User talk:Nick-D

Talk archive 1 (November 2005–May 2008)
Talk archive 2 (June–December 2008)
Talk archive 3 (January-July 2009)
Talk archive 4 (August–December 2009)
Talk archive 5 (January–June 2010)
Talk archive 6 (January–June 2010)

Awards people have given me

Mississippi class battleship

Nick, we've worked quite a bit in an attempt to satisfy the concerns that you and others posted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Mississippi class battleship. Do you have the time to come back and verify that we've addressed your concerns? Thanks! Kevin --Kevin Murray (talk) 01:41, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

I'll respond at the ACR Nick-D (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Lam Van Phat

Unfortunately, I can't see any mention of anything post his pardon YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 08:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Something for you

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews for the period 1 April-30 September 2010, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons.  Roger Davies talk 07:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Roger! Nick-D (talk) 09:09, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Pleasure, Nick :)  Roger Davies ^talk 10:20, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Revert issue

Hi Nick!! The article Brazil and weapons of mass destruction was recently nominated for deletion. The result was keep and the case was closed yesterday. During the AfD, I inserted a rescue tag to see if we could improve the article. I edited the article and added about 20 reliable sources, including SIPRI, Wisconsin Project on Nuclear Arms Control, Arms Control Association, GlobalSecurity.org, Global Security Institute, German Council on Foreign Relations, GlobalSecurity.org, to name a few. I didn't make any major changes.. I basically reworded some parts (to reflect the sources), improved the lead and added a history section. Now, User:NPguy has reverted all my edits, erasing all the sources. If you have a chance, could you please leave your input on the article's talk page? I think that will really be helpful. Thanks! Limongi (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Icelandic Air Policing

— Rlevse • Talk • 06:05, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Asia project

Is now up and running http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Asia SatuSuro 04:04, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I've just added myself to the list of participants. Nick-D (talk) 04:17, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

its gonna be a long long climb.... SatuSuro 04:21, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand FAC

I've nominated EFF for another FAC, and as you commented (and opposed) last time, I would like you to look her over again. Thanks! Buggie111 (talk) 01:39, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Thailand WW2

Do you know of a reliable source for Thailand's casualties in WW2?--Woogie10w (talk) 23:41, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid not. I just checked the Oxford Companion to World War II and it's entry on Thailand didn't provide any casualty figures. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Fenwick High School (Oak Park, Illinois)

There's an editor who keeps adding information about the school for events dated 2010. The problem is the sources listed are from 2009 and 2007. I have attempted to engage on the talk page, but the editor does not appear to understand and has descended into insults.[1] Edward321 (talk) 15:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked them for a user name violation and asked that they provide appropriate sources after changing their user name. Nick-D (talk) 22:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

HEY!

HOW DARE YOU VANDALIZE THE CIVIL WAR IN CHAD 2005-PRESENT ARTICLE!? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU!? IT'S A REAL WAR! B-Machine (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I've got no doubt that it is. As I explained on the article's talk page, the materail had to be removed as it was full of copyright violations. I posted on the talk page asking for help cleaning up the article and only chopped it back when there was no response to this for more than two weeks. If you'd like to help the diffs where copyvios were added are at Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/De Administrando Imperio#Articles 121 through 140. Please be more careful before you accuse people of vandalism in the future. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 21:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

AWM copyrights expired

1. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/128444
2. http://cas.awm.gov.au/item/P02379.004

• Hello Nick, the above links are photos I've tracked down on AWM and was thinking that you might have some use for them in your recent edits. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:34, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

  Good news, I've found an 1942 map of Singapore on commons you could use to replace File:Targets of USAAF raids on Singapore 1944-1945.png, which as you know has the modern coastline of Singapore depicted instead of 1942. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:44, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that Dave - the first photo looks particularly useful. I didn't use that map as a) I can't confirm that it's actually PD (the date range means that it might be PD, but the AWM claims copyright over it and the rest of the official histories here and b) the over-layed unit names and boundaries would be confusing at best and totally misleading at worst. Nick-D (talk) 22:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I've now added the first two photos to the article - thanks again Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

• Don't mention it, Nick. As for the photos, I've noticed quite a number of WW2 photos from IWM got themselves entwined with AWM and in some cases listed on both sides, how is that possible? As you've said, confusing and misleading both at the same time for poor old us. And another thing, you have a small typo error on File:Queen Mary in Singapore Gaving Dock Aug 1940.jpg. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 11:00, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I presume that the AWM and IWM sourced some of their World War-era photos from the same sources. The AWM mainly draws on the work of Australian official war photographers and servicemen and women. That said, I've seen photographs taken by Australian official war photographers in the IWM's collections (including, from memory, in the IWM itself in London) - I guess it reflects the very close integration of Australia and the UK at the time. Nick-D (talk) 22:43, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

• As it was between Singapore and Britain/Singapore and Australia/Briain and Australia, isn't it correct to say that all WW2 photos either by AWM & IWM are crown copyrighted? Hence, the confusion and all due to the geopolitical climate then (British Empire). Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 04:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Communicat

Thanks for the note. I have added evidence of his ignoring consensus and the actual sources, incivility, and pushing Winer. Edward321 (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LV (September 2010)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter: Issue LV (September 2010) Front page Project news Articles Members Editorial

Project news The results of September's coordinator elections, plus ongoing project discussions and proposals	Articles A recap of the month's new Featured and A-Class articles
Members Our newest A-class medal recipients, this September's top contestants, plus the reviewers' Roll of Honour (Apr-Sep 2010)	Editorial In the final part of our series on copyright, Moonriddengirl describes how to deal with copyright infringements on Wikipedia
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 20:16, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

communicat - incident notice - arbcom

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Communicat (talk • contribs) 15:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Party to arbitration

This is to inform you that you have now been added as a third party to current arbitration application by Communicat. Communicat (talk) 00:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War

Hi. Since I am back in improving List of aviation shootdowns and accidents during the Iraq War, I would like to inform you that I used this link to double-check most of the cases. Would this satisfy the need for more official press releases? Are there any particular cases that you think I should investigate more? Can you please help me to get this article to A-class? Thanks. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Magioladitis, Are you sure that's a reliable source? - it doesn't provide any sources itself and the website is a Vietnam Veterans' association so it isn't an authority on this topic. More generally, for something to be A class it needs to be comprehensive, so you need to find a reliable source which you can cross-check the totals against. I hope those comments are helpful. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

This is the press release copied from DoD and with the names stated. I checked the names in icasualties.org and they are there too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:15, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

If there's a DoD press release that would be the best source. Nick-D (talk) 07:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure a US DoD press release is the best source on aviation shoot downs? I'm fairly sure somewhere in the leaking of the Afghan war logs to wikileaks it was reported that the numbers were fudged by the US DoD, and in particular aircraft that were shot down by Stingers and Strela's were listed as 'crashed' on a regular basis. Wouldn't it be a natural assumption to treat the source as suspect and look to any journalists who've collated information from the leaked logs?--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:35, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

We still need newspaper reports otherwise we are using sources from a party involved in the incident. I think it's in article's benefit that the DoD release is confirmed by an association. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:24, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you please clarify what the press release is? - does it provide a summary of the losses and/or fatalities? I also don't see anything wrong with just using DoD figures - I'm not aware of any reports of them being wrong (and iCasualties seems to rely on official reports of fatalities anyway). Nick-D (talk) 07:36, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I can of course try to find the original url but I think this one for example is also ok. What do you think? -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:41, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

You should always use the original. Given that the website included the DoD media release number, it's very easy to find the actual media release by Google searching 'Department of Defence media release 1144-05' or similar - here it is. Nick-D (talk) 09:22, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll work to cover as much as possible with official press releases. A bot right now fixed 2 deal links too. I hope we 'll solve the references problem soon. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:04, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit-warring at Phalanx CIWS

Nick, could you please take a look at Phalanx CIWS? An Australia IP (124.171.19.245) kept up his edit warring despite being told not do so, after we've told him repeatedly that it is not notable for a fiction section to be re-introduce and his only attempt at discussion was a thinly-veiled "screw us" on the talk page before renewing his 3RR. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 08:47, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dave, I've blocked the IP address and watchlisted the article. I'll semi-protect the article if the block doesn't deter this person. I'd suggest posting an explanation of WP:MILPOP on the article talk page though. Nick-D (talk) 09:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Thank you mate for your quick response, will pop in @ WP:MILPOP later to discuss this, have to go run an errand now. Best. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:12, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

• Oh well, I've spoken to Bill and we agreed that the particular edit is not worth any notability per consensus on WP:MILPOP, so I won't be bringing a dead horse there to flog. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

They've returned and are still edit warring, so I've blocked the latest IP for 48 hours and semi-protected the article for a week - hopefully that encourages them to discuss things. Nick-D (talk) 07:55, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks again, I suspect that he'll be back again, the dead giveaway is that they both edited on Brown noise and Phalanx CIWS with the exact same edit(s). Actually, this really baffles me but what are the odds that he's operating one day in Adelaide and from Sydney on other day? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 13:45, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Fairly low given that the two cities are several thousand kilometers apart - unless they're a busy business traveler who enjoys edit warring in their downtime or something ;) I suspect that one of the accounts is being routed through a different city. Nick-D (talk) 07:28, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

• Business traveller? As if their own business is not enough of a killer towards them that they have to walk down this destructive path of edit warring as a form of cheap thrill? Maybe some spoiled brat following their businessman father? That, I believe is a hypothetical possibility. Anyway, we'll see it how this goes. Cheers~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:36, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Great photo

The photo of the AWM you added to Military history of Australia is fantastic, it adds to the article quite nicely. I have been thinking about what to add here for a while but it didn't even occur to me. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 10:31, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I was actually looking for a photo of the AWM with lots of people visiting it (to illustrate how popular it is), but couldn't find a good one to use. I might try creating one myself on a sunny Saturday afternoon! Nick-D (talk) 10:39, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Taliban Casualties

Hey leave the total number up until October 20 2010. You can edit the number count for the months the way you want (preferably keep it like it is now so ppl can get better look on the count) but a total of them killed for the year of 2010 up to October 20th should be implemented in it, then when we add more numbers in the future we can always add to the total killed for that year. Also say something like **** killed in 2010 documents taken from various press releases or something like that... Does that make sense? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.148.248 (talk) 12:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Unless the total figures are supported by a reliable source they shouldn't be in the article. Please note that Wikipedia articles are not a suitable reference. Nick-D (talk) 22:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well how about saying **** killed via wiki count and **** killed via reliable published accounts making a combined number****? After all the sources wiki has for the numbers are accurate...check them urself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 23:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

That assumes that all the news stories are correct and the Wikipedia article lists every single fatality, neither of which is at all likely to be the case. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

All I am doing is just adding if you keep deleting that you might as well delete all of 2010 except the 2 sources we have. We need to make an agreement on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 00:14, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring then, and let's discuss this at Talk:List of Taliban fatality reports in Afghanistan Nick-D (talk) 00:52, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Very good see u there —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.65.124 (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Caldwell & 1TAF

Hi mate, looks like Black Friday is doing well in ACR -- congrats! Couple of things:

• Having done my travelling this year and subsequently edited a few digital videos and slideshows to my satisfaction, I might start to get off my suntanned arse re. articles sometime before Christmas. Are you still interested in collaborating on getting Caldwell to GA/A/FA? If so, let me know when it might fit in with your schedule. I'm not ready to start right now, but there's plenty of prep work to do before writing in earnest, e.g. agreeing division of work and sources, plus additional images (found quite a few I think'd be worthwhile, will point you to them in due course).
• On a related note, what do think 1TAF needs to make B-Class? It's about the same length as 9OG but that was a smaller and shorter-lived formation. I'm thinking a couple of extra paras might do, including something that clearly states its purpose, per a comment on the talk page -- let me know your thoughts 'cos I might ease back into writing with that... ;-)

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, It's good to see you back. How did your travelling go?

• Yes, I'm still interested in working on the Caldwell article. I've got a busy week ahead of me (work + university exam + travel) and am planning to take the Black Friday and Bombing of Singapore articles to FA but should start to have capacity to start with the Caldwell article in a week or so.
• I agree that more detailed coverage of 1TAF's purpose would be useful. Two or three paras on the main operations undertaken by the organisation (including the often very impressive airbase construction work) and an assessment of its performance also seems in order. Nick-D (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Travel was spectacular, tks, but I won't go into detail unless you want to feel more jealous... ;-) Where are you heading? I know o/s at some stage but presume that's not yet.

• Heh, no hurry, just let me know when you're ready to start planning. One simple division of labour that came to mind was me concentrating on intro, early life and North Africa (given I've spent a lot of time on bios of his fellow pilots in that theatre), and you the Pacific (which is a bit thin and would benefit from your experience with Nos. 1 and 80 Wings) and later life. I don't think it actually needs a huge amount of additional detail, basically at least one more good para each for lead, early life, Pacific and later life, plus tidying up in North Africa and more images.
• Expanded 1TAF, see what you think -- a lot more could be added but I'm just interested in seeing it to B-Class at this stage...

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:14, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

That division of labour for Caldwell sounds good to me, though I'm a bit reluctant to write about his court martial (which seems to have been a bit tedious...). I think that the 1TAF article should now be B class, though I won't assess it as I've had a bit to do with the article over the years. I'm planning a trip to northern Europe (Germany, France and maybe some of the UK) for September/October next year - though this is still in its very early days! Nick-D (talk) 10:33, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only tedious but tendentious...! Well, like I said, I don't think we need that much more detail so perhaps we can keep it to a few lines... Re. 1TAF, yep it should be an uninvolved party formally assessing so I'll be putting it on the requests page. Okay, that European trip was the one I recall you mentioning -- obviously just at the planning stage then... That all sounds great, I worked in Stuttgart for a few months in the mid-90s and travelled a lot in southern Germany and had a ball, my wife and I did Paris, the Loire and Normandy a few years ago and it was one of our fave trips, and you'll never lack for something to do in the UK, so hope it all comes to fruition... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 10:53, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

(od) Hi mate, congrats again on Black Friday! Looks like you might be starting to gear up for this... I thought we should probably transfer discussion to the Caldwell talk page to keep the collaboration transparent, as there may be others who want to buy in somewhere. I was going to start by listing sources already in the article and others that I'm planning on using, and then just getting an idea of who has access to what so we don't double up too much -- so pls add to it when I'm done and you have a chance... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ian. I was just fiddling about yesterday, but I agree that it would be good to start serious planning on the article's talk page Nick-D (talk) 06:51, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Doomsday

Hey Nick. I got the sources for Doomsday from my archive, but it's been so long I can't remember how to actually nominate for ACR. Rather embarrassing; apparently I've been on a content-writing break for far longer than I'd realized. I know the link is at MILHIST somewhere, but I'll be darned if I know where. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Skinny, the instructions are at WP:MHRA Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 21:35, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers! The review is here if you're interested. Any and all comments welcome. Skinny87 (talk) 08:21, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, I've answered all of them and even asked a question in return. Cheers, Skinny87 (talk) 17:09, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mrg3105 has popped up again

See User_talk:JamesBWatson/Archive_19#List_of_infantry_divisions_of_the_Soviet_Union_1917.E2.80.931957_revert. Not sure that we need to do anything about it at the moment though. Probably just FYI for now. Buckshot06 (talk) 02:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Urgh, just what we need. There seems to be resurgence of edit warriors of late... I agree that there's no point in doing anything with that almost two month old IP address, but Mrg can be blocked by any admin on sight. Nick-D (talk) 06:34, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Popped up again on one of his old hot-button topics [2]. Please advise Buckshot06 (talk) 05:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have confirmation that it's him? (I'm not familiar with his behaviour in regards to categorisation so can't confirm here). If so, the IP accounts can be blocked by any admin. Nick-D (talk) 05:07, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

No confirmation, just very strong suspiction - geolocates to nearby and one of his hotbutton topics. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 05:24, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Selected anniversaries

I added some of your FAs to the various anniversary pages for display on the front page. I was surprised none of them were on there. A large proportion of the incumbent entries are unsourced start class articles, so feel free to just self-serve and bump them off, in my opinion :) YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 06:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks - I hadn't even thought of doing that! Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I did post a message at MILHIST, MHCOORD, FAC talk, GAN talk for people to come and wash away the unsourced starts with a tsunami of FA/GA/A etc but there was no response...unusually since I would have thought lots of people would want their pov or npov message conveyed to the masses. YellowMonkey (new photo poll) 07:14, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance

I thought its time to say thanks to all the editors who have assisted me in the articles I have been working on; so I took a look at toolserver.org and it shows that you have done 35,244 edits and four years service. I think you not only deserve, but are entitled to the below award in accordance with the award criteria. I know that one is supposed to award this medal to yourself, but we never do, so I am doing it on behalf of you! Thanks for all your help. Farawayman (talk) 14:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

This editor is a
Senior Editor II
and is entitled to display this Rhodium
Editor Star.

Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Category discussion

Do you want to contribute your view at [[3]]? Buckshot06 (talk) 06:47, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification, I've commented there. Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Defence of the Reich

Can you have a look at this briefly. No need to read in depth. Do you think it can reach GA? Dapi89 (talk) 14:31, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

From a quick read, I don't see any reason why it can't reach GA. I'd suggest trimming the 'Post-war assessment' section though as this seems to be focused on the results of the Allied bomber offensive rather than the results of the German defencive efforts which is the topic if the article. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Light aircraft carrier

Could you please take a look at Talk:Light aircraft carrier and Talk:Light aircraft carrier#Use of "British" as a clarifier? (I probably went over my 3RR on this one, but I won't change it again without a clear consensus. Also, the IP is dynamic, so page protection might be a better solution than a range block. Handle as you see fit.) I'm trying to remember if this has been discuissed at MILHIST before - I think we have, but I can't remember where. Do you recall? Searching the extensive edit histories isn't something I want to do this late at night when I should be sleeping! Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Bill, I've just protected the article for 24 hours to stop the edit war and encourage discussion on the talk page. I think that there was a discussion of this at WT:MILHIST and/or WT:SHIPS a few years ago, but I can't remember what the outcome was. My personal practice is to add 'British' out the front of 'Royal Navy' only in instances where there's the possibility that it could be confused with other countries' Royal Navies (which seems to me to be common sense), but I don't know if other editors follow this practice. There's nothing on the topic at either WP:MILMOS or Wikipedia:Naming conventions (ships) which suggests that there isn't a consensus on the topic (or that I'm looking in the wrong place! Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:56, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I believe I'm applying your practicve in the case of this article: WHile it may be somewhat debetable in the text, there's no indication, or even links at all (I don;t know if they were left out intentiaonally) in the list to indicat which country the "Royal Navy" rtefers to. Should we add the links in, and hope uniformed readers will be informed enough to click the links to find out? - BilCat (talk) 08:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For prolific work on Bombing of Yawata (June 1944), Bombing of Singapore (1944–1945) and Black Friday (1945), which were promoted to A-Class between May and November 2010, by order of the coordinators of the Military history WikiProject you are hereby awarded the A-Class medal with Oak Leaves. Congratulations! Ian Rose (talk) 11:53, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

The Tokyo war crimes trial

Hi Nick, you may find this series of interest. I have never seen it, it is not at the NY Public Library. RJ Rummel mentions the figures cited here. I need to get special permission and view it at Columbia University. Now that I have finished the USSR, this may be a goldmine on the Far East. For example they estimate 1 million dead Chinese POW in Japanese custody.

The Tokyo war crimes trial Vol 1-22

Author: R John Pritchard; Sonia M Zaide; Donald Cameron Watt; International Military Tribunal for the Far East.

Publisher: New York : Garland Pub., 1981.

--Woogie10w (talk) 01:40, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That does look like a useful (if huge!) reference. There seem to be at least two copies of it here in Canberra (one at the Australian National University and another at the National Library of Australia). Nick-D (talk) 02:07, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

RJ Rummel's Statistics of Democide has numerous references to this series in the section on Japan. There should be juicy details to augment the Wikipedia articles on Japanese War Crimes--Woogie10w (talk) 02:38, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

WWII Aftermath

Thanks for the good advice. I'm pulling that entire section, both the info from the other page and Communicat's edits until I can confirm the sources match the claims. Can you read the full Jstor articles? Edward321 (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I should be able to. I'll follow up on the references in the next few days. Nick-D (talk) 09:45, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVI, October 2010

Your Military history Newsletter Project News: Editors for the newsletter, GAN backlog reduction drive Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: EyeSerene sums up our "Five years of military history"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello! Your submission of Action of 28 January 1945 at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Wasted Time R (talk) 02:10, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

AWM images

Hi mate, I've copied File:8 Sqn (AWM 042999).jpg and File:Beaufort (AWM OG3362).jpg to Commons under the same names -- would you be able to delete the originals on WP? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Both done. I've also moved them out of the general RAAF category at Commons to the more specific (though increasingly over-crowded...) aircraft of the RAAF category. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea -- tks. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Action of 28 January 1945

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

No. 78 Wing RAAF

Hi mate, thinking of working further on this as I don't think it'll take much to get to B-Class, but I've come across an oddity and another pair of eyes might help. For some reason the images only appear below the Command Structure section in the infobox -- if you take it away, they appear where they're coded in the relevant sections (same thing appears to happen with No. 86 Wing RAAF). I've compared closely to No. 81 Wing RAAF where the layout's the same and the image sits in the right spot, but see no obvious differences/issues. If you get a sec, can you see if you can spot anything weird? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, that seemed to be a problem with the two infoboxes causing bunching of images - I've fixed it in this edit. I was having trouble with this in some of the articles I was working on earlier this year until some combination of Hawkeye7, Anotherclown and/or Australian Rupert came along and fixed it. I agree that it's not going to take much to get that article to B class. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

A "bunching" parameter, eh? Heh, still don't know why 78 needs it while 81 doesn't but who cares, it works now so what can I say but thanks (a bunch)!

While we're on this, you don't happen to know a source for the reformation of the wing in 2000 do you? I put that in back in 2006 or so but I have a feeling it might have been first-hand knowledge as it was just after I finished contracting at Air Command -- now I do some searching on the web, I can't see any direct refs... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:51, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I just had a poke around online sources, and the best I could come up with is that it's not identified as one of the units at Williamtown in this 1998 Parliamentary report but is identified as part of Air Combat Group upon its formation in 2002 in this RAAF news story. The ANU has a run of Jane's World Air Forces back to the 1990s which should identify when it first reappeared on the RAAF's order of battle which I should be able to check sometime this week. 2000 sounds right as that's when the Hawks started to enter service. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Those things help narrow it down, tks. If you can check on the Jane's, that'd be excellent. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. If you can also check that 81 Wing was active as far back as they go, that'd be great -- I think it must've been but you never know. Don't worry about the transport wings, I have a book on Richmond that goes into all that and am using it to flesh out those articles in due course. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I've found the old notes about talking to the Aussie wing commander ages and ages ago. Ohakea Air Day, 22 March 1998. SRG commander was the double-hatted base commander. Maint; (cmd 501 Wg), tng, spt. 82 Wing does operations. On deployment, composite wings would be formed - 95, 96, 97 Wings. Do you have any data on 95, 96, 97 Wings? Buckshot06 (talk) 19:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I don't think that I have anything on those three wings, though I think that at least one of them may have been activated during the INTERFET deployment in 1999 (though I could easily be wrong). I've also seen some articles that mention in passing that a wing-level headquarters was deployed to the Middle East in 2003 (possibly as part of the Combined Task Force HQ?) but can't remember seeing what, if anything, it was designated... Nick-D (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Big favour

Nick, would you mind doing me a big favour? We have the ADF reasonably well, you've done the F-FDTL, but we don't have a page yet for Kodam IX/Udayana, the nearest Indonesian Army regional command. Would you consider looking into this and maybe creating a stub? Indo:wiki article is at id:Kodam_IX/Udayana. Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 19:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll see what I can find on it. I think that I should be able to stick a stub together today. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

OK done. The recent literature on Kodam IX is confusing - some sources say that a new military district in West Kalimantan received the designation Kodam IX in 2009, but Kodam IX's website still calls itself Kodam IX/Udayana. Id.wiki and some other sources call the command in West Kalimantan Kodam XII/Tanjungpura. Nick-D (talk) 00:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed. That's fantastic. Now we can link it in references to the TNI-AD on the other side of the border opposite the F-FDTL. Fast work - thanks so much. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:41, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

User:SAtoSuro may be the man for the IX/XII business; when I did some work with him on divisions/Kodams a while ago he was reasonably well informed. What's the source on the new MD in W Kalimantan being IX? Buckshot06 (talk) 00:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Page 81 of Power politics and the Indonesian military by Damien Kingsbury (which is online at Google books here) for example. Nick-D (talk) 00:48, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a good shot ! my source items a re bit loose and in disarray at the moment SatuSuro 01:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

SatuSuro, can you take a look at this document, a recent ICG report, and tell us what you think?: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/south-east-asia/indonesia/B104-timor-leste-oecusse-and-the-indonesian-border.aspx ?? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:16, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

OK. My estimate is that West Timor is still under Kodam IX. Why? The ICG report reports a new infantry brigade in West Timor, the 21st. id.wiki reports, giving 2009 sources, that that brigade is unde Kodam IX: id:Brigade_infanteri_21. What do you guys think? Buckshot06 (talk) 08:22, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I'd say that it kept the same boundaries as the Kodam IX website shows that its 'Udayana' suffix hasn't changed, and the units which move or are redesignated seem to get new suffixes. Nick-D (talk) 09:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

The Korem 161 website also states that the region is part of Kodam IX and vice-versa (though this could be outdated, I guess). Nick-D (talk) 09:25, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry guys my head is curiously vacant of indonesian things tonight (probably will go and tag indonesian stubs after saying that) please leave me a message on my talk if you get into any deep holes - I can over a week or two get into some deep info possibly not on the web - cheers SatuSuro 12:06, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

arbitration military history POV-bias

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#military history POV-bias and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Communicat (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused about why you keep going the RfArb route when your requests for this keep being rejected... Nick-D (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Contributions by User:Takabeg

A colleague from Turkey is doing some great work on formations that saw action against ANZACs in the First World War. See for example Dardanelles Fortified Area Command. Please keep these articles in mind while working on Australian military history articles and spread the knowledge of their existence as widely as possible. Buckshot06 (talk) 08:07, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Will do, though I historically haven't worked much on World War I articles. Nick-D (talk) 09:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

File:43 sqn (AWM 128022).jpg

Hi Nick, transferred this file to Commons (and removed the big watermark) under the same name so again if you could do the honours on the WP version... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:24, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for that Ian. Nick-D (talk) 03:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Another couple that can be removed from WP when you have the time now that I've duplicated on Commons:

• File:Kittyhawk on Momote.jpg
• File:86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg

Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:28, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

...and undone for File:86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg as its deletion left empty image boxes! - does it have a different name at Commons? Nick-D (talk) 06:49, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, we ended up with an extra "File-" at the front of the name somehow -- it's there as File:File-86 Wing (AWM P00448-093).jpg... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've fixed the links and deleted the file. Thanks for moving these files across. Nick-D (talk) 09:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

World War II opened

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/World War II/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, AGK 13:25, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

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

Bidgee (talk) 15:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

About the Cold War

I'm currently going through your points regarding the article and came across one of them:

"*Ronald Reagan began massively building up the United States military not long after taking office" - I believe that this build-up began under Carter as a response to the invasion of Afghanistan. Reagan accelerated the build-up."

Now I've looked into it a little bit and it seems that due carter re-instated the requirement that young men register with the Selective Service System, in the beginning of the Reagan Administration the military was underfunded and it was under Reagan that the defense spending increased by 40%- including the revival of the B-1 bomber program, which had been cancelled by the Carter administration.

Most of this information is derived from this article, and I got most of the info about Carter's response to the soviet invasion of Afghanistan from here.

I may wrong due and so i'm bring it to your attention. If you still believe that these policies of military build up began with Carter I'll have to dwell more deeply into the subject. Looking forward to your input,--Macarenses (talk) 20:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

The source used in the Reagan article (http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1957.html ) appears to be unreliable - it isn't written by any named authors and cites no sources. Its claim that there was "practically zero maintenance" of US military equipment, for instance, is plainly nonsense: if this was the case almost all of the Navy would have been unable to put to sea and all the military's aircraft would have been grounded. The article also wrongly claims that the US military is currently deploying laser-armed anti-missile aircraft and satellites (see Boeing YAL-1 for the current status of the airborne laser project). Nick-D (talk) 03:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

thank you! after looking into it I see from many sources that you are indeed correct. I will add the fact that Carter started the military buildup (with proper citation of course) to the Cold War and probably also to the article on the Reagan administration.thx again,--Macarenses (talk) 11:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries - it's good to see that this article is being improved given the importance of its topic. Nick-D (talk) 11:12, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to disturb you again but i was wondering about what you mentioned:

"Why are the American fatalities in the Korean and Vietnam wars the only casualty figures quoted? Good estimates of casualties in these wars for many other countries (most notably North and South Vietnam and Korea) are available for these wars, for instance, along with figures for many of the proxy wars."

The paragraph in which does numbers are quoted is about the military expediture of the the two superpowers, Do you think a section of "Casualties of the Cold War" where all proxy wars and operations and their sum total of lose of life will be listed is called for? or maybe just removing the line regarding american losses? . I'm still not sure myself though i'm leaning towards creating a new section. your consul will be appreciated,--Macarenses (talk) 15:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

If you can find sources, a new section for casualties as you suggest sounds great. It seems important for the article to acknowledge that the 'Cold War' involved a number of 'hot wars' which lead to tens of thousands of deaths worldwide. Nick-D (talk) 21:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I've come across an issue with compiling casualties- should i consider all conflicts in which the powers picked sides and supported them or just the conflicts involving a communist and anti-communist side? That is, should the Iran-Iraq war, the Arab Israeli wars and the like be counted or just wars like Vietnam, Korea and the Sandinista War?--Macarenses (talk) 08:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest only including wars in which your sources say were part of the Cold War. Nick-D (talk) 08:52, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Question: can i use a map from "http://www.pbs.org" or can't I? And can i use a map from http://www.america.gov?--Macarenses (talk) 13:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless PBS is not claiming copyright on the map, then no you can't upload it. US Federal Government works are almost always free of copyright so it should be OK. There's some advice on how copyright applies to Wikipedia at Wikipedia:Copyrights and Wikipedia:Media copyright questions is probably the best place to ask questions about this topic. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:58, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

85 Wing

Hi mate, now I look again at the RAAF's Richmond and ALG pages, tks for picking that up. Actually, 85 still appears on the AMTDU page, but I agree we have to be guided primarily by the other two (damned Defence web pages never keep up with the constant reorgs anyway)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:39, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I notice you put "Parent" groups in the Component section of the wing infoboxes. This duplicates the "Part of" parameter above so I'd prefer to drop the parent unit to avoid duplication -- thoughts? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 01:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

I take your point; it would be best to leave it out of the subsidiary infobox, so I've removed it. For some reason the ADF is really bad about publishing its order of battle online - the Army and RAAF used to have regularly updated PDFs on their websites, but these have been removed over the last few years. They've even dropped the comprehensive list of units from the most recent Defence Annual Report. Nick-D (talk) 03:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, it's times like this I really miss the days when I contracted to Defence and helped maintain the restricted network that had everything up to date -- just for my own knowledge of course, since if it ain't freely published it ain't a suitable source for WP anyway... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:10, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

The annoying thing is that basic OOB information isn't at all secret and is often reported in chunks in the specialised defence press (including the service newspapers) and various government reports and the various Jane's publications print the lot annually. The US, UK, Canadian and even NZ militaries have much more comprehensive information on their websites. Can you tell that this is one of the topics I like to get on my high horse about? ;) Nick-D (talk) 03:18, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

That and anonymous contributors... ;-) (I share your feelings there...!) I know, with all they get into Jane's, etc, it's astonishing Defence cares so much about such basic things on their official websites -- some skewed idea of deniability I s'pose... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems to be more laziness than secrecy. I've been trying to find an overview about the role of reserves so I can add a section on this topic to the ADF article, but can't find anything online - the Defence Jobs website (for instance) presents all its information about reserves in the context of individual jobs rather than the big picture. If the ADF wasn't always short of reservists it would be funny. Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: email

OK, Nick, I appreciate your reply and reassurance. - Biruitorul ^Talk 06:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Block evader

Can you point out the best place to report a block evader? Gargabook (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has created Gargabookofayr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to continue the disruption and POV editing (seems to have a fixation to PM Gillard's and Ex PM Rudd's motorcade [See: Talk:Motorcade#PM Motorcade]). Bidgee (talk) 09:51, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Any admin can block clear cases of block evasion such as this one, so I've just blocked them. More complex matters should go to WP:ANI and matters where there's some ambiguity are best dealt with at WP:SPI. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Prod removed

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from George Sadil, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Marcus Qwertyus 20:35, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. The article could be redirected to ASIO, but given the BLP issues I think that it would be best deleted - I'll start an AfD for this to gauge other editors views today or tomorrow. I'll notify you when this is lodged. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 21:01, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

No. 72 Wing

Hi mate, created an article for this which to my surprise looks like it might even have enough for B-Class, given it has a grand total of two page references in Odgers. However I wonder if you can check the Units Concise History and see if it mentions No. 120 (NEI) Squadron RAAF being specifically under the wing's control when it went to Merauke in April-May 1944, since Odgers doesn't say so? BTW, also replied re. Convoy Faith where you left the message on my page. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:04, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, that was quick -- evidently you agree with the first clause above, tks! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I watchlisted the empty page as part of expanding the No. 12 Squadron article a few days ago, and just saw the article pop up ;) The fighter volume of the RAAF units concise history says that No. 120 Squadron replaced No. 86 Squadron at Merauke - I'll add this too the article. By the way, I've just finished bringing the No. 75 Squadron RAAF article up to B class standard - are you aware of any other notable commanders this unit had? Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 07:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep, great effort on 75Sqn -- no other notable COs with WP articles yet but if you want to redlink John Jackson (1942), feel free -- I'll probably get round to him (and his brother Les) one of these days. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:26, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Tks for that last check/tweak. BTW, can you give me the page range for Richmond in Volume 1 of the Units Concise History? I have some notes from it but w/o the exact page refs and won't be getting to the library for a few days... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, the entry runs from pages 154–157. Nick-D (talk) 23:50, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request

Hi Nick, I noticed that at the World Conference against Racism 2001 article you made this edit after Jalapenos restored some content I had removed. I believe the entire statement is erroneous as the source clearly states that the distribution of the offensive material occurred not at the Durban conference but at "a conference that coincided with the Durban conference" according to the source.[4] Since I can't remove the erroneous material myself due to 1RR, may I ask that you modify your last edit to remove the offending sentence? The article is currently still on the mainpage under DYK so I think it's important. I placed a POV tag on the article in the meantime. Gatoclass (talk) 06:08, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please propose this on the article's talk page. Nick-D (talk) 06:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I already outlined my objections to the statement on the talk page last night, here. Jalapenos ignored them in making his revert. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you mean - the article does say it was at a different conference. I'll remove it from the article and post on the talk page. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you

For your block on Bart. To say he needed to be knocked down a peg is an understatement. Big Brother of The Party (talk) 08:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

I edit conflicted with you at AIV on a report on User:Big Brother of The Party. I was attempting to delete the IP's report as spurious. Did I miss something? Tiderolls 10:33, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I haven't tried to edit that page. I just blocked that editor, which may have been what led to the edit conflict (?). Nick-D (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind. I read your post-block comment at User talk:Big Brother of The Party. I understand now. Excuse the ring. Tiderolls 10:37, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 10:43, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Please withdraw your accusations of bad faith

Please withdraw or strike these unfounded accusations. I have absolutely not acted in bad faith at all here. It is 100% allowed to express a viewpoint that an admin should be desyssoped (which I came to believe after investigating the situation. And there is no way that filing an MfD for a more general problem is "using wikipedia process to bully an editor" even if the mfD was misplaced. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean they are acting in bad faith. access_denied (talk) 05:01, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, but I regard starting a MfD related to ongoing RfC/Us as being inappropriate. As was this post on YM's talk page which you made after the MfD was closed as a keep. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

New site

[5] Some good photos and sources. Cla68 (talk) 01:10, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for that Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Arbitration question

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Kirill Lokshin's talk page.
Message added 13:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Helpful vs unhelpful

Re: Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2010 December 4
Please see comment here --Tenmei (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see edit summary here --Tenmei (talk) 18:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello Tenmei, I note your post above. This was a bit rude. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Email

You've got one. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:39, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Ed, I've just responded to you. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LVII, November 2010

Your Military History Newsletter Project News: From the editors, "Military Historian of the Year", New Incubator, Black Project Report Articles: The month's featured and A-class Milhist content Members: Contest results, A-class medal recipients Editorial: bahamut guides us through "Nominating military biographies for deletion"

To stop receiving this newsletter, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. To assist with preparing the newsletter, please visit the newsroom. BrownBot (talk) 23:00, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Adlertag (Eagle Day)

Nick. Congrats on AC for Black Friday. I think the above might be ready for GA. It is not a very big article but I think it is sufficiently covered. What do you think? Dapi89 (talk) 12:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Dapi, I think that article should easily meet the GA criteria. Nick-D (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Les Jackson

Hi again mate, just so I can try finishing off an article on John's younger brother this w/e (which among other things will mean we have have another notable commander to add to your excellent 75Sqn expansion), would you mind checking the Units Concise History for 75Sqn and 80Sqn and giving me the date ranges (and of course page refs) that Les commanded both? I only have one source for him commanding 80Sqn in any case, and want to make sure that one isn't confused... Unfortunately AWM has no article on 80Sqn and the only digitised NAA record for Les is his early militia service... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, he commanded No. 75 Squadron from 29 May 1942 to 2 January 1943 (p. 46). He's not listed as commanding No. 80 Squadron in that unit's entry... Nick-D (talk) 05:20, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Tks mate. Just to round things out if you have a few more spare moments, can you tell me who did command 80Sqn during 1943? Also, can I assume that the succession of 75Sqn commanders in 1942-43 was Peter Jeffrey, Old John Jackson, Les Jackson, Woof Arthur and Geoff Atherton? I ask because if that's the case we might have a good DYK hook when I tackle my next bio after Les Jackson, which will be Jeffrey, namely that starting with him, five COs of 75Sqn in a row were aces -- I don't know that many RAAF squadrons (except No. 3 I s'pose) could boast that. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:05, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ian, 80 Sqn was formed on 10 September 1943, and it's only commander that year was Sqn Ldr G.A. Cooper. He was replaced by Sqn Ldr Atherton on 21 July 1944, who was followed by Waddy on 15 September and Sqn Ldr D.R. Kelly became the unit's fourth and final commander on 1 June 1945 (p. 77). 75 Sqn's first commanders were Peter Jeffrey (4-19 March 1942), John Jackson (19 March-29 May 1942), Les Jackson (29 May-2 January 1943), J.F. Meehan (2-22 January 1943), Arthur (22 January-12 June) and then Atherton (12 June-23 November 1943). I suspect that Meehan was acting given the short duration of his command (though he was the same rank, Sqn Ldr, as the others). Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for all that Nick, much appreciated! Ah, so Meehan might spoil that DYK idea as he wasn't an ace.... :-( Actually, the Unit History has it wrong about the Jacksons because John was killed on 28 April 1942. It may be that Les didn't officially take over till 29 May and was only acting CO immediately after John's death, but I think it's more likely there's just been a typo and they meant 29 April for the start of Les' term... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 14:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I'll double check the dates - it might be my typo! The article on 75 Sqn in the RAAF unit history isn't very good and contains a number of mistakes. Nick-D (talk) 21:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay mate -- BTW, that wasn't one I wrote (mine were bases)! Also I think J.H. Meehan is actually W.J. Meehan, as there's no J.H. Meehan among the RAAF entries on the WW2 Nominal Roll, and Odgers mentions W.J. Meehan commanding a few squadrons around this time... Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

God, you wouldn't believe it, created this one as Leslie Francis Jackson instead of Leslie Douglas Jackson -- obviously I've moved the original to the correct name but could you pls delete the Leslie Francis Jackson redirect, as it serves no real purpose... Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Done. I've created articles with blatant typos in their titles, so welcome to my world! Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Heh, tks for the reassurance -- BTW though, I think we've lost the talk page for the moved article -- can that be restored? Cheers, Ian Rose (talk)

Done. I deleted the talk page I was redirected to rather than the one I meant to delete. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

David Wilson's book Seek and Strike: 75 Squadron RAAF 1942–2002 (full ref in the No. 75 Squadron RAAF article) gives the following: P Jeffery 2-19 March 42, JF Jackson 19 March-29 May 1942, LD Jackson 29 May - 2 Jan 1943, 'JF' Meehan 2- 22 Jan [correctly identified as 'WJ Meehan' on p. 88, where it also says that he was the temporary commander while they were waiting for Arthur to arrive], WS Arthur 22 Jan - 12 June 43, 'JF' Meehan 12 June-23 Nov 43, JR Kinninmont 23 Nov - 10 June 44 (p. 215). Nick-D (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

OEF-Spain

I wanted to ask you if it is alright if i am allowed to recreate the article Operation Enduring Freedom - Spain via rewording it. I know it required little work using the translator, but i dont think that it is completely copyrighted. I just dont want to be having no article for this important event in OEF. - BakeySaur99 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC).

Do you have any WP:Reliable Sources that say this operation existed under this name? You appear to be creating U.S. military operations from your imagination. Please help us understand here. Buckshot06 (talk) 06:52, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I've blocked the editor for re-adding the copyvio and making things up. Nick-D (talk) 06:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for No. 61 Wing RAAF

Materialscientist (talk) 00:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

How Not to Run an Air Force!

Hi mate, I notice you've found the Oboe book at the Air Power Development site -- while I didn't cite it in the 1TAF and wing article expansions I did recently, I found it invaluable for checking the sources I did reference. Have you seen they now have How Not to Run an Air Force! in PDF here? I only got a squiz at this once when it was in a military book shop in town but it looked like the last word in the higher command shambles of the RAAF in WWII -- more good data for the RAAF Command article I keep putting off. Odgers got a lot of the juicy stuff into Air War Against Japan but this goes into even more sordid detail... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:44, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I just notice they've committed The Third Brother and Going Solo -- the definitive pre- and post-war histories of the RAAF, respectively -- to PDF as well. Feel like a kid in a candy store, no more trips to the Mitchell Library just for these...! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 04:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that they'd greatly expanded their online books a few days ago. I think that they've also added some more conference papers as well. It's certainly an excellent resource. Nick-D (talk) 07:38, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Article page move protection

I'm not protecting them, they were protected in April and I'm just adding the template {{pp-move-indef}}. With this they appear at Category:Wikipedia indefinitely move-protected pages. Tbh®tch^{Talk ©} Happy Holidays 07:35, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Actions of 5/6 May 1945

A process argument has opened on this page, to which you have contributed. Your comments are requested. The discussion is here (duplicated to all editors of this page) Xyl 54 (talk) 01:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll comment there. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

To you, kind sir

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For being the first person to respond the Peer Review request for the Iowa class battleship article I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar. Now, you see, I will actually have something to do rather than sit in the house and pass the time doing nothing, all the while wishing that someone would reply to the PR or call me up to chat :) TomStar81 (Talk) 03:02, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

No worries Tom - the article was an interesting read. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 03:41, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Nick. If I may borrow your attention for just a bit, do you mind taking a look at the comments I left on Buckshot08's talk page and on the respective section on the Administrator's Noticeboard? I figure that since you have a basic understanding of the issue and Buckshot08's quandary you may be able to chime in on the matter. If possible, can you opine on the latter page? Thank you. Cheers, --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:49, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Future work

Hi mate, noted (and didn't ignore!) your message on MilHist talk. I quite understand... ;-) Funny it should coincide with me about to say that I didn't mind holding off on improving Caldwell's article for a while and would that put you out -- I guess it works out well! Thing is, now that Ackworth's How Not to Run an Air Force is available, I've pretty well got all the sources I need not just for an article on RAAF Command but also a whole series on the air force command system in WWII and after, and I feel like getting on to them next. Reckon I can manage them but naturally welcome your input at any stage. So you know, I'm looking at:

• RAAF Command, which could easily be FA-length but I think just a B-Class article for the moment
• RAAF area commands, covering 1939-54; don't think I can bothered doing an article on each area but they'd all get a subsection that could conceivably be expanded and broken out in future
• RAAF command problems of World War II, which would be the piece de resistance, potentially FA, and then possibly
• RAAF command structure of World War II, just as an overview, plus somewhere down the track
• RAAF Air Board, covering 1920-76

Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Those all look like excellent topics for articles Ian, and I'll probably have some odds and ends to contribute to them. The command structure and command problems articles will be particularly interesting. In regards to the command problems article, I'd be interested in adding some stuff on the debates around why the RAAF never set up any higher-level operational HQs in Britain to bring the Australian squadrons there under Australian command. Nick-D (talk) 22:58, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

That'd be fine, as I'd tend to concentrate on the Pacific issue but the European side would be necessary for a well-rounded article (Ackworth's book has data on that theatre as well, including Henry Wrigley's frank observations of his fellow RAAF air marshals)... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:06, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. By the way, I leafed through a copy of The Private Air Marshal by Peter Helson in a second hand bookshop today, and it looks like it would be of interest to you. Nick-D (talk) 05:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Second-hand already -- I thought it only just came out! Tks, I haven't read it but I suspect it must be very closely based on Helson's UNSW thesis Ten Years at the Top, which was the main reason I was able to get enough detail into the George Jones article to make it my first A/FA... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 06:12, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Az/Arm problems

Hi Nick. Would you please kindly review User:Atabəy's recent actions and tell me whether you think they merit action under Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2? Under the username User:Atabek, he was the original person who was complained about in A-A2, and I am getting close to considering additional sanctions. However, I'm involved now ; would you kindly take a look? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 01:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes I think so. However, I'm not familiar with how the Armenia-Azerbaijan restrictions have historically been applied and am likely to be attacked as involved given I endorsed your deletions at WP:AN, so I'm probably not the right admin to action this - this editor has recently been reported at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement#User:Atabəy so hopefully an admin more familiar with this kind of issue will follow up on it. I'll post there. I hope that this isn't seen as a cop out - I feel that I'd be walking on thin ice by getting involved in what seems to be a fairly vicious nationalist edit war without the appropriate background. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 03:44, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

121.209.xxx.xxx range

Back as a new IP. I would try and propose a rangeblock if possible, based on recent IP addresses he has used, the range would be 121.209.160.0/21. Momo san ^Talk 01:13, 25 December 2010 (UTC)