User talk:Nick-D

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

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

Toku by Shinki Kato in the Nara Peace Park in Canberra

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)
Talk archive 9 (January-June 2012)
Talk archive 10 (July-December 2012)
Talk archive 11 (January-June 2013)
Talk archive 12 (July-December 2013)
Talk archive 13 (2014)

Awards people have given me

Is it bad because it is significant or for some other reason?

About this edit, do you have some objection other than that it is significant? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant changes to this high profile article should be made only after agreement is reached on the talk page. More generally, my personally view is having a summary section which isn't the lead isn't great - the role of the lead is to summarise the article. There's certainly a good case for reducing the length of the lead of the article though, and I'd be interested in discussing that with you and other editors on the talk page if you'd like to raise the topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

I will move the discussion regarding the length of the lead to the WWII talk page when I have more time. For now, I will only comment that, while perhaps significant changes "should" be made only after discussion, that reason alone does not warrant a revert. "No edit, regardless of how large it is, requires any prior discussion; however, large edits and any edits that are potentially controversial are often the targets of reverts, so—in the spirit of collaborative editing—prior discussion is often wise." - Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle#What_BRD_is.2C_and_is_not Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:02, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

The World War II is one of the most frequently viewed articles on Wikipedia, and there's a very long standing consensus from editors who work on it that all significant changes should be discussed first as a result. That particular article wouldn't be manageable if it was the subject of BRD type editing given its unusual prominence (not to mention the controversial aspects of the topic). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm having trouble following the logic. Either an edit is a good one or a not so good one. Substantial edits can be good, insubstantial edits can be bad. If it is a good one then why revert for the sole reason that it isn't vetted? If it is a not so good one then revert for that reason (and put that reason in the revert comment). Otherwise, it begins to look like "you have to ask me for permission before you do anything on this page." Or am I missing something? I'm thinking I should ask "the editors who work on it" to reconsider this consensus. But first, the lead (when I get the time). Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 00:36, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

It's simply to stop edit warring and sudden changes to a high profile article which lots of editors have contributed to. I'd suggest that you actually try engaging in conversation over changes to the article before throwing further accusations of misconduct around (I noticed the snarky comment you hid in the edit summary BTW). Nick-D (talk) 02:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring grows out of reverts. I'm not sure how you stop it by reverting and giving no reason other than the change is "significant." Look, snarkiness (and profanity) aside, you had a legitimate reason for reverting my change: you thought the summary should not be put in a separate section. Fine. Why didn't you just say that? Giving "with no discussion" as your rationale comes across - whether you mean it to or not - as "you are changing my article without my permission." And doesn't tell the original editor the real reason for your revert. So I'm simply saying that you should consider not using "with no discussion" as a reason for future reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 03:05, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

The arrangement has been in place for several years, and I think that it's still working well. You are certainly very welcome to put forward different views, but as you ignored the large edit notice concerning the arrangement which appeared at the top of the editing pane your accusations of WP:OWN type conduct are entirely baseless. If you would like to discuss changes to the article please raise them on the article's talk page. Similarly, please feel free to discuss different arrangements for editing the article, but I'd respectfully suggest that they be informed by more than a single of your edits being reverted. Nick-D (talk) 03:14, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Let's try a reset. Here is my request: I ask that, when you revert in the future, you consider providing edit summaries that are substantive (example: "summary section which isn't the lead isn't great") instead of (or, at least, in addition to) procedural (example: "change which was made with no discussion at all"). See generally Wikipedia:Reverting#Explain_reverts and Wikipedia:Revert_only_when_necessary#Explain_reverts. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

But that was the primary reason I reverted here... I personally don't think that the change was an improvement (as it wasn't in line with WP:LEAD IMO), but that was a secondary issue: my concern was that you'd significantly restructured the lead section without any prior discussion. I would have reverted if I had liked the change as well, and I imagine that the other editors who are active in the article would have done the same. I should have dropped a note on your talk page though. Nick-D (talk) 21:48, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Well, I'm slow, but I finally have that through my head. Would you please point me to the WWII talk archives where the editors decided to implement the "no significant change without prior discussion" rule? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:20, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

It was a few years ago... You can either believe me, or not - I'd kind-of hope that I don't have a reputation for bald faced lying! Nick-D (talk) 08:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

I believe you. I am looking for the reasoning that led to the decision. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 09:54, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

From memory, it dates from when the article was re-written as a group effort and there was agreement to not make significant unilateral changes to the consensus text. I'm happy to say that the article has continued to change since then though (generally for the better IMO). Nick-D (talk) 09:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

Significant

My "to do" list still includes bringing up this issue on the WWII page, but these are busy times for me in the real world. Meanwhile, I wonder about this edit. How did you decide that it was not significant enough to require pre-discussion? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Please check the article's history: the template I removed was added in the edits mediately before mine (with no prior discussion, or even edit summaries). Moreover, I think that the template was entirely unnecessary and has been badly designed and implemented. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

So why didn't you just say "revert fairly significant change which was made with no discussion at all" in your edit summary? Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 13:02, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. If you'd like to start a discussion about the content of the article, please do so at Talk:World War II. Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Before I try to make a point I'd like to try to understand whether I have one. You reverted my edit with the summary of "revert fairly significant change which was made with no discussion at all." It seems to me that you could have used the same summary in this case. But you didn't. So I must be missing something that makes the two reversions different. Butwhatdoiknow (talk) 01:26, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Single-issue user

Nick, there's a single-issue user editing United States Armed Forces against consensus. Could you look at Clear violation of the NPOV and see if yiu can offer any solutions? I don't like being insulted on the basis of my nationality, and I'm not sure I can hold my tongue much longer. Thanks. -BilCat (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Bill, As that's an edit warring only account I've blocked it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I wasn't expecting a block, but I'm not complaining either. - BilCat (talk) 22:25, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

"Pacific War"

compared to some other users on WP, you have demonstrated a significant breadth of knowledge, significant NPOV characteristics, and significant non monomaniacal coverage. however, the term "Pacific War" was NOT, NEVER used by the soldiers, sailors, pilots, etc., of Japan, China, USA, British Empire, or Australia at the time. it is a POST-WAR historical term. thank you -Augustabreeze (talk) 07:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) So is World War I. And the vast majority of historical war names. Jenkins' Ear, the Wars of the Roses, Hundred Years' War, etc. Just saying. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:11, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with Cliftonian. Wikipedia also calls things what their most common name is, and not the contemporary name - please see WP:COMMONNAME. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:19, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Nick

If you are on there is a complete chambles around Clive Palmer article - it needs some rather rapid cleanup... tricky as there are some absolutlely wrong directs and redirects and horrible confusion - some editors hsould know better.... satusuro 08:30, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

I've just moved the article back to Clive Palmer. Goodness knows what's been going on, but it seems that the restriction on non-admins deleting redirect pages was partly to blame. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

maybe - it was sitting there so long, and is a classic BLP issue that required haste - your response is much appreciated.... I do think some need to know a bit more about leaving things alone if they cannot fix it themselves and to get others to help! satusuro 08:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Given that I've used my admin powers to mess up stuff on the main page (though not to the extent of violating WP:IDIOT, thankfully), I won't throw the first stone here ;) Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:44, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Anokther stone - shouldnt the weird https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Clive_Palmer%29&redirect=no be exterminated? the wikipedia at the front makes them stick out like the proverbial dogs - there was the obscene one (hopefully nuked) and the remainng two i fail to see why they should still exist as they are simply evidence of things being done wrong... and serve no purpose satusuro 08:47, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

Good point - I've just deleted that one. I'd deleted the obscene one a few minutes ago. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:49, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

thanks satusuro 08:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book review: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIII, October 2014, Redux

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D on Britain in the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars Timeline: This month in World War I

NOTE: This replaces the earlier October 2014 Bugle message, which had incorrect links -- please ignore/delete the previous message. Thank uou!

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 01:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Education in Iran 0003 Urmia.jpg

Hello.accordind to your comment [1].I do it[2].شاه بابل (talk) 02:13, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

One sentence not about the subject of the photo isn't sufficient in my view I'm afraid. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Favour

Hi Nick, I wonder if you might do me a favour: I made an edit notice for the page "Great Zimbabwe" to try to get people to stop changing the spelling of "artefact" to "artifact", but I accidentally put it at the wrong location and I cannot put it in the right place as I am not an administrator. Could you please move Great Zimbabwe/Editnotice to Template:Editnotices/Page/Great Zimbabwe for me? Cheers, have a great day. —  Cliftonian (talk)  08:20, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Done, as I'm here on other business... Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you Bencherlite. —  Cliftonian (talk)  09:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks also from me Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Gough Whitlam at TFAR

Hi Nick, you (and your talk page stalkers) may be interested in a thread I've started about Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests#Gough_Whitlam, where possibilities for marking the death (aged 98) of this former prime minister of Australia include re-running a TFA. I'm interested in getting lots of views so I'll be leaving this note on various pages (and apologies, TPS-ers, if your talk page is not one of them!) Thanks, Bencherlite^Talk 08:47, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article: Notification

This is to inform you that Bombing of Singapore (1944–45), which you nominated at WP:FAC, will appear on the Wikipedia Main Page as Today's Featured Article on 5 November 2014. The proposed main page blurb is here; you may amend if necessary. Please check for dead links and other possible faults before the appearance date. Brianboulton (talk) 22:40, 22 October 2014 (UTC)

...which happens to be the date of Whitlam's memorial service. I suppose it was inevitably going to clash with something at TFA. Any thoughts? Bencherlite^Talk 06:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

...@Bencherlite: Bombing of Singapore (1944–45) can easily run on a different day given that it covers a series of air raids. The next 70th anniversaries of raids are 11 January, 1 February and 6 February, or it could run on a spare non-specific date if you'd rather. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Citing Air Force copies

Hi mate, spotted a funny date in 38Sqn and after investigating I found some of the Air Force links were going to the latest issue, or in one case to the correct issue but the front page. FYI, the only sure way I know of getting the right link for the issue/page is to go into "Archive" (or "Browse issues" depending on how you arrive at the latest copy) and then, when you have it open at the correct page spread, use the email function to send yourself the page link and paste that into your citation. I think I got 'em all in 38Sqn but it might worth you checking them all out... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I think that the newer issues have permalinks for page numbers? Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Possibly, I may not have noticed because I subscribe and often use the latest issue in articles, and I've found then that the only way to get the right link is to do the email trick. Of course if there's a simpler way I'd be happy to use it! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:40, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No. 90 Wing G/FT

Hi mate, sounds like you'd be happy to co-nom here? If so, the only remaining decision is to whether to go now, for GT, or give 1SQN a chance to attain Featured status and go straight for FT (90WG is also on my list for FAC but it wouldn't make any difference if 1 and 38SQNs are both FA). FTR, the main reason I wanted to get Nate's take on it is that 90WG is little more than a blip in the histories of 1 and 38SQNs, but I guess that doesn't matter too much as far as the FT criteria goes. The reason I like 90WG as a topic is that it's small but has enough components to meet the criteria, and it's effectively a closed book since the RAAF seems unlikely ever to revive its number, whereas all the active wings are potentially moving feasts. FWIW, I'm also looking at GT at least for 91WG at some stage, as I think there's sufficient sourcing out there to get articles on all its units to minimum B-Class or GA. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:36, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I'd be happy to co-nominate. I have to confess to being clueless about the FT and GT processes, but if it takes time to action a GT request it might be better holding off until the 1SQN article passes its FAC given that this shouldn't be that far off by my reading of the review (tough luck with the squadron going to war for the first time since 1958 shortly after you started the FAC!). Nick-D (talk) 02:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I'm not sure if you know but a topic automatically changes from GT to FT if the amount of featured content reaches 50% so no need for a second nomination. You must remember to update the good topic page (i.e. Change the GA icon to FA) - NickGibson3900 ^Talk 00:59, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Tks Nick, now you mention it I had heard about the automatic upgrade but wasn't sure of the process. In this case I think 1SQN is pretty close to promotion to FA (if I say so myself!) so we won't have long to wait anyway, but good to know for future reference. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Your block of User:Filipino American man

You recently blocked User:Filipino American man as a sock of User:Holy Child Student. I suggest that you look at User:Oggy 2 also. The account was created shortly after you blocked Filipino American man, edited User:Filipino American man here to add a self-made category that references Oggy 2 and seems to claim that Holy Child Student, Filipino American man, and the electric man (another blocked sock of Filipino American Man) are all socks of some other user. The page version displaying this category Is here but it is up for speedy already.

Oggy 2 has also made very similar edits to his talk page as the other users did, with various incorrect claims and templates displayed on his talk page (admin, roll back rights, registered trademark, having left Wikipedia, good article, protected article, etc.) Meters (talk) 03:11, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that looks like the same person and I've just blocked the account. Nick-D (talk) 09:03, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

New Wikipedia Library Accounts Now Available (November 2014)

Hello Wikimedians!

The TWL OWL says sign up today :)

The Wikipedia Library is announcing signups today for, free, full-access accounts to published research as part of our Publisher Donation Program. You can sign up for:

• DeGruyter: 1000 new accounts for English and German-language research. Sign up on one of two language Wikipedias:
  • English signup
  • Deutsch signup
• Fold3: 100 new accounts for American history and military archives
• Scotland's People: 100 new accounts for Scottish genealogy database
• British Newspaper Archive: expanded by 100+ accounts for British newspapers
• Highbeam: 100+ remaining accounts for newspaper and magazine archives
• Questia: 100+ remaining accounts for journal and social science articles
• JSTOR: 100+ remaining accounts for journal archives

Do better research and help expand the use of high quality references across Wikipedia projects: sign up today!
--The Wikipedia Library Team 23:25, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

You can host and coordinate signups for a Wikipedia Library branch in your own language. Please contact Ocaasi (WMF).

This message was delivered via the Mass Message to the Book & Bytes recipient list.

Request for Comment

There is a Request for Comment about "Chronological Summaries of the Olympics" and you're invited! Becky Sayles (talk) 07:26, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite, but I don't have an opinion on this topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

1940 Field Marshal Ceremony

The discussed "20 July plot" section has been replaced with an "Aftermath" section written by me and Kierzek. I believe it covers the future of each field marshal promoted as you recommend we added. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 16:43, 9 November 2014 (UTC)

It provides a white wash: several of those men went on to commit very serious war crimes, yet you portray them as being simply soldiers. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Will add some details about war crimes. Jonas Vinther (speak to me!) 15:12, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, I did suggest that some further brief detail be added as to what happened to the ones promoted after the "event". The above certainly is something to add into that section. Since Jonas is carrying the ball, I will look it over when I have time and after he is done. Kierzek (talk) 16:08, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Request

Hi Nick-D, I have tried to nominate Ros Pesman for DYK (moved into mainspace on 8 November) but I strongly suspect I have made an error. Could you please have a look and let me now if/what I have done wrong? Thanks, Whiteghost.ink (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi, Under the current (and newish) system you need to create a specialised page for the DYK nomination. All you need to do to kick this off is to drop the name of the article into the box at Template talk:Did you know#Instructions for nominators and follow the instructions (especially linking to the nomination page) I hope that helps. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

I took it upon myself to fix this up directly. The issue was that the nomination information was added directly in to the DYK nominations page rather than transcluding the template in. See Diff. I also made some formatting fixes to the nomination template itself, but this was the main problem. Should be all fixed now! See "Template:Did you know nominations/Ros Pesman" which is now featured correctly on the November 8 DYK nominations list. Cheers; Wittylama 11:27, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

DYK for Battle of Baguio (1945)

 — Crisco 1492 (talk) 12:03, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Pamphlet

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Operation Pamphlet you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Operation Pamphlet

The article Operation Pamphlet you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Operation Pamphlet for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Jonas Vinther -- Jonas Vinther (talk) 00:23, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Nick, couldn't help noticing your recent edit summary re. this article -- I had a similar thought re. my own No. 491 Squadron RAAF from around the same time. Be happy to take an informal squizz at Pamphlet later week if you'd like, and pls feel free to do the same with 491Sqn if you have a moment... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:04, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that sounds great. I think that the Operation Pamphlet article might have the legs for A-class, so any thoughts in that direction would be appreciated. Nick-D (talk) 04:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)

ACR

Hello Nick, I'd just like to inform you that there's an ACR for Dassault Rafale at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Dassault Rafale/archive2. Since you commented on its previous ACR, you are welcomed to contribute to the discussion there if you have the time and are interested. Regards, Sp33dyphil (talk) 12:45, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue CIV, November 2014

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; awards and honours; contest results Articles: Last month's new Featured and A-Class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks at Nazi Germany's Eastern Front allies Op-ed: TomStar81 on the origins and legacy of trench warfare Timeline: This month in World War I

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Nick-D (talk) 12:27, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Nick, thanks for sticking up for at ANI. It was indeed a comedy of errors. The IP had originally reverted me here, restoring Sgt Stone Cold's vandalism, so I had assumed theb IP was SSC. Then when I checked his contributions and saw that he had edited the Osama page, I assumed it was SSC again, and misread the diff, twice. By the time I realized my mistake, the IP had already reverted again. Then Seahorse left a rather demanding, almost arrogant, note on my page, so I chose to ignore it and go to bed. I'll try to be more careful from now on. Thanks again for defending me. - BilCat (talk) 12:19, 23 November 2014 (UTC)

WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		On behalf of the coordinators of the Military History Wikiproject I am very pleased to present you with the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves. This award is made in recognition of your outstanding contributions to a great many areas of the project. This includes your long and distinguished service as a coordinator and special-project member, improvement of numerous articles to the featured, A-class and good article standards, dedication to producing one of the best Wikipedia newsletters over at the Bugle and all round hard work. I have to say we haven't bumped into each other much over the years but in my experience you have been a great bloke to deal with and always able to help with some friendly advice. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2014 (UTC)