== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Landing at Jacquinot Bay]]==
== Your [[WP:Good articles|GA]] nomination of [[Landing at Jacquinot Bay]]==
The article [[Landing at Jacquinot Bay]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article]] has passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]; see [[Talk:Landing at Jacquinot Bay]] 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 [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article|nominate it]] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]]</small> -- [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
The article [[Landing at Jacquinot Bay]] you nominated as a [[Wikipedia:Good article nominations|good article]] has passed [[Image:Symbol support vote.svg|20px]]; see [[Talk:Landing at Jacquinot Bay]] 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 [[Template_talk:Did_you_know#To_nominate_an_article|nominate it]] to appear in Did you know.<!-- Template:GANotice result=pass --> <small>Message delivered by [[User:Legobot|Legobot]], on behalf of [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]]</small> -- [[User:Anotherclown|Anotherclown]] ([[User talk:Anotherclown|talk]]) 23:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
|style="font-size: x-large; padding: 0; vertical-align: middle; height: 1.1em;" | '''The ''[[Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Awards#A-Class_medals|Military history A-Class medal with swords]]''''' 
|-
|style="vertical-align: middle; border-top: 1px solid lightsteelblue;" | Awarded for your efforts in developing [[Operation Pamphlet]], [[Allied naval bombardments of Japan during World War II]], and [[4th Armoured Brigade (Australia)]] to A-Class. Well done! [[User:Peacemaker67|Peacemaker67]] ([[User_talk:Peacemaker67|click to talk to me]]) 09:15, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
|}
Revision as of 09:15, 5 May 2016
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!
Thanks very much for all the hard work you two are doing on this. But are you confident in going ahead without any reverts - has any action taken place? Buckshot06(talk) 21:51, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not as far as I'm aware. Nick-D (talk) 08:37, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For completing 7 reviews during April–June 2015, on behalf of the Wikiproject Military History coordinators, I hereby award you the Military history reviewers' award. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:07, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Australian frontier wars - Cook first (known) European
Hi. In regard to the reversion of my recent minor edits, I'd like to say that I believe it legitimate to indicate that Cook was the first "known" European to chart the east Australian coast, due to the significant possibility that others may have done so earlier (see Theory of the Portugese discovery of Australia. I also wish to point to the fact that several other articles on Wikipedia make reference to a place being first "known" to have been discovered by European (insert name here).
I look forward to your responce. Aardwolf A380 (talk) 11:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This debate (to the minor extent to which it exists from what I've seen) is simply not relevant to the topic of that article, which is about the fighting which took place after the British colonists landed in Australia. I don't think that we should be adding what appear to be largely hypothetical claims into articles on unrelated topics. Nick-D (talk) 11:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick! User EyeTruth has involved me in another Administrator's discussion. I mentioned your name at the Adminstrator's Edit Warring page. You don't have to come by, and you don't have to say anything. I did mention your name there though and I wanted to make sure you were made aware. It's just an FYI. Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 03:54, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the note Nick-D (talk) 08:30, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I closed this report as no violation since I couldn't think of anything reasonable to do, but your comments would still be welcome. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 13:00, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I came to notify you, but Gunbirddriver already did. I will add that I've started a discussion on the Prokhorovka talkpage. You're welcomed to check it out, thanks. Part of the dispute is very similar to the blitzkrieg one. Sources say xxxxx, but Gunbirddriver disagrees, believing that there must be other sources that say otherwise. Hopefully, he will provide those soon. EyeTruth (talk) 19:18, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to look into this tomorrow. I still have the Glanz and House book on the Battle of Kursk if a third party checking sources would be helpful here. Nick-D (talk) 11:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A naval gun was installed under a British officer and four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers.
I know that the sentence might sound perfectly ordinary to a military person, but to a non-military reader it sounds a little odd. Perhaps a few words could be added after "under"? "Under the command of", or something like that? CorinneSD (talk) 02:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How about "A naval gun manned by a British officer, four NCOs and 27 Indian soldiers"? Nick-D (talk) 10:38, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The Morgenthau Plan
My book was recently purged from Wikipedia. The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Planning has been chucked down the memory hole. Of course there were legitimate reasons for its deletion. I asked Wikipedia to explain and they kindly responded:
"I've just removed the material referenced to the book The Morgenthau Plan: Soviet Influence on American Postwar Policy as it does not appear to be a reliable source. The book's publisher Alora Publishing looks like a publisher of WP:FRINGE-type works judging from what it chooses to highlight on its website, and I could not find any reviews of the book in reliable sources, and many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites. The author's website is also not typical of that of a neutral historian. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 11 October 2014 (UTC)
Worldcat shows it owned by 1319 libraries, a very substantial number. This of course does not mean it is an authority, but it might appear to be of considerable interest. Google Scholar shows it has been cited 16 times, as follows: [6]. DGG (David Goodman) ( talk ) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC) (I wrote this is response to an OTRS query asking about the removal of the book)."
According to Nick the book is not a reliable source. But he seems to think it was published by Alora Publishing, a publisher of “fringe-type” works. I tried to find Alora Publishing but was not successful. I contacted my publisher and he thought that Nick’s comments may have been a joke. Nick claims that he could not find any reviews of my book in reliable sources. I guess Publishers’ Weekly and Choice magazine (by the American Library Association, for academic libraries) are not considered reliable. Perhaps it was wrong of the BBC to contact me for an interview in Things We Forgot to Remember. My blog is not and has never claimed to be the work of a neutral historian.
Nick raises one troubling point about my book: “many of the references to it on the internet are to extremist websites.” I do not have any control over who references my work. In my research I have run across a great deal of anti-Semitism. This is unfortunate because it is a distraction and it is used to discredit anyone looking for the truth. Many of the key people involved with the Morgenthau Plan were Jewish, however, one of its strongest critics, Victor Gollancz, was also a Jew. I am not aware of any extremist claims in my book although its conclusions are outrageous. We live in interesting times and some even think the Little Sisters of the Poor are extremists.
The bottom line is: Who is more credible? Check the Algora Publishing website. If you believe it is “fringe” you will agree with Nick. If you check it out and wonder what Nick is talking about then you will know why Wikipedia has a bad reputation for veracity. 108.19.156.56 (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon.com, Google books, Barnsandnoble.com and Algora Publishing's website all say that the book was published by Algora Publishing. I made a typo in my post, which is irrelevant in any circumstances, and particularly here as I also linked to the firm's website. I note that the Algora Publishing website has an odd note in its link to the BBC interview saying that "Note that even this program on the whole continues to deflect responsibility for the genocide"; a publisher which calls the Allied occupation of Germany a "genocide" is highly unlikely to have the standards of fact checking and professionalism needed for its books to qualify as reliable sources. Nick-D (talk) 08:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the publisher's website also refers to the Allied occupation of Germany as a "twentieth century holocaust"... Nick-D (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick,
You have inspired me to write a third edition on the Morgenthau Plan. If you like I will send you a copy of the second edition. You can read it and send me your corrections. If I find them valid I will incorporate them in the third edition and give you the credit. I can not speak for Algora Publishing but I used the term “holocaust” because one of its definitions is: “any mass slaughter or reckless destruction of life.” I know that Ukrainians got a lot of grief for using that term to describe their famine and eventually switched to using the term Holodomor. Unfortunately this word has not made it into Dictionary.com. If you can suggest another term for reckless destruction of life I would be glad to use it. A writer’s credibility is everything. That is why throughout my work I try not to exaggerate. If I quote a source that appears to exaggerate I let the reader know. I intentionally used the term holocaust because there was an intentional and reckless destruction of life as a result of policies devised by our progressive and oft times Communist bureaucrats. That is a fact Jack. Even the negative review on Amazon does not contest my facts but claims I wrote the book for an “odious cause.” I wrote the book to reveal an uncomfortable truth. In my research I ran into quite a bit of anti-Semitism. I have tried to make it clear that I do not espouse these ideas. The malicious comments made by anti-Semites are used to discredit people like me who are sincerely looking for the truth.108.19.156.56 (talk) 03:26, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good luck with the book, but I don't think that it's going to meet Wikipedia's criteria for reliable sources. I'm pleased to hear that you're not an anti-Semite (I never suggested that you were), and I imagine that you must find it annoying to see your book being quoted by extremists. Nick-D (talk) 03:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Please lock the page again. Thanks. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 14:19, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Eugen, can you please clarify your concern here? The high volume of unreferenced IP edits looks worrying, but I can't see anything which looks outright wrong. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:03, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Eugen Simion 14: can you please tell me which edits you consider to be vandalism? It isn't clear to me given that the referencing for that article is pretty crap, and I also don't have unlimited amounts of Wiki-time to sort through them, especially as you apparently have spotted actionable problems. Help me out here please. Nick-D (talk) 07:53, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Disruptive editing or vandalism - [1] , [2] and more others. It's not a great idea to keep this article unprotected. EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 09:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that sounds sensible, done. I didn't realise that the protection only finished a few days ago! I've set the duration to indefinite. Nick-D (talk) 10:11, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick, I'm here in my WMF role. Would you be interested in adapting Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/News/July 2015/Review essay for an external audience and republishing it on the Wikimedia blog? :-) Pieces that explore the background and difficulties behind writing Wikipedia articles are something I've been pushing for more of. Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 08:22, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'd be happy to. Do you have a suggested deadline for me? ;) Any advice on how to adapt the article for that audience would also be great (for instance, am I right in thinking that you'd be interested in more on how the article was written, and bit less on how it was researched?). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm flexible and don't know your schedule. Is Monday doable?
First, they're going to have little to no specialist knowledge of WWII and these battles, so you're going to have to add more context. Second, I don't think I'd take out much on your researching. One of the point I'm trying to get across to the world, something you may have noticed in the Texas Revolution piece I recently did, is just how far some Wikipedia editors have to go to write these articles—even on a topic like WWII that you'd think is well-covered. Third, more links would be nice, both to the books and maybe a link to the TFA for the 70th anniversary. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what would you think of an alternate title starting with "You sunk my battleship: ... "? ;-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed Erhart (WMF): How does the draft at User:Nick-D/reviews look? I've suggested a more snappy title, and would prefer not to use ""You sunk my battleship" given that the main feature of these attacks was the the battleship wasn't sunk ;) Nick-D (talk) 12:11, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I forgot that it was the RAF that sunk Tirpitz. Point there. And here I was so excited for a title like that. ;-)
Could you also provide a paragraph or two to summarize what happened here? If I was someone who knew nothing about the topic, I'd wonder why Tirpitz was in a fjord, why the British would want to sink it, and what your three articles are specifically about. :-) Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 00:19, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Ed Erhart (WMF): I've just added some introductory history - how does it look? (I suspect that it might be on the long side). I'm happy to leave it up to you to draft the tweets - I've tried doing this at work, and have been told that my tweets are much too boring to be published by my staff! Nick-D (talk) 12:07, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Nick, as you've probably seen, I've been in and out of that page for a little bit. I'm happy with it now, but I'm going to have a collleague go through it as well to make sure all the milhist bits are comprehensible. Other than that, we have it scheduled to go out tomorrow (US time) but that will likely slip by a day or two depending on our other posts—we have five scheduled for Tuesday and Wednesday, at least two of which are time sensitive. I'll keep you up to date if those plans change! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:20, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the update Ed - that sounds good Nick-D (talk) 09:06, 4 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Last question: are you okay with the blog running under your real name? I thought it was on your user page, but it's not there now. That's the last hurdle! Ed Erhart (WMF) (talk) 01:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that would be fine Nick-D (talk) 08:50, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Ed, it looks really good Nick-D (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick. I'd like to thank you for the acknowledgement you made of my contributions, in both the Bugle post and the blog article. I'm glad I could take some small part in the Tirpitz project. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 12:40, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for your contributions! Nick-D (talk) 22:55, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Cliffside Malibu
I went to start an article on this subject because I've seen it pop up in a lot of celebrity rehab-related articles, and I noticed you had deleted a previous article about the topic for being blatant advertising. I just want you to be aware that I am working on this article, and that my goal is just to create a reference point for the topic because it has gained prominence enough that someone who is not a celebrity watcher has noticed. If you have any concerns, please let me know. Thanks! Chris Griswold (☎☓) 18:45, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Chris, thanks for the note. The version I deleted was undisclosed and spammy paid editing, and your stub looks good to me. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
RfC
Nick, I'm diagreeing with misleading, unhelpful claims that other participants might be naïve enough to take on face value. Defending the research and efforts of a very serious proposer who has an intimate knowledge the workloads of both Bureaucrats and the Arbitration Committee, from comments based on conjecture is hardly akin to hectoring. Regards, Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:14, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're over-reacting to criticism of your proposal. I disagree with your proposal, and you disagree with me. That's fair enough, and there's no need for you to go on to make absurd accusations such as this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
We're just offering the proposal as a service to a community who persistently bleat about disingenous admins but does nothing about it themselves. There are no bonus points for 'winning' a consensus and I do not understand why people have to make totally unfounded statements couched in criticism if they don't agree with a proposal. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:44, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your work in developing this proposal, but I think that you're mistaken with it and what it involves. I don't understand why you think that other editors have to endorse your views and analysis and are arguing with the opposers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:53, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just uploaded this file. Is there anything you can suggest to avoid it being deleted? Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 04:49, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The non-free use rational you've provided looks good to me, especially as NZ Crown Copyright allows pretty broad use. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 04:52, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Image on WWII Page
Hi user:Nick-D Apologies if the image was unsuitable. I was only trying to illustrate the effect of the blitz on the civilian population, and daily life on the ground. Thanks. Jason.nlw (talk) 11:53, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. The article already has a couple of images of the Blitz/Battle of Britain, so I don't think that there's a need for a third, and I don't think that article was representative - accounts of the Blitz generally note how miserable the shelters were (especially for children) and that image portrays them in a positive light. Please raise this on the article's talk page though if you'd like to see it included to see what other editors say. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sock on WWII page
Just a heads up, the user Dredernely, who commented about adding Pyrrhic victory to the World War II page is a sock of the indefinitely banned User:HarveyCarter. CalidumT|C 12:16, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, What leads you to that conclusion? (so that I can block the account given that this is their only edit). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the sock master has a history of frequenting WWII pages. Each account also uses the same signature. CalidumT|C 12:10, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A beer for you!
Thanks for the help on the Royal New Zealand Air Force article. I can never tell if an IP is just throwing out numbers for no reason or are truly trying to make a good faith edit. No heart feelings of past debates, these things can get pretty heated, but with all good intentions - Cheers FOX 52 (talk) 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind comments, and I appreciate your efforts as well. It is very hard to track changes to numbers in these articles. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:24, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mail
Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
I appealed my topic ban (diff). Taking in consideration that you supported my ban and/or was against its lifting I would like to inform you that I appealed my ban so you could again present your opinion. All the best.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 20:59, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Boeing 757
[3] -I think that was my bad, I did a roll back on Manmountain08 who’d being changing sourced numbers. Didn't realize the total revert reintroduced wrong text- Sorry about that FOX 52 (talk) 17:27, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all. Nick-D (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gday Nick. I'm going through checking User:Citadel48's recent contributions (for obvious reasons) at the moment and found Wikipedia:1984 Severomorsk Disaster which he seems to have created then copy and pasted to Severomorsk Disaster (rather than moving it). I've made it a redirect but I wonder if a history merge is req'd (or some such Adminy thing)? Thanks. Anotherclown (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure to be honest - I'm pretty clueless about history merges and the like. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No worries, thanks for looking all the same. Do you think its ok just with the redirect then? I don't imagine its a major issue. Anotherclown (talk) 07:22, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest leaving it as a redirect. As I understand it, copy and pasting new articles from draft status into article space is OK as long as there's something linking them, even if it is as vague as an edit summary (which is what I usually do!). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gday - well it seems the original article location has been deleted with the summary "Recently created, implausible redirect" so I guess we will just have to accept the article history is a write off. I'm not really sure that was a good solution by whom ever did it but it is a solution a guess. Sorted - thanks gents. Anotherclown (talk) 22:11, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wonder weapons
You reverted my suggestion of the use 'unconfirmed' rather than fictitious. You reason was 'no they are fictitious'.
However if one is to read the article it speaks of actual projects that were known to be planed and some created so ficticiois is I believe a misleading term - what has happened is there is a confusion of terms here because indeed there are ficticiois elements: these are the 'theories' behind understanding why they created such known existing plans and projects not whether they did or not where evidence exists and is in museums in America and germany.
However any seriously insterested in history or historians of this area will know this, but being used by the genral public I think it is important not to encourage sudoscience where it is not.
Kind regards
Ben
Please read into it and you can see for yourself Benjahdrum (talk) 08:26, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, they are fictitious. Nazi Germany did not operate UFOs or those other alleged weapons. Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Barnstar of Diligence
For your contributions and scrutiny to the betterment of military, Third Reich and World War II related articles, I award you this Barnstar. Kierzek (talk) 17:13, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's clearly them and I've blocked that account (for a much longer period this time seeing as the IP doesn't appear to be being shared). Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 22:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello nick, User talk:Adnan bogi whom you previously blocked for a week is still engaged in spamming. just wanted to this to your attention. thank you :) Nicky mathew (talk) 19:17, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know - I've just blocked that account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rollback rights
Nick, are you able to remove my rollback rights? I have only once used it in anger and mostly I find that I have accidentally rolled back something when using my smart phone because I accidentally touched the rollback link. Usually because of a page redraw just as I'm trying to follow a diff link and the redraw puts the rollback link where the diff was a half second ago. - Nick Thornetalk 22:34, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, I've just turned it off, and left a note in the log making it clear that it was on your request only in case you ever want it re-added. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. For normal vandalism reverts I prefer to leave an edit summary anyway so I don't imagine I'll be needing this unless I stop using my phone to edit, but thanks for leaving the door ajar. :) ' Nick Thornetalk 13:30, 19 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick as contributor to aviation pages, I wondered if you'd chime in on this discussion. I'm trying compromise on some parts of overhauled lists that I've done, or maybe I have it wrong - Regards FOX 52 (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't involved in the discussion (from memory), but my impression was that the consensus to not include flags in these tables was pretty strong. There's a general move against graphics in tables, infoboxes, etc at the moment. Nick-D (talk) 10:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, I've never heard of that occurring. You might have luck searching the Trove resource of old Australian newspapers. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:55, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That looks good to me - thanks a lot Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good to hear. Happy to contribute. Manxruler (talk) 14:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Deborah Lipstadt
Thanks for deleting the troll edit, but he/she did us a favor. You'll see my edit summary probably, but when the article was created the word 'History' was left out of her academic title, so I've put it in with a source. Doug Weller (talk) 09:14, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that change Doug. Nick-D (talk) 10:06, 2 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
bad username
I suggest the name FuckfuckUaat violates policy. Rjensen (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Just a bit! I'm amazed that the name was allowable. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:19, 4 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Second Schleswig War
Since you wrote an article on the war, you might in interested in knowing that the big-budget TV series 1864 was absolutely horribly received. It had a production cost of 184 million Kroner, the most expensive TV series ever made in Denmark. The cast and historical accuracy was excellent, but the plot, editing and the way the series was presented was ... well, crap. Peace, Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your price!) 18:04, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I did see an article in The Guardian saying that it had been very controversial in Denmark! I'm keeping an eye out for it, though the odds of it appearing in Australia aren't terribly high I fear ;) Nick-D (talk) 22:50, 5 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
6 September 2015
Dear Nick,
Hope you are alright. I am sorry for interrupting especially when you have already mentioned of being away due to vacations but I had a similar issue before and you helped me through it by your advice. I require your guidance in an issue I am facing currently. I had created an article called Awans of Pakistan[10] and as you may see in the link it outlined the history, origin and lineage of the Awans who currently reside in Pakistan. This article was referenced mostly by books and also by few websites as seen in the 'References' and 'Further reading' section headings. This article, however, was neither intended nor did it duplicate a previous article called Awan (tribe) which contains only "2 sentences" (one is lead section and second in history) apart from two statements by 2 different people.
However, an editor to the article Awan (tribe) has come up straight, removed references from Awans of Pakistan[11] and redirected it to Awan (tribe). Then he accused me of using 'fake references' in the article [12]. I did not understand his definition for 'fake references' but I could tell that he was acting as a puppet for an IP [13].
I reverted his edits twice and asked the editor to first discuss the matter as both the articles have separate content and context [14] but he would not listen and redirected again. I gave him a second warning to discuss it as Proposed Merger in detail but I had to explain the differences myself to him on his talk page [15]. I guess he was short of words and realized he did not have sufficient proof to explain his doing. Although, he used a brief explanation on the article's talk page [16] but unable to find a way out, he has placed a tag of sanctions on my talk page [17] to get things his way as he himself said on the article's talk page, "..but only in accordance with our policies".
I have never dealt with sanctions and I am very particular about following Wikipedia policies so I thought it better to first discuss this issue with you that what you think of the entire case. I even asked the editor that I can help him improve his article as his article already had tags and it is already in a poor state but he is bent upon his defensive approach [18]. So what can I possibly do in such a situation? My aim is only to improve the encyclopedic content and Awans of Pakistan was offering that but now the matter has been taken in another direction by the editor. I seek your advice in such a situation.
I will wait for your reply here as the matter seems sensitive. Thank you so much for your time.
Sorry, I don't have time to look into this, especially as I have no knowledge of the subject matter to draw on. If you have a question about the warning Sitush gave you, I'd suggest that you discuss it with them. More generally, Wikipedia's dispute resolution process is outlined at WP:DR and cases where you have strong reason to believe that someone is abusing multiple accounts should be reported at WP:SPI. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, you're better acquainted than I am with the various shenanagans, sockpuppets etc that have surrounded the whole 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' issue on wikipedia. I think that this page is one of them - as far as I can tell it has no basis in fact. Can we do a mass delete with this and a number of the other dubious pages? Buckshot06(talk) 06:23, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm honestly not sure. I think that there's some underlying basis of fact in these articles, but a series of editors over the years have tried to boost the 'Philippine Commonwealth Army' into a grossly grander affair than it ever actually was (with a common motive being to imply that it did most of the fighting in the liberation of the Philippines in 1944-45, and/or was an equal partner to the US Army during this campaign). The articles should be treated with great scepticism, but I don't think that they generally qualify as being pure and unredeemable hoaxes. I've deleted those created by various sock puppets in the past, and any remaining ones created by the most recent crop of sockpuppets should also go. Regarding the content of the articles, the lists of battles which have been obsessively added to various articles should go - I've never seen a source for this content, and in many cases the battles listed which actually took place were US vs Japan only affairs. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 19:05, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there's some interesting footnotes that make me feel the same way as you - there's some wheat in the dross. Nonetheless, I have redirected and refashioned 6th Div into a division I know did exist, - 61st Division (Philippines). Buckshot06(talk) 08:53, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have some more data now. This was the 6th Military District (Philippines), which MacArthur agreed could be reformed in a fashion to supervise the Philippine guerrillas, along with the others, like Wendell Fertig's 10th Military District. (See 61st Div article). But I also wanted your opinion on the deletion of the category Category:Philippine Commonwealth Army. The U.S. official histories use the term Philippine Army, the Commanding General of the Philippine Army category is unbroken, and most of the Philippine Commonwealth Army material is full of falsehoods. Bringing it all into one line will deter, I hope, the serial fantasist. I spent years deleting imaginary armored and cavalry Philippine divisions from the 10th Division[19] etc articles!!
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you the Content Review Medal of Merit for an creditable 10 FA, A-Class, Peer and GA reviews during the period July to September 2015. Well done! Peacemaker67 (crack... thump) 10:35, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep track of upcoming reviews. Just copy and paste {{WPMILHIST Review alerts}} to your user space
Nick, I don't know if you're checking in, but Chris has scheduled one of yours for the 27th. I'm not really sure what to do with it ... can you compress it down to 1150 characters or less? (Btw, the first link needs to be to the article). If you're not around, no problem, we can schedule it another time. - Dank (push to talk) 17:08, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Dank:, Thanks for the note. I'd appreciate it if this could be rescheduled as I'm not going to be around much until I get home in mid-November and can't commit to writing/proofing the blurb and answering questions about the article's content. Any time after, say, 20 November would be fine. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Pinging Chris. I know you prefer not to grant postponements, Chris ... I hope it makes a difference that you've got two people asking here, Nick and me. - Dank (push to talk) 19:11, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see if there's another aviation article. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:21, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
National Socialist German Workers' Party - NSDAP
Hi Nick, you recently did not agree my edit on Adolf Hitler page removing "socialist" next to the politician and (in a rude manner) you told me to read about it.
Im sorry Nick but obviously you need to do some reading here. Adolf Hitler and his Nazi party (National Socialist German Workers' Party) was a socialist from the left side
of the political scene. Its only now that some people think that he was from "the right". Anyway, I don't want to write his biography on your page here.
Educate yourself or read Mein Kamph maybe. Adolf Hitler was a socialist.
Regards
To summarise national socialism simply as "socialism" at the top of the article about Hitler is disingenuous, extremely misleading and frankly offensive (as is your assertion that it's only "some people" who think he was right-wing). Have you ever read Mein Kampf? Hitler says in Chapter II that the two main evils threatening the existence of the German people are the Jews and Marxism. —Cliftonian(talk) 15:07, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A claim that Hitler and/or the Nazi Party were socialist would need a very strong reference to be included anywhere, and you didn't provide this. As Cliftonian notes, it's also offensive given that some of the Nazis first victims were the leaders of Germany's socialist political parties, who were imprisoned or murdered en-mass within weeks of Hitler coming to power and the Nazis' persecution of socialists continued throughout their reign. Richard J. Evans' recent books on the Nazi's rise to power and rule provide detailed coverage of this topic, and are currently the standard English-language works if you would like to read more about it. Nick-D (talk) 17:32, 14 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand why the fact that Hitler was a socialist is offensive, I would say its rather an uncomfortable truth to some. I agree that it maybe misleading since Hitlers "socialism" led to terrible genocides but this does not made him a conservative politician, liberal etc. He was from the left side of the political scene as was Stalin, Mao, Che etc. I still don't understand why this fact is omitted. RegardsGizzyCatBella (talk) 01:27, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and yes, I have read Mein Kamph". Here is one quote for you from his wonderful book - "The National Socialist Movement, which aims at establishing the National Socialist People’s State, must always bear steadfastly in mind the principle that every future institution under that State must be rooted in the movement itself". I can give you many more. Regards. GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, one more thing to Cliftonian.. yes, Hitler hated Jews and Marxists but what this has to do with him not being a socialist?GizzyCatBella (talk) 01:43, 15 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Flushout1999 has added a large amount of material to Robert Conquest that he has copied and pasted or closely paraphrased from other sources. Consider, for example, the section on Conquest's criticism of Ezra Pound, which includes text such as "[Conquest considered Pound] a poseur of the highest order, not to mention a lousy poet who garbled his own allusions to classical mythology and did so without any redeeming ingenuity or creativity. Also, [in Conquest's opinion], Pound’s notorious fascism and egoism only added to his artistic debit" which is copied directly from the cited article by Michael Weiss. None of the material in the section on Pound is original besides the opening sentence. Even the closing line ("Having in passing [attacked] Pound's claim to have rendered Latin classics into verse, Conquest concluded:[...]") is copied almost word for word from Christopher Hitchens, who also provides the following quotation from Conquest (meaning that Flushout1999 is also regurgitating Hitchens' arrangement of the facts). This is not an isolated incident. Most, if not all, of Flushout1999's additions are copyright violations, from "The IRD years" (which includes material like "In 1947–1949, the IRD started to collect materials on the issue of forced labor in Stalin’s Russia and decided to publish pamphlets and prepare news articles and bulletins on the forced labor camps. It had been decided that one or two names of Soviet camps should be hammered into the mind of the public, until these names were as clearly linked with Communist terror as the names “Auschwitz” and “Treblinka” were linked with Nazism. The Soviet camps chosen for the purpose was Karaganda and Vorkuta. Later, Kolyma in the Soviet Far East was added", which is all copied directly (including the grammatical issue with the plural camps) from Lennart Samuelson--and, yes, even the books cited, like Britain's Secret Propaganda War in this section, appear to provide not only the facts but Flushout1999's exact language) to the section on Conquest's Harvest of Sorrow ("The Harvest of Sorrow had a clear moral:[...]" and much else is taken straight from the LA Times). In the "Day of Dupes" section, which is nothing more than an attempt to quote everything Flushout1999 considers important from the article in question (there are no secondary sources to establish the significance of this article and thus why we need to copy so much of it), Flushout1999 did originally add one sentence of his own unsourced commentary ("Implying that the latter was a good thing.") to Conquest's words ([Conquest wrote that one of the signatories] "has told us how he became interested in politics: on seeing a Right-wing policeman kick a Left-wing girl, he did not conclude, as most of us would have done, that it is a bad thing for a policeman to kick girls, but that it is a bad thing for Right-wingers to kick Left-wingers."), but after I pointed out that it was laughably POV he agreed to drop it. I know you don't have a lot of time right now, but if you could look into this matter and take appropriate action when you get the chance I would greatly appreciate it. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 18:52, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TheTimesAreAChanging:, I don't have time to look into this at the moment I'm afraid (though you've probably guessed it from the lack of response!), and I also have had the admin tools removed from my account while I'm travelling so I wouldn't be able to do anything about a problem here. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brian scheduled this one, but I don't expect the summary itself will be a problem ... look at it and see if you agree. My summary is very close to your lead. - Dank (push to talk) 22:00, 19 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, I don't know if the article itself needs updating ... let me know. - Dank (push to talk) 02:05, 20 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Dank: the article needs considerable updates, so can you please pull this? I've been waiting for the next Australian Defence white paper to update it, which should be released in the next few weeks. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Brian, please pull this. Nick is travelling until mid-November. This may be my bad; I had already asked Chris to pull one for Nick because he's travelling, and perhaps I should have mentioned that when your shift started to save you some trouble. - Dank (push to talk) 13:05, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll deal with it during my weekend scheduling stint. Brianboulton (talk) 14:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An IP has been adding a work by Stan Winer, South Africa and the Politics of Risk,[20] to the Further Reading list of History of South AfricaEdward321 (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Urgh. Thanks for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
New Companies delsort category
Hi Nick-D: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 16 October 2015 for companies, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Companies. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 16:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
5 Million: We celebrate your contribution
We couldn't have done it without you
Well, maybe. Eventually. But the encyclopedia would not be as good.
Hi: Just a heads up that a new deletion sorting page was created on 19 October 2015 for Disability-related articles, located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Disability. Thanks for your work in performing deletion sorting on Wikipedia. North America1000 18:10, 5 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Guy, but I don't think that's necessary: I only made the request as I was travelling for two months and I'm all travelled out now! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:02, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
SS corrections
Thanks for your corrections. The recent development of that article had me worried. Mr Vinther's user boxes from May (since removed) show where his sympathies lie. Regards, Robby.is.on (talk) 03:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He identifies as a Facist?! Nick-D (talk) 03:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Very much looks like it. Robby.is.on (talk) 03:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That explains a lot. Nick-D (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. I wonder how many of the editors happily collaborating with him on historical articles relating to Nazi Germany (Obenritter, Kierzek, …) are aware of those removed user boxes. Robby.is.on (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't until today. Nick-D (talk) 04:14, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with your sentiment. I also commented on Schutzstaffel talk page, following your entries. I encourage others to do the same. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not at all familiar with your editing, and haven't made any comments about it or yourself. I am familiar with Jonas' editing, and his self-identification as a fascist is really concerning to me in light of it. Nick-D (talk) 05:55, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again - my apologies for posting that here - it was really aimed at the person who sort of threw a "guilt by association" comment out there. Perhaps I should have left that story on his talk page...poor etiquette on my part. Honestly, I've never seen any evidence of Jonas being a fascist and it is not my intention to judge him based on that either. He's been fairly impartial and constructive with the editing I have seen so I can only judge him on that. He's young so maybe that was merely a phase. My son calls himself an "anarchist" but I am pretty sure he has no plans to overthrow the American government. Just sayin' Mate :-)
Removing my soliloquy as it was inappropriate of me to have posted it here. My sincere apologies.--Obenritter (talk) 08:24, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It was not my intention to imply "guilt by association". Rather, my thoughts were along the lines of: if you knew, you might see his work in a very different light. Because having the read the discussion on User:Jonas Vinther ownership of content at the German SS I felt that the article did not seem very honest in regards to how the SS is portrayed. Robby.is.on (talk) 11:44, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nick-D, I have worked many times with you and other regulars and it should be clear that I am only interested in the history of Nazi Germany & World War II in an objective sense. I will work with editors who are willing to improve Wikipedia articles for the betterment of the general reader which is what we are all are for in the end. The SS main article was far from finished and if I had been up, we all have to sleep sometime (not to mention, real life calls), I would NEVER have agreed to the sentiment written on the talk page that the article was ready for a copy edit run through or GA review. And cannot say I have been aware of anyone having a "Facist" user box. As I said recently on another board, "...the SS main article has been undergoing a major re-write, ce work and cite work of late. Anyone who wants to join in the effort is welcome". So certainly you gentlemen are welcome. I have also been waiting for BMK and Poeticbent to edit the article and do hope that Diannaa finds some time to edit there, as well. Cheers, Kierzek (talk) 15:54, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your editing has consistently had a Nazi fanboy tone (eg, pushing for the inclusion of a quote in the Hitler article which misrepresents the motivations for the Holocaust as one recent but repeated example, not to mention creating a series of articles on Hitler, his cronies and related issues which had a disturbingly positive tone), and your self-identification as a fascist is horrible. From what I've seen, the editors who you claim to have "collaborated" with have largely been putting up with you and been trying to minimise the damage you've been causing, though they can obviously speak for themselves and I may be mistaken. Please don't post on my talk page again. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"remove excessive detail for the article"
You used that edit summary here, but in fact, you re-added detail, including the person's full name, which I would be careful about per WP:BLP and WP:RSBREAKING, nevermind the fact that there are >100 victims and i don't think it's appropriate to single out some by name. LjL (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's odd: I actually removed two sentences about the lady, and there was no mention of two people at the time. I imagine that this is the fault of the combination of edit conflicts and the not-good Wikipedia mobile app I was using. Thanks for notifying me of this and I'll avoid using the app in frequently-edited articles in the future to avoid similar problems - I certainly agree that what ended up as my edit here made the article worse, though it was an improvement when I started making it! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:22, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was unsure whether it had been a mistake or what. No harm done, it sparked a little discussion on the talk page and we reached consensus that names and surnames should be left out. LjL (talk) 21:30, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Post's up!
Or mail call as our U.S colleagues say :) Irondome (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Head's up that there is a typo on #2. Didn't instead of did, just before ...99%. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You've got mail!
Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail! Message added 17:35, 15 November 2015 (UTC). It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Is this something to look out for in Wikipedia? And what can be done about it? K.e.coffman (talk) 18:33, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those kinds of subtle bias and omissions are a real problem, and I suspect will need to be the focus of the clean up efforts. Obvious bias generally gets quickly removed, but material which gives too much weight to one aspect, omits details or makes false comparisons is harder to detect and correct. Of course, this isn't just restricted to Wikipedia, with low-quality history books and documentaries often making the same errors. Nick-D (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. A agree that the exterior picture of Wapping railway station that you replaced with the platform image is very similar to its current appearance but it is those details that matter. It is up to you but I think we should bring it back. Here is what I think:
Keep the 2006 image noting the Underground branding and the previous location of the entrance so that its relevance is more clear.
Use the platform image as well, but move it a bit. Maybe put this with content describing the narrow platforms so it illustrates how horribly narrow they really are.
When they finally finish rebuilding that block behind the station (if they ever do finish the damn thing and stop blocking the road) take a new photo for use as the current image. That will make the two images rather more different.
Nick, it looks like the socks are back on Sukhoi Superjet 100,with at least two users showing up to revert who created accounts on November 22. Looks like a really large sock/meat farm here attempting to game the system. Normally I don't ascribe to protecting "the right version", but given the bad faith by these socks, it seems necessary here. I don't understand.the sockmaster's opposition to the Featured image, but it it a very odd situation. Thanks for whatever you can do. - BilCat (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
what ever happened before with what you call socks there are a lot more editors who disagree with that picture! it is as simple as that! and there is nobody gaming the system it is just disagreeing with that picture!--35deyu4642 (talk) 13:11, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you're genuinely not a sock or meatpuppet of User:Gbgfbgfbgfb, or some other sockmaster, then you need to stop edit warring and discuss your objections to the photo on the article's talk page. Otherwise you'll be blocked for edit warring. - BilCat (talk) 13:35, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not surprisingly, Checkuser has confirmed that this user is a sock of Gbgfbgfbgfb. The socks have been blocked. - BilCat (talk) 23:06, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
More like a sockfarm. Dr.K. 23:53, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, apparently a very large farm at that! And quite persistent, with no qualms about lying about it either, as his/her screed above shows. Full protection may well be necessary before too long. - BilCat (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are aggressive and also try to intimidate users on their talkpages. But I doubt we'll need full protection. I think it's game over for the sockfarm. Dr.K. 00:14, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I've just blocked the latest account, and note that the other recent one was confirmed by a checkuser. Nick-D (talk) 07:17, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much Nick. I had just informed the CU about this new sock. Your block of the latest sock came as a very welcome surprise. Take care. Dr.K. 07:29, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OpenPAT Project Status
Hello Nick, can you at least leave a link to the OpenPAT project status on the page. Perhaps something like:
That can be done once the page protection ends. I was intervening to remove the copyright violation material, which it appears you added. Nick-D (talk) 09:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Coastguard Sqn One ACR
Gday Nick. FYI Rupert has contacted Cuprum17 to confirm what he wishes to do with the review. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 22:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for letting me know Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at [[User talk:Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)|User talk:Cuprum17 (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2015 (UTC)]].[reply] You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Removing my user page
Hi! I see that you are one of the administrators on English Wikipedia. Could you please remove (if you have the right to do so) my user page? Im not going to contribute on wikipedia anymore and I would be very grateful if you did it.
Done, as I noticed this request and Nick does not appear to be here at the moment. — Earwigtalk 20:48, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for actioning this request Earwig, and thanks for your contributions Muta112 Nick-D (talk) 21:40, 28 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism?
Noticed this on the article I'm working on HIAG as well as other related articles: Nazi crimeK.e.coffman (talk) 05:46, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
And in the Nuremberg trials article as well. I've just blocked this IP address - thanks for raising this. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 1 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Some strange changes
Pardon the ignorance of a newbie, but I have noticed a rash of changes by 141.215.74.46 . See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.215.74.46 . None have an explanation and they all seem to be pro-Bulgarian or anti-Ottoman. It seemed a better idea to report this, rather than just revert them.
If I am handling this wrong - I probably am - I would be grateful if you could point me towards the correct procedure. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:13, 3 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's obvious POV pushing (the comparison between their treatment of a Bulgarian victory and a defeat is rather stark). I've just protected the articles to stop this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been engaged in a discussion with another editor about his revert of my cuts on the 5th SS Panzer Division Wiking article. Here's the discussion on my Talk page -- Mass removal of uncited or poorly cited material. Would you mind reviewing the discussion and providing your opinion on how to handle this appropriately? I'm a new editor so I would appreciate your guidance. K.e.coffman (talk) 05:47, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input. I'm going to take another go at the article in the near future, along the lines that you suggest. Would you recommend copy-pasting the discussion from my Talk page to the article's Talk page, to explain the edits? K.e.coffman (talk) 06:36, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably best to post a link to the talk page discussion on the article's page, and suggest on the talk page that discussion be continued at the article's page Nick-D (talk) 06:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
GFP
global Fire power write, Indonesia have 5 Attack Helicopter that means Mi-35 FDHLWP (talk) 10:54, 5 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominations for the Military history WikiProject historian and newcomer of the year awards now open!
On behalf of the Military history WikiProject's Coordinators, we would like to extend an invitation to nominate deserving editors for the 2015 Military historian of the year and Military history newcomer of the year awards. The nomination period will run from 7 December to 23:59 13 December, with the election phase running from 14 December to 23:59 21 December. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:06, 7 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Waffen-SS content
Hi Nick-D, thank you again for your support on the SS Div. Wiking; the article is in less bad shape now :-)
As I was working on it, I've started compiling a list of dubious unsourced claims and non-NPOV language. I started it mostly for fun, but I ended up quite disturbed by what I was seeing across the Waffen-SS content. You can see the results here: Military History (WWII and Waffen-SS) content issues.
The problems are systemic and widespread. Is there something that perhaps can be done at the MilHist group level? Or is there a way to identify the most trafficked articles and address them first?
As an aside, I posted re: one of the sourcing issues on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard (Patrick Agte on Jochen Peiper), but I'm not getting a response. Perhaps you could have a look? Not sure if my request here would qualify as 'tag teaming', so if you would rather not post there, that would be fine.
Thank again for your help. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:16, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'd suggest starting a discussion of the Waffen SS articles at WT:MILHIST asking for help cleaning them up. I've commented at WP:RSN, and agree with your analysis. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 9 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I think your reply works better than a reply from me. Please tell me that didn't actually happen ... do you know if someone is actually mass-emailing everyone who had articles deleted in 2009, including for copyvio and promotionalism? - Dank (push to talk) 13:23, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind, I think I see what happened ... the #ArbCom elections are now open! notice was pasted to every conceivable talk page, and it triggered this person's "email this user" function. What a pain. - Dank (push to talk) 14:05, 10 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that you're right, but I was contacted by someone a few months ago who claimed that they wanted to create an article on a topic I'd salted after seeing it listed as an article to create on some website, so there might be people trying to get spam articles recreated fir money who contacted this editor.... Nick-D (talk) 06:42, 11 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Iryna Harpy (talk) is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Season's greetings
GABHello! is wishing you a MerryChristmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas6}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
[21] Nick, would appreciate a sanity check on this revert. Reading the source it doesn't support the edit made and there is a fairly strong POV slant. Regards, WCMemail 14:37, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're not wrong WCM. PThe edit and subsequent ones seriously alter and misrepresent both actual events and the source. The editor has a highly nationalistic frame of reference that colors his edits, and he'll edit war to the death to keep them in. --Drmargi (talk) 16:17, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't look like a neutral edit to me. Nick-D (talk) 22:57, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible ref for G550
Gday Nick. This article from Flight Global is a bit speculative so I'm not sure if it is of any use to you: [22]. They are reporting two a/c and also the possible ELINT / SIGINT role. I thought I'd post it here in case you hadn't seen it yet. All the best. Anotherclown (talk) 10:20, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, thanks. The ABC news TV story about the purchase tonight also said that two aircraft were probably being purchased, but I couldn't find it online. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
After I do all that typing pulling things together! Seriously, thanks. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
TCG Anatolia
TCG Anatolia will be a highly modified amphibious assault ship With the capacity to carry F 35 lightning II B aircraft and possible future integration of Turkish made TIA TFX, fifth generation fighter aircraft is a possibility, so please refrain from altering any information on this page, unless you can back it up.
Please provide sources to support such outlandish claims. Nick-D (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Turkish ship will be equipped with a sky jump, ramp and a front lift in order to accommodate the operation of the short take-off and vertical landing aircrafts.
So, what is your proposition. The almost 50 year old retired Harrier or the F35 B.
Please provide references to reliable sources stating that Turkey intends to buy F-35Bs. I had a look last night, and couldn't find any. Please note the Australian versions of this ship also have these features, but Australia has no intention of ever operating F-35Bs. It turned out to be cheaper and less risky to retain the ski jump than substantially redesign the ship to remove it. A whole bunch of other things are needed to enable F-35 operations (special deck coatings, radars, magazines, etc). Please see the Canberra-class landing helicopter dock article. Nick-D (talk) 22:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Also note that even if the ship has the kit Nick mentions, the article in question says it can carry F-35Bs. That does not mean "Turkey will buy F-35Bs". Turning the first of those statements into the latter is classicWP:SYNTH. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:21, 8 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, The Canberra class was designed to replace the Manoora and Kanimbla Amphibious transport docks, which in essence is a frigate with a dock on it, mainly used for transporting and or operating helicopters,LCM's etc which I'm sure you are aware of, they were not intended from the beginning to be used as an aircraft carrier. Reference from Canberra-class_landing_helicopter_dock. The ski-jump ramp of Juan Carlos I has been retained for the RAN ships, although is not intended for use.[17] The Spanish use the ramp to launch Harrier jet aircraft, and although operating STOVL aircraft was decided against early in the Australian procurement process due to cost and detraction from the ship's main role, redesigning the ship to remove the ramp would have added unnecessary cost to the project. This is my point, the Turkish ship is, as in the reference states from many Turkish sources as well as others, will have the capacity to operate F 35 lighting II aircraft because, It will be designed that way from the beginning.
Sidenote: This is my first article, as I'm new to wiki editing. I thought it would be fantastic to start a new article on wiki as, I'm familiar with military study's. Unfortunately I feel cornered,threatened and disrespected because, I have no badge or any sort of formality. I thought the community was respectful, understanding and helpful, I guess this Is where I was wrong, Bushranger this is partly do to you and the other, someone you may know, for now I'm done editing keep up the good work. Janissary out.
@Janissarywiki:As I mentioned on my page, you were simply being asked to follow Wikipedia policies. Saying "the ship will carry F-35Bs" - which is what the crux of this dispute in fact was - is not supported by the sources. "Capable of" is verifiable through reliable sources. "Will carry" - which is what you kept edit-warring to add the infobox - is not, and Wikipedia is very strict on its policy of no original research. Synthesis is what it is called when a statement in sources - "the ship is capable of carrying F-35Bs" - is taken to mean something the source does not say - "the air group will include F-35Bs". That is what it was attempted to explain to you, and that you were edit-warring - something else Wikipedia is very strict about - to try to add back. Under a strict interpretation of the three-revert rule, you could have been blocked - you were not, because it was being explained to you where you was in error, being new and unfamiliar with the policies. However, if you feel that being asked to follow the community policies means that you cannot participate in the community, then I am sorry to hear that. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:43, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Bushranger}}I have read many articles and know theirs tens of thousands on wiki that do not have credible information because, the source is disputed and or unknown, or until the foreseeable future, but that does not mean information is not present and that's tanks to expert commonsense and higher probability then the verse. Take a look at the reference. [[23]]
The selection of the Spanish design was announced on 27 December 2013, while the main contractor is the Turkish shipyard Sedef. Although the Turkish Navy initially wanted a stripped down version of the Landing Helicopter Dock (LHD) Juan Carlos I class, second thoughts led to a change of plans and the new version of the LHD will be able to carry 8-10 F-35B and 12 helicopters.
Theoretically, sure, like the Australian ships can with some fairly straightforward modifications. But Turkey isn't buying F-35Bs. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Yes, that is exactly the reference I looked at. It does indeed say the carrier will be able to carry F-35Bs. That does not mean, however, that the ship will carry F-35Bs. It means that if Turkey, in the future, changes their order for Dave to include the B variant, the ship should be capable of carrying it with a minimum of retrofit. It does not, however, mean "8 combat helicopters and or Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning IIB" is approprate for the infobox, as you were edit-warring to include earlier. Until Turkey 1. announces that they have ordered the F-35B and 2. says that they will be carried aboard Anatolia, including that is synthesis of sources and, thus, original research. Now, a line in the article that the ship's design is F-35B compatable is appropriate. But including it in the airgroup in the infobox is not. - The BushrangerOne ping only 10:53, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 4 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period October to December 2015. Thank you for your efforts! AustralianRupert (talk) 02:50, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I recently violated my topic ban by leaving a comment here because I was under the impression I was allowed to participate in talk page discussions as long as I didn't edit any actual articles related to Nazism. I now know, from Maunus, that my topic ban covers all articles on Wikipedia so I won't make that mistake again. Sorry! Jonas Vinther • (Click here to collect your prize!) 14:45, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, would you like to do the summary on this one? If so, aim for around 1150 characters, including spaces (not wikitext). - Dank (push to talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@Dank: could you please review this blurb to check that it looks OK? I'm also going to be out of town (and probably out of all forms of electronic contact with the world!) when this runs next week BTW. Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:15, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose: Thanks a lot. I have no idea how I forgot that the blurb needed to be a single para - sorry for being so dense. Nick-D (talk) 10:21, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks guys, looks great. - Dank (push to talk) 14:25, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, i would like to put an additional picture for the Indonesian Army page for further information increasement. Thanks - User: Gitoyo aryo
Hello, There's information on how to use images at Help:Files. If you want to upload images, please also ensure that they are compliant with Wikipedia's copyright conditions first. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:33, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day Nick, could you send that link to my other email please, something wrong with my primary one at the moment. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:00, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added you to the document :) Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Hawkeye7 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating in and supporting my RfA. It was very much appreciated. There is another book review for the Bugle in the usual space. Take care. Hawkeye7 (talk) 21:39, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to support you, and would do so in the future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
citation
If that fact is "widely known", then you shouldn't have a problem providing a citation to support it. I don't doubt that it has a conservative slant under Windshuttle's editorship, but it is (or was) known to provide equal space to pundits in both sides of a debate. Perhaps I must defer to your judgement, I only know about adding cited facts and don't have your expertise in matters of war. cygnis insignis 08:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks for your snarky post! Given your deep love of citations, I'm surprised you removed this without looking for a reference! May I suggest [24][25], [26] and [27]? More generally, I think this falls into the category of something which is so well known it doesn't need a citation - for instance this Menzies House article called Quadrant "Australia’s Conservative Journal of Record". Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:02, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, you're invited to the Canberra meetup which will take place at King O'Malley's Irish Pub in Civic on 17 February 2016. Bidgee (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for supporting my RfA
Brianhe RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for participating at my RfA. Your support was very much appreciated even if I did get a bit scorched. Brianhe (talk) 02:52, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleased to do so - good luck for your next attempt. Nick-D (talk) 05:17, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your support!
Peacemaker67 RfA Appreciation award
Thank you for co-nominating my RfA, Nick. It was very much appreciated, and I am humbled that the community saw fit to trust me with the tools. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:13, 6 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
the real stuff
thank you very much for your dropping in at the freo submarine base! thats the real stuff. cheers JarrahTree 12:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC),
fyi i spent some time at awm and nat archives in perth some years back going through the japanese scare of march 42, and the issues of army camps being set up, I am a bit confused by your 'fact' tag. The 42 scare was very real in perth - they sent kids to live with relatives or family in the hills or country, the whole shamozzle I have seen plans that would amaze you in the awm archive, they had plans to work out how to render fremantle port useless. JarrahTree 12:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm pretty sure that the subs ended up in Fremantle as it was the bolt hole for US Asiatic Fleet warships which managed to escape the Philippines and Dutch East Indies at about this time rather than it being a measure for the defence of the Perth region (WW2-era subs being notoriously ineffective in defensive roles). The US was planning to go on the offensive pretty much immediately at this time, and viewed its deployments to Australia as being mainly preparations for attacks against Japan. I'm meaning to expand the Western Australian emergency of March 1944 article, and a "sister article" on 1942 would be really interesting. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:31, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
good to hear that. I think as far as current thinking amongst the milhist people i know here the 42 scare was a bigger one than the 44 one. cheers JarrahTree 09:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Krzyhorse22
Would you mind doing me a favour? Krzyhorse22 is still not very happy with my actions, as you will see if you check the bottom of my talkpage. Would you mind reviewing my recent actions, incl reverts at his recent edits (and his questionable edit at List of Presidents of Afghanistan) and give me any advice you think necessary? Just a sanity check really; my firm view is that he has a tendency to say uncivil things, and that more recently he seems to have a penchant for deleting information that is actually of use. Cheers Buckshot06(talk) 21:03, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Krzyhorse22 seems to be a habitual edit warrior who assumes that everyone else is acting in bad faith and escalates disputes by making personal attacks. I suspect that they're well on the way to being blocked. Nick-D (talk) 08:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Buckshot06 is WP:WIKIHOUNDING me and I don't like it. [28][29][30][31] I'm not an edit warrior, please stop accusing me. I explain my changes in a civil manner and use the talk page, see Talk:Afghan Americans for example. Calling someone a WP:POV pusher is not a personal attack, many editors use that term. [32] It refers to someone who makes controversial edits without citing any sources.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 21:16, 11 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
WIKIHOUND says 'Correct use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing unambiguous errors or violations of Wikipedia policy.' Now the closing admin of the AN/I dispute, me, and User:Nick-D are all concerned about your continuing, repeated violations of WP policy, so the use of the term 'wikihound' is inappropriate: I'm protecting the encyclopedia by monitoring you. Buckshot06(talk) 01:03, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I correctly removed this info because that project has long been abandoned but you readded it. [33] You did the same kind of my reverts in other articles.[34] This makes you look bad.--Krzyhorse22 (talk) 02:33, 12 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Navbox?
Did you ever think about creating a navbox for all of the "_ in Australian service" articles? Ed[talk][majestic titan] 23:50, 13 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) Sounds like a good idea to me, Ed -- not all the relevant articles have "in Australian service" in the title, e.g. it's redundant in the F-111C article title because that model was only operated by the RAAF, so a navbox is a good way to bring them together. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:22, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Created a draft that I think captures most of the relevant articles -- not entirely happy with the title though as, at its broadest, it could encompass all military aircraft operated by Australia and we're only focussing on specifically Australian models and service histories, so how to put that succinctly (or do we keep the title as is and add an explanatory subtitle?)... Also do we want to restrict to only foreign-manufactured/designed aircraft, which would eliminate the CAC Boomerang and Wackett (oh, and the GAF Nomad if it came to that)? We could make a judgement call on whether to add redlinks or create redirects for some of the more significant ones we haven't gotten round to yet, e.g. Dassault Mirage IIIO, B-24 Liberators in Australian service... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:08, 14 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ian Rose:@The ed17: that looks good to me. I'd suggest including the Australian-only aircraft and adding the more logical red links. The Mirage III and B-24s are straightforward as they have full-length books on them. I'd also suggest adding the Sabre, CAC Canberra, Spitfire and Mustang as they're also heavily-covered. Nick-D (talk) 07:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Question
I am currently in a dispute with another editor over a matter relating to due weight and NPOV in a BLP. As an experienced admin, do you have any recommendation for what forum would be most likely to resolve the disagreement in a binding way? Thanks in advance for any advice you might have. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Without knowing what the matter is you could ask other editors to comment at WP:NPOVN and any relevant wiki projects and see if that generates a consensus one way or the other. WP:BLPN is also an option, but seems to focus on violations of the policy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm so sorry for not responding to the pages. I am currently trying obtaining research for a thesis project at my school, so my ability to fully participate in this review project won't happen. I should have responded sooner. If no one is able to finish the project properly (though Magicpiano seems to be assisting well), you can rescind the review. I don't think I'll get any free time to look at the article extensively until after the 10th of March (at the earliest). LeftAire (talk) 14:21, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your well-argued comments. The Holocaust-denial aspect of the story is an important one, and I just think the whole thing is a very distateful idea. --Dweller (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks also for your comments. This is a great article, but the timing of the TFA proposal really isn't a good idea. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Things to see in Stockholm?
Hi Nick. I gather that you recently visited Stockholm, Sweden. Seeing as I'm going to spend this Easter in Stockholm, I thought I'd ask if you have any suggestions for things to see there? I'm thinking specifically museums/military history related sites. Will of course be taking photos for uploading to Commons while there. Cheers. Manxruler (talk) 04:45, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I spent a few days in Stockholm last September. In regards to military museums, the Vasa Museum and Swedish Army Museum were the only ones I visited, but both were excellent (the Army museum was very different from what I expected - I thought it would be an old-fashioned place, but it was very modern and provides a very sceptical look at Swedish military history). The Swedish History Museum also has good sections on Viking/medieval era warfare. I really liked Stockholm, and hope you enjoy your trip. Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick. Despite having lived in Sweden for half a year a decade ago, I've never been to the Swedish capital before. Looking forward to seeing the place, and I'll make a note of the places you mention (looking forward to seeing how the Swedes communicate their shared history with my country, both as a historian and former museum curator). If you ever head to Norway, drop me a line, we have plenty of things to see here too. Manxruler (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nick, would I be right to assume that you regard Kurowski as an unreliable source to use on Otto Kittel? It is an uncontroversial page about a fighter pilot. The discussion started there. Stephan Schulze and K.e.Coffman have been asked several times for evidence that Kurowski's work on this man is fabricated or bias. They have been unable to do so. Dapi89 (talk) 20:10, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I don't think that Kurowski is a reliable source on any topic at all to be honest - he wasn't a serious historian. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article 1 November 1944 reconnaissance sortie over Japan 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 Zawed -- Zawed (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Nick, I noticed that you tweaked my wording on the divisional article and I wanted to share the below, which is sourced from my comment at Talk:Waffen-SS#SS_were_not_soldiers:
Out of curiosity, I looked at the section in the book by Neitzel, Sönke; Welzer, Harald (2012). Soldaten: On Fighting, Killing and Dying. to see how they treat the Waffen-SS in their discussion on the differences between Wehrmacht and Waffen-SS troops (from pp. 290 – 316). My results are below, arranged in the order of frequency of appearance on these pages (I'm using WSS for "Waffen-SS"; all instances of "SS" are about Waffen-SS):
So "SS-men" is appropriate; this is what sources that I used say. K.e.coffman (talk) 08:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but "SS men" sounds a bit like something they'd call themselves and is easily avoidable. Please revert me if you disagree though - the results of the searches you've provided is very useful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:01, 5 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Nick-D. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hi, Could please recommend/nominate me for the Adminship.--Jogi 007 (talk) 07:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm afraid that I'm not familiar with your history on Wikipedia, so I'm not in a position to do so. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:21, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Shelling of Port Gregory - source of planes
Hi Nick-D - normally a cite ref rather than deletion is the response. However, the record states that sub spotted planes when it approached Geraldton. The most probable source of these was training base as they were the major base there. Hope this helps clarify the paragraph NealeFamily (talk) 11:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Sorry for that - you're right that I should have added a tag or pinged you rather than reverted. Can you please re-add this with a reference? It certainly makes sense - it seems to have been frequent practice for RAAF training flights to have been made over the sea to deter submarines. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Nick-D for your gracious response. I still have some gaps in the information I need, but it will take someone with access to Aussie war records to fill them. There is something called the "Operations Record Book of No. 4 SFTS Geraldton" which is cited in the training school article that might give some clue as to flight movements when the submarine arrived. I would also like to track down the two destroyers the Japanese mentioned and the coast watchers. I'll stick a request on the articles talk page. NealeFamily (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing this. The National Archives of Australia holds the operations record books of many RAAF units of World War II (which in some cases have also been digitalised), but I cant see the one for this flying school by searching the records on its website. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for directing me to the email address for Vandalism, I was completely lost on how to proceed. Have a great day! Lulu1984123 (talk) 15:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, I have done a small amount of work today expanding the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article, but TBH I haven't done a very good job. Just a very broad outline. I don't have the sources or the time to do much more at the moment, unfortunately. Due to your excellent work on the Battle of Arawe article, I wonder if you would have anything you could add to it to flesh it out a bit. The whole campaign seems underdone with the campaign article needing quite a bit of work, and at least two or three battles still being red links (Talasea, Gasmata and Open Bay). I plan to try to devote some time to the topic, but probably not until the end of April as this coming month will be very busy at work. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 06:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, It looks like the article is off to a good start. I'll see what I can add - I've found a few good photos on the AWM website which might be useful (though the photo of troops unloading stores is clearly a very good pick for the infobox given the uncontested nature of this operation). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Nick. I appreciate your help. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:17, 28 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, I've also been doing some work on Battle of Wide Bay today (the Battle and Aftermath sections still need expansion). I've made a start on Battle of Talasea, also (the Battle section needs work still), but for some reason I'm having trouble getting motivated at the moment (very tired from work this week). I also plan to maybe write a short stub for Battle of Open Bay, maybe, just to round out the battles of the New Britain campaign series. If you are keen to help on these, too, that would be fantastic. Anyway, hope you have a nice weekend. I'm off to work for a bit. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, now I think about it, perhaps the two should be merged to create an article called Battle of Wide Bay–Open Bay, as I don't think there would be enough information really for a battle article on each. Thoughts? AustralianRupert (talk) 23:22, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like a good idea given that this was all one campaign which only saw a small(ish) amount of fighting. I've been considering doing something similar covering the mini-campaign on the eastern shore of Brunei Bay in Borneo during June-July 1945. I'll look in on those articles, but also had a busy week, so may not contribute much. Nick-D (talk) 23:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
G'day, Nick, do you mind if I add myself as a co-nom for the GAN for the Landing at Jacquinot Bay article? I'm probably too involved to act as a reviewer. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Please do - if I'd known how to do it I'd have added you initially. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have to have editing privileges to approve a pending change? WCMemail 13:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Yes you do - please see Wikipedia:Pending changes#Reviewing pending edits, which also notes the location to apply for the relevant permission. Given that you've been a rollbacker consistently since 2009 I don't see any barrier to you being approved for the permission if you want it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes thanks, helped a newbie out but found my changes were also held as a pending revision. WCMemail 00:15, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've just enabled the "pending changes reviewer" permission for your account. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 00:17, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. WCMemail 00:18, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikifiddling
Nick
Can I get your advice on what appears to be a fairly straightforward case of wikifiddling. On April 2, I noticed an article on my watchlist had been edited to remove South Georgia and other BOT from the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands, which is a parish covering BOT in the South Atlantic. It was created in 1952 to cover the Falkland Islands and the Falkland Island Dependencies, splitting them off from South America due to the problems with Argentina. The editor is claiming they're part of the diocese of Rio Gallegos. Having tried and failed to claim it was uncited, he's approached the owner of the website concerned lobbying him to change the entry. He is now removing the content claiming its uncited.
I've started the ball rolling with a comment on WP:NPOVNWP:RSN, would you advise any further action?
Hi WCM, I've commented there. The short version is that I'd suggest cross-checking against other sources. Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Signature
There was nothing wrong with TWC adding your signature here. It's allowed per WP:TPO. clpo13(talk) 23:45, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, there is: People should not change one another's posts, even for minor matters, unless it's unavoidable. I was clearly online, and could have been given a polite reminder here. There are also bots which correct sig stuff-ups automatically. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, I clearly read You are allowed to append attribution (which can be retrieved from the page history) to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. wrong. Ta. clpo13(talk) 23:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can for people who are clearly online if you want, but only if you want to be a bit of jerk given it's easily avoidable. It's politer to just drop them a line or wait for them or the bot to fix the mistake. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd rather someone just fix my sig than bother me about something so minor. TWC has step over the line sometimes on talk pages in the past, but in this case, it's clearly good faith and helpful, perhaps other than eliminating the line space. I've added sigs myself several times, with no negative responses. - BilCat (talk) 00:05, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each to their own :) Nick-D (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
wtf...
...is this? ("Thewolfchild ,don't edit other editors' talk posts") I didn't edit your post, I simply added your name to the timestamp, because you forgot to. This is no different than adding an {{unsigned}} template. You reverting that, just so you could turn around and add it yourself, then scold me in the edit summary was a WP:DICK thing to do, and you know it. Anyone else you would've thanked, but you sure carry personal grudges for a looong time. (Why didn't you just tack on another unjust block while you were at it?) You're an admin, you're supposed to be a leader in the community, demonstrating standards of civility, collegiality and maturity. This was not up to those standards. - theWOLFchild 01:06, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the rant: please see above, and a polite note here would have worked wonders. I'm not aware that I have a grudge against you? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Each to their own :) - theWOLFchild 02:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for finding all the references and adding the correct answer!! It probably won't surprise you that it's the long-standing retention problems in the Navy after "civilianisation", rather than any gaff about their ability to handle higher sea conditions. But then again there is no suggestion that any shade of government had anything to do with the deeply problematic personnel policy that caused a whole lot of people to leave; just a policy, developed by people who were trying to improve things, that didn't work at all in the way it was intended.. Buckshot06(talk) 10:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I suspect that the Australian mining boom had a fair bit to do with it as well: the RAN lost a lot of its personnel to the mines at about this time, leading to major problems crewing the fleet (from memory, a couple of Anzac frigates and most of the submarines had to be laid up and the shortages contributed to the collapse of the RAN's amphibious force). Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
On behalf of the WikiProject Military history coordinators, I hereby award you this for your contribution of 9 FA, A-Class, Peer and/or GA reviews during the period January to March 2016. Thank you for your efforts! Anotherclown (talk) 10:41, 19 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keating
Thanks for your msg on my user talk page but would you mind copypasting that to the article talk page where it will be further useful? Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi good to see youre expanding 44, I have too much OR material from my foray into things over here re 42 to be actually included, buit my understanding is that 44 was a bit like the 1st world war russian scare at albany, ephemeral and ghost like compared to 42. In the AWM there is a brilliant file of how they had planned to totally demolish all facilities at freo harbour in the event of any invasion. Also Graham Mcenzie smith's 'defending fremantle' - have ever seen or heard of it? give me your contact details offline and you can have a copy if you like...keep up the good work!! JarrahTree 00:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thanks basically right - though it did lead to lots of RAAF squadrons being moved to WA. I think that I have a copy of Mcenzie Smith's book. The relevant war diaries from garrison units in WA which are available on the AWM's website also make for interesting reading - this was taken pretty seriously at the time though it all seems a bit odd today in light of what we know about the war. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 01:00, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
ahh yes, what melbourne thought versus the perth based higher brass, yes that explains things - thats where my unpublished work on the un-named army camp all makes sense. melbournes estimation versus on the ground in the west. seems to happen even these days JarrahTree 01:04, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
interesting - the cyclone between 7th and 14th, not sure what your refs say, but graham's inference is that it severely limited seaward searches - and limited intelligence as well as Bennett returned on the 8th... the melbourne vs bennett understanding of things... I really like the description of kittyhawk abd dakota landing every 10 minutes out at Kalgoorlie - and the fact that the big 4 from singers actually managed to sink something! (the behar)... i bet the radar and weather didnt mix well... JarrahTree 06:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
surely Indian_Ocean_raid_(1944) is all part of it as well, there is no specific article for the Behar, but the fate of the survivors was not exactly nice... JarrahTree 06:43, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I haven't got up to adding that. Smith's implication about the cyclone makes a lot of sense - the official histories are a bit unclear why the Allies reacted in the way they did, but the real possibility that a Japanese fleet could use bad weather to approach and then attack Fremantle during a full moon period goes a long way to explaining why this threat was taken so seriously. Have you seen any sources which cover how civilians saw this event, and how its remembered? It must have been pretty dramatic, even if censorship stopped it from being reported at the time. Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, ive seen more about 42 than 44, might have to trawl trove while it is still alive
yeah the way the nla is bleeding, maybe the 2016 form of censorship for wp au articles will be the closing down of trove... JarrahTree 11:41, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK thanks. From what I've seen, there isn't a risk of Trove being shut down, but the problem is that the NLA no longer has sufficient funding to expand the service. Which by itself is a tragedy given what a vital resource it's quickly become. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
sorry didnt mean to get political on your talk page, i find starving something like that brainless... anyways will try to double check some of the more obvious - graham m s has a very brief mention of the people taking the scare seriously, i suspect the 42 stories had crept down the coast by then (there is almost an industry on the 42 bombings and related issues and things on the north west - when i was in the airforce museum here in perth a few months back, the items about the bombings have grown amazingly.. JarrahTree 11:53, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Landing at Jacquinot Bay 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 Anotherclown -- Anotherclown (talk) 03:40, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Anotherclown (talk) 05:18, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The Wikipedia Library
.jpg)
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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
; see Talk:4th Armoured Brigade (Australia) 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 AustralianRupert -- AustralianRupert (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
.png)