User talk:Nick-D

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)

Awards people have given me

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/SMS Baden (1915)

Nick, have your comments been satisfactorily taken-care of? They are the only thing holding up the promotion of the article. -MBK₀₀₄ 05:03, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, they're sufficiently addressed for me to not oppose the article's promotion, particularly given the shortage of sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Bombing of Yawata (June 1944)

Congrats on the promotion :) EyeSerene^talk 07:22, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Seconded, nice work! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:25, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 08:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LII (June 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LII (June 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news Catch up with our project's activities over the last month, including the new Recruitment working group and Strategy think tank	Articles Milhist's newest featured and A-Class content
Members June's contest results plus the latest awards to our members	Editorial LeonidasSpartan shares his thoughts on how, as individual editors, we can deal with frustration and disappointment in our group endeavour
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here.

This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 19:26, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Is there a task group focusing on WW2 war crimes among the many task groups in military history and Second World War? --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 14:58, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

As suggested at WT:MILHIST, this would come within the scope of the World War II taskforce. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Ken Henry

Just had a look at the Ken Henry page and noticed your edit. The whole thing could do with an overhaul - it is like a political battle with bits of scuttlebutt published from mainly one newspaper, and then responded to point by point. It is full of political attacks that have been disproven or fallen over that still stand in dialogue with their factual responses. The result is a page that reads like a petty Q&A framed by someone who doesn't like the bloke (I notice that that similar IPs are doing most of the edits) with a negative point, then a response one after the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Plaster56 (talk • contribs) 13:48, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with you completely. It seems that right-learning editors are seeking to bias the article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Discussion at WW2 Casualties re Overmans

Please take a look at my new thread at talk WW2 Casualties--Woogie10w (talk) 22:46, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, will do. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

BlaBlaa

I've seen the earlier discussion about this editors block. I've just been looking at his edits at [1] (and the rest of the talk page, particularly his 'blatant lie' one. I'm wondering if it's time to go deal with him again in some way, either directly or via ANI? Dougweller (talk) 07:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree, but am not a suitable admin to follow up on this as my indef block of him was overturned (though all the previous blocks were upheld by several reviewing admins when they were appealed so can be used to demonstrate a pattern of not learning from previous blocks). I'd suggest that you contact Parsecboy (talk · contribs) who is keeping an eye on the situation. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:14, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, done. Dougweller (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Jumping in, BTW I tried ANI for this user recently but as I was new to the whole thing I guess I didn't do it very well and got massacred. Got accused of being rude and uncivil myself (and of being Nick's 'buddy')... It was kind of funny in the end, fairly typical of wiki though I fear. Had to give up as I was way too busy with real life anyway. Anotherclown (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

This editor and his friend do seem to be well on the way to a blocks judging from their recent responses to warnings from admins. For obvious reasons I'm keeping well out of it. Nick-D (talk) 12:06, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

It does seem to be somewhat of a new tactic on his part. Piss off as many admins as possible, making them directly involved in the incident - and therefore unable to issue a block because of COI. It's fairly entertaining reading, I must say. Cam ^(Chat) 04:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. I don't see the joy in claiming to be a victim at every opportunity myself. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

German POW deaths

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia talk:No original research#Question 1 regarding primary sources

--Woogie10w (talk) 22:21, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see my remarks at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Heated discussion and serious charges

--Woogie10w (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notifications. Nick-D (talk) 07:58, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:Articles_for_deletion/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes_(3rd_nomination)#Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes exists

neutral notification Collect (talk) 12:50, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Nick-D (talk) 12:04, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

For the hint about sources regarding sexual violence by Nazi German forces in WW2. --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 22:36, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Meh, rules are rules

I've added a cite. All good. Timeshift (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

1918 Year of Victory

Hi Nick. You used this book by Stevens and Goldrick in the article HMS Princess Royal (1911) to support information about how the 1918 flu pandemic affected the ship. Does the book (p. 186) give any detail to the number or percentage of personnnel affected? -- saberwyn 02:31, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi saberwyn, No, it just says that she had so many personnel sick that she couldn't put to sea. I'm afraid that I don't own the book do can't check the exact wording. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think I've found a local libary that carries a copy, so I'll do some digging. Thanks anyway. -- saberwyn 04:25, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I checked a copy in a bookshop today, and it doesn't have a number of percentage for Princess Royal. It has numbers for personnel affected in a couple of other battleships though (I can't remember which ones though). cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:46, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Self-admitted block-evading sock

This[2] looks to be a self-admitted sock of a user that you recently blocked. Nsk92 (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note - I've just blocked them. Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I forgot to tell you. Since you were off-line yesterday, sometime after I left you the above message, I also posted a note at WP:ANI#Block evasion. There has been some discussion there and at least one other user there User:Moonriddengirl, thinks that this guy may deserve another chance. I am not sure what exactly is appropriate procedurally in such cases (perhaps at least restoring talk page access on the master account so that he can make an unblock request from there), but you may want to look up and maybe comment in this AN/I thread. Nsk92 (talk) 08:17, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I've just posted there. regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:25, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Excessive Spamming

A page that I created about the organization DEGW was recently deleted because it's relevance was not properly cited. What are some good ways to go about proving an organization's relevance? Also, if I make substantial edits to the content, what is the review process for getting the page out of the locked pages list? Thanks for your help. --Colbert2012 (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles about firms need to meet the notability criteria for organisations as explained at WP:ORG. In short, the key requirement is the availability of in-depth coverage of the topic from reputable sources which are independent of the organisation. If you'd like to get the page unlocked you can post at WP:AN or contact me. If you'd like I can recover a copy of the deleted material and place it in your user space, but you really shouldn't be working on an article concerning a firm you're a member of - this is a blatant conflict of interest and is unlikely to be in the firm's interest given the very real potential for embarrassment if this is reported in the general or specialised media. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

They keep cometh

Thanks! [3] They just keep coming and it still doesn't make sense... why are they so obsess with the air over Philippines that they find it a joke to be pulling such pranks given that school kid's summer vacation are generally over. Honestly, do you think it would help if you salt the article so that IPs and newly registered editors cannot edit it straight away. Might save us all the trouble? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:09, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately the level of vandalism isn't sufficient to justify semi-protection (though it is close). I'm not sure if it's one or several editors who like to pretend that the Philippines operate higher-end military hardware than is actually the case. There's a long term vandal with a history of making up fictional wars as well as hardware for the country. This kind of stuff seems to be a problem across articles relating to the Philippines, and I suspect that the average age of the editors isn't very high. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

• Close? Really? So do you think I could try pushing it up on WP:RfPP? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:20, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, if you'd like to. I don't think that semi-protection is ultimately justified at the moment, but other admins might. Moreovever, as I've semi-protected the article six times in the last two years, it would be healthy for another admin to review the situation. Nick-D (talk) 11:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

BROKEN ENGLISH

Honestly Nick, I've had it up to my neck with this guy here (especially over him using his broken English to constantly meddle with airlines/aviation related articles), care to share your thoughts about the multiple accounts he just mentioned? Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I think that this might need to go to ANI so that multiple admins can comment on the situation - dealing with editors from a non-English speaking background who write in bad English can be a difficult topic. If the content of the edits is OK then one suggestion would be for them to post them on article talk pages and ask that other editors fix up the grammar and add the change to the article. On the matter of the potential multiple accounts, I've asked them to identify the other accounts (if the pattern of edits is clearly different they're in the clear, if not or they won't identify the accounts then it suggests that they've been blocked before under different accounts). Nick-D (talk) 10:42, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

• Hi Nick, actually... if you've taken a look at his contribution history, you will noticed that his edits are not entirely helpful in a lot of instances, grammar and syntax problems being the most common culprit. Also, I recalled that he said something about his friend having another account which had been blocked prior to the episode when he was blocked for trolling on the talk pages of a few editor, including mine. For a new editor like him, I also noted that he seem to be very familiar with the workings of Wikipedia when he first started off and now that he said it very clearly that he and his room mates are sharing DSL connection, considering that he had confessed that they are room mates... what are the odds that they are one and the same? Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 13:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I was thinking more that if the underlying information in the edits is OK then alternative solutions should probably be tried before any kind of editing restrictions are introduced. I note that they're now saying that their roommate has/had "accounts" which is a bit of a worry. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyvios again...

Sorry to trouble you again, Nick. → Armyofbotswana (talk · contribs) ←, multiple instances of copyvio uploading of copyrighted image files, didn't even seem to stop after I had warned him for the last time. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:01, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've just blocked them as I note they've also had an article speedy deleted for being a copyright violation. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Question

Nick, do you know of a guideline or policy that states how long affter tagging an unreferenced item with a fact tagone ought to wait until removing the item? I'm having a dispute on Talk:Dominican Republic over the issue. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:16, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, There aren't any specific deadlines for non-BLP topics - WP:BURDEN states that "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed, but how quickly this should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references.". My personal rule of thumb is to remove anything which is harmful to an individual or organisation or which is clearly nonsense immediately and allow about a month for everything else. Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks. - BilCat (talk) 06:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I'll comment on the article talk page. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping in and trying get the discussion back on track. If you can't tell, I'm really frustrated by SamEV's treatment of me over the last couple of months on that page, acting like he's the only person trying to improve the article! Morenooso's attitude didn't help any either. That article could always use more sets of eyes to protect it from POVer and vandlas, but it's no good if the "owners" run off all the experienced editors! Anyway, I've moved on (mostly!) I do appreciate the help. Email may if you have any "constuctive" pointers. - BilCat (talk) 15:48, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

No worries Bill. Nick-D (talk) 23:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for arbitration regarding Blablaaa

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Blablaaa 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:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Kirill ^{[talk] [prof]} 22:14, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for initiating this Kirill. I'll comment later today or tomorrow. Nick-D (talk) 23:30, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

VPC

— raekyT 11:06, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

AR10CO

Hi Nick. New user AR10CO (talk) is spamming a number of articles with links to his AR-10 forum. His edit history, seen here, consists entirely of spamming. At the AR-10 article alone, he has added his link five times in the last day. I have pointed him to WP:EL and WP:LINKSPAM, and warned him a number of times now. ROG5728 (talk) 17:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

This user seems to have heeded the level four warning I gave him yesterday. He has not spammed since that time, and I doubt any further action will be necessary. ROG5728 (talk) 03:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, thanks for that Rog. Let me know if the situation changes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

July newsletter editorial

Hi Nick - you mentioned you were writing an editorial for future publication. Is that likely to be ready for this issue or would you prefer to hold off a bit? (NB: newsletter development is now taking place at WT:MHNEWS) Cheers, EyeSerene^talk 11:02, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty much ready for submission (though comments, criticisms and changes to the draft would be very welcome). I'll fiddle with it and submit it later tonight or tomorrow. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:09, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, no worries. EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

ASP

I support the ideals of the sex party (have you seen the sex party vs family first Sunrise debate? if you haven't, look on my userpage) but i'm uncomfortable with their South Australian Senate candidate, Mr Virgo who is very young with no life experience... could have found better candidates. Timeshift (talk) 12:42, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I haven't watched the debate yet, but have been meaning to do so. As a small 'l' liberal on most social issues, I was suprised to see that I agreed with most of the ASP's policies, and their website was interesting in that they clearly don't take themselves too seriously (which is a nice break from most single and limited issue parties). Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

World war II

Hi there could you see what you can do about the World war II Belligerent list as i and many others don't see it as correct to put the USSR and USA above the UK and France cheers.Davido488 (talk) 16:03, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi David, There isn't anything I can 'do' about the order of belligerents - this needs to be settled via a discussion involving all interested editors on the relevant talk page(s). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay well cheers anyway I'll see what I can do.Davido488 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

No. 461 Squadron RAAF

461 sqn is there but as its RAF incarnation. During the war the Australian squadrons retained RAF titles, only reverting to RAAF after hostilities. The only squadron based in the UK to keep RAAF status was N0.10 Sqn RAAF because they were actually in the UK when hostilities commenced (collecting their Short Sunderlands).Petebutt (talk) 13:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if that's correct - the Australian official history of the war and most other Australian works on the war war in Europe refers to Australia Article XV squadrons as RAAF units during the war. The Australian heavy bomber squadrons are normally identified as 'RAAF' in British histories of the bombing of Europe. Nick-D (talk) 23:13, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi

I am slowly expanding the War Crimes of the Wehrmacht article-the main Wehrmacht one also needs to be rewritten.Right now in my Sandbox I am getting together info about human experiments, but post-war views and myth of clean Wehrmacht will be expanded as well.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Without reading what you've written, given that this can be a controversial topic, I'd strongly suggest that you seek comments on the text before adding it to the article. Nick-D (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Conscription in East Timor

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Buckshot06's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Change of policy - I'll try keeping everything in one place. Buckshot06 (talk) 09:28, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

tb, but it's so short - would recommend you add the brief to the further reading at least. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 10:07, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

communicat changes

What is the matter with you? All my well-intenioned and significant changes were first raised on the WW2 discussion page under sections marked "flawed overview". You did not respond or participate in any way. Moxy, in his message to editors on his talk page, said "just go ahead and do it." As a senior editor he probably knows best. I have not described my signifcant changes as "minor". In the change diary which I presume you're referring to, I first described the significant changes, and then said additional multiple minor (grammatical etc) changes had also been made. Your unjustified obstructionism, which impedes progress towards improving the article, is now going to be declared a matter for mediation, and I will also report you for other transgressions. I'm fed up with your unhelpful and puerile attitude, and your constantly unjustified admin obstructionism. Communicat (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

My changes were also proposed in summary at the last posting at discussion section WW2 origins of Cold War. You didn't respond to that either, nor did anyone else. And since no objections were lodged, that indicates acceptance of the proposals. Communicat (talk) 13:17, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Since my above posting, I've taken the time and trouble to read all the wiki dispute resolution stuff etc, and see that in the first instance "The primary venue for discussing the dispute should be the article talk page", so I'm opening a section there, where you're free to present your views if any. It that fails to produce satisfactory results, I'll call for mediation or whatever. In the meantime I'm restoring tag. At least one other disgruntled participant on the relevant talk page seems to share my views, though I've not worded them quite as stongly as he/she does. Communicat (talk) 15:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)