User talk:Nick-D

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June 2008–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January 2009-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (July–December 2009)

Awards people have given me

Operation Moshtarak

please unprotect the taliban casualty info needs editing to 100 killed or edit it yourself. Here are the sources http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-sheet/item/about-100-taliban-fighters-killed-in-marja/day-3/, and http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/15/MNFJ1C1VKG.DTL (the second source is a better source... (USMCMIDN (talk) 04:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC))

The SFGate story says that Taliban fatalities are "about a quarter of the 400 Taliban estimated to be in Marja", which doesn't translate to exactly 100 to me... Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq war

stop changing the insurgent casualties and pkk casualties back to biased and old sources. I have provided the correct sources and they are NEUTRAL. (USMCMIDN (talk) 15:28, 15 February 2010 (UTC))

Battle of Arawe order of battle

Hi Nick, yes you are right about Task Force 74.1 being a covering force. It only covered the landing for the first day and then returned to Milne Bay, where it then with Task Force 74.2 covered the landing as part of the Battle of Cape Gloucester on December 26, 1943. I have also done some research and found the following also participated: USS PC-1119, PT 110, PT 138, SC-747, LST-453, and First Resupply Eschleon LCT consisting of LCT's 88, 378, 380, 382, 384, 386 and 387 with escort force of Apc 21, YMS 50 and SC 743. USS APc-21 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 17 December 1943, USS APc-15 was sunk by aircraft off Arawe, New Britain Island, 27 December 1943. Regards Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

• Also USS APc-2 was sunk by dive bomber, off New Britain (06 d. 12' S., 149 d. 03' E). Newm30 (talk) 00:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that information. What sources are you using? Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sources=

• APc-2, APc-15 and APc-21 (Conflicting information from this source relating to sinking/damage of USS APc-15, see APc-15.
• APc-21
• LCT 380 Operations
• www.j-aircraft.com (Interesting source for USAAF, RAAF and JAAF squadrons involved.)
• 19. PLANES AT ARAWE - PT-110 and PT-138
• p376 Breaking the Bismarcks Barrier

Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

• Another source=592nd Engineer Boat and Short Regiment, 2nd Engineer Special Brigade Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:24, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
  • Very interesting read. Splinter fleet: the wooden subchasers of World War II

Thanks for that. I'm going to start reworking the Battle of Arawe article at User:Nick-D/Drafts8 as well. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I have just found a source Disposition:, on small transport craft that states that APc-2 and APc-15 were sold off in 1947. It would appear that they only damaged by the air attacks and not sunk. (APc-2 damaged at 06°12'S, 149°03'E and APc-15 at 06°12'S, 149°03'E). I have also created a stub article on USS APc-21. The Battle of Arawe and the Battle of Cape Gloucester need reworking and expansion. Newm30 (talk) 01:02, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Emu War

I thought that was something from jokesters like this guy. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It probably was, but the military history categorisation is valid in my view as this was an incident which involved the Australian military and was authorised by the Defence minister. I hope that the GA nomination is successful. Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Eurasian Land Bridge and LaRouche

A content RfC has been opened on this topic if you would like to comment. Cla68 (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Operation Chronicle

Just letting you know I have expanded Operation Chronicle, let me know what you think. Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That looks excellent. Great work. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Turnbull bullshit

Turnbull's "bullshit" quote really isn't notable. His support of the ETS is already covered in the Abbott article. It might be notable in Turnbull's own article. --Surturz (talk) 10:20, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree; it's a pretty extraordinary action for a recently deposed opposition leader to take. I'd suggest that you discuss this on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:ANI

I was out of line here, having been off for so long I panicked and posted here when the post really did not need to be made here. I have apologized to the users at ANI and, and to Damwiki1. I signed on briefly to leave the messages. Thanks your for the critical response, I appreciate it. I am off again until Wednesday, then I should be back for the rest of the month. Stay safe, Nick. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:55, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I deserved that :) TomStar81 (Talk) 14:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Remora (ADF photo).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Remora (ADF photo).jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 19:13, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK nomination of RQ-170 Sentinel

Hello! Your submission of RQ-170 Sentinel at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Materialscientist (talk) 11:25, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

High schools Debate Popping Up Again

You may want to weigh in on the debate going on here: Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#All_High_Schools_Notable.3F_GUIDELINE_DEBATE since you were one of the editors involved in the WP:SCHOOLS debate. I just figured you'd have an opinion. ɳoɍɑfʈ ^Talk! 07:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I've responded there. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

DYK for RQ-170 Sentinel

On December 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article RQ-170 Sentinel, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

⇌ Jake Wartenberg 18:49, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

For a minute there, I thought that the grokstats counter was saying your DYK got 110,800 hits, which would have been an all-time DYK record! Then it dawned on me that the high volume arrived two days prior to your article going live on the main page, in step with a USAF announcement and extensive blog/news interest. :/

Good article, though! Nice work. Binksternet (talk) 17:46, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those nice comments. It was still one of the highest-viewed DYKs of the month so far - though I imagine that many of these views were still coming from news reports rather than the front page ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:59, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

23prootie

Oh surprise surprise. Not quite one of wikipedia's finest - in my humble opinion. --Merbabu (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

He is permanently blocked now though (at last!). Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oz new arts

sure looks like the alex bot lives - but the project manually created new page update looks like a thing of the past -

Re SMU Santa Maria 1, Cirebon, Jawa Barat‎‎ - I would have tried possible translation if there was any attempt at providing mention of a notable alumni (it is ironic they claim they have had em - but no specific individual is mentioned) - or some aspect of the schools role in javanese indonesian history or whatever - but my rushed read suggest not of that domain SatuSuro 10:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

My understanding is that Alex newbot's owner needs to press the button to make it work each day, so it doesn't run when they're on holiday. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Rape during the occupation of Japan

Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan I restored the deleted sections from page history. Can we discuss WP:NPOV issue about Australian troops and WP:RS issue about a reference. Whether you are POV or acted wrong by lack of knowledge, all editor's opinion matters. And if you provide the RS objecting parties original quotes, I will add them, instead removing all paragraphs, to balance the section for better NPOV. Kasaalan (talk) 20:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

As you plainly haven't bothered to read my talk page comments to date (in which I provided the page numbers you ask for several weeks ago), clearly haven't looked at the references to the stuff you've re-added (as a hint, Peter Schrijvers clearly didn't write the quote which is being attributed to him - several other citations also clearly don't support the statements they're being used to reference), have re-added material that's out of place or has no bearing on the topic of the article and still have the gall to declare that I've been editing in bad faith, I'm not going to waste my time trying to engage with you. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

It is not a personal issue, but a historical truth issue. You gave "Gerster, Robin (2008) Travels in Atomic Sunshine" as a source in talk page which I do not own, in a commentary style. What I require is non touched blockquotes from sources, not your interpretation over the text which you didn't provide. Also, as far as I can tell another user objected your arguments in talk page, if I am not mistaken. By the way, I read your points in talk page, that is why I ask you to provide blockquotes from the books, so we can add them as a balancing counter-source. Yet, you are utterly wrong about removing allegations, factual details, and removing even a peer reviewed academic journal as non-RS. Moreover, the claim about "false testimonies" do not solidly prove the testimonies are false. For NPOV we can only provide both contradicting sources in the section, so that each claim balance each other. There is no good faith I can assume for replacing "330 rapes a day" with "low number of rapes" by removing "330 rapes a day" from the context. If anyone makes such a critical mistake in a history article I call the case POV or Censorship, which is not an insult and much better than calling their judgment or understanding capabilities are weak, in my opinion. As a reminder, you even censored the allied forces censorship section. If it is uncivil maybe so, but we can tell what civility may do in both Japan, US and other WWII countries cases anyway. Again as I said, POV or UNCIVIL (as being I called), every editors' opinion counts for me, and the truth matters not personal opinions. Just provide the original paragraphs so we can all evaluate them and leave the discussion to the article talk page so we can end the dispute in an academical way. Kasaalan (talk) 23:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the statement wrongfully attributed to Peter Schrijvers is still in the article makes me wonder about your interest in persuing accuracy ;) I re-wrote the stuff about censorship policy (in this edit) as it was largely irrelevant to this article - the fact that reports of rapes were not allowed to be published is highly relevant, but it needs to be put in the context of the supression of reports of other issues and discussion of how the censorship policy operated belongs in the Occupation of Japan article, not here. In regards to Dower, from memory, the footnote which includes the figures for daily rapes was actually provided to support the statement in the body of the book that the incidence of rapes was low - I need to double check this though (I don't own a copy of the book so will need to re-borrow it from the library, which will take at least a few days and may have to wait until after Christmas). In the edit I made relating to Dower, I added his statement that the number of rapes was low as well as maintained the statement that the number when up after prostitution was decriminalised, so your claims about me "censoring" this are careless. Nick-D (talk) 00:24, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I am not a native English speaker, so time to time I cannot pinpoint what you mean. As far as I understand you say a quote wrongly attributed to Peter Schrijvers, which he quoted from someone else. Just provide a line about it, make a proposal or edit the article yourself, without removing the quote, so we can handle the issue. I noticed the other editor, but he didn't reply yet. Censorship of US allies part is highly relevant, because if even mentioning the censorship is censored, you may easily guess what would happen if any rape cases occur. As long as you provide a scan of the relevant pages or direct blockquotes texts consider the objecting source will be in as balance. But again a single source against multiple ones cannot justify removal of claims of others. For NPOV we should add both sides claims. Thanks for your help and bothering to answer. Possibly I am not the most CIVIL editor around, mostly because I am a bit careless about Personal Relations, yet too strict about facts at history and social issues like rape, abuse etc. cases, especially against removal of facts or references as inclusionist. On the other hand, I also respect whoever bothers to go to a library and borrows a book for Wikipedia. Peace. Kasaalan (talk) 14:59, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I just removed it from the article, which is what you should have done if you'd taken the time to check the source - which is even online. I'll explain why on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:20, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

AFD for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires

You are invited to join the discussion at [AFD] for Comparison between Roman and Han Empires, since you have participated in the last AFD. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 23:31, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XIV (November 2009)

The November 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Process for inappropriate user pages

Nick, do you know what the process is for removing inappropriate user pages? I'm thinking of User:DFR(RAAF), which is a copy of the deleted Royal Australian Air Force Pilot, and may be inapproprite as advertising. -- saberwyn 02:15, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

They can be nominated for deletion through Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Note, however, that there's typically resistance to deleting user pages unless they're a copyright violation, attack page or clearly advertising (as appears to be the case here) so you might need to make a strong case for deletion - pointing to the AfD should help. Nick-D (talk) 06:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Okinawa

In the edit comments of your removal of a sentence from the Battle of Okinawa, you said that the claim wasn't made in the source. By my reading, it is made almost verbatim.

rape--which is considered a way to sharpen aggressiveness of soldiers, steeling male bonding among warriors, and, moreover, "reflects a burning need to establish total dominance of the other" (p. 211)--was a general practice against Japanese women.

Hohum (talk) 20:05, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The book covered by the review doesn't make the claim that rape was a "general practice" - this is the reviewer's view, for which he provides no source whatsoever. Nick-D (talk) 04:07, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

If you can read the book further or provide texts of it you may join discussions at Talk:Rape during the occupation of Japan. Kasaalan (talk) 11:54, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice that the page was a review. It would make a lot more sense to change the citation to the book itself, with a page number. Hohum (talk) 19:14, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

I borrowed the book about 18 months ago to look for the page number when an editor first started to add this material to other articles, but was unable to find it anywhere in the book - other claims made in the review are also not supported by the book. Nick-D (talk) 21:59, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Ausairpower not a reliable source?

Nick, would you mind revieing this edit, and the [ similar edits on F-15- and F-18-related articles by User:Hcobb? I'm not sure he isn't just having a knee-jerk reaction to information that is not certain one way or the other, and it seems he is calling the publication unriliable based on one story. Anyway, I figue you should have a more informed veiw of the sources reliability. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 03:05, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bill. I'm in two minds about this. One one hand, the ausairpower site exists to promote the views of the site's authors and its analyses are, in my view, biased and unreliable as a result. On the other hand, the authors of the website have published large numbers of articles in Australian defence magazines and seem to have appropriate credentials (though I suspect that their articles are provided to the magazines free of charge). My inclination is to regard the website as an unreliable source as it is self-published and has a strong emphasis on advocacy, but other editors may have different views - I think that this would be best discussed at WT:AIR. Merry Christmas by the way! Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, I was condisering doing that anyway, but since you were around, I thought I'd ask you first. Hcobb, however, seems to be basing its unreliability simply because he disagrees with them! That's not quite the same thing. And thanks, and Merry Christmas to you and yours. - BilCat (talk) 03:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Indonesian military articles...

Nick

You're correct in saying the problem with translating from WP ID is the lack of sources used on wikipedia Indonesia. I don't believe anything should be added to wikipedia without a RS, and that includes translating from WP ID. I hadn't really given much thought to basing notability on the existence of RS. But, the existence or otherwise of RS is only one of a number of factors to consider when establishing notability.

Not sure if any of that helps. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As for my opinion - as I say at the milhist talkpage - the issue is whether WP N over-rides WP RS - If it doesthey should be stubs without bulk of uncitable crap which we get regularly.

The other very big problem is the amazing capacity and urge on the part of established and IP editors to make lists on WP Indonesia en - of names of things - with no backup of RS or cites or anything. The project is littered with WP UNDUE lists - with not a link or cite in sight. It makes the project look like the product of paranoid new order era officials too frightened to make a statement about anything - so a list of names of things is better than nothing - bollocks SatuSuro 07:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for your input. Buckshot's suggestion of a list of Indonesian infantry battalions sounds like a good idea to me. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Another thing - the over-large Indonesian military article got separated into the different forces - if it was possible to keep the same theme in new lists/articles - so that there are no-oversized lists again- referenced or not - it would be appreciated if any effort was made in that direction SatuSuro 15:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I am afraid we are not off to a good start - stubs with no WPRS and limited content. SatuSuro 08:56, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

COI/ownership issues

Nick, would you mind looking at Langley Flying School? The problem should be evident from reading the history and talk pages. I'm supposed to be going to bed, so it'll be awhile before I can respond. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I've just protected the article for a week and warned the other editor. I think that you should have sought external input over this earlier though - you're both in breach of the 3RR. Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

This person claims to be the founder/owner of the company. ANy actions I took were in the intersts of protecting WP. I'm sorry you think I was merely edit warring, but that isn't the case here. I did stop reverting the content once it was apparent he wouldn't stop, and I stopped revert his removal of the tags when it was apparent he wouldn't stop. I considered these separate types of edits, so I was counting 3RR separately. Consider me warned for 3RR in any case! I contacted you as soon as I noticed you being active on my watchlist, and I did contact WTAIR before that. I don't use ANI, as it's been a waste of my time in the past. Thanks for stepping in. Even when we disagree, I still respect you as an admin, and will continue to call on you as long as the door is open for me to do so. Thanks again. - BilCat (talk) 11:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries Bill - it was clear that you were editing to protect Wikipedia from someone who wants to use it to advertise their own company (which may not meet WP:ORG). The point I was trying to make is that 3RR is a black and white rule (the policy page calls it a 'Bright-line rule') and that repeatedly reverting anything other than clear vandalism, copyvios or the addition of libelous material can lead to a block, regardless of the reasons for the reverts, and that other admins may have imposed sanctions on both of you. I think that I should have gone into greater depth in my above post though as it was a bit abrupt. Regards, (talk) 21:34, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. As I said, I consider myself warned! I'll be more careful in the future. - BilCat (talk) 21:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Bogus Articles

Hey Nick-D, i have been researching the East African Campaign of World War One and noticed that today someone created around 10 stubs about real battles that are all identicle and contain bogus information. Battle of Kibata (1917), Battle of Kibata (1916), Battle of Matamondo, Battle of Mkalamo, Battle of Kahe, Battle of Mpotona, Battle of Narungombe and about a half dozen more. It looks like they were all created by User:Starzynka. They all should probably be deleted as they all contain the same information and besides the names are completely bogus..XavierGreen (talk) 04:17, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that there isn't a speedy deletion category these fall into - a battle is a claim of notability, and they're not sufficiently clear-cut hoaxes for the vandalism criterion to apply (they could conceivably be minor skirmishes or something, for example - though I think that you're right). I'd suggest prod deleting or AfDing them. Nick-D (talk) 04:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The Germans did not come into contact with Portuguese forces until late 1917, many of the battles listed occured in 1916 and were in German East Africa fighting British and Belgian Colonial forces. The source listed on every single article is contrary to what is listed on the pages created. What is prod deleting?XavierGreen (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me Nick. Xavier Green, a prod is WP:Proposed Deletion; take a look at what I've done to Battle of Mkalamo. Cheers and Happy New Year.. Buckshot06 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Buckshot. Xavier, as that editor's talk page shows a number of complaints about creating content under the wrong name or duplicating existing content and they're creating articles on other topics which are unsourced but may be OK, I don't feel comfortable about zapping these as hoaxes at the moment - is the 1922 The Encyclopædia Britannica online? Nick-D (talk) 04:57, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yea you can check it out at [[1]]. Every single one of the battles he created is likely a real battle. However all of the information is inaccurate as they were all fought before the German invasion of Portuguese East Africa. If you need more sources i can provide them. He literally just copied part of the infobox and the first line of text from the article Battle of Ngomano which i had just created today. The only thing in each article that is correct is the name of the battles as he took them from the campaign box where they were previously redlinked.XavierGreen (talk) 05:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

OK. I'd suggest converting the battles which can be verified to redirects to the relevant campaign and prod deleting or AfDing the ones which can't be verified. This is very poor editing on Starzynka's part, but I don't think that it's something where admin intervention beyond warning the editor to not do it again is appropriate. Nick-D (talk) 06:31, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry but why would you red link these battles if they were non existent? If they never happened who was the fool who red linked them in the template?. The last editor of the template, Xavier is to blame. It is very poor editing on his part that he didn't remove the "hoax" links. Try assuming good faith on my part.Starzynka (talk) 14:14, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

The names of the battles are real, all of the information you put in them is false. The Germans did not fight the portuguese in east africa until late 1917. Virtually all of the battles you created articles for happened in diffrent places, different times, and with different belligerents than you have listed. Did you even read the source that you listed on each of the stubs?XavierGreen (talk) 16:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the mistake. But if the battles actually happened tagging them for deletion is pointless. Please quickly correct the errors and I hope they will develop into good articles.Starzynka (talk) 13:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Given that you created the articles, why don't you take responsibility for fixing them? Nick-D (talk) 22:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I've been removing the prod tags, on the basis that I as reviewing administrator, cannot tell which ones were real and which were not. If the battles are real butthe description is wrong, just fix them, or redirect them to the correct article. If they are not real, take them to AfD with some evidence of that beyond your own personal knowledge of that.

That's pretty unhelpful DGG; as described above, every detail of the battles other than their name is wrong, and they need to be re-written from scratch. I hope that you help out with this effort. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Myself and another editor have removed the majority of the incorrect information. There is very little left in the articles, most simply only having the name of the battle and stating it was a battle of the German east africa campaign. So far only one of the battles has been verified by an additional source. The infoboxes are just empty shells.XavierGreen (talk) 21:44, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette noticeboard

Hello Nick, I just noticed that you commented on the wikiquette page and I was wondering if you could please look at my post about User Chhe. Thanks so much, Malke2010 03:09, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, too, Nick. I'll try to do better on this too. Note that the dude is banned from It.wiki for behavioral and editing issues. His poor language skills are just a part of his WP problems, but it sure doesn't help! I should have posted a note on the Bell 222 page the day I deleted his "contribution". I'll endevor to behave better myself. - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

No worries Bill - you were pretty massively provoked by that editor. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

F-111B

Thanks for the kind words! What do you think of a separate article for the F-111C "Pig"? Do you think there's enough material out there to justify having it on it's own page? - BilCat (talk) 07:38, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely - the delayed procurement of the aircraft was a major political scandal for about 10 years in Australia (the aircraft were seen as too complex and too American for the RAAF and they spent years in hangers in Texas due to technical problems), and this generated huge amounts of media coverage, and several books and chapters of books have been written on the aircraft's subsequent service (which is generally agreed to have been outstanding and well worth their cost and delays). An alternative could be General Dynamics F-111 in Australian service, which could also cover Australian use of F-111Gs and provide more room for the political issues surrounding the aircraft. I'd be happy to help out with either option. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

From what I remember, the RAAF leased F-4s in the interim, and the RAAF pilots loved them, and wished they could keep them. Other than range and perhaps payload, the F-4 was probably a better aircraft in most ways. Interestingly, the F/A-18F is in some ways a modern F-4, and even goes by the radio callsign "Rhino", a common F-4 nickname, on USN carriers.

As to format and title, variant articles do often cover other models, such as the F-15E Strike Eagle's coverage of the F-15I, S, and SG. Granted the G will be covered on the main page too (unless we split off the FB-111), but I think it will work. Be aware that it took 9 months for this one to get done, and that is thanks to Jeff's hard work on the text. I can set up a sandbox page, and we can see how it takes shape. If we think it would work better as a history articel rather than an aircraft vartian article, we can always change the focus mid-stream. The CF-18 and CH-124 article both devote large portions of the articles to political issues, and I think they work quite well. I split the CH-124 Sea King page off of the [[SH-3 Sea King page specifically to provide room for the political coverage surrounding the CH-124's replacement, which was beginning to swamp coverage of the other variants. I'll try to get something started in the next week or so, and we can see how it develops. Once the sandbox is up, you're welcome to jump right in. - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

The sandbox is up at User:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C‎. Also, do you have any ideaa when the F-111C retirement is scheduled for? I've seen 2010, but nothing more specific than that. I don't know how much time we have to prepare, but it might be nice to have the article ready for FA when it retires, or at least something suitable for "In the News". If it's sooner rather than later, I could make it a priority to get it to mainspace, but sheperding it to FA status is something beyond my current capabilities. I'm not trying to over-reach with the suggestion, but as I said, it would be nice, and a fitting fairwell, I would hope. - BilCat (talk) 09:51, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

OK, that approach sounds good Bill. The aircraft will be retired in December 2010. According to F-111.net, ceremonies to mark their retirement will be held on 2 and 3 December, so I guess that 3 December will be the last flying day. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That gives us a chance to get something done without haveing to hurry too much. - BilCat (talk) 22:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

I have specific questions, such as on specs, but we can discuss that at User talk:BilCat/Sandbox/General Dynamics F-111C. (And thanks for the help with the IP hounder - I did try real hard to behave this time!) - BilCat (talk) 23:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

SEA

I see the SEA taskforce tag for the template appears to not work - as it was a field of operation of its own - and is considered the actual source of the use of the phrase SEA as well - I have started a sub cat of mil hist of asia - which I consider an abomination of a category - I hope you support such a move - the cat tagging and management in milhist stinks - looks like no one has thought about it for years - cheers SatuSuro 01:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree - most of milhist's category tree hasn't been maintained and there's scope for improvement. On the other hand, it is rather massive. Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah well who is the whatto of category trees in the project - or is it a default to nothing issue - theyre all interested in battles ? :) SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

I also get rather nervous when I see things like - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Asia - is that really a viable item? I wonder whether someone needs to have a close look at items like that and have a good think.... SatuSuro 02:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that the military history of continents series of articles are ridiculous. Military history of Europe sort-of makes sense, but all the other continents have had hugely diverse military histories (eg, what does the military history of Syria have to do with the military history of Japan?). Nick-D (talk) 03:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I think the Asia category in milhist should be disassembled as a priority - see what I have done for SEA SatuSuro 03:25, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

OK I bit the bullet - so to speak - I would be very interested in your opinion as to whether it was the right way to go - please feel free to criticise the way I have gone if it seems the wrong way to do it - I am hoping for some intelligent debate to follow on from the proposals for deletion SatuSuro 03:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Withdrawn the Afd and Cfd before it even got under way - I remain totally unconvinced that the issue will be resolved - it is a case of wait and see SatuSuro 03:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Batalyon Raiders

Would you mind taking a look at my investigation of this article and, as an additional admin, take any measures you see fit? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Jclemens beat me to it. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Langley Flying School

An article that you have been involved in editing, Langley Flying School, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Langley Flying School. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Ahunt (talk) 02:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Help, please

Can you help with this? [2]. This editor seems out of control. There's no reasoning with him. The threads have been archived by Jade Falcon. Please, this man needs a break from editing.Malke2010 03:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

delete

You proposed deletion on an article that I wrote quite a bit (prod). This is a similar article that is most deserving of your wrath. Consider removing your prod from the 2009 Kevin Rudd visit to Japan and moving that prod to this one International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament JB50000 (talk) 04:12, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to nominate it for deletion yourself, though it would probably survive as the commission has been going for some time now, thereby generating coverage in the media, etc, over a long period of time. I didn't place the prod deletion on the Kevin Rudd article BTW - I merely endorsed it. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Does that mean you are going to try to delete it in a few days? JB50000 (talk) 04:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Delete what? I personally think that the Kevin Rudd visit article should be deleted, but the article on the commission is OK. Those are just my views though. Nick-D (talk) 04:50, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. Are you personally going to attempt to delete the article or seek it's deletion should an AFD be filed? This is important because I may not work on an article if I think someone is going to throw it in the trash. I will not call you nasty names if you do say this is your plan, but I would like to know. Thank you. JB50000 (talk) 06:48, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to nominate it for deletion, but User:Timeshift has said that they will. Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If I may add, articles cannot be summarily deleted except in spoecific cases where they are elligible for Speedy Deletion, such as direct copyvios, vandalism, obvious hoaxes, and the like. Prods (proposed deletions) are inteded to be a quick way to delete an article that is not eligible for a speedy deletion, but can be contested simply by removing the Prods. This sends an articel to the AFD process, were discussions are held to reach a consensus (not a vote system). Only if there is a clear consensus to delete can an article then be deleted, and that is done by an editor, often an administrator, that is not involved on the discussion.

Almost every experienced editor has had articles sent to AFD, and has had a few deleted that way. I have, and I'm fairly certain Nick has too. An AFD can be a painful process, for even though no editor "owns" wikipedia article, one still becomes quite attached to them, having spent a lot of time and energy in creating and improving the articles. SOme of this pain can be avoided by seeking opinions of experienced editors as to whether an artivcel should be created in the first place, of if the information would be better covered in existing articles. Be assured though that ab AFD is not generally an arbitrary process, and great though and consideration goes into the discussion. Even if an article is deleted, there is an appeals process if an editor still feels that the deletion was unwarranted. I hope this helps. Finally, look at this a a learning process, and learn what you can from it about how to improve articles. I learn more every day that I edit here, even though I've been here over 3 years.

Because the article does assert notability, and has 40 citations, I am removing the Prod. Whether or not the notability is questionable, or has not been sufficiently established, as asserted in the Prod, can be determined in an AFD, if one is filed. - BilCat (talk) 07:39, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments Bill. I've had articles I've created and images I've uploaded deleted and it's not a big deal. In general, the system works well and articles sent to AfD are treated fairly - many editors have an aversion to deleting articles and look for ways to save them or at least to preserve the content in other articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Zulfiqar / Zolfaghar tank

Hi, I wonder if you could lend some aid at Talk:Zolfaghar (tank). An editor has spuriously renamed the article to Zolfaghar (tank) from the more common English usage of Zulfiqar. I have presented ample proof that it is the most common name, and the name that Jane's uses. The editor is now stating "I won't let you move the page back to Zulfiqar because it is a gross violation of Iranian Army's copyright". I'm unsure how to handle such an unhinged claim.

I don't want to edit war about this, is there anything you can do to help? Hohum (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back to the original name. The name of the tank in the article's prose needs to be returned to Zulfiqar though. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Abbott pic

I've had my concerns too but have tended to turn a blind eye to it... not to have a picture of the opposition leader considering how filled out oz pol pages have become is just obscene. Technically yes it does warrant investigation and potential removal. Timeshift (talk) 01:55, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a side comment, I think the chances of politicians giving us a free photo are over-rated. Barnett is the only leader of any current or former Australian federal/state/territory government to expressely make the effort to respond and agree to a request for such an image as far as I know. Politicians like us know that wikipedia is also over-rated in influencing any votes... the people that that read politics on wikipedia tend to be more actively interested in politics and hold support for a party. If they don't see a benefit or they feel there's a risk then they won't do it. Timeshift (talk) 05:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. The CC licence is not friendly to politicians as it allows photos of them to be used in any way and for any purpose. As a result, any photos they donate to improve their Wikipedia profile can legally be used and/or modified to attack them (though, in fairness, any politician who sent a cease and desist note to someone who was miss-using images from their website would probably end up being mocked in the media, so the copyright protections aren't of much use to them). I wish that Wikipedia had a more sensible attitude towards fair use/fair dealing image so we could use politicians official portraits. Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with this also. I've long believed our copyright provisions to be somewhat inflexible to the possible detriment of the encyclopaedia - what we have now promotes a paparazzi culture which would possibly be even more objectionable to the politicians concerned, and ironically a situation where we're far more likely to get good photos of second-string politicians than leaders and news-makers. Wikimedia Australia was working on a solution to this re federal politicians - I'm not sure how that is progressing. Barnett was a lucky strike in my case - I've tried exactly the same approach to around 20 politicians and gotten nowhere. Orderinchaos 11:02, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I was involved in a file for deletion discussion a while ago concerning the use of the official portrait of a senior and highly notable army officer in which an experienced editor argued that the photo was replaceable as someone could take a photo of her at the shops... Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVI (December 2009)

The December 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Japanese prisoners of war in World War II

On January 3, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Japanese prisoners of war in World War II, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 12:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Interested / Slightly puzzled.

Hi Nick. Happy New Year!
I'm interested, and slightly puzzled, by your edit and its associated comment: ("revert POV wording").
No, I don't like the way the edit was done. (e.g. I think it would have been better as a footnote.) But I don't quite understand why you reverted it, (rather than edited it).
Could I bother you to / would you mind enlightening me? Thanks in advance. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

It was an uncited comparison to what went on in Germany, and the use of "war looting" is POV without a strong cite to support it. Nick-D (talk) 21:29, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it's contested that the Soviets did that in both East Germany and Manchuria, but to lump in France/UK/US with it on the same level, I'd certainly disagree too. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Re:

Thanks for the comments Nick; i thought i may have overdone it a bit yesterday but am glad to see people like the additions :)--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 19:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Hoax/vandalism

Would you be interested in some vandal-slapping? :) See this load od hooey, and the previous edit. WHile I'm not that familiar with Australasian history, tehre are some clues here that this is vandalism, such as "weigh station", the Republic of Texas existing in 1873, and the phony Early Modern English. Most telling is the fake Stonewall Jackson quote from 1875 - we US Southerners almost worship the man, but even we know he died in 1863! Thanks, and have fun! - BilCat (talk) 04:32, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill - I just blocked them for being a vandalism only account. Nick-D (talk) 06:20, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year - 2009

		2009 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "continuing "big picture" work, particularly achieving FA status for Military history of Australia during World War II, one of 5 FAs this year" and being an "fine all-round participant/reviewer", I award you this Silver Wiki. -- TomStar81 (Talk) 09:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom! Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Nick! And congratulations to you as well! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I have counting the facilities

I want to count the facilities.I want to count the total facilities and write correct figure above.I write month vise because if anyone will object my figure in total so i tell him the monthly fasilities. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan Dont remove that because that is only as temparary.I will remove when it complkete. And by the way now-a-days mstly i update that page so iif you add sommethig then add and dont remove the information from there. And if you have any objection on my counting, tell me.I count again.

That's original research and speculation - there is no guarantee that the news reports provide a comprehensive account of the number of fatalities. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I only count from month wise.The total facilities is wrong.I will proof if you please leave that game for 1 houur and then return.So i tell that total facilities is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.24.208 (talk) 10:24, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

You should not be counting anything, as you do not have comprehensive or consistent figures to add up. Please stop edit warring and respond to the discussion you started on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I only add in total 2009 facilities.And i will remove all data incidents like 2008.See the page.Facilities in 2008 have no data and no correct figure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.24.208 (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Unless you can provide a direct citation for any totals (eg, a news article which states 'X Afghan security forces were killed in 2009', and not a figure you've added up yourself from what's in the article) it's original research and should not be added. Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you computer or human being?I mean i said i count 2009 facilities by calculator in which total is slightly different 335 policemen and 175 soldiers killed.Slightly difference.Ok.I find news articles.Many times i find on many news that more than 700 Afghan security forces killed.I search again.

There's no need to attempt to insult me. Once again, you should not be making up your own numbers. Media sources do give total figures - use them, not stuff you add up yourself. Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Stop reverting me

I have commented on the talk page

Look it is simple, when you use Opvermans figures of 1 million in those he includes soldiers which he believes were shot whilst surrendering, that same figure for Soviet POW is 5 million ie soldiers estimated to have been killed whilst surrendering or in captivity

You can not on one side have Germans pow estimated killed whilst in captivity and on the other side only Soviet POW confirmed killed and ignore the estimated killed whilst surrendering, either you have both estimated killed whilst surrendering on both sides OR confirmed killed in captivity on both side, and not like it is now Gainswings11 (talk) 02:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your additions are not suitable - please do not add uncited commentary to the article or uncited figures. I'm glad that you've posted on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The numbers are not uncited in Overmans book he clearly writes that his figures are ESTIMATED killed whilst surrendering.

So if I add that piece of text which is cited in Overmans book are you going to revert that as well? Gainswings11 (talk) 02:21, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Of course not, as long as you include a citation for everything you provide. Nick-D (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok then, but that is what Overmans writes so can I just enter the text since Overman is used? Gainswings11 (talk) 03:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As long as it's directly supported by the source, yes. What you added didn't appear to be supported by the source, however. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

It is in the book by Rudger Overman he clearly writes it, and that is the book qouted. I will add the info in a few months or a year so that there is no question of me doing an edit war Gainswings11 (talk) 23:47, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Autoblock

Does this help? If not, sorry to butt in. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 05:57, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If a user is autoblocked, such as if a named user was unblocked, but their IP address is still autoblocked, an admin can clear the autoblock by:

• Reviewing the list at Special:BlockList, and searching for the user's account name. This is a case-sensitive search.
• Identifying the #xxxxx number that is associated. If searching on this number, be sure to include the "#"
• Unblocking the #xxxxx by clicking the "unblock" link

Note that once the autoblock is cleared, the user's account name will no longer appear in the list.

Thanks for that. Nick-D (talk) 06:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

SPI question

Hi Nick-D! Thank you for your work on the SPI case against the UrukHaiLoR account. During the collection of evidence, I have com across another account, editing in the same subject area, that has been registered by a user who very likely has run other accounts before, and this account may well be a sockmaster of other accounts. Furthermore, I think that Top Gun is a sockpuppet account, not a sockmaster. Do you have a clue how to find compelling evidence, and how to best locate possible sockpuppets? Thank you for any help you can give me!  Cs32en  04:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you believe that there are clear similarities in editing patterns you'd be best off filing a detailed sockpuppet report, including diffs as appropriate. I'm afraid that there isn't a magic bullet which can be used to confirm or deny that one editor is a sock of another. Nick-D (talk) 05:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that your reason for blocking is inappropriate. You don't really have any clear evidence that this user is a sock-puppet. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

As I've detailed on UrukHaiLoR's talk page, the similarities between their and Top Gun's editing pattern are compelling, and go far beyond what can be explained by coincidence. Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I'll leave it at that, I still don't think the evidence is compelling, but I won't say anything more. - Tbsdy lives (formerly Ta bu shi da yu) ^talk 06:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Nimitz class aircraft carrier

I have been working on this article based on the comments you made on the PR. I think I've largely done everything (although there are one or two places that would benefit from a little more work and possible copyediting), so can you have a general look over it and see what you think; I was thinking of doing something like this for the service history section (that's not finished, but I was thinking more about the basic structure), but I wasn't sure about whether it would be better than it is now. Jhbuk (talk) 18:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks pretty good to me, though the coverage of the ships' operational service may be too detailed given that this is an article on the class. I'd suggest that you discuss the main ways the ships have been used over time rather than include all their significant deployments (which in turn leads to the many routine, but incredibly important, training and operational deployments which didn't involve combat or a major incident being under-emphasised). Nick-D (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing the article. I've done something like what I was initially thinking of for the service history section, and I put it up for a GAR. I'm sure there will be some things that come up in the review, but I don't think they'll be so bad that I can't repair them if it's put on hold. Jhbuk (talk) 16:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Please help

I want to update this article but i cant because edit button is removed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan So please add these in the article.And my request is please add the edit button in the article.

Afghan security forces losses in other time periods

2010

• January 10, 2010 - An Afghan soldier killed alongwith a US soldier and a British journalist in an explosion in southern Afghanistan.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34790930/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/</ref>

• January 12, 2010 - An Afghan policeman has been killed and two others wounded in a suicide attack at a police station in south-central Afghanistan.<ref>http://www.realclearworld.com/news/ap/international/2010/Jan/12/afghan_police__policeman_killed_in_suicide_attack.html , http://www.newsday.com/news/world/afghan-police-policeman-killed-in-suicide-attack-1.1694992</ref>

• January 13, 2010 - Various Taliban attacks in the country killed five policemen and 4 Afghan soldier.<ref>http://www.cleveland.com/world/index.ssf/2010/01/blast_kills_two_american_soldi.html , http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100113/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_180, http://www.canada.com/news/Factbox+Security+developments+Afghanistan/2436264/story.html</ref>

Afghan private security guard losses

• On January 7, 2010, seven PMC's including the commander of Afghan security guards killed by a suice bomb attack in Gardez, the capital of Paktia province.<ref>http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34752416/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/</ref>

The article has been semi-protected in response to your edit warfare. Nick-D (talk) 01:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP block notice

Hi Nick! -- I agree that the IP should be tagged. However, the indef tag might mislead admins to think that the problem with the IP had already been solved. Regards.  Cs32en  10:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

All admins should be aware that IPs can't be indefinitely blocked, and they shouldn't be operating on the basis of tags on user pages alone. I agree that the wording of that tag isn't accurate, but it's the standard in the template which places the IP in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Top Gun, which is of great value to admins. Nick-D (talk) 10:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have a template that says: "This account has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of..." or "This account has been blocked on [date] as a suspected sockpuppet of..."?  Cs32en  11:04, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

IP 212.235.34.112

What do you think of the IP 212.235.34.112 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), which has made edits to two articles?  Cs32en  15:09, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Possibly Top Gun, but the IP is a long way out of their usual ranges, and it's more stable than what they normally use. This could be another editor all together. I've watchlisted those articles though. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi Air Force

For some reason I can't recall and now regret, I've been watchlisting the Iraqi Air Force article for a few weeks. In the past week, several IP editors have been removing cited info from the article simply because they believe it's wrong. In addition, another editor has been changing hte roundels without explanation. I don't generally warn IPs, especially dynamic ones, because it's useless, and the other editor has been around while ,and yet keeps reverting. At the risk of being blocked for "revert warring", I thought I'd let you know on the way out (I'm done watching that article). - BilCat (talk) 08:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill; I've protected the article for two weeks, which will hopefully convince the IP to move on. Please note that articles can be semi-protected to protect them from troublesome dynamic IP editors who can't be properly warned or blocked (something I'm having to do a lot at present - I decided shortly after I became an admin that I wasn't going to donate to Wikipedia fundraising drives until IP editing was banned). Nick-D (talk) 09:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. The other editor was changing JPG to SVG files, and I stomped his edits thinking they were something else, as previously he had been adding an older roundel. That one was my mistake. Though his edit summary was "SVG", I didn't catch it. I'm also not donating to WP for the same reason, though if flagged revisions/protection are ever implemented, esp. on all articles, I might reconsider. - BilCat (talk) 09:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Drop me a note if you see any articles being vandalised by IP-hopping editors. Nick-D (talk) 10:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Found one already. Has a history of unexplained changes, and has been blocked before also. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

And he did this one while I was writing the note! - BilCat (talk) 13:08, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

As the IP appears stable, I've blocked them directly for three months. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Milhist task force reorganisation

Following the project's recent discussions, I've now merged the Taiwanese military history task force into the Chinese military history task force. Because you were a coordinator of the Taiwanese task force, I've transferred your coordinatorship across to the Chinese task force; redirects have been left in place on the defunct TF pages, but you may wish to update your watchlist accordingly. All the best, EyeSerene^talk 10:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note and for handling this reorganisation. As is standard for you, it's being done sensibly, throughly and with a great degree of civility. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you always said to me to make a account?

I was making an account two months ago.But that was banned a week before.And yesterday i again make an account because mostly people on wikipedia said to make an account and that also ban without any warning. If you want to ban my account then why you said to make account? Anyways now i add information by other users on descussion because edit button is removed on many articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.71.171.59 (talk) 13:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, please block the above IP, as they're using the IP address to violate their previous block (see also). Kind regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 13:22, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 06:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Why you all are against me?what i was done so why you all are against me.

I try thousands times to find unblock appeal but failed.I seriously want to say sorry and please forgive me.Dont angry with me.Please.One chance.Tell me rules of wikipedia.And tell me what rule i violate?Anyways please top blocking my user.And i doesnt know how to unblock so can you please unblock my user.I will tell you my username and password.Please accept my sorry and give me one more chance.And tell me rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 22:58, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Request at RPP

Hi there. Could you have a look at the request at RPP to protect more Afghanistan related articles. I can't see the issue myself, but as you protected others, you may have better knowledge about the particular issue. I will also make the same request to Nick D. Thanks. GedUK  14:46, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Are they all protected now? - the request seems to have disappeared. FYI, they're being targeted by IP socks of indef blocked editors User:Top Gun and User:Mujahid1947 Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I haven't got to RPP yet, that's my next stop. I'll see if I can find them in the history. GedUK  08:26, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

They haven't been done, not sure why they were cleared (probably the bot, but i've not the heart or time to trawl the history!). I'll try and get to them today if no-one else does, once i've cleared the backlog, but a quick glance over most of them doesn't indiciate IP sockpuppetry on most of them, but i'll have a better look later. GedUK  08:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for bumping it. I've just looked into those articles and have semi-protected three of them. Nick-D (talk) 09:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. GedUK  09:38, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance

Why you all are against me?what i was done so why you all are against me. I try thousands times to find unblock appeal but failed.I seriously want to say sorry and please forgive me.Dont angry with me.Please.One chance.Tell me rules of wikipedia.And tell me what rule i violate?Anyways please top blocking my user.And i doesnt know how to unblock so can you please unblock my user.I will tell you my username and password.Please accept my sorry and give me one more chance.And tell me rules. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.152.86.242 (talk) 23:02, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

That was all explained at User talk:Mujahid1947. Ceasing your block evasion is an essential first step to your block ever being lifted. Nick-D (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Republicanism in Australia

Nick, there seems to be a low-grade edit war occurring on Republicanism in Australia. Since you are probably more familiar with both sides of the argument than I am, would you mind taking a look? Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:02, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Bill; I've just protected the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: usertalk page protection

Yes please Nick, that would be greatly appreciated, just for about 4 days or so will probably be fine. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 07:48, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Spitfire^Tally-ho! 08:10, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Block of User:Mujahid1947

Hi,

I see that I have received messages from the User:Mujahid1947. At this point I have not looked into why he was blocked.

But I did see that he is blocked for an "indefinite period". In my opinion, that is like asking for evasion. The user has absolutely nothing to lose by evading the block. If, however, one sets a time period of block for the user (with the period being reset everytime the user evades the block), that would both give the user incentive for good behavior and, while the user is waiting, give time to cool him/her down.

VR _talk 15:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't the blocking admin, but concur with the block. Blocks for an 'indefinite' period are not permanent; they're only until the editor uses the unblocking procedures to acknowledge that they've done the wrong thing and provide adequete assurances that they won't do it again - this was in the instructions linked from the templated block notice placed on Mujahid1947's talk page. As a result, 'indefinite' blocks often end up having quite short durations (I've seen them resolved to everyone's satisfaction after a few hours). Wikipedia:Standard offer also provides block evaders with a way back. Nick-D (talk) 21:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Then that is a point Mujahid should be made aware of (and perhaps others as well). I, despite bieng on wikipedia for quite some time, thought indefinite meant infinite. Thanks for the clarification.VR _talk 15:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you should be using Gameboy1947's indefinite block as a reason to continue blocking him. He was blocked for a "disruptive user name" indefinitely on the first block. It was not explained to him, he was never given a chance to change his user name, and Mujahid is a real name. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The block was for "Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username" and at User talk:Mifter the blocking admin states that the user name was one of the less important reasons for the block. The blocking admin used the standard template which included links on how to appeal blocks but they responded to this by using IP accounts to evade the block and continue the behavior for which they were blocked, even after they were told that they needed to stop using IP accounts to have a chance at being unblocked - it wasn't until the articles they focus on were semi-protected (thereby stopping their editing) that he/she started using the proper procedures be unblocked and apologised for their behavior. Now they've made a commitment to stop adding uncited claims to articles in exchange for being unblocked they need to stick to it. I am trying to take into account the fact they they don't appear to be very fluent in English by providing what I hope is clear guidance and using relatively short blocks - as I noted on their talk page, some other admins would have indef blocked them at the first offense after the unblock. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

We don't indefinitely block someone for the first offense. This was done because of the username. I wasn't aware the user was given a warning to stop editting by IP. I recall sending the user some messages via an IP talk page, but none were received until I responded to his messages on a talk page. IMO you're seeing bad faith where there is none. I've never seen someone blocked so many times, so quickly, for such minor offenses. AzureFury (talk | contribs) 14:22, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I think you are violating Wikipedia principles on doing what is best for the encyclopedia (see Wikipedia:Ignore all rules). What if I type it myself manually? Would that be evasion? Bottomline is, I'm gonna to continue doing it every time--Againme (talk) 18:19, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I fail to see how encouraging editors who have been blocked for some very good reasons is in any way constructive. If you want to help them out, refer them to Wikipedia:Standard offer. If they were to stop their OR, lying about sources, edit warfare, etc and committed to a single account they'd probably be welcome back. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Viceroy again

Nick, I posted a comment on the Talk:Viceroy page here on Jan 8; two editors have commented, but not User:Ajh1492. Two days ago, per the discussion on the talk page, I again removed the uncited portions of the article. Today, he re-added the content here. I again reverted (I hadn't thought of posting here instead, which is what I should have done), and I've also placed a warning on his page. I won't revert him again, but he does need to discuss this issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:27, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Please prevent BilCat from deleting articles that have and have had perfectly acceptable references. It's vandalism on BilCat's part. Ajh1492 (talk) 00:47, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for adding unreferenced headers to several articles you most likely found on my contributions list. It's appreceiated, though I doubt it's in good faith, and is proablay a disruption to make a point. Regardless of your motives, it's not vandalism, and I'd apreciate the same courtesy in return. - BilCat (talk) 01:01, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Just performing an editing service for the entire Beechcraft, Bombardier, Lockheed and Boeing sections with the need of having inline citations. Hey, somebody needs to do it, heaven knows the Earth will stop spinning on it's axis if a wikipedia article does not have perfect citations. I'll keep working my way through light & heavy aircraft. Oh, and I am actually reading the articles, if you would have cared to read my comments on the edits. There's some rather good writing in the articles. I only deleted the one line that had a unref tag from 2008. Ajh1492 (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

As this seems to be mainly content dispute, there isn't much scope for admin intervention at this point. I'd suggest using the dispute resolution process by seeking views from editors with an interest in this topic. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have the time or energy to pursue this matter beyond the discussion on the article's talk page, which the user has still not contributed to. By virtue of his continual reversion without discussion, and my desire to not e blocked again - which he apparently does not share - he wins. - BilCat (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present)

So I recall in an edit summary somewhere that you semi-protected the page because it was being targetted by sock puppets of a user. I've been watching his edits for awhile, and all he does, that I can tell, is update the casualty figures. There haven't been any consistent malicious edits on the page by any IP. Now in a long post on the article's talk page, he says that he's sorry and he doesn't know what policies he violated or how to request an unblock. Are you sure you haven't misidentified this user as a vandal when he's really just ignorant of policy? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 01:31, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, they're definitely the indef-blocked editor Mujahid1947 (talk · contribs) (AKA User:Akhlaque1947) - see: [3] where they admit this. The admin who indef blocked them placed the standard template on their talk page with instructions on how to request an unblock and they've been told what to do by myself (see above thread 'Please sorry and forgive me and give me one more chance') and other editors, so their claim that they don't know why they were blocked or how to request an unblock is bogus. The reason given for their indef block is 'Removal of Content, POV pushing, addition of incorrect info, and a disruptive username' so their editing is not harmless. As I noted above, I wasn't the blocking admin, but I concur with the block, particularly given the rampant block evasion. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Do we need the semi protect on War in Afghanistan (2001–present) now that User:Mujahid1947 has been unblocked? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 08:15, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so - I've just removed it and the other related articles. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 09:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass prodding

I've just removed the prod templates from some of the articles you nominated for deletion in cases where there was a reasonable claim of notability and no material that would raise BLP concerns (beyond the lack of a reference). I'd suggest that you slow down and consider whether articles should go to AfD or take the time to look for sources rather than delete inoffensive articles on people who are probably notable. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Nick, these pages are getting mass-deleted, and not by me. Removing prod tags without improving the content does not improve the encyclopedia in any way. Please reconsider your haste actions on WP:BLP articles. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding prod tags without first seeing if it's possible to reference the content (including by chopping it back to a referenced stub or contacting the relevant Wikiproject) seems pretty unhelpful - deletion is meant to be a last resort, and not an easy way out. Articles about senior politicans and popular entertainers should not be nominated for deletion, and the use of prod templates rather than AfD seems perverse if the concern is that the person is notable but no-one is maintaining the article - if this is the case no-one is going to notice the prod and take action to fix the article, when this is a reasonable outcome to expect from an AfD of a notable person. I agree with most of your prod nominations I looked at (some of which seem to be for people for whom speedy deletion per CSD A7 would be appropriate), but applying this one size fits all approach is pretty unhelpful, especially as there is no urgent need to delete such inoffensive articles. Nick-D (talk) 11:27, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

On the contrary, prodding is certainly better than mass-deletion, which is what another admin is already doing. Many of the editors in the WP:AN/I thread you've just posted in proposed using prod instead. But you even oppose that. You're coming down on the wrong side of WP:BLP, Nick, and your mass reverts may end up in some sort of arbitation case. I again ask you to reconsider your hasty mass deprodding of "harmless" unsourced BLPs. I could understand if you were trying to improve these articles by adding sources, but you're not: you're just preventing clean-up of a major problem for the subjects and for Wikipedia, should it get sued for defamation. Please stop, Nick. Firsfron of Ronchester 11:35, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't threaten me or make baseless claims. The normal procedure for prod deletion is that any editor can remove a prod template if they disagree with the nomination, and this is what I've done (providing edit summaries to explain why in all cases). If you think that the articles I've de-prodded should be deleted, then the normal procedure is to take them to AfD and this is what you should do. There's no crisis, so please do calm down and use the usual procedures. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:46, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm very calm, Nick. I want you to take responsibility for the WP:BLP articles you've just de-prodded. Source them, verify their content, do something with them. Just mass-removing dozens of tags on unsourced BLPs doesn't help their subjects and it doesn't help Wikipedia. Please do something about the BLP problem, Nick: don't oppose efforts to rid the project of bad, unsourced material that has the potential to ruin real people's lives. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:03, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you're not being calm at all - you are making stuff up about me on ANI for instance. You're an admin (as am I), so you can speedy delete any BLPs which are clearly harmful and where there's no good version to revert to (something I've done myself on a number of occasions). Where this isn't the case the usual deletion processes apply: please use them. Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

I've speedy deleted many BLP articles, Nick. I'm asking you to take responsibility for the articles you mass-deprodded today. Source them, improve them, whatever. Just removing the tags won't help WP or their subjects. Firsfron of Ronchester 12:21, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Arbcom courtesy notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#BLP deletions and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, — Coffee // have a cup // ark // 05:41, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Pleh. You walked right into a minefield, dude. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:04, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

I support putting prods on BLPs that have existed for three years or more without being sourced. The prods have already generated some good responses. If any of them fall under MILHIST, I'm willing and able to help find sources for them so that they won't be deleted. Cla68 (talk) 06:16, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

This ArbCom case doesn't seem to have gone anywhere - good. What utter nonsense. Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I just saw that ArbCom basically endorsed this crusade in an interim decision. I normally agree with their decisions, but this is just silly. Nick-D (talk) 11:16, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

This AfD and unreferenced BLPs in General

Hi Nick. I saw this AfD, and was concerned by a few things. Firstly, there was some incivility, but that can really be dealt with separately. After the AfD was closed, this conversation took place. I was concerned about the deletion nominators use of AfD to improve an article rather than offer for deletion, which is, after all, AfD intended use. I was also concerned about the noms reluctance to look for references and add them before going to AfD. I noticed that you had commented on this and this similar occurences. I wanted to ask for more eyes, but didn't know who or where to ask for comment (lot of choices really!), and when I saw you were an admin I thought you'd be just the person to ask. Thanks. Dylanfromthenorth (talk) 05:44, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

There's now a request for comment open on whether unreferenced BLPs should be deleted, and that's probably the best forum to continue the discussion. I personally don't plan on getting closely involved: the people trying to mass delete articles don't seem to be very receptive to common sense (eg, that you at least check to see if someone is notable before nominating the article on them for deletion!). Nick-D (talk) 11:02, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I want to change my name

Please watch my talk page.And tell me that my new name(gameboy1947)is normal and tell me when my username change.I request on wikipedia change username yesterday but no response.I think like unblock service is slow so this service is also slow.So for now please dont block me for my name because i request to change username but they are slow, so thats not my fault. Sorry for my poor english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mujahid1947 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

A request(How can i update this page)

If you read this page.Their is a huge puzzle their espacally in starting of page.Esrtimate headline with small words and too much long explanation with different different refrences.And N/A, etc.Which is impossible for understand of a normal user. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_casualties_of_the_War_in_Afghanistan_%282001%E2%80%93present%29

Can i update the page with this only refrence. http://www.brookings.edu/foreign-policy/%7E/media/Files/Programs/FP/afghanistan%20index/index.pdf

I am now update that page.And after update tell me that page is much better or much worse.

Edit that headline is also a headche.

I cant update that pae because of unlimited puzzles.

The article is semi protected only - you should have no problems editing it. Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think he is having trouble with the wiki formatting in the article? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:20, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

User page quote

Nice quote. Need to add this to it: "And because they break all the rules, and you don't, they will always win!" :) - BilCat (talk) 04:48, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Indeed: they either wear you down through persistence or sheer weight of numbers ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding your oppose

One strategy that WMF chapter representatives are finding effective (in the UK, The Netherlands, and Sweden) is to show Wikipedia's featured pictures to librarians and museum curators, and say "Our heritage is being represented to the public through an American collection; you can do better." That featured designation makes a difference when the cultural institutions understand the Picture of the Day program and the traffic statistics for Wikipedia's main page. In the long run that's our best chance of coaxing better digitizations from Australian collections. Durova⁴⁰³ 21:29, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

I believe that Wikimedia Australia is in contact with the AWM and other major national institutions - the Australian War Memorial hosted the GLAM-WIKI conference last August, and their decision to clearly mark the copyright status of their online photos a few months later was very Wiki-friendly. I suspect that the basic problem is that it would cost the AWM money to post larger versions of their photos, and doing so would also end the revenue they make from selling full-size versions. The National Archives and National Library also have similar policies. I might drop Wikimedia Australia a line though to see if there have been any direct approaches and if so what the results have been - the AWM's collection includes many outstanding photos by Australia's most famous photographers of the first half of the 20th Century, so it's a potential FP goldmine. Nick-D (talk) 22:04, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, and from what your colleages at WMF Australia tell me the most receptive individuals on the institutional side who attended that conference also tended to be the youngest and most mobile. So the best contacts moved on to other jobs and the chapter needs to reestablish relationships. That was one of the specific reasons I undertook this restoration. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also this editorial which I coauthored with two Australian Wikimedians last July spells out some of the issues and alternatives. It does not necessarily lose income for an institution to cooperate with free culture, if they do it right. Bundesarchiv actually gained income. And examples such as the Coles Phillips restoration show that previously unsaleable items can be suitable for posters, calendars, etc. after a high quality restoration. This can be win-win, but we have to be smart and active about it. You might want to discuss this further with GerardM. He's the key individual who negotiated the Tropenmuseum exhibit, which made national news in The Netherlands and received a head of state visit from the president of Suriname. Durova⁴⁰³ 04:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for those leads. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Use of "Nazi Germany"

Nick, could you look at the Talk:List of aircraft carriers by country#German Reich is not Federal Republic of Germany discussion, and comment there? It concerns this edit and several others. I assume that this has been addressed my MILHIST or WPSHIPS before, and though you might know of the relevant guidelines or consensus. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 10:18, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Bill - I've commented there. There was also a recent discussion of this in the World War II article's talk page. It seems that some editors are attempting to push a POV that Nazi Germany was a totally separate entity from modern Germany, which I consider to be total nonsense at best and revisionism at worst. Nick-D (talk) 19:19, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Request to undelete userpage on HMAS Sydney (R17)

Thanks for your comments so far. However, the ship's company/airgroup question is starting to worry me, mainly because every work I look at gives a slighty different figure. Is there any chance you could undelete User:Saberwyn/HMAS Sydney III so I can figure out where I originally acquired the current figure from? -- saberwyn 10:30, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Done -MBK₀₀₄ 10:31, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn talkpage stalkers :P -- saberwyn 10:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Saber, do you want one of us to histmerge that into the Sydney article? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm indifferent either way. -- saberwyn 22:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that MBK! Nick-D (talk) 19:58, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

That darn Dutch 1913 design

I'm done adding information to it at long last; the only other thing I am considering is a table (I know, I know) of the weight distribution of the B&V, V and G designs (or maybe just G) between the hull, armor, engines, armament, fuel, and equipment. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:09, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I now think that a table would be a good idea: I find the technical language somewhat heavy going and this would be a good way to present the same info in a more reader-friendly fashion. The table needs to have a note saying that the info is limited to the designs for which records survive though - I can add this once you do up the table if you like. regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, here is what I was originally thinking: User:The_ed17/Sandbox#Table for Dutch 1913 battleship proposal. Not sure where to put a reference, but it's from Breyer p. 452 (I don't believe you can claim copyright over a reproduction of numbers, right? Because otherwise it's about 95% copyvio :/ )

As to your point, I realize it's heavy going. I think we could safely move the belt sentence into the notes, and we can also remove the protection % part as well (if we add the aforementioned table), which would make it a bit shorter. Think that would be enough? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 00:02, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I like that format, but the information on weight distribution is a bit dry - does your source include details like the ship dimensions, armour thickness, etc? Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

It has armor thicknesses for sure, but I'm not sure on the dimensions (I'm at home and can't check the source, as it is at university). I'll be back there on Sunday though. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 21:39, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Iowa class battleship

I've attempted to address some of the FAR comments made concerning the article, I would appreciate it if you could update your edits accordingly so I could figure out what still needs to be worked on. TomStar81 (Talk) 09:59, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Tom - I'll review this tomorrow (it's getting close to bed time here). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: The Dark Nebula

This page has been deleted by you despite the fact that I tried to notify Wikipedia that I am the creator & copyright holder of The Dark Nebula, thereby no copyright could possibly be infringed by me. I believe on that basis the article should be reinstated. I hope this is the right place to put this information as I have tried to follow Wikipedia Protocols but not being that Wiki-savvy apologise if this is not the correct forum. My user name is The Dark Nebula.

Best regards,

Tad Pietrzykowski, http://www.thedarknebula.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Dark Nebula (talk • contribs) 01:11, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

WT:FAC

You might want to check the proposal there. One of the provisions there would restrict you, and me too, and a lot of Australians. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 04:31, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've commented on the proposals I have views on. Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of non-flying squadrons

There are an awful lot of USAF non-flying squadron articles accumulating. I don't really think they're all notable. Would you support a test case AfD? Buckshot06 (talk) 04:20, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, definitely. Nick-D (talk) 04:23, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Done - your opinion welcome. Would you mind also give your opinion at the Field Army insignia AfD? Buckshot06 (talk) 05:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I jumped in on the Combat Camera discussion too, I'm combat Camera in the Marine Corps and it caught my eye. Can I help with anything for these articles or some of the Marine Corps ones? Marine79 (talk) 09:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

What they're most in need of is references to sources independent of the US military to establish their notability. If that's not possible, they could be redirected to a list (eg, List of United States Air Force combat camera squadrons) or article on the military's PR/historical units. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

possible copywright issue

I know this isn't a MILHIST issue but regarding a article I tagged for a copy and paste issue, Epitaph Two: Return, the author deleted my tags and said i should have left a message in the talk page instead of tagging the article. I selected a few random lines and got an exact match on www.scriptedtvfans.com . I have military firewall restrictions that won't let me on that site to see if they allow coping of their plot descriptions which would keep the author in the clear but that site is not even referenced in the article. I don't want to be a pain in the ass but I don't want that article to be full of plagiarism.Marine79 (talk) 09:33, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right - it was a straight copy and paste. I've removed the material and warned the editor who added it. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Please refer to talk page of said article. I have addressed the issues there. I will be restoring the article. Meowies (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Let us examine the time stamps of the article said to be in copyright violation. From the RSS Feed - http://www.scriptedtvfans.com/feed/:

"Dollhouse 1/29/10 “Epitaph Two: Return” Series Finale Episode Recap Sunday, 31 January 2010 5:35 AM" Article Created on Wikipedia: 14:11, 30 January 2010 Please note that the initial creation of the page was for a redirect link to List of Dollhouse episodes. All content was added at the above time.

I leave to you to decide whether to restore the article in question. Having said that, please understand that I have been responsible for creating ALL of the main articles for each episode, in the Dollhouse series, and it stands to reason I have NO REASON to copy and paste from a another site. Meowies (talk) 09:56, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Responded on Meowies talk page - the this appears to have been copied from Wikipedia rather than vice-versa. Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Should anons blank their talk page?

I had a short discussion about an edit with an anon on his talk page, and then I noticed that he blanked the page after it was concluded. I looked in the history and he had previously been warned about an unconstructive edit to a different page before. I know that editors are given a lot more freedom on their talk pages, but I frequently check an anon's talk page to see if they've been warned about stuff before when considering whether or not to report them. Should he be allowed to blank his talk page? AzureFury (talk | contribs) 21:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes they can - Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#User talk pages states that this is permitted, though removing a message acts as an indication that the editor has read it. As a tip, in almost all instances where an IP account has a pre-existing, but blank, talk page it's because they're removed previous warnings. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

In the case of Anons it's a bit more problematic though, since the person removing a warning might not be the person the warning was intended for. Taemyr (talk) 07:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

12d Model

Nick you have deleted my page on 12d Model. I have only just commenced this page and spent many hours on it only to have it removed by you without any constructive criticism or feedback. I had looked at other software programs and how their articles were written.

I feel that this particular subject does have a place in Wikipedia. Why would other software like Microstation, AutoCAD, HEC-RAS etc not be deleted, and other companies such as Autodesk and Bentley not be deleted either.

The information was factual that I had put up. It was technical and relevant to the civil engineering industry, in particular to people who would like to understand the types of software available in the industry.

Did you even read the article? and look at the other software I am referring to and tell me your thoughts.

I feel that a complete deletion was extreme, modifications would have been more constructive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Duo535 (talk • contribs) 07:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

It was nothing but advertising for this software, complete with the positive case studies from the software's website. Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: No. 1 Wing RAAF

You're welcome. I make an honest effort to read through the entire article to catch these little things in hopes that the improves that come out increase the chances of an article gaining an FA star with a greater degree of ease. TomStar81 (Talk) 12:47, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

5/7 RAR article

Hi Nick, recent edits on 5th/7th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment seem to be getting out of hand. I'd welcome your input if you have the time. Sorry to drag you into this, but it seems to be getting silly and I'm not sure I'm handling things right. I want to encourage User:Bondigold, however, I don't seem to be getting anywhere. Two up, one back is the template solution so maybe that would work here? — AustralianRupert (talk) 22:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rupert, I've got this article on my watchlist, and thought that you were handling it well. The comments by that editor are pretty awful though - I see that Tom has warned them. I've posted on their talk page suggesting a couple of sources they could draw on. Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers, Nick. I appreciate it. — AustralianRupert (talk) 09:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Davrosz and Republicanism in Australia

Nick-D - Some time ago you protected Republicanism in Australia for one week in the hopes that there'd be some resolution to an, as you put it, "slow-paced edit war." In that time, the other user involved, Davrosz (talk · contribs), was missing in action from Wikipedia, and, now that the protection has expired, is back to make his usual revert. He still refuses to acknowledge either the notes I left at his talk page or the discussion you started at Talk:Republicanism in Australia, and seems to be a single purpose account. Frankly, I'm unfamiliar with what to do with an edit warrior such as Davrosz. Should he be reported at WP:AN3, despite not breaching WP:3R? Could you advise? Thanks. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 13:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I've left a warning on that editor's talk page asking them to participate in the discussion. I don't think that the level of edit warfare is sufficient to justify sterner action at present. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVII (January 2010)

The January 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandal block request

Nick, would you mind putting the author of this unfunny vandalism out of my misery? This IP is poart of a series of IP vandalism edits to the DC-10 ("Death Cruiser") and MD-11 (Mega Death) pages. Thanks! - BilCat (talk) 08:18, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

:Hi Bill - User:Materialscientist has beaten me to it, and the vandal has been blocked for 31 hours. I've watchlisted the articles though in case they come back. As a random aside, I've only flown in a DC-10 once (between Houston and San Francisco during a trip to the US), but I thought it was the second worst aircraft I've ever traveled on (the United Airlines 747 which took me across the Pacific on that trip has proven impossible to beat!). Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Allied submarines

On the politics, it's opinion, so not added... As for the formatting, I don't know where that's coming from; looks like the browser is screwing it up, or maybe the Mac is... (It just started...) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Apparently it was a software update issue... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:05, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 1 Wing RAAF

On February 6, 2010, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article No. 1 Wing RAAF, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how, quick check ) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Materialscientist (talk) 00:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

23prootie

Hi Nick. Since you been involved with 23prootie a lot, would you mind examining this user, Reincarnata (talk · contribs) so I can get a second opinion? Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 04:10, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Based on their contributions it appears that they're 23prootie, and I've blocked them. Nick-D (talk) 21:56, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 21:59, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries - thanks for reporting them. Nick-D (talk) 22:05, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

tks for all you do!!

This editor is a
Senior Editor
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

...your work here is much appreciated!!....Buzzzsherman (talk) 07:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you - that's very kind. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

United States Forces casualties in the war in Afghanistan

I update this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Forces_casualties_in_the_war_in_Afghanistan#Fatalities_by_country_wise And making the table small and easier.I think that i should remove that table and write them as normal without table.Tell me your sugession. And please dont undo my update on that page because previos table is impossible to understand.Too much big tablle with a lot of countries and a lot of puzzle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 19:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Afghan security forces fatality reports in Afghanistan

I update this page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Afghan_security_forces_fatality_reports_in_Afghanistan

I update the totals casualties in 2010.Please do not undo my update because i count the casualties several times and then i update the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gameboy1947 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

refs

i will do later. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 21:10, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

this are the primary sources which are used by the secondary source. should i list the secondary source? in this cases the secondary source is only citing the primary source and not interpreting thats why i list the primary source , its the same. u want the secondary source ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 09:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

in this case the historian is only looking on the primary source and copying what he reads. thats why i thought i can list the primary source instead of listing the guy who copied the primary source. thats the big problem of many bad normandy articles. the editors there cite 20 unimportant historian who all cite the same wrong primary source, so u can support wrong facts.... . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 18:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Philippines–Romania relations has been nominated for deletion again here

You are being notified because you participated in a previous Afd regarding this article, either at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Argentina–Singapore_relations or at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Philippines–Romania relations, and you deserve a chance to weigh in on this article once again. --Cdogsimmons (talk) 23:59, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Wings of the RAAF

Seen your hard work on these formations. I talked to a RAAF (wing commander?) at an airshow at Ohakea in the 1980s or in the 1990s, (probably 1990s), and he said there were a number of contingency wings. I believe they're 'composite,' 'mobilization-only,' maybe along the lines of the 366th Wing if they had to assemble it in a hurry. 90-series numbers is my memory. Maybe No. 96 Wing RAAF may be among them. They may have used one or two of the them under the JFACC for Timor. Anyway, you'd probably have to write to the RAAF, make an official request, and then upload the letter to show the source. Also, the system may have changed!! Just thought you ought to know though. Cheers / Essayons Buckshot06 (talk) 01:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

That's a good call, Buckshot, though Nick may have already caught a number of them. No. 90 Wing, for instance, was a composite wing formed in 1950 for the Malayan Emergency to try and ensure our air contringent operated with a degree of autonomy, rather than being spread through other Allied groups. Another point, however, is that the support units for major RAAF bases have also been called wings, e.g. Base Wing Richmond (at other times they've been numbered along the lines of the associated operational wing, e.g. 581 Wing for Williamtown, but they're currently called Combat Support Units or some such). Since it appears you're not restricting this to operational/flying wings only, you might want to consider such units as well. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments gents. The list certainly isn't complete (I can't remember the template to be used to mark this), but it includes all the wings whose existence I can verify from the references on the RAAF I own. The air base wings are a significant omission, and I think that there have also been some maintenance wings in the 400/500 series. I suspect that there were also a lot more WW2-era wings than got mentioned in the official history (the 20-series wings were base wings at major bases, so I'm sure that there were more than two of them!). On a similar topic, I think that I've read that one of the RAAF's wing HQs deployed to the Middle East during the first part of the Iraq War, but can't remember where I saw this. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Urgent

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Coordinators#Major_milmos_incident.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TomStar81 (Talk) 06:42, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

HMAS Australia

Nick, I've added the technical stuff and am thinking about putting it up for GA with you as a co-nom since you did the basic work, but thought that you might want to give it a read through for style, consistency, etc. And if you're aware of anything that describes her activities post-Jutland that would be great, because the official history doesn't have anything of significance.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Saberwyn is actually the editor who's done the most to improve this article - my contributions to date have been rather limited, so he deserves the co-nom, not me. Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

Hmm, you might try a very short softblock on 119.152.0.0/18 (block range · block log (global) · WHOIS (partial)) (6629 addresses), although I'm not sure if that'll catch them all, don't really want to go much wider than that though (use your own discretion >.>). Also note: 119.152.25.99. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 22:56, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't know how to calculate IP ranges for range blocks, but I've blocked the range you suggested and the above account. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, lets see how this plays out now. Kindest regards, Spitfire^Tally-ho! 23:01, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Iraq War Insurgent Casualties

Why do you keep changing my 2010 count back to 2007? It is a reliable source. Yours is outdated! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.70.171 (talk) 01:32, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

ps i added 4 more sources also so please do not change back! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.70.171 (talk) 02:36, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Those are not reliable sources - please do take the time to review WP:RS and stop adding references to self-published websites Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Taliban Casualties

I agree with your logic on deleting the final count but my 2008 source in from official DOD estimates. Do not remove it. That is as good of a source as your going to get as to receiving a accurate enemy death count! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.71.50 (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

need help

u saw my bad english so maybe u can help me and improve my text Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It would be much better if you took the time to write it so that other editors didn't need to fix your text up. Nick-D (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Noted

Point taken. I'm taking a break from Kursk.. Dapi89 (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Copyright Cleanup.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

battle of kursk

i responed to the accusations, i would appreciate when u take part on the discussion Blablaaa (talk) 16:16, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Mary Rose at FAC

Since you have been an active commentator, reviewer or editor of the article Mary Rose, I'd like to announce that it's been nominated for featured article status. The nomination can be found at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Mary Rose/archive1. I would very much appreciate your comments, suggestions for improvement or support of the nomination.

Peter ^Isotalo 23:37, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I'll look in on the nomination. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh thanks

Thanks for info. I had hard time comparing official number vs his summed up number. Kadrun (talk) 07:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Based on their history their number is probably something they made up themselves. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

About HoppingHare

Seems she will never stop disruption in Wikipedia, and she's really really mad at us. She's doing everything like personal attack there and there. I suggest global block? She's accusing every bit of us, like she's saying there's a conspiracy happening. (Don't know how I get involved). Oh, by the way, both links to the Tagalog Wikipedia. I don't know if you understand Tagalog, but I am very happy to assist you in understanding it. :)--JL 09 ^_q?c 08:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't read Tagalog and wasn't able to find an internet translator - what are they posting? He/she (is it a she?) has repeatedly claimed to be the victim of a conspiracy against editors from outside the first world here (along with being the victim of an Australian cabal at one stage), so at least they're consistent ;) I agree that global blocks would be in order, though I'm not sure how to request one. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Nick, the GB page says that it is applied by stewards, so why not ask one? -MBK₀₀₄ 19:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The requests board at Meta requires their IP address, which I don't know (other than its dynamic - unfortunately). Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He/she seems to be mad at us for opposing in his RfA. I added a comment too. I thought I was being considerate, but apparently, he/she didn't like my comment. Elockid ^(Talk·_Contribs) 18:54, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It looks like the RfA was going nowhere anyway (which is just as well!). I feel sorry for the Tl.wiki people - I've heard that they suffer from a high level of vandalism. Nick-D (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

This user is slowly destroying the article and I'm finding it impossible to work with him. He's missusing sources and clearly driving an agenda. User:Hohum seems quite happy to sit by and do nothing, despite pointing out some of the same things (misquoting for one). I'm tempted just to leave the article altogether, and then it will descend into something akin to a German propaganda newsreal about how many Soviet tanks the Tigers wiped out. Also there is the Operation Bagration page, he is doing the same thing with casualties there - doubling up sources he has not seen. Dapi89 (talk) 11:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

you re lieing i pointed out on kursk discussion page. iam open to discuss every edit i make, iam open to dicuss every source. u are simply pushing for russian point of view. its everything on the discussion page. instead of deleting everything u wrote i only mixed german POV and russian POV . u are simply saying russian were cool despite their enormous losses of life and tanks. nick i would appriciate your help for the kursk dicussion Blablaaa (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Please note more gross incvility in the above and here and here - Apparently I'm faking sources. I have reverted him in the latests edit as his citations are not citations at all, and once again have been stripped out of other books he has not seen. Dapi89 (talk) 17:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

now u want me blocked? it is incivil when i say that u lie? please look discussion page of "battle of kursk" for further informations. the sources u added are faked because the exlude the steppefront. this is explain on the battle of kursk page too...Blablaaa (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you Nick-D

Please read my reply of your message on this page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AzureFury#My_user_again_blocked Please tell me is my message is right or wrong.And really this time i write the message honestly.I really first want to understand rules, then improve my english and then i edit any article.This time i am really serious about this.

Nick-D, i want a help from you.It doesnt related to wikipedia.

I explain, now i mostly go to my medical store alongwith my father.As now-a-days i am interested in medicines.But my father is not expert in medicines.So we use a book named Redbook which contains all information about medicines but that book takes 10-20 seconds to search a medicine.As customer is always in hurry so he disturb with this searching.So i search on internet and find this amazing most easiest, one click and all infrormation website.

• http://epharmaguide.com/RBOnline/Default.aspx

But after a weeks our internet will cut off, befor cut off we want that software, website or whatever it is.Please tell me any link where i can download that.Or tell me any software which download that website in fast speed.I already use a website downloader software(httrack) but that is too much slow after 8 hours 900Mb (my internet speed is 1mb which means approx. 3gb in 8 hours).And then load shedding and when light returns i cant resume that because no resume facility in that software.Please check that software.Maybe their is any resume facility in that software.If so then please help as early as possible. I just want that website either in software style or in website style or in any other style.I want to download that thing which is really too much important for us.Please help.119.152.154.240 (talk) 22:32, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know anything about that I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you know any software which is used to download a whole entire website.116.71.174.57 (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

No, and this isn't the right website to be trying to find that out - try Google. Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

I believe I have an agreement now. Can I request an unblock I want to seize on this progress. Dapi89 (talk) 13:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC) Please see our conversation on User talk:Blablaaa's talk page. I have no interest in looking like the bad guy. Dapi89 (talk) 13:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

I just unblocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs), per the agreement reached between him and Dapi89. If you feel I missed something in my reasoning, I won't consider reinstating the block to be wheel warring. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As Dapi89 was the main target of Blablaaa's abuse, unblocking them after they struck a deal to work constructively with Dapi89 seems reasonable to me. I'll keep an eye on the situation though. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Julia Gillard

Can you please actually clarify your concerns or edit alledged weasel words int he Julia Gillard article before simply removing an entire section of the article when there is an ongoing discussion attempting to resolve it Rotovia (talk) 13:09, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

No. 1 Wing RAAF

Hi mate, you about ready to take this to FAC...?! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny you should ask... I just logged on to copy edit the article and nominate it. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Great minds... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The FAC is now live at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/No. 1 Wing RAAF/archive1 Nick-D (talk) 05:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

On a similar tangent, is there a reason you never took Australian light destroyer project to FAC? -MBK₀₀₄ 05:04, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit worried about whether it's comprehensive enough - while it includes just about everything which I think has been published on the project, its still a bit sketchy. What do you think? Nick-D (talk) 05:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems comprehensive enough to me, but perhaps it would be beneficial to nom as a GA first. GA and A can coexist, so it would get an uninvolved and new set of eyes on the article (since I reviewed it at ACR). -MBK₀₀₄ 07:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Service Flying Training Schools

Nick, Thought you might like this page, http://mallala.nowandthen.net.au/index.php?title=RAAF_No._6_Service_Flight_Training_School. Regards Newm30 (talk) 07:47, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Noticed that you pulled image from the article. I also notice after looking at pics of Wirraways on Commons when I noticed that the planes in this pic are the same as . Hmmm??? Regards Newm30 (talk) 01:49, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah; it seems that the AWM wrongly labeled that photo as being from 1943 when it was actually from 1941... Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:22, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

self-indictment

[[4]] maybe only a short block ? Blablaaa (talk) 19:36, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia discussion pages are not chat rooms or discussion forums. While that exchange reflects poorly on both you and EnigmaMcmxc, I don't see anything which justifies a block unless Keith objects to his talk page being used for that kind of nonsense discussion. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong

I have a hunch about this guy → 91.55.97.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS), I think he is related to 91.55.112.142 (talk • contribs • info • WHOIS) and he was caught thrice screwing the C-135 Stratolifter article which was promptly reverted by BilCat (talk · contribs). Also, his current request for review to unblock seem to be pointing towards further trolling too. Regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, he's just admitted being that editor as part of a request to be unblocked at User talk:91.55.97.142. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

• I knew it~! And now, a word from our sponsor... "he who smelt it, dealt it". Thanks and cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 23:20, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

HMS Lion (1910)

Can you see if my recent revisions to this article are enough to satisfy your concerns with its late-war history?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:39, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

I've responded at the FAC. Nick-D (talk) 23:14, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

M2A2 howitzer at the AWM

Thanks Nick for the pics. I have placed one upon the page 102nd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery. Thanks for your efforts, therefore this in order.

		The Photographer's Barnstar
		For his esteemed dedication, devotion and initive in venturing out in order to capture File:105mm gun AWM1.JPG with a Canon DIGITAL IXUS 80 IS, I am please to bestow the Photographer's Barnstar upon Nick-D as a token of my appreciation. Cheers, User:Newm30 (talk) 06:08, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

AN/I

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Abuse_of_Admin_Privileges_by_User:Nick-D_and_User:Blueboy96 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.55.83.124 (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for the March 2010 Military history Project Coordinator elections now open!

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 8 March 2010! More information on coordinatorship may be found on the coordinator academy course and in the responsibilities section on the coordinator page.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:06, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Golden Wiki
		Thank you very much, Nick, for your hard work over the last two years as a Milhist coordinator. I have been consistently impressed by your intellectual rigor and honesty, as well as your sometimes steely determination to do the right thing. It's a cliché to say so but it really has been a privilege and a pleasure to work alongside you. With best wishes in your new role,  Roger Davies talk 17:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Roger. That would be a massive compliment from anyone, and is particularly welcome coming from you. Nick-D (talk) 06:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

Hey Nick, just asking here... is this kind of reference allowed? I mean, it's in Italian so we can't really verify it. Plus, I'm sure I've read this passage somewhere before but it doesn't register on me right now but one thing is for sure... what the IP editor wrote is IMO a verbatim copy of the text from that very book I can't recall! I have reverted the text a few times now, so there's a possibility of me committing 3RR here if I revert it again for the lack of clear WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with foreign-language sources per-se, though English-language sources are preferred when available (particularly for topics about English speaking countries). I just searched for chunks of that text in Google and Google books but didn't get any direct hits so there's not much I can do about it being a copyvio unless you can remember where you saw it I'm afraid. The vague and informal tone isn't very encyclopedic in my view though, and I agree that it doesn't appear to be something which a new editor would write themselves, particularly as it appears that they're from a non-English speaking background. One option could be to re-write the material to remove any potential copyright violations. The material is sourced to an Italian defence magazine, and could easily be an extract from some other source or a reprint from another magazine, as is common in the defence magazine trade. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Air Force - persistent bad sourcing.

Hello. Hopefully you can provide some help. An editor on People's Liberation Army Air Force (and a few other Chinese military related topics), has added unreliable sources many times over the last couple of months. He ignored the escalating warnings on his talk page, and hasn't said much substantive on article talk pages. When he has edited, he appears to have a decent command of English, so I don't think the lack of communication is from lack of language skills. He has also, however, provided some sources which appear to be better than marginal, which have been kept - so he is adding some useful content. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've given them a final warning - this looks appropriate to me, as some of their contributions are useful. Can you please let me know if they continue this behavior? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, once more: This edit (~30 references, mostly duplicates), among several sites which I have suspicion of being self published, some fairly clearly are:

• [5] - translated - "Source: CHN Strong Nation Forum"
• [6] - translated - "Source: Military Forum - Sina type: Military News"

The rest don't look much like news sites - more like social sites, but I can't be sure. (Hohum ^@) 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked them for 31 hours. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Hohum... you got it right, those are what we would call BBS (Bulletin Board Services) website, no different from Forum. Those two, along with QianLong are typical Chinese websites with forum rooms discussing Chinese military matters. Personally, even though I can understand what they are saying, I find them a lot like tabloids at times... too much hearsay and rumours flying around in them, typically by bored teenagers/workers/uni-students studying overseas. Lacks credibility, totally. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly he's at it again at various Chinese military related articles. [7], [8], [9], and [10] - BBS, self published sources, and a wiki. He doesn't reply on his talk page or the article talk pages. (Hohum ^@) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for a week Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The carrier Sydney - ready for A-class?

As the only person who commented at the HMAS Sydney (R17) peer review, do you think the article is ready for a run at A-class? -- saberwyn 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's easily A class in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

TPS'ing, agreed with Nick. I love the referencing, but one question: for ref 12 ("Cooper, in The Royal Australian Navy, opp. p. 160"), what is the "opp." for? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposite...the cited page is an unnumbered foldout. -- saberwyn 09:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes sense now that you say it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent talkpage comments

Sorry Nick, i shall try to keep it more civil from now on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

current conversation

dont block please, i dont want to disrupte wiki or something else, i didnt edited the article, i tried to explain my future edits before. same on kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

problem

i dont want to sound like a kid but before i do anything wrong. whats your advice at this situation. i know u read my conversations so u have an opinion. conversation is fruitless. what now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation is not fruitless. Stay calm, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, keeping an open mind at all times. It would be helpful if you didn't create large numbers of discussions at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

okBlablaaa (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

and now?Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

to the conversation. Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which of the several conversations you currently have going which you're referring to here or what the issue is. Please stop wasting my time. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

when i insisted on correct casualties figures before than editors explained me that all range of reliable historians should be included, now on normandy article another editor explains me that one figure is correct before more historians support this . i changed my "style" and wanted to establish this reliable range for charnwood... see my talk page Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The book by Wood appears to be a collection of wartime German reports in which British casualties could have only been estimated, and as such is basically a primary source. Per WP:PSTS Wikipedia articles generally shouldn't use primary sources, particularly when reliable secondary sources are available, as is clearly the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i can copy the pages and upload on a imagehoster for a short while showing that glantz did not mean this. i see no other possibility my words are simply not enough i guess :-( Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hello. again i dont want to sound like a child but i dont want to make it false. i reverted somebody who reverted me, i gave detailed information why. i also gave information for my first edit. this was not noticed. the version which i reverted includes misquoting for example so i think its correct. i hope this was ok, when it will reverted again i will not revert to avoid edit warring. Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please tell me if i waste your time, i was reverted again and dont want to edit war now. what can i do i explained on talk page and on the user talk page. i can give exact statement which show the statement is a misquote. i added a cited table with strenght numbers which is deleted two. what shall i do now. Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it, of course. You should know this by now. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah sure i discussed it so often i explained it so often. i copied text from books to show whats wrong. but everything is reverted. i added a table with sourced numbers but its deleted, and now i have to wait until he says its ok ? he misquoted an historians, when he accused me of doing this u asked for example, so now i say the same, are u interessted in explanation? i didnt want to bring him problems i told no admin... Blablaaa (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

it costs me more time to explain my edits and search for help than editing the article. i ordered the newst book of glantz had have his newstes numbers here and the old numbers are wrong but i cant add because i get a edit war then. u losing time too. i see exactly that the article now dont says what glantz says but i can edit even after i explaind 7 times with hundreds of words and quotes .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I own When Titans Clashed and Kursk by David Glantz and Jonathon Houses, and the references appear accurate, though some of the material cited to pp. 175–176 of When Titans Clashed refers to the entire second half of 1943 (including Kursk) rather than just the Battle of Kursk. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes ok and i have his newest kursk which has a chapter for the fialure of zitadelle and hes saying numerical superiority. and by the way i never disputed glantz says "often exaggerated numerical superiority" , but taking this out of a greater context and saying he disputes frieser is misquoting because glantz never says without superior numbers soviet had won. he grabed a statement of glantz and formed an opinion which is contradting his newest book and with his final exact statement so the reader can jugde himself.. even before i was blocked for a week i explained this on his page he did not respond , i repeat myself over and over. . and his book when titan clash is not perfectly up to date he didnt count steppe front now he does. so whats now i explained this glantz never says numbers werent improtant but the text now tries to imply. i dont even mention that glantz updates his 320 lost tanks on prokorovka. now i have to wait that he acceptes my changed regardless i have the most recent literatur and explained everything. can i rebuild the table without doing edit warring is this ok for u ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

because when i edited the sandbox he told me what i have to edit first what i have to do, i didnt knew that i have to follow somebody, nevertheless i did and it was disappointing result for me, u can check if u want. and yes it sounds odd when i ask if i can edit the table, but i dont want to be blocked again because somebody says then this is 3RR. i have the book in front of me and see misquoting and wrong statement and cant changed because i need the permission to edit, by the same user who did the "misquoting". that zaloga and overy are not even talking about kursk ( like i explained, like i explained everything ) doesnt madder i see. misquoting too... that frieser points 3,4 and 5 are deleted while sources doesnt madder too. all my edits are reverted and the user has gone to bed i cant edit because i will get blocked than. nice move of him, his last edit is a complete revert of me. maybe u remember , its not the first that i got maximum reverted regardless what edits were done. and now i ask u as admin again can i make the table to improve the article battle of kursk without getting blocked for breaching 3RR ? by the way its unpleasent for me to stalk your talk page and annoy u with such unimprotant **** but my options are limited, sorry.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• ":I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? "

i think there is no real dispute. the article is quoting an opinion of an historian but not correct, thats no content dispute this is false and not allowed on wiki i guess. i think even a email of mister glantz himself would be not enought argument... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline for working on Wikipedia articles. As I and several other editors have suggested to you previously; slow down, stop creating large numbers of discussions, acknowledge that different reliable sources reach different conclusions and work with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i create discussions to explain myself and solve disputes , other editors dont do this. i create discussion before edtis so that everyone can check why i do this. and no in this particular case the sources dont differ somebody misquoted. he avoids the discussion for every neutral reader its obvious why he avoids answering the question. i didnt want to accuse him but here it comes.

the battle of kursk article quotes Glantz with saying this:

• "On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"( i added big letters)

and no look of glantz exact words Page 249:

• "Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies"

this is the same what i have written before and sourced with Frieser, he deleted and put "his" version in it. hes citing glantz but glantz is not saying anything like this. arcoding to losses, the soviet armies lost hundred of tanks against the 2 SS Divisions. i explained this more than one time but i will be reverted when i change this in the article. its the same editor . Blablaaa (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

only as addition here glantz final statement about the whole battle of kursk, its the end of book:

• "Red Army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany"

regarding the number issue. i told this dapi before he ignored... Blablaaa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comment about not adjudicating your dispute. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand. i dont want to be the guy who annoys all. i will let the issue of his misquoting. iam not sure how wiki normally deals with people who cite reliable historians and creat their own statements which are not supported by this historian . i explainded here on an admin page and its archived. i will no longer edit against this misquoting to avoide problems. i thank your for taking time to respond. Guten Tag Blablaaa (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the text, and page 170 of When Titans Clashed says exactly what the article text referenced to it states (the page number had been entered as page 70 rather than 170), so your claim that the source has been misrepresented is clearly baseless. The subsequent pages of The Battle of Kursk also describe how Soviet units eventually pushed the Germans away from Kharkov and liberated the city, so it would appear that you're cherry picking sections of the book. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

nonsense iam not cherry picking i can copy the book page. nevertheless his most recent book says what i wrote, do u want a picture of the site? when this really is there that its only a good proof for my concerns about the reliabilty of "when titans clashed" u can look the board for reliable sources. everything i disputed is not longer in his newer book. funny is that i already expressed my concers about this book weeks ago and this exampls only highlights how glantz changed his sources. and i really doubt that glantz in his older book not even mentions that the two soviet armies were destroyed. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

and i repeat myself, i claim the text now doesnt fit with Glantz opinion of his newest book. and when i see that the articles says something totally different than its high likly that the user misquotes rather the historian changes his opinion180 degree. this is not my fault. Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

page 249: "MEETING ENGAGEMENT AT BOGODUKHOV

• "On 12-13 august , three combar groups of Totenkopf were finally able to conduct a oncerted attack against the by now overextended forward detachments of the 1st Tank Army, which had severed German rail communications with Kharkov. Katukov lost 100 tanks when three of his forward detachments were sourounded , although some of the soviet troops escaped on foot. Yet unlike previous german counterattacks, this success did not cause the red units to collaps and withdraw. Instead, the 6th Guards army, reinforced by the 5th guards mechanized corps of the 5th Tank army, counterattacked totenkopf on the 13th, penetrating to vysokopole, another small village located on the key Kharkov- Poltava rail line, along which vital german reserves were moving to reinforce the Kharkov defense. At the same time, elements of Das reich and wiking launched a concerted attack on the weakend elements of of the 1st tank army south of bogodukhov, reaching almost to the town itself. Rotmistrov committed the remaining two tank corps of his 5th guards tank army to extricate Katukov. for three days the opposing forces maneuvered around bododukhov, while tank strenght of both Katukov and Rotmistrov declined alarmingly .( here he puts a note, the two tank armies lost about 800 tanks , only my opinion, interesting who the red army can lose so much tanks against some ss battlegroupds constinng of less than 100 tanks. ) Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies. ( here break new block )

• "While burning german and soviet tanks( my opinion: nice who the author not mentions that german lost some tanks and soviet hundreds) littered the landscape around bododukhov, the soviet advance on kharkov continued inexorable..." now he explains kharkov. u can take a map and look were these both towns are, to different settings. this is everything he says about the battle around bogodukhov, i hope u see now. Blablaaa (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D and Blablaaa, excuse me for butting in. I wonder if this is a case where a note (nb type) could be added to the article pointing out differing sourced viewpoints (perhaps even from the same historian) regarding the engagement in question? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem another opinion is good. the older statement is out of a book which deals with a much larger time frame. ten years later he wrote a new book especially dealing with kursk, so the statement now is much more detailed and maybe he changed is opinion. if u are interessted u can check the reliable soure board. i explained my concerns about "when titans clashed" then i bought glantz most recent book and see everything what i doubted is changed. for example numbers. so i cant see a reason to include his older views which are obvious more influenced by semi good primary sources. and his newer books is much more like Friesers work. Blablaaa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this, p. 252:

Although Soviet forces failed to destroy the German Fourth Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf in the Belgorod-Khar'kov operation, they added insult to German Citadel injuries and subjected the Wehrmacht to a blood-letting that it could no longer withstand. German infantry divisions eroded to mere shadows of their former selves. The 255th and 57th Infatry Divisions emerged from the operation with 3,336 and 1,791 mean respectively. The 322nd was reduced to 322 men. One regiment from the 112th Infantry Divison had one officer and 45 men.

• 11 Panzer Divison reduced to 820 Panzer Grenadiers, 15 tanks and 4 assault guns.
• 19 panzer Division - 760 and just 7 tanks

The SS Panzer grenadier divisions fared somewhat better but were heavily damaged. By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns.

That, I believe puts things into better perspective. Blablaaa mentions none of that - just 3 pages down the line. Dapi89 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

omg dapi u call the destruction of hundreds of russian tanks a minute engagement, a brief engegament ^^. your knowledge of this battle is based on a 15 years old book which has so many errors that even the author updated it multiple times. why should i mention the german generals when i talk about this counterattack. what a nonsense. and to support the picking argument i copied the whole text lol. and while u talk about cherrypicking u bring a german division which was heavly mauled ....... Blablaaa (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns." lol this division banged two soviet Tank ARMIES and had 116 afv'S left. ^^Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

u list casualties of single germna divisions, while all know soviet suffered always much heavier losses, 7:1 tanks and 4:1 in men . where is your logic dapi, where? Blablaaa (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for getting in, but 7:1 loss ratio was simply not possible in 1943. No matter how hard it tried, in 1943 USSR made only 3 times more tanks than Germany, so unless the source explains the common sense discrepancy here (did Red Army advanced tankless for the rest of the year? was there in 1943 another major battle with the opposite tank loss ratio to offset Kursk?), the 7:1 ratio mentioned simply indicates to me different approaches of counting losses for both sides. Dimawik (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

glantz says at least 5:1 ratio, frieser says 8:1. the different counting of losses is not the reason in 43 the tanks losses proportions were very high on the whole front. germans maybe counted losses in a battle a bit strange but not over months, and the statistics for months show very high tank loss ratio in 43. dont forget in 43 tiger started to have major impact. Soviet lost 6000 tanks on kursk thats 3 times the german tank strenght on the entire front.....And german did no only build tanks for eastern front....

Concur. I've made comments to this effect before, but casualty and loss figures for many battles are notoriously disputed. What if one side knocks out a tank but happens to be the side that retired from the battlefield? They chalk up one enemy loss. The other side, meanwhile, may recover the tank and have it back in fighting order in several days -- a common enough occurrence in the Second World War. Those of us who are students of military history understand this, but casual readers probably will not. How many of the vehicle losses figures for any armored battles account for recovery and repair -- I'd bet most use period reports, and that the better estimates attempt to locate accurate inventories of a unit's vehicles just before and after a given battle as a check on the unit's reports. One approach is to select what appears to be an overall solid source for a loss citation, but to include other loss citations as information notes to the article. To my way of thinking, this is probably the best way to inform casual readers of how loosey-goosey these figures can be. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

my simple opinion about this: The wehrmacht had 50,000 tanks and assault guns and self propelled artillery. this includes tanks I and II, this tanks were not even destroyed in battle thousand were pulled out of the line. same with panzer38. multiple 1000 tanks of germany were staying around at the end of the war. so the lost in combat is maybe 40.000 ???. than we see that heavy tank battalions( all tigers I and tiger II) had up to 50% mobility kills and panther examintions on western front showed that more than 50% of this tanks were destroyed by crew or abandoned. if we say 40$ mobility kills ( only as example ) , than we have ~25,000 german combat losses. soviet lost 100.000 ( not alle combat losses ) and western allied 15´.000-20.000 ( ?). so we see the german combat ratio was extremly high, and on 43 the german were able to recover most of the light damaged tanks so there were only combat losses. and when we think that in 43 the red army had no counter for tiger, the 6:1 or 7:1 or maybe 5:1 fits perfect.Dimawik u should not forget that germany, even when they didnt used them, had thousands tanks in western europe italy and so on. according to archivs of both armies the germans lost 1,331 tanks in july and august ( this is the overall figure and so their is no "strange" counting , all damaged which were abonded while retreat are already included) , soviets reported show 9,294 tanks lost for this two months, makes 7:1. but all tiger and other heavy machienes were in the kursk sector, so the ratio here is propably higher... Blablaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe we start now improving the article and discussing valid points ?Blablaaa (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs) for a month for reasons explained on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if discussions of the Battle of Kursk article could be continued on that article's talk page rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nick-D's Day!

User:Nick-D has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nick-D's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nick-D! Peace, Rlevse 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Achoo~! I know, I know... but its just my nose being sensitive here... anyway, happy your day~! ;P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai

Since I am just working from sources, I admit that I may have been in error regarding Pitoe Airdrome. Or it may be a matter of semantics (not to be Clintonesque, but it might boil down to a definition of "began construction"). However, my source was photostats of orders to the 38th Bomb Group, which had a mission of spraying Pitoe with DDT on the first two days of the operation. The Frag Order issued by V Bomber Command at 2100 of 9-14-44 to its groups read in part:TWO ROGERS CALL BATMAN SPRAY PITOE AIRDROME AREA TOT 1100/I, followed at 2240 by the Field Order:TWO SQ, 12 B-25 (38TH BG) CONDUCT SPRAY MISSION PITOE AIRDROME AREA 15 SEPTEMBER. The final mission report of the 38BG S-2 sent 1519 on 9-15-44 reported: PITOE STRIP IS OVERGROWN WITH NEW BRUSH TO A HEIGHT OF 4 TO 6 FEET., and on the second mission on 9-16: EQUIPMENT ON SOUTHWEST END OF PITOE STRIP BUT WORK HAD NOT YET BEGUN. TWO NEW ROADS FROM RED BEACH TO PITOE STRIP. I drew the conclusion that Pitoe had been begun by the Japanese quite some time before the landings, cleared to some extent, but that work on the strip had been suspended for some time. The 38th itself moved into Pitoe on or about October 15 and flew its first combat mission from there on October 19. Cheers.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources I found (and used in the article) stated that while the Allies originally intended to complete the abandoned Japanese airstrip, this didn't go ahead as it's flight paths would have caused problems with the airstrips which were built from scratch and designated Pitoe and Wama dromes. I'd guess that the 'Pitoe Strip' referred to in the records you've found was the uncompleted Japanese air strip as the sources I've found didn't mention any other attempts to build an airstrip on the island prior to the Allied invasion and the pilots' description of its status is in line with how its described in the works I consulted. The Allied Pitoe Drome was opened on about 17 October, so it's probably the one the 38th Bomb Group flew from. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R

Hi Nick, given your comments about getting good sources recently, and recentism as well, could you look at the last entry on that page. You could probably explain the recentism thing more rigorously than I could YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:TFA/R. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi security forces

Would you mind reviewing the last few edits to this page, and giving me your view on (a) whether the tags at the top are warranted, (b) if so, what should I do about it, (c) suggestions on further improvements, and (d) after looking at the talk page, what do you think about the correct name of the page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for this. I am considering trying to upgrade the page to match the model of Australian Defence Force. Would you mind giving it a small peer review? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'll to this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

Made major cuts per WP:Recentism on [Wikipedia:Today%27s featured article/requests#April 10 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines]. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you have time for it, I don't see why you shouldn't run. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 BB

Hey Nick, I finally got to uploading the line drawings and adding in the table from my sandbox. Think it's ready for FAC? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - the article looks great. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC started here. If no one else has done it (read: MBK) by the time I am back from class, I'll notify the WikiProjects. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I've posted all the notifications. FYI, I'm going to be out of town from Sunday to Tuesday (Australian time). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, if it really requires you it'll just have to wait a couple days. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, at the time I was taking a mid-term on World War II. A two-essay exam dissecting the Battle of the Java Sea and the Battle of Crete respectively. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about multi-essay exams, but now those repressed memories are back ;) (I did a lot of them during political science subjects). Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds painful. I haven't had to take any of those yet, thankfully. What class is that? Sounds like something I would absolutely love (...outside of the exams). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

300-level writing enhanced history course entitled World War II ... :P -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs CTOL Iraq Russia United States Canada Art of War Otsu Nuclear strategy Superpower Pressure suit Commentarii de Bello Civili No. 31 Squadron RAAF Joseph Stalin New Zealand Patton tank Zhukov Canberra People's Republic of China Gona

Cleanup 2003 invasion of Iraq World War I Vietnam War Merge Effects of World War II Technology during World War II World war Add Sources Battlegroup (army) Military awards of World War II World War II cryptography Wikify Military history of the Netherlands John Pedersen Casma Valley Expand Home front during World War II Aircraft carrier Participants in World War II

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban evasion.

Linksnational appears to be evading his ban with IP edits to War crimes of the Wehrmacht. (Hohum ^@) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Image discussion for Australian light destroyer project

With the recent edits to Australian light destroyer project, in relation to the image File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg, I think its time all involved took a pause and used discussion to come to a consensus on the way forward. I think your input would be useful (because of your involvement in getting the article to its current condition): could you please comment at Talk:Australian light destroyer project#Model image: in? out? shake it all about?

Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have run for coord

Needed more non-PC coords YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have enough free time to do justice to the position anymore :( Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Morotai Mutiny

Hi mate, just letting you know I've nominated Morotai Mutiny for TFA, so we'll see how that goes. I claimed 3 pts for first TFA, 1yr+ since promotion, and date anniversary, but left open the question of another for no similar article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just added my support. I've been meaning to nominate some of 'my' FAs for TFA - I might try Take Ichi convoy for 6 May (the day the convoy experienced its heaviest attack) or Military history of Australia during World War II for 3 September. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great, cheers - and I'd sure like to see one of those two you mention on the main page, particularly the latter, which was a serious effort on your part. Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Controversies" articles

Hello, I saw you are part of the Military History project. I ran across a couple of articles today and am not really sure of where to address concerns about them, but I'll start here and see what your suggestions are. The articles I am referring to are:

• Central and Eastern Europe, and
• Controversial command decisions, World War II
  

It should be noted these both spawn from a recently deleted (and controversial) article, Western betrayal. The first of these new articles is incredibly badly titled as its real topic is military and political controversies of World War II as they affected central and eastern Europe. I have placed a comment on the article's talk page regarding its title and introductory paragraph. I also think the scope of the article is too broad and probably rehashes material in other articles. The second article is a good topic for discussion but is quite one-sided in its approach to the few controversies it identifies. This is not to say that either article can't be brought to a better status, but I am concerned that the history being discussed in these articles does not appear to balanced and that certain major aspects of at least the first article do not conform to the manual of style for article writing. Anyway, my guess is that the best group of editors to provide guidance and ensure an NPOV approach is the Military History project. As I've said, I've left some comments about the articles, but I am hardly qualified to address all of the issues alone. If you could give the articles a look and let me know if I am in left field about this, it would be appreciated. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they replicas of the Western betrayal article? If so they can (and should) be speedy deleted. For some reason I can't see the pre-deletion version of Western betrayal, even though my admin privileges should let me. Both articles should be nominated for deletion if it they aren't a recreation of the deleted article as they're not encyclopedic topics and will only ever be POV messes. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Western betrayal article was trimmed and moved rather than deleted and the Central and Eastern Europe article appears to be a recreation of something similar to this version of the Western betrayal article. Both articles should go to AfD as they're POV disaster zones. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Something might be able to be done with second article if a balanced approach is used. The first, though, is far too broad in scope -- the issues mentioned should have their own articles which address all aspects of the decisions in detail. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Army

I did a full update of the Australian Army according to the info found in the link you provided: see Structure of the Australian Army for all the changes; if there is anything else that needs to be done, let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelly

My but you have a busy talk page!
My 2c worth (which in Australia, as you know, rounds down to zero): To me it seems that the fact that the citations are sloppy is a red herring - there's enough information in them to enable someone to make them "non-sloppy" if needed, and to focus on that seems a bit "picky".
More importantly (in my view), I feel it takes attention away from the important points you are making. If someone is inclined to "counter-attack" you, they could focus on that issue rather than on the important points.
Otherwise, I agree with you, and I think you are on strong ground. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For BLP issues information about living people, and particularly what's claimed to be critical information, needs exact citations, so it's not a 'red herring'. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess on that point we have different priorities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More Dutch BB stuff

Hey Nick, I just stumbled upon this article on the 1913 battleships. It's not reliable, but it does include some stuff we didn't. It also has scans of two earlier Germania designs; if you can supply (a) page number(s), so you think we should add one or both? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, what page numbers are you after? Given that the design sketches are of preliminary versions of the design, I'm not sure if we could sustain a FA-level fair use claim given that the article already has a good fair use image of the final proposals. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the ones for the images if you thought we should upload them, so never mind. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the time you put into this article. Hell, you wrote most of it; without you, it wouldn't even be a GA right now. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well for your excellent contributions Ed. I've enjoyed working with you on this article, and its pleasing to see that the Netherlands is now the first country to have its entire battleship history at FA class thanks to this article and your excellent Design 1047 battlecruiser article. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed working with you as well. You're a jolly good fellow Nick, and I'm not very happy to see you departing the coordinator role! Yeah, it's nice to see that the Dutch are first, but it's not like this wasn't low pickings. ;) Out of curiosity, do you think it would be possible to make a FT out of this, perhaps by creating a parent summary article (Dutch capital ship designs)? We'd have to include a significant amount of background historical information, which I think could set it apart from the other two articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but there may not be sufficient material on the relationship between the two design proposals to support a FA-level article... Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How about GA, since you already have two FAs, all you would need is GA for the featured topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the GA criteria and process, I'm afraid, but that does sound like a distinct possibility. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA criteria, process and nominations. GA is in-between B and A on the scale, so you should not have a problem getting there. Ed has some experience with the process. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"don't be silly?" - Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland

There's nothing in the "states" article that supports it being listed as a belligerent. What's wrong with requesting clarification on this matter? Other entities such as the Russian Liberation Army contributed far more in the conflict than the Polish RTRP. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

I don't have time right at the moment, but it will be done within the next 2-3 weeks. I will get to it, don't worry! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tom. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia FARC

Hi Nick. A personal call for more hands on deck, otherwise the flagship will get sunk; rather embarrassing if that happens I think. WP:AWNB seems a bit jaded YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was at FAR! I'll help out. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your uncivility: admin comment requested

You are advised that an RFC is posted on admin notice board concerning your arbitrary AFD notice posted for Controversial Command Decisions, World War II. You did not bother at any time to enter into or participate in recent or current discussion on the relevant discussion page, nor did you post any gripe on my user talk page. POV issues are supposed to be resolved through editing processes, not via arbitrary and inappropriate AFD notices. Get over it. (See policy guidelines)Communicat (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)