User talk:Nick-D

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

Awards people have given me

Plagiarism?

Hey Nick, just asking here... is this kind of reference allowed? I mean, it's in Italian so we can't really verify it. Plus, I'm sure I've read this passage somewhere before but it doesn't register on me right now but one thing is for sure... what the IP editor wrote is IMO a verbatim copy of the text from that very book I can't recall! I have reverted the text a few times now, so there's a possibility of me committing 3RR here if I revert it again for the lack of clear WP:RS and WP:VERIFY. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:33, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with foreign-language sources per-se, though English-language sources are preferred when available (particularly for topics about English speaking countries). I just searched for chunks of that text in Google and Google books but didn't get any direct hits so there's not much I can do about it being a copyvio unless you can remember where you saw it I'm afraid. The vague and informal tone isn't very encyclopedic in my view though, and I agree that it doesn't appear to be something which a new editor would write themselves, particularly as it appears that they're from a non-English speaking background. One option could be to re-write the material to remove any potential copyright violations. The material is sourced to an Italian defence magazine, and could easily be an extract from some other source or a reprint from another magazine, as is common in the defence magazine trade. Nick-D (talk) 10:56, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

People's Liberation Army Air Force - persistent bad sourcing.

Hello. Hopefully you can provide some help. An editor on People's Liberation Army Air Force (and a few other Chinese military related topics), has added unreliable sources many times over the last couple of months. He ignored the escalating warnings on his talk page, and hasn't said much substantive on article talk pages. When he has edited, he appears to have a decent command of English, so I don't think the lack of communication is from lack of language skills. He has also, however, provided some sources which appear to be better than marginal, which have been kept - so he is adding some useful content. (Hohum ^@) 02:03, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that you've given them a final warning - this looks appropriate to me, as some of their contributions are useful. Can you please let me know if they continue this behavior? Nick-D (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly, once more: This edit (~30 references, mostly duplicates), among several sites which I have suspicion of being self published, some fairly clearly are:

• [1] - translated - "Source: CHN Strong Nation Forum"
• [2] - translated - "Source: Military Forum - Sina type: Military News"

The rest don't look much like news sites - more like social sites, but I can't be sure. (Hohum ^@) 03:35, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've blocked them for 31 hours. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

• Yes, Hohum... you got it right, those are what we would call BBS (Bulletin Board Services) website, no different from Forum. Those two, along with QianLong are typical Chinese websites with forum rooms discussing Chinese military matters. Personally, even though I can understand what they are saying, I find them a lot like tabloids at times... too much hearsay and rumours flying around in them, typically by bored teenagers/workers/uni-students studying overseas. Lacks credibility, totally. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 07:07, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sadly he's at it again at various Chinese military related articles. [3], [4], [5], and [6] - BBS, self published sources, and a wiki. He doesn't reply on his talk page or the article talk pages. (Hohum ^@) 16:51, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for a week Nick-D (talk) 06:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And again Special:Contributions/TomahawkHunter. Won't communicate, shows no understanding that they are being warned, and no intention of correcting their repetitive bad sourcing. (Hohum ^@) 19:34, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

The carrier Sydney - ready for A-class?

As the only person who commented at the HMAS Sydney (R17) peer review, do you think the article is ready for a run at A-class? -- saberwyn 07:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it's easily A class in my view. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

TPS'ing, agreed with Nick. I love the referencing, but one question: for ref 12 ("Cooper, in The Royal Australian Navy, opp. p. 160"), what is the "opp." for? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Opposite...the cited page is an unnumbered foldout. -- saberwyn 09:16, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Well that makes sense now that you say it. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:06, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLVIII (February 2010)

The February 2010 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) 22:59, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Recent talkpage comments

Sorry Nick, i shall try to keep it more civil from now on.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:52, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

current conversation

dont block please, i dont want to disrupte wiki or something else, i didnt edited the article, i tried to explain my future edits before. same on kursk. Blablaaa (talk) 23:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

problem

i dont want to sound like a kid but before i do anything wrong. whats your advice at this situation. i know u read my conversations so u have an opinion. conversation is fruitless. what now? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blablaaa (talk • contribs) 00:32, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Conversation is not fruitless. Stay calm, and discuss the issue on the article's talk page, keeping an open mind at all times. It would be helpful if you didn't create large numbers of discussions at the same time. Nick-D (talk) 00:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

okBlablaaa (talk) 00:47, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

and now?Blablaaa (talk) 01:08, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

What are you referring to? Nick-D (talk) 01:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

to the conversation. Blablaaa (talk) 01:18, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I have no idea which of the several conversations you currently have going which you're referring to here or what the issue is. Please stop wasting my time. Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

when i insisted on correct casualties figures before than editors explained me that all range of reliable historians should be included, now on normandy article another editor explains me that one figure is correct before more historians support this . i changed my "style" and wanted to establish this reliable range for charnwood... see my talk page Blablaaa (talk) 01:27, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

The book by Wood appears to be a collection of wartime German reports in which British casualties could have only been estimated, and as such is basically a primary source. Per WP:PSTS Wikipedia articles generally shouldn't use primary sources, particularly when reliable secondary sources are available, as is clearly the case here. Nick-D (talk) 01:37, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

ok. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

i can copy the pages and upload on a imagehoster for a short while showing that glantz did not mean this. i see no other possibility my words are simply not enough i guess :-( Blablaaa (talk) 23:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

hello. again i dont want to sound like a child but i dont want to make it false. i reverted somebody who reverted me, i gave detailed information why. i also gave information for my first edit. this was not noticed. the version which i reverted includes misquoting for example so i think its correct. i hope this was ok, when it will reverted again i will not revert to avoid edit warring. Blablaaa (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

please tell me if i waste your time, i was reverted again and dont want to edit war now. what can i do i explained on talk page and on the user talk page. i can give exact statement which show the statement is a misquote. i added a cited table with strenght numbers which is deleted two. what shall i do now. Blablaaa (talk) 23:06, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Discuss it, of course. You should know this by now. Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yeah sure i discussed it so often i explained it so often. i copied text from books to show whats wrong. but everything is reverted. i added a table with sourced numbers but its deleted, and now i have to wait until he says its ok ? he misquoted an historians, when he accused me of doing this u asked for example, so now i say the same, are u interessted in explanation? i didnt want to bring him problems i told no admin... Blablaaa (talk) 23:15, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

it costs me more time to explain my edits and search for help than editing the article. i ordered the newst book of glantz had have his newstes numbers here and the old numbers are wrong but i cant add because i get a edit war then. u losing time too. i see exactly that the article now dont says what glantz says but i can edit even after i explaind 7 times with hundreds of words and quotes .... Blablaaa (talk) 23:22, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I own When Titans Clashed and Kursk by David Glantz and Jonathon Houses, and the references appear accurate, though some of the material cited to pp. 175–176 of When Titans Clashed refers to the entire second half of 1943 (including Kursk) rather than just the Battle of Kursk. Nick-D (talk) 23:48, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

yes ok and i have his newest kursk which has a chapter for the fialure of zitadelle and hes saying numerical superiority. and by the way i never disputed glantz says "often exaggerated numerical superiority" , but taking this out of a greater context and saying he disputes frieser is misquoting because glantz never says without superior numbers soviet had won. he grabed a statement of glantz and formed an opinion which is contradting his newest book and with his final exact statement so the reader can jugde himself.. even before i was blocked for a week i explained this on his page he did not respond , i repeat myself over and over. . and his book when titan clash is not perfectly up to date he didnt count steppe front now he does. so whats now i explained this glantz never says numbers werent improtant but the text now tries to imply. i dont even mention that glantz updates his 320 lost tanks on prokorovka. now i have to wait that he acceptes my changed regardless i have the most recent literatur and explained everything. can i rebuild the table without doing edit warring is this ok for u ? Blablaaa (talk) 23:57, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

because when i edited the sandbox he told me what i have to edit first what i have to do, i didnt knew that i have to follow somebody, nevertheless i did and it was disappointing result for me, u can check if u want. and yes it sounds odd when i ask if i can edit the table, but i dont want to be blocked again because somebody says then this is 3RR. i have the book in front of me and see misquoting and wrong statement and cant changed because i need the permission to edit, by the same user who did the "misquoting". that zaloga and overy are not even talking about kursk ( like i explained, like i explained everything ) doesnt madder i see. misquoting too... that frieser points 3,4 and 5 are deleted while sources doesnt madder too. all my edits are reverted and the user has gone to bed i cant edit because i will get blocked than. nice move of him, his last edit is a complete revert of me. maybe u remember , its not the first that i got maximum reverted regardless what edits were done. and now i ask u as admin again can i make the table to improve the article battle of kursk without getting blocked for breaching 3RR ? by the way its unpleasent for me to stalk your talk page and annoy u with such unimprotant **** but my options are limited, sorry.... Blablaaa (talk) 00:16, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• ":I'm not going to adjudicate your dispute or approve your edits one by one. Why don't you use the sandbox version of the article like you said you would? "

i think there is no real dispute. the article is quoting an opinion of an historian but not correct, thats no content dispute this is false and not allowed on wiki i guess. i think even a email of mister glantz himself would be not enought argument... :-) Blablaaa (talk) 00:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no deadline for working on Wikipedia articles. As I and several other editors have suggested to you previously; slow down, stop creating large numbers of discussions, acknowledge that different reliable sources reach different conclusions and work with other editors. Nick-D (talk) 00:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

i create discussions to explain myself and solve disputes , other editors dont do this. i create discussion before edtis so that everyone can check why i do this. and no in this particular case the sources dont differ somebody misquoted. he avoids the discussion for every neutral reader its obvious why he avoids answering the question. i didnt want to accuse him but here it comes.

the battle of kursk article quotes Glantz with saying this:

• "On 11 August, the 1st Tank Army engaged Waffen SS units near Bogodukhov....The 5th Guards Army sent reinforcements, and between 13 and 17 August the Germans were fought to a stalemate. For the first time a major German counter offensive had failed to destroy a Soviet exploitation force"( i added big letters)

and no look of glantz exact words Page 249:

• "Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies"

this is the same what i have written before and sourced with Frieser, he deleted and put "his" version in it. hes citing glantz but glantz is not saying anything like this. arcoding to losses, the soviet armies lost hundred of tanks against the 2 SS Divisions. i explained this more than one time but i will be reverted when i change this in the article. its the same editor . Blablaaa (talk) 00:44, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

only as addition here glantz final statement about the whole battle of kursk, its the end of book:

• "Red Army was rapidly developing the skills to match its enormous numbers. The resulting combination proved fatal to blitzkrieg and, ultimately, lethal to Germany"

regarding the number issue. i told this dapi before he ignored... Blablaaa (talk) 00:58, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please see my above comment about not adjudicating your dispute. Nick-D (talk) 01:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

ok i understand. i dont want to be the guy who annoys all. i will let the issue of his misquoting. iam not sure how wiki normally deals with people who cite reliable historians and creat their own statements which are not supported by this historian . i explainded here on an admin page and its archived. i will no longer edit against this misquoting to avoide problems. i thank your for taking time to respond. Guten Tag Blablaaa (talk) 01:25, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I've checked the text, and page 170 of When Titans Clashed says exactly what the article text referenced to it states (the page number had been entered as page 70 rather than 170), so your claim that the source has been misrepresented is clearly baseless. The subsequent pages of The Battle of Kursk also describe how Soviet units eventually pushed the Germans away from Kharkov and liberated the city, so it would appear that you're cherry picking sections of the book. Nick-D (talk) 01:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

nonsense iam not cherry picking i can copy the book page. nevertheless his most recent book says what i wrote, do u want a picture of the site? when this really is there that its only a good proof for my concerns about the reliabilty of "when titans clashed" u can look the board for reliable sources. everything i disputed is not longer in his newer book. funny is that i already expressed my concers about this book weeks ago and this exampls only highlights how glantz changed his sources. and i really doubt that glantz in his older book not even mentions that the two soviet armies were destroyed. Blablaaa (talk) 01:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

and i repeat myself, i claim the text now doesnt fit with Glantz opinion of his newest book. and when i see that the articles says something totally different than its high likly that the user misquotes rather the historian changes his opinion180 degree. this is not my fault. Blablaaa (talk) 01:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

page 249: "MEETING ENGAGEMENT AT BOGODUKHOV

• "On 12-13 august , three combar groups of Totenkopf were finally able to conduct a oncerted attack against the by now overextended forward detachments of the 1st Tank Army, which had severed German rail communications with Kharkov. Katukov lost 100 tanks when three of his forward detachments were sourounded , although some of the soviet troops escaped on foot. Yet unlike previous german counterattacks, this success did not cause the red units to collaps and withdraw. Instead, the 6th Guards army, reinforced by the 5th guards mechanized corps of the 5th Tank army, counterattacked totenkopf on the 13th, penetrating to vysokopole, another small village located on the key Kharkov- Poltava rail line, along which vital german reserves were moving to reinforce the Kharkov defense. At the same time, elements of Das reich and wiking launched a concerted attack on the weakend elements of of the 1st tank army south of bogodukhov, reaching almost to the town itself. Rotmistrov committed the remaining two tank corps of his 5th guards tank army to extricate Katukov. for three days the opposing forces maneuvered around bododukhov, while tank strenght of both Katukov and Rotmistrov declined alarmingly .( here he puts a note, the two tank armies lost about 800 tanks , only my opinion, interesting who the red army can lose so much tanks against some ss battlegroupds constinng of less than 100 tanks. ) Finally, on 16-17 august the III panzercorps succeeded in pushing the 6th Guards and the remnants of the 1st Tank Army back to Merchik River stabilizing the frontline and destroying the offensive power of both red armies. ( here break new block )

• "While burning german and soviet tanks( my opinion: nice who the author not mentions that german lost some tanks and soviet hundreds) littered the landscape around bododukhov, the soviet advance on kharkov continued inexorable..." now he explains kharkov. u can take a map and look were these both towns are, to different settings. this is everything he says about the battle around bogodukhov, i hope u see now. Blablaaa (talk) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Nick-D and Blablaaa, excuse me for butting in. I wonder if this is a case where a note (nb type) could be added to the article pointing out differing sourced viewpoints (perhaps even from the same historian) regarding the engagement in question? Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 17:14, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

no problem another opinion is good. the older statement is out of a book which deals with a much larger time frame. ten years later he wrote a new book especially dealing with kursk, so the statement now is much more detailed and maybe he changed is opinion. if u are interessted u can check the reliable soure board. i explained my concerns about "when titans clashed" then i bought glantz most recent book and see everything what i doubted is changed. for example numbers. so i cant see a reason to include his older views which are obvious more influenced by semi good primary sources. and his newer books is much more like Friesers work. Blablaaa (talk) 19:20, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa is nit-picking as usual. Selectively quoting and exaggerating the scale of minute engagements. The last point he refers to was a brief engagement (counter attack) that restored the line for two days. No mention is made of the German Generals in the back of the book, all of whom say Kursk was a German disaster. It is typical of someone who hasn't read the book and is combing it through looking for information is support preconceived opinions. Dapi89 (talk) 19:15, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Try this, p. 252:

Although Soviet forces failed to destroy the German Fourth Panzer Army and Army Detachment Kempf in the Belgorod-Khar'kov operation, they added insult to German Citadel injuries and subjected the Wehrmacht to a blood-letting that it could no longer withstand. German infantry divisions eroded to mere shadows of their former selves. The 255th and 57th Infatry Divisions emerged from the operation with 3,336 and 1,791 mean respectively. The 322nd was reduced to 322 men. One regiment from the 112th Infantry Divison had one officer and 45 men.

• 11 Panzer Divison reduced to 820 Panzer Grenadiers, 15 tanks and 4 assault guns.
• 19 panzer Division - 760 and just 7 tanks

The SS Panzer grenadier divisions fared somewhat better but were heavily damaged. By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns.

That, I believe puts things into better perspective. Blablaaa mentions none of that - just 3 pages down the line. Dapi89 (talk) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

omg dapi u call the destruction of hundreds of russian tanks a minute engagement, a brief engegament ^^. your knowledge of this battle is based on a 15 years old book which has so many errors that even the author updated it multiple times. why should i mention the german generals when i talk about this counterattack. what a nonsense. and to support the picking argument i copied the whole text lol. and while u talk about cherrypicking u bring a german division which was heavly mauled ....... Blablaaa (talk) 19:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

• "By 25 August Das Reich and Totenkopf fielded 55 and 61 tanks and assault guns." lol this division banged two soviet Tank ARMIES and had 116 afv'S left. ^^Blablaaa (talk) 19:29, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

u list casualties of single germna divisions, while all know soviet suffered always much heavier losses, 7:1 tanks and 4:1 in men . where is your logic dapi, where? Blablaaa (talk) 19:34, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for getting in, but 7:1 loss ratio was simply not possible in 1943. No matter how hard it tried, in 1943 USSR made only 3 times more tanks than Germany, so unless the source explains the common sense discrepancy here (did Red Army advanced tankless for the rest of the year? was there in 1943 another major battle with the opposite tank loss ratio to offset Kursk?), the 7:1 ratio mentioned simply indicates to me different approaches of counting losses for both sides. Dimawik (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

glantz says at least 5:1 ratio, frieser says 8:1. the different counting of losses is not the reason in 43 the tanks losses proportions were very high on the whole front. germans maybe counted losses in a battle a bit strange but not over months, and the statistics for months show very high tank loss ratio in 43. dont forget in 43 tiger started to have major impact. Soviet lost 6000 tanks on kursk thats 3 times the german tank strenght on the entire front.....And german did no only build tanks for eastern front....

Concur. I've made comments to this effect before, but casualty and loss figures for many battles are notoriously disputed. What if one side knocks out a tank but happens to be the side that retired from the battlefield? They chalk up one enemy loss. The other side, meanwhile, may recover the tank and have it back in fighting order in several days -- a common enough occurrence in the Second World War. Those of us who are students of military history understand this, but casual readers probably will not. How many of the vehicle losses figures for any armored battles account for recovery and repair -- I'd bet most use period reports, and that the better estimates attempt to locate accurate inventories of a unit's vehicles just before and after a given battle as a check on the unit's reports. One approach is to select what appears to be an overall solid source for a loss citation, but to include other loss citations as information notes to the article. To my way of thinking, this is probably the best way to inform casual readers of how loosey-goosey these figures can be. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 05:17, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

my simple opinion about this: The wehrmacht had 50,000 tanks and assault guns and self propelled artillery. this includes tanks I and II, this tanks were not even destroyed in battle thousand were pulled out of the line. same with panzer38. multiple 1000 tanks of germany were staying around at the end of the war. so the lost in combat is maybe 40.000 ???. than we see that heavy tank battalions( all tigers I and tiger II) had up to 50% mobility kills and panther examintions on western front showed that more than 50% of this tanks were destroyed by crew or abandoned. if we say 40$ mobility kills ( only as example ) , than we have ~25,000 german combat losses. soviet lost 100.000 ( not alle combat losses ) and western allied 15´.000-20.000 ( ?). so we see the german combat ratio was extremly high, and on 43 the german were able to recover most of the light damaged tanks so there were only combat losses. and when we think that in 43 the red army had no counter for tiger, the 6:1 or 7:1 or maybe 5:1 fits perfect.Dimawik u should not forget that germany, even when they didnt used them, had thousands tanks in western europe italy and so on. according to archivs of both armies the germans lost 1,331 tanks in july and august ( this is the overall figure and so their is no "strange" counting , all damaged which were abonded while retreat are already included) , soviets reported show 9,294 tanks lost for this two months, makes 7:1. but all tiger and other heavy machienes were in the kursk sector, so the ratio here is propably higher... Blablaaa (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

maybe we start now improving the article and discussing valid points ?Blablaaa (talk) 19:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please note that I have blocked Blablaaa (talk · contribs) for a month for reasons explained on their talk page. I'd appreciate it if discussions of the Battle of Kursk article could be continued on that article's talk page rather than here. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Happy Nick-D's Day!

User:Nick-D has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as Nick-D's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear Nick-D! Peace, Rlevse 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC) A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:56, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Achoo~! I know, I know... but its just my nose being sensitive here... anyway, happy your day~! ;P --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 03:23, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Battle of Morotai

Since I am just working from sources, I admit that I may have been in error regarding Pitoe Airdrome. Or it may be a matter of semantics (not to be Clintonesque, but it might boil down to a definition of "began construction"). However, my source was photostats of orders to the 38th Bomb Group, which had a mission of spraying Pitoe with DDT on the first two days of the operation. The Frag Order issued by V Bomber Command at 2100 of 9-14-44 to its groups read in part:TWO ROGERS CALL BATMAN SPRAY PITOE AIRDROME AREA TOT 1100/I, followed at 2240 by the Field Order:TWO SQ, 12 B-25 (38TH BG) CONDUCT SPRAY MISSION PITOE AIRDROME AREA 15 SEPTEMBER. The final mission report of the 38BG S-2 sent 1519 on 9-15-44 reported: PITOE STRIP IS OVERGROWN WITH NEW BRUSH TO A HEIGHT OF 4 TO 6 FEET., and on the second mission on 9-16: EQUIPMENT ON SOUTHWEST END OF PITOE STRIP BUT WORK HAD NOT YET BEGUN. TWO NEW ROADS FROM RED BEACH TO PITOE STRIP. I drew the conclusion that Pitoe had been begun by the Japanese quite some time before the landings, cleared to some extent, but that work on the strip had been suspended for some time. The 38th itself moved into Pitoe on or about October 15 and flew its first combat mission from there on October 19. Cheers.--Reedmalloy (talk) 11:35, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The sources I found (and used in the article) stated that while the Allies originally intended to complete the abandoned Japanese airstrip, this didn't go ahead as it's flight paths would have caused problems with the airstrips which were built from scratch and designated Pitoe and Wama dromes. I'd guess that the 'Pitoe Strip' referred to in the records you've found was the uncompleted Japanese air strip as the sources I've found didn't mention any other attempts to build an airstrip on the island prior to the Allied invasion and the pilots' description of its status is in line with how its described in the works I consulted. The Allied Pitoe Drome was opened on about 17 October, so it's probably the one the 38th Bomb Group flew from. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:TFA/R

Hi Nick, given your comments about getting good sources recently, and recentism as well, could you look at the last entry on that page. You could probably explain the recentism thing more rigorously than I could YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 09:10, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've commented at WP:TFA/R. Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Iraqi security forces

Would you mind reviewing the last few edits to this page, and giving me your view on (a) whether the tags at the top are warranted, (b) if so, what should I do about it, (c) suggestions on further improvements, and (d) after looking at the talk page, what do you think about the correct name of the page? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 09:27, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick for this. I am considering trying to upgrade the page to match the model of Australian Defence Force. Would you mind giving it a small peer review? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 06:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure; I'll to this over the weekend. Nick-D (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

3rd Battalion 3rd Marines

Made major cuts per WP:Recentism on [Wikipedia:Today%27s featured article/requests#April 10 3rd Battalion 3rd Marines]. The history section is currently 3,988 words. 2,160 of them deal with 1942-1969 and 1,820 of them deal with 1969-2009. Palm_Dogg (talk) 17:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hey,

I was considering running for Coordinator for the Military History WikiProject, but I am not sure. I was very busy in the "real world" during the last elections and did not think I was prepared to devote the time to the WikiProject that it truly deserves. I'm back now and I have started getting involved again. I've always respected your opinion, especially after we served together as coordinators in Tranche VII. I would really appreciate your advice on this. Thanks and Have a Great day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 22:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

If you think that you have time for it, I don't see why you shouldn't run. Nick-D (talk) 01:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Have A Great Day! Lord Oliver ^{The Olive Branch} 01:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Dutch 1913 BB

Hey Nick, I finally got to uploading the line drawings and adding in the table from my sandbox. Think it's ready for FAC? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I think so - the article looks great. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

FAC started here. If no one else has done it (read: MBK) by the time I am back from class, I'll notify the WikiProjects. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:22, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed - I've posted all the notifications. FYI, I'm going to be out of town from Sunday to Tuesday (Australian time). Nick-D (talk) 22:31, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and no worries, if it really requires you it'll just have to wait a couple days. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 22:34, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Ed, at the time I was taking a mid-term on World War II. A two-essay exam dissecting the Battle of the Java Sea and the Battle of Crete respectively. -MBK₀₀₄ 01:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd forgotten all about multi-essay exams, but now those repressed memories are back ;) (I did a lot of them during political science subjects). Nick-D (talk) 02:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That sounds painful. I haven't had to take any of those yet, thankfully. What class is that? Sounds like something I would absolutely love (...outside of the exams). —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:30, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

300-level writing enhanced history course entitled World War II ... :P -MBK₀₀₄ 05:38, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs CTOL Iraq Russia United States Canada Art of War Otsu Nuclear strategy Superpower Pressure suit Commentarii de Bello Civili No. 31 Squadron RAAF Joseph Stalin New Zealand Patton tank Zhukov Canberra People's Republic of China Gona

Cleanup 2003 invasion of Iraq World War I Vietnam War Merge Effects of World War II Technology during World War II World war Add Sources Battlegroup (army) Military awards of World War II World War II cryptography Wikify Military history of the Netherlands John Pedersen Casma Valley Expand Home front during World War II Aircraft carrier Participants in World War II

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 12:55, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Ban evasion.

Linksnational appears to be evading his ban with IP edits to War crimes of the Wehrmacht. (Hohum ^@) 12:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Image discussion for Australian light destroyer project

With the recent edits to Australian light destroyer project, in relation to the image File:DDL Kokoda 01.jpg, I think its time all involved took a pause and used discussion to come to a consensus on the way forward. I think your input would be useful (because of your involvement in getting the article to its current condition): could you please comment at Talk:Australian light destroyer project#Model image: in? out? shake it all about?

Thanks in advance. -- saberwyn 09:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

You should have run for coord

Needed more non-PC coords YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 00:44, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't have enough free time to do justice to the position anymore :( Nick-D (talk) 09:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator elections have opened!

Voting for the Military history WikiProject coordinator elections has opened; all users are encouraged to participate in the elections. Voting will conclude 23:59 (UTC) on 28 March 2010.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 22:10, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Morotai Mutiny

Hi mate, just letting you know I've nominated Morotai Mutiny for TFA, so we'll see how that goes. I claimed 3 pts for first TFA, 1yr+ since promotion, and date anniversary, but left open the question of another for no similar article. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 20:53, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I've just added my support. I've been meaning to nominate some of 'my' FAs for TFA - I might try Take Ichi convoy for 6 May (the day the convoy experienced its heaviest attack) or Military history of Australia during World War II for 3 September. Nick-D (talk) 01:16, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

That's great, cheers - and I'd sure like to see one of those two you mention on the main page, particularly the latter, which was a serious effort on your part. Ian Rose (talk) 01:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

"Controversies" articles

Hello, I saw you are part of the Military History project. I ran across a couple of articles today and am not really sure of where to address concerns about them, but I'll start here and see what your suggestions are. The articles I am referring to are:

• Central and Eastern Europe, and
• Controversial command decisions, World War II
  

It should be noted these both spawn from a recently deleted (and controversial) article, Western betrayal. The first of these new articles is incredibly badly titled as its real topic is military and political controversies of World War II as they affected central and eastern Europe. I have placed a comment on the article's talk page regarding its title and introductory paragraph. I also think the scope of the article is too broad and probably rehashes material in other articles. The second article is a good topic for discussion but is quite one-sided in its approach to the few controversies it identifies. This is not to say that either article can't be brought to a better status, but I am concerned that the history being discussed in these articles does not appear to balanced and that certain major aspects of at least the first article do not conform to the manual of style for article writing. Anyway, my guess is that the best group of editors to provide guidance and ensure an NPOV approach is the Military History project. As I've said, I've left some comments about the articles, but I am hardly qualified to address all of the issues alone. If you could give the articles a look and let me know if I am in left field about this, it would be appreciated. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Are they replicas of the Western betrayal article? If so they can (and should) be speedy deleted. For some reason I can't see the pre-deletion version of Western betrayal, even though my admin privileges should let me. Both articles should be nominated for deletion if it they aren't a recreation of the deleted article as they're not encyclopedic topics and will only ever be POV messes. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I see that the Western betrayal article was trimmed and moved rather than deleted and the Central and Eastern Europe article appears to be a recreation of something similar to this version of the Western betrayal article. Both articles should go to AfD as they're POV disaster zones. Nick-D (talk) 09:49, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. Something might be able to be done with second article if a balanced approach is used. The first, though, is far too broad in scope -- the issues mentioned should have their own articles which address all aspects of the decisions in detail. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Army

I did a full update of the Australian Army according to the info found in the link you provided: see Structure of the Australian Army for all the changes; if there is anything else that needs to be done, let me know :-) --noclador (talk) 12:41, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Kelly

My but you have a busy talk page!
My 2c worth (which in Australia, as you know, rounds down to zero): To me it seems that the fact that the citations are sloppy is a red herring - there's enough information in them to enable someone to make them "non-sloppy" if needed, and to focus on that seems a bit "picky".
More importantly (in my view), I feel it takes attention away from the important points you are making. If someone is inclined to "counter-attack" you, they could focus on that issue rather than on the important points.
Otherwise, I agree with you, and I think you are on strong ground. Best wishes, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

For BLP issues information about living people, and particularly what's claimed to be critical information, needs exact citations, so it's not a 'red herring'. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I guess on that point we have different priorities. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 11:26, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

More Dutch BB stuff

Hey Nick, I just stumbled upon this article on the 1913 battleships. It's not reliable, but it does include some stuff we didn't. It also has scans of two earlier Germania designs; if you can supply (a) page number(s), so you think we should add one or both? —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:31, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ed, what page numbers are you after? Given that the design sketches are of preliminary versions of the design, I'm not sure if we could sustain a FA-level fair use claim given that the article already has a good fair use image of the final proposals. Nick-D (talk) 08:26, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Just the ones for the images if you thought we should upload them, so never mind. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 16:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the time you put into this article. Hell, you wrote most of it; without you, it wouldn't even be a GA right now. :-) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:19, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks as well for your excellent contributions Ed. I've enjoyed working with you on this article, and its pleasing to see that the Netherlands is now the first country to have its entire battleship history at FA class thanks to this article and your excellent Design 1047 battlecruiser article. Nick-D (talk) 04:35, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I enjoyed working with you as well. You're a jolly good fellow Nick, and I'm not very happy to see you departing the coordinator role! Yeah, it's nice to see that the Dutch are first, but it's not like this wasn't low pickings. ;) Out of curiosity, do you think it would be possible to make a FT out of this, perhaps by creating a parent summary article (Dutch capital ship designs)? We'd have to include a significant amount of background historical information, which I think could set it apart from the other two articles. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:46, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Possibly, but there may not be sufficient material on the relationship between the two design proposals to support a FA-level article... Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

How about GA, since you already have two FAs, all you would need is GA for the featured topic. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:29, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the GA criteria and process, I'm afraid, but that does sound like a distinct possibility. Nick-D (talk) 06:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

GA criteria, process and nominations. GA is in-between B and A on the scale, so you should not have a problem getting there. Ed has some experience with the process. -MBK₀₀₄ 06:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

"don't be silly?" - Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland

There's nothing in the "states" article that supports it being listed as a belligerent. What's wrong with requesting clarification on this matter? Other entities such as the Russian Liberation Army contributed far more in the conflict than the Polish RTRP. Lt.Specht (talk) 02:07, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Australian Defence Force

I don't have time right at the moment, but it will be done within the next 2-3 weeks. I will get to it, don't worry! Buckshot06 (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

		The WikiProject Barnstar
		In gratitude of your service as a coordinator for the Military history Project from September 2009 to March 2010, I hereby award you this WikiProject Barnstar. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Tom. Nick-D (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Australia FARC

Hi Nick. A personal call for more hands on deck, otherwise the flagship will get sunk; rather embarrassing if that happens I think. WP:AWNB seems a bit jaded YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't even know that was at FAR! I'll help out. Nick-D (talk) 06:54, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Your uncivility: admin comment requested

You are advised that an RFC is posted on admin notice board concerning your arbitrary AFD notice posted for Controversial Command Decisions, World War II. You did not bother at any time to enter into or participate in recent or current discussion on the relevant discussion page, nor did you post any gripe on my user talk page. POV issues are supposed to be resolved through editing processes, not via arbitrary and inappropriate AFD notices. Get over it. (See policy guidelines)Communicat (talk) 08:36, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Responded at WP:ANI. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Coordinator election

Thank you for your support MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Likewise. Just a quick note to thank you for your support at the election, very much appreciated. See you around the Milhist pages! Ranger Steve (talk) 20:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to both of you on your successful election - it's well deserved. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves
		By the order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves in recognition of your long and distinguished service as a coordinator of this project from February 2008 to March 2010; your sterling efforts on "big picture" subjects, including ten featured articles; and your tireless participation in discussion and review. For the coordinators, Ian Rose (talk) 21:34, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great honour. Thank you so much. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

You completely deserve it, Nick. Thanks for everything you've done, and I'm looking forward to reading any future FAs you have in store. I hope that you will continue to participate in at least some discussions on WT:MHCOORD, as you always seem to give insightful input to any discussion you take part in. Your friend, —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 07:16, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery from articles

Hi Nick, can I get your opinion on whether you believe that User:Rettetast is right in removing the image of the cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery from 2/5th Field Regiment (Australia) and 102nd Medium Battery, Royal Australian Artillery due to because "No rationale for this use. See WP:NFCC#10c"; using WP:TW? I would of thought that being in the lead article Royal Regiment of Australian Artillery would be fair rationale enough said. Let me know what you think and tell me if I need to be including soemthing in any article I wish to use the cap badge of the Royal Australian Artillery image. Regards Newm30 (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

As that's a non-free image, a rationale for using it needs to be provided for every individual article in which it is used, so the removal looks reasonable to me as there's no rationale provided for the two Australian units. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you very much for your support on the coordinator elections, and for all you've done for the project during your tenure. – Joe N 13:51, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

No worries, and congratulations on your well-earned election! Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Apr Fool

Happy AFD. :-) You now have a license to go nuts. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 04:41, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

You do realise that you posted this here well after 12pm Australian east coast time? Under Australian traditions that makes you the April fool ;) Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Stupid time zones. :P 1am here. (natit citsejam • klat) dE— 05:17, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Italian battleship Re Umberto

Hi Nick. Sturmvogel and I tracked down some pre-WWI info on the ship's career. Can you look the article over again and see if it meets the B-class criteria now? Thanks a ton. Parsecboy (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Given the obscurity of the ship, that seems sufficient to reach B class to me - I've just reassessed the article. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:54, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your time, Nick. Parsecboy (talk) 11:15, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer Review Organization of the Luftwaffe

Thanks a lot for those detailed points. The overlinking was on my to-do list. Should have said so. Rest are very useful insight. Exactly the third person view I wanted. Question though, If you feel that the part about color schemes need to be moved out, then what do you think of the Finger Four Strategy development ? Do let me know. Thanks again '  Perseus 71 ^talk 03:23, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

No worries - I hope that the comments are helpful. The discussion of the finger four strategy is a bit more in-scope as it discusses how Luftwaffe air units were organised during combat, but it isn't at the core of the article's subject, and I'd suggest that you remove it to give the article a tighter focus. Nick-D (talk) 03:36, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

I noted you have blocked several Gameboy1974 Sock puppets and usernames. I suspect the following IP's to be the same person's Sock Puppets due to the nature of their disruptive edits to the same articles:-

• 119.152.29.219
• 119.152.95.65
• 119.152.83.251
• 119.152.64.252
• 116.71.153.139

I tagged them as confirmed sockpuppets of his, but perhaps I should have tagged them as suspected and then put them on AiV. Could you check them and correct me if I was in error. I did notice the talk page edits placed by 119.152.83.251 and started to remove them from the talk pages but Againme 'complained' so I reverted my edits to the other ones I had done. As the two main articles he edits, Operation Strike of the Sword & Operation Panther's Claw, are on my watch list I will quickly spot any further dynamic IP edits he does and confirm them as his (Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited) and let you know direct, if thats okay with you?. Richard Harvey (talk) 09:05, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's him. I've had all those articles watchlisted for the last few months, and Gameboy is the only editor to have edited them from those IP ranges (and pretty much the only IP editor, period, to have edited those articles). In addition, his editing style and focus is obsessively consistent. As there's little interest from other IP editors in the articles Gameboy1947 targets I've been semi-protecting them when he takes a fancy to one per WP:DENY as there's not much risk of collateral damage. Nick-D (talk) 09:39, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Battlecruiser Australia

Sturmvogel and I have pretty much finished the drafting of the new HMAS Australia (1911) article (see User:Saberwyn/HMAS Australia I). Any observations or comments before this beast is released into the wilds of mainspace? -- saberwyn 23:42, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

That looks good to me, but I'm currently editing it - the fact that the ship was somewhat obsolete at the time work started on her needs to be covered. I'll read through the article as well. Nick-D (talk) 00:29, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Gameboy1947

Just reverted some more edits by four new socks of his:- 116.71.152.198, 119.152.28.180., 119.152.83.252 and 119.152.132.16 Richard Harvey (talk) 13:37, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Nice work - I see that PMDrive1061 (talk · contribs) has also protected the articles this guy is targeting. Nick-D (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

[7] - "tjamls"? ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 02:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That word makes perfect sense to Australians. Coincidently, it was also the result of me striking the wrong keys when attempting to write 'thanks'. Nick-D (talk) 02:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I forgot you had a different language down under. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:03, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Most of the people I met when I was in the US last year had no doubt that I was speaking an entirely different language to anything they understood as English... ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:59, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

People from the Upper Peninsula of Michigan get the same reaction. (Yooper dialect) :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Please assure me that this photo is a fake. I'm getting cold from just looking at it. Nick-D (talk) 04:25, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahah, nope, it's real. Marquette, where I go to college, gets ~141 inches of snow every winter. Among large-enough cities, that's third if you don't count Alaska: [8]. Houghton, which is small but is where Michigan Tech is located, gets ~208 inches. How much do you get? ;) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:57, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We get a few minutes worth of snow on one or two days most winters here in Canberra, but it usually melts as soon as it hits the ground :) Most Australians regard Canberra as being unspeakably cold, and I know several people who flatly refuse to visit in winter. Nick-D (talk) 05:10, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

At an average of 44 degrees? Honestly, that's warm here LOL. During the winter, it's almost unheard of to have the temperature at or above 32. Think more like 15–25 degrees. :-) At the beginning of spring, when it gets above 32 for the first time in weeks or months, you will probably see at least two students walking to class in t-shirts and/or shorts. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:28, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Oh, and your question of snowfall? Check out this image for the 08–09 winter. [9] —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:30, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

That's frightening! At least you shouldn't have Australian-style anxieties over water shortages ;) I should note that I have been to North America in December and Europe in February, so I do understand the difference between Canberra and places which are genuinely cold in winter. It should also be noted that Australians don't believe in heating, so our buildings are colder in winter than yours are ;) (to the eternal disgust of the Canadians at my university). Nick-D (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Maybe not that, but we do have dry Southern states crying to us to fulfill their water needs. North America is one thing, Canada/the UP is another. ;) Heh, the heat is almost always on here, and insulation to keep said heat in is a big deal; if you don't have good insulation/windows/etc., you are going to end up paying a rather large heating bill.

I'm surprised that you don't have any heating, though. Poor Canadians.

I think I would love Canberra. I hate temperatures above 80 and below 35, so 67–44 would be fine with me. And yes, I realize the irony of saying that when I live in the UP...no, it was not my choice to move here, it was my mom's. :P

Random side thought: my cousin is studying at the University of Sydney this semester. I should email him and ask how he likes it there... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:01, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

We do have heating and insulation, just not enough of it! Canberra gets quite hot in summer - it's above 30 degrees Celsius most days in January and February and is getting warmer as the climate changes. It's very nice otherwise though. Nick-D (talk) 06:05, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hahah -- well either way, sucks for you. ;) If what you say is true, you should go fix Canberra's infobox ! —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 06:09, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Those are the means - Canberra's standard range of temperatures varies from -7 Celsius in winter to 40 Celsius in summer, so the annual means are going to be a bit wacky. There's a reason that article also has a very detailed climate chart! Nick-D (talk) 07:18, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Swissôtel Sydney

Hi Nick,

i have been told to contact you regarding the restoration of the Swissôtel Sydney page - this page was built with no advertising intention at all, it was simply a page that told people like myself about the hotel and where it is and what it has to offer. can you please look into restoring this page as soon as possible as i feel it does not demonstrate advetising language at all and has the sole purpose to contribute factual information about the hotel to the people.

sorry didnt sign off 68marketstreet (talk) 01:37, 7 April 2010 (UTC) (68marketstreet)

No; from your above post it seems that the only reason that you want to create an article on the hotel is to promote it and this and the fact that your user name is the hotel's address indicates that you have a conflict of interest. The hotel has a perfectly good website already, and Wikipedia is not either a hotel directory or a venue for advertising. Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : XLIX (March 2010)

The March 2010 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) 22:20, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

Armed Forces of the Republic of Kazakhstan

We have a vandal problem here posting unsourced equipment numbers. Problem is I do not have IISS MilBal 2010. Did you make a comment saying you had it? If so, could you pass over, or post equipment numbers for Kazakhstan so we can get a consistent, up to date source in place? Thanks Buckshot06 (talk) 10:16, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

E-mail rcvd. Am a little busy right now, but will remember your restrictions on the document. Thanks a bunch! Buckshot06 (talk) 09:53, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

For you

		The Military history A-Class medal
		For prolific work on Dutch 1913 battleship proposal, No. 1 Wing RAAF and Ordnance QF 25-pounder Short; promoted to A-Class between December 2009 and April 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject, you are hereby awarded the Milhist A-Class medal. -MBK004 05:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

IP: 71.111.129.147

Hi Nick. IP user 71.111.129.147 has made persistent unconstructive edits to AK-74, Makarov PM, Type 56 assault rifle and other articles. Specifically, the users lists in those articles. He is adding text along with a citation that does not support his text, and removing chunks of text that actually are supported by the same text. For example, at Makarov PM he removed at least 6 countries that were supported by the cited book and then added countries (specifically, Vietnam) that are not supported by the cited book. I had added the citation and information to the article at an earlier date, using the same two books he is trying to pass as citations, and the books do not agree with any of his edits. He has been warned by myself in [edit summarys] and on [his talk page]. He has not made any attempt to explain his behavior either in edit summarys or at his talk page, and he immediately reinstates any of his edits that are reverted. ROG5728 (talk) 21:38, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just blocked them for 31 hours. Please let me know if they come back. Nick-D (talk) 23:57, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear. I'll be watching for him. ROG5728 (talk) 02:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Another IP user (possibly the same individual, but under the IP 76.184.84.73 this time) has been adding chunks of uncited text to the user lists in some of the same articles. As with the other IP, I posted a notification about him at ANI a few days ago but he stopped editing for a few days and the issue was archived. Starting today he has continued editing Type 56 assault rifle and Luger P08 pistol. As with the other IP that was recently blocked, he has been warned by myself (and others) on [his talk page] and he persistently adds the text back without explanation. As in the other case, I personally added the citations in the user sections in both of the affected articles, and I have not been able to find sources supporting the text he is adding. ROG5728 (talk) 05:11, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 07:31, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

The block on 71.111.129.147 has expired and he has already made a large number of edits in the same fashion, at the usual articles. This time it's obvious he is (and was) faking sources for his edits because this time he used online citations that do not support his text. Specifically, in his newest edit at Type 56 assault rifle he added two countries with a cited website that does not support either addition. On other articles such as Vz. 58 and Makarov PM he has continued to remove countries with actual citations and simultaneously add new countries citing books that do not agree with his text. ROG5728 (talk) 09:43, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Yep, I agree. I've blocked them for a week - hopefully they take the hint. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion discussion: Comparison between roman and han empires

Hello. You are invited to take part in the deletion discussion on the redirect Comparison between roman and han empires. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 02:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

War crimes of the Wehrmacht

The person who re-added that material was myself, I had logged out and forgot to log back in. What exactly is dubious about the material? I checked the sources and they appeared to be fine, sorry for any inconvience. Lt.Specht (talk) 07:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

OK; as I noted in the edit summary, the material was added by a pro-Nazi POV-pusher who's since been blocked but is occasionally still trying to re-add their material under IP accounts. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Military history of France

Hi Nick. As you have an analogous FA, can you have a look at Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Military history of France/archive1 please? There is a big stalemate between two editors and nobody else is participating. It is about whether the contents are focussed and cover the nominal topic. YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 01:11, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

I've commented there Nick-D (talk) 10:30, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Good faith

I should assume good faith? What about that one? For a harmless suggestion such a accusation? That is really ridiculous. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 10:55, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

If you don't want other editors calling you names then you shouldn't call them names in the first place. Nick-D (talk) 11:08, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, the topic is over for me for this time. Next try: 2015. --Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 12:05, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Nick, I'm really not sure what to make of this disruptive edit by Sukarnobhumibol... Anyway, he's been templated by me for that nonsensical bit and I thought it is only proper to inform you of his childish behaviour. Next time he does that, I'm taking him to ANI. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 19:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Nonsense. Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hello Nick, per this latest name calling by him, should I take him to ANI now? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 06:11, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Why not going to the Supreme Court? Sukarnobhumibol (talk) 07:50, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Done! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 08:06, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I'm going to drop this per your intervention at ANI and go back to my work at WP:MILITARY... but if he resume stalking/harassing me again, you know where my stand is. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 11:57, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• Nick, I have disengaged from Sukarnobhumibol like you told us to but this latest edit by him isn't exactly helping to improve the situation... in fact if you look at it again, he is "stalking" me! Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 09:45, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest that you ignore them. Nick-D (talk) 10:10, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Again, I'm dropping the stick... please, just keep an eye on him before he gets banned. Cheers and regards. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:16, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've warned them. Nick-D (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks and like the statement I've said before, his trollish comments reminds me of someone and I'm really tempted to WP:RFCU for his relation (if any) with 23prootie (talk · contribs). But again as before, I'm leaving it as it is now because I'm not going to be the sheriff, judge and executioner, all rolled into one. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:26, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

23prootie socks are uncovered fairly regularly (I have the SPI case file on my watchlist), so they may well be worth reporting. The article edit pattern is different, but their personal conduct is similar. Nick-D (talk) 10:29, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

• Hence, my educated guess. Toodles~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦1185♪♫™} 10:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

The War Crimes article

I would love to Nick but i have very little in the way of sources that deal with the issue. I could track down the info i was thinking about attempt to even the playing field in regards to Burma. I recall their being a few allegations by Meyer in his book in regards to Normandy but thats about it i think. If i come across anything though i will add it.

But i agree with you, the article is a shambles at the moment.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

OK Nick-D (talk) 10:19, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Kongo ACR

Hey, Nick, I think I've dealt with most of your issues with regards to the ACR for Kongo class battlecruiser. Could you check back in some time in the next few days to see if there are any big issues still to deal with? Cam ^(Chat) 03:23, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Harry S. Truman/archive1‎

Hi again Nick. Can you look at this FAR? I only know about the Indochina stuff, but judging from the stuff in that section, and the generally odd weighting to various things, the content seems to have been put together in an ad hoc way. I think you would know a lot more about the whole geopolitical stuff in there especially the Cold War/Korea/end of WWII etc YellowMonkey (vote in the Southern Stars and White Ferns supermodel photo poll) 06:51, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't really know much about Truman or that era of American history. I do agree that the content and structure are a bit odd though. Nick-D (talk) 10:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Kursk

i put more refs behind. if u find something more that is wrong in your opinion, than maybe mark it with "ref needed" instead of reverting. i will bring the ref then. if u find the wording bad than maybe u can change it. when u revert i dont know what exactly u dont like. Blablaaa (talk) 01:02, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I would be happy to copy edit the material if it is to remain in the article but if it is to be removed I will not bother. Please look over the diffs when you have a minute and let me know. Thanks. Diannaa ^TALK 01:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Blablaaa, if you continue to add material not supported by the citations provided or written in bad English again you will be blocked. You do not have the option to see if other editors pick up on your mistakes or correct your bad grammar as you have been warned and blocked repeatedly for this kind of conduct. Nick-D (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

the material now is sources. do u want more refs? please tell me for what , i will add than. Blablaaa (talk) 10:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Notice of AN discussion involving you

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Blablaaa. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Your block of User:Blablaaa

Hi Nick-D. I was asked to look into your block of Blablaaa. As I read the reasons for the block, I can't help but feel that you've been a bit harsh on the user, especially given the fact that you have blocked the user several times before and the block itself was of a non-time critical nature. The user has questioned the block, as have a few other users, and I agree that there are concerns.

Could you please post a few more diffs regarding the behaviour that led you to block the user? If I'm frank, as it stands, your block reason is rather flimsy, though I agree that there may be cause for concern with regards to the behaviour of the user. If you could provide some more diffs for me to look at, I'd appreciate it.

I also think it would be good if you refrain from blocking this user in the future. LessHeard vanU pointed out (quite rightly, I think) that having one admin repeatedly applying sanctions to the same user isn't good.

Thanks. --Deskana (talk) 23:50, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm responding at WP:AN now. I'd suggest that you take the time to review this editor's conduct. Nick-D (talk) 23:58, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I made a point of doing that before I commented here, and I must say, I don't think an indefinite block was appropriate, especially with the reasons you gave on the talk page. This was their last edit before being blocked, for example. Yes, it's using the talk page as a forum, but an indefinite block for that seems excessive. Anyway, I'll read your response on WP:AN. Thanks.--Deskana (talk) 00:05, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

It's the long-running pattern of disruption, not the individual edits in question here. Nick-D (talk) 00:06, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I can't see the disruption. I've looked at the diffs you gave in the block reason, and they're definitely not sufficient, as far as I can see. Can you give a few more? The burden is on the blocking admin to justify the block, not the people who look at it afterwards, after all. --Deskana (talk) 00:08, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D. Although User:Blablaaa really seems to push some POV (as well as many other users do), he is doing that based on reliable sources. I agree that he is not always polite, however, his arguments do have some ground (at least he forced me to look through many sources and partially re-consider my point of view on some WWII events). You probably noticed that he is my opponent, and, based on that, my opinion has more weight than that of other users. I am convinced that his block is unjustified in this particular case and I propose you to re-consider your decision.
Sincerely,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I have posted a supporting comment at WP:AN#Blablaaa. Diannaa ^TALK 00:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I was going to post this at WP:AN but got an edit conflict. I am posting here instead, as you may want no further posts on the other thread: He is also probably 188.192.127.100 (talk · contribs) who was blocked twice in his short career. Apparently he was in Hamburg on Dec 10 85.176.148.111 (talk · contribs); at lease EyeSerene seemed to think so. He may also have been user:HROThomas, who edited from 1/31/09 to 10/18/09. Here is a diff I clicked on at random. HROThomas's first edit on de.wikipedia was to change casualty figures on Unternehmen Zitadelle (Battle of Kursk). This is not a new user. By the way Blablaaa is editing de.wiki as well Diannaa ^TALK 06:51, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I've posted a note about the pre-registration history I'm aware of at WP:AN. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I've just also posted a note to your above comment - I think that the block is justified, and am sure that the discussion will continue. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Nick, I support your block. Based on my rather limited experience, it was frustrating dealing with the user because he did not cite reliable sources to support his arguments. If we could get a firm commitment from the user to in future back up his assertions with reliable sources then I would support an unblock. Also, I promise to refrain from using German myself on Wikipedia in the future. I will continue to follow the progress of this dispute.--Woogie10w (talk) 12:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

I am not intended to comment alleged User:Blablaaa's sockpuppetry, usage of multiple accounts and similar violations. However, based on my rather limited experience I conclude that his contribution might be useful. Thus, his arguments forced me to look again at the sources and to re-word the WWII article's statement on the Battle of Kursk (according to some recent sources it was one of the most important battle, but not a turning point, soUser:Blablaaa appeared to be right), and to add the reservation on the Soviet conscripts died in German captivity to the Eastern Front article.User:Blablaaa is definitely a German POV pusher, however, since I have an extensive experience of contacts with really problem editors (who, by mastering some civil POV pusher's trick successfully evaded blocks), I conclude User:Blablaaa's behaviour is more polite and constructive than that of real problem editors. In addition, I am afraid that German POV is underrepresented in WP, so the User:Blablaaa's activity, although sometimes non-polite and annoying, may be useful to make WP more neutral. Since I myself by no mean can be considered as a pro-German editor, I believe I have a right to make such a statement.--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:42, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

IP 76.116.25.74

Dear Nick,
The IP 76.116.25.74 repeatedly replaces the term "Soviet" with the word "Russian" in the Eastern Front (World War II) article (the most recent diffs are [10] and [11]), leaving no edit summaries and acting against the talk page consensus. Can you please consider a possibility to block him?
Regards,
--Paul Siebert (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2010 (UTC)