

User:Wee Curry Monster/José María Pinedo Would appreciate you casting an eye over it before I publish in mainspace. Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 12:33, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

That looks pretty good, but are you confident that The Malvinas, the South Georgias, and the South Sandwich Islands, the conflict with Britain meets the criteria at WP:HISTRS? The publisher doesn't seem to have expertise in editing and publishing works of history. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
That particular work is one I use with some caution. Some 127,000 copies were printed and distributed free to Universities in 1982 and it is very much a propaganda exercise. That said Destefani is a well known historian, responsible for numerous works on the history of the Argentine navy and the work does have the hallmark of a serious historian; he does not give much truck to the Rivero myth for example. I believe it meets the criteria WP:HISTRS and I previously asked for it to be reviewed at WP:RSN. Wee Curry Monster talk 08:33, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Is there a source that you can use for this which doesn't have those issues attached to it? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
Not really, all sources are likely to have a similar issue due to the influence of the Revisionista movement in Argentine history. See [6] for some examples. The Revisionista movement "re-examines" history and to some extent rewrites in line with Peronist ideology (and to be frank aren't above making stuff up on occasion or alternatively creatively interpreting facts and make leaps of assumption on that basis). Personally I'd tend to favour Destefani's account as he belongs to the more traditional approach to historical research. I also have access to the trial's records from the Argentine national archive and they corroborate Destefani's description. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:25, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
OK. I appreciate that the historiography on Argentina often isn't of the greatest quality. Nick-D (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Huh? Canberra class[edit]

Why do you think I blatantly copy-pasted. Could you please provide an example or two of some text you feel is unreasonably copied? I don't think I did anything wrong, but can be educated with an example or two. Quoting from "Here it should be borne in mind that an occasional sentence in an article that bears a recognizable similarity to a sentence in a cited source is not generally a cause for concern.". Also, quoting again "If you find an example of plagiarism, where an editor has copied text, media, or figures, into Wikipedia without proper attribution, contact the editor responsible, point them to this guideline and ask them to add attribution. Given that attribution errors may be inadvertent, intentional plagiarism should not be presumed in the absence of strong evidence.... Remember to start with the assumption of good faith."

Kitplane01 (talk) 23:46, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I was the first person to revert the edits as a copyright violation. I've replicated the primary offender here (If this is wrong, Nick-D, please delete my reply and WP:TROUT me). Below is a block of text from the original newspaper article (top), and your addition to the article. I've bolded the differences.
Between the light vehicle and heavy vehicle decks are the accommodation, recreation and living spaces as well as the 40-bed hospital fitted with two operating theatres, intensive care unit and X-ray room as well as mess decks, galleys and office spaces. There are two internet cafes and two gyms and all recreation areas are equipped with satellite TV, internet and projectors and CCTV so they can double as briefing rooms. The state-of-the-art central galley is huge and includes a bakery section to bake bread for 1500 people a day. Up to 25 chefs will work around the clock to dish up a maximum of 6000 meals a day using equipment that can cook 400 chicken breasts at once as well as enough meat sauce to feed 300 people.
Each ship has accommodation, recreation and living spaces as well as the 40-bed hospital fitted with two operating theatres, intensive care unit and X-ray room as well as mess decks, galleys and office spaces. There are two internet cafes and two gyms and all recreation areas are equipped with satellite TV, internet and projectors and CCTV so they can double as briefing rooms. The state-of-the-art central galley is huge and includes a bakery section to bake bread for 1500 people a day. Up to 25 chefs will work around the clock to dish up a maximum of 6000 meals a day using equipment that can cook 400 chicken breasts at once as well as enough meat sauce to feed 300 people.
That's an entire paragraph (my guesstimate is about a 10th of the newspaper text) word-for-word identical. Another example (again, differences bolded).
Vehicles can be moved between decks via a ramp on the port (left) side or a light vehicle elevator. There are also two aircraft elevators, two personnel elevators, an ammunition elevator and a hospital elevator running between the decks.
Vehicles can be moved between decks via a ramp on the port (left) side or a light vehicle elevator. There are also two aircraft elevators, two personnel elevators, an ammunition elevator and a hospital elevator running between the decks.
Aside from the direct copying of large chunks of a copyrighted source, some of the information you added is repeated elsewhere, such as the fact about the aircraft lifts, down in the aviation section, or the case of the line you added about four 24m landing craft fitting in the well deck, right in front of a line about the four LCM-1E craft which will typically fit in this area (funnily enough, just under 24m long). Other pieces are water-is-wet kind of statements (yes, ships have accommodation, which isn't really worth mentioning in an article unless you go into detail about it, ie layout, configuration, bodies-per-compartment, officers vs sailors vs soldiers), or incredibly trivial (at least until meat-sauce production becomes a standard measure of comparison for warships). -- saberwyn 09:36, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks saberwyn - those were also my concerns with the material here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. Please consider me contrite and educated. Kitplane01 (talk) 01:22, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Operation Flavius/archive1[edit]

Hi Nick, courtesy pointer, since you mentioned you might want to pick up some of your commentary form the ACR at FAC. I'm looking at adding a map or two; if you have any other queries left over, I'd be more than happy to chat with you about them at the FAC. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 17:43, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Nick-D (talk) 07:06, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Operation Tungsten[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Operation Tungsten know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on April 3, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 3, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

A Fleet Air Arm crewman chalks a message for Tirpitz on a bomb

Operation Tungsten was a World War II air raid by the Royal Navy against the German battleship Tirpitz. The operation sought to damage or destroy Tirpitz at her base in Kaafjord in the far north of Norway before she could become fully operational again following a period of repairs, as it was feared that she would then attack convoys carrying supplies to the Soviet Union. After four months of training and preparations, the British Home Fleet sailed on 30 March 1944 and aircraft launched from five aircraft carriers struck Kaafjord on 3 April (bomb preparations pictured). The raid achieved surprise, with the British aircraft meeting little opposition. Fifteen bombs hit the battleship, and strafing by fighter aircraft inflicted heavy casualties on her gun crews. Four British aircraft and nine airmen were lost during the operation. The damage inflicted during the attack was not sufficient to sink or disable Tirpitz, but 122 members of her crew were killed and 316 wounded. The British conducted further carrier raids against Tirpitz between April and August 1944, but none were successful. Tirpitz was eventually disabled and then sunk by Royal Air Force heavy bombers in late 1944. (Full article...)

UcuchaBot (talk) 23:01, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

precious again --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

I was wondering why I was seeing some vandalism on Tirpitz today, then I noticed today's main page ;) Great work on the article, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVI, March 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:37, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

Operation Goodwood[edit]

I've started work on the Illustrious-class carrier articles and am having issues finding information on Goodwood, particularly relating to aircraft losses. McCart says only two Seafires were lost by Indomitable on the first attack and gives no other losses. The Osprey book on RN Fighter Aces doesn't mention those but lists the CO of 1840 Squadron shot down on 24 August when McCart says that no Hellcats even flew. Do you know of any sources that might help to resolve the contradiction? --Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:09, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I'll check my sources and get back to you on this. The British loses in Goodwood were reasonably heavy, especially in comparison to the remarkably low loses during Operations Tungsten and Mascot. Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

Proposal for special forces inclusion[edit]

My proposal is simple. Include the units used in military ops/campaigns.Lugnuthemvar (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Do we need to discuss this over multiple talk pages? Wikipedia content needs to be supported by reliable sources, so please provide sources that support classifying the units in question as military special forces units. Nick-D (talk) 10:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

GA status[edit]

Hi there. Kierzek told me you could review articles for GA status. So, if you have the time, I would appreciate if you would review my article called 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony. It is the very first article I created, and it is very good, if I may say so myself. Jonas Vinther (talk) 13:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Actually, a loss in translation, I believe. I said you may be available to go through the article for Jonas Vinther, if you are interested and have the time, before he puts it up for GA review. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry Kierzek. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:56, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
No problem, good luck. Kierzek (talk) 01:25, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm a bit short of time at the moment to be honest, but will leave some comments on the article's talk page later today. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
That would be great, thank you so much. Best regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 16:26, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Lincoln, Canberra & F-111 in Australian Service[edit]

Hi mate, just noticed an edit or two there... ;-) Do you happen to have ready access to Wilson's book? Mitchell Library has managed to misplace its copy and I just wanted to get page refs for the three F-111 crashes suffered by No. 1 Squadron (1979, 1986 and 1993). N.B. I can source them from Trove if need be, just prefer the one source if possible -- let me know if you get a chance...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm afraid that I don't have that book and would need to travel to the NLA or ADFA to access it. Mark Lax's book on the F-111 should also have this - aside from this now being online, I just-so-happen to have written this up recently at User:Nick-D/Drafts3 with the relevant page refs :) (I'm holding off on publishing this article as the dates Lax gives for the delivery of the F-111Gs into RAAF service predates the government's surprise decision to buy the aircraft by 1-2 years for some reason! - I suspect that there was a proofing error or something here). Regards, Nick-D (talk)
Yeah, Lax could've done better in a few areas... ;-) He was the first place I looked -- he notes all the crashes but doesn't say which squadron each plane was operating with when it crashed. It's okay, I'll cite to newspapers for now and when one of us gets to Wilson (assuming he mentions the squadrons involved) I can re-cite it to one source. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Our mutual friend[edit]

Good call. I was considering doing the same thing myself. I decided to wait and see what they did next, but I've no qualms about your block. Very odd... Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:32, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was taking the same approach after they posted an odd message on my page, and when they did the same thing to you decided to act. I agree that it's rather unusual behaviour: not a genuinely new editor I suspect. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
Almost certainly not. Or perhaps they haven't realised that April Fool's Day has been and gone! HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Happy holiday[edit]

Believe you're on holiday, not a work trip. Hope it goes well!! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

I hope it goes well too. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:45, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I was travelling for work (and it turned out to be lots of work!), but it was a lot of fun. Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

After-vacation message[edit]

Hi mate. I noticed you are on vacation, so I wanted to leave a message to you for when you get back. I changed a bunch of stuff on the article 1940 Field Marshal Ceremony, mostly according your request via talk-comments regarding GA status. I also left a long message for you on the talk page. Cheers! Jonas Vinther (talk) 09:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks for letting me know. I'll look in when my head is back on the right side of the world, which will take another day or two. Nick-D (talk) 22:49, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II[edit]

Hi Nick-D, Please try to understand that the bulk of the Axis forces in North Africa were Italian, not German. Most of the bombing of Malta was done by the Italian air-force, not the German. I urge you to read trained historians like Sadkovich. Understanding Defeat: Reappraising Italy's Role in World War II Author(s): James J. Sadkovich Source: Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 24, No. 1 (Jan., 1989), pp. 27-61Published by: Sage Publications, Ltd.Stable URL:

For too long now, Italian involvement in the Mediterranean has been over-shadowed by biased reporting by pseudo-historians. I can only repeat what I have said: that the bulk of the Axis forces in the Mediterranean were Italian, and NOT German.

For example, Sadkovich writes:

"Although the Italians failed to break through the Greek lines in Albania, they helped to assure victory for the twenty-nine German divisions deployed against Greece and Yugoslavia in April 1941 by pinning down fourteen Greek divisions and diverting a number of Yugoslav divisions. The Greek refusal to shorten their lines by 'retreating' on the Italian front allowed the Germans to outflank the three garrison divisions in the Metaxas Line and then scatter the three Greek and two ANZAC divisions deployed along the Aliakhmon River. In effect, the Italians had served as the anvil for the German hammer.47 It is thus simplistic to consider the Greek campaign as an Italian debacle and a brilliant German success."

The Italian Army pinned down the bulk of the Greek Army, allowing the Germans an easy victory!!!

I am sorry Nick-D, but this Wiki article is not acceptable and is inherently misleading. The Italian contribution in the Mediterranean MUST be acknowledged and portrayed realistically.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talkcontribs) 11:43, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

That dubious argument about Greece undermines the value of the source (Greek misjudgement does not mean that the Italians were successful here, and most historians give the German forces full credit for the victory while noting that the Italian campaign was a fiasco), and the claims you've inserted about Italian forces playing the main role in the invasion of Yugoslavia in 1941 and successfully invading France in 1940 are not accurate. Please discuss this at Talk:Mediterranean and Middle East theatre of World War II and please do not edit war further. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Sadkovich is hardly a neutral authority on the subject. While I agree with him that many of the earlier books on the Med and North African Theatres are heavily biased against the Italians, he goes far beyond what the available evidence can support, IMO, in his accounts of the Italian participation in those campaigns. In short, the truth lies somewhere in the middle.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Why is Sadkovich not neutral? What do you know of him? The Italian Army pinned down 14 Greek divisions. Can you give the Italians some credit? Even a little? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnalesSchool (talkcontribs) 14:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC) AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

So where do we go from here? This article is unduly biased against the Italians and needs correcting. If you believe that the earlier books on the Med and North African Theatres are heavily biased against the Italians, what do we do to correct the imbalance?

AnnalesSchool (talk) 14:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVII, April 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


You and I are not friends anymore. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

? This isn't high school. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)


Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email – you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{YGM}} template.
@Shuggyg: Happy to discuss that on-Wiki, but the short answer is no. Nick-D (talk) 08:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

WWII infobox[edit]

As you have edited that page, you are welcome to participate in a discussion that is taking place at Template_talk:WW2InfoBox#Allies. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 03:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of that discussion. Nick-D (talk) 08:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Disagreement over handling of disagreements between administrators[edit]

The discussion at User talk:Buckshot06 has moved away from Buckshot06, and onto disagreement between you and me about the way I handled the situation, so perhaps it would be better to move away from User talk:Buckshot06. The fact that you are sop vehement in your opposition to what I did makes it clear that that the unblock I made was not as uncontroversial as I thought at the time, so no doubt it would have been better to have consulted Buckshot06 about it. However, I honestly cannot see how what I wrote comes across to you as "insulting", so perhaps you can help me by explaining what about my tone seems that way to you. Also, I find it difficult to understand your contention that when one administrator disagrees with another one, he or she has no right to do what you call "lecturing" the other. Surely, if you think I have made a mistake, it is right for you to explain to me why you think that, and tell me what you think was wrong with what I have done. Indeed, that is exactly what you have done: what do you see as the fundamental difference which makes my telling Buckshot06 what I think he/she did wrong unacceptable, and your telling me what you think I did wrong acceptable? This is a sincere, good faith, request for clarification: I honestly don't know what you see as the essential difference. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 10:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi James, What I just posted on Buckshot's talk page in response to your question there was that the phrasing of the entire post was unfortunate IMO: you declared Buckshot to be wrong and gave them lots of free advice. I generally try to take a "hey, I think that you may have goofed" or "what do you think about this development"-type approach when discussing possible mistakes with other admins, and appreciate it when other admins take the same approach with me when they think that I might have messed up. In my experience, it's generally best to assume that an admin who appears to have made an error will be keen to correct or explain their action, and to phrase comments about the issue in that light. I hope that's helpful (and I, of course, mess up pretty frequently). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I see that while I was drafting that message, you posted an answer to me on Buckshot06's talk page. Unfortunately, I am none the wiser. Probably you and I come from very different cultural backgrounds, because I would see "I think that you may have goofed" as a deliberate attempt to be contemptuous. I also don't understand what is wrong with giving "free advice": surely giving advice when one thinks someone else has made a mistake is a good thing? And as for "you declared Buckshot to be wrong", that is exactly what you did to me. Unfortunately, there seems to be a serious failure to communicate between the two of us. I still don't have any idea what about my tone you saw as insulting. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk)
Postscript to the above, in light of the additional sentence that you added in the version of your message that you have posted on this page. Yes, I fully agree that " it's generally best to assume that an admin who appears to have made an error will be keen to correct or explain their action", and in 99% of cases where I suggest to another admin that I think he/she has made a mistake, I totally take that line. However, I thought when I wrote my original message to Buckshot06, and still think now, that in light of the history I saw, I was really taking assumption of good faith as far as I reasonably could. I assumed that the block had been a good faith mistake (and I still see that as the best possible interpretation), and what I wrote was based on that starting point. I had not investigated the relevant history as far as I now have, as you will see if you read my long post on this case on my talk page. However, what I had seen was enough to make me think that what I wrote was a good deal further in the direction that you advocate than it might have been. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
One point at least is clearer now. You wrote "I hope that's helpful", and yes, it was helpful: thank you. From the sentence you added when you posted here, I now do see what you found open to criticism about what I wrote, though I am still not sure that "insulting" is a good way of describing it The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 11:21, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
Please replace "I think you might have goofed" with something like "I think you might have made a mistake" if my meaning was unclear or that exact wording seemed impolite. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:26, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

An interesting piece of history[edit]

Hi again, Nick. As our recent discussion was going on, I knew that you and I had in the past had contact with one another. I did not clearly remember any of the circumstances, but had a distinct feeling that we had always got on in a much more friendly way than in our recent unfortunate interaction. I had a look through some history, to try to find out if that was right. Yes, I believe that what I found confirmed that. However, the most interesting thing I found was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive688#Sockpuppet unblock review. There, you were heavily criticised for unblocking an editor without consulting, or even informing, the blocking administrator. I agreed that you were mistaken to unblock without consultation, but I defended you against the heaviest criticism, as I thought that what you did, while something of a misjudgement, was by no means totally beyond the pale. In many ways there were different circumstances from the recent events, so it would not be reasonable to press the comparison too far, but there is enough connection to make it interesting, in my opinion. Wink.png The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, from memory that's the AN discussion in which I got a solid thump on the head for unblocking without consulting the blocking admin (if this is the discussion I'm thinking of, I was pretty new to reviewing unblock requests at the time - it might have taken me a couple of thumps to have learned this lesson fully). As the note at the top of this page says, I have no delusions of perfection ;) Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 12:09, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
I suppose that may well explain why you are now such a total purist for "always consult the blocking admin": after such a "a solid thump on the head" you would tend to be hyper-cautious on the issue. However, I see that in that discussion I wrote "I think that the blocking administrator should almost always be informed of an unblock, and in most cases consulted in advance, rather than just informed". (Emphasis added now.) I think that is still a fair description of my view on this question. The editor who uses the pseudonym "JamesBWatson" (talk) 12:18, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Flags in Operators section[edit]

Nick, it looks like the "powers that be" have decreed that flags and country links are no longer allowed in the Opeartors sections of military aircraft articles. See here, here, and here for examples. I'm not going to fight them on my own, as it's been my experience that once these script-wonks get a bee in their bonnet, there's no stopping the changes they have "decreed", regardless of what the MOS actually says on these issues. Do you see any recourse here? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 13:30, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Mass reverts and/or starting a discussion on a central noticeboard (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Aircraft perhaps?) seem the best response. I don't much like the flags personally, but large scale changes should always be discussed first. The community generally tends to take a dim view of out of control bot operators these days since the Betacommand saga. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:31, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

War on Terror edit[edit]

In the response the editing of the war on terror page I meant to say Nigerian Nigerian Sharia conflict instead of "operation serval", sorry for the confusion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Panzerpampfpony (talkcontribs) 19:33, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Can you provide any references which state that such a conflict is generally accepted to be part of the "War on Terror"? Nick-D (talk) 22:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

Jan to Mar 14 Military History reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article reviews for the period January–March 2014, I am delighted to award you the Content Review Medal of Merit. During this period you undertook 11 reviews. Your contributions are greatly appreciated. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 22:42, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
Thank you very much Nick-D (talk) 06:58, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

POV editing[edit]

Hi Nick-D. Perhaps you can help. This refers to the contibutions by user Stumink, no stranger to you.

  • 1. I could have dropped the editor a note, but I see now that this is a concerted effort on quite a wide range of subjects where the editor is displaying a blatant POV. I don't know what the procedures are to take this to ANI, so I am fisrt bouncing it off people I believe will make a fair judgment of this situation.
  • 2. The editor in question has been changing information (in most cases calling it "adjusting wording" in the edit summaries) on Angola, South Afria, anywhere where there was a Cold War conflict, changing to sanitise the image of the West and denigrating the other side, sometimes blatantly as here. Elsewhere, the editor has sought to delegitimise the Angolan government on various pages, by replacing it with MPLA every time; removing references to US involvement here, here; removing huge chunks of information without explanation here; removing mentions of the term apartheid on a number of pages, here, in general sanitising the SA government side here; has changed valuable information on a NZ treaty to improve the image of the settlers here; In efforts to sanitise, when unsure ("pretty sure", editor says in edit summary), editor removes information notheless, as [here, and here;
  • 3. What the editor does in relation to the Cold War, he/ she does in relation to Israel/ Palestinians
  • 4. The same goes for West versus Arabs/ Muslims, see here
  • 5. Same goes for Western vs indigenous peoples as here, and here
  • 6. Sock? From the consistency of the edits, as here, here, here, and the wording in the edit summaries, I have reason to suspect that the editor is the same as this IP.

I look forward to hearing from you. Best regards, Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 23:11, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I have to say that I don't see any problem with #4 ([7]), and my understanding is that both examples in #5 are also uncontroversial. I'm not qualified to comment on the accuracy or otherwise of #2. As these are content issues, you should discuss them with Stumink in the first instance. I note that there's now a SPI investigation at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Stumink, which I suspect has merit - I'll comment there. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

A certain SPI[edit]

Hi Nick, thanks for your attention there. Since I'm new to this reporting process; is there a reason I cannot see the user-compare report? Did I make an error in syntax? Or is it just not visible to anybody yet? Cheers, Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, That link isn't working for me either. I'm not sure how the user compare tool works to be honest (and its results are not terribly easy to interpret in my experience). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:59, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

New Moeldoko English page just created[edit]

Hi Nick, I just crreated the English page for General Moeldoko. You may want to update this page "Moeldoko" links to point to the English page instead of the Moeldoko Bahasa (Indonesian) page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bouake123 (talkcontribs) 22:01, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, It would be best if you did that given that you're now the expert on the topic :) (I can't remember having any involvement in articles on this topic to be honest). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

List of aircraft carriers by country[edit]

Hello Nick, I am currently trying to locate a source regarding Germany's ownership of an aircraft carrier. So far I can find nothing but resolutions that prohibit it. I do not think EnemyNL's edits are legitimate. I plan to revert if my search reveals nothing. Kevintampa5 (talk) 23:44, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, That edit was actually made by an IP editor: [8]. I thought that I rejected it as it's obviously wrong, but the crappy pending changes interface accepted it when I accepted EnemyNL's improvements to the material on Dutch carriers. I've just reverted this, and thanks for alerting me to it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
You are welcome. Also try not to curse in the comments. I know kids that use Wikipedia. Thanks! Kevintampa5 (talk) 00:02, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
Please don't give me homilies about not swearing like I'm a 12 year old. Most children swear much more than adults, so I suspect that they won't give a fuck in the unlikely event that they see my edit summary. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
I thought it was inappropriate too, and the 'most children' excuse is just that... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2014 (UTC)
Sorry if I offended you: I was grumpy with the still-dodgy pending changes functionality. Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Rollback rights request[edit]

Hi Nick. Just wondering if I can be given rollback rights. I have a fairly good record of countervandalism, and have been a registered ed for almost exactly 2 years. I have a good edit count with a high percentage in mainspace. I have always done my bit in watching articles and reverting any crap promptly. I am currently watching several hundred articles, in many areas, but with a strong MILHIST and technology focus. I was involved in the CVUA for a bit but real life stuff stymied my full participation. However I totally get most basic WP etiquette now, inc CV. I would use it only after thought, and judiciously. Cheers Irondome (talk) 22:13, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I've just enabled rollback access on your account as you can be trusted to use it sensibly. I hope that it helps make editing easier. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
That is very much appreciated Nick, as is the community confidence that goes with it. I will be damn careful to use it wisely. Cheers mate! Irondome (talk) 15:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

United Kingdom vs Great Britain[edit]

Nick, I'm just curious about this edit by another user and whether or not it's correct per WP guidelines. I understand using GB for the pre-1801 entity, as the article had done, but using for the post-1801 entity seems too confusing in the same article, and against Common name. Any thoughts? I'd rather not stick my nose into a hornet's nest unless I have to! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:05, 15 May 2014 (UTC)

Great Britain is in all cases wrong if you talk about the state as it is just the Island England, Wales and Scotland are located on. If you do not want to talk of United Kingdom you should use England or Britain. --Bomzibar (talk) 17:17, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Bill, What Bomzibar has written above is also my understanding. From memory, there was a lengthy saga of arguments about this kind of terminology a few years ago which ended with agreement that it wasn't suitable for use in most contexts. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. Any chance of finding that discussion? Was it on Milhist? - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC)
I think that it ended up at ArbCom, and sparked a taskforce! (WP:BRITISHISLES). The main term in question was 'British Isles', but from memory 'Great Britain' got a look in as well. I did everything I could to avoid reading about it all! Nick-D (talk) 09:52, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

review question[edit]

"The material on the historiography on this topic is interesting, but the article would benefit from additional material on the political ramifications of Article 231 in Germany: this is discussed at various points, but this material could be drawn together and expanded to make it clearer."

Hey Nick,

I keep re-reading this comment, and I continually draw a blank on what needs to be done. Any suggestions on what needs to be done to achieve this?

Regards, the sleep deprived and at the moment feeling stupid, EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 15:10, 17 May 2014 (UTC)

Hi, The article notes at various points that this element of the treaty lead to an angry response in Germany. I think that I've also read that it contributed to the rise of the Nazis (through being part of the picture in discrediting the democratic government), but this is never really discussed in detail. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

Lost boys of Anzac[edit]

Gday Nick - just had a read of this. Couldn't help but draw parallels with my maternal Grandfather here when you wrote: "I was interested to know whether this confusion was typical of the way in which the Army handled fatalities at the time, and if so why." He fought in the Second World War in North Africa and in New Guinea. Unfortunately I don't know very much about my family history, but apparently at one stage his mother and his sisters were informed that he was missing or killed in action (I'm not sure which) and it was only after some considerable period of time that the family knew the Army had got it wrong when he came walking down the track to their house! Living in the age we do of instant communications, and my understanding of the casualty notification system, it seems hard to imagine but perhaps it was a more common experience than we might realise. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 07:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's a good point; the logistics of communicating between Australia and the war fronts are very difficult for modern people (myself included) to appreciate given how trivial this is today and the high profile accorded to casualties of military operations. According to the NAA files, my family was repeatedly told by the Army that Joe Flynn was lightly wounded and in Egypt. It didn't conclude that he was probably dead until my family wrote to say that one of his comrades had provided them with an account of his death, and he was eventually officially declared dead in early 1916. Stanley has some heart-breaking stories about families who never received any information of how or when their loved one died, and other families who rejected the news for years. I need to finish the review BTW: it's a good book, but a very sad one. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:06, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
I imagine it must be (and for that very reason could never bring myself to read it). Glad someone writes books like these though. Anotherclown (talk) 08:27, 18 May 2014 (UTC)
Aspects of this can be found in Clive James first volume of memoirs Unreliable memoirs. His father was posted as liberated, was subsequently killed in a repatriation flight, but there appeared to be a terrible time lag in informing Mrs. James. It nearly broke her as I recall Jame's very poignant recollection. The whole subject is barely mentioned really, but it seems a powerful aspect of the ANZAC nations' war experience at the citizen's level. Seems like a greatly valuable piece of work. Irondome (talk) 20:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC)


Sorry for the ungentlemanly and childish comment on your talk page some time ago. It was regarding voting repeatedly in deletion discussions. I was not aware you wasn't allowed to vote repeatedly, so naturally I took offensive when you struck my "keep". I actually realized you wasn't allowed to vote repeatedly very quick after the discussion, but neglected to tell you. I apologize for that and the stupid remarks I made. Kind regards. Jonas Vinther (talk) 20:15, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCVIII, May 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

SS Atlantic Conveyor[edit]

Can I ask if you could add SS Atlantic Conveyor to your watch list. Looks like we have a newly registered WP:SPA editor who relies heavily on this website for his material. It seems judging by some of his comments that is his website and there seems to be an element of WP:GREATWRONGS in his editing, as he seems to accuse the RN of using Conveyor as a sacrificial shield for the carriers. WCMemail 12:10, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Watchlisted. That account certainly goes against what I've read about this incident. Nick-D (talk) 10:02, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

article for deletion. Would you support and how do I go about it[edit]

Adolf Hitler's Favorite Flower appears to serve no purpose whatsoever. It has not even any basic cites to give the reader some context. I believe the song title is a garbled account of an actual nauseating and Nazi-saccarine piece of nazi musical propaganda called "Adolf Hitler little flower" which I recall hearing in the definitive WW2 documentary The World At War I would like to see it removed. It does not even dignify as a stub. this is one of several articles that the author has produced which is problematic. Your thoughts would be welcome.Irondome (talk) 02:04, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest nominating it for deletion on the grounds that WP:N aren't met. The instructions are at WP:AFD if you're unfamiliar with the process. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 26 May 2014 (UTC)
Cheers Nick Irondome (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War[edit]

There has been repeated vandalism of Military history of Australia during the Vietnam War over the past few days by one individual. Should the page be protected for a period of time? Regards Newm30 (talk) 03:11, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

Hello there, a proposal regarding pre-adminship review has been raised at Village pump by Anna Frodesiak. Your comments here is very much appreciated. Many thanks. Jim Carter through MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:46, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Possible Sock[edit]

Remember Horhey420? It seems he may be back in the form of The Best There Is 'Snikt!', who has continued in his footsteps with the same lengthy Google Books searches, questionable use of sources, and extensive blockquotes in articles related to US foreign policy in Latin America. I have known this account was fishy since its very first edits, which were highly atypical for a new user, and have suspected Horhey ever since I dropped my initial suspicions that Iloveandrea was the sockmaster over a month ago. Suffice it to say, I was reluctant to file a formal SPI, but upon taking the action even a cursory examination of the evidence has made me more confident in Horhey's return than ever. I guarantee you that virtually any random edit by TBTIS will bear remarkable similarity to virtually any random edit by Horhey420. In fact, TBTIS has created a new article on United States Intervention in Guatemalan Civil War, and I would argue the entire article is a smoking gun continuing directly where Horhey left off on the main page. What do you think?TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:50, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree: that's as painfully obvious as all of his or her other previous socks. Thanks for reporting this, and I've just blocked the account. Their edits can, and probably should, be mass reverted per WP:DENY (not to mention WP:NPOV). I've just deleted the United States Intervention in Guatemalan Civil War article. Nick-D (talk) 01:48, 31 May 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I've decided to mass revert all of their edits (except in cases where the text has already been trimmed and vetted by others, as in Saudi Arabia), which is something I did not do when they were first blocked in 2012. BTW, while User:Public Intelligence Analyst and User:Boba Fett TBH were exposed as socks, it seems that Horhey also used this IP in 2012 and managed to evade detection.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 03:49, 31 May 2014 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Neelix's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Belated response to Treblinka FAC comment[edit]

I would like to apologize for taking so long to respond to your comment about the "Individuals responsible" table. I left it for Poeticbent to handle, seeing as he's the one who created it in the first place, but he dodged the issue. You wanted to know why the list is the way that it is, not remove it entirely.

Anyway, I was wondering what you would recommend between making the list shorter or making it longer. I'm in favor of the former, for two reasons:

1. It would be a lot easier for me.
2. The list arguably fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE in its present form; we really don't need to list every single guard and SS officer.

Tell me what you think and I'll start working on the table. What I'll probably do is remove every name that is neither mentioned in the article proper nor has its own article. I'm watchlisting this page, so you can reply here. AmericanLemming (talk) 01:28, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi, I'd suggest cutting the list altogether: the article should discuss the people responsible for this camp, and there's no need for a list which duplicates this (especially as it would have to have some kind of inclusion/exclusion criteria, resulting in lots of potential to inadvertently confuse readers). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Revert Review[edit]

[9] Necessary Evil seems to be editorialising to criticise one of the sources used in the article. Its of no relevance to the subject and is definitely WP:OR. Am I right to revert in this case or is it just down to editor preference? WCMemail 08:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks sensible to me - it's not particularly relevant to the topic of the article. If there's disagreement in the sources on the number of people killed in the General Belgrano sinking it probably best belongs in the article on the ship. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library


Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Warships[edit]

Hi, The ship prefix JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) was used until 2008, at which time JMSDF ships started using the prefix JS (Japanese Ship) to reflect the upgrade of the Japanese Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense. Keijhae (talk)

Man in the mud[edit]

Hi there. I have reviewed your DYK hook and left you comment at WP:TDYK. While everything is fine at first glance I think the article needs a few more secondary sources to be highlighted at DYK. De728631 (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

OK, fair point. I've added some more refs from another Canberra Times story, and will see if I can get my hands on a copy of the book. I remember some news stories from when the First World War galleries were closed in which the AWM's curators stressed that this work would remain on display, but I can't find them online Nick-D (talk) 00:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
The article looks good now so I've just approved it for DYK. De728631 (talk) 12:11, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 08:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

File:Trooper Donaldson being awarded VC fair use claimed.jpg listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Trooper Donaldson being awarded VC fair use claimed.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 19:36, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

free french move[edit]

You might be interested in that discussion: Free_French_Forces#Requested_move Cheers, walk victor falk talk 20:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Camden Fort Meagher[edit]

Hi, I'm sorry. I found the discussion difficult to follow, and I also found ALT2 rather vague. But if that's what you want, fine. Yoninah (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

With respect, that was a pretty standard DYK nomination, and I explicitly approved one of the options and rejected the other two. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I got confused. Next time, please strike through the ones that aren't approved. Yoninah (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Offender9000 sockpuppets[edit]

Candelab (talk · contribs) looks likely.-gadfium 23:05, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, he made his identity very clear and has been blocked.-gadfium 05:10, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, crystal clear. Thanks for handling this. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Man in the mud[edit]

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 16:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Mark Donaldson VC 19-01-2009 fair use claimed.jpg[edit]


Thanks for uploading File:Mark Donaldson VC 19-01-2009 fair use claimed.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:26, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Trooper Donaldson being awarded VC fair use claimed.jpg[edit]


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

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I just speedy deleted this: thank you for the notification. Nick-D (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Looks reliable enough[edit]

I know its not from a British Army Website but it looks Genuine enough--unless someone magically wrote that article with the Brigadier's name. It stays one Warrior will be reduced from 10 to 9 men--meaning six per section, unless it is 2 in the Warrior, seven dismount.

Phd8511 (talk) 11:14, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Hmm, for topics such as this it should be possible to stick to entirely-reliable sources, and not need to consult "reliable enough" sources. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:55, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
Nick, that Army 2020 paper was withdrawn as never sanctioned for official release. It is entirely WP:OR and WP:SYN to infer from the paper anything about the number of dismounts in a Warrior. The way Warriors are crewed, the vehicle crew and dismounts are separate. WCMemail 13:32, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
If you bother to shoe your real identity it will be nice. I can claim I work for the MOD or British Army myself.Phd8511 (talk) 16:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC)


You may want to take a second look because of the charts and the CNN International interview in Espanola or Spanish.HotHat (talk) 09:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

WORLD WAR 2[edit]

I was curious to no the reason behind the Allies order on WW2 page. It clearly is not in Alphabetical order. Or in order of contributions as Soviet Union would not be first. IF IT WAS IN ORDER OF CONTRIBUTIONS, THE ORDER WOULD BE:

  • United Kingdom
  • France
  • Soviet Union
  • United States etc.

Please let me no any reason you are aware of. If there is none then WW2 page should be edited. WARNER one 9999

(talk page stalker) @WARNER one:, Nick-D is currently away on holiday. You would be better off asking at Talk:World War II, the talk page attached to the article. -- saberwyn 08:08, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Bari, Somalia[edit]

User:Middayexpress has just removed a carefully looked up note about a new administration in this province ([10]) without any clarification or explanation beyond the fact he says it does not exist. I argue strongly that even the announcement is worth adding to the political history of the region. Would you please take a look at the page and my msg on MDE's talkpage and advise? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 23:18, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Welcome back; job opportunity...[edit]

Back to the mill after your little sojourn, mate! I think the Bugle is about ready to dispatch, have a look if you have time and let me know (unless someone has an op-ed in their back pocket, will of course remove that link from the front page and header before sending out)... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:26, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'm just off the plane and you're already putting me to work! I've just made a few minor tweaks (I'd forgotten to check for FPs, and happily there was one) and this looks good to go to me. Thanks for finishing it off while I was bludging in Melbourne ;) Regards Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Heh, glad I asked, I actually walked through the edit history of the MilHist active tasks template to make surer we hadn't missed anything and obviously missed that FP myself...! Anyway, tks for that, will aim to despatch later tonight. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Listing of FPs is is pretty hit and miss at the moment - I usually manually run through the FP log to make sure that nothing is missed. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Book Review[edit]

I created another book review, which can be found at User:Hawkeye7/Book Reviews. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Good timing! I've just added this to the upcoming edition - thanks a lot. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Also, that's a good choice to review: it's one of my favourite recent books on World War II. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

odd on e[edit]

no lead sentence/context or background - - bad english and weird all around - any thoughts on this one? satusuro 11:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's on a highly notable topic (Australian soldiers rioting in Cairo's red light district during the First World War, a topic which has been the subject of a surprisingly large literature), but the article is certainly rather eccentric. Peter Stanley's book Bad Characters is probably the most recent work to cover this in depth (and earlier works tended to pretend that it was something other than a shameful riot). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:09, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue XCIX, June 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 15:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Japanese Warships[edit]

Hi, The ship prefix JDS (Japanese Defense Ship) was used until 2008, at which time JMSDF ships started using the prefix JS (Japanese Ship) to reflect the upgrade of the Japanese Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense. Keijhae (talk)

Can you please provide a reference for that? Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"JS" Japanese Ship is now officially used since the upgrade of Japan Defense Agency to the Ministry of Defense. It is in MOD website but written in Japanese. [11] Keijhae (talk)

JS Hyuga[edit]

Why are you keep changing the original size lenght of Hyuga 197 meters to 179 meters? The correct lenght size of JS Hyuga is 197 meters NOT "179". Keijhae (talk)

Hi, Basically because you hadn't provided any reference or explanation for this change, and it looked odd to swap those numbers around. According to this source your change is correct - thank you for making it. Nick-D (talk) 11:43, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for understanding. Keijhae (talk)


Hey, I'm sorry about that whole Delta picture thing. It just struck me as pushy and I reacted poorly. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:44, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries at all. Thanks again for removing that unreferenced section. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:21, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Main Page appearance: Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy[edit]

This is a note to let the main editors of Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on July 27, 2014. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at present, please ask Bencherlite (talk · contribs). You can view the TFA blurb at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/July 27, 2014. If it needs tweaking, or if it needs rewording to match improvements to the article between now and its main page appearance, please edit it, following the instructions at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/instructions. The blurb as it stands now is below:

Australian members of No. 196 Squadron

The Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy involved approximately 3,000 military personnel serving under British command, the majority from the Royal Australian Air Force (RAAF) (Australian members of No. 196 Squadron pictured). Others served with the Royal Navy and British Army. After participating in the Allied landings on 6 June 1944, Australian army and air force personnel fought in the subsequent Battle of Normandy between June and August 1944, and an RAAF fighter squadron operated from airfields in Normandy. Throughout the campaign, Australian airmen provided direct support to the Allied ground forces by attacking German military units and their supply lines, as well as forming part of the force which defended the beachhead from air attack and manning transport aircraft. Australians also indirectly supported the campaign by attacking German submarines and ships which posed a threat to the invasion force. Australia's contribution to the fighting in Normandy is commemorated in memorials and cemeteries in London and Normandy. (Full article...)

You (and your talk-page stalkers) may also be interested to hear that there have been some changes at the TFA requests page recently. Nominators no longer need to calculate how many "points" an article has, the instructions have been simplified, and there's a new nomination system using templates based on those used for DYK suggestions. Please consider nominating another article, or commenting on an existing nomination, and leaving some feedback on your experience. Thank you. UcuchaBot (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you again! (see above) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:37, 20 July 2014 (UTC)


I've just filed a dispute resolution request regarding Somali Armed Forces and Somali Civil War. Please take a look. In eight years, I've never been as close to quitting this site entirely in the face of POVpushing. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Will do. I sure that you don't quit! I've walked away from topic areas due to POV pushing, which sucks but at least helps preserve the hobby. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:55, 27 June 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Goodwood (naval) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews[edit]

CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
By order of the Military History WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer, Good Article, A-Class and Featured Article Candidate reviews for the period April to June 2014 MILHIST reviews, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. During this period you undertook 11 reviews. Without reviewers it would be very difficult for our writers to achieve their goals of creating high quality content, so your efforts are greatly appreciated. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 03:58, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Listing engagements in military service infoboxes[edit]

Nick, User:UnbiasedVictory has been adding minor engagements to infoboxes in the US and Canadian military services articles, such as United States Marine Corps. These lists are now so long that they take up at least half or more of the length of these infoboxes. I'm hesitant to tackle this issue directly, so I haven't talked to the user, who can be contentious, about it. I looked at the infobox documentation, but there's no guidance there. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 17:57, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I don't think that there's any specific guidance other than to apply common sense: Template:Infobox military unit/doc's advice on this field is that it can include "any notable engagements in which the unit participated. The decision of what constitutes a notable engagement is left to the editors of the specific article.". I agree that whats in the United States Marine Corps and United States Navy articles is clearly not helpful to readers (or internally consistent) and also think that these lists should be trimmed back severely to list just the services' major engagements. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


Hi there. I have a question: if you wish to review or look at a specific subject that's military or World War II related, like you did for the Wikipedia's The Bugle, how do you do that then? Jonas Vinther (talk) 10:59, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Jonas, If you'd like to submit a book review for the Bugle, it can be posted directly via the book review page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Coordinators/Newsroom, or I can move a draft from your user space when it's complete. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for your answer. But actually, I was planning on reviewing Laurence Rees's newly created website, deticated to reliable and important historical information regarding World War II. I was thinking it would be a very useful link for future articles or improvements. Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:49, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, such an article could be presented as an opinion article or a review essay (we have permanent sections on both, but receive sadly few review essays), and I don't think that anyone would complain if it was included in the book review section - I certainly wouldn't, and I edit the thing ;) The short version is I'm sure that Ian and I will find a home for a review if you'd like to submit it! Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
That sounds really great. :) Kershaw himself saw the website and made a fine recomendation, so I'm sure it will worth the review and very useful. I'm currently on vacation with the family, so I'll be joyfully and carefully reviewing the website in the sun. I'll let you know when I'm done. Best regards. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I believe my review is finished. Currently, it's placed in my sandbox; having never written such a review before, would you take a glance at it, and add your thoughts on it's size, wording, and so forth? Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:44, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I mean, do you believe it's OK, all in all? Jonas Vinther (talk) 15:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi Jonas, I'll have a look over the weekend (probably tomorrow Australia-time). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Okay, no rush, and thank you very much. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 11:12, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Jonas Vinther: I've just made a few minor tweaks - are you happy with these changes? If so, I'll move it into the reviews section of the upcoming edition. Nick-D (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much; I'm totally fine with the tweaks, and also added a few last ones myself. You go ahead and move into the review section. Thanks again. :) Jonas Vinther (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
OK, it's now at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2014/Book reviews Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Awesome. Cheers. Face-smile.svg Jonas Vinther (talk) 12:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Revert review[edit]

Nick, could you review my reverts here? I'm not all that familiar with the issues involved, but what the IP is adding seems very non-neutral to me. I'm not sure what " some gun slinging Texan, from outside Austin who will have Zero idea about the real wor" means either! Feel free to bump this up to MILHIST if you want. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 14:22, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, That looks like a very sensible revert to me. The stuff on Australia is basically ranting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, it seemed like ranting to me too! - BilCat (talk) 11:34, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

The article Operation Goodwood (naval) you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Operation Goodwood (naval) for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ian Rose -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:02, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Your help requested[edit]

Thank you for your suggestions on Military production during World War II. Bender235deleted over 3 months and 300 hours of my work, 40,000 characters of edits, and hundreds of constructive additions to the page. I am in the midst of uploading an enormous amount of PRIMARY SOURCE DATA and he deleted everything done so far as "wikipedia can not be a source for itself". I am enraged. There was not one comment, warning, question, request, or suggestion from this "editor". Can you please help me reverse all the deletions and keep this guy off the page. There are ongoing constructive edits from several other individuals watching this site. Please help resolve this. --Brukner (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

You lost me at this. Nick-D (talk) 23:05, 19 July 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue C, July 2014[edit]

Full front page of The Bugle
Your Military History Newsletter

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 03:47, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Goodwood (naval)[edit]

[[User:|Gatoclass]] (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2014 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party[edit]

What wrong for my edit, Nick D? Labor Party of Australia is centre-left wrong? Minhle20002013 (talk) 13:29, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions concerning that field of the infobox on the article's talk page have concluded with a consensus to leave it blank on the grounds that the ALP (like most major political parties) can't be pigeonholed in that way. Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

WP:FOUR for Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy[edit]

Four Award.svg Four Award
Congratulations! You have been awarded the Four Award for your work from beginning to end on Australian contribution to the Battle of Normandy. TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:11, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Tony. Nick-D (talk) 00:19, 27 July 2014 (UTC)