User talk:Nick-D

My talk archive (June 2008–current)
My talk archive (November 2005–May 2008)

Awards people have given me

Happy New Year

Hi Nick

Happy New Year(I know you will read this tomorrow). Can you take a look at Carthage. A user who claims to have three academic titles in history has put a NPOV tag on the article because it doesn't mention that the Romans fought fierce wars with Carthage and the Carthaginians brought them almost to their knees. I think it is enough to say that they fought wars with Syracuse and Rome and that Carthage was destroyed. However, the academic wants an administrator to remove his NPOV tag. Thank you Wandalstouring (talk) 17:37, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

You may be interested

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at RfC: Should Vietnam MIA material all be here or be located in a separate article and summarized here. Thank you. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

The correct location of the discussion is Talk:Missing in action#RfC:_Should_Vietnam_MIA_material_all_be_here_or_be_located_in_a_separate_article_and_summarized_here.   — Jeff G. (talk|contribs) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Greetings (and some Milhist business)

First, happy new year!

Second, I've raised a couple of things here which could use swift responses. May I trouble you please to check them out?

Thanks! --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 19:34, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick

Would you mind contributing your oar, either way, at [1]? Needs some expertise from people who have some Milhist experience who aren't me. Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 20:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Dear Nick-D, I hope you had a wonderful New Year's Day, and that 2009 brings further success and happiness! ~ YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks again for keeping the troops in line. YellowMonkey (bananabucket) 05:00, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nemesis

Hey Nick. I was roaming through the MILHIST Coord thread and saw you mention Max Hasting's Nemesis. I just got it for christmas and was about to read it - what does Hastings get so badly wrong in his chapter on Australia? Skinny87 (talk) 09:01, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

He greatly exaggerates the amount of unrest in the Army and strike action by unionists, and relies on strange sources (random news stories and cherry picked interviews with veterans rather than the massive secondary literature which is now available or records from the time). The chapter attracted a fair amount of criticism from Australian historians, who basically argued that while there was disquiet in the Army it was mainly limited to a few battalions and the industrial relations problems weren't that bad. I really liked the rest of the book though, and his examination of MacArthur's strategy in the last year of the war is excellent. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Hrm, yes, that sounds like Hastings alright - I have a few problems with Armageddon, as well. Thanks for that, I'll keep that in mind. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I enjoyed Armageddon as well, but his portrayal of the western Armies stumbling to victory didn't ring true to me. Nick-D (talk) 10:22, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Nagging suspicion

Take a look here. Would I be out-of-order in suspecting that this is a unipurpose account? Cam ^(Chat) 23:57, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Possibly, though it could just be a newbie high school kid with a bee in his or her bonnet. I'm a bit sceptical about the editor's professed level of nativity about how Wikipedia works though - they're clearly out to push their POV. Nick-D (talk) 00:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, you're probably right—and it's not as if they're even subtle about it. Cam ^(Chat) 01:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok. I'm going to let you deal with future disputes at WWI Talk. It's gotten so confusing that I'm not even sure what everyone's arguing about anymore. Cam ^(Chat) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't follow it either - Definetly a case of TLDR! I don't know or care that much about WWI so I'll watch and see what develops. Nick-D (talk) 05:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's just gotten absolutely ridiculous over the last week. Not only does the guy not know anything about wikipedia policy, but I'm not even going to consider helping with a rewrite when such hostility exists on the talk page. I do not want to go through what Oberiko did (no one does). Cam ^(Chat) 05:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree - a group of motivated editors is needed to drive the kind of changes that article needs while fending off edit warriors. I suspect that Roger's not going to fork out that $US250 bounty any time soon. Nick-D (talk) 05:34, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the same situation applies at Alexander the Great. The easiest way forward is for an uninvolved admin to keep an eye on the article and to stay uninvolved. They can deal with the unreasonable stuff. (Gwen Gale?) It's usually only a couple of people who are generating most of the heat and the others start behaving once they realise that regime change has arrived ;) --ROGER DAVIES ^talk 14:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

MIA article

I don't want to revert it, because I've done some reverts in the past and I don't want some admin who isn't paying much attention blocking both ToTheCircus and me. That's why I brought this to ANI, because I want someone to look seriously at this and finally taken some action against this user. I've done 40,000 edits on some of the hottest topics around without ever getting blocked and I don't want to start now ... Wasted Time R (talk) 05:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this last night. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You have been WikiTrouted

This is a WikiTrout

Dear Nick-D. This is a WikiTrout. You have been slapped with this WikiTrout for asking another editor to Meatpuppet on your behalf, by performing edits which you should have done yourself, or waited to do. This WikiTrout is bought to you courtesy of Goldman's Pharmacy, and Thor Malmjursson (talk) 05:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC). Thank you for your attention!

I apologise for bringing this up in the first place - that is one large trout. I'll pay for the medical services. — neuro^(talk) 05:46, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am an administrator open to trout slapping, and sort-of deserve it. It would be good if another admin would protect that article. Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:Countess of Hopetoun and Sydney

For Countess, I'm agreeing with your assessment, and have categorised it as such. I think this is only the first or second pre-RAN ship to be placed in a RAN category, as most pre-RAN ships had careers of little note during this section of their histroy. Anyway, if more information comes to light that contradicts this, we can easily change it.

As for Sydney, feel free. The only local library (that I know of) that has Flying Stations is a university library, and its difficult for me to access it. -- saberwyn 06:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello Nick-D

Thanks for the thanks regarding the pics I added to the Pacific Class Patrol Boat page. And for thumbnailing my pic on the LCM-8 page. I really don't know much about formatting and codes for Wikipedia, I generally try and find a similar thing from another page and just copy the codes there so I make a lot of mistkes along the way. I have a lot of pics and things I can add to similar type pages if I have the time both to do it and learn to how to do it properley. I wish wikipedia had been around 10 years ago when I had heaps of time to learn how to add/edit properly. Whats the go with Australian Dept Defence images, I can't work out if they are allowed or not, but given the amount of pictureless ADF topics where dozens of images are on the ADF websites I assume they can't be used? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angra (talk • contribs) 06:26, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

I think I'll just stick to posting my own images as although I read the link to the stuff you gave me, I don't fully understand it, so I'll play it safe and only post my own stuff. Cheers. Angra (talk) 07:59, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Battle of the Strait of Otranto

G'day Nick, Found this website ([2]) which may be of help to expand your article. Some interesting statements including additional allied forces involved. Also the "Battle of the Strait of Otranto" appears to have also been an action in World War I. See [3]. Regards --Newm30 (talk) 21:53, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for those links - User:Anotherclown started the article BTW. Nick-D (talk) 07:04, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Re Juzhong

Thanks, I noticed you'd previously blocked then extended your block. It baffles me why some people even bother signing up, given their subsequent behaviour... and even more why they keep coming back ;) EyeSerene^talk 12:52, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Periods of WW II

First period of World War II, Second period of World War II, Third period of World War II - do you think these articles by Mrg3105 are notable independently, or should we just add quick notes into the main Eastern Front article? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 22:19, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXIV (December 2008)

The December 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

William Bostock

Hi mate, I'm happy to wrap up the peer review for this so I can get the ACR under way - unless there's anything further you wanted to add? Thanks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 08:19, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Done. Good luck with the ACR! Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for HMAS Jeparit

On January 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article HMAS Jeparit, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 01:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

United Districts Basketball Club

Hello Nick,

Firstly I can see you have made a marvellous contribution to Wikipedia and continue to ongoingly.

I am surprised that our well presented attempt at beginning our History for United Districts Basketball Club was deleted only day or so after I created it.

I noticed A7 as the reason attributed. I understand your concern, however give us some time and further references notability will be suitably established. I would be very appreciative if you could send me the source code for the deleted page, that I may be able to save my work and resubmit at a later date, after completing further work off-line.

Regards, Tim Muehlberg Web Manager UDBC —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timothy.muehlberg (talk • contribs) 04:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but no. There is almost no chance of articles on non-professional sports teams meeting the relevant criteria for inclusion (Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)) and you would probably be wasting your time. Please also see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and WP:NOT#HOST as you should not write articles on organisations you are part of. Nick-D (talk) 05:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Making changes"

Hi Nick. Didn't mean to upset anyone. Reverting to a previous stable state is not the same as "making changes" against consensus. Most page moves should go through the WP:RM process to make sure that the proposed change is "vetted" by a broader audience, not just those who are watching the article in question. Thanks. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Draft article accidentally created on Wikipedia mainspace"

Hi Nick. Many thanks for placing the article in the right place. It's all very new to me. Davshul (talk) 20:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Missing In Action (revert war)

Thanks for fixing things yet again. Unfortunately, I think that that you (and other administrators) will be forced to keep a permanent watch on the Missing In Action article. I have just added comments to the discussion page supporting your recent action. - Nabokov (talk) 22:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, it's just happened again. Thanks for fixing it. I'm sure it's abundantly clear to you by now that the almost-religious zeal of some Vietnam-MIA believers is such that they'll never give up trying to subvert the MIA article to their own narrow agenda. Give it a couple of weeks and there's sure to be another attempt. I suspect that for some people the term "MIA" is synonymous with Vietnam. In other words, any other reference to MIA which doesn't feature Vietnam in the "starring role" either simply isn't relevant, or is of merely tangential importance. Unfortunately, it's pointless trying to convince them that there's a need for balance in the article. Their beliefs are so deeply entrenched that nothing anyone says or does will ever persuade them that they are anything other than 100% right. The peculiar thing is that Vietnam-MIA believers have been given a perfectly reasonable compromise, yet that still isn't good enough for them. - Nabokov (talk) 14:17, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just done 2 reverts on Missing In Action. No prizes for guessing why. However, I can't keep on reverting it because of the 3-reverts rule. Please assist. - Nabokov (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of useful ideas on this one. My last post there was the most accommodating stance I could think of to take. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive504#User:ToTheCircus constantly reverting article against complete consensus of other editors is the reference for the previous WP:ANI discussion of this. I suppose it needs to be taken there again, but I'm not eager to do it myself this time. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well done!

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		For your extensive contributions to the Military history WikiProject, as evidenced by your nomination in the 2008 "Military Historian of the Year" awards, I am delighted to present you with this WikiProject Barnstar --ROGER DAVIES talk 03:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

A-class review

Hey, thank you for your comments. I responded with my opinions on the matter, and your opinions would be much appreciated. :) The review is located here. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:21, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, this is just another prod. Three other reviewers have looked at the article; the article's future lays in your hands. I would been in extreme gratitude if even just got discussion moving again. Thank you! JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Much better...

...[4] regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm playing around with the Howard Govt article to try and find my feet - I should have expected that Australian political articles would be more hotly contested than the military history articles I'm used to... Nick-D (talk) 10:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

RE:WWI

Agreed. I've toned most of it out now (primarily because of TLDR syndrome;). Cam ^(Chat) 01:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Hasan di Tiro

Hi Nick

There’s been a long-running dispute between an registered editor (Esemono) and an anon. I stepped in the other day saying enough and promised (naively?) to find a solution.

I don’t know much about the article content or the disputing sides - the article’s subject is/was a player in the Aceh conflict (and we think Oz Pol is controversial!). It seems that the registered editor has sought third party opinion which supported his position, and the history page suggests other editors support his position. Either way, the anon is not using talk page and reverting with misleading edit summaries. As I pointed out in the talk page, no matter the actual content of the dispute, the position of registered editor certainly seems closer to consensus, and seems to be going through the correct process – unlike the anon.

I offered a few general suggestions whereby if there was indeed conflicting reliable sources, then a way to acknowledge both would be of assistance.

Any suggestions? Semi protect? Either way, it can’t keep bouncing around like it has. If you can’t step in directly, some advice/direction would be much appreciated. Regards --Merbabu (talk) 22:06, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I've just warned the IP (which no-one had done previously - I think?) and will watchlist the page. I don't see the need to protect it given that it appears that only a single editor is disrupting the article. I'll watchlist the article and let me know if I can be of further help. Nick-D (talk) 06:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks. Let's see what happens. --Merbabu (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

re: Tom Derrick

Hi Nick. Tom Derrick is my next target for both GAN and A-Class, then eventually FAC. :) Any further info you can add on his final battle and death would be excellent. In Robert Macklin's book Bravest: How some of Australia's war heroes won their medals, it states that it is believed Derrick deserved another VC for his actions in the battle he died, but does not have much info on why. Thanks for the gracious offer. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for adding the photo. I intended to add one of his funeral when I got down to that section; still gotta finish the VC section yet! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 09:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I just read your additions; some very good information there. Thank you. Macklin states that Derrick was both unable to be evacuated but also refused it when he was as he wanted to make sure Freda was captured. Directing his men during this time, Macklin claims had fought gallantly and with great leadership to get to the position they were that night. The book also includes a quote from historian Michael McKernan that Derrick deserved three VCs; one for El Alamein, another at Sattleberg and a third at Tarakan. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 11:30, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I thought I'd just let you know, Nick, that I just nominated Derrick for GA. I still have further expansion planned, but I believe it is good enough for GA in it's current form and thought I'll get that milestone up and running now. It usually takes a week or two before a reviewer comes along anyway, so it should be all finished by that stage. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 15:18, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, you're starting to scare me, Nick. All along I've intended to add the photo of Derrick and Reg Saunders. Thank you so much for all of your additions to the article; I especially like the inclusion of his medals. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

I figured that was the case; I spotted the photo of the sign you took over at Commons. Lol, I think you just got yourself in a whole bit of trouble by that offer; I would really appreciate it if you would be able to provide me with any photos possible, but please don't feel obligated to do so. I thought Derrick's portrait would have been displayed in the Hall of Valour? Thanks and cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick, I'm just going through the "Later war service" section adding additional information. I'm up to the Freda engagement and am a little confused. From what you've written, the 2/48th Battalion attacked Freda on 19 May, and managed to gain a hold on 20 May; the day Derrick was wounded. In all of the other sources I have read, it states they managed to gain a hold on 22 May, and he was wounded on 23 May; dying the next day. Where did the discrepancy come from? Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I just made a progress save then, so we can sort out where this bloody discrepancy came from! :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 03:29, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Lol, it's all good. Thanks mate, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 04:03, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Found another discrepancy, Nick: "Derrick died on 24 May 1945 during a second operation on his wounds.[1] He was initially buried in the 2/48th's cemetery on Tarakan, but was later interred at the Labuan War Cemetery, plot 24, row A, grave 9.[49]" - in this section, the first sentence is covered by the Australian Dictionary of Biography, which only states that he died, and has nothing about an operation. In the second, it is covered by the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, which only states he is buried in Labuan War Cemetery; nothing about being re-interred after burial in Tarakan. Would you be able to dig out the cites for these two sectences? Many thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:13, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, mate. Lol, I noticed; I can just picture you excitedly rummaging through your personal library searching for any mention of Derrick. :) Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 05:21, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey Nick. I just finished up some work on the "Legacy" section, and then opened the A-Class Review for Derrick (here). I still plan to expand the lead a bit more, but the body is all done so I figured the review can be opened now. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes. Do you know any good copy-editors who would be willing to have a crack at the article? I figure if we're going on to FAC it should have a good copyeditor have a look to iron out some problems before hand. I usually go to EyeSerene, but he's quite banked up at the moment. Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:35, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Advanced Programs, Inc (API)

Dear Nick,

With much surprise I found out this morning that you deleted the entire site for the company Advanced Programs, Inc (API), with the reason of 'blatant advertising'. Instead of deleting historic and valuable information about a company, I would kindly encourage you to modify the text in such a way, so that it is transparent to Wiki standard.

Furthermore, I would also like to challenge you to take a closer look at other Wiki sites of US IT companies. The format (historic information, executive leadership and product information) is plenty of times identical, as API has used it. Therefore, the layout and information previously posted regarding API, has little or no variation to the Wiki standard being enforced towards those sites.

Thank you for taking the time to review and respond.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 07:23, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was also speedy deletable as it contained no claim of notability. Please see WP:ORG for the relevant guidelines articles on companies need to meet. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

After having carefully read it, it is not apparent to me towards which standard we are not adhering by:

The standard of:

• The scope of their activities is national or international in scale => API is a world wide company

• Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion for all organizations as described above.) => API had listed references to NATO's NC3A and the U.S. National Security Agency. Are more needed?

API is national and internationally recognized TEMPEST supplier and the organizations mentioned above verify this on their sites. Therefore, kindly advice what the next steps are, as I do want to relaunch the site ASAP.

Again, Wikipedia is hosting similar sites to companies in the same market space, while those companies are even smaller (in terms of revenue) or have less market share (in terms of geographical coverage).

The API site had a link listed to its company's news section, that clearly provide even more references.

Thank you again for your time and for helping me to getting this article conform.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've moved the material to your user page at: User:JAKS1975/API to allow you to work on it. For a company to be notable it needs in-depth references which are independent of the company - the company's news page doesn't count towards establishing notability. The NSA reference appears to be a dead link and the NATO reference is to an entry in what appears to be a database of suppliers - this isn't the kind of in-depth coverage needed. Please don't restore the article into Wikipedia until more independent references are added. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick,

I made changes to the text as you have requested and would like for you to have a look before I restore the article. I believe I removed all of the 'blatant advertising' and supplied as many references as I could gather; due to the nature of the company’s business though, you will understand that military organizations or intelligence agencies do not post online articles about their partnership with API.

Thx again for your help with this - Hopefully you will now give your seal of approval.

-Jerome —Preceding unsigned comment added by JAKS1975 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I still don't think that those references are sufficient- the first one is a database entry, the second one is a one-paragraph summary of what appears to be an API press release, the third and fourth ones only mention the company API was previously part of and appear to date before this company became an independent firm. That's just my opinion, however, and I have sought the views of other admins at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive181#Comments requested on an article I speedy-deleted and which an editor wishes to restore after further work - please feel welcome to post there. Nick-D (talk) 03:20, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamato Class

Hey, I've fixed quite a few of the issues you brought up at the ACR of the Yamato-Class. Would you be able to check back in? Cam ^(Chat) 06:39, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Done, that looks good. Nick-D (talk) 07:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

See also

Yes, it had also occurred to me that, given that they are a relatively new editor, "Anotherclown" probably might not know what was going on! It also occurred to me that there might be a better place to have the discussion, but I couldn't think where. (In any case, young Bryce does not seem to have any interest in discussing the matter, so perhaps it's a moot point anyway?)

However, I am still a little confused about "see also" sections, in that although the MoS says that the sections can have their uses, it seems the WP FAC reviewers work by a different set of "rules". Is this interpretation of the situation by me accurate, or have I missed something? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. "Anotherclown" is probably still rather uncertain about what is the "right" thing to do. How do you feel about summarising the situation and leaving them some useful advice? I'd do it, but I'm fairly confident that Mr Abraham would find something in my words with which he would agressively disagree. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:51, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I've replied at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Australian military history task force. cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive

Hi there Nick, could you possibly revisit the A-Class review for Wehrmacht forces for the Ardennes Offensive. Any further comments would be most appreciated I think. Thanks, regards. Woody (talk) 17:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Military career of Keith Miller

Hello, have you noticed that the Australian War Memorial's online collection database has about a dozen good quality PD photos of Keith Miller playing with the RAAF team in 1945? Nick-D (talk) 07:10, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I guess we have the all clear for PD now don't we with commons and the fact that some other clause has been made for them? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 23:23, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. The AWM's database now states that the photos are both 'copyright expired' and 'public domain' where appropriate, so they can be used for any purpose. Nick-D (talk) 06:48, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, pictures uploaded, and waiting at MHR <nudge for review> YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:38, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fellow on WWI article

Blocked him indefinitely. Just looked at some odd comments and noted that he's only got a few edits, all of them talk pages and seems to know all the policies already. Seems like a great big leg-pulling account saying Mein Kampf is a RS and comparing 1914 Serbia to the Taliban and OBL. I think you should be more cynical with some folks.... There's this guy on the VN War page who never edits and only drones on and one saying that the US didn't lose and nobody answered him luckily, except a few hard-core anti-US guys who did the opposite... No need to reply to him. I think he's been taking for a ride 100%. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 07:50, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I originally assumed that he was a potential edit-warring high schooler (with which that article is infested), but have been ignoring him since it became clear that he's a troll and, most likely, a sock puppet - today's post makes it pretty clear that they have a prior history. The perils of assuming good faith! Nick-D (talk) 07:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank-you for the update. I'll keep a close watch on that. Cam ^(Chat) 07:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

re: David Whitehead

Hi Nick. In regards to recipients of the Croix de guerre, some publications will give them the postnominals "CdeG" however these are not official postnominals and would not be used in formal publications, engagements, ceremonies, etc. Also, as it is a forign award, even if it did confer postnominals Australians would not be entitled to use them. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Yamato

I've addressed all of your comments on the ACR of Japanese battleship Yamato. Feel free to check back in. Cam ^(Chat) 21:23, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations

Well done on getting Military History of Australia during World War II promoted to A-class. I would imagine it would be quite difficult to summarise 6 years of Australia's involvement in a world-wide war into a single article, but you did a great job. Congratulations. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Second that - blokes like me do well in the unit- or person-level microstudies, but Nick's eye for the right degree of detail in those articles with a much broader sweep, such as Military History of Australia during World War II and Australian Defence Force, are a major asset to the project. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Ian, and thanks also for your excellent comments and suggestions in the ACR. Nick-D (talk) 07:32, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

IP vandal 202.37.68.x

Thanks for range-blocking this character. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

No problem. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 03:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The idiot is back and editing from 118.92.x addresses. Would it be possible to implement a similar anon-only block for 118.92.x for a week or so to send a message, or is this too broad? The 118.92.x addresses they've used are:

• 118.92.128.91 (talk · contribs) (today)
• 118.92.131.134 (talk · contribs) (18 January)
• 118.92.194.238 (talk · contribs) (December)
• 118.92.131.226 (talk · contribs) (3 November)
• 118.92.225.165 (talk · contribs) (17 September)
• 118.92.131.99 (talk · contribs) (13 September)
• 118.92.176.95 (talk · contribs) (29 August)
• 118.92.139.74 (talk · contribs) (22 August)
• 118.92.160.13 (talk · contribs) (2 July - admitted posting incorrect info at: [5])

There are also some 118.93 addresses, but these are much less frequent. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I blocked the 118.92.131.0/24 but the others are too spread out and there are a lot of people on that range, including many proper editors. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 00:36, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for looking into this. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

• You may not need that new left-facing tank pic...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

On the WWII Corrections

No problem. I don't know if this is possible, but I would be in favor of a banner at top of the article where edit wars have gotten so bad that that every edit must first be discussed. The Be Bold Wikipedia policy of adding sources and correcting errors understandably can't apply in such situations.

No big deal at all, just a suggestion for some kind of indicator to give editors a heads up. It might also help those monitoring the page from having to revert so often (I just examined the history page of this article) by decreasing original undiscussed edits.Mosedschurte (talk) 06:34, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Nick

It came as a surprise to me today, when, as I searched for 'Man Scale' it returned a page claiming the page had been deleted. I found this quite strange, as i had read the article in question just yesterday and considered it a well reasoned, researched and considered definition. I c=checked back to confirm a few details and it had gone. Please amend your mistake of deleting the article in question and I'm sure you will be able to minimise the amount of inconvienience caused to researchers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.68.133.51 (talk) 23:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The article was deleted per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man scale. Nick-D (talk) 00:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at Bryce's

FYI. Pdfpdf (talk) 03:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Something for you

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		In recognition of your contribution in improving Military history articles through A-Class and Peer Reviews, during the fourth quarter of 2008, please accept this Content Review Medal. -MBK004 04:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! (and thanks also for volunteering to look after this). Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Defection

You don't see what's unusual about defection to a Communist country?

The article infers it was certainly considered unusual at the time. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 00:09, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

It's certainly an unusual thing for people to have done, but I don't think that it's an unusual topic for an article to cover - tons has been written about this, along with movies, documentaries, etc. Nick-D (talk) 07:14, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Inappropriate Discussion?

Nick, my discussion communicates information in a concise, easy-to-understand manner. It is relevant to the topic, remains objective, and deals with facts which are supported through a reference. However, the response you left on my talk page is essentially a threat. If you have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:TALK#User_talk_pages, you'll see that personal attacks are not allowed on Wikipedia; and threatening people with blocking/banning for disagreeing with you is considered a personal attack. Behave yourself! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.48.10.6 (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

If you stop using Wikipedia talk pages to complain about politicians and promote an attack website then you won't get any further warning messages for doing this. Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

AGF

I am afraid that you have not AGF'ed with my edits, or at least that is the way it appears to myself. I have responded to your comments at 3RR, please read them, and take note that I ain't no politically motivated editor. In regards to the Irish famine, the book that I have used as a reference is not on the famine itself, but rather on how the English press reported on the famine. Yes, Wilson did say in The Economist "it is no man's business to provide for another"..."if left to the natural law of distribution, those who deserved more would obtain it"...this said whilst the Irish were begging for assistance. Such attitudes within the British press lead Maria Edgeworth to say, "To leave all the misery consequent upon improvidence and ignorace, to say nothing of imprudence and vice, to their own reward (anglice punishment) an to refuse any relief by charity to those who were perishing and perhaps before the very eyes of the anti-charitable...in their death struggle, would require a heart of iron - a nature from which the natural instinct of sympathy or pity have been expelled or destroyed." That is some quite notable comments from both The Economist, and from a notable Irish personality of the day. It is this type of thing which will be expanded upon in the article. --Russavia ^Dialogue 11:46, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Please join the discussion on the article's talk page and respect the consensus of other editors there rather than continue your edit-warring and POV-pushing. Nick-D (talk) 21:28, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Two of the same article

Hi Nick. I just stumbled across the newly created article Alexander A. N. D. Pentland by User:Georgejdorner, however I was sure Pentland already had an article and, sure enough, he does: Alexander Pentland. I was wondering if you would be able to help me in this matter? As an admin, I figured you would know what to do in a case such as this, or would at least point me in the right direction. Would I request a merger, or ...? Thanks/cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 00:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I have broached the matter on Talk:Alexander A. N. D. Pentland, and suggested that article be merged with Alexander Pentland. Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 10:03, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, User:Georgejdorner has agreed both on the article's talk page and my talk page that the two articles be merged, and that the information he added into Alexander A. N. D. Pentland be added to Alexander Pentland. Sorry to burden you with this, but would you be able to provide me with the guidence of what to do next, if you are able? Thanks, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Heh, as easy as a few copy-pastes and redirects? I thought it would have involved a more complicated procedure than that. Well, it's all done now. Thanks for the guidance and assistance, Nick. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:21, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

email

Response. Pdfpdf (talk) 10:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Noted. I don't think that there's much more for me to add. Nick-D (talk) 10:50, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Caption of Helicopter on Vietnam War Article

I hope I am doing this correctly --- I believe the image is of a South Vietnamese Air Force 217th Helicopter Squadron chopper belonging to the 74th Tactical Wing, 4th Air Division. See http://vnaf.net/photos/huey/uh1h_217_1.html Note the stars on the tail of the black & white photo vs. the red tail with yellow stars of the color photo. Also US Army and Air Force aircraft had United States Army or USAF in black letters on the aircraft. This photo does not have that. Also it is obvious that the soldiers sitting on the aircraft deck are not U.S. But it is the tail marking and the yellow ,red, blue and white Roundel see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_Air_Force on the fuselage that is the definitive clue. Meyerj (talk) 13:51, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Wartime RAAF Groups

Hey Nick, that's great adding No. 11 Group RAAF (I assume it was just "Group" and not "Operational Group" like Nos. 9 and 10). Couple of things: 1) Does Odgers give an Order of Battle for 11 like he did for 9OG and 10OG/1TAF? 2) What's your feeling on the class of these three articles? I think they all pass B-Class criteria with the possible exception of coverage, i.e. they're quite succinct - WDYT? In any case I've not assessed 9OG because I created it or 10OG/1TAF because I've contributed a fair bit to it... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ian, 1) Yes, on pg 478 - I've included this in the article's text - it didn't seem worthwhile separating this as an OOB given that the group was both small and never fully formed (the 'Group' was to only have four flying squadrons it would seem) 2) I think that 9OG and 11G are Bs given that there's not much available on them and 1TAF is a start as it could be expanded. I'm obviously biased about 11G though! As a question for you, do you know how the decision to form this all fighter squadron group for garrison duties fits in with the results of the Morotai Mutiny? - it seems odd that the RAAF did this after it was basically acknowledged that this was a poor use of resources. Nick-D (talk) 04:04, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yep, all that's fair enough re. 1) and 2) - put a B on 11 Group just now. Re. your question, don't know off the top of my head but will have a look when I get back to the books later on. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

EA-18Gs for RAAF

Nick, have you read anything on why exactly the Labor government wants to order is looking into the EA-18Gs? Is it just that they feel it's tme the RAAF have an organic SEAD/ECM capability? ANd perhaps the fact that sinece they are the same airframe as the F/A-18F Block 2s they are already getting, now is as godd a time as any to get them? Just curious, especially since Labor wasn't even sure the wanted to buy Rhinos in the first place! Thanks for whatever response you have. - BillCJ (talk) 04:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

From memory, the rationale was that the EA-18Gs would greatly enhance the strike capabilities of the Fs while still being usable as Fs themselves when the jammers aren't carried. There have been a number of reports in recent years which have argued that the ADF's EW capabilities are very weak, so I imagine that EA-18Gs would be a significant step towards addressing this shortfall. Nick-D (talk) 04:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. And I imagine 18 Fs + 6 Gs isn't going to cost significantly more than 24 Fs, while adding much needed capability. Another point is that all Block 2 Fs will be convertable to G standard, so even if the Gs aren't bought now, some Fs could probably be upgraded in the future. - BillCJ (talk) 04:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds right. Ironically, the government has aparantly how been converted to the cause of F/A-18Fs and there was some serious speculation that the RAAF might double its order and reduce the number of F-35s. The government hasn't talked about F-22s for well over a year (for a range of obvious reasons). Nick-D (talk) 05:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it could be a lot worse: They could be trying to buy the USS Kitty Hawk (CV-63)‎ to operate the Super Hornets from! - BillCJ (talk) 05:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

I haven't been following the F-22 for the RAAF discussion closely Nick. What are the range of reasons the government hasn't been talking about F-22s for the RAAF for over a year? Also, if you would, could you double-check my recent blocks for propriety at some point? Cheers Buckshot06(prof) 13:13, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

The Australian Government put out feelers to the US Government to see if the laws banning F-22 exports would be relaxed, and was told that they were going to be maintained (though it will be interesting to see what happens once the F-22 production line starts to slow down!). Also, now they're in Government the Labor Party has received full briefs on the F-35's capabilities and this seems to have influenced the Defence minister considerably (though he still has a healthy skepticism over the project). Nick-D (talk) 22:48, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

SR-71 Blackbird

If you notice that the article is a 2006 GA, it might be a good idea to go through this: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment if you have issues with it. I'm not defending the article, I agree with your assessment and placement of the refimprove tag. ({{Morefootnotes}} might be more appropriate) -MBK₀₀₄ 07:25, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that articles on high-tech spy stuff tend to attract nonsense, something a bit sterner than {{Morefootnotes}} is needed - it's safe to say that some of the uncited speculation about the SR-71's capabilities and underlying technology in the article is probably wrong and not supported by any of the books and websites at the end of the article. I'd have no complaints if you replaced the template though. Nick-D (talk) 09:38, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

1st Independent Company

Hi Nick I've left a question/comment on the talk page for the 1st Independent Company (Australia) article a few days ago. Since you moved the page, I thought you would be best able to answer my questions and possibly even add a bit about the etymology of the unit to the article, explaining the different terminology and reasons behind the different name, eg why the rest of the coys are designed 2/ but not the 1st. Thanks. Lawrence, M.J. (talk) 11:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

World War II article (photos)

O.K. I will, thanks Nick.--Jacurek (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

PD-Australia again

There seems to be a dispute as to whether PD-Australia does stretch back to 1955 or whether it needs to be pre-1946, juding by the challenge at the following FA - Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Donald Bradman with the Australian cricket team in England in 1948 - help/clarifications needed. Jappalang thinks pictures of Bradman's 1948 team aren't old enough for PD-Australia citing URAA and something I don't understand. YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 02:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

do you have a link to the commons debate? YellowMonkey (click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 01:57, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXXV (January 2009)

The January 2009 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Greater Brisbane League

G'day, I have provided references to notable sources for the GBL in the main article under Media Coverage. I hope this helps. Have a good one! JRA_WestyQld2 ^Talk 05:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That might help establish notability for the league as a whole, but probably isn't enough to establish notability for individual teams - WP:ORG requires more than just the routine reporting of results in newspapers. Nick-D (talk) 05:19, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Triple Crown jewels

Your majesty, it gives me great pleasure to bestow the Triple Crown upon Nick-D for your contributions in the areas of WP:DYK, WP:GA, and WP:FC. Cirt (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for contributions to the project, Great work, especially on Australian Defence Force - I actually wrote an article for Wikinews a while back involving the Australian Defence Department, nice job on getting this article to Featured quality status! May you wear the crowns well. Cirt (talk) 10:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for this. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Can blocked users edit their own user pages?

Re: User_talk:The_Real_American#Userpage: I did not know that. I knew there was a flag to allow/stop them from editing their own talk page(s) but I thought User: was treated the same as the rest. That's the way it used to be. When did it change? davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

I might be mistaken - I'd assumed that because the editor could edit their talk page they could also edit their user page. Nick-D (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Women in Militry

Nick nearly all of the material on the women in the military page is unverifiable, why did mine deserve deletion? Is it because they are not inline with your own personal opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.59 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

While you're right that the article needs a lot of work, most material is currently covered by a citation. You added a large quantity of uncited and speculative material. Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Will you please answer my question as to why you singled out my uncited additions and did not fix up any of the rest of the article?

Could not they have been left in and the page marked for cleanup so that all of the page could be fixed?

This section "This point is countered, however, by the fact that women who are currently in non-combat roles are still exposed to the risk of capture and sexual abuse, yet are not given the weapons or training to adequately defend themselves through combat. Furthermore, it is argued that women who joined the military in combat roles would almost certainly be aware of the risks and accept them. It is also worth remembering that male soldiers are frequently abused by their captors, and this has on numerous occasions included severe psychological and sexual abuse. In general, it can be stated that volunteer soldiers are expected to have accepted the risk of such treatment when enlisting, regardless of gender." for example offers no citation. I added material to that which may also have been uncited, but was at least true. E.g. no modern army I am aware of does not put women through the same basic training (which is generally where personal weapons are taught) or trade/skills training. Yet you allow that material to remain. How is that presenting a balanced view?

Why do you not remove those portions? It has no cited evidence - which is the case for a vast portion of wikipedia? Why don't you edit/revert those portions? Why is it that editors alwaus revert. They rarely if ever say, well, the point or info is valid but is not in the right from, I'll edit it and put it in the right form? Instead they revert (delete really) whole slabs of info. You appear to be a military historian, so it seems likely that you know for example that training in modern forces is the same for women as for men, but you allow a blatant falsehood to remain, uncited, but revert my uncited correction. I'd be happy (well not happy, but I would be satisfied you were being fair) if you removed all of the speculative or uncited material, but when you just remove mine, it sort of feels a lot like you're doing it because it does not agree with your views.

In addition look at some of the citations,:

• citation 8 leads to this page: http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/combat.html - this is a personal home page. IN other words it is simply someone's unsupported opinions, but it is OK to use as citation material?
• citation 13 - http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/06/another_clinton_legacy.html - simply op-ed. I.e. opinion editorial - not researched material, another persons opinons published on a non personal website but all the same not peer reveiewed published research.

I.e. yeah people cite sources, but in a significant number of cases the citations are nothing more then personal opinion and rhetoric, published in blogs, personal homepages or at best non neutral think tanks/"news media", which which themselves cite little or no sources or citations. I.e. predominantly pesonqal opinion or blatant political lobbying.

So much for the vaunted citations.

Wikipedia really sucks in this way. You (editors not you personally) get credit as an editor for reverting material, but there is no obligation on you to fix the rest of an article, even though you (personally in this case) acknowledge it needs work. And there is certainly nothing that makes you (editors generally, not you personally) have to actually contribute any info.

People make a career out of reverting other people's work. They revert whole slabs where often only a single fact is in question. But they never actually contribute any new material to the wikipedia. They just revert other people's. I'm not saying this is the case with you personally as you do appear to actually contribute material, but it is a shortcoming of the wikipedia editorial system generally.

In addition if a factoid has a citation you let it stand, regardless of how good the cited evidence is. Even in the case of web sourced citations it appears the citations are not checked for quality, and I can't imagine that very many wikipedida editors go out and buy/borrow/read every book or non web source of eviddence cited in an article that they edit.

I am strongly tempted to break my internet connection, get a new IP, and edit some obviously false material with bogus citations, e.g. links to google searches and see what happens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.59 (talk) 04:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Please provide citations for all material you add, especially speculative material. saying that other poor material exists is true, but doesn't excuse you from needing to provide sources. Given that the article has major problems there's no reason to add to them by adding large quantities of uncited material. Nick-D (talk) 04:20, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

And there is also no reason to remove valid info. In many articles editors seem to add a "Citation Needed" link. But if you are going to remove some material for thse reasons, why don;'t you remove all of the similarly "speculative" and uncited material in that article?

Again can you please tell me why my uncited sections were removed, but you allowed other to remain?

In some cases I can't prove that the material is incorrect. For example there is nowhere in the Aust defence recruitng info that says women outside of combat arms are not provided the same training as men. In fact they are but that is implicit as everyone does the same training except for sepcifci combat arms jobs.

Aren't wikieditors supposed to help people and encourage them? I'm not feeling very helped or encouraged. Youve ignored my questions twice and you have not provided any useful commentary on any of the points Ive made. I have no better understanding of why some uncited material and personal opinion is allowed but mine is not. Please help me to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.59 (talk) 04:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

In fact are looking at the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS page it specifically says that "In the Wiki model, an article which may currently be poorly written, poorly formatted, lack sufficient sources, or not be a comprehensive overview of the subject, can be improved and rewritten to fix its current flaws. That such an article is lacking in certain areas is a relatively minor problem, and such articles can still be of benefit to Wikipedia. In other words, the remedy for such an article is cleanup, not deletion.".

You might also want to check the "Just pointing at a policy or guideline" and the "Just unencyclopedic" sections of the WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS you quoted as well.

My additions were in fact aimed at making the article more balanced and more comprehensive. It really appears to me that you are simply enforcing your world view on the matters in the article.

So why have you reverted my additions instead of leaving them and marking the whole page in need of cleanup? <-- THIS IS NOT A RHETORICAL QUESTION, I'd actually like to know.

And for the record again, this is not a rhetorical question Why did you remove my uncited material but allow other uncited material to remain?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.144.59 (talk) 04:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)