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 (July–December 2010)
Talk archive 7 (January–June 2011)
Talk archive 8 (July-December 2011)

Awards people have given me

59th Infantry Division (United States)

Thanks for your look over of the article. It has now been 'tweaked' to conform to the preferred format. I'm hoping that this will improve the rating. Over the next few days I plan to revise several other 'Phantom Division' articles I've created.Graham1973 (talk) 07:41, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

C class now - nice work. For B class, I think it would need little more information on the way in which the Allies included this fictitious division in their deception schemes. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:27, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Radzymin (1920)

Thanks for letting me know. As a matter of fact I didn't know there's a required quota for people voicing their support. I thought that it's pretty apparent that in this case all suggestions (both from Milhist assessment and from GA) have been taken into consideration and fixed, and that nobody else had any more troubles with the article (given the fact that it's been stable for the last 2 months and so was the A-class review discussion). Because of that I saw no need to spam random members of Milhist with requests for input. Apparently this was my mistake. Too bad, I've been waiting patiently for almost 2 months for someone to drop by. I shouldn't have apparently.

Could you tell me how many people need to add their comments for an article to be successfully assessed as A class? I couldn't find such info at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment or in the FAQ. A link to a relevant rules page would do. Also, the A-review page informs, that it's perfectly ok to renominate as soon as the outstanding objections from the previous nomination have been satisfied. The problem is that all outstanding objections have already been satisfied, yet you declared the article as failed. Does it mean I cannot renominate, as there is no way to fix what has already been fixed? Happy new year to you :) //Halibutt 11:40, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy to see that the article has been renominated. Nick-D (talk) 06:57, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikimedians to the Games

I know it isn't necessarily your interest but Wikimedians to the Games is an opportunity to help improve Australian content, with the possibility of covering Australians live at the Paralympic Games in London. If you are interested in participating, it would be really fantastic. :) You create awesome content. If you're not interested, we might still like you to help out as we're almost certainly going to be hosting a series of workshops and having you assist in a session about Good Articles or Featured Articles would be awesome. :) --LauraHale (talk) 02:50, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note Laura, I'll look into it. Nick-D (talk) 06:53, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

1st Provisional Marine Brigade FAC

Looking for more input from you on this FAC. Thanks very much! —Ed!^(talk) 15:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Added the info in, per your request. Take another look to see if this is what you had in mind. —Ed!^(talk) 07:00, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations again!

		The Military history A-Class medal with oak leaves
		For your outstanding work on Action of 28 January 1945, Operation Kita and Air raids on Japan, all of which were promoted to A-class between May 2011 and January 2012. EyeSerenetalk 09:07, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Well deserved :) EyeSerene^talk 12:17, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Help identify a photo

Hi Nick. Any chance you might have a clue what this little vessel is? The photo was taken in June (but I've only just got around to uploading it, with the boat parked up the top of HMAS Waterhen (naval base). Looks a bit like a Fantome class survey motor boat, but shorter and bright orange. Thoughts? -- saberwyn 12:27, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Saberwyn, According to my reading of the 'Naval Institute Guide to Combat Fleets of the World' (page 28), she's the antarctic survey launch Wyatt Earp - the photo of that boat looks the same, and it says that she's red. The hull number also seems the same from what can be seen. The book also says that the design was based on that of the Fantome class, so good ship recognition! I'd guess that she'd been landed at Waterhen while Aurora Australis was leased to the RAN - I took this photo of Aurora Australis docked at Sydney the day after you took that photo, so it all matches :) Wyatt Earp looks to be article-worthy of you'd like to do the honours BTW. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Give me a couple of days and I'll see what I can put together. -- saberwyn 23:12, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

On a related ship-spotting note, have another image. I know the big grey one is Tobruk ( :P ), but have I correctly identified the landing craft alongside as LCM-8s? -- saberwyn 11:16, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, those look like LCM-8s to me as well. That's an interesting photo by the way. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Have you seen this?

Hey, I was looking for photos and stumbled into your projects section, and that is why I thought of you when I found this interesting site on the USS Astoria CL 90. Below are a couple of pages. The photos are amazing.

http://mighty90.com/Operation_MIKE_I.html http://mighty90.com/Operation_GRATITUDE.html

Though you might have an interest.

Cheers. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for that - those are excellent photos. Nick-D (talk) 07:15, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Rude

Sorry, sir. I was really just trying to lighten the mood with humor. Won't happen again.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 10:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries Mike. Nick-D (talk) 10:48, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Photos

Re your post at Milhist, if you've got any windmill photos to add to the various lists of windmills they would be appreciated. Many ship articles need images in their infoboxes. Mjroots (talk) 14:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The only windmills I saw were from trains, unfortunately. Nick-D (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

24 FAC

Hi there. Can you take a look at the FAC? I have done some work on the article, but wanted to direct you to a particular edit. In your comments, you stated that the reception section made views by single reviews seem generalised, so I've been working on that. Have been crazy busy the last week so I haven't finished as of yet, but you can see it at paragraphs one and two of the Reception section. Is that what you are looking for? Also, there's a few questions I left at the FAC. Could you take a look? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 20:30, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Steven, That's looking a lot better. I think that the 'reception' section still needs more work, but the article is on the right track. I've replied in the review, but could you please let me know when you've finished editing the article? Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:56, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Oh, um, are you able to strike the issues I've fixed. Just helps me keep track of what I still need to do. Thanks :) Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 23:35, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

The only one which isn't addressed is the comment relating to the 'reception' section. Nick-D (talk) 07:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, OK. Just as a question...I thought more users would've commented by now. Is the slowness normal, or do people wait for issues to be fixed before they bring up more? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 08:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It seems to be fairly common now, I'm afraid, though an 'oppose' vote early in the process does slow things down even further. Nick-D (talk) 09:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Eh, my naive understanding of FAC is that opposes come with a list of reasons, and when they are addressed and corrected, it's not an oppose anymore.That's my understanding anyway. A bit of drama blew up in my face today, but I've finally cleared the backlog of wiki-tasks I had to do, so I'm relatively free to work on the reception section. I did notice the title of the article is a bit overused (ie in the lede). Do you think so too? Also, I'm assuming as a fictional article it'd be written in present tense, no? Steven Zhang ^{Join the DR army!} 09:57, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

In theory that's how it works, but a lot of people seem to prefer to not post any comments at all when there's an indication that the article might not meet the criteria (which strikes me as being disappointing: it seems more helpful to point out ways to improve the article than to leave the nominator without any feedback). The tag showing that the article is currently being restructured might also be putting people off. I think that the current tense used in the plot section is fine - the perspective should be (in my view) looking back on the plot after its concluded. Nick-D (talk) 10:03, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Block of User:Trongphu

I request that you unblock Trongphu after 24 hours so that he can participate in the AFD for Apache (Viet Cong soldier), where his comments led to the block. A block which coincidentally lasts past the end of the AFD? Without a warning first? Did you block those on the other side of the debate, who called him "Mein Fuhrer" as well as a communist, and said he needed to take meds for his insanity? (No, you just gave a warning). Sauce for the goose, sauce for the gander. Edison (talk) 02:47, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello Edison, Given that I blocked Trongphu for his or her conduct in that AfD and they've made no commitment to stop this behavior on their talk page (quite the opposite, in fact, from my reading of it), I'm not going to unblock them. Trongphu had been blocked twice for similar conduct in the last few months, so it was most unlikely that a warning would have been effective in stopping their disruptive behaviour. In regards to Mike, as he does not appear to have any recent history of uncivil or disruptive conduct from what I could see from his talk page history and has never been blocked for any reason, I felt that a warning was appropriate and a block would have been excessive. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:07, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I have a problem with the block preventing Trongphu from participating in the AFD while the opposition poster, whose offenses were just as great, is allowed to continue participation. If Trongphu committed to remain civil, would that justify lifting the block, in your estimation? Thanks. Edison (talk) 14:25, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That said, from his continued posts on his talk page, any commitment to civil discourse from Trongphu would be a departure. He does not seem to have calmed down at this point, so amendment of his postings to comply with this Wikipedia's standards is still just a development to be wished for. Edison (talk) 22:26, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, in the event that Trongphu provided a convincing assurance to stop his or her disruption I'd have no problem with unblocking them (if another admin doesn't beat me to it). However, quite the opposite seems to be happening on their talk page at present... In regards to Mike, I thought that a block would have been unjustified given that he doesn't have a history of causing problems I could see, and I'm not aware of any provisions that allow admins to ban editors from participating in AfD discussions. Regards Nick-D (talk) 06:56, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I suppose if there were a hypothetical editor who created articles, added refs to articles, and Wikignomed wonderfully, but was insulting and generally disruptive on AFD, we could topic ban him from AFD only. But that would require a long history of such behavior, which could not be corrected by lesser means. I note that you provided at the AFD an "Administrator comment: " Mike and Carrite, I think that what you're discussing here is beyond the scope of what can be resolved through an AfD. The only possible grounds for deleting this article are that 'Apache' isn't notable (per WP:BIO) or that this topic is an outright hoax invented by a Wikipedia editor." During the course of an AFD, you and I are just editors, and probably should not provide an "administrator opinion" which might unduly sway some other editors one way or the other. (I note that some editors would automatically !=vote the opposite way to what an identified admin points). Just provide the opinion ( a reasonable one in this case) without enhancing it by proclaiming admin status. Edison (talk) 16:29, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to stop the increasingly bad tempered too-and-fro on matters which were outside the scope or possible result of the AfD, which I think worked. Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

It did, we got sidetracked on the details and it was going downhill. Maybe not all the time, but sometimes you have to throw a bucket of cold water on the 2 dogs to get them to stop growling at each other. It got to the point where I was posting emails I received from the author of 2 of the sources in question. Had Nick not intervened I'd probably still be filling out FOIA(Freedom of Information Act) Requests to see Service Record Books, 45 year-old Unit Diaries from FIRSTMARDIV, etc. For the record, what I said to trongphu was obviously meant to be humorous, he was ranting and getting over the top with 2 other admins that he had some history with[1]. When he answered that he cracked me up and I started to realize he wasn't as nutty as his posts appeared, so I started to read them closer, then he switched gears and was demanding that I answer a question and I did not know what he was talking about, [2] so i attempted to lighten it up with what I thought was an obvious joke. Sometimes I forget that not everyone laughs at the same things. When Nick gave me a warning, I backed off on trying to make jokes. After Nick's cool down of the AFD page, I made peace with the other editor that was challenging the source material:[3]. As for the communist thing, in his first post he said "author hates communists" and either there or on my talkpage he told me he was from North Vietnam. So I thought he was saying I hated him for being a communist. For the record, he should have raised concerns on the talkpage before running over to AFD. I thought that was the policy and if it's not, it should be. I could have spent the time wasted at AFD, wasted with emailing Charles Henderson about the details of Apache's notebook, wasted with debating with other editors over this with improving other articles. I have only had one run-in with an admin on here that was negative in the 5-6 years I've been at this, that involved said Admin threataming me with violence. He's no longer an admin or involved here and luckily for him he was just a tubby kid who lived 3000 miles away and was never any real threat. I'm glad those admins are rare on here, I know it is a tough job (I'm an Admin on a gun and knife forum with over 30,000 members!), but I am glad you guys are there to do it. The only thing worse are the ones who are little more than trained monkeys or Prussian kindergarten teachers who know nothing of judgement, discernment, or discretion. I have never had a run in with one like that, but have seen their actions and the resentment that they breed. A lot of Admins could take a lesson from Nick. For the record I've tried talking to trongphu, and was nothing but respectful, but he seems to be spiraling out worse with charges of racism and conspiracies[4]. Thanks again, Nick, you're one of the good ones.--Mike - Μολὼν λαβέ 02:30, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Mike. You might want to consider becoming an admin here given your experience on the huge gun and knife forum... Nick-D (talk) 10:04, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

This is a pleasure

		The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For humane, fair dealing with obnoxious IPs and other good works. --Djathinkimacowboy chase me thru the cemetery 10:57, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that Nick-D (talk) 10:59, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps of interest to you?

Wikipedia:Peer review/Military history of Canada/archive2.Moxy (talk) 23:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the notification - I'll post a peer review over this weekend. I'd suggest also approaching Anotherclown (talk · contribs) for a review - he did great work in bringing Military history of Australia up to GA class. Nick-D (talk) 23:51, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam G. Fisher article assessment

Nick-D,

I've just completed an overhaul of the Vilyam G. Fisher article and have placed it in the WP:MILHIST assessment page while it is still on my subpage. Is there any chance that it can be moved from my subpage to the main article? Would like it to be assessed for B class, see if it meets GAN assessment and "Did You Know" assessment. It would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 01:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, I'm not sure what you're after here. You can start the article yourself, by copying and pasting the content to Vilyam G. Fisher. I don't think that it can be assessed for GA class or as a DYK candidate until its 'gone live'. Nick-D (talk) 05:29, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick-D ... It's now "gone live" at Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher from my sub userpage User:Adamdaley/Draft of Article 1. It has been assessed as "B class". Would like to know how to get it assessed as GAN and "Did You Know". Adamdaley (talk) 06:22, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, the instructions for requesting a GA assessment are at WP:GAN and the (complicated) process for nominating this for a DYK is outlined at WP:DYK#How a DYK suggestion makes its way to the main page. The article is looking really good - nice work! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Trongphu

I think it's the time to bring Trongphu to ANI for a community review/warning/ban. He (according to his user page in Wiki-vi) is one of the most disruptive POV-pushers i have ever seen thus we need a stronger message to stop him.--AM ^(talk) 07:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Given that he or she has now been blocked for an indefinite period and had their talk page access turned off, I don't think that's necessary unless they're creating accounts to attempt to circumvent the block. I think it's reasonable to say that Trongphu is effectively banned at present in that no admin in their right mind would unblock them given the nonsense on his or her talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

User:Jackassman00 query

Hi! I've been keeping an eye on Sumatran Rhinoceros for a while (I've proposed a remerge) and notice that it was edited both by the now blocked User:Jackassman00 and the very similarly named User:Jackasskidzify. I thought best to ask you, as the blocking admin, to have a look --CharlieDelta (talk) 09:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked Jackasskidzify as it does appear to be the same person. Thanks for the note. Nick-D (talk) 09:54, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Problematic user

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/TheCrecon

This person, as an IP, edited the Liberation of Paris (diff: [5] ), Siege of Budapest (diff: [6] ), Western Front (World War II) (diff: [7] ), and Saar Offensive (diff: [8] ) articles to include (or re-order) Polish flags. I reverted the edits as either inappropriate without talk page discussion or as incorrect in three of the above cases (no Polish participation).

-- Also introduced Polish flag into Battle of the Bulge, another battle where the Poles were not present. (diff: [9] )

And on it goes -- now [10]. This may have 'some' validity if Polish naval vessels were present in the invasion force. But to claim Liberation of Paris, Battle of the Bulge, etc. -- the lily is truly being gilded.

Now, Crecon has reverted again, willfully introducing false information. I like to believe that most cases can be resolved with discussion, but this isn't IMO about someone is simply mistaken; it is a small crusade of the sort that distracts serious editors. Would appreciate any assistance, thanks. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 11:15, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I've just blocked them for being a disruption-only account. They should have been blocked after the hoax article they created in their first period of editing in November was deleted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Nick. Please note this user was also apparently editing under the IP address 86.171.30.171. I'll raise a flag if I see that address making questionable edits. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 08:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the IP is someone using BT networks out of the U.K. -- this diff: [11] -- I will just starting reverting these without concern as the IP can access from multiple addresses. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 21:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Let me know if they keep coming back and I'll semi-protect the relevant pages. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 10:31, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Milhist FA, A-Class and Peer Reviews Oct-Dec 2011

		The WikiChevrons
		By order of the Military history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted contributions to the WikiProject's Peer, A-Class and Featured article reviews for the period October-December 2011, I am delighted to award you the WikiChevrons. Cheers, Buggie111 (talk) 17:33, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Nick-D (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Battle of Arawe

Apologies for not finalising my comments on the ACR for Battle of Arawe, real life ended up catching up with me. Glad to see it got promoted nonetheless. Cheers. Anotherclown (talk) 08:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all. I'm planning to nominate this for a FAC in the next week or so. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Military Historian of the Year

Nominations for the "Military Historian of the Year" for 2011 are now open. If you would like to nominate an editor for this award, please do so here. Voting will open on 22 January and run for seven days. Thanks! On behalf of the coordinators, Nick-D (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:56, 15 January 2012 (UTC) You were sent this message because you are a listed as a member of the Military history WikiProject.

The Bugle: Issue LXX, January 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Review essay: Kirill Lokshin, the first coordinator Op-ed: Hchc's English Castles

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 00:28, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Got a silent one.

Hello Nick, I've noted that User 72.89.70.98 is making, well, a lot of changes to milhist articles. Many, if not most, seem to be in good faith. But the user apparently has a habit (see the talk page here) of making some problematic assertions in articles. One example is in the Battle of Debrecen article. There is a citation from Erickson's Stalingrad to Berlin stating the Soviets arrived near the city of Budapest on 4 November 1944. 72.89.70.98 has twice changed this to read 7 November even after I pointed out there was a citation for this material. And this leads to the real problem -- this IP doesn't communicate at all from what I can see. Almost like a bot -- makes changes and moves to the next article; may or may not re-revert if an edit of his gets changed; and does not reply on his talk page. The IP has gotten plenty of "impending block" warnings and at least one short block, but unless the IP is communicating by means not readily visible, there has been no real change in his behavior. I'd be happy to change the Debrecen article's date -- IF the IP would try talking and present other sources. As it is, I have to wonder about the other changes to factual information this editor may be making. Wikipedia seems to have mostly assumed good faith for two and a half years now, but the IP is showing little in return other that many of his edits appear to be harmless. Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi, From a random sample of that editor's recent edits, most seem to be entirely uncontroversial (and helpful) tweaks to wording or changes to uncited material. However, I do see your point. Given that IP editors can't watchlist articles, they might not have seen your edit summary - I'd suggest leaving a message on their talk page to direct them to it. I've left them a message asking that they start using edit summaries, though I fear that it may not be successful. Nick-D (talk) 11:04, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Nick-D. You have new messages at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/John Sherman Cooper.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Sorry to be so long about this. I caught a stomach virus that put me out of commission for most of last week. Acdixon ^{(talk · contribs)} 19:48, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Community input required: lowering delist bar at FPC

You are receiving this because of your current or past association with the Featured Pictures project. Following on from several cases where closers did not observe the prescribed minimum votes required for a delisting, there is now a motion to entirely dismiss the requirement for a minimum. Please participate in the discussion as wide-ranging changes may arise. Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy link: Wikipedia talk:Featured picture candidates#Delist procedure changes Papa Lima Whiskey 2 (talk) 14:02, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Ta

I didnt research closely the stubs I was tagging last night - cheers for the delete of the dubious SatuSuro 12:43, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Ta again!! aways reassuring to have other watchingoverthe shoulder ! SatuSuro 06:17, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. Nick-D (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Happy Australia Day! Thank you for contributing to Australian content!

	Australian Wikimedian Recognition (AWR)
	Thank you for your contributions on English Wikipedia that have helped improve Australian related content. :D It is very much appreciated. :D Enjoy your Australia Day and please continue your good work! LauraHale (talk) 01:40, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Laura Nick-D (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Polish Underground State

Can you take a look and see if there are still issues you've raised I've not sufficiently addressed? Feel free to strike down anything that was fixed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 18:23, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Nick-D (talk) 22:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

John Balmer FAC query

Hi mate, at this FAC, Nikki has picked up the inconsistency in Allen & Unwin publishing locations, i.e. North Sydney for Coulthard-Clark's Third Brother, and Sydney for Johnston's Whispering Death. A&U often seems to alternate between N. Sydney, St Leonards and Crows Nest, but admittedly I've never seen Sydney alone for them -- can you double-check your copy since you were kind enough to add this ref? Tks/cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi Ian, I've replied there. I use 'Sydney' for A&E as it's simplest given their somewhat eccentric practice in this regards and is normally one of the options in the books. Nick-D (talk) 09:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Tks mate, I agree Sydney would be simplest for the reason you say, but I guess I'll carry on as I've begun and use the exact spot like I usually do... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 11:14, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

7 Indep Coy

Thanks for the review! I have nominated for A-class like you suggested. Thanks for the kind words regarding the article. —Cliftonian (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

No worries. I enjoyed reading the article. Nick-D (talk) 10:58, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Nick - there is something strange going on with this article's talk page - it reflects the GA review instead of the standard talk template. Can you take a look please? And I agree - I read this article a week ago and found it to be a very well written and solid article! Farawayman (talk) 16:07, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:7 Independent Company (Rhodesia) looks fine to me. It's only content is the tags for GA status and two Wikiprojects and the transcluded GA review. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 22:18, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

A-class review for list

Hi, I have addressed your concerns at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Ohio class submarines. --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 00:54, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

2011 Military historian of the Year (Bronze)

		2011 "Military historian of the Year"
		By order of the Members of the Military History WikiProject, for "the broad range of his quality articles, including air, land and sea engagements, biographies, and unit histories", I award you this Bronze Wiki.  Roger Davies talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Very well done Nick,  Roger Davies ^talk 01:06, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations, Nick. Your contributions the past year have been excellent and your involvement as a co-ord has helped keep the Military history project heading in the right direction. I feel humbled to have got the Golden Wiki, but I feel it could easily have gone to others such as yourself. Cheers, AustralianRupert (talk) 01:25, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, congrats Nick for making it an Aussie clean sweep. Everyone in the project will now have to observe Anzac Day and answer to the name Bruce... ;-) Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, Nick! You earned it. Binksternet (talk) 02:48, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot everyone. Nick-D (talk) 02:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congrats Nick, you deserve it. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:34, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm so happy for you -- you definitely deserve it :) --Sp33dyphil ©^hat_ontributions 05:31, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

military historians of the year for 2011

Nick-D,

Thanks for the award. It was unexpected. Adamdaley (talk) 06:59, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Western Front (World War II) note

Hello Nick. You may wish to comment on a talk page note I posted about the format for commanders and leaders in the info box for the Western Front World War II article, link is: Talk:Western Front (World War II). Cheers, W. B. Wilson (talk) 09:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Dear Nick-D - I have reversed you book deletion in the History war. There are several reasons: firstly the book is not a source to the article, merely a suggestion to further reading (this indeed is the group in which it is placed you will note). Besides this is a suggestion strongly recommended by one side in this debate - two major contributors to the history way debate - professor Stuart Mcintyre and Dr Raymond Evans. May I remind you that none of us are supposed to go about cherry picking books and deleting those we do not personally like. The allegation needs to be properly tested if you are in doubt and you have taken no steps in that direction. As far as I have noted your only argument is that it is self-published (which may be the case - I do not know) but so is Keith Windschuttle's (Windschuttle, Keith (2002). The Fabrication of Aboriginal History, Volume One: Van Diemen's Land 1803-1847. Sydney: Macleay Press. ISBN 1-876492-05-8). Mclay press is his own business and it publishes mainly his own work. Besides he does not even possess a masters degree in history - so if that is you criteria your have more work to do, but you will certainly get yourself in trouble.Helsned 01:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

I love it

Nice work Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 05:36, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

It's clearly true ;) Nick-D (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Next time I hope you block yourself. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 06:00, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I won't do that again. Nick-D (talk) 09:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• G'day~! I'm lovin' it~?!? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 09:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

• That means it'll be even more hilarious when you do it again! Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 22:31, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Copyright concern

G'day, Nick, as you know I've been working on Colonial forces of Australia for sometime now. It's taking a lot longer than I'd hoped as there was so much uncited content contributed by the original editor. As I've gone through it I've become concerned that some of the original text might be a copyright violation. The part that concerns me is in the Queensland section of the article. If you compare it with this from the AWM [12], some of it seems word for word. I'm not yet in a position to rewrite the Queensland section. I'm just wondering, though, if it is possible that the AWM copied the Wiki article. Is it possible to find out which came first somehow? It seems that the Queensland material was added with these diffs: [13], [14] and [15]. Sorry to bring this to you. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi, While there doesn't appear to be any way of telling when the AWM added that text, it's a pretty safe bet that this was taken from the AWM's website rather than vice-versa. There was a lot of that going on before Wikipedia got serious about enforcing copyright, and I've never seen any instances of the AWM taking text from Wikipedia (which seems fairly unlikely given that doing so would probably be considered serious misconduct for their staff of professional historians and curators). The AWM has had detailed descriptions of items in its collections database for as long as I can remember as well. Nick-D (talk) 10:26, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, that was my take, too, but I was hoping that I was wrong. I will try to rewrite it tonight but I don't have much to work with in the way of sources for that section at the moment. Not sure I have the time, either, as the wife will kick me off the internet soon. I have to say, I'm pretty disappointed. Seems like most of my work is tainted now. I'd been thinking of putting it up for GA when I finally finished it. I don't think that that would be a good idea now. Thanks for your advice, though, I appreciate it. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 10:35, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just spot-checked much of the article by copying randomly selected chunks of it into Google, and the only problem I found was a small amount of text taken from this AWM item in the section on Victoria (all the other results were Wikipedia mirrors and this guy's decision to re-use the entire article on the defences on Hobart). As such, I don't think that this is a barrier to GA status. Items in the AWM database show up in Google searches and searches of the AWM's website, so you can easily check any suspicious-looking text. Given how old the copyvios seem to be and the extend of your re-write things should be fine. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. I think I've gotten those bits cleaned up now. Please let me know if you spot anything else. I have ordered a book on Tasmania's military force, so hopefully will be able to get to work on that in the next few days, work permitting. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 12:25, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Apology

I've apologised to you here. But while I'm at it, I'll apologise here as well: sorry it's taking me so long. --Dweller (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries at all - there's no need to apologise :) Nick-D (talk) 06:22, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Sergeant A

Hello, your action seems fair enough to me. Sometimes we do things which we wonder are a bit silly or really silly!! Cheers Crusoe8181 (talk) 09:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No worries. As I said elsewhere, I hope that enough references appear on this man for him to meet the requirements of WP:N sometime in the future. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:43, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Yep a redirect seems appropriate to me too. In all liklihood some time in the not too distant future more details will come to light about this bloke, including his identity, but until then it is sufficiently covered where it is. Anotherclown (talk) 13:01, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

How sad. But in the current circumstances, what else could you do? (I agree with all of the above comments.) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Hi Nick

User:RoslynSKP is deleting articles from the Template:Campaignbox Sinai and Palestine. I replaced the blue linked articles but he has deleted them again. See history here [16]. Can you offer some words of advice. Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Jim, that looks like a content dispute to me. I've protected the template as this seems to have been going on for a while, and will comment on its talk page. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jim Sweeney (talk) 06:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Greetings

Having been around the area around the time of bahamut's passing, and having pushed to have posthumous awards planted directly on his userpage (see the page's history and discussion link where I talked about the idea with MRG), I have to say that this made me smile when I decided to make a return visit today. However, the order is now mixed up; the earliest award is presented in the middle between two later awards. Can I recommend organizing them by date? I might recommend putting the WikiChevrons on top; undoubtedly it's the highest award of the three and he would have been proud to have it. I'd make this change myself, but clearly, MRG had to remove protection temporarily to allow me to make the change I originally made; that is, I'm not an admin. and can't do it now either. Also, while it's a minor thing, given the posthumous nature of the user page, I also changed the date presentation format on the other two awards when moving them there; it's up to your call, but all three should match I think. Frankly, I don't even think the dates and times should be necessary in this case, but that's just my personal feeling and not one I attempted to enforce. CycloneGU (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Cyclone, Those are very good suggestions. I've just reorganised the awards by date (so they run from oldest to newest per the normal way things are presented on Wikipedia) and tweaked the date presentation format. The WikiChevrons with Oak Leaves is arguably the most prestigious of the three awards, but I think that the chronology of them might mean more to his friends and family. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Small request

Hello mate, I would have a small request concerning your admin position. This man, the chief of Romania's Foreign Intelligence Service has been appointed to occupy the newly vacant PM position. As I wish to overhaul/expand its wiki article and I fear intrusion from elements of that particular service, could you please protect it for a short period? Cheers, --Eurocopter (talk) 19:17, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Eurocopter. Pre-emptive article protection is only used in unusual circumstances where it can be safely assumed that there will be extensive disruption of the article. In almost all circumstances it's only used once there has actually been serious disruption (please see WP:NO-PREEMPT). From looking at the article's history, I can't see anything which justifies full or semi-protection at present I'm afraid. I'd suggest posting at WP:RPP if problems do arise though - I'm in totally the wrong time zone to respond quickly! Regards, Nick-D (talk) 07:51, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

GAN Attack on Yokosuka

Hi,

I'm reviewing your nomination. All looks good - just a couple of questions at Talk:Attack on Yokosuka/GA1. (I know from the past that military articles have determined certain sites to be reliable, so probably this is the case here.)

Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Just one more question on the review page. MathewTownsend (talk) 15:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations! A very fine article. Best, MathewTownsend (talk) 14:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. Nick-D (talk) 22:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Aggers again

I think I've completed all your comments. Please do check that a) I've not missed any and b) there's nothing we disagree on that is truly egregious and would stand in the way of you now supporting the candidacy. I hope you'll agree that we're not intransigent... in fact, we're truly grateful for the comments. Every change we've made has been done because we agree it improves the article, not because we're desperately looking for a support. --Dweller (talk) 10:55, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I'll check the article tomorrow and and reply in the review. You certainly don't need to agree with everything I suggested - I've had some significant disagreements with reviewers of some of the articles I've nominated for FA status! (while also agreeing that their comments led to important improvements to the article). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 11:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Australian Military Forces Australian Strategic Policy Institute The Northern Standard Northern Command (Australia) Karpaty Army 46th Infantry Division (United States) Tuareg Rebellion (2011–present) Battle of Sagami Bay 26th Infantry Brigade (United Kingdom) Campbell Barracks (Australia) Intelligent Life (magazine) Twenty-First Army (Japan) Woodside Barracks Victoria Barracks, Sydney 3rd Infantry Brigade (South Africa) Robertson Barracks Palinurus (genus) 11th Armoured Brigade (United Kingdom) Potassium chromate

Cleanup Iraq War President of the Philippines History of the Australian Army Merge Bendix Aviation History of Indigenous Australians Task Force 44 Add Sources II Corps (United States) Weaponry of the Australian Army Military reserve Wikify Operation Grand Slam Military of Lesotho Guy Hartcup Expand Formations of the United States Army (current) Loveland High School (Ohio) Ceylon Mounted Rifles

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 Nettrom (talk), 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) 21:47, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank You

Thank you for unblocking me, and i have learned a lesson-not to Vandalize Wikipedia.Thank youTyphoonwikihelper (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher Article

Nick-D,

By now you know I don't try and cause problems on the english wikipedia. You are probably aware by now that the article Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher was changed to Vilyam Fisher, now the article may appear to be his full name, in fact in the GAN assessment it is under Vilyam Fisher. I feel that the article should reflect "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" even in the GAN assessment toolserver section. I am asking you if you would be willing to change it back to his full name because there is no Revision ID on "Vilyam Fisher", and I believe it would appear as "Vilyam Genrikhovich Fisher" would show the Revision ID. It would be appreciated and I hope I have done my job as Coordinator to the best I could in your opinion of me. Once again it would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 13:19, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Adam, If the article has changed its name since the GA assessment, it would be totally uncontroversial for you to update the various GA listings to reflect this - there's no need for an uninvolved editor to manage this. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Alex79818 Block Evasion

• Alex79818 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 190.139.249.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Alex is back carrying on from where he left off before. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818 regarding the WP:DUCK test. Wee Curry Monster talk 19:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've left a note earlier on "User talk:Elockid#Recurring vandal?" but no news so far. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 20:07, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I've just blocked that account. Nick-D (talk) 06:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Article merger

1. Monitor (warship)
2. River monitor

• Nick, think I might need your help here. Thoughts? --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 19:27, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dave, It might be best to ask for opinions on this at WT:SHIPS as there's lots of experts on ship types and naming conventions there (you could also post a notification at WT:MILHIST). I don't really know enough about this topic to be able to make an informed and useful comment on the merge proposal. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:45, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

• Thanks Nick, will do. Enjoy your vacation, best and out. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 00:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Draft op-ed

Hi mate, still have a diagram of the WP vs. MilHist assessment streams to upload but if you're available for a minute and can have a look in Feb's newsroom, I welcome comments (on my talk page I guess, so as to leave comments at the bottom of the page itself until after publishing the issue). Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 23:13, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

FAC

I'm looking for feedback. "The Battle of Arawe occurred during the New Britain Campaign of World War II and was fought between Allied and Japanese forces." The odds are better than 50/50 that no one at FAC will complain about that, but most working copyeditors would prefer something like "The Battle of Arawe, part of the the New Britain Campaign of World War II, was fought between Allied and Japanese forces." When I consider publishing standards to vary a little from FAC standards, would you rather I choose something that I think will satisfy both and make the edit, or should I talk about it in the FAC, or leave it alone? - Dank (push to talk) 21:24, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer leaving it as-is. The wording was requested as part of the article's A class review, and I think that it's clear. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 06:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it's clear. Sure thing. - Dank (push to talk) 14:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

I would like an admin check this one out.

Hi Nick, when you get a chance could you please take a look at this thread on the WW2 Casualties talk page [17] --Woogie10w (talk) 03:15, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks--Woogie10w (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

The Bugle: Issue LXXI, February 2012

Your Military History Newsletter Project news: From the editors; award recipients; contest results Articles: The month's Featured and A-class content Book reviews: Nick-D looks into two recent Milhist books Op-ed: Ian Rose discusses article assessments

The Bugle is published by the Military history WikiProject. To receive it on your talk page, please join the project or sign up here.
If you are a project member who does not want delivery, please remove your name from this page. Your editors, Ian Rose (talk) and Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 10:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Reverting Crowish on multiple pages

I think that your reverts of additions of useful references by Crowish are wrong. [18][19][20][21][22] If you think Crowish is violating some kind of policy by helping readers find the original news coverage, you could take the case to WP:AN/I, but I think that (s)he would have a better case against you - see WP:WIKIHOUND. Also WP:RECENTISM might deserve some thought. Wnt (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

No, Nick is not hounding Crowish. Please read the definition on the page: "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." There's no reason to jump to negative assertions, especially when they have no basis in reality. Also, RECENTISM doesn't mean what you think it does - read the nutshell blurb at the top of the page. Parsecboy (talk) 21:41, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Removing outdated and probably POV videos from the first paragraph of encyclopedia articles is not "wikihounding". - Dank (push to talk) 21:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

As noted by Parsecboy and Dank, reverting a small proportion of an editor's changes on one occasion while explaining why I did so on their talk page (in which I referred to the relevant policies and suggested a better way to include this material) obviously isn't 'hounding', and your use of this term suggests that you either haven't read this policy or are trying to intimidate me by accusing me of harassment (something which is a very serious matter to raise against anyone, in any circumstances). I'd normally be willing to discuss the other issues you raise, on which I acknowledge that there are differing views, but I'm not going to do so given the offensive nature of your comments about me here and elsewhere. Nick-D (talk) 06:47, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

I'll review my comments, but I don't think I'm misreading the policy. Here I didn't say this is "wikihounding" with certainty, but "The important component of wikihounding is disruption to another user's own enjoyment of editing, or to the project generally, for no overriding reason." This is an editor who clearly has a project in mind of adding historical references from an archive, and following all those edits around and reverting them definitely is causing distress. If you were fixing vandalism or some other policy violation I could see it, but there's no policy against this! Your essay User:Nick-D/reviews seems to admit as much. So there's no justification for following her around, and every reason to just leave her alone while you use her edits - unreverted - as examples of why you think people ought to adopt your essay as a new editing guideline.

To be clear, I could see you reverting her edits if she added new, contentious facts based solely on old wartime newsreels. But those diffs show you reverting her addition of pure references with no text at all! When I have a sentence with three references after it, that doesn't mean that every fact in that sentence is in each of the three references; it means, one or another documents each fact in the sentence. And original news coverage with relevant footage is something important. Wnt (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

User:Nick-D/reviews is a partially complete opinion article intended for the next edition of the Military History Wikiproject's newsletter The Bugle (if you look at the article's history you can see that this is where I normally draft content for The Bugle). I have no idea why you think it's an attempt to develop a guideline given that the draft clearly identifies it as being my opinion and acknowledges that other opinions exist. Your continued accusations of bad faith and failure to retract your patently false claim of 'houding' are rather offensive. Nick-D (talk) 23:01, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Well if this is just opinion, then you're saying you have no real basis to revert those edits at all. So why revert one editor for those edits in six different articles? Wnt (talk) 23:13, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

You keep throwing around accusations of extraordinary bad faith (ignoring posts made by myself and others in relation to this), and I'm not going to waste my time responding to them. If you really think that I've deliberately done the wrong thing as part of some kind of agenda, take me to WP:ANI but beware the likely WP:BOOMERANG effect. Nick-D (talk) 23:26, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Ping

Messages for ya here. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:11, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Alsos Mission

Nick, while you are looking at this article, could you check its DYK nomination for me? It is filed under February 15 at T:TDYK Hawkeye7 (talk) 05:13, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Will do. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Done. I'm very pleased to see that the DYK reviewing procedure has reverted to its old format as well. Nick-D (talk) 05:36, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunate edit history

Pro Duta FC‎‎ and PS Barito Putera‎‎ - both have had no one watching or warning and close to physical and rather torrid threats - If you are not interested in entering into Indonesian soccer wars (I consider hundreds and hundreds of edits to be so WP:NOT that I usually give up before I start) - could you side swipe it all to a relevant noticeboard - please? otherwise I would say that they need some blocks or serious warnings if you are willing SatuSuro 05:38, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Goodness me, that's some serious edit warfare! I've protected both articles for a week (and, for my sins, watchlisted them so I can follow up on any further edit warring) and blocked Kumpayada (talk · contribs). Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 05:52, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Just take care - some of that editing shows no understanding of what wikipedia is - the tendency for non-english speakers to feel some impulsive (or is it compulsive) need to inhabit english wikipedia with wp:not material about Indonesian soccer escapes me completely despite my low level linguistic comprehension and capacity in their national language - the Indonesia/soccer interface has a smell (in arabic or indonesian nafas) of predominately invented non-native english grammar and usage, overlinking, overcapitalisation, and overtabled flagcruft - but I have never checked it against other country material to see if it is unique to that particular interface or not.. it is all a bit too much for mere mortals.... SatuSuro 07:11, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. I've also blocked an IP account who I noticed was making death threats(!) against another editor... Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Indonesian soccer articles I have on watch (too many I assure you) make me realise I should have become an admin about 2 or 3 years ago when some suggested the idea - there are blockable edit wars everywhere - I am wondering whether a RFC might be an idea? I would need support perhaps... SatuSuro 12:22, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Username

Actually I was wondering if I could keep the username. I'm planning on being an administrator soon and will need to change it back. Id rather just save time. --AdministratorX (talk) 22:58, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No defiantly not. The only reason you were unblocked was that you'd agreed to change your user name. Please apply for this immediately. Nick-D (talk) 23:00, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Can I get a second opinion? Also, you spelled definitely wrong.--AdministratorX (talk) 23:01, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

No, you may not keep the username. Your options are to change it, or be blocked again. There's your second opinion. Parsecboy (talk) 02:01, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I disabled his talk page access after the three unblock requests (and also, surprise! He's a sock). Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 03:28, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Ed. Nick-D (talk) 07:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Deletion request

Can you delete Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/112/Promoted for me? I created it by accident and can't get rid of it :( Hawkeye7 (talk) 19:02, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Done, cheers. Nick-D (talk) 07:09, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
	For Protecting PS Barito Putera and Pro Duta FC despite you are Blocking my Account for 3 Days Kumpayada (talk) 08:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but please note that the articles were protected to allow for dispute resolution, and not in response to vandalism. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:27, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Reginald Pinney

Thanks for the comments. All updated except for one (the Aubers Ridge query) which is going to involve a bit more research, I'm afraid... Shimgray | talk | 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Townsville mutiny

[23] You think there is solid enough sourcing to start an article on this? Cla68 (talk) 11:18, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably, though you'd be hard pressed getting beyond a stub as the news sources are (so far) based only on a small number of documents. Nick-D (talk) 06:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Request

Nick,

Can I beg a favour, could you stroll by Talk:Falkland Islands and tell me if some of the behaviours on there remind you of anyone?

Regards, Wee Curry Monster talk 22:57, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Can you give me a hint? I'm not going to read through those huge threads in the hope of winning spot the sockpuppet! (I don't have this article watchlisted). Going straight to WP:SPI might be better still (feel free to drop me a line if you do so). Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:23, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

I was trying to avoid being too explicit, Alex79818. You blocked his IP address six months ago, six months later an editor who hasn't edited for 2 yesars suddenly turns up with lots of tendentious argument, singling me out for personal attention and mockery. Seems a bit of a co-incidence - my spidy sense started tingling. Regards. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:13, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that's who I guessed was the editor. However, what current account are you concerned about? As I said, I'm not going to go through that discussion in search of this guy's new accounts. Nick-D (talk) 11:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef, I was holding off on a SPI check for a second opinion. Wee Curry Monster talk 11:27, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I can see some strong similarities, but that account has been active since 2007 so I think that this should go to a formal WP:SPI report as it isn't simple block evasion. A technical check against Alex's other socks would be particularly helpful, and fresh eyes on the behavioral evidence wouldn't hurt. Please let me know when you post this report, and I'll post a recommendation that checks be conducted. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 22:35, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Drafted here, could you give it the once over. I don't want to make the same mistakes I did the last time. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• WCM, sorry for the late reply, I made some checks after reading your email and noted that there is indeed some strong similarities. Well, I'm glad that you've approached Nick for help while I was away and couldn't back you up on this. Let's see what happens next. --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 12:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

• • WCM that looks good to me. Nick-D (talk) 07:01, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Done, Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alex79818, thanks for your advice. Wee Curry Monster talk 09:20, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:BEANS

You've got mail, no need to respond. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

International Award

Hello Nick, a few months ago, I translated your Featured Article Operation Kita which an other user put up for candidateship in the german Wikipedia two weeks ago. As you are the main author I want to let you know, that the article reached the status Lesenswert which is equivalent to a Good Article here. If you want, you can add this Icon to your users page because the base article is your work. Best regards --Bomzibar (talk) 19:03, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

That's excellent! Thank you for letting me know. Nick-D (talk) 07:05, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Sehr gut, mein freund! Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

New Army web site

Got a reply back from Roger Lee of the Army History Unit. He says that the intention is that it will all go back up again, but they only have one reservist to do the work. If you want something in a hurry he can expedite it. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:32, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for contacting him - that's good news. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:20, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:22nd Air Refueling Squadron duplicate talkpage deletion

Nick-D

Talk:22nd Air Refueling Squadron

The above talkpage is a duplicate and has been marked for deletion. While 5 hours later, nothing has been done. This talkpage falls under the duplication page in the "B-class" assessment in our WikiProject. That is why I marked it for deletion and assessed the real talkpage for "B-class". Would be appreciated. Adamdaley (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Addshore (talk · contribs) has turned it into a redirect, which seems sensible. Cheers, Nick-D (talk) 01:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Bundeswehr Military History Museum in Dresden

Hi, I had the opportunity to visit the museum a few weeks ago. I can share my impression of the museum if you want MisterBee1966 (talk) 14:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes please: I'd be really interested in what you thought of it. Nick-D (talk) 01:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Sure, I gladly try to give you my impression of the museum. Before I start getting into the details please excuse that I may not find the appropriate English words, limiting communication to pure text is an art that I have yet to master, especially in a foreign language. As a side note, the trip to Dresden was actually my second visit of the city in my life. A year ago my family and I visited Dresden during the Deutscher Evangelischer Kirchentag. Back then we focused very much on the events of the Kirchentag and we didn't get do much sightseeing. This year I went with a few friends, actually we go on a history tour about once or twice every year. We had spent an entire day at the museum this year and we were all positively impressed. As you know, if you expect to see a large collection of military equipment or weapons, then you may feel disappointed. If this is what you want to see you should go to Bastogne in Belgium. The museum in Dresden focuses on the history of military in Germany. I would call the presentation almost artistic with a very clear educational objective. The educational message is supported by exhibits but I felt that the exhibits are only a means to transport the educational message and are not self-sustaining. Do you share this view? Unlike you, I had no problem what so ever taking pictures. Unfortunately I was focused on the exhibits and reading all the time thus I failed to take many pictures. I found the setting in Dresden, remember Dresden was one of the military schools centers in Germany true to the motto "Sachsens Glanz und Preußens Gloria", very appropriate. The two World Wars of the last century did not get as much exposure as I would have expected. Typical for a German museum and as a matter of German society as a whole is the level of exposure the crimes of the Wehrmacht got, however without the normal finger pointing, and the Wiederstand. What I truly liked were the small biographies next to the exhibits. This made war personal and not abstract. What struck out to me was one exhibit of a NVA safe full of medals for the event of an East versus West conflict. Later more! MisterBee1966 (talk) 10:15, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I found that the exhibitions were used mainly to communicate a message. As you say, none of the individual exhibits are important in their own right, but I found the way in which they were used to be extremely well done. It's a very different approach to what most military museums take. Nick-D (talk) 21:44, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of United States Air Force bombardment groups assigned to Strategic Air Command

Hi Nick, this AfD (which - full disclosure) I listed, has been relisted because it doesn't have enough opinions. Would you like to give your thoughts either way? Cheers Buckshot06 (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Roberts-Smith

(Prompted by these edits: [24] [25]) I thought he'd been promoted to Sergeant, but I can't find any evidence. What did/do you think? Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
P.S. "Sorry pdfpdf, but he hasn't" is an acceptable response. (If it is accurate!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:02, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

No idea I'm afraid. Mark Donaldson was promoted a while ago, but I don't know if Roberts-Smith has been. Nick-D (talk) 21:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Ta. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:44, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

DYK reviewing?

Hi. Can you review the remaining unreviewed articles I nominated about Australian water polo players? (I think there are two at this point.) They have been sitting for a while unreviewed. :( --LauraHale (talk) 04:10, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Not more water polo on the front page! Seriously though, I'd be happy to. Can you please provide links to the nominations though? Regards,

I've reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Turner (water polo). Another editor has put their hand up to review the Isobel Bishop article. Nick-D (talk) 10:23, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Question: C.A.V. ?

Bernard Evans (brigadier) is "Brigadier Sir Bernard Evans D.S.O., E.D., C.A.V. (13 May 1905 – 19 February 1981)".
I have no problem with the DSO, the ED, (or the KtB!) But I can't track down what "C.A.V." is.
Can you help, please? Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know I'm afraid. Nick-D (talk) 06:28, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Any suggestions about how I might go about tracking it down? Pdfpdf (talk) 11:02, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Abenyosef/Alex79818

Nick,

[26] I'm rapidly tiring of the personal attacks but I held my temper. I may be a cantankerous old git but I am not a liar. I'll be cross-posting this at Bushranger's talk page.

Regards Wee Curry Monster talk 21:54, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I held out good faith for as long as I could, but his "I'm not Alex" arguments just more and more proved the point that he was. Between the deafening quacking and the increasing personal attacks, I've blocked him. If Nick feels otherwise, though, I'm open to a trout. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

• Nah... I'll stand in for him and give you a kiss instead~! --Dave ^{♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫®} 22:51, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot Bushranger - that's a good block. I thought that it was pretty obvious that this was Alex (yet again), but that another admin needed to verify it given that I've been involved in several other blocks of this guy. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 06:30, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

List of field marshals of the British Army

G'day Nick! I've decided I need to get back into article work (it's too easy to get sucked into chasing nutters around and clearing ever-renewing backlogs and momentarily forget what I'm really here for!), and thought I'd start with some low-hanging fruit in the form of a project I left not quite finished a while ago. So I was hoping you could clarify your comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/List of Field Marshals of the British Army—is the issue that all the data comes from one book, that I only put the reference at the start of the table rather than after each entry, or something else? It's been a while so I've all but forgotten the ACR. It would be nice to get the article through a second attempt, but lists really aren't my speciality, so any advice you could offer would be appreciated. :) Cheers mate, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 07:40, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi Harry, My concern in that review was that you'd cited a single range of six pages for all the FMs. I think that the specific page should be cited for each FM's entry. This will be a bit tedious to do, but I think that its needed for A class lists. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 08:00, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Tedious, but not especially difficult—I've got the book on my bookcase. Is there anything else you think might be a problem in a second ACR? Ta, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 08:09, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No, that's my only concern about the article. The cartoonish drawing of King Birendra of Nepal isn't great though and I'd suggest removing it. Regards, Nick-D (talk) 09:37, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Much appreciated, Nick. I'm not sure where that image came from—I thin it arrived one day as a replacement for an image that was deleted. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 10:35, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Pakistan FAC

Hi, I was advised by one of the reviewers to ask active FAC editors to review the Pakistan article's FAC at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Pakistan/archive1‎. It has been out for nine days, the problems mentioned in the start were fixed but there have been no further comments. There was a question about a dispute that occurred after the nomination, I've explained about it on the FAC page that there's been no consensus for it on the talk page and the current version is as of consensus. Please take a look at the article and drop your review comments and/or vote. Thanks. --lTopGunl (talk) 17:23, 9 March 2012 (UTC)