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)

Awards people have given me

Re:Atlas Cavar

Repositioned myself as weak keep at afd. Article still needs help though. TomStar81 (Talk • Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Doltna block and authoblock

Nick, your autoblock when you blocked doltna probably had rather a lot of collateral, I've determined that the user is a rather over-enthusiatic colleague, and I htin I should be able to sort out the editting. It was well-intentioned, but could have been done better. David Underdown (talk) 11:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the note David. I've just unblocked them - a 24 hour block was probably too long anyway given that the edits appeared to be overenthusiastic but essentially good faith. Nick-D (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

RAN White Ensign

Hi Nick, thanks for your info on the AWNB. I take this to mean that on eg. Battle of the Coral Sea, I should replace the {{flagicon|Australia|naval}} to be something like UK|naval. Is that right? Slac speak up! 02:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

File:Naval Ensign of the United Kingdom.svg is the right one to use, I think. Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

World War II

I've just replaced the subheadings as they made zero substantive change to the article (no text change at all, in fact) and substantially added to the ease with which a large summary article can be navigated. Such as at the similar articleCold War. I examined the Talk sections and saw no such prior discussions of merely adding more subheadings.

I would like to think that such non-substantive changes could be made to the article without some sort of automatic revert. If there is an actual problem with merely adding subheadings (again, zero substantive change to the article), I would of course be more than willing to discuss it, but none has been raised so far, including in the above paragraph. I'm not sure what such a complaint would be as the article is substantially easier to navigate with subheadings on the various topics, but again, I would be more than willing to discuss it.Mosedschurte (talk) 09:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

• Nick, I just noticed that you also mass reverted a huge number of typo and source fixes and adds to unsourced sentences by me and others, which are in no way major changes and not under any kind of article policy. Please do no do this again citing article policy, as many of these are simple conventional Wikipedia source and typo fixes. If you have a problem with any specific substantive change, that's one thing, but please don't mass revert simple fixes.Mosedschurte (talk) 10:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did no such thing - I manually removed the sub-headings and left the text unchanged. Please check the diffs of my edits. Nick-D (talk) 10:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

History wars

I understand your concerns about my unilateral rewriting of the Background and Black Armband Debate sections. I had the same concerns myself about a renewed bout of edit-warring. But we've been locked in a stalemate with Likebox for months over the Genocide debate section and nothing seemed to be happening to improve other parts of the article. So I took the chance that if I removed some of the excessive quoting and rewrote some of the badly disjointed sections in as balanced and neutral a tone as I could manage (and I've kept tweaking it to try and make it more NPOV), others might bypass the Genocide debate section for a while and do something constructive with the article. So far no-one seems to be protesting that I've 'ruined' the sections that I've rewritten. I'd be happier if others would join in and do some NPOV rewrites on other parts of the article, where it's needed, or at least make some suggestions on the talk page but, otherwise and so far, it doesn't seem to have caused a problem. Perhaps my cunning plan is working?? Webley442 (talk) 03:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

re: Convoy GP55

Hi Nick. Following the closure of the ACR, I wanted to come here and post a few comments on the above, but got a little preoccupied with other things. ;-) That said, I have now completed a review of this excellent article and have come up with the following suggestions/pointers/comments:

• It should probably be clarified in the lead that the convoy took place during World War II.
• WP:Alt text is required for the images. Alt text is basically a newly enforced requirement in which you add "|alt=" in the image mark-up followed by a brief, but concise, description of what is actually in the image. This is in place for the aid of blind wiki uses, so they get an idea of what is in the image. As an example, for File:I-68.jpg, you might like to have something along the lines of "|alt=A black and white photograph of a submarine in a body of water with a land mass in the background".
• MOS:NUM recommends the use of a slash ("/"), rather than an endash, to separate the dates describing a single night.
• The year that Centaur was sank should probably be clarified.
• What exactly was the purpose of the convoy? Why was it formed? What was its objective?
• There is a large amount of repetition of the word "and". Would it be possible to replace some of these with alternate words?

I hope these are of some help. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Those are excellent comments - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 03:56, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

History Wars

You seem to be interested in history wars. There is a major problem with this page, that the fringe theories of Windschuttle and quadrant, which have next to no academic support, are being presented as if they were majority opinions (or even opinions worthy of respect). Fixing this is difficult, since another administrator (PBS) has taken the position that introducing mainstream sources is not allowed. This leads to severe editing problems. There is no "nice" way to fix this. What is absolutely required is another person (other than myself) willing to take a hostile position. Hopefully you are willing to be jerk number 2.Likebox (talk) 14:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm keeping an eye on that article in my role as an administrator only - I've got no intention to participate in the discussion there, and certainly not as a 'jerk'. If you feel that it isn't possible to constructively develop the article I'd suggest that you make use of Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. I'd suggest making a formal request for comment to bring in the views of other editors. Nick-D (talk) 07:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I did the formal request for other editors twice, with nobody willing to step in. I also asked a few people if they could help, but nobody really wants to touch it (that includes me--- this is really annoying). The reason, I think, is because the situation requires taking an antagonistic position, and nobody wants to antagonize. I will bring it up for formal dispute resolution if all else fails. But I am worried that the people there will not take time to read the literature.Likebox (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're concerned about editor misconduct and can demonstrate this then there's no real need for people who know about the literature. Evidence that editor(s) are relying on a narrow range of literature which covers only one side of the debate could, for example, be useful in seeking mediation of the issue. Nick-D (talk) 23:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Brendan Wise

Hey Nick, all athletes on the Australian WBC Roster or have been in a previous World Baseball Classic pass WP:ATHLETE due to them playing at the highest level of amateur sport. Also Brendan Wise competes in the Eastern League currently which is a fully professional tier of Major League Baseball. However, I have added a couple of secondary sources to prove notability and can provide more if Wise's notability is still under a cloud. All the best! JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 10:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for adding those refs. Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Backlog resolution

I noticed here that you removed the 'resolved' tag that was added but then put it back. I am wondering, has it been? Perhaps they have been done (I don't know how to track which admins are doing work on the buildup) but I am not sure if it was resolved properly. Also, the person who backed it up in the first place has made promises to fill it up again by doing the same thing to my contributions, so I would expect this to be a potentially ongoing problem. I think solving the root of the problem (seal leak, as opposed to bail buckets) would be a more useful resolution. Since Bettia initiated the topic, it would be good to hear the reply as to the progress. It's somewhat concerning that the one causing the issue was also the one to state (prematurely IMO) that the issue was resolved, especially since, as long as this is allowed to continue, it would be an ongoing problem as these would just keep getting tagged for undeserved speedy deletions. Even so, I can agree with the idea of collecting the conversation into a single area. Tyciol (talk) 11:55, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tyciol, The backlog of speedy deletion nominations was the issue which had been raised at the Admins Noticeboard. As this backlog had been cleared, the matter there was resolved as no further admin action was required. The discussion of whether the redirects are worthwhile and speedy deletion nominations justified probably best belongs at the ANI thread. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:54, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Lake Burley Griffin

Thanks for your help YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:06, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

World War II

Could you please explain why this was deleted? This is a highly recognized resource of primary government documents used by scholars all over the world. Also, is this the correct place to ask about these changes? Historic Government Publications from World War II, hosted by Southern Methodist University, contains 343 informational pamphlets, government reports, instructions, regulations, declarations, speeches, and propaganda materials distributed by the U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO) during the Second World War. Thanks!--signed Digitaldomain (talk • contribs)

As the article is about all countries experiences in World War II, it seems inappropriate to have links to relatively small collections of material from only a single country, especially as you've been adding links to the Southern Methodist University's collections to a range of articles without any explanation of why the link adds value to the article. Nick-D (talk) 08:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Coincidentally this has also been under discussion here; I've warned Digitaldomain about spamming these links. EyeSerene^talk 10:50, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLI (July 2009)

The July 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) 20:35, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

WWII

Dear Nick-D. Since you initiated a discussion about some recent changes in the WWII article could you please comment on my recent post there [1]?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 10:58, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

vc WINNERS??

I wasn't aware that the VC was either a race or a competition. Hence, I wasn't aware that one "won" one. Please educate me. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

It's longstanding usage. British MoD is happy enough with it, obits in The Times frequently use it in obituaries and other articles related to the VC, the OED's first definition of winner is "One who gains something, esp. by effort or merit;" the definition of winning a competition etc is the secondary definition. David Underdown (talk) 10:15, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well there you go! To quote somebody else: "You learn something new every day. Sometimes, some of it is useful." Thank you. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:27, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Guy Royle

Hi mate, postscript to Convoy GP55 FAC, did you have any plans to turn that red link blue? If not, I might have a go sometime - does he have an entry in the Oxford Companion though? I notice he's missing from ADB... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:48, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I wasn't planning on doing so, but I did look into it a while ago. There are some excellent portraits of Royle on the AWM's database and a reasonable amount on him in the official history. David Stevens A Critical Vulnerability: the impact of the submarine threat on Australia’s maritime defence contains a critical evaluation of his role in the fighting in Australian waters. Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, funny you mention the AWM portraits, I happened across them by accident the other day and that contributed to my giving more serious consideration to an article. Well, we see who gets to him first then...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Emu war?

You cannot simply threaten to block people because you don't agree with the outcome of this vicious conflict. Are you Australian by any chance? This would make for a serious conflict of interest case against you if true. Koalorka (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do you continue denying the Emus their history? This is prejudiced revisionism at its worst. Koalorka (talk) 19:55, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I haven't threatened to block anyone. Please don't add any further nonsense to this article though. Nick-D (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Black War as in List of Massacres

Have to disagree with your grounds for reverting my change, was in the process of writing my reasons in more detail and some suggestions for the talk page when I noticed you had reverted me, so I thought I'd discuss it with you before posting it.

Firstly much of what is there about the Black War is uncited and has been for a long time but more importantly, the article does have a clear scope, ie its title specifies it quite clearly as a list of massacres and it is almost entirely about specific incidents. As such it can be very useful as a starting point for understanding the extent of mass killings, as a reference to specific incidents, and also for bringing in the debate over whether the evidence for particular incidents is credible. (I'm aware that there are a couple of exceptions in the article eg the Wiradjuri Wars which I would argue should be revised by listing specific incidents involved in the various 'wars' and in the description of those incidents linking to the article on the various 'wars' involved.)

I agree with specific battles being included especially as there is grounds for sometimes calling a battle a massacre. If we include the Black War there, however, it carries an automatic implication that the Black War, and every individual incident in it, was a massacre, ie the indiscriminate killing of helpless human beings, whereas most historians agree that the Tasmanian Aborigines were anything but helpless, they were effective fighters and initiated many attacks on settlers. If we restrict the 'List' article to what the title says it is about and leave the Black War to the standalone article, we make it a lot easier to clarify the issues peculiar to each of the individual articles. The Black War is simply too broad a topic for the 'List' article. Webley442 (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Please discuss this on the article's talk page, not here. Nick-D (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

USS Massachusetts (BB-59)

I've done some work with the article based on your ACR suggestions. When you get a moment, can you check back and strike the addressed points? I could use an update on what still needs work and whats been addressed, as well as any new concerns you have. Thanks in advance, TomStar81 (Talk) 20:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done - I hope my comments are helpful. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Protected temple

Hi, since you're active admin, could you look at this request Template_talk:WikiProject_Korea#Request_for_replacement and edit it? Since editing the template is only allowed for admins, so I need your help. Thanks.--Caspian blue 23:58, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 00:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, that was quick! Although the replaced images are not good, but well, the previous images gave a wrong impression. Have a nice weekend.--Caspian blue 00:07, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries. Let me know if you find better replacements and I'd be happy to swap them over. Nick-D (talk) 00:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Kujin

Hi Nick, I have added references to the Background and Aftermath sections of Battle of Kujin. I am looking at expanding the Battle section as I came across some more information. Also loking to expand Australian battles and commanders in Korean War. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 09:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great work, I've just reassessed the article as B class. Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleted P3 image

Hi Nick, you may be interested in my comments here [2] - Nick Thorne ^talk 23:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. I think that it's disappointing and frustrating that the photo was deleted. Nick-D (talk) 08:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, what really gets up my nose is that these people seem to think that simply re-stating their position and ignoring eveything that everyone else says is OK. It is not. Frankly, I am a bit fired up about this and, as you would know, I have had nothing to do with the image before it was listed for deletion. Unless we get a reasonable outcome I intend to escalate the issue. This whole process smacks of people thinking they own Wikipedia. - Nick Thorne ^talk 09:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking of asking for a deletion review. Nick-D (talk) 10:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I made another post on D's talk page, if he does not respond appropriately to that then I agree, let's go for it. In fact having read WP:DRV I have been considering going to WP:AN/I, given the way this whole thing has evolved. However, before doing that I would ask for your advice, given your no doubt greater experience on such things. Also, I am not sure about the correct protocol - I know that anyone can make such submissions, but is it considered good form for third parties like me to nominate such actions? Let's see what he comes up with for now. - Nick Thorne ^talk 10:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

As far as I'm aware, anyone can start a DRV. I've started one or two for articles I didn't create after I thought that the AfD was closed incorrectly. From looking at the logs of recent fair use photo deletions, it seems to be pretty rare for them to be kept, even when there is a consensus that they meet the criteria. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an opinion re: HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156)

Hi, Nick. I've got a query about HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156), and am requesting the opinion of a wiser head.

At the end of June, 131.236.160.101 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) added content to the article reflecting the frigate's deployment to the Gulf for anti-piracy operations. About a month later, I came across the article and removed some of this information, specifically relating to 'Ivan M. Ingham', the commanding officer of Toowoomba for this deployment, on the justification that "only COs who have a major impact on the history of the ship should be mentioned in articles". Over the course of the past few days, the IP user undid my edit, I re-did it and repeated my reason for doing so, and the IP user undid it again. He/she/it added a line to the article that Commander Ingham is the first CO of an Australian warship to "conduct UN sanctioned anti-piracy operations", which I do not think is sufficient justification for inclusion as Cmdr Ingham is doing exactly what any other officer put in his position would be doing.

However, instead of reverting back to 'my' version, I've come to you for a third opinion on the matter. What do you think? -- saberwyn 06:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't like articles which include lists of commanders (most of whom are non-notable) or identify the current commander (who will change every couple of years or so) so I'd prefer to take it out. Nick-D (talk) 07:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I removed the paragraph and explained my reasoning on the talk page. The IP has reverted back. I'm not sure how far I want to escalate this.

I've reverted them and protected the page for three days to allow for dispute resolution. Nick-D (talk) 11:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologize if this is the wrong way to "talk", While I am fully acquainted with Wikipedia as a browser, editing is not my forte. In regards to the 'edit dispute', I cannot understand why a Commanding Officer should not have his name included on the page. You are correct in stating that they change ever few years (18-24 months to be precise); however, during this time a ship in the RAN is commissioned because it has Commanding Officer. Being selected for command of a ship is an achievement in itself, and undoubtedly, when they have moved-on into the wider navy, for good or bad, they have left an indelible mark on the 'soul' of the ship. This is even reflected in the fact that all Commanding Officers have their names recorded on a Honours Board. In further regard to you quip on 'names' - why does the Chief of Navy have a web-page entirely devoted to him? I am not saying that he does not deserve one (on the contrary), merely I am trying to indicate that despite size the Chief of Navy is to the RAN as a Commanding Officer is to a Ship. In the end, it is unjust to removed his name on the basis that you do not think it is appropriate. Furthermore, I speak with authority in such matters - personally knowing CMDR Ingham, he is currently one of the highest regarded Commanding Officers in the RAN at present (Just type his name into the web). Furthermore, I am soon to finish my degree (BA in the UNSW@ADFA) in Naval and Military History, and I will hopefully be approved to study for my Honours. I have been reading this page and notice that you mention Dr Stevens &c. and specific reference to Canberra - are you in the Navy? I assume someone with your knowledge has either a serving relative or is in service them self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.236.160.101 (talk) 09:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please discuss this at Talk:HMAS Toowoomba (FFH 156) so other editors can participate in the discussion? I think that the main issue is in relation to the Wikipedia policies Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons which basically state that people who haven't received much coverage in professionally published works (newspapers, books, high-quality websites, etc), generally shouldn't be included in articles. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way - I'd encourage you to register an account (though this is by no means compulsory) and/or participate in the WikiProject Military history. We could certainly use more editors with borrowing rights at ADFA's excellent library! I live in Canberra, but neither I nor anyone in my family is in the military. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/HMAS Sydney (1934)/archive1

Have you seen this? Is it feasible? YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:21, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really - the article needs more work and the nominator hasn't made any significant contributions to the article in at least the last 6 months. The coverage of her time in the Med, for example, is very sketchy and there's only a few sentences on the events of her final battle. I'd suggest that this FA nomination be closed as it has no reasonable chance of passing. Nick-D (talk) 08:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Support Group

I notice you moved this page to 2nd Support Group (Royal Navy) and I wondered why; theres nothing on the talk page about it and the move log just says ”common unit name”.
Is it? Are there any other units called 2 SG? ( though I’d be prepared to argue Walkers group was the most famous)
I’m not desperately bothered, I'm just wondering what to call the next one: We don’t differentiate as a rule, do we, unless there’s more than one? Xyl 54 (talk) 13:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems a generic type of name - various 'support groups' have been formed as part of military units, not to mention 'support groups' for people in various circumstances. As you point out, this is probably the most famous '2nd Support Group', and I wouldn't mind at all if you moved the article back. Great work in creating it by the way - it was long overdue. Nick-D (talk) 12:21, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

2nd Armoured Division (United Kingdom) also had a formation called '2nd Support Group.' Buckshot06(prof) 21:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed your reply; on reflection, there's no harm in specifying RN for the unit, and it's probably good practice, so I'll be doing that (and Buckshot your comment confirms it). And thanks... Xyl 54 (talk) 02:58, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Allies gain momentum" section

Nick-D
I put a modified version of this section on the article's talk page. I am waiting for your ok to introduce it into the main article.
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 19:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Gov2Taskforce

Hi Nick-D, I understand the language used in the link to the talk page you removed may have been a little broad (e.g. calling for contributions) - however I think some reference to the work in progress talk page at this point could be relevant.

ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gov2Taskforce&oldid=309346451

All of the suggestions listed on the talk page are external links to the original suggestions. These are valid submissions to the Taskforce and are an important part of the overall information about the Taskforce.

I'm assuming you removed this content in line with point 4 of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_publisher_of_original_thought ? Or perhaps is there some other wikipedia policy relevant here?

BTW: I'm not trying to argue this point with you...just trying to clearly understand why this was "not appropriate". I see these suggestions to the taskforce as documentary historical references that should soon be promoted to the main article. But obviously I'd like to do this in line with wikipedia policy and in an appropriate way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robmanson (talk • contribs) 03:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

As Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, it's not appropriate for articles to contain text encouraging people to make submissions to Government reviews or for talk pages to be used to track such submissions - please see WP:NOTSOAPBOX. Please start your own wiki if you'd like to do this. Nick-D (talk) 03:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D - I do have quite a number of wikis of my own...however I thought wikipedia was the most open and un-biased place to put this "community" content. This content is valid documentation of historical records of submission/suggestions to the Taskforce. The "content" of the submissions may relate to the WP:NOTSOAPBOX (or probably MORE accurately "Original Thought"), but the fact that they "are submissions/suggestions" themselves is a fact that is worth noting in a coherent record. And they were on the Talk page after all, to be discussed and refined before they were promoted to the main article. I think you're treading a very fine line here between policy enforcement and subjective judgement calls. Robmanson (talk) 05:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't meant to be used to create a historic record of submissions to inquiries - all content needs to be notable, meaning that it's been covered in secondary sources (see: Wikipedia:Notability). There's no need to recreate the content of the Australian Government's website. What you posted at Talk:Gov2Taskforce appears to be an attempt to organise further submissions (eg, "Please add your suggestion here ... These entries should also be placed in http://www.Australia2.org.au for discussion and prioritisation by the Australian community"). If you'd like other editors to comment on this, I'd suggest posting at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Battle of Yongju

Hi Nick, I have added additonal references to Battle of Yongju and was wondering whether it is now a B Class article? Kind Regards --Newm30 (talk) 06:00, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Yep, great work Nick-D (talk) 08:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Go the Wallabies! --Newm30 (talk) 10:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

RE: Rollback

Thnaks, but no thanks. I wouldn't use it enough to justify it. -- saberwyn 05:05, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette alerts

Hello, Nick-D. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding User:Likebox a user with which you have been involved. The discussion is about his activities at Quantum mysticism which may be related to his activity at Talk:History wars further information can be found at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts#User:Likebox. Thank you.--OMCV (talk) 03:20, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Arrow (missile) GA review

Hi, Nick-D. During an A-Class review you stated that the Arrow (missile) is a "good article". May I ask your GAReview for this article? Flayer (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

An Award!

		The Featured Article Medal
		For your outstanding contributions to three or more featured articles I hereby award you the Featured Article Medal. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 04:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much Tom Nick-D (talk) 06:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Apologies

I wish to apologize. When I saw that you had posted on the page, and discovered the page locked so that I was unable to reply, I jumped to conclusions and made a wrong assumption, without checking the log (which I didn't even know I could access). I don't want any animosity between us or with any of the admins. I realize due to the actions of Dr. Steel's fanbase in previous years, there is no love lost between the parties involved; therefore I am trying to remain amiable and compliant with whatever the admins wish here, and try to put a "new face" on things. But in this case I assumed and made an ass of myself, as they say. Anyway, when you get to be my age, you know when to admit you were wrong. :) Again, my apologies. --Jonnybgoode44 (talk) 08:37, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

E.C. Wackett

Nick, following on from your ACR comment, I've added a tidbit on the progression of the Air Force technology-wise during the war - when you have a chance could you see if this is what you had in mind? I'm planning to submit for FAC after Joe Hewitt completes so any thoughts would of course be useful. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that's exactly what I was thinking of. As a suggestion though, I think that the second paras in the World War II and Post-war career sections are a bit long - they look huge on my 24" monitor. Nick-D (talk) 04:37, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Tks mate. I've split the second WWII one at a logical point, the second Post-War one is a tougher proposition without IMO damaging the flow but will consider. On my monitor the third Post-War seems just as big, although a greater proportion of that appearance is due to the image on its right-hand side... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:50, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, maybe that second post-war one wasn't so tough after all... Can you let me know if you think the last post-war para would benefit from a split beginning at say In 1953, Wackett established advanced diploma training...? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

The para's length isn't too bad, but it wouldn't hurt. Nick-D (talk) 05:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Congrats!

		The TomStar81 Spelling Award
		Be it known to all members of Wikipedia that Nick-D has corrected my god-awful spelling on the page Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Military technology and engineering task force/Black project working group, and in doing so has made an important and very significant contribution to the Wikipedia community, thereby earning this TomStar81 Spelling Award and my deepest thanks. Keep up the good work! TomStar81 (Talk) 06:14, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

No worries Tom ;) Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Freedman

Hi Nick, could you do me a favour please. I don't actually own a copy of Freedman's Vol II, could you cite the fact that I added here please. I'm gonna be taking the article to GA soon! cheers Ryan4314 (talk) 15:25, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Done, and I've taken the liberty of updating the other Freedman reference so they're from the same (and most recent) edition. Could I suggest that you nominate this article for an A-Class Review? I think that it would easily pass. Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that nick, much appreciated. A-class review ay, I might just do that :D Ryan4314 (talk) 10:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick, in the past you expressed an interest in whether the term "friendly fire" or "blue on blue" should be used in the Gazelle article[3] I have now raised the matter in the article A-class review if you are interested. Ryan4314 (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Operation Teardrop

On September 6, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Operation Teardrop, 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.

Wikiproject: Did you know? 17:22, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

hehe

From the academy page on coordinatorship:

...make sure you change the "name" parameter - several new users, as well as a few veterans, tend forget to do this and others are thus forced to check and fix the error as it appears.

Glad to see you caught it. Though I have a good feeling that you'll be reelected this term, I still wish you good luck with the elections. TomStar81 (Talk) 08:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, though I was hoping that no-one would notice ;) Nick-D (talk) 08:08, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Adminstrator abuse

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

That's three years to the day (give or take a few hours) since joining the site that I've kept a clean block log. The trout's in the post, and I hope it seriously stinks by the time it gets down under. Seriously, no worries, I'm glad you caught it :) EyeSerene^talk 16:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Heh, your true identity finally revealed? I think I'll wait until you've got an article at FAC or something :) Regarding Mrg, thanks for your help with the whack-a-mole; I noticed their re-emergence on the Arnhem talkpage. It's a shame in some ways as they do make some good edits, but from their comment on my talkpage ("...if you can find ONE SINGLE CASE OF ME USING SOCKPUPPETS, I will gladly never edit ANY Wikipedia article again") I am starting to wonder if there are some other issues. EyeSerene^talk 08:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

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 12 September!
Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice move

"10:09, 8 September 2009 Nick-D (talk | contribs) blocked Nick-D (talk | contribs) (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week ‎ (Block evasion)" -- This was good :)). You just made me laugh continuosly for about 2 mins. :)) --Eurocopter (talk) 10:21, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

While you're on a spree, I think it's been a while since Jimbo was last blocked. Seriously, are you sure this account isn't compromised? EyeSerene^talk 11:16, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to be giving the block button a bit of a rest I think - its clearly malfunctioning due to all the recent blocking of Mrg and Top Gun socks ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably wise, before it achieves sentience. I've edit-conflicted myself with multiple tabs before now, but your multitasking is much more impressive :D EyeSerene^talk 11:28, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Rofl Nick. Enjoy the lolcat. :-D —Ed (Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Manchuria

Regarding the Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945), there are a few things that, to me, seem inconsistent, and I was wondering if you might be able to explain them to me?

• The article says 'the Soviets named it the "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" '. However, outside of Wikipedia, WP derivatives and David Glantz, I have not been able to find a reliable source to verify or support that statement, and the article itself doesn't quote a supporting reference. Can you identify a source and/or a supporting reference?
• The article immediately follows with a Russian phrase saying "Lit. Soviet-Japanese War". Again, no supporting reference.
  • If it translates literally as "Soviet-Japanese War", then why is the Russian name "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation"?
  • Why would the Russians call it the "Soviet-Japanese War"? There are several conflicts that could be referred to as a "Soviet-Japanese War"; it seems unlikely the Soviets would label just one of them as THE "Soviet-Japanese War". What did they call the others?
  • Reading the talk page archives, EconomistBR says russian WP calls it "Soviet-Japanese War of 1945". That makes sense. But it is still not the same as "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation".
• Similarly, no sources are given for the names "the battle of Manchukuo" or "the Soviet invasion of Manchuria".
• A source is quoted for "the Battle of Manchuria" (Maurer, Herrymon, Collision of East and West, Henry Regnery Company, Chicago, 1951, p.238.), but personally, I haven't ever seen that term used.
• (Note: I am deliberately NOT including "August Storm" in this conversation.)

So, in summary:

1. Where does "Manchurian Strategic Offensive Operation" come from?

2. Where does "Soviet invasion of Manchuria (1945)" come from?

3. Where does "(Russian: Советско-японская война, lit. Soviet-Japanese War)" come from?

4. Why is what's stated in the article inconsistent and unreferenced?

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)